Invite or not invite?

One of the key concepts of Web2.0 is “permanent beta” : it means that your service/product is not finished yet… and it might never be done. As surprising as it sounds, one of the key advantages of online application and software is that you can deploy a new version of it seemlessly : most of you users won’t even notice. This allows the developers to adapt its software, add or remove functionalities on the fly, when the user wants it! However, even in “beta”, there are different stages : private (nobody can go but the developers), public… and in between! It is possible to restrict the service to a happy few bunch of invited users.

This invitation system was greatly democratized by Google and its gmail product. For a very long period of time (months), only people with invitation could join Gmail, and then, eventually, invite more people. Now many services are following the same paths, such, for example Seesmic, for which the invite’s system has been criticised a lot!

Pros

First, the users you invite are “your friends” : they will be a lot more tolerent to bugs and slowness than regular users. Then, it helps managing the load : if you open today to everyone and if everyone actually comes today, there is little chance that your service will hold the charge! Finally, it gives a little plus for marketing : if you want people to want something, tell them they can’t have it, but hey, this leads to the cons.

Cons

First, it can -and probably will- generate frustration from people who want to join today. There has been a great debate about this around seesmic. Then, you might also loose some potential users. If you get -all of a sudden- a big coverage while you service is still close, then, you might loose many potential user! Finally, and it might even be the worse : how representative are the people you invite? Let’s face it, they are your friends and/or all of them will be geeks or at least, ver tech-aware!

What do you think? Should I put an invite system for my new venture?

Viewing 4 Comments

Ludovic 8 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

De mon cote, j'ai toujours prefere lancer directement une version publique mais sans une phase promotion immediate. Ainsi, ton service est ouvert a tout le monde mais cette phase te laisse tout de meme le temps d'ameliorer ton service.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.elludovico.co.uk

julien 8 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

C'est effectivement une solution. Cela dit, si le service est "viral", le risque d'explosion reste très grand!

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.ouvre-boite.com

Maxime 8 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Je fais une distinction entre une béta privé qui donne un accés à des profils uniquement technique pour un débugage et une béta semi-privé qui donne accés au service via des invitations. La premiére à une réelle fonction Béta. On modifie, on ajuste le service. La seconde n'est là que pour créer le phénoméne de rareté et provoquer la frustration et donc l'envie chez le prospect. De cette maniére les prospects en parlent, cherchent des infos, essayent de se faire inviter etc... bref, on parle du produit.

Comme le dit Ludovic, ouvrir un service au public n'empéche en rien une modification des fonctionnalités. La béta semi-privé n'est là que pour la promotion du produit !

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.petitdeviendragrand.com

burs 3 months ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

De mon cote, j’ai toujours prefere lancer directement une version publique mais sans une phase promotion immediate. Ainsi, ton service est ouvert a tout le monde mais cette phase te laisse tout de meme le temps d’ameliorer ton service.

reply edit reblog flag record video comment

http://www.burs.gen.tr