Innovate or copy?

[Chris Hitchen]

This post was prompted by a comment Liz Turner of Engenuity made on
this forum about wanting to meet groundbreaking entrepreneurs. Far
from disagreeing with Liz about the value such people provide, it just
got me thinking about true innovation versus commercial mimicry.

As I said to Liz, I want to highlight the contribution made by
businesses “copying” existing models and challenge the notion that
it’s only innovators that benefit our industry and have broader things
to offer (even if that's not what you were saying Liz!).

I marvel at the true innovators, but they are few and far between and
both the Australian economy and our start-up sector can benefit from a
bit of me-tooism in private enterprise. In fact, none of our best
(read: most profitable) internet businesses were original ideas; Seek,
Realestate.com.au, Carsguide and Wotif are all tried and tested models
from other markets.

How many true Australian innovators in the digital space are making
significant money and/or operating sustainable businesses? Perhaps
half a dozen? (I’m hoping we can list more than that ...). There are
lots of examples in addition to the ones listed above of relatively
simple business models being taken from other markets and applied
locally. The private equity / tech. investment company netus (which
evolved out of eCorp who were responsible for bringing Ticketek,
ninemsn and Ebay to Australia) has built a business doing just this.

Remember too that innovation needs to be funded and many entrepreneurs
first seek a cash cow that can fund their ongoing R&D, experimentation
and business incubation. Stateless Systems in Melbourne are a great
example with retailmenot.com providing the building blocks for some
great innovation with new apps like Cushy CMS.

Innovation can also happen within a proven business model too; in fact
in our space it usually has to because the Australian market is unique
and if we stop innovating in the digital world we will quickly become
irrelevant. Business models need to constantly adapt and processes and
products need to be re-engineered and improved. Some of Australia's
best and brightest are running businesses that did not innovate in
terms of the original model, but are absolutely innovating now.

Anyway, the point being that innovators are vital, but there is a lot
to be said for “copying”! There is a world of difference between
plagiarism and imitation which, as we all know, is the sincerest form
of flattery! As long as you're not infringing a patent, go for it.

What do you think?

[Geoff McQueen]

Chris,

Not to take away anything from the success stories you correctly point out, I think in a market the size of Australia's (read: small), we should be focusing on companies doing world class things, things we can export to other parts of the world where the markets (either individually or in aggregate) dwarf our own.

Apologise that this is off the topic of Innovate or Copy you've started, but in my opinion, the emphasis or at least extra brownie points should really be on entrepreneurs and companies working to deliver solutions which stand on their own on the global stage.

What does everyone else think?

Geoff

[Chris Saad]

Agreed Geoff,

I often find a lack of vision, or a lack of understanding or a lack of risk taking (particularly from investors) when it comes to Australian ventures.

We need to encourage, reward and support Entrepreneurs and Investors who study the global market and build word class products or provide world class funding.

As discussed in other threads. We need a Google, Youtube and Facebook style success story to feed the local ecosystem

Realestate.com.au is not that.

Chris

--
Chris Saad

FaradayMedia - For Audiences of One
Particls - Are You Paying Attention?
Engagd - The Open Attention Platform
Media 2.0 Workgroup - Social, Democratic, Distributed
APML - Your Attention Profile
DataPortability - Connect, Control, Share, Remix

[Elias Bizannes]

Chris Hitchen: Awesome. I hold that exact same view, and actually, have a saying that explains it. The guy that created the wheel was an inventor; the guy that added the other three was an innovator. I can also recall one of the big names in history in American industry (edison?) that said innovation is much more important.

 

[Chris Hitchen]

Elias, you've put it much more succinctly than I could: it's about
innovation versus invention more than innovation versus copying ...
the copying bit only applies to the original model, but as pointed out
earlier, innovation is critical thereafter.

@ Geoff and Chris S - there are local investors wanting to talk to
innovators! Perhaps we need a separate thread for a list of 'wants'
and 'haves'?!

On Sep 4, 7:07 pm, "Elias Bizannes" <elias.bizan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Hitchen: Awesome. I hold that exact same view, and actually, have a
> saying that explains it. The guy that created the wheel was an inventor; the
> guy that added the other three was an innovator. I can also recall one of
> the big names in history in American industry (edison?) that said innovation
> is much more important.
>

> On 9/4/08, Chris Saad <chris.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Agreed Geoff,
>
> > I often find a lack of vision, or a lack of understanding or a lack of risk
> > taking (particularly from investors) when it comes to Australian ventures.
>
> > We need to encourage, reward and support Entrepreneurs and Investors who
> > study the global market and build word class products or provide world class
> > funding.
>
> > As discussed in other threads. We need a Google, Youtube and Facebook style
> > success story to feed the local ecosystem
>

> > Realestate.com.au <http://realestate.com.au/> is not that.

> >> Realestate.com.au <http://realestate.com.au/>, Carsguide and Wotif are

> --
> Elias Bizanneshttp://liako.biz

[BigM]

Completely agree here on he invention v innovation theme. While it's
true we really need a big success to put Australia on the map, the
example used of google is a very pertinent one to the discussion... we
all know google was far from the first search engine, but now look at
their domination! Murdoch paid what, close to $1bn for Myspace, only
to watch Facebook constantly gobble up it's market dominance...

It seems to me there is a very common pattern of someone being 'first
to market' to actually create the market itself, then someone else
steps in, with the hindsight of what that first player has done well
and not so well, and manages to capture market share with a better
mousetrap.... I would also imagine that if you pitch for capital for
an innovation on something that has already been proven a success, you
are more likely to get some interest in it, which increases the
resources at your disposal, and so in theory would increase your
chance of success....

[Michael Harries]

Australia needs more 'big' innovation - totally agree, and (as per BigM and others) this doesn't require a new ideas. Look at Facebook, YouTube and any number of others - in all of these cases, it's about taking existing ideas - but at the right time - and tying into a viable business model. (There are a billion great ideas out there, finding the ones with potential for today's market (and your team) is the challenge.

My view - success needs invention or ideas that the market is poised to understand, to accept, and (ideally) to go exponential on. Innovation includes the following:

1. Identifying the right ideas for todays market, 
   
2. Developing the ideas to suit todays market
3. Reframing the problem (changing market perception) to bring the technology to and beyond the brink of market acceptance
   
4. Finding ways to turn the opportunity from potential into reality (early adopters, etc, etc)

Some of this is about insight, some about engineering or technology, and some about 'black belt' marketing.

Finally, I have no issue with locally focused versions of international successes. The more success Australia has with home grown, locally focused ventures, the more we'll develop the culture for the big plays.

Cheers,

Michael

http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelharries

I like to think about innovation as invention around not just hte technology, but also demand, how ready the market is to play, accessability of the idea, etc.  

--
__
Michael Harries

[dimka]

I agree, there is nothing bad with copying. It is inevitable that some
aspects of one business are copied others. If people didn't do copies
we would have single bakery in town. Still plain copying is not
enough. Not only because local conditions are different and not
because differentiation amongst competitors is important but also
because straightforward copying of ideas doesn't ignite and inspire
people. How can one run a startup if they are not excited about their
idea? The keyword here is 'their'. I doubt it is possible to become
attached to a copy of an idea, model, or implementation. How can one
find energy to overcome hurdles of running a startup without personal
attachment to the business? Impossible. Hence innovation on top of a
copy is vital from this perspective too.

There is a problem with copying though. You can't copy those aspects
of a business you have personal interest in. Say if one is a
technology oriented person then he won't be willing, or I'd even say,
capable of copying a technical solution of somebody else. Too boring.
Boredom kills everything.

But what would you do if you had a brilliant idea (any idea is
brilliant if it is your own, right?), and you went into efforts
implementing it and all was going great until one day when you found
another implementation of your idea. That very idea you totally fell
in love with? As soon as you consider it's a copy you are done, your
love is gone. Do we still need more than one bakery in our global Town
of Internet? What would you do?

Cheers.


On Sep 4, 10:48 pm, "Michael Harries" <michaelharr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Australia needs more 'big' innovation - totally agree, and (as per BigM and
> others) this doesn't require a new ideas. Look at Facebook, YouTube and any
> number of others - in all of these cases, it's about taking existing ideas -
> but at the right time - and tying into a viable business model. (There are a
> billion great ideas out there, finding the ones with potential for today's
> market (and your team) is the challenge.
>
> My view - success needs invention or ideas that the market is poised to
> understand, to accept, and (ideally) to go exponential on. Innovation
> includes the following:
>

>    1. Identifying the right ideas for todays market,
>    2. Developing the ideas to suit todays market
>    3. Reframing the problem (changing market perception) to bring the

>    technology to and beyond the brink of market acceptance

>    4. Finding ways to turn the opportunity from potential into reality

[engenuity]

This has been a fabulous discussion about Innovation. (I didn’t
realise, Chris, that a fairly small comment in my initial post would
set-off such a great debate.)

I’ve been following the discussion on and off between client
assignments, and now offer my thoughts to the group: on copying,
invention and innovation.

1) Copiers. I define copying as trying to blatantly capture the
value that someone else has created.

For me, one of the most obvious, public, business examples of this is
“The Body Shop”. Anita Roddick lifted not only the concept of the
store, its product and marketing strategy, but even its name (!) from
a shop in San Francisco. (Reference: Richard Koch’s The Star
Principle” http://www.amazon.com/Star-Principle-Richard-Koch/dp/0749928409

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-482012/Queen-Green-Roddicks-unfair-trade-started-copied-Body-Shop-formula.html


I used to occasionally visit The Body Shop. When I discovered this
deception, it was a ‘mini-death’ of inspiration – in the sense that,
like many consumers, I felt I had been duped into believing Anita was
some sort of great entrepreneur. Whilst she was able to capture the
value originally created by others (giving them no credit in the
process, and misrepresenting her ‘brainwave’ for the business), she
was no real innovator.

Copiers are alive and well in many industries today (including the ICT
industry). These are people I definitely wish to avoid. And whilst a
few copiers will no doubt lurk on this forum, I imagine the vast
majority of posters and visitors here are people who are - or at least
support and admire - the next two varieties.


(BTW I have been a very happy investor of Seek, RealEstate, Wotif etc.
As far as I know, these businesses do not fall into the copying
category, in the sense I mean it.)


2) Inventors. (Note; inventors may simultaneously be innovators –
e.g.: Thomas Edison. He had immense technological skills, but also was
market focused)

I use this term to mean someone who has taken a step forward in
technology, with or without knowing the wider market value of the
inventive step. The great inventors are also humble, and often would
baulk at being called one. It would have been awesome to have met
Thomas Edison in person, and it is no surprise that people like Henry
Ford moved to his neighbourhood. Great innovative/inventive people are
fun to be around and gravitate to each other.

It is interesting to me that the Australian ABC show is called The New
Inventors – because that’s what many of the people who appear on the
show purely are. (Frequently they are not innovators, and need
assistance to discern the real market for their invention.)


3) Innovators.

In my view, innovation is the original search for - and analysis,
creation and implementation of - superior outcomes. It’s original in
the sense that it comes from an individual (often supported by others)
who independently discerns a solution using customer and/or process
insight. (This is a wide definition of customer: they may be an
internal employee, a government, a nation etc).

Innovators may or may not be inspired by other’s ideas. (If so, they
reference these ideas. It’s a critical quality - similar to a student
referencing in their essay ideas that are not their own.)

After working in the Innovation space for a few years now, I have
pondered that Innovators have a “gene” – in the sense that they
exhibit certain behaviours that greatly increase the likelihood they
will be successful, serial, innovators. (Note; whilst some people
appear to have been blessed from a young age with these behaviours,
all of these attributes can be cultivated.)

The word Gene, as used below is more than a gimmicky acronym. In my
view it’s a useful mnemonic for the following:

G: Innovative people are generous. This goes beyond the idea of
supporting good causes. (Although that’s laudable too.) In the sense
of Innovation, it means that someone is liberal enough to recognise
that innovation can come from anywhere.
Such individuals are open to innovations in their neighbourhood, city
and across the world, and are interested in many different spheres of
life. Such people have a natural and authentic approach to diversity,
and you will often find they are quite popular at work, long-term,
among a broad range of people. (What's more, it’s impossible to have
simultaneously a fiefdom mentality and be generous in this sense of
the word.)

E: Innovative people are enthusiastic. Enthusiasm originally meant
“having a god within”. Bona fide enthusiasm comes from the passion of
knowing your own values (I don’t mean being religious here: I mean
that most innovators have a reverence for humanity’s well-being and
progress). Innately, such people have a genuine sense of wonder about
life and hope to play their part in making the world a better place.
Real enthusiasm cannot be faked, (over the long-term) and engenders
trust.

N: Innovative people are nuanced. This is, I think, a key attribute of
the greatest innovators. They are able to distinguish the subtle
differences between people’s various emotions and needs, are attune to
the tone of a conversation and can discern patterns in society more
quickly and easily than most. This usually goes hand in hand with a
linguistic ability: whether or not they can actually write eloquently
themselves, such individuals can at least understand the meanings of a
great range of vocabulary. This ability enables an innovator to
express the ‘end-benefit’ that the customer is after when they buy
their product. (It thus also helps with branding. E.g.: Estee Lauder’s
great insight into their make-up products. They were selling not just
jars of make-up but Hope.)

E. You could probably guess this last one. Innovative people are
entrepreneurial. They can discern arbitrage opportunities – between
what is now and what could be. They cultivate skills that will help
them clearly enunciate the business case for their innovations, and
recognise the need to surround themselves with others who will fill
any gaps needed to run a successful venture.

Genuine innovators, the ones with the Innovation Gene, are incredible
people to be around. They are inspiring, challenging and fun. They
will not steal your ideas, and will give freely *** of their own.
Innovators understand the true meaning of the ‘win-win’ premise. (This
term may have been misused frequently in business. A pity, because
when you have experienced the various, literal, game theory outcomes
of lose-lose, win-lose and win-win, you know it’s a pithy term.)

Copiers are focused on the win-lose scenario…(which often actually
leads to a lose-lose outcome as they are always watching their backs,
knowing someone could expose their fraud, and that other copiers are
out to replicate their version of work which was never really theirs
in the first place). The savviest copiers would be the ones who attach
themselves to a genuine innovator, for life. This would hardly ever
happen though, since copiers lack real foresight as to the multiple
positive opportunities that could arise from such an alliance. Pure
copiers, by definition, will also lack the generosity and enthusiasm
DNA of the Innovation gene.

I’ve become carried away. (Hopefully a product of ‘enthusiasm’!).
I hope however to get to know many innovators via this forum, in the
future.

Liz Turner
www.engenuity.com.au


*** (This enthusiasm needs to be watched though – as the downside is
naivety. Innovators, please try to be sure of the ethics of the people
you are presenting your 'big ideas' to.)

[Stephen Price]

I can see what you mean by your post but am not sure people can be so easily pigeon holed. People are complex creatures with aspects of each group, plus more. 

We've all been on a journey to get where we are. Some people are further along the path than others, and some will never get to where we are. Some are stuck in survival mode, but given the alternative to surviving is that such a bad thing? Of course those who are living poweful, passionate lives know that there is an alternative to just surviving. 

If someone sees an opportunity and they are in action and copy the idea from someone else are they a bad person? If the alternative is that they grind away their lives in a meaningless job with no time left for themselves should they "steal" the idea (can ideas even be owned?) or should they do the right thing and not steal the idea because someone thinks its wrong? (Remember, thats what people do, they think wrong of others so somewhere, someone thinks you've done the wrong thing).

I say, people are going to judge you anyway, you might a well do the best you can, and learn from the process. Being in action is better than not. (my belief, but I think others here are of a similar mindset). 

Anita Roddick is exercising her "in action" muscles. Her next big venture might be her original idea that she's been holding back on? 

cheers,

Stephen

[Wayne Meissner]

2008/9/10 Stephen Price <ste...@littlevoices.com>:

> Anita Roddick is exercising her "in action" muscles. Her next big venture
> might be her original idea that she's been holding back on?

If she's able to innovate from where she is right now, then there is
hope for us all :)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Roddick)

Ideas on their own are worthless. Personally, I prefer a well
executed non-original idea that provides value to consumers over the
alternative - nothing. For someone to copy an idea and profit, then
it means the originator of the idea is executing sub-optimally, or
else there would be no value to be captured.

Business is not a charity, and the most efficient way of providing
value to the market should win the day.

Many of the famous entrepreneurs (e.g. Richard Branson) lifted some of
their ideas from other geographic markets and executed them - quite
often better than the originator - in their local markets.

Humans have been copying and adapting others ideas for the last 5
million years, why stop now?

[Stephen Price]

lol

There's such a thing as holding back too long. 

This serves as a warning for those waiting for the right moment. There is no right moment, there's only now. Get in action! What are you waiting for?

Stephen (still wondering how he missed that bit of vital info...)

[dimka]

> “The Body Shop”. Anita Roddick lifted not only the concept of the

> store, its product and marketing strategy, but even its name

Don't want to go into details, but let's assume Anita Roddick's shop
was a complete copycat. Something is wrong with this assumption. The
end result is different - "The Body Shop is the second largest
cosmetic franchise in the world" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_Body_Shop). She copied one part and innovated on another, didn't
she? Quite likely she wasn't interested in the products and
technologies; she used an existing material and built the business on
top of it.

I agree, this doesn't impress me either, as I am "a technician"
myself. This could be because I understand technologies more than the
process of making money. Like, you know, what could be more boring
than watching downhill skiing competitions? Come on, these people with
funny planks attached to their feet are sliding down the same route
again and again, the only changing bit in the picture is suits colors!
If I had never competed myself I would thought exactly like that and
would never bothered watching this sport on TV. What is interesting,
now I also understand people who say that watching this sport is dead
boring.

How Anita Roddick achieved her success is an interesting question of
it's own. What kind of "innovation" she did? Was it a true innovation
or she just found a way to deliver what people wanted? This is a big
topic and is outside our current discussion. And I don't know the
story in any case :-)

On Sep 10, 5:17 pm, "Stephen Price" <step...@littlevoices.com> wrote:
> lol
> There's such a thing as holding back too long.
> This serves as a warning for those waiting for the right moment. There is no
> right moment, there's only now. Get in action! What are you waiting for?
>
> Stephen (still wondering how he missed that bit of vital info...)
>

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Wayne Meissner <wmeiss...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2008/9/10 Stephen Price <step...@littlevoices.com>:

[Haino]

Late entry to fascinating discussion.

There is a long held Harvard or MIT principle that suggests that to be
successful in a market, to introduce an innovation or invention, you
need only be 10% new.
I like that.

10% new puts some sort of boundary around what you need to do, and not
everything needs a fundamental redevelopment.

Seek = 10% new.
Google (10 years ago on day 1) = probably only 10% new (index the web
and use an authority algorithm from academic papers)
3M Post-its = 10% new (really bad glue on paper)

There are probably more examples....suggestions?

John

http://www.innovationisindustrypolicy.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnhaining

On Sep 10, 5:17 pm, "Stephen Price" <step...@littlevoices.com> wrote:

> lol
> There's such a thing as holding back too long.
> This serves as a warning for those waiting for the right moment. There is no
> right moment, there's only now. Get in action! What are you waiting for?
>
> Stephen (still wondering how he missed that bit of vital info...)
>

> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Wayne Meissner <wmeiss...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > 2008/9/10 Stephen Price <step...@littlevoices.com>:
>