Is being first mover enough?

We all heard about the benefits of being first movers, but what does this mean? Is it always good to be first mover?

Toyota Prius, for instance. Absolute first mover. It was created in 1997 and it aimed to save us from greenhouse effect. An “innovative” hybrid machine of gasoline and electricity, able to get more than 90 miles to the gallon. In theory it didn’t have a choice besides being a great success. Instead well… I really haven’t seen people rushing to Toyota to get theirs: A name nobody is sure how to spell, ugly as hell, and aimed “everybody” as target group.

Toyota has “sinned” in many fronts, and I guess people have written books about it. As I see it, the core of the problem is that Prius was a technology driven development, that didn’t take a specific target group/ hive into consideration. Some people could say: “They thought about environmentally minded people…” But did they? Did they understand what the target group likes, how they should appeal? What really matters? Did they understand how to make the hive “fall in love” with their car? This is a typical example of technology driven development…

Being the first mover is just not enough. You need to understand your target group needs, as they were your own needs, in order to be able to exploit the position.

The successful branding is a consequence of the ability of finding a “market void”, the unexploited market need and fulfill it IN A WAY THAT YOUR TARGET GROUP “FALL IN LOVE” WITH IT.

I guess Toyota didn’t make it easy for anybody to fall in love with Prius, not even their desired “target group” who ever they are…

Subscribe on your profile to be notified when posts with similar subjects are published.