I have a question, as probably I have not understood the framework. In the example of e-commerce, Amazon started not paying attention to brand, and creating a market itself. But they have not stayed there, they have evolved too. To me they have a strong brand and a strong loyalty (prime program is a success case).
My doubt/question is, how do you represent this evolution in the proposed framework?
This framework is not saying Amazon can't have a loyalty program; it is more to identify where the opportunities are. Since e-commerce startups today cannot be Amazon, they must enter later on the curve. I am arguing the e-commerce is pretty mature, so those startups cannot even be part of the democratization stage; they are forced to focus on curation from the start.
Right, I understand the companies are in a different stage. The point is that what you are proposing is a snapshot from different times and that confuses me. Amazon from 1999-2005 is not the same company than Amazon 2015-2019.
In all evolution, all start with position and then movement. The journey of each company is different and I understand that given the context of e-commerce, the new companies need to build their presence on an specific niche and focusing on different things than the major players.
If the diagram is a snapshot, there could be a sequence depending on the year that is drawn. For instance, if we draw it in 2006 probably we could add eBay, which had some presence during that time, and which evolution has been making them change the way they have attended their clients.
Hello, thank you for your work. It really resonated with me with the Wardley Maps for looking at a company's business strategy. In your case, I love the adaptation of the creator's economics.
I have a question, as probably I have not understood the framework. In the example of e-commerce, Amazon started not paying attention to brand, and creating a market itself. But they have not stayed there, they have evolved too. To me they have a strong brand and a strong loyalty (prime program is a success case).
My doubt/question is, how do you represent this evolution in the proposed framework?
many thanks
This framework is not saying Amazon can't have a loyalty program; it is more to identify where the opportunities are. Since e-commerce startups today cannot be Amazon, they must enter later on the curve. I am arguing the e-commerce is pretty mature, so those startups cannot even be part of the democratization stage; they are forced to focus on curation from the start.
Right, I understand the companies are in a different stage. The point is that what you are proposing is a snapshot from different times and that confuses me. Amazon from 1999-2005 is not the same company than Amazon 2015-2019.
In all evolution, all start with position and then movement. The journey of each company is different and I understand that given the context of e-commerce, the new companies need to build their presence on an specific niche and focusing on different things than the major players.
If the diagram is a snapshot, there could be a sequence depending on the year that is drawn. For instance, if we draw it in 2006 probably we could add eBay, which had some presence during that time, and which evolution has been making them change the way they have attended their clients.
Hello, thank you for your work. It really resonated with me with the Wardley Maps for looking at a company's business strategy. In your case, I love the adaptation of the creator's economics.
https://medium.com/wardleymaps/on-being-lost-2ef5f05eb1ec