Early Bird, Second Mouse

Todd Henry [00:00:02]:
In the early 1980s, a fascinating battle unfolded in toy stores across America. One that would shape the landscape of transforming robot toys forever. That's right, I said transforming robot toys. Tonka, the company behind Gobots, had secured the rights to import and rebrand machine Robo toys from Bandai. These compact, transforming robots seemed poised to dominate the American market. With characters like Leader 1 and Psikill, GoBots established the first foothold in what would become a massive transforming robot phenomenon. That might be the only time you hear those words ever used together in that sequence. Then came hasbro's transformers.

Todd Henry [00:00:44]:
In 1984, despite being second to market, Transformers arrived with something that Gobots lacked. A rich, compelling storyline. Hasbro had partnered with Marvel Comics to create a detailed character background, complex relationships, and an epic narrative of good versus evil that captured children's imaginations. And here's where the story takes an unexpected turn. The real battle wasn't actually between Gobots and Transformers at all. In fact, both toy lines were doing pretty well until in 1985, when a completely different force disrupted the market. The video game industry. The Nintendo Entertainment System's launch that year began siphoning away children's attention and their parents toy budgets.

Todd Henry [00:01:28]:
While Transformers managed to weather this technological storm, Gobot struggled to maintain its market position. Hasbro's superior marketing budget allowed for an extensive television advertising campaign and a popular animated series, again reinforcing the connection with the audience through the storyline of the toy. So by 1987, the GoBots line was discontinued. And in a twist of corporate fate, Hasbro eventually acquired Tonka in 1991, gaining ownership of their former rival's intellectual property. But here's the surprising part. Despite losing the battle, Gobots inadvertently helped Transformers succeed. By being first to market, Gobots effectively proved the concept of transforming robot toys in America and created consumer awareness. When Transformers arrived, they didn't have to convince retailers or parents that transforming robots could sell.

Todd Henry [00:02:22]:
Gobots had already done the heavy lifting. The moral of this story goes beyond the simple adage, the early bird gets the worm. Perhaps it's better to remember the second half of that saying, but the second mouse gets the cheese. Being first to market isn't always an advantage. Sometimes being second allows you to learn from others experiences, to refine your approach, and to build something more sustainable. In business, as in life, success isn't just about being first. It's about being better prepared, about having a stronger strategy, and building something that can withstand the test of time. Pioneers don't always become the permanent leaders in their field.

Todd Henry [00:03:02]:
Sometimes it's those who come second, armed with better storytelling, stronger marketing, and a more complete vision, who ultimately transform their initial advantage into a lasting victory. On today's episode, we're going to explore the pros and cons of big idea thinking and whether it's better to be first or not. This is Daily Creative, a podcast for creative pros who want to be brave, focused, and brilliant every day. My name is Todd Henry. Welcome to the show.

Safi Bahcall [00:03:35]:
Well, everybody knows what a moonshot is. It's a big, exciting goal that everybody agrees is going to have a lot of significance. But the important thing to keep in mind is that a moonshot is a destination. When Kennedy first used the term in 1961, it was, we're going to put a man on the moon. That's a big, exciting go. But how do we get there? In fact, when you look back through history, there's lots of moonshots. But the things that really make the difference, that change the course of science, business, or history, turn out to be those crazy ideas that have been floating around for a long time, neglected or dismissed, and their champions are written off as nuts or unhinged.

Todd Henry [00:04:14]:
That's Safi Bahcall, author of the book Loonshots.

Safi Bahcall [00:04:17]:
And in fact, even in the example of the original moonshot with Kennedy in 1961, how did we get there? Well, a rocket. Well, where did the idea of a rocket and jet propulsion come from? Robert Goddard in 1924. Decades earlier, Robert Goddard had suggested this idea. Why don't we explode, use liquid fuel for jet propulsion, and, you know, and generate something that can shoot up into the sky and maybe to outer space? He was completely ridiculed. The New York Times actually published an editorial and said this, quote, professor Robert Goddard in some university, Clark University, doesn't understand the basic principles of physics that we teach high school students. Newton's laws, action, reaction. That would never work. Yeah.

Safi Bahcall [00:05:04]:
What was funny was that 49 years later, after the Apollo 11 mission to the moon took off, the Times issued a retraction. They said today marks the first successful loonshots. You know, 49 years ago, we issued this story. And in fact, rockets do not violate the laws of physics. The Times regrets the air.

Todd Henry [00:05:24]:
And that's how it often goes for first movers. Right. You're crazy until you're not. You're violating the laws of physics until you prove those laws of physics wrong. This kind of story is quite common in the business world.

Safi Bahcall [00:05:37]:
I've read it. The point of the story is that that happens far more commonly than you think that the big ideas, that they're important breakthroughs nobody could foresee. You can't really predict what will happen with an idea or what market. But what you can tell is that it's challenging conventional wisdom. And so it is. In fact, those ideas, the ones that are dismissed or written off as crazy and have been lingering for decades. And that's true. Not just the rockets was one example, but it's certainly true in science, in drug discovery, where I've worked for many years, in physics, where I worked before that, even in the arts, even in films and movies.

Safi Bahcall [00:06:17]:
It's the ideas that everybody says will never work, can't work, whether it's a business or a product or a strategy, that are the ones that tend to be the most important. So the moonshot is a goal. Nurturing moonshots is how we get there.

Todd Henry [00:06:40]:
So the moonshot is the goal, the big, ambitious, seemingly impossible task that we set our minds to. And the way we get there is by embracing the impossible. Those ideas that others think are too hard to reach, they're simply loony. But let's get back to the original question of the episode. Is it better to be first or is it better to be second? After all, loonshots sound like first mover initiatives. Well, according to Safi, it depends. Sometimes being first means creating the market. But the very traits that allowed you to innovate and dominate that market can become blind spots that prevent you from continuing success.

Todd Henry [00:07:21]:
He says there are two kinds of innovators.

Safi Bahcall [00:07:25]:
There are a lot of people who, let's say, think of themselves as great technologists. And those are the kinds of guys who look for great products, great technology breakthroughs, and they sometimes miss the small changes in strategy or business model that have nothing to do with the product, no new technology whatsoever, that make all the difference. So I'll give you an example. When Steve Jobs first started out, he saw himself as this big technology guy and he championed new technologies. He didn't invent the Mac, but there was another guy at the early Apple who came up with the idea of the Mac with Next, and he championed all these various technologies and he saw himself as this great product guy. Apple almost went bankrupt for his first in at Apple. He'd caused a lot of disruption. And then when he went to Next, he.

Safi Bahcall [00:08:12]:
He really saw himself as this great product guy. And that was a disaster. Next was also going bankrupt. What he missed was that there was a subtle shift in strategy because Steve.

Todd Henry [00:08:21]:
Jobs was a product person, a technologist, a P type innovator. He missed an important trend, which was.

Safi Bahcall [00:08:29]:
A shift to software rather than hardware. And in fact, several people that approached him and said, hey, your software that you've developed for Nexus operating system is awesome. It's actually much better than this Windows stuff, because at the time, this was very early Windows. And these other companies, these PC makers, IBM and the Compaq and many others, they were kind of desperate to get away from the Windows emerging monopoly. And so they kept coming him and said, listen, why don't you just forget the hardware stuff and be a software company? And he was like, no, that's ridiculous. I'm a product guy. So he had a blind spot. His blind spot was he was a P type inner.

Safi Bahcall [00:09:07]:
He was a product type. I always want the fastest, coolest new technology. And he missed a subtle shift in strategy, which was that software ended up mattering a lot more. So actually, I'll give you another example of the same era. IBM. People think IBM got killed in the late 80s and 90s, and they did massive layoffs because their PC business got killed. But what people don't realize is that IBM was a very innovative product company. They were the dominant company, hardware company, technology company in the country, if not the world.

Safi Bahcall [00:09:43]:
And people think big companies can't innovate. Like, oh, maybe they missed the PC revolution. No, they innovated terrifically. They actually, as soon as the personal computer came out, first it was. There were some small, you know, Commodore and then Apple and then Tandy, Radio Shack, and then IBM got in the game. They weren't first. They might have been, you know, a year or two later, they just wiped them away. IBM went to number one.

Safi Bahcall [00:10:05]:
Within three or four years, they were by far the dominant. So they actually became number one. And what did they do? They said, we're a computer company. We're a hardware company. We've been a hardware company for our whole lives, and that's how we make money. So in order to do that, they said, you know what, we'll just outsource a couple of these things that don't matter. I don't know, something like the Micropod processors. That's just a component.

Safi Bahcall [00:10:29]:
So we'll give it to this little struggling company called Intel. And then software is a dime. It does. And a lot of little software companies. So we'll give it to this little company in Seattle called Microsoft. So they outsourced that stuff, and they were the big king. So they also had a blind spot about what mattered. They just thought products and boxes and hardware mattered, and they missed A subtle change in strategy of what mattered.

Safi Bahcall [00:10:55]:
So the reason that the distinction is interesting is like let's say you're a technology person and you love fancy gadgets. You tend to have kind of blinders on on fancy gadgets and you miss the small shifts in strategy that can make a huge difference.

Todd Henry [00:11:11]:
And here's where it gets interesting. There are so many examples of people who weren't first to market but figured out how to innovate within the market. Just like Transformers did to Gobots and they went on to completely dominate.

Safi Bahcall [00:11:24]:
I'll give you one where here's an example. Walmart. If Walmart was a country, I think it would be ranked like 17 or 18 in the world in GDP. So did Sam Walton when he built his company and wiped out all of discount retailing, did he do any new technology? He moved his stores to rural areas. Actually, as I kind of mentioned in the book, that wasn't by design. It was kind of an accident and serendipitous, but it doesn't matter. He just moved his store and figured out how to sell stuff a little bit cheaper. Like a dime, just a few percent.

Safi Bahcall [00:11:57]:
And that was a small shift in strategy, but it wiped out all his competitors. There was no technology. So the reason it's interesting is just to become is it can help people become more self aware.

Todd Henry [00:12:11]:
So if you are a P type, A product type innovator, consider where you might have strategy blind spots. And if you're an S type, a strategy type innovator, consider the same for your product blind spots. This is all about becoming self aware so that you don't become the second bird or the first mouse.

Safi Bahcall [00:12:29]:
The reason becoming a little more self aware about that can be useful is that if you can learn to be ambidextrous to do both of them, you can become incredibly powerful if you're naturally a P type innovator, if you learn those S type skills to think when you have a new product, what are all the different strategies? How could it change, you know, customers or markets or competitors and all the different ways we can flip this around and use it for new uses. You could enormously grow the reach of your product or your idea.

Todd Henry [00:13:06]:
Safi Bahkal's book is called Loonshots and is available now wherever books are sold. And you can hear my full interview with Safiy and interviews with all of our guests as well as daily episodes and much more in the daily Creative app at DailyCreative app. In a minute. I'll be back to share some lessons from today's episode and ways in which we can apply them in our everyday work. Stick around. So what's the lesson in all this? Don't be a Gobot. Make sure you're Microsoft and not IBM. No, of course not.

Todd Henry [00:13:53]:
Being first or second to market isn't inherently good or bad. It's about understanding your strengths and the nature of the opportunity. And this is true for all of us as leaders, as creative professionals. If you're a P type innovator, someone who excels at product innovation and technological breakthroughs, being the first to market might be your natural inclination. You can see the possibility of a new technology, a new idea, a new approach, and you want to rush in and create something revolutionary. And this can work brilliantly when the market needs that kind of innovation and you have the resources to educate consumers about your solution. But remember Steve Jobs story with next. Being too focused on product innovation can blind you to crucial strategic shifts in the market.

Todd Henry [00:14:37]:
On the flip side, if you're an S type innovator, someone who excels at strategic thinking and business model innovation, you might be better suited to being second to market. You can observe what the first mover did right and wrong, and then innovate on the business model or strategy rather than the core technology. Think about how Walmart didn't invent discount retail. They just approached it with a different strategy that proved to be much more effective. The key for all of us is self awareness. If you're naturally a P type innovator, ask yourself, are there strategic angles I'm missing while I'm focusing on product innovation? Could someone else take my technology and implement it with a better business model? Am I solving a real market need or am I just in love with the idea which is so common in the creative space? If you're an S type innovator, consider am I missing important technological trends while focusing on business model innovation? Could my strategic advantage be undermined by someone with superior technology or a better idea? Am I truly adding value or am I just repackaging existing ideas? The most powerful position is becoming what Safi Bahcall calls ambidextrous, able to innovate both in terms of product and strategy. Now, this doesn't mean you have to be equally strong in both areas, but you need to have enough awareness to know when to bring in compliments, expertise to ask the right questions at the right time. Remember, the early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

Todd Henry [00:16:08]:
Your success isn't determined by whether you're first or second. It's determined by whether you understand your strengths and can apply them at the right moment and with the right approach. Good luck. Hey, thank you so much for listening. Again. If you'd like to hear all of the interviews that we've done, as well as the entire back catalog, daily episode Q and A segments, and much, much more, you can access those and support the show by going to DailyCreative app and subscribing to the Daily Creative app. You can learn more about me and my work, as well as my speaking events@toddhenry.com Again, thanks so much for listening. Until next time, May you be brave, focused and brilliant.