Positive Review: The Systematic Evaluation Framework Provides Clear Decision – Making Guidelines for Entrepreneurs
In the field of innovation and entrepreneurship, the core question that plagues countless entrepreneurs is “Can one still enter an established project?” This article from “Shili Village” is based on the practical experience of “Village Head”. It proposes six specific evaluation dimensions – whether there are industry giants, whether the leading players in the industry are still making money, whether there are new players entering the market, platform data reports, whether industry training/communities/expos are active, and whether the project owners keep making public statements. Finally, it emphasizes the crucial role of “personal hard power”. The value of this framework lies in that it transforms the abstract “opportunity judgment” into observable and verifiable specific indicators, providing entrepreneurs with a highly practical decision – making tool. Its positive significance is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
I. Break through the cognitive trap of “dividend thinking” and return to the essence of the industry
Many entrepreneurs’ hesitation about “established projects” often stems from the fear that “the dividend period is over”. However, through multiple cases (such as new players still emerging on Taobao after 20 years and new WeChat official accounts with millions of followers still appearing in 2024), the article points out that “the disappearance of dividends” does not equal “the disappearance of opportunities”. Indicators such as whether there are industry giants, whether the leading players are making money, and whether new players keep entering the market essentially guide entrepreneurs to focus on the “vitality” rather than the “timeliness” of the industry. For example, although the automobile industry has had century – old giants, “NIO, XPeng, Li Auto, and Xiaomi” have still emerged; in the e – commerce industry, with Taobao and JD.com leading the way, Pinduoduo and Douyin have still broken through. This shows that the ‘big cake’ in a mature industry can actually accommodate differentiated living spaces. Through these cases, the article helps entrepreneurs break out of the short – sighted thinking of “only doing projects with dividends” and instead focus on whether the underlying needs of the industry are sustainable, whether the ecosystem is open, and whether the competition is diversified.
II. Cross – verify from multiple dimensions to reduce the blindness of decision – making
The six dimensions proposed in the article are not isolated but form a cross – verification system “from macro to micro, from data to behavior”: from industry giants (market capacity) to leading players (profitability), from the dynamics of new players (ecosystem vitality) to platform data (growth potential), from training/communities (market popularity) to official statements (platform vitality). Each dimension points to a different aspect of the industry, jointly forming a three – dimensional judgment on “whether a project can be entered”. For example, if an industry has giants (indicating a large enough market), leading players are still making money (verifying the profit model), new players keep entering the market (proving that the threshold is not closed), platform data is growing (supporting long – term investment), training is active (indicating that the demand is widely recognized), and the owners keep making public statements (indicating stable platform strategies), then it can be comprehensively judged that there is still an opportunity for this project. On the contrary, if many of these dimensions perform poorly (such as monopoly by giants and losses of leading players, a decrease in new players, a decline in data, the disappearance of training, and the silence of owners), then one should be cautious about entering the project. This multi – dimensional verification method effectively avoids the one – sidedness of a single indicator (such as “whether there are dividends”) and reduces the risk of entrepreneurs making wrong judgments due to incomplete information.
III. Emphasize “personal hard power” and return to the essential logic of entrepreneurship
The article finally emphasizes that “the dividends of established platforms are gone, and making money depends on hard power.” This summary hits the key point of the current entrepreneurial environment – as the “external dividends” such as Internet traffic dividends and policy dividends gradually fade away, the core competitiveness of entrepreneurs has shifted from “seizing the opportunity” to “building differentiated capabilities”. Whether it is new Taobao merchants breaking through through refined product selection or new WeChat official accounts breaking into the mainstream through vertical content, their success essentially depends on in – depth insights into user needs, precise control of operational details, or the ability to optimize the supply chain. Through this conclusion, the article reminds entrepreneurs that while it is important to evaluate the external conditions of a project, they also need to clearly recognize the matching degree between their own resources (such as funds and connections) and capabilities (such as operation and technology) and the project requirements. For example, if a project requires strong supply – chain capabilities, but an entrepreneur only has experience in traffic operation, even if the external conditions are excellent, failure may occur due to “mismatched capabilities”. This emphasis on the combination of “internal and external factors” prevents entrepreneurs from falling into the misunderstanding of “external opportunity determinism” and returns to the essence of entrepreneurship, which is that “one’s own ability is the core”.
Negative Review: Limitations of Evaluation Dimensions and Potential Decision – Making Mistakes
Although the evaluation framework proposed in the article has strong practical guiding significance, the expressions of some dimensions are still vague, and some logical chains need further verification. If entrepreneurs apply it mechanically, they may fall into the following misunderstandings:
I. The logic of “the existence of giants = there are opportunities in the industry” needs careful verification
The article believes that “the existence of giants in an industry indicates that the market is large enough and there is still money to be made.” This conclusion holds true in most cases (such as in the e – commerce and automobile industries), but two exceptions need to be noted. Firstly, giants may compress the living space of small and medium – sized players through monopoly. For example, in the mobile payment field, Alipay and WeChat Pay occupy more than 90% of the market share, making it almost impossible for new players to break through. Secondly, the existence of giants may cover up the essence of industry decline. For example, although there are giants in the traditional fuel – vehicle industry, in the context of the new – energy trend, if one only sees the “existence of giants” and ignores the industry’s transformation direction, entering fuel – vehicle – related projects (such as traditional engine R & D) may face long – term risks. Therefore, the “existence of giants” needs to be comprehensively judged in combination with factors such as “whether the industry is in an upward cycle” and “whether the giants hinder innovation”, rather than simply equating it with “the existence of opportunities”.
II. The assumption that “leading players making money = ordinary players can replicate their success” is flawed
The article takes the examples of “leading sellers on Group Buying接龙 and Kuaituantuan earning hundreds of millions of yuan annually” and “leading MCNs on Douyin earning tens of billions of yuan annually” to illustrate that there is still room for making money in the industry. However, it does not clarify “whether the success of leading players can be replicated by ordinary entrepreneurs”. In fact, leading players often have resource barriers (such as funds and supply chains), first – mover advantages (such as early traffic accumulation), or unique capabilities (such as IP influence), which ordinary entrepreneurs may not possess. For example, the success of Dongfang甄选 on Douyin is closely related to the brand endorsement of New Oriental behind it and the knowledge – based anchor positioning of Dong Yuhui. If ordinary new anchors only imitate the live – streaming form without content differentiation, they may find it difficult to replicate its performance. Therefore, “leading players making money” is more of a “wind vane” for industry demand rather than an “admission ticket” for ordinary entrepreneurs. It is necessary to further analyze whether the success factors of leading players are replicable.
III. The conclusion that “active training = the industry has potential” may have bubbles
The article believes that “active industry training indicates that there is still money to be made in the industry”, but the interference of “training bubbles” needs to be警惕. In some fields (such as the early community group – buying and metaverse – concept projects), the boom in the training market may be due to “information gaps” or “anxiety marketing” – institutions attract entrepreneurs to pay by exaggerating the “window period for entry” and “opportunities to make easy money”, rather than the industry itself being truly profitable. For example, a social e – commerce platform was once popular due to its “pyramid – scheme – like” model, which gave rise to a large number of training courses. However, as the platform was investigated for pyramid – scheme activities, the training market quickly disappeared, while entrepreneurs had already invested their funds. Therefore, “active training” needs to be judged in combination with factors such as “whether the training content focuses on actual operations (such as product selection and traffic acquisition)” and “whether the actual profit cases of trainees are real” to avoid being misled by “scam” training.
IV. The evaluation criteria for “personal hard power” need to be more specific
The article emphasizes the importance of “hard power” but does not clarify the specific dimensions of “hard power” (such as resources, technology, operation, and cognition) and how to evaluate it. For example, for e – commerce entrepreneurs, “hard power” may include product – selection ability, supply – chain management ability, and traffic – operation ability; for technology – based entrepreneurs, it may include R & D ability, patent barriers, and technology – conversion efficiency. If entrepreneurs only evaluate their own “hard power” based on the feeling of “thinking they have the ability” without quantifying it through specific indicators (such as the success rate of past projects, the scale of available resources, and the proficiency of core skills), they may overestimate their competitiveness and make wrong decisions.
Suggestions for Entrepreneurs: Scientifically Apply the Evaluation Framework and Balance External Opportunities and Self – Abilities
Combining the content of the article and the above analysis, entrepreneurs can refer to the following suggestions when judging “whether an established project can be entered”:
I. Cross – verify from multiple dimensions to avoid being misled by single indicators
When applying the six dimensions of “the existence of giants, leading players making money, new players entering the market, platform data, active training, and official statements”, the following points need to be noted:
– Existence of giants: Analyze the industry’s life cycle (upward, mature, or declining) and the openness of giants (whether they allow innovation within the ecosystem, such as Taobao’s traffic support policies for small and medium – sized merchants).
– Leading players making money: Break down the success factors of leading players (such as resources, capabilities, and timing) and judge whether one has the key factors among them (for example, avoid entering asset – heavy projects if there is no supply – chain advantage).
– New players entering the market: Pay attention to the types of new players (such as individual entrepreneurs, corporate transformations, or capital – driven players). If most new players are “followers” (without clear differentiation), be wary of bubbles.
– Platform data: Prioritize independent data from third – party institutions (such as QuestMobile and iResearch) and avoid relying solely on self – reported data from platforms (which may be exaggerated).
– Active training: Choose training institutions with real – case endorsements and content focusing on “implementable skills” (such as product – selection methodology and traffic – investment skills). Be wary of exaggerated propaganda such as “get rich quickly” and “zero threshold”.
– Official statements: Pay attention to the content of official statements (such as whether there are mentions of strategic adjustments and new business layouts). If the owners only repeat that “the industry has a good prospect” without specific actions, it may be a public – relations act to “maintain confidence”.
II. Establish a matching model of “self – ability – project requirements”
Entrepreneurs need to be clear that the core of entering an established project is to “fill the market gap” or “provide differentiated value” rather than “replicate leading players”. Specifically, the evaluation can be carried out through the following steps:
1. Break down the key success factors of the project: For example, to enter the Douyin e – commerce, one needs to have “content – creation ability (to attract traffic) + supply – chain ability (to control costs) + user – operation ability (for repurchase and conversion)”.
2. Evaluate one’s own ability reserves: Judge whether one has at least 1 – 2 “core advantages” through past experience (such as whether there are successful content – creation cases), resources (such as whether there are stable suppliers), and learnable skills (such as whether one is willing to invest time in learning traffic – investment skills).
3. Find a differentiated entry point: If one has an advantage in “content creation” (such as being good at knowledge – based live – streaming), one can avoid the highly competitive “low – price best – selling products” market and focus on “knowledge – based product sales in vertical fields” (such as agricultural knowledge + agricultural product sales); if one has strong supply – chain capabilities (such as having one’s own factory), one can focus on “high – quality, cost – effective customized products”.
III. Test with small steps and adjust strategies dynamically
The “non – dividend period” of established projects means that the cost of trial and error may be higher. Therefore, it is recommended to adopt the “Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” strategy:
– Start with light assets: For example, to enter the Douyin e – commerce, one can first test product selection and content directions through “short videos + small stores” instead of directly investing in a live – streaming team and large – scale traffic investment.
– Quickly verify assumptions: Set key indicators (such as short – video click – through rates and store conversion rates). If the data meets the standards, increase investment; if not, adjust in time (such as changing product selection or optimizing content).
– Pay attention to industry dynamics: The “oldness” of an established project may refer to a mature model, but user needs, technological tools (such as AI tools), and platform rules (such as Douyin’s algorithm updates) are still changing. It is necessary to continuously track and adjust strategies (such as using AI tools to improve content – production efficiency).
IV. Be wary of “survivorship bias” and rationally view failure cases
Entrepreneurs are easily inspired by “success cases of new players”, but they need to realize that most of the publicly spread cases are success stories, and a large number of failure cases are not noticed. Therefore, when making decisions, entrepreneurs should actively collect “failure samples” (such as “pit – falling sharing” on industry forums and the reasons for the closure of competitors), analyze the common factors of failure (such as broken capital chains and high traffic costs), and evaluate whether they can avoid these risks (such as reserving cash flow for more than 6 months and testing the ROI of different traffic channels).
In summary, to judge whether an established project can be entered, it is necessary to objectively evaluate external opportunities through multi – dimensional indicators and rationally recognize one’s own ability boundaries. Finally, find an entry point in the matching of “opportunities” and “abilities”. As the article says, “hard power” is the core – in the non – dividend period, an entrepreneur’s differentiated capabilities (such as in – depth understanding of users and extreme control of details) often play a more decisive role in success or failure than “seizing the opportunity”.
- Chain Exploration”Lazy People’s Financial Management Strategies | Binance Increases USDC Subsidies; “AI Stablecoin” with $13 Million in Financing to Be Launched (August 18)”
- Startup Commentary””I’m Afraid I Won’t Live to Graduate”: AI Triggers a Dropout Wave in the US, and an 18-Year-Old’s PPT-Style Entrepreneurship Shocks the Father of Y Combinator”
- Startup Commentary”Signs of Recovery Emerge in Hong Kong’s Residential Property Market”
- Startup Commentary”How to Determine Whether It’s Still Feasible to Enter a Project?”
- Chain Exploration”Stock Tokenization: The Second Growth Curve of Liquidity for the Times”
