No one remembers the second man on the moon; At least I don’t.
In business, being the first to do something has the strategic advantage of being known in the market as the pioneer.
It is this first-mover advantage concept that companies like Ford in automobiles, Gillette in shaving, and Coca-Cola in soft drinks enjoy.
But Fernando Suarez and Gianvito Lanzollo authors of ‘The Half Truth of First Mover Advantage’ disagree with this concept.
READ MORE
Why Ruto's hustler revolution has finally died
Putting too much energy on 2027 poll is killing BETA plan
They argue that first-mover advantage is dependent on the pace of market and technology evolution. That a slow pace of market and technology evolution favors first-mover advantage.
When technology and markets evolve quickly, first-mover advantage is harder to gain. Think of Motorola, which created the world’s first mobile phone.
It led the industry for about a decade. It only undoing was letting others innovate around it. First came BlackBerry, which quickly became a must-have gadget for every professional.
Today, both Motorola and BlackBerry are technology has-beens, surpassed by the likes of Samsung and Apple.
Then came Steve Jobs who exploited the late-mover advantage. After noticing that all cell phones on the market stank, he set out to build what users want.
Here’s my question; between first-mover and late-mover, which has more advantages?
