> Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses chance at succeeding.
Well, if you read the article, you'll see that is dealt with explicitly. 47% of pioneers failed, according to the cited study, as opposed to 8% of fast followers.
> Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big fast" companies?
The example of Ford vs GM would indicate that they can; or at least that there's no advantage in being first.
> Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction.
Only if you can come up with numbers to refute the study, or a better argument than "I don't believe this is measurable" to render it null. Otherwise you're just waving a twig in the air.
Well, if you read the article, you'll see that is dealt with explicitly. 47% of pioneers failed, according to the cited study, as opposed to 8% of fast followers.
> Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big fast" companies?
The example of Ford vs GM would indicate that they can; or at least that there's no advantage in being first.
> Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction.
Only if you can come up with numbers to refute the study, or a better argument than "I don't believe this is measurable" to render it null. Otherwise you're just waving a twig in the air.