The concept of good/bad market is attractive, but I'm wondering is this is really a good model. How do you account for innovations that require a market to learn its benefits before they want it?
In the beginning, a market for a innovation looks like a terrible market. Few people wanted a PC in the early days. Vacuum cleaners were a hard sell when they were first introduced, and there are countless other examples. All of these markets required that the buyers be educated and they had to be convinced it was worth the effort to learn how to use the new thing.
It seems to be, saying "don't be in a market where it is hard to sell" is great in theory, but honestly I think every truly innovative product has to create their market to some extent.
In the beginning, a market for a innovation looks like a terrible market. Few people wanted a PC in the early days. Vacuum cleaners were a hard sell when they were first introduced, and there are countless other examples. All of these markets required that the buyers be educated and they had to be convinced it was worth the effort to learn how to use the new thing.
It seems to be, saying "don't be in a market where it is hard to sell" is great in theory, but honestly I think every truly innovative product has to create their market to some extent.