Not for the founder's bank account per se, but for the fact that he has all the wrong takeaways from his startup experience.
You started off well. You did the market research. Great. You've clearly gotten people interested in the service. Even better. You demonstrated in your post that a clear-headed approach was taken and you objectively determined people would want your product.
But then ... what ... you just buy a bunch of groceries and think people will just engage with your service? Not once in your start-up debrief do you mention your marketing approach. That's a huge red-flag for me about how you thought about your business.
Lesson 8. Marketing.
I believe this idea would have worked if you had decent marketing. Do I live in England? No. But I still know that the Brits are getting a lot more concerned about health. Even Jamie Oliver with school dinners and other social ventures. It's a sentiment that has cultural traction and I think the idea here is great.
But marketing ... oh yeah that thing:
- What was your overall engagement strategy?
- What genuinely creative concepts did you come up with that would make your service compelling and sexy to your people?
- How did you demonstrate how to use the service?
- How did you make others see the value your market research subjects saw?
- What compelled people to emotionally invest in your company as a consumer?
OP, you're a smart guy - so I'm using your failure as a case-study for a greater trend I see amongst startups around "pain points". Sure, pain points are important. But people forget that marketing, done well, is the creation of pain points.
I believe most startups die because founders don't have a vision beyond the mechanics of the business. It's sad to see post-mortems like these that point the finger back at the idea - which was inspired and had legs. I'm not sure what the marketing strategy was here (OP didn't think it was important enough to tell us), but I'm assuming like most he was happy enough with I-stock artwork and a quirky explainer animation that the public is so thoroughly bored of.
Poppycock. This product has worked in similar environments. What's more, Rob found a proven value for it through extensive market research. To me it didn't land because of poor execution on marketing.
I believe this idea would have worked if you had decent marketing.
I'm not convinced. I am surprised to hear it has worked anywhere.
I'm not a gourmet cook by any stretch, but I do cook most of my own meals. I would never buy fresh ingredients online. Shopping for the ingredients, perusing the choices and selecting "the best" unblemished fruits, vegetables, and meats is part of the experience of cooking. I don't want to have someone else or some robot do it and dump it on my doorstep. When I don't care, I just go to a restaurant, which will be cheaper and faster than a service like this could possibly be.
People may want the occasional experience of being a cook, without being super dedicated. It's like getting the occasional riding lesson, but never buying a horse. Horse enthusiasts say that caring for the horse, raising it, selecting a saddle, etc. is an integral part of the experience, and they might be right, but that doesn't stop places from succeeding at offering riding lessons.
I also like to cook, but I buy all my vegetables online anyway. I find the online experience good enough, and the convenience totally worth it. I would probably be an infrequent user of this service.
Would you be interested in a service where you could outline a meal plan for say, a week, and then get all the groceries required for those meals? I think the service would be more valuable as something that fusses the traditional on-line grocery shopping experience with this per-meal ingredients offering based off of recipes..
It would also be neat if you could allow people to store customized versions of recipes. Say they like more carrots in a particular soup, etc.
My family uses a service called Green Bean delivery. They deliver fruits, vegetables, and herbs. I don't think they deliver meats yet. We were a little worried that we wouldn't be selecting the fruits and vegetables ourselves but they have excellent quality control. We've never been disappointed with a delivery.
The thing is, they do it right. Once they get the orders, they go directly to the farms and get exactly what they need for delivery each day. That way they never have to deal with spoilage. And they can be picky about the product they buy and later deliver to their customers. And to top it all off, they offer free delivery and are still usually cheaper than shopping at the grocery store. I believe this is profitable for them because they don't have to deal with spoilage.
One of Dinnr's selling points was same day or next day delivery. I think that sort of just-in-time direct from farmer delivery model would have required longer lead times between receiving and fulfilling orders.
For many people that is part of a lifestyle choice, and they tend to live in places where that shopping is easily accessible. Personally, I can do that whilst walking home from work.
I don't believe it's coincidental that the delivery service worked in the least densely populated part of Europe.
My exact thoughts as I read through this post-mortem. I don't see this, nor do I see any service of this type, as something I would use everyday. However, I can imagine a scenario when my parents or friends come into town and I want to stay in with a home-cooked meal, and catch up, but don't have the time to select the dishes nor shop for the ingredients.
Did they ever attempt to position it in this way? How did they position it? The answers to these questions would be of equal value to all the other information provided.
Not for the founder's bank account per se, but for the fact that he has all the wrong takeaways from his startup experience.
You started off well. You did the market research. Great. You've clearly gotten people interested in the service. Even better. You demonstrated in your post that a clear-headed approach was taken and you objectively determined people would want your product.
But then ... what ... you just buy a bunch of groceries and think people will just engage with your service? Not once in your start-up debrief do you mention your marketing approach. That's a huge red-flag for me about how you thought about your business.
Lesson 8. Marketing.
I believe this idea would have worked if you had decent marketing. Do I live in England? No. But I still know that the Brits are getting a lot more concerned about health. Even Jamie Oliver with school dinners and other social ventures. It's a sentiment that has cultural traction and I think the idea here is great.
But marketing ... oh yeah that thing:
- What was your overall engagement strategy?
- What genuinely creative concepts did you come up with that would make your service compelling and sexy to your people?
- How did you demonstrate how to use the service?
- How did you make others see the value your market research subjects saw?
- What compelled people to emotionally invest in your company as a consumer?
OP, you're a smart guy - so I'm using your failure as a case-study for a greater trend I see amongst startups around "pain points". Sure, pain points are important. But people forget that marketing, done well, is the creation of pain points.
I believe most startups die because founders don't have a vision beyond the mechanics of the business. It's sad to see post-mortems like these that point the finger back at the idea - which was inspired and had legs. I'm not sure what the marketing strategy was here (OP didn't think it was important enough to tell us), but I'm assuming like most he was happy enough with I-stock artwork and a quirky explainer animation that the public is so thoroughly bored of.