There is an old saying that if you can find something you love to do, you’ll never work a day in your life. But this is probably bad advice.
Here is a simple graph, from Seth Godin, to help explain:
Subscribe
There is an old saying that if you can find something you love to do, you’ll never work a day in your life. But this is probably bad advice.
Here is a simple graph, from Seth Godin, to help explain:
There is an old saying that if you can find something you love to do, you’ll never work a day in your life. But this is probably bad advice.
Here is a simple graph, from Seth Godin, to help explain:
The problem with fun things (y-axis) is that they’re fun. So lots of people want to do them. And if there’s a small or no market for said fun thing, then it’s probably a hobby. (Hobbies are still important.)
Sometimes you can be fortunate where something that previously had no market eventually has a big market. Take, for example, tinkering with computers in the early days.
This is what Chris Dixon was getting at when he said that what the smartest people do on the weekend is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.
But if this doesn’t happen or if a big market already exists — and you do want to be successful at something fun — it’ll likely follow a power law.
Meaning, you’ll need to be the very best in the world and it’s almost certainly going to be a “slog”. (Bottom right quadrant.) One example of this would be the phenomenon of “starchitects.”
And that’s pretty much it for the fun stuff. The rest of this graph is for things that are difficult, which means that 3 out of these 4 quadrants are difficult and/or a slog.
This is not nearly as much fun as not ever working.
Cruise, the autonomous taxi service owned by GM, is working toward offering 24/7 service in San Francisco. I wrote about that here. And so it recently came out with some supportive data suggesting that between September and November of last year, it completed 2,800 rides covering some 27,000 miles, and that it did so without a major collision or injury.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, however, disagrees. They are opposing Cruise's service expansion plans, and have reported 92 incidents where Cruise's autonomous taxis have obstructed traffic, caused delays to transit, blocked lanes and, apparently in two cases, driven over firehoses.
These two things are not all that surprising. Firstly, autonomous vehicles are still in their infancy and they are known to do silly things. Part of this, I'm sure, is because they're programmed around road and life safety. And so if they don't know what to do, they're going to default to what is deemed safe, even if it means blocking a lane or obstructing traffic.
Secondly, transit agencies are suffering in our post-pandemic world. So this is an obvious and understandable case of self-interest. And it's not new. But at the same time, we've all seen this movie many times before, from Napster to Uber. Progress is disruptive. But does it really make sense to stop?
I am, of course, generalizing, but we live in a world of comparables and proof. In the slightly-modified words of Seth Godin, we have been trained to show up with proven and verifiable answers because that's what will get us an A on the test or what will allow us to keep our jobs. And there's nothing wrong with that. Risk mitigation is an important part of any organization. But if everything you're doing is already proven, then by definition, and regardless of any claims, you are not innovating. Because if something is truly new, then it may not actually work.
My friend David Wex -- who is on a mission to develop modern condominiums all across Canada -- once told me that if he were to hire consultants to prepare market studies for his projects (he doesn't), they would almost always tell him never to build. And that's because there are often no comparables to point to and say, "look at this thing over here, it shows that somebody has already done this before and has been successful." Instead, he has been forced to ask himself, "is there no comparable product offering because the market doesn't exist or because nobody has done it yet?"
This is a risky proposition. Because if you're wrong -- and the market doesn't exist -- then you will likely fail. But if you're right, and you get to introduce something new to people that want it, then you get the benefit of a commanding market position. You were right about something that most people thought was wrong and/or didn't bother to explore. That's why Seth Godin has argued that innovation really requires two things. It requires guts, because the thing you're trying may not work. And it requires generosity, because innovation is, after all, about trying to make things better.
I think this is a great way of putting it.
The problem with fun things (y-axis) is that they’re fun. So lots of people want to do them. And if there’s a small or no market for said fun thing, then it’s probably a hobby. (Hobbies are still important.)
Sometimes you can be fortunate where something that previously had no market eventually has a big market. Take, for example, tinkering with computers in the early days.
This is what Chris Dixon was getting at when he said that what the smartest people do on the weekend is what everyone else will do during the week in ten years.
But if this doesn’t happen or if a big market already exists — and you do want to be successful at something fun — it’ll likely follow a power law.
Meaning, you’ll need to be the very best in the world and it’s almost certainly going to be a “slog”. (Bottom right quadrant.) One example of this would be the phenomenon of “starchitects.”
And that’s pretty much it for the fun stuff. The rest of this graph is for things that are difficult, which means that 3 out of these 4 quadrants are difficult and/or a slog.
This is not nearly as much fun as not ever working.
Cruise, the autonomous taxi service owned by GM, is working toward offering 24/7 service in San Francisco. I wrote about that here. And so it recently came out with some supportive data suggesting that between September and November of last year, it completed 2,800 rides covering some 27,000 miles, and that it did so without a major collision or injury.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, however, disagrees. They are opposing Cruise's service expansion plans, and have reported 92 incidents where Cruise's autonomous taxis have obstructed traffic, caused delays to transit, blocked lanes and, apparently in two cases, driven over firehoses.
These two things are not all that surprising. Firstly, autonomous vehicles are still in their infancy and they are known to do silly things. Part of this, I'm sure, is because they're programmed around road and life safety. And so if they don't know what to do, they're going to default to what is deemed safe, even if it means blocking a lane or obstructing traffic.
Secondly, transit agencies are suffering in our post-pandemic world. So this is an obvious and understandable case of self-interest. And it's not new. But at the same time, we've all seen this movie many times before, from Napster to Uber. Progress is disruptive. But does it really make sense to stop?
I am, of course, generalizing, but we live in a world of comparables and proof. In the slightly-modified words of Seth Godin, we have been trained to show up with proven and verifiable answers because that's what will get us an A on the test or what will allow us to keep our jobs. And there's nothing wrong with that. Risk mitigation is an important part of any organization. But if everything you're doing is already proven, then by definition, and regardless of any claims, you are not innovating. Because if something is truly new, then it may not actually work.
My friend David Wex -- who is on a mission to develop modern condominiums all across Canada -- once told me that if he were to hire consultants to prepare market studies for his projects (he doesn't), they would almost always tell him never to build. And that's because there are often no comparables to point to and say, "look at this thing over here, it shows that somebody has already done this before and has been successful." Instead, he has been forced to ask himself, "is there no comparable product offering because the market doesn't exist or because nobody has done it yet?"
This is a risky proposition. Because if you're wrong -- and the market doesn't exist -- then you will likely fail. But if you're right, and you get to introduce something new to people that want it, then you get the benefit of a commanding market position. You were right about something that most people thought was wrong and/or didn't bother to explore. That's why Seth Godin has argued that innovation really requires two things. It requires guts, because the thing you're trying may not work. And it requires generosity, because innovation is, after all, about trying to make things better.
I think this is a great way of putting it.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog