Some windows open quietly. Others slam shut without warning. In technology and travel, timing shapes what’s possible, not just what you build but when you build it. This edition looks at windows of opportunity: when new technologies unlock space for new companies, when old playbooks stop working, and when founders spot gaps others miss. And, of course, some founders couldn’t care less about windows. Orville Wright didn’t. But that’s outlier territory.
I think a lot of e-commerce tech should study travel booking tech to understand the evolution. Travel e-commerce has been a thing for a long time. And while often stale, it has gone through iterations that e-commerce still needs to go through (due to the size and repeat cycle of ecommerce/retail it tends to evolve faster though).
Great to see the slide how travel tech is matched into technology windows!
I would add that distribution channels also go through the concept of technology windows.
Typical travel businesses can only get max 1-2 channels into profitable and scalable mode. I guess that most new travel companies which are started in recent years will not get any distribution channels into profitable mode and therefore close businesses after few years.
SEO, Google and Facebook Ads, selling through OTAs - these distribution channel windows are mostly closed for new tour operators. It means that you can build a profitable business but it is relatively hard.
However, I would say that window for cooperating with travel influencers in a profitable way to get distribution is still open. Not many success stories here yet and most small business still stay away from it.
In addition, if everybody moves their marketing online, some in destination channels like cooperating with local Tourist Information Centers and other DMOs might become profitable again.
Muy interesante como siempre Mauricio, me encantan tus newsletters.
No puedo evitar pensar en este caso que los puntos 3 y 8 colisionan argumentalmente.Entonces, ¿con cual me quedo?
Particularmente, las ideas que emanan de estas sentencias:
"The overlap is where the good ideas that seem bad live. The overlooked zone where some of the most legendary startups are born"
vs.
"One of his key messages is to not assume that what worked (or didn’t) for companies a decade ago will apply today. Also, don’t fall in love with ideas just because they feel obvious. Some of those are actually startup tarpits that have quietly killed plenty of startups before."
Yo lo veo así: las dos ideas no se contradicen, pero te obligan a pensar en una tensión real.
Buscar ideas que parecen malas (pero que en el fondo tienen su validez) no es lo mismo que enamorarte de ideas que parecen obvias (pero que en la práctica son trampas).
Lo difícil es que desde lejos se ven parecidas. Las dos requieren ir contra el consenso. Las dos requieren convicción.
La diferencia está en el trabajo previo: Es una idea que parece mala porque nadie la ha visto con claridad todavía? O es una idea que ya se intentó cien veces y nadie logró escapar de los mismos problemas estructurales?
Creo que la frase de Thiel apunta a lo primero: ir a buscar ideas que el mercado todavía no entiende o valora bien.
Y el mensaje de Gilad es más una advertencia: no confundas una idea que "suena" a startup con una idea que realmente tiene condiciones nuevas para funcionar mejor que antes.
Always something interesting with each and every newsletter. Thank you Mauricio.
I was fascinated by vio.com and tried to contact them about creating a travel platform for seniors, but no response. If you have a contact please let me know thanks
I think a lot of e-commerce tech should study travel booking tech to understand the evolution. Travel e-commerce has been a thing for a long time. And while often stale, it has gone through iterations that e-commerce still needs to go through (due to the size and repeat cycle of ecommerce/retail it tends to evolve faster though).
Great to see the slide how travel tech is matched into technology windows!
I would add that distribution channels also go through the concept of technology windows.
Typical travel businesses can only get max 1-2 channels into profitable and scalable mode. I guess that most new travel companies which are started in recent years will not get any distribution channels into profitable mode and therefore close businesses after few years.
SEO, Google and Facebook Ads, selling through OTAs - these distribution channel windows are mostly closed for new tour operators. It means that you can build a profitable business but it is relatively hard.
However, I would say that window for cooperating with travel influencers in a profitable way to get distribution is still open. Not many success stories here yet and most small business still stay away from it.
In addition, if everybody moves their marketing online, some in destination channels like cooperating with local Tourist Information Centers and other DMOs might become profitable again.
Great points, Indrek. Thank you!
Muy interesante como siempre Mauricio, me encantan tus newsletters.
No puedo evitar pensar en este caso que los puntos 3 y 8 colisionan argumentalmente.Entonces, ¿con cual me quedo?
Particularmente, las ideas que emanan de estas sentencias:
"The overlap is where the good ideas that seem bad live. The overlooked zone where some of the most legendary startups are born"
vs.
"One of his key messages is to not assume that what worked (or didn’t) for companies a decade ago will apply today. Also, don’t fall in love with ideas just because they feel obvious. Some of those are actually startup tarpits that have quietly killed plenty of startups before."
¿que piensas al respecto?
Gracias! Buena observación.
Yo lo veo así: las dos ideas no se contradicen, pero te obligan a pensar en una tensión real.
Buscar ideas que parecen malas (pero que en el fondo tienen su validez) no es lo mismo que enamorarte de ideas que parecen obvias (pero que en la práctica son trampas).
Lo difícil es que desde lejos se ven parecidas. Las dos requieren ir contra el consenso. Las dos requieren convicción.
La diferencia está en el trabajo previo: Es una idea que parece mala porque nadie la ha visto con claridad todavía? O es una idea que ya se intentó cien veces y nadie logró escapar de los mismos problemas estructurales?
Creo que la frase de Thiel apunta a lo primero: ir a buscar ideas que el mercado todavía no entiende o valora bien.
Y el mensaje de Gilad es más una advertencia: no confundas una idea que "suena" a startup con una idea que realmente tiene condiciones nuevas para funcionar mejor que antes.
Ya me dirás si te parece.
Saludos!
Always something interesting with each and every newsletter. Thank you Mauricio.
I was fascinated by vio.com and tried to contact them about creating a travel platform for seniors, but no response. If you have a contact please let me know thanks
Hey Neill, not sure where it was missed but the partnerships team would get in touch with you today
I wrote to partners@vio.com as indicated on their website. Maybe they're backlogged. Thanks for the help