Cure is better than Prevention in the Startup world
It was a startling lesson about the chasm between how people view prevention vs cure/intervention when assessing utility and value. As much as organizations claim commitment to proactive measures, dollars still flow reactively to emergency fixes over building systemic resilience.
“Sell painkillers, not vitamins. People will pay for pain relief, not general health.”
It succinctly captured the hierarchy of needs I had ignored — no one cares about prevention if foundational safety and security aren’t ensured first. It’s natural for scary problems manifesting visibly here and now to warrant urgent relief over avoiding hypotheticals down the line.
Just look at how people react to health threats with this fear-driven hierarchy and logic:
- Already diagnosed illness? People will max out credit cards pursuing treatment.
- Early symptoms arise like suspicious lumps or moles? Time to anxiously Google every possible reason while desperately booking doctor appointments.
- But protective steps like lifestyle diets, routine scans, or supplement regimens when still asymptomatic? Meh. I’ll look into that someday.
Fear of the tangibly unfolding disaster (manifested illness) activates in ways mild concern about risks lacking immediate tangible downsides simply does not.
And where there is fearful demand fueled by danger, there are customers motivated to pay for solutions — no matter the cost or financing gymnastics required.
So if I wanted my next startup/product to thrive, it clearly couldn’t be more conceptual vitamins and insurance selling potential and promise. It had to provide urgent pain relief people don’t hesitate to shell out for.
Why Our Brains Fixate More on Problem-Solving Than Problem Prevention
Looking back, the most glaring flaw in my initial approach was assuming prevention solutions could compete with crisis intervention in capturing mindshare and dollars.
In reality, once disasters strike, our brains become hardwired to obsess over response and recovery. We readily throw money at damage control while forgetting the precautionary steps that could’ve spared us these frantic fire drills.
Think of all the times you’ve said, “If only I had done X” after some fiasco:
- If only I had backed up my hard drive BEFORE it crashed!
- If only I had gotten a medical checkup BEFORE finding a suspicious lump!
- If only I had installed surge protectors BEFORE my devices fried!
In each case, prevention solutions not only existed but were affordable and accessible. We likely even had conscious awareness of them! But because no visible threats loomed, we kept delaying action until catastrophe forced a crisis response.
This defect isn’t limited to individuals either — executives and politicians routinely prioritize intervention over prevention programs too. Just look at disaster relief budgets compared to infrastructure resilience investments.
Once emergencies strike, the solutions capturing our attention and willingness to pay are reactive — disaster response over hazard mitigation or risk reduction.
Understanding this human tendency is key to building startups positioned to thrive. Are we adding another bandaid intervention or finally incentivizing foresight?
What next?
Rather than vitamins, my next ventures will exclusively focus on addressing urgent pains and problems already escalated. Where customers are begging for relief and willing to pay a premium for solutions — especially if I can provide quicker bandaid fixes than competitors.
The goal now is getting robust solutions to market ASAP when the next crisis inevitably strikes.
But for now in 2024, I’m giving people what they want — urgent relief for already manifested issues over trying to intervene on systemic root cause conditions enabling crises to start.
Where have you seen the “cure over prevention” preference play out in customer segmentation and startup viability? Let’s discuss!
