I am wondering on the origins of "market trust" and its relation to innovation. Why do some organizations create and more importantly, sustain their market trust and credibility? More specifically, I am wondering which of these factors drives “market trust”
the most, why and how
- From "being there" for decades and having served the society over a long period of time
- From innovative solutions that not only fulfill market needs but shape its behavior and creates new "rules of the game"
While the former types have the track-record, appeal to well over 80%+ late adopters and mature users, the latter types appeal to opinion leaders, innovators which is no more than 2%. There is always a part of the market which "does nothing". While the former
appeal to clients who want “proven solutions”, the latter appeal to clients who prefer to be “first in class”, with an appetite for risk.
As business professionals we need to respect that there are a whole range of organizations out there. While some are innovators (or want to be seen as one), others are more calculated and would not like to be the “guinea pigs” in the race for innovation.
It is surprising how many organizations which claim to be innovative (being one seems to have become a “fashion statement”), while asking for proven track record for the new solutions in the very next breath!
Can “true innovators” in markets sustain new innovations? Or will the fate of innovation remain dependent on the non-innovators, which by far dominate the market (over 90%)? How do you reconcile between those demanding to be “first in class”, with others
(in large majority) demanding long list of references to prove the solution works!
Will “respecting and destroying” legacies at the same time be the key to innovation and preparing for the future? Balancing, in other words, may be THE mantra ... for trust and innovation?