There are countless people I’ve met and talked to over the years that espouse this philosophy as the cure-all answer to entrepreneurship. I posit the “Field of Dreams” has destroyed more value in the last 20-years than any other single influence. How many times have you seen $500k condos being built in cities where the median income is $50k and the typical new house costs less than $250k? Or schools build huge new additions before acquiring resources and faculty to populate them (and forget about strategies for new students)? How about companies building new stores in fields 10-miles from the nearest resident population? And, the countless .COM companies that never acquired the user-base necessary to support themselves.

For instance, in Omaha a major development effort has been put into the Midtown Crossings area. Retail stores, restaurants, apartments, condos, etc. have been built with the assumption that people will populate them. There isn’t anything noteworthy geographically (other than being somewhat central and easy access to major arteries). Nothing interesting for the artistic community. Close to a couple colleges, but there are dozens of more affordable and equally nice apartments as close or closer. Millions of dollars have been poured into this project, but turnout (as I understand) has been less than anticipated. Why? Well, for one thing the prices are absurdly high. The cost of living and median income in Omaha is comparable to most of the Midwest. Yet, the condo prices are 3-4x higher than other housing per foot. For another, simply building something will not create demand for itself!

Building “it”

Building something is typically important for a business. Whether building a physical product, collection of services, menu of items, list of tracks, or intellectual property clearly a construction phase is necessary. However, before industry goes off and creates stuff (supply) the people behind the business should identify a good market (demand). The creation of supply without identifying demand is not only foolhardy; it’s bloody naïve.

For “them”

Which brings me to my second point, “they” will never come. They, also referred to as them, users, consumers, communities and social networks, are vague concepts of the business people’s hopes and dreams. Without clear definition, the company will fail, and “they” will solve their needs with other products elsewhere.

I recently listened to an excellent lecture at Oxford by Pegram Harrison, in which he made a similar comment about “Field of Dreams.” The damage of this movie can be seen in many places. Companies failing to grok social networking en masse, government projects grossly out of proportion with needs, high-flying IPO failures, and catastrophic corporate mergers are all indicative of the mislead mentality that one only needs to “build it for them to come.”

In short, “Field of Dreams” ruined a generation. Next I’ll analyze the philosophies of Ayn Rand and John Maynard Keynes that led to “Field of Dreams” and so much more.