Compete by non competing
A freshly printed book with original list price of $52, is being offered as used book for the Low Price of $449. All this from a reputable seller with flawless rating for the last year. Other sellers ask 490$ or even $1229 for the same item. Yes you’ve read that right: the used version is sold at ten or up to twenty times more.
Book in question was authored by Paul Graham of Y Combinator fame and it’s about Lisp. A language invented and mostly ignored for 50 years. So how does On Lisp, an otherwise freely available book ends up with a price tag a magnitude higher than its list price? Simple it is no longer printed by its publisher Prentice Hall). There is just no market big enough for to make it worthwhile for them printing it. In fact renowned book publishers like O’Reilly downright disregard book proposals for the simple reason of being about Lisp. Mind you this is not a rumor its a fact! They proudly display for the public in their Proposing a book guideline.
I doubt that there are potential buyers of On Lisp who don’t know that it can be simply downloaded. Other Lisp classics are also freely available. Yet people are selling it for multiple of its list price. This is a place where large book publishers cannot enter while the used book sellers can act freely. Sure they will not get rich by selling one book. Probably they will regret the transaction on the next day: its a great book you know! But the principle still applies: they have found a way to compete by not competing.
About two years ago I worked for a company claiming to be the one employing the most computer programmers in the world. Doesn’t matter how did they counted this, or if this is something to be proud of in the first place. I do know that most of my peers, with whom, I graduated are still employed by the same uber conglomerate. Even younger graduates work for the same company, or are under employment of similar large empires.
There seems to be a prevalent image that to be successful one must work for The GigaCorps: large multinational whatever. They appear as safe, professional and ultimately elite places to be. Greatness is first measured by project size then in number of subordinates. More the better. Professionalism is measured in ISO certifications, CMM scales or lately the CMMI appraisals. Higher rankings the better. Programmer market value is measured on enterprise buzzword compliance. More matches the better. Amongst all the most fundamental aspect of happiness is lost.
The problem is competing itself: to win you should not compete with them at all. They are faceless entities lacking personality. Everything that an individual is not. So why compete with them? Let them squabble in battle grounds they dominate. You should use different smart approaches that are impossible for them to follow. And I don’t mean impossible for the market being too small, rather their modus operandi would not allow it.
Why is it that all of these GigaCorps require basically the same skill-set? They need a commodity resource, something that while it may not be the best tool for the job it does offer the safety of a more plentiful resource. Why will they spend a half fortune on building their next multithreaded gizmo using Java/.Net/C++? Why not something potentially more appropriate like Erlang? Again it’s simpler and safer for them to rely on a more plentiful resource, even at the expense of suitability.
Why do they need expensive CMMI approval certificates? CMMI is something they can more or less buy while the small smart competitor can not. They can exchange money in a most accessible way for bureaucrats, to purchase differentiators. Why do they have a permanent need to increase the head count? Partly it’s their manufacturing legacy where more machines(people) mean greater output. But there is also healthy doze of ego cherishing involved, they love to build Organigrams. Above a certain size some mechanics are proud of adding an extra cog.
Here is my tip to compete by non-competing: take pretty much every metric (except the truly essentials like customer satisfaction, reach personal satisfaction, profit etc) the large company boasts about and just let them win. Now find different ways, ones that they can not imitate. Pretty simple since they are all too similar, but quite hard since they have by far more money to spend than you do. Once you have found it just focus on doing a better job. Rinse and repeat.
And if you know what I’m talking about consider finding a job where you can learn and experience this cultural difference. Where you can be happy in the process! Write us at job at primalgrasp dot com. Right now we are a Ruby&Rails shop, this should delight you. But we keep our minds open and look for better ways: this should delight you even more. Join us!
Damn those fnords!
My spellchecker article had received more attention than I could have expected. Thousands of visitors played with the demo, that ironically was full with misspellings also. Ultimately this should hint just how bad speller I’m. Or from an angry midget of point view: how humble our technology is.
To this day only a human can make the contextual difference stating that although ‘millage’ is well spelled, it should be ‘mileage’ instead. Or ‘lets’ is spelled OK, but it should really be ‘let’s’. Anyway this is just one of those problems, smallish to the user but huge for developers, where I would wish to see progress made.
Where is the box?
I was told about an experiment that may or may not have happened, still it raises some intersting thoughts. Behavioral researchers have placed five chimps in a cage. In middle of the cage bananas where hanged from roof down, well in the animals reach. The fruits where rigged in such way that whenever a poor monkey pulled a banana all off them where hit by a rather unpleasant watter jet.
Smart beings as the chimps are, soon they have realized that it is best if fruit is left untouched. At this point unknown to the monkeys researchers have turned device off. Fear however could not be turned off and it remained leaving fruits uneaten.
Researchers then replaced one monkey from the cage with a new one newer hit by the water jet. The new chimp followed his built-in natural instincts and went ahead to reach for the bananas. Others where afreaid of water hose so they brutally beat the new one whenerer he attemted to make for the fruit. Few beatings and common understanding was reached again: the banana must not be touched.
Peace was only broken again when another experienced monkey was replaced with a new one, who naturally was also beaten for similar reasons. Interestingly the first new monkey had shown remarkable keenness, himself participating in the violent act even though he had no experience of being under a water jet.
One by one all monkeys from first stage of the experiment where replaced by new ones. Still informal rule of “do not touch the fruit” prevailed. But by now for reasons utterly different than with the first original five monkeys. The common good of group of not being hit by the water jet disappeared. Nor individual nor group had any benefit to protect still they had not chosen to act differently. It was too late the law was set by tradition and subsequently accepted: change had become virtually impossible.
I think that same absurdity can be observed sometimes in large and old organizations. We however as supposedly being a more advanced species than chimps, need a justification for such behavior. So we tend to misuse terms like “experience”, “state-of-the-art”, “proved methodology”, “development process” and so one. Till someone disruptive enough goes for the fruit, and trough amazing innovation redefines our dictionary. Did it happen to you?
