Disruptive. adjective "innovative or groundbreaking"

"Disruptive" has become such a buzzword in nearly every industry. However it is especially prevalent in the tech world. Everyone and their mother's -second-cousin's boss's nephew seems to be launching a "disruptive" start-up. Donald Trump is trying to "disrupt" politics. It's odd that disruption has become something that we spend time and money chasing, but when I was being "disruptive" in second grade I was sent to the principal's office.

I don't think the traditional concept of disruption is actually relevant to 95% of the population.

Let's talk about how to actually be disruptive. In the modern sense, being disruptive is launching a product or service that completely flips the script on the current associative norms in the market, and embraces going completely against the grain. I think the Toyota Prius is a perfect example of this: In an early 2000's world, Americans were obsessed with big, loud, and wasteful cars. Ignoring the faults of the battery waste generated by the vehicle, the Prius embraced being small, quiet, and efficient. The car sold like crazy, and more importantly, captured mind and culture share that was unprecedented for a car of it's type. Even though it was the brunt of late-night talkshow jokes and ridicule towards Prius owner Brian on Family Guy, everyone was talking about the car. Take a look around now. Do you see more Hummers or Priuses (Priui?)

I guess that's the "traditional" idea of disruption: Go completely against the grain, embrace your difference by proudly demonstrating that you aren't what your peers are, and creating a new market out of an old one. Easy right?

No.

I don't think the traditional concept of disruption is actually relevant to 95% of the population. There are always going to be those individuals who have incredibly groundbreaking and innovative ideas that actually disrupt society. However, for most people, they aren't the once-in-a-lifetime innovators they would like to think they are.

That's okay.

I think the real disruption comes from great execution. Look at Uber, which is the classic example of disruptive companies. Uber wasn't groundbreaking. It wasn't innovative. It simply took the concept of the Taxi cab and executed better by making it friendlier, easier to access, and better marketed. (and cheaper, depending on who you ask). Even Apple isn't innovative. They didn't invent the fingerprint sensor, or NFC payments, or the tablet. They simply executed better than their entire competition, and the execution is what made those features disruptive. They became the wealthiest company in the world simply by focusing and executing well. This is coming from one of the biggest Apple fanboys.

Very few tech companies and start-ups are truly innovative.

I'm not saying execution is easy; but I think that as entrepenuers, students, business people, etc... we shouldn't always be focusing on the next big thing. I guarantee that it is a heck of a lot easier to become successful by finding a market that you are knowledgeable about, taking stock of the flaws in the execution of the current leaders, and then figuring out how to fix those. That's disruptive. I like to offer this analogy: Do you want to be the small company that no one has heard of that invented it, or do you want to be the Apple who has perfected it?

I think that is what this "tech revolution" that we seem to currently be in is all about. Very few tech companies and start-ups are truly innovative. However, the most successful companies have simply found ways to use technology as a way to execute better. Facebook improved on the yearbook or christmas card list, Google improved on the encyclopedia/dictionary/map/etc..., Uber improved transportation, and cell phone companies improved the telegraph by calling it text messaging.

These billion dollar companies didn't create anything new. They brought it to a new platform. Right now, the new disruptive platforms are being developed. The internet-of-things is going to become a huge platform that will integrate technology into more aspects of our daily life. The smart home won't be innovative; it will simply be better execution of something that already exists, and it will disrupt our daily lives.

Don't get me wrong, there are empirical benefits to be the first to a market. However, as someone trying to figure out an idea for a start-up, I don't think one should put the pressure on themselves that it's necessary to have the next big idea for their start-up to be successful. I think we could see a lot of successful start-ups executing better in existing marketings rather than trying to create new markets. I will leave with a final thought:

Disrupt by execution, not by simply making noise.