Authenticity

Charlie Mingus once said of Bird: "If Charlie Parker was a gunslinger, there'd be a whole lot of dead copycats.” 

The tech world is riddled with “me too” products. Pinterest for this. Pinterest for that.

I think if the very conception of, and drive behind the idea involves doing “X for Y”; you’re already starting on the wrong foot.

Not that you won’t be successful (the world loves a good sequel because you don’t have to meet new characters). But you’ll be a little less authentic, and less likely to stand out.

So start with something truly original, and then use some of the X for Y and Z, or a cross between F and G, just so that investors understand what the hell you’re talking about. 

“Broken Windows” Isn’t Just for the Offline World

A seminal 1982 article by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling.put forth that investing in “order” on a purely aesthetic level (cleaning up vandalism, fixing broken windows) would curb the appetite to commit further crimes. Or put another way, disorder begets more disorder; so best to avoid disorder in the first place.

In the 90’s New York City’s Transit Police Head William Bratton put the theory into action by executed a clean up of the city. A block with a bunch of broken windows is going to lead to more crime. A block/building/subway car etc that is well-maintained tends to instill a desire to keep things nice and neat.

Putting aside the sociological/criminological/neurological debate about the strength of the theory as applied to the outside world; I think there is no doubt it applies to the online world. Online, there is less social control, less risk of embarrassment, of actually feeling the scorn of fellow human beings when misbehaving. There is anonymity, a sense that consequences are less tangible.

And yet many online business live or die by the data and community they possess. If there is not an intense focus on making sure people are considerate about how they approach your product or service; things will trend towards disorder. If you need proof of the natural entropy inherent to user generated data, just take a quick look at YouTube comments.

On the other hand, a well-cultivated culture of being considerate and thoughtful, could start a virtuous cycle. Look at Wikipedia.

The Paradox of the 25 Dollar Dictionary

Around the time I first got an iPhone I decided to splurge for a $25.00 Dictionary app: the American Heritage Dictionary. While it is a reliable dictionary with a handy audio pronunciation feature and cross referencing; it was hardly worth the premium.

Now I also have the free Dictionary.com app. The dictionary is just as good, it has the same pronunciation feature, and better yet, it has a complete thesaurus, something altogether missing in the American Heritage Dictionary.

Yet I find myself using the Heritage. What accounts for the cognitive dissonance?

Perhaps it is what is referred to as the “psychological immune system”, which, in my opinion manifests itself most often as a form of ex-post rationalization. Simply put, when some decision is irreversible, you end up rationalizing it. A 25 dollar app purchase is certainly irreversible, (unless you engage in the arduous process of arguing the app was defective and somehow earn a refund). In order of magnitude, it is 25 times pricier than that of the average paid app, and infinitely more expensive than the free dictionary app that is arguably better. On the other hand a free app is completely reversible; you are no less wealthy after purchasing it, and once you delete it, you can forget the whole thing ever happened.

There might be a lesson here for app developers. Free is not always better. If you make someone pay, they are more likely going to engage in ex-post rationalization, and prefer to use your app due to the “investment they made”. They may exhibit loyalty even in the face of better, free alternatives (as I have).

Free apps are liable to be deleted at the drop of a hat, but who would delete an app that was actually paid for?