all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most o

Is being first to market really that important? I believe that the amount of energy and time purporting this myth is somewhat unnerving in that being first to market is not always so great. Indeed, I have been first to market many times and yes, no one can deny that often that is a total advantage. But it is also somewhat costly to chase hunches and the cost to build a prototype that crashes and burns is not so funny, especially when the future of your company hangs in the balance.

As a veteran of the high stakes game of entrepreneurship, I completely concur with the comments that First to Market should not be the primary goal. You see it costs money, lots of it, or lots of grass-roots hard work to do a test market roll-out and introduce a new product or in my case "a new service" and after refining your techniques someone else can come into the market without having to pay for all the mistakes and hard-knocks and not have to worry too much about getting kicked in the teeth from having to straddle between non-existent regulations, while competing with the old guard (industry association status quo) with all their little political connections.

Now if you have your act together and have done it a few times, being first to market can be a good thing, but all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most ou

at costly to chase hunches and the cost to build a prototype that crashes and burns is not so funny, especially when the future of your company hangs in the balance.

As a veteran of the high stakes game of entrepreneurship, I completely concur with the comments that First to Market should not be the primary goal. You see it costs money, lots of it, or lots of grass-roots hard work to do a test market roll-out and introduce a new product or in my case "a new service" and after refining your techniques someone else can come into the market without having to pay for all the mistakes and hard-knocks and not have to worry too much about getting kicked in the teeth from having to straddle between non-existent regulations, while competing with the old guard (industry association status quo) with all their little political connections.

Now if you have your act together and have done it a few times, being first to market can be a good thing, but all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most o

You see it costs money, lots of it, or lots of grass-roots hard work to do a test market roll-out and introduce a new product or in my case "a new service" and after refining your techniques someone else can come into the market without having to pay for all the mistakes and hard-knocks and not have to worry too much about getting kicked in the teeth from having to straddle between non-existent regulations, while competing with the old guard (industry association status quo) with all their little political connections.

Now if you have your act together and have done it a few times, being first to market can be a good thing, but all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most o

out getting kicked in the teeth from having to straddle between non-existent regulations, while competing with the old guard (industry association status quo) with all their little political connections.

Now if you have your act together and have done it a few times, being first to market can be a good thing, but all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most o

all eyes are on you and if you screw it up (Zap Mail - FedEx example), well they will never let it down.

In 1997 I was in Las Vegas for the International Franchise Association (elite club meeting) and everyone who is anyone in the Industry was there and yes many household names. But one thing that I got the most out of was the "mini-round table" seminar only 20 people in the room, all founders of franchise companies and up to bat was the International Marketing Team from Dominoes Pizza, Tom Monahan appeared to be quite proud of them in fact.

Well to make a long story short they discussed why they did not desire and preferred not to be "first to market" because if you went into a country and put in a few outlets, example; Nairobi, Kenya for instance. No one knew what a Pizza was. What is this thing with cheese on top and all these food items melted in place? See the point. They indicated they wanted to be second or even third to market.

Why? Well after the first company (ies) spent all the money offering discounts, advertising and free-sample marketing, they simply came in competed head to head in the "Enterprise Rent-a-Car" style and took massive market share, since people already knew what a Pizza was and they knew who to market better and followed time-tested efficiency strategies refined from over 10,000 previous outlets. Yah!