Startup Challenges

You are currently browsing the archive for the Startup Challenges category.

My previous work on gaming came to a standstill several months ago. Many things happened to cause me to abandon my foray into the gaming market.

  1. Project Darkstar was shut down by Oracle. It has since re-emerged as Red Dwarf Server. I hope this project finds great success, but the risk involved was making me uncomfortable. As a one person shop, there were too many uncertainties and too frequent changes to keep up with my limited time.
  2. Observing and learning the Game market – it is very crowded. I knew this when starting, but the competition continues to improve. Games which feed the masses (think Farmville) continue to grow, and nothing I would be creating would likely change that.
  3. Timelines are too long. Making a high quality game, my project plan was extending into the multi-year when taking into account server design, client development, and graphics. Add to that integration into portals, marketing, and so on – it quickly became too much time invested for too little chance of return.

So I made a couple of games, worked on distributing them, and then came up with a new method to start anew the process of value creation. Instead of going B2C for my next project, I am planning on launching a B2B niche product with a much better price structure and target market. Development is already underway, and I’ll be posting here over time once it is nearing completion.

Key Success Metrics

In keeping with my learning in the single-founder startup market, here are my key success criteria I used to judge market opportunities. Expect to see a post on the idea generation process at some point.

  • Idea to Launch planned to 6 months of part time work or less. I want to have everything up and running as fast as possible. My current project has been through design, and is about 50% of the way through initial development, and about 2 months have passed. So far, so good.
  • Product should target a niche where competitors already exist, but fewer than 10. This is to ensure I don’t have to create the market from scratch. In this case, I will be offering a solution at a far lower cost point and with much greater ease of use compared to my competitors. I will be going down the road of cost+ and differentiation (ease of use) compared to my competitors.
  • Product should have a sales price. Previous efforts of mine focused largely on the free or freemium markets (freemium being 90/10 free/paying customers). I still like those business models, but I have found the required volume reduces potential revenues too much for niche products. It also tends to extend the break even time by a significant amount, since you must constantly add infrastructure and scale for non-paying users. In this case, I am looking at a $20-$30 price point, recurring.
  • Keyword competition should not bee too high. In my target niche, very few keywords are very highly competitive, and ample traffic flows to some very low competition keywords.
  • Market has a long tail (Many possible sub-niches) or the market has a ways to grow before becoming mature. In my case, there is not many possible niches, but the market is still in its infancy for non-enterprise customers.

Overall, you’ll be seeing more about my product in the coming months as I prepare to launch. I will also be releasing some tutorials based on my technology choices which took me some time to figure out, based on the lack of documentation for exactly what I am trying to do.

Tags: , ,

I launched my first web business 2 years ago, and just like that the venture flopped. Resurrecting the whole thing was pointless, and I spent a fair amount of time reflecting on what went wrong, what went right, and why it was doomed to failure from the beginning. Since that time, I have met many people in the same boat, or who were heading in that direction. To help prevent others from facing the same situation, I compiled a list of the main mistakes I made and see others making, and some tips on how to avoid them.

1) Not seriously writing a business plan

Many first time entrepreneurs and even some long-term entrepreneurs make this mistake. Everything you read online will suggest writing a business plan, but many people take this step for granted. Perhaps it is hubris that they have skills others do not, and thus are bound for success with their great idea. The problem is that the idea may not be so great, or the execution of the idea may fail. The business plan forces you to consider this carefully and honestly, to assess if it will be a successful venture, and what your chances of success are.

This is an easily avoidable mistake to make. Don’t just commit to writing a business plan, but commit to writing a business plan which is honest, as harsh as it needs to be, and identifies as many risks as possible. The most critical section for new web startups is going to be the financial section and the marketing section. For finance, ask yourself very carefully about the business model, and realize that the vast majority of web businesses do not make money, even for very large sites. Is your model  a good business model? How many users will you need to turn a reasonable profit? What are your costs per user and revenue per user likely to be? How many other businesses have turned a profit using this model, and how long did it take them? Did those businesses have success factors you lack? There are many such questions you should carefully analyze and write down a formal response to, even if no one will see it but the internal team.

Secondly, marketing. The question I like to ask is “is this a <major blog in your niche> worthy story?” Would they write an entire story dedicated to your product, or not? If the answer is no, you may want to seriously consider if your product has a good potential of success. The second piece of the marketing section  is market research, and really understanding the ins and outs of your competition. On the web, every other site is a competitor, not only in your own niche. If someone would rather be on facebook then your page, they will be. And finally, a good knowledge of other similar sites is critical. What are their competitive advantages? Why will you be able to siphon off their users to your own site? Is your site unique enough or superior enough to cause people to change their habits? To avoid failure, be realistic, even if the answers are harsh.

2) The Me Too Syndrome

I constantly talk to web entrepreneurs who fall into this trap. They see a major success (Some bloggers, twitter, and facebook come to mind) and then say ‘if them, why not me?’ They set out to create an also-ran product with nearly all the same features. The problem is, even if you build something which is fundamentally better then the competition, you still have to make users understand that and accept it. This works sometimes, but is the rare exception and not the rule. Generally, if you are entering a competitive space with a successful competitor, go find a new business.

3) The ‘If you build it they will come’ Fallacy

Some people have the assumption that building something means people want to use it, so they will. I actually made this same assumption when I started my first web business a few years back – thinking that there was search volume for my product, it was well designed, and so people would naturally start to use it. In reality, a business has to build out a customer base through word of mouth, advertising, brand building, and public relations. You can’t sit around for Googlers to find you. They may, but they also may not.

To avoid this, always assume that no user will find your site unless you personally direct them to it. This will help you when considering the proper marketing strategy. Building up the business case and the marketing plan in your business plan will help here. Essentially, you will need to help users to find you. Having a great product only keeps users, it doesn’t generate them.

4) The design trap

I like good design. I am not so good at creating it. My strength lies in the more technical and business oriented areas of startups, not in overall product design or graphical design. Although this is one of my weaknesses, I realize that design is a very important piece of product development. The trap is when the design becomes the product, or when the design is never ending. In the first case, a really cool designed product has forgotten about the utility of the product for the consumer. Who wants a really nice looking lump? In the second, a form of scope creep, continuous refinements in the design space can leave a product less polished, or delay delivery far too long leading to high cost.

I see a lot of web startups who tweak and tweak without ever finishing. I would recommend setting the design early on, and then going through several rounds of refinement, but leave a limit up front, and only exceed it in extreme circumstances. Once you are successful, you can always complete a redesign.

5) Product worthiness

Is your product really something other people want a lot of? Really? Is it iPod good? If you can’t honestly answer yes to this question, then what are you really doing? Perhaps just starting a business without a good product. This, along with the also ran products, is one of the main reasons I have seen many new startups fail.

A friend of mine nailed it one day when we were talking about mobile apps. He said he sees a lot of applications on the iPhone which are ok, but not great. The truly great ones come about when an existing user searches for an app she really wants, but can’t find it, so designs her own, and designs it well. This leads naturally into…

6) Filling a gap

As a corollary from the previous section, does your product fill a gap in your customers needs? If it does not, then why would a customer pay for your product? Even if your product is free, if a customer wouldn’t be willing to pay for it, you should evaluate the overall utility the business you are starting really has. Making sure your product fills a customer need is a basic part of product design, and should be considered before any significant capital has been spent, whether in time or money.

Also consider the life space that your business will occupy and how that will affect price points, even for free services. Utility applications and web sites generally have a higher price point, because they can actually improve your users life. Entertainment or social applications are more take or leave, since they are unlikely to materially improve your users life.

Tags: , , , , , ,

I recently entered the Indy gaming market, a crowded market if ever there was one. I liken being an Indy game designer / programmer to being a first cut author, except without an entire publishing industry looking for hot talent. Imagine being an author and getting your first book put on Amazon for download, or included in an online store along with millions of other titles, many of which have name brand recognition, thousands or millions of dollars in marketing spend backing them, or a lower price point (free). Your book is new, it touches universal themes, the writing is solid, and the characters alive. Still, it is useless unless people see it and buy it. How is such an author to make enough to feed the family?

Similar to the author I describe, Indy game shops face a steep uphill battle to make a game profitable. In this post, I will walk you through the basic economics of game distribution, price points, revenue models, and the business side of game design. In future articles, I will expound on low or no-cost marketing initiatives, distribution methods, and design for cost and quality.

Revenue Models for Independent Game Shops

There are a variety of revenue models to pick from, all of which can make your game profitable. Each method has different pros and cons, and are generally not mutually exclusive with other methods. If you can reasonably include one of these methods with your game, then include it, even if other revenue streams are already integrated. I like to look at each model from the perspective of the question “How many (unique) users do I need to have before a game is likely to make a million dollars?”

Revenue Model: Advertising

Probably the most widely used today for small independent games, advertising is when you use an ad network of some form and include it in your game. You can run ads during load screens, between levels, at start up, and really any time you want to. The most well known ad network today is Mochi ads, which adds additional benefits to the game design team by distributing the game for you.

Benefits:

  1. Ads are very easy to add and can boost your bottom line.
  2. Ad networks may help distribute your game to many game portals (generally for flash only)

Downsides:

  1. Some users are turned off by ads. If you throw in too many, you may lose customers.
  2. It can be hard to charge for a game up front, and then force users to sit through ads. Some games have been burned by this recently, but it may come to be more accepted by the gaming populace over time.
  3. Ads pay very little.

How does it pay?

Assuming you hope to make some cash from your game, lets see how ads work for payoff. Similar to ad supported web sites, you need a lot of traffic to generate any significant revenue, so your per-ad payout is going to be low. You can find published rates for CPM anywhere from $.05 per 1000 ads shown to roughly $1 per 1000 ads, though in actual experience you are unlikely to see a rate this high for any extended period. Across all games, the general consensus for average rate  is around $0.30 per 1000 impressions. This assumes a decent but not incredible game. This means you will need more then a billion players to break the $1 million mark on your game. That’s a lot of players. I have heard that using Mochi nets a game an average of 1 million plays, so a decent game can generate around a thousand dollars from advertising. One important thing to keep in mind is as the quality and popularity of your game increase, the expected CPM increases, and the value of each player increases accordingly. There are some games which can be supported purely on this model, but generally only the top 10 or 20 games in a year.

Revenue Model: Direct Sales

Direct sales ask a gamer to shell out up front for your game. Some recent successful examples of this method are Machinarium, which retails for $20 a copy. This nets you much higher revenue per player, but it is a lot harder to get a single player.

Benefits:

  1. Higher upfront payout per customer
  2. potential to generate a lot of revenue quickly

Downsides:

  1. Generally requires high quality game play and play length to attract customers.
  2. Distribution channels are more challenging. Options include through your own website, Steam, Amazon, or for some games XBox Live or PlayStation Network.
  3. Requires a more extensive marketing effort to get the word out.
  4. This model can be significantly harmed by piracy, as seen with other indy games with a 90-95% piracy rate.

Common around this strategy is packaging a Demo which is free to play and gives the player a good feel for the game. This means you actually need to sell two products to your customers – first a demo which they play and enjoy, and second the game itself. It is easy to leverage ad networks or other models with the demo to improve distribution and revenue from non-buyers.

How Does it pay?

This kind of sales can pay off very quickly if the game sells even decently. Assuming the $20 price point, you will hit your $1 million mark after only 50,000 game purchases. You can hit it faster if your demo is ad supported and does well. The main challenge with this strategy is in gaining distribution through third party channels, marketing the game, and convincing players to purchase instead of pirate your game.

Revenue Model: Micro Transactions

Micro transactions have been used for some time by game companies, even longer then most people realize. Micro transactions consist of selling pieces of your game to players over time, so their up front cost is lower or even zero. Players can be sold a variety of products including the game itself and expansions (the earliest form), additional game content such as expert levels or new areas, player items, fashion accessories for avatars, or virtually any game feature you can imagine.

Benefits

  1. Players can consume your game with lower up front risk due to lower cost. This increases total players
  2. There is typically a higher ceiling for player expenditure then with direct sales. A direct sale gives a max of $20 of revenue per player, but every time you add a new virtual good to the game, players increase their revenue potential.

Downsides

  1. The game must be designed to support these transactions. If not, they will generally not sell well. This can be difficult, since you must provide value to both non-paying and paying customers without unbalancing the play ascpects too greatly.
  2. Traditionally, it is difficult to successfully sell players items when not in a multi-player environment.
  3. Some players are turned off by the idea of spending any money on in game items. This is known as the ‘penny gap’ where some players refuse to pay for anything no matter the cost.
  4. If you use multiplayer, which is common in this model, ongoing server costs will dampen profits, and a large percentage (80-95%) of players will be non-paying customers.

How Does it Pay?

Studies have shown that paying players in these kinds of games are price insensitive, so you can charge sometimes significant amounts for certain items. Additionally, players which spend one time are also likely to continue to spend over the life of their gameplay, averaging around $30 per paying player. Unfortunately, many of these games have poor purchase rates, hovering between 1 and 5% of players being paying players. Thus, if we assume that you get 4% of players paying $30, it takes around 800,000 players to hit a million dollar revenue. Keep in mind that this is revenue, not profit. Since by nature this model assumes online play, you have additional costs for servers and support, which will detract from your bottom line. It is possible through good game design to change these numbers so a higher percentage of players are paying customers, and they pay more for the content, though that is another discussion entirely.

Revenue Model: Licensing

Licensing can be a rewarding model. You sell your game up front for big bucks directly to a game portal, distributor, or other third party, and make money regardless of how well the game does.

Benefits

  1. Make money regardless of game popularity
  2. It is possible to license to multiple 3rd parties depending on the terms of the agreement.
  3. You may be able to use this model in conjunction with advertising depending on terms of the agreement.

Downsides

  1. You lose some control over your game – publishers may request changes or additional features.
  2. You are unlikely to be able to use certain other revenue models such as in game or up front sales.
  3. Most license agreements are relatively low revenue.

How Does it Pay?

This model pays well if you have fewer views, and poorly if you have many. It is highly unlikely you will hit a million dollars with this model unless you make many high quality games. In general, licensing deals run from $100 to $10,000 at the very high end. This is not a lot when you consider salary costs for team members. The saving grace of this model is when you sell it multiple times and also distribute with an advertising model, or have a game which you don’t believe will make a lot in advertising.

Conclusion

Overall, there are a variety of revenue models to choose from. Most of these models rely heavily on the game design, and vice versa. It is wise to select a revenue model during the early design phase of a game in order to ensure the maximum revenue potential is achieved. Adding features to support one or another model at the end of thr project is likely to degrade overall game playability and under-perform from a revenue perspective.

All but one  of these methods share one thing in common: They don’t do well unless you have a lot of players. Players are mostly willing to pay for good entertainment, though you have to present a clear value model for them to make a decision. Competition is fierce for attention, so making a high quality game is still the best way to make a buck.

Tags: , , , , ,