Most of those would be good pieces of advice given the right amount of context, but they are blown up into universal advice and, even worse, a "how to" (yes, I know the title of the original article doesn't say "How to", but it was posted to HN by its author, jason, and so he chose both titles!). This is not a "how to" for disruption. A better how-to for that topic would be this one: http://swombat.com/2011/2/18/how-to-develop-disruptive-ideas by someone who's written a book about the topic after spending much time studying it, and so has had the chance to develop a generic method.
Instead, this article is a collection of potentially good pieces of advice that can be deadly if used without being properly understood.
Anyway, so my point is, I think you can do much better than this, Jason, given your skill at writing and your breadth of knowledge of startups.
I've done better, I can be honest about that. Way better. I'd give this a 5.5/10 on my scale. I wanted to focus in more on the type of things Hipmunk and hellofax are doing. Disruption as a whole is another topic and would take a lot of time to write, hence why I've held off.
As for the title. HN automatically changes from "X ways" to "How To", so I just did it to save the editors + pg time.
As a sidenote, the comments on HN have gone to shit lately. We always complain about HN going to shit,but I finally think it's almost at that point. Maybe it's Jacques leaving or something I can't put my finger on, but the magic is gone. A lot of the comments focus on minute points that don't address the topic at hand. Before you say "oh it's because it's your article", I say, hold on a second. The comments are focusing in on whether hipmunk is disruptive instead of the actual points of the article, aside from Swombat's. It's not even trolling. People are still very nice. It's just insight. I'm not learning as much as I used to here.
I wouldn't say it's because of your article, but I'm not sure it's such a new development... Geeks have always had a propensity for focusing on minor points of disagreement... (particularly when they disagree with the title/subject)
Focusing on the article, I think it would have been better presented as "Things Hipmunk is doing right" - then it would have an implicit context, and could be insightful without generalising to all disruptive startups. In a way, the "disruptive" tag did more harm than good, by focusing the discussion on people arguing over whether Hipmunk is disruptive according to their personal semantics...
Oh well!
(PS: Sorry for the 'tough love', but I knew you could take it ;-) )
Sure, but recently it's been arguments about minor points with no substance. I almsot feel like we're getting meta here. heh.
Don't apologize about the tough love! Listen, when I don't perform, call my ass out. I don't like sugarcoated things and when I'm below par, I need to be told. To me that's just straight up love.
Ok. I'll volunteer what I hope is constructive criticism.
- As others have mentioned, the title is misleading/bad.
- There's very little tying back what's being expressed to specific actions that Hipmunk has done. For instance the sections "Be Disruptive, But Respectful" and "Call Out Your Competitor" would have been better if they had actually pointed to or quoted from something issued by Hipmunk that was respectful or called out a competitor. Many of the sections use examples from completely different companies, which would be fine, if there was at least one specific concrete example from Hipmunk.
- Having been part of a recently built flights meta search engine I just see your bit about "Look For An Industry That Rarely Changes" to be completely uninformed. Not sure what scope you're talking about, but travel, airline, online booking and flight meta-search have all changed a lot over the past few years.
- In the one place where you did use a concrete example, "Work Towards Building Fanatics" the example is the mascot. A few more, and more substantive, examples would have helped.
- Finally it would have been appropriate to point out some of the weaknesses of Hipmunk to build credibility, and ease the breathless tone. Perhaps in the section about "power users." As someone who travels a lot I tried Hipmunk but currently mostly use Kayak (note that's not the one I worked on) because it has more flights and more search options. The pretty interface is nice, but power users, by definition, are willing to forego a pretty interface if there's more, you know, powerful options available. Kayak in its current incarnation just offers way more options for me to slice and dice the search to find what I want.
I just want to be clear. Hipmunk may be a great service and many people may prefer it, but it has not disrupted the industry. I do not know of anyone who even knows about it outside of people familiar with YC and HN.
If you had to credit anyone with the disruption, it should go to Expedia or a similar site. Each of the above has improved the customer experience, but aren't truly disruptive.
I can't stand the HipMunk interface. I get its not for me, and am glad they are successful, but HipMunk is not a disruption at all. I agree with you completely.
A disruption is a service like RedBox, a program like Napster, etc... They are rare businesses or actions that come along that almost instantly change the playing field for their market. Usually for such a disruption to occur the industry itself already needs to be having troubles brewing.
I concur. I'm a big fan of Ohanian and what he's trying to do with Hipmunk, but as of now there is no disruption, more like a cult following.
One thing to point out on their efforts is that they managed to work out a deal with AA while AA removed themselves from Orbitz, Expedia, and the lot. I'd consider that progress towards disruption.
To 'Hipmunk' an industry: Be a cofounder of a successful startup. Leave that company. Make a new one. Whatever industry you're involved in will be hipmunked!
Jason is spot on that Hipmunk is trying to ease pain in the flight booking industry. Booking flights is largely undifferentiated in the space with low-price sort and sites bombarded with ads all aimed at squeezing a few more bucks out of a low-margin industry (flight rev share to partners are less than $3/ticket).
Is it disruptive to the flight industry? I don't think so. I love the intent of Hipmunk but to say disruptive implies a deeper seated change that I don't think Hipmunk is driving in flights. You mentioned Square which both solves an interface pain point but is also shifting payments to a mobile on-site platform for small businesses. They are doing business differently because of Square and are able to service a new segment of customers they were not able to before (ones with credit cards).
What would be disruptive to the airline industry? I think to disrupt the industry, you would need to change the way people fly or how they buy/book air travel as a whole. One idea that I think would be considered disruptive is if someone introduced pre-paid flight vouchers to lock in prices much like you would to gas/oil contracts. This would change the airline's supply/demand model, it would change the way we "hunt" for low prices, and change the general way we view air travel (instead of waiting for a low price, we've already paid for x number of flights so we're free to go as needed).
The other points in the article are generally spot on for startups to focus on your power users and build a fan base. The one thing about calling out your competitors is that it's easy to do when you are clearly and squarely about reducing pain and friction and that your target audience clearly sympathizes with your intentions. No smart competitor would come out and call you out on trying to do the consumer some good unless they want a PR backlash.
Hipmunk has an amazing interface. It is simply revolutionarily better than existing flight sites. I don't fly much, but boy howdy, I don't plan to move away from Hipmunk.
I don't think they disrupted the online travel industry, however. (yet?) I'd like to see them become the flight search portal.
I don't get what's so great about their interface. Sure it's got eye candy. But I can't even search for +- 1 day from my selected date. Most airline or travel sites can.
Yeah, that's a rather important feature, given that airlines often run certain flights only on certain days. I don't personally do much business travel, so when I fly, my dates are extremely flexible.
It also seems to completely lack EasyJet, which makes it nearly useless for intra-Europe flights.
I've seen quite a lot of Hipmunk hype, and it does have a nice UI that presents information well. But in terms of actually finding the cheapest flight in a given time window, I'll stick with Kayak.
All hipmonk did was provide ITA's Matrix time bar interface with the ability to book tickets. Brilliant, and they added some marketing. It wasn't hard or innovative. Most people simply didn't know about that UI.
In Christensen's definition of disruption there's nothing about "excruciating pain". It's about serving non-consumers, then getting better. A key idea is you don't confront a competitor head-on, but begin in markets that they don't care about, with a product that's not as good, in their customers' opinion, and so doesn't threaten them.
> Disruptive innovation, a term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors.
> An innovation that is disruptive allows a whole new population of consumers access to a product or service that was historically only accessible to consumers with a lot of money or a lot of skill. Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.
> Because companies tend to innovate faster than their customers’ lives change, most organizations eventually end up producing products or services that are too good, too expensive, and too inconvenient for many customers. By only pursuing “sustaining innovations” that perpetuate what has historically helped them succeed, companies unwittingly open the door to “disruptive innovations”.
http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html [see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology#The_theor...]
Far from being excruciatingly painful, the disrupted incumbent is often at the height of their success, well-respected and well-liked, and doing a great job at serving their customers. For example, just before Digital's fall (the puzzle that Christensen wanted to understand in his PhD) it was a highly lauded company. How could Digital get killed? he implored.
To me, this article's use of "disruption" is a signal of quality that says: this is not a rigorous article. It seems to be using disruption in its common dictionary meaning, to shake things up. But when writing on technology adoption and startups to a seasoned audience, one would expect an awareness of the technical meaning. Although, to be fair, it does seem that many people in startup circles use the term extremely broadly (as if it meant "to compete with" or "to beat"). I agree with the article on that point.
A counterpoint to this entire comment: fortune favours the brave, not the meticulous.
Most of those would be good pieces of advice given the right amount of context, but they are blown up into universal advice and, even worse, a "how to" (yes, I know the title of the original article doesn't say "How to", but it was posted to HN by its author, jason, and so he chose both titles!). This is not a "how to" for disruption. A better how-to for that topic would be this one: http://swombat.com/2011/2/18/how-to-develop-disruptive-ideas by someone who's written a book about the topic after spending much time studying it, and so has had the chance to develop a generic method.
Instead, this article is a collection of potentially good pieces of advice that can be deadly if used without being properly understood.
Anyway, so my point is, I think you can do much better than this, Jason, given your skill at writing and your breadth of knowledge of startups.