Evolutionary v. Revolutionary - Is it just rhetoric until the results are in?

David Piacitelli President, Top Line Systems LLC, a Contract Sales for Manufacturing, Industrial and Technical firms.

January 28th, 2016

A little background and context for my question:

I am getting close to MVP completion and have dug into the market side of a new, niche application aimed at the manufacturing space. The potential market worldwide is relatively small (my estimates have it under 5 million) and I am estimating an adoption rate of 20K-30K by year 3. When I am sitting across the table from potential co-founders or investors, it seems they want to hear that what I am trying to build will be "Revolutionary".

Uber knew that they would have business following their launch, but over coffee three years before, could they prove that they were going to be revolutionary? When they pitched their first partners or investors, did the feedback from outsiders sound like "this is the greatest idea since the invention of the wheel" or was it "well, cabs are generally available, they may not be efficient or effective, but people can get where they need to go most of the time"?

With a potential market of hundreds of millions, the term "Revolutionary" seems to follow success. I understand market testing and polling to determine interest levels, but "would you use" and "using" are two different measures. Is "Evolutionary" as viable from an investor/co-founder perspective?

CASEY GOLDEN Founder, Luxury Technology

January 28th, 2016

I think he meant 5 million potential user market vs. revenue

Lauren Foster

January 28th, 2016

The key is in the verbiage that is hanging you up. You are looking to start a Renaissance business.

https://medium.com/@StretchRecipes/ingredients-for-building-a-renaissance-business-6c3c3954ccd1#.umnyt5oxf

Todor Velev Managing Partner, EEI Network

January 28th, 2016

Probably you have seen some comments on what is "disruptive" or "revolutionary" on Andreessen Horowitz website http://a16z.com/advice-and-how-to/disruption-theory/

In any case, if the market you are looking at is $5M, probably you should forget about investors....except your family :)

Francine Hardaway Freelance Columnist at Phoenix Business Journal

January 28th, 2016

What difference does it make what you call it? Claim a niche and go for it. Investment is extremely overrated; most people suffer when they raise money because 1)the investor takes them in a direction they weren't planning to go it, or 2) the investor throws out the founder, or 3) the investor(s) provide distraction. Wait as long as possible without taking outside money.

David Piacitelli President, Top Line Systems LLC, a Contract Sales for Manufacturing, Industrial and Technical firms.

January 28th, 2016

Todor, thank you for the link - very helpful insights and very relevant to the pitch side of my question.

Casey, you are correct, the revenue model (as yet not mapped in detail) has sales in the $50-$80MM range. I don't see a global user market greater than 5 million. Your response is very helpful as it seems you have pressed forward the way I think I should and view the outcome the way that I am leaning. Have you steered away from outside investment or just haven't gotten there yet?

CASEY GOLDEN Founder, Luxury Technology

January 28th, 2016

This is my the first venture I will be seeking VC$ but they are very strategic and with purpose. I don't just want money, I could take out a loan for that. I want the right people on board that are passionate about the business, industry and want me to win. My core value is that we are stronger together. I am not actively pitching; I am actively searching for my co-founder. That is the most important factor to my business. Everything else is wrapped up in a nice little package.

Karl Schulmeisters Founder ExStreamVR

January 28th, 2016

Our experience is that Investors want to HEAR "revolutionary" but actually WANT "evolutionary"... because if it really is "revolutionary" they not only struggle to understand it, but if they understand the concept, they recognize they don't fully understand the risks and hence are reluctant to invest.

Uber wasn't really that "revolutionary".. they were "yet another taxi dispatch software" company, with 2 "evolutionary" approaches

take the kind of "bus tracking" software various metros around the world had adopted and move it to taxis via mobile phones
end run the regulatory regimes around taxis by pretending to simply be a "market maker"rather than a cab company.

The problem you are going to face is that with a maximum user base of 5 million world wide.... the likelihood of you gaining more than 10% marketshare before you have a competitor is low. So odds are your maximum market share is 30% of the 5 million. So you are looking at 1.5 million users.

depending on your pricing model that maxes you out at about a $300million -$500 million company at full maturity. Unless you have a solid exit strategy - that's not going to be interesting

CASEY GOLDEN Founder, Luxury Technology

January 28th, 2016

Personally, I like evolutionary because in my experience: I am not necessarily inventing electricity for the first time ever. I am taking a handful of services and products that are either live or manual processes, mixing them in a specific way and then adding layers and tweaking the product to better serve a market in a way no one else has. That is evolution.

Revolutionary, yes.. if my user adoption becomes "the" standard application and my product sets the NEW bar for innovation to spin off of, I might be seen as revolutionizing the way people.....xyz. But it has to be used past tense.

I don't know what investors "want" to hear but I hope my vocabulary will be less of a focus than my numbers and team.

Martin Omansky Independent Venture Capital & Private Equity Professional

January 28th, 2016

Internal studies concerning decision-making by TA Associates (an old, large venture fund in Boston) concluded that their successful investments were typified by the presence of a large actual or potential market. Your statement that your innovation was in a niche market suggests a couple of things: (1) you might be under-estimating your market; (2) there might be additional applications for your innovation that you have not identified; (3) your innovation, if truly revolutionary, might get a substantial market share; (4) a niche market might still produce a nice income for an individual; and (5) small markets are not attractive to institutional investors, but a single angel investor or small group might want to invest, especially if they (a) trust you, and (b) know a good deal about the subject matter of your innovation.

A. Andrew Chyne

January 29th, 2016

Business that has evolved doesn't revolutionize. Uber has never evolved, but its presence in the market has revolutionized the way people use cab service. Since your MVP is nearing its completion, revolutionary is in your hands irrespective of the size of the market. Your product will always sustain in the market as long as you are not losing your focus. Since you have already done a study on the market, I am optimistic that you are going to do better.

Good Luck

Question stats