Do you have to be unique to succeed?

Uniqueness has become a bit jargonised these days. Entrepreneurs usually believe they have it and investors search for it. In reality, is true uniqueness a mirage for both parties? 

What’s unique to one person is seldom unique to another. This is because life experiences differ. It’s often the case that Entrepreneurs products are unique – but many fail to realise that they are only so at a point in time. The Sinclair C5 was perceived as unique when launched on 10th January 1985. However, it wasn’t the first battery powered vehicle - history dates show the 18th century was a major start for electric vehicles. An electric vehicle broke the 100 km/hr speed barrier on April 29, 1899. So amending the old adage - ‘there’s seldom anything unique under the Sun’ seems highly appropriate in the entrepreneur/investor arena.

Uniqueness arises at a specific point in time and probably because of a precise need. Whether that need is real or imagined is an interesting point that is, however, beyond the scope of this article. The Sinclair C5 failure can be put down to many reasons but perhaps poor timing and a lack of need are the primary causes. In 1985 we didn’t need one. Simple as that. The contrast with the mobile phone, invented 1973, commercialised by 1983, is stark. Once the mobile cellphone arrived courtesy of Motorola the need became clear. The financial community and those working remotely were early adopters as it offered immediacy of communications in situations where time is money and where knowledge is the power to make that money.

Uniqueness is therefore not always a mirage but a tangible reality either in terms of careful marketing and brand development - arguably the most common form - or real product innovation which is considerably more challenging. For every unique brand, like Mercedes or Apple, there are many that while unique, fail to grab attention, usually for good reasons. Product innovation is more of a challenge as it takes many forms from the software in an iPhone through to the copyright licenses we pay for in the price of every mobile phone. Yes, a licence can indeed be innovative, especially if it results in user benefits not previously available.

For investors, the crucial challenge is to balance the tangible and verifiable merits of an entrepreneur's unique offering, product or service, against the blandishments of the ‘better mousetrap’. Is it better to have a truly unique offering to the market? Investors need financial returns that balance risk with return in a portfolio where risk is managed within boundaries. For investors, it can be argued that unique products create a higher risk because the demand specific needs in terms of management and infrastructure that may be outside of the entrepreneur's know-how and outside the comfort zone of the investor.

Consider the electric car. There are now several models in production. Each needs electricity to recharge its batteries - so nothing unique there. The uniqueness is how to commercialise the charging facilities for these and other cars due to range limits of the current battery technology. This opens up unique options for entrepreneurs like Shai Agassi of Better Place who want to meet this need uniquely with a network of battery swap-in swap-out stations across various countries. Investors in Better Place are gambling not only on the unique robots and infrastructure supporting the concept but also in the, as yet unproven, belief that electric vehicle drivers will use such swapping points due to range limits of current battery technology.

Better Place investors don’t foresee the potential for ‘game-changers’ either in terms of battery technology e.g. extending range, or that driver behaviour for electric car drivers may differ from their petroleum driving peers. The price and physical characteristics of electricity and petroleum are very different. For example my home does not have a petrol pump but it does have electricity. The cost-drivers also differ e.g. you can charge existing battery vehicles for pence whereas a tank of petroleum costs more than £50 - depending on tank capacity. Uniqueness therefore rests in both the eyes and heart of entrepreneurs and investors.

For many end-users, uniqueness remains a mirage especially as customers become both more cynical and ‘savvy’ about the ‘next big thing’. Key early adopters are now looking beyond what the entrepreneur or entrepreneurial company is delivering - to what it should deliver within the given technology. A recent example of this is the iPad, successfully selling an initial 300,000 units at launch. Quickly iPad spawned comments like, ‘where’s the front facing camera’ and ‘why no second charging point so I can use it in both landscape and portrait mode?’

Maybe this shows the real challenge for entrepreneurs, investors and other stakeholders in our society? It’s not uniqueness that’s axiomatically desirable, more that exceeding users' rising expectations is probably an immortal objective. 

David Dibbens, is a director of 6 Data Limited and freelance specialist in data-analysis and continual improvement in global IT services.