Why 100 famous businesses succeeded

The world’s most famous businesses have changed the face of society. They have also changed the way entrepreneurs think. They have pioneered new marketing techniques and fascinated people by their speed of growth. So what separates them from the rest? Is there a magic formula that can be applied to every startup?

We evaluated nine questions by building a data set from 100 of the world’s most disruptive businesses in 24 industries. We cross-referenced the most credible articles, interviews, and case studies. Not only that, but we then turned qualitative information into quantitative statistics to provide compelling insights for any founder or entrepreneur. The full stats are only available if you download the full research.

1. How many founders did they have?

Due to the challenges they face when they begin, there is a widely held belief that startups should have two or three founders. This is actively encouraged at many accelerators and incubators. Our research supports this thinking, but it is by no means a requirement. In fact, more than a third had unconventional beginnings. Many began with a single founder. A significant number also began with more than three founders.

We’ve also found no relationship between the idea, the industry, and the number of founders. Ultimately, it depends on the prerequisite skills of the founders. In addition, many of the world’s most successful disruptors didn’t begin as you might think. They took advantage of an opportunity to rewrite history at a later date.

2. What were their starting credentials?

The ‘entrepreneurial dream’ has attracted millions to the startup sphere without a consideration of the skills required. This is a crucial oversight. The vast majority of the 100 disruptors began with founders that had impressive industry pedigree. This came from a career within it or previous entrepreneurial pursuits. This helped them to adapt to market conditions and secure investment.

When the founders lacked industry experience, they leveraged credibility from another industry or an exemplary academic background. We’ve also noted a few exceptions where the founders possessed little experience of any kind. In these cases, it was their sheer determination as well as their ability to access investment that fuelled their growth.

3. How many had investment to begin with?

The saying ‘money makes money’ is very much the case when it comes to building a disruptive business. Our research shows that the vast majority of the world’s most successful disruptors were backed to begin with. This came from an investment round, significant personal money or wealthy family backgrounds. The investment was then used to develop extraordinary products/services from the outset, as well as the resource needed to support initial growth.

There are a few exceptions, which provide much to consider for anyone starting without investment. In some cases, entrepreneurs borrowed money to get their businesses off the ground. In others, they chose extremely efficient business models, which were profitable from the start and fuelled their growth in the early stages. Overall, there was a clear relationship between the business model and the role of investment.

4. How many were first to market?

Our research reveals most were not first to market. In fact, only a few can be credibly deemed first to market. Even in these cases, they didn’t explicitly leverage being the first to market. Instead, they took advantage of the authenticity it provided and the ability to capture initial consumer excitement. Clearly, ideas themselves are not enough to get consumers excited. They have to convince an audience that they have value.

When the disruptors were not first to market, they grew either through product or brand differentiation, or both. This meant launching with an industry-leading product, an emotive brand, or both to establish a competitive advantage. A requirement for both is on the increase because of the sheer number of new startups.

5. How many used research or trials to validate their idea?

Our research clearly demonstrates the value of researching, trialling and validating an idea. More than a third of the 100 disruptors openly used a dedicated test phase to gain feedback from thousands of prospective users. These tests went beyond a basic product version. They needed to be good enough to hype media interest and ready the product for scaling.

Those that launched without testing were successful because they instantly captivated consumers and capitalised on a competitive landscape that cannot be replicated. They were also able to quickly iterate because they had sufficient actionable data and offerings that required little change.

6. How many pivoted from their original idea?

Nearly a third of the 100 disruptors pivoted from their original go-to-market strategies. In the majority of instances, the idea itself was pivoted in some way. In other cases, the business model was changed, often because of new technological developments. Beyond that, a change in brand name and ethos made a significant impact. A further group of disruptors resulted from a pivot in the day-to-day work of their founders when a side project turned into their sole focus. Overall, the more preparation that went into launching a disruptor, the less likely it was to pivot after launch.

7. Did they share anything that accelerated their growth?

Disruptors are frequently placed in a collective bucket when it comes to building a marketing strategy. The reality is much more complicated. Despite this, we’ve found a broad set of principles that can be applied to every disruptor if their industry is also taken into account, as in question 8.

In most instances, disruptors spent a considerable amount of time developing a brand experience that created an instant emotional connection. This meant delivering customer benefits in every area of the brand experience. This was then emphasised through a digital-first strategy that established wider credibility with third-party endorsement. Real-world experiences were then used to develop wider societal relevance.

8. Is there a relationship between industry and growth strategy?

The nature of the disruptor (B2C, B2B or B2B2C) and its length of the sales cycle were the greatest predictors of the marketing channels used. For consumer disruptors (B2C), being found online was crucial. This meant beginning with digital-first strategies that included search marketing, influencer marketing, social media advertising and promotions. When the purchase was more involved, this included a greater focus on review sites, blogs, and referral marketing.

B2B disruptors used marketing strategies to build an emotional connection, much in the same way as consumer businesses. This approach was often supported by an emotive brand and a freemium business model, with little time spent on generating broader societal awareness. In cases with much longer sales cycles, they quickly built industry credibility, particularly through events, partnerships, and press coverage.

9. Didn’t any ‘go viral’ just through word of mouth?

The vast majority of the 100 disruptors did not go viral. Of the fraction that did, a set of key ingredients were required. These happen very rarely and are almost impossible to replicate. The founders had impressive starting skills, an ability to access or raise finance, and favourable market conditions. This meant they developed exceptional products, leveraged free or freemium models and quickly scaled. They could also attract equally talented individuals to join them.

A further set of disruptors created the perception of having ‘gone viral’ by using stealth marketing, referral and partnership programmes. Often, this happened when then used paid business models with much longer sales cycles.

This research includes

• 33 pages of analysis (10,000 words).

• Full list of 100 businesses.

• Sector breakdowns.

• Exact data analysis for each question.

• Individual case studies.

• Catalogue of references.

Any questions?