When we think about new products and services, we tend to imagine young folks entering a high-tech store to buy, say, an iPhone. In his blog Tom Peters points out that the biggest and fastest growing market out there is the silver market - the market of active ageing people.

The Mother of All Markets for Approximately Everything for the next quarter-century is the deeply underappreciated, insanely underserved Boomer-Geezer clan of 100 million or so in the U.S. alone.

So, if you're looking for the next big thing, it would't hurt to think about this underserved, uncool market.

Innovators, whether they are individuals or organizations, tend to try producing and bringing their innovations to the market by themselves. In many situations, it may not be the best option.

There are several ways of commercializing innovations, separated in four categories in increasing order of innovator control:

1. Sell design: It requires market proof but allows earning a lump sum of money. It prevents the innovator from exploiting his innovation in the future. Pure inventors often rely on this option because they focus exclusively on R&D and do not want to be involved in marketing, production and distribution.
2. License: The innovator sells the right to use the technology, to an OEM form example. The innovator looses control over his innovation but can get a steady stream of income. Licensing deals vary greatly according to the negotiation power of parties. Licensing is an option only if the innovation has been tested in the market.
3. Joint venture: The innovator partners with other companies to handle processes such as manufacturing and distribution. Depending on the deal, the innovator might be a minority partner or not. Brand ownership is often a determining factor of the deal.
4. Produce and market: It requires a lot of skills and resources, and the costs incur long before generating revenues. Only companies with deep pockets can afford to go all the way from R&D to market. In the other hand, it is the only way to reap the full benefits and to retain control of the innovation.

We tend to believe that government regulations should make it as easy as possible to start a business. However, I argue that some regulatory barriers to entry can have a positive effect on entrepreneurship. I will use Canada (where I live now) and Belgium (where I'm originated from and spent most of my life) to illustrate my opinion.

Consider the following. In Belgium, starting a limited company requires around $50,000 of initial capital. Moreover, going through the red tape can take months before being fully authorized to operate. In contrast, in Canada, anyone can incorporate a business with 200 dollars and a couple of weeks.

While the latter situation looks best, it also raises issues. Indeed, the net result is that in Canada essentially everyone has some business on the side of their regular job. As you can imagine, this creates an awful lot of background noise that serious entrepreneurs have to deal with. It effectively lowers the standards for starting and operating a business. On the other hand, it creates an environment where trying new ideas is affordable.

Now let's look at Belgium. Starting a business is a very serious thing requiring strong commitment. When you hear about someone who made the leap, it makes a strong statement: he's not just trying some idea on his spare time, he's in business.

Both systems have flaws. But as a customer, who would you prefer doing business with, the guy who's trying something on the side, or the guy who's putting his balls in it?

And when you start a business in Canada, do you have any idea how much time and energy it takes to cut though the crowd of small-time "businesspeople" who are carpet-bombing your customers with their cheap business cards?

In conclusion, barriers to entry are good, on the condition that they:

• Encourage committed entrepreneurs
• Deter uncommitted entrepreneurs
• Are based on relevant barriers (and not large amount of startup capital).

I'd like to share with you an inspiring document: Tom Asacker's Nine Predictions for 2009. Really, read it!

My preferred one is #8 Execution is the new strategy:

E.L. Doctorow wrote, "Planning to write is not writing." Here's the funny thing: Writing is not writing. It's editing. You?re really not sure where you're going until well after you've begun; until you've put pen to paper (or type to page). And then, the work unfolds in unpredictable and mysterious ways. Sure, vision and planning are important. But with the accelerating pace of change in today's world, the important insights are more likely to come through doing and editing, than through speculating and strategizing. "Change will lead to insight far more often than insight will lead to change." - Milton H. Erickson

If you ask your friends and colleagues, you'll probably notice that many among them plan to start their own business someday. Why didn't they make the leap yet? Because they cannot afford it: they are stuck.

Most people, when they get a stable job and develop their career, they upgrade their material life to match their revenues: mortgaged house, financed car, various services, and so on. When they get their salary, most of it is already spent, and they can save only a small portion of it.

Starting a business requires time and money. Consider what would happen if they left their job to start their dream business. Most of their expenses cannot be easily downsized. Daily expenses will eat into their savings right away, and every month without revenues will obliterate several months of savings. Moreover, it is very difficult to change years of spending habit toward a less costly lifestyle. Additionally, it's not just about time and money, it's also about the emotional cost of "downgrading" material life, and how it may be (wrongly) perceived by family and friends.

The cost of entrepreneurial freedom is to live a life where you can afford spending time and money to try an idea without drowning into debt or flushing your life savings. It is easier said than done, of course. Even when making serious money, entrepreneurs have to refrain from upgrading their material life. Don't get me wrong, entrepreneurs can live quite comfortably, but it requires constant cost-consciousness.

Entrepreneurial freedom is invaluable for me. I'd rather have the opportunity to test a business idea for 3 or 6 months without the risk of sinking my ship than to have the last big BMW on a 1200$ monthly lease. Of course, having both wouldn't hurt.

Oh, and taking some distance with first-degree consumerism is a good idea, too. It allows focusing on things that make us genuinely happy.