"If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor? "

Ooooh, THAT is a messy question. If I was technology startup, I would be
priming whatever words/concepts Venture Capitalists are receptive to this
week. That is because, alas, alas, alas, the goal of most tech startups is
to be invested in, and then bought out, before anyone is certain whether we
have done anything that will last. Don't get me wrong, I don't think most
are trying to snow investors, only that their goal is not to run their
company for the next 50 years, and so the short-term prospects of the
company are more important than the long-term prospects, and those
prospects are driven my markets that are not dominated by mortal
"customers." In that context, the ability to "disrupt" has been
consistently held in high regard. At the least, if you can make the
argument convincing. People getting products for little-to-no money like to
try potentially disruptive things, and investors like to see large customer
bases, even if those customers have provided little-to-no money.

In contrast, if I was a non-technology startup (say a co-owner of a
solar-panel installation company presided over by a brother), my goals
would be quite different: Slowly and systematically building
a local-community client base, on a foundation of treating my employees
well and providing good value to my customers. I wouldn't want to be
disruptive at all, outside of disrupting the market share held by my
competitors.




-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
<echar...@american.edu>

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Thanks, everybody,
>
>
>
> I guess I have one more question before I try to respond to some these
> excellent comments:
>
>
>
> If you ARE (factual) or WERE (counter-factual) a technology startup, do
> you (would you) advertise yourself as a disruptor?  What would the
> promotional THEORY  behind doing so?  What market share would you be hoping
> to capture.  What would be the business model?
>
>
>
> N
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Gillian
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 5:55 PM
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
>
> Enablers are things like an enabled (turned on) WarpCoil or Inertial
> Dampeners or Teleporters.  Disrupters shoot stuff to blow up rocks.
>
> But  I suspect nick or his friend don't mean as in from StarTrek.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sure, mobile internet & cloud was a disrupter to the PC industry and to
> the business of selling analog landlines.
>
> Intel recently had layoffs of more than 10k workers as a result.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Owen
> Densmore
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 3:47 PM
>
>
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
>
> Was the iPhone a disrupter?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> I’d say the folks that think a jackhammer is needed, aren’t a victim of
> the folks with the concrete in a truck (that presumably pour it on anything
> they can!), they *are* the sites where a jackhammer is now a useful
> instrument.  This makes me think of those bathtubs that can be installed
> right on top of old tubs.   Pour baby pour!
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Carl
> Tollander
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 2:04 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
>
> Well, there's the concrete truck and then there's the jackhammer.
>
>
>
> On Oct 17, 2016 1:24 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
> It depends on whether, like David, you point to liberalism as the threat
> to individual freedom and productivity, or the momentum of conservativism
> and oligarchy to constrain lives.    Some (like Assange) can’t stand either
> one.   A disruptor seeks a benign sort of chaos when power can shift hands
> quickly, and repeatedly.  The people that are all used up and have limited
> skills *should* give way to those that do.   Sure they can try to elect
> someone like Trump, but that’s where sophisticated “liberal autocracy” must
> step-up to outmaneuver the reactionaries.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Nick
> Thompson
> *Sent:* Monday, October 17, 2016 12:18 PM
> *To:* friam <friam@redfish.com>
> *Cc:* 'Stephen Guerin' <stephen.gue...@simtable.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] enablors vs disruptors
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Friammers,
>
>
>
> A close friend of mine has gone to work in marketing for a Startup
> Incubator in Another City.  I have been perusing the website and I notice
> frequent use of the word “disruptors”, as if disruption was a goal in
> itself.  This puzzles me.  I have always thought of technology as
> “enabling’ and have thought of its disruptive effects as a kind of
> collateral damage that needs to be mitigated.  Now I recognize that one of
> the properties of a really good technology company is the ability to
> respond quickly to disruption, and to provide solutions and open up
> opportunities for those whose lives are disrupted.  And I realize that if I
> owned a technology company, I might want to produce disruption in order
> that I might supply “enablors” to the disrupted.  But isn’t it a case of
> industrial narcissism to MARKET oneself as a disruptor, a kind of
> “preaching to the choir”, rather than outreach to potential purchasers of
> one’s technology?  Or is my thinking “oh so 20th Century.”
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to