Signs that a business idea will probably fail(dannorris.me)
dannorris.me
Signs that a business idea will probably fail
https://dannorris.me/9-signs-that-your-business-idea-will-probably-fail/
91 comments
If someone's business is self sustaining and supports somebody's lifestyle, it's successful as far as I'm concerned. Ultimately that should be the basis behind a business. This is just my own likely, uninformed opinion but I feel this attitude of ever constant growth above all else is ultimately harmful and in the end actually ends up stifling innovation and creativity.
A small comfortable business with some extra revenue is probably more likely to take some risks ans come up with something new than a large corporation focussed on maximizing revenue growth. The amount of capital the smaller business has available may be less, but what good is capital if you're not willing to innovate and try new things.
In a lot of ways it's kind of like the indie vs AAA games market. Small indie games may not be as visually impressive or make as much money as those epic AAA games, with photorealistic graphics and Oscar award winning cutscenes, but the good ones sre usually pretty innovative and offer quality gameplay a lot of those larger games focused on wide appeal and maximizing profit.
A small comfortable business with some extra revenue is probably more likely to take some risks ans come up with something new than a large corporation focussed on maximizing revenue growth. The amount of capital the smaller business has available may be less, but what good is capital if you're not willing to innovate and try new things.
In a lot of ways it's kind of like the indie vs AAA games market. Small indie games may not be as visually impressive or make as much money as those epic AAA games, with photorealistic graphics and Oscar award winning cutscenes, but the good ones sre usually pretty innovative and offer quality gameplay a lot of those larger games focused on wide appeal and maximizing profit.
Case in point: who would have ever set out to make Minecraft? The only reason to do it the way it was done was due to the constraints on capital expenditure. Lately I've been playing Dragon Quest Builders 2 and it's awesome. It mixes a block building sandbox game with a more traditional RPG. The thing that makes the game, though, is the blocks. Building with blocks is simple, intuitive and incredibly fun. But I don't think anybody would have sat down and thought "Building with blocks is just good UX" unless they had some reason to try it.
Context matters. On an NGO forum talking about entrepreneurship in third world states and micro-loans, I would not expect a discussion of business ideas to include advice on starting mass scale VC funded internet startups. Similarly in the blog of a Silicon Valley startup founder I would be surprised to see advice, stated to be aimed at his peers, to include tips on starting a roadside stall in Zambia. These forums exist for different purposes and have value in their own context, without having to compete with each other. They're just different things.
And also, I never started a business but from my observation, when you do something small that works it might serve as a base on which you grow something bigger in natural way that is more obvious.
Forget about 3000 a month, some people have very 'simple' businesses like clothing retail and earn way above engineers salary, which is really what a lot of entrepreneurs want at the end of the day. There's nothing new or innovative about these ideas other than maybe the right branding or location, but it goes over the tech industry's heads here because their venture capitalist overlords are telling them to work on unicorn ideas because they want to make billions, when most founders would be content with just making millions.
Or maybe VC's actually want to change the world and don't care about profit? I'll just take the money, thanks.
Or maybe VC's actually want to change the world and don't care about profit? I'll just take the money, thanks.
which is really what a lot of entrepreneurs want at the end of the day.
I'm not even sure about that. I saw a paper recently that showed earnings for entrepreneurs is similar to employees. It's only the bottom and top deciles where it varies. The bottom 10% don't earn anything and the top 10% earn significantly more.
In the middle are a lot of people who are broadly happy with their lot and mostly do it because they don't like working for someone else. They seemed to have little aspiration to expand or grow the business.
I'm not even sure about that. I saw a paper recently that showed earnings for entrepreneurs is similar to employees. It's only the bottom and top deciles where it varies. The bottom 10% don't earn anything and the top 10% earn significantly more.
In the middle are a lot of people who are broadly happy with their lot and mostly do it because they don't like working for someone else. They seemed to have little aspiration to expand or grow the business.
Some people are making good money because they are in a business that is considered unattractive, for example waste disposal. On the other hand, in an industry that is considered "cool" (like gaming or fashion) some people have a tendency for self exploitation, because they are willing to do just about everything to be in that industry. In those industries you will find quite a few people (especially self-employed) with big dreams and very little income.
It seems to me that the ideal there would involve retiring off of a cushy waste-disposal salary, and then working on gaming or fashion as an independently-wealthy hobbyist.
I just finished my part of a project where we installed ~$50k worth of AV & networking bits into a local fellow's home. He chose to do it more or less on a whim, because he could. His business? Portapotty rentals. As far as I'm concerned, good for him.
One entrepreneur conference I attended, a speaker stressed that novelty was not an advantage, it was a risk. It had to be very important to justify that risk. A totally new product/IP, a new customer, a new marketing channel, were all risks and not advantages.
The ideal startup from that point of view, would be 'a better mousetrap'.
The ideal startup from that point of view, would be 'a better mousetrap'.
And also why would you want to be like Musk or Zuckerberg? They both seem super weird. And IIRC Musk actually said "you don't want to be me".
[deleted]
Not a bad post. One suggestion that has worked for me to stop me working on dozens of ideas at once is to write them down in detail in an ideas diary. This seems to take away most of the desire to start working on the idea right now.
The good thing about this approach is that when you review them (after a certain amount of time) you lose the personal attachment to the ideas.
It feels like you're being presenting Startup ideas from someone else, which allows you to be more objective and critical about their validity... hopefully leading to better judgement
It feels like you're being presenting Startup ideas from someone else, which allows you to be more objective and critical about their validity... hopefully leading to better judgement
Have to second this. I used to have so many 'started in excitement, but probably never going to work on it ever again' projects.
Then I started an 'Ideas' board on Trello, and forced myself to put ideas there instead of working on it immediately. I am not allowed to work on an idea unless it's been on the board for atleast two weeks.
This forces me to spend a lot more time thinking past the initial one-line idea, and refining it. Eventually, for about 90% of the ideas, by the end of the two week period, I've come to the conclusion to discard it.
So now, the 10% that I do end up working on, are much more likely to see sustained work being done on them.
Then I started an 'Ideas' board on Trello, and forced myself to put ideas there instead of working on it immediately. I am not allowed to work on an idea unless it's been on the board for atleast two weeks.
This forces me to spend a lot more time thinking past the initial one-line idea, and refining it. Eventually, for about 90% of the ideas, by the end of the two week period, I've come to the conclusion to discard it.
So now, the 10% that I do end up working on, are much more likely to see sustained work being done on them.
This is interesting! To clarify: in the first two weeks, you don't allow yourself to work on the idea (eg start writing code), but you do allow yourself to research the idea. And you find that the initial research phase usually turns up compelling reasons not to undertake the project after all. Is this right?
How do you prevent the research phase of a new idea from distracting you from your current project?
How do you prevent the research phase of a new idea from distracting you from your current project?
I usually have a fixed block of time for working on side projects on weekends. The research phase usually happens through the week, whenever I have the time to think about it.
My problem generally is splitting the weekend time across too many projects, with newer ideas displacing older ones. Having much fewer ideas to work on in total, helps me spend more time on them.
My problem generally is splitting the weekend time across too many projects, with newer ideas displacing older ones. Having much fewer ideas to work on in total, helps me spend more time on them.
Definitely! The other thing I'd recommend is something kanban-esque. E.g., you have max 1 thing you're working on, max 3 ideas that you think are your best things to do next, and then the rest in a big pile.
This has a few benefits for me. The top 3 unstarted ideas help defend the thing I'm working on. If I think of something new, I first have to ask myself if it's better than the top 3. Usually it isn't so it goes in the backlog.
Then if I'm starting to question the thing I'm working on, I can say, "Has something changed such that killing this and switching to one of the top 3 a better use of my time?" Having things to compare it with helps ground my thinkin.
This has a few benefits for me. The top 3 unstarted ideas help defend the thing I'm working on. If I think of something new, I first have to ask myself if it's better than the top 3. Usually it isn't so it goes in the backlog.
Then if I'm starting to question the thing I'm working on, I can say, "Has something changed such that killing this and switching to one of the top 3 a better use of my time?" Having things to compare it with helps ground my thinkin.
Anyone trying to do this; should read this tweet thread https://twitter.com/intentionally/status/1234918066649272325
I like the idea though I moved to a pure text (and/or MarkDown) for all of my writings. Bear is not a bad tool if you'd like writing while on the move on your phone.
I like the idea though I moved to a pure text (and/or MarkDown) for all of my writings. Bear is not a bad tool if you'd like writing while on the move on your phone.
Do you later execute any of them? I feel I need the optimism that I only have when I do not see the details clearly yet to start something.
I'm just getting out of school (last round of finals coming up) and I've got several ideas bouncing around. I've also taken to putting them down in diary/journal (originally just started as aimlessly sticking hundreds of post it notes around my room). The one thing I've taken away from it is that design is work - and magically - when I sit down and work on the design and get more specific the better the design gets. It's a motivating feeling for me as I gain momentum. If it's written down I don't feel like I'm throwing a baby away every time I consider a different approach or project because it's already written/drawn and I can go back at any time, and usually when I go back I can take what is newly considered and recognize some commonality between them that leads to yet another new approach that is simpler and covers the value proposition of both approaches. All of this is objectively better than having the images and ideas flash into my head - because that doesn't stop. It gives me the freedom to iterate with new ideas rather than the same model 0 over and over again.
But again this process is all new to me. We'll see if anything comes out of it.
But again this process is all new to me. We'll see if anything comes out of it.
Yes. The last one I executed on was to do in depth fundamental analysis on all the ASX listed biotech/pharma companies (there are about 70 of them). Out of this process I found one very undervalued company that I took a large strategic investment in and joined the board to help turn it around. This has turned into a very good investment, although it has taken up a lot of my time.
Nice. What works for someone might not work for someone we can see again!
Sounds like a variant of rule 11 in the Done Manifesto[1]: "If you have an idea and publish it on the internet, that counts as a ghost of done."
You're just posting it to your future self but it still counts. You can then let it go out of your head and think about something else.
[1] https://medium.com/@bre/the-cult-of-done-manifesto-724ca1c2f...
You're just posting it to your future self but it still counts. You can then let it go out of your head and think about something else.
[1] https://medium.com/@bre/the-cult-of-done-manifesto-724ca1c2f...
I read that you're supposed to work on / research / carefully understand the problem that needs solving and stay away from a solution for a long as possible. The problem has to pass a number of tests before going the next step of how you will reach people and get them to pay for a solution (often called the "go to market" strategy). Only after you've nailed this are you supposed to consider how to implement a solution.
I've heard this too. However, building the solution can help you understand the problem. So I prefer to go for lightweight solutions/prototyping right away.
I have a semi-formal annual and quarterly review process to keep track of ideas and prioritise the projects that need attention.
Most of the time I'm working on code, but every so often I step back to set explicit goals and brainstorm possibilities.
Details are kept in a collection of kanban-like spreadsheets so there'a always an overview of what needs to be done at each level.
It's a workable way to minimised ADHD and keep me from getting distracted by new shinies.
Most of the time I'm working on code, but every so often I step back to set explicit goals and brainstorm possibilities.
Details are kept in a collection of kanban-like spreadsheets so there'a always an overview of what needs to be done at each level.
It's a workable way to minimised ADHD and keep me from getting distracted by new shinies.
Do you physically write them on paper or use an app?
That working on multiple things at the same time one is spot on. That has been the #1 reason I've screwed stuff up.
Something I constantly remind myself: it's not that you're not capable of doing that thing, it's that you don't have the capacity. You may be perfectly capable of doing something, but if you don't have the capacity to do it, there's a good chance you'll blow it. Disconnecting your ego from reality on this one will save you a ton of heartache and stress.
And for those who say "not me," I, too, was an egomaniac and thought everyone else wasn't as good. Pump your brakes and thank me later.
Something I constantly remind myself: it's not that you're not capable of doing that thing, it's that you don't have the capacity. You may be perfectly capable of doing something, but if you don't have the capacity to do it, there's a good chance you'll blow it. Disconnecting your ego from reality on this one will save you a ton of heartache and stress.
And for those who say "not me," I, too, was an egomaniac and thought everyone else wasn't as good. Pump your brakes and thank me later.
Slightly off-topic, but I have been raising this point (after learning the lesson hard way) within my larger engineering org
and seem to be getting nowhere towards convincing people that the #1 reason for degraded quality of delivery is too many big ticket changes going on at same time.
What's the playbook for this? Any recommended reading etc would be a huge favor.
PS: Not necessarily a question to OP but anyone passing by.
What's the playbook for this? Any recommended reading etc would be a huge favor.
PS: Not necessarily a question to OP but anyone passing by.
It should be a single backlog for the whole company (obv divided up by product or component of whatever for ease of managing) but a single list of features in order.
This will of course mean that the decision makers will need to sort out their politics and divisions to agree an order. This is usually hidden by giving vague and conflicting directions to the rest of the business and hoping it will all sort out.
By solving the politics at the top the organisation will benefit greatly from clarity and resource allocation.
Chances are high that even asking for this will reveal enough problems that you can decide if staying is worth it.
This will of course mean that the decision makers will need to sort out their politics and divisions to agree an order. This is usually hidden by giving vague and conflicting directions to the rest of the business and hoping it will all sort out.
By solving the politics at the top the organisation will benefit greatly from clarity and resource allocation.
Chances are high that even asking for this will reveal enough problems that you can decide if staying is worth it.
Worth looking into SRE concepts such as Error budget and SLO/SLIs if you want to consider one way of tackling this at the org level. It does however need senior buy-in (like most things) to be effective.
I've seen this problem constantly with new entrepreneurs. They don't know when to switch off. They have dozens of ideas and they want to do them all.
I did the same thing and failed at everything.
So I decided to simplify: just one thing at a time. And that's the only time I've tasted any success.
I did the same thing and failed at everything.
So I decided to simplify: just one thing at a time. And that's the only time I've tasted any success.
Yeah Dell bought our startup. I said at the time "We have 5 orthogonal IP components to our product. We can ship something with one or two of those, which are already complete. We should do that." I got a patronizing "Maybe the next time, lets not switch horses now" kind of response.
Being incapable and having no capacity sounds very similar to me. Could you explain the difference a bit more?
I could easily count to 1 billion, but I don't have the time to undertake that task.
Sibling comments are missing the point.
I am capable of make video game A. I am also capable of making video game B.
I do not have the capacity to make both video games in parallel, even if I give myself twice the time. A core level of attention and care is required by each, of which I only have capacity to focus on one at a time.
I am capable of make video game A. I am also capable of making video game B.
I do not have the capacity to make both video games in parallel, even if I give myself twice the time. A core level of attention and care is required by each, of which I only have capacity to focus on one at a time.
Example:
I am physically/mentally/financially capable of taking a bike tour across US, to do that I need X amount of time.
Owing to other responsibilities I can not allocate X amount of time right now. (Ignoring whole COVID-19 saga of course)
Owing to other responsibilities I can not allocate X amount of time right now. (Ignoring whole COVID-19 saga of course)
As the other comments illustrate capability pertains to something within the person, and capacity pertains to factors outside the persons control.
Hence the person has the capability to count to 1 billion, but not the capacity to do it because other obligations will prevent them taking the required time.
Of course 1 billion seconds is a little over 30 years, so probably the external capacity limit on that task is mortality, dependent on starting point.
Hence the person has the capability to count to 1 billion, but not the capacity to do it because other obligations will prevent them taking the required time.
Of course 1 billion seconds is a little over 30 years, so probably the external capacity limit on that task is mortality, dependent on starting point.
You've got 100 Terabytes of storage in the cloud (capability) but only a 100 Mbps connection (capacity).
> That’s why entrepreneurs, myself included, waste years of their lives on shitty ideas that will never work, following the popular trend of “ideas don’t matter, only execution matters”.
The saying has to do with just having an idea is worthless in itself, you have to do something with that idea.
He interprets it as a shitty idea will be successful if executed well.
Wow.
The saying has to do with just having an idea is worthless in itself, you have to do something with that idea.
He interprets it as a shitty idea will be successful if executed well.
Wow.
I think the clearest interpretation of "ideas don't matter" is that first-mover advantage is, at best, overrated relative to execution.
Not that I endorse this. But I think it's a clearer way of saying it. The concern is that people are afraid to test their idea and get feedback to improve upon it because somebody may "steal" it.
Not that I endorse this. But I think it's a clearer way of saying it. The concern is that people are afraid to test their idea and get feedback to improve upon it because somebody may "steal" it.
Anyone worth their salt knows the idea is a necessary condition, but not a satisfactory one. The execution is typically the largest part of finding success, and along the journey the idea often feels like it fades in to the background and starts to seem obvious rather than novel, but of course the idea matters.
Directly after the line you quote, the author continues:
> Bullshit.
> Ideas matter a lot, and if yours is a shitty one, for you, at that time, with the resources you have, it will almost certainly fail.
I think your interpretation of the author's interpretation is flawed.
> Bullshit.
> Ideas matter a lot, and if yours is a shitty one, for you, at that time, with the resources you have, it will almost certainly fail.
I think your interpretation of the author's interpretation is flawed.
Yes, he called bullshit on it.. on his incorrect interpretation of the saying.
The saying is more along the lines of "An idea without action is worthless"
His rephrasing of it was either a 1) bad interpretation or 2) a purposeful one so he could disagree with it and appear 'edgy'.
The saying is more along the lines of "An idea without action is worthless"
His rephrasing of it was either a 1) bad interpretation or 2) a purposeful one so he could disagree with it and appear 'edgy'.
This is called a straw man. It's a logical fallacy, but unfortunately a very persuasive argument at times.
The author 'calls bullshit' on the saying, implying the author thinks the saying intends to imply that a bad idea will work
Lot of things look like shitty ideas retroactively.
Yes especially shitty ideas.
A sign that a business will fail: you worship tech heroes instead of being willing to forge your own path and go against the grain (see #3)
I very much disagree with:
> 7. You are operating mainly on assumptions
You'll always be operating mainly on assumptions. Everyone will.
It does help to check your assumptions against external things, so if you're wrong, you can notice faster. But even the process of noticing that the data is confusing is like 99.99% rationalism and only 0.01% empiricism.
> 7. You are operating mainly on assumptions
You'll always be operating mainly on assumptions. Everyone will.
It does help to check your assumptions against external things, so if you're wrong, you can notice faster. But even the process of noticing that the data is confusing is like 99.99% rationalism and only 0.01% empiricism.
I spent 2 years building an awesome product, thinking that my future clients would think this product awesome too, and that they would need it.
I was completely wrong. I didn't know my clients and my market. This is the exact definition of operating mainly on assumptions. I lost at least 18 months, since I could have find this out way sooner.
I was completely wrong. I didn't know my clients and my market. This is the exact definition of operating mainly on assumptions. I lost at least 18 months, since I could have find this out way sooner.
Yeah but almost all business (when starting out) must make decisions based on assumptions. If you didn't you would never get everything done, double and triple checking every single thing. You have to trust your gut. The older I get the more I believe that.
I'm sorry to hear you were not successful, that REALLY sucks to spend all that time and not feel good about it.
It sounds like maybe you waited too long to attempt to sell anything? That's what MVPs are for, to give you feedback to see which of your early assumptions were correct. Ditch the incorrect ones, focus on the correct ones and get better at making assumptions and grow your business organically, based on a positive feedback loop.
I'm sorry to hear you were not successful, that REALLY sucks to spend all that time and not feel good about it.
It sounds like maybe you waited too long to attempt to sell anything? That's what MVPs are for, to give you feedback to see which of your early assumptions were correct. Ditch the incorrect ones, focus on the correct ones and get better at making assumptions and grow your business organically, based on a positive feedback loop.
Tell us more about the product, market, and clients.
I built a copycat of www.bellycard.com for French market.
As a software engineer, the technical product was good IMHO.
but I spent almost 2 years to build it, without really trying to sell it. My thought was: "if it's sold in US, it will be sellable in France".
Then I found ont the real truth:
- Merchants won't find your website to buy your amazing product, you need to meet them physically (that can seems obvious but it was not the case for me at that time)
- Merchants don't care about you or your product. They won't listen to you in deep, except if you have specific social skills (I don't). Every day someone enters in their shop trying to sell them something. If you're not psychologically ready to hear "I don't care" or "is it free?" 9 times on 10, then you can not do that for a very long time.
- Independant merchants, generally speaking, don't have any marketing skills. What seems obvious for you is not for them. For example, they don't see the powerfulness of getting emails and consuming habits of their own customers. Plus, I'd say 2/3 of them were really suspicious about technology in general.
So what was hard here was not to make a product that have intrinsic value for merchants, but to teach merchants what this value is.
The real need to succeed in this project is absolutely not tech, it's to know the market, and how to convince merchants.
Then I found ont the real truth:
- Merchants won't find your website to buy your amazing product, you need to meet them physically (that can seems obvious but it was not the case for me at that time)
- Merchants don't care about you or your product. They won't listen to you in deep, except if you have specific social skills (I don't). Every day someone enters in their shop trying to sell them something. If you're not psychologically ready to hear "I don't care" or "is it free?" 9 times on 10, then you can not do that for a very long time.
- Independant merchants, generally speaking, don't have any marketing skills. What seems obvious for you is not for them. For example, they don't see the powerfulness of getting emails and consuming habits of their own customers. Plus, I'd say 2/3 of them were really suspicious about technology in general.
So what was hard here was not to make a product that have intrinsic value for merchants, but to teach merchants what this value is.
The real need to succeed in this project is absolutely not tech, it's to know the market, and how to convince merchants.
Thanks for this. Great write up. Rings absolutely true.
That said, all of this would be as expected, even for a great product, with product-market fit.
Selling is hard, you have to find the right niche of customers, references, and not everyone will love it right away.
Great lesson that you will take with you on the next run.
That said, all of this would be as expected, even for a great product, with product-market fit.
Selling is hard, you have to find the right niche of customers, references, and not everyone will love it right away.
Great lesson that you will take with you on the next run.
Thanks for the support.
Yep even for me, now when I tell this story, the mistakes I made seem obvious.
Selling is hard, and becomes close to impossible if like me, you don't know your target, and on top of that, you're socially anxious to talk to strangers and get a "no" as answer.
Client prospection requires specific skills I don't have and I'll probably never get.
Sometimes we (solo-dev people) need to be more humble and accept we can not do everything well. Or as an alternative, we need to find project ideas that suit our skills better (B2C would probably have been easier for me than B2B).
Selling is hard, and becomes close to impossible if like me, you don't know your target, and on top of that, you're socially anxious to talk to strangers and get a "no" as answer.
Client prospection requires specific skills I don't have and I'll probably never get.
Sometimes we (solo-dev people) need to be more humble and accept we can not do everything well. Or as an alternative, we need to find project ideas that suit our skills better (B2C would probably have been easier for me than B2B).
I'm sorry for your experience but thanks for sharing.
Did you try to look for a sales partner?
What are you working on now?
Did you try to look for a sales partner?
What are you working on now?
I actually found one in the end, he helped me sign my first contracts. Then I realised he was greedy, because he asked me to make 50/50 for company shares (but I worked full time for 18 months, not him). That didn't help to build trust between us. I ended up giving up, because I was advised to avoid investing in a long-term business with a stranger. I think I was right to follow my gut.
That must have been a hard decision.
Hopefully you are back on your feet again. We must learn from our failures and move on.
Hopefully you are back on your feet again. We must learn from our failures and move on.
What did you build?
> You are the wrong person for the job
The first rule of "some level of self awareness" is to not completely hand yourself over to survivorship bias. So the argument is that Mark is a smart hacker and possesses "balls of steel" -> Mark is successful? And because you're the opposite way -> you'll fail?
No. He's been completely blindsided by survivorship bias. It's actually the other way, from that Mark became very successful (via good luck which was probably modulated by some highly attainable level of skill in execution) -> everyone thinks Mark is a super hacker with balls of steel.
It's terrible advice which gives you premonitions about yourself which would keep you from even trying. Or maybe the author can actually tell innate potential to some uncanny degree, in which case he should join YC to vet founders.
The first rule of "some level of self awareness" is to not completely hand yourself over to survivorship bias. So the argument is that Mark is a smart hacker and possesses "balls of steel" -> Mark is successful? And because you're the opposite way -> you'll fail?
No. He's been completely blindsided by survivorship bias. It's actually the other way, from that Mark became very successful (via good luck which was probably modulated by some highly attainable level of skill in execution) -> everyone thinks Mark is a super hacker with balls of steel.
It's terrible advice which gives you premonitions about yourself which would keep you from even trying. Or maybe the author can actually tell innate potential to some uncanny degree, in which case he should join YC to vet founders.
this. Also in point #3 - "these people are not like us" then points #4,#6 using tech idols as role models. If they're not like us then we can stop using them as role models, right?
[deleted]
He says this:
“ideas don’t matter, only execution matters”.
Bullshit.
Ideas matter a lot, and if yours is a shitty one, for you, at that time, with the resources you have, it will almost certainly fail."
But most, if not all of his red flags are execution-centeic.
I'd like to add, it's not that ideas don't matter. They do. However, most of the time a good idea executed well will beat a great idea done poorly. Furthermore, very few ideas are born great. They usually reguire refinement. That refinement process is...execution.
“ideas don’t matter, only execution matters”.
Bullshit.
Ideas matter a lot, and if yours is a shitty one, for you, at that time, with the resources you have, it will almost certainly fail."
But most, if not all of his red flags are execution-centeic.
I'd like to add, it's not that ideas don't matter. They do. However, most of the time a good idea executed well will beat a great idea done poorly. Furthermore, very few ideas are born great. They usually reguire refinement. That refinement process is...execution.
I also read somewhere (I think PG said this) that generally speaking it's not obvious which ideas are good a priori.
It makes sense if you think about it. If we knew in advance what ideas will work anyone could have a successful product which isn't the case.
It makes sense if you think about it. If we knew in advance what ideas will work anyone could have a successful product which isn't the case.
Just the same, if execution was easy, everyone would be doing it.
A well-played execution process has iteration and refinement baked into it. Few ideas are born fully grown. They evolve; provided they are allowed to do so. That evolution is part of execution.
A well-played execution process has iteration and refinement baked into it. Few ideas are born fully grown. They evolve; provided they are allowed to do so. That evolution is part of execution.
In the current economic climate, in the tech sector, the idea doesn't matter. It's almost all about execution and social networks.
Does your business model leverage network effects? Did you get funding from the right investors? Does your business model reward customers for helping you recruit other customers? If so, then your odds are very good regardless of what you do.
If you don't have a network growth strategy, then nobody will know about your startup. You can have the best idea in the history of the universe, it's not going to work because no one has an incentive to use and recommend your product or service but they have an incentive to maintain the status quo.
Investors and users need to stand to gain more from your project than from upholding the status quo. And these days many investors are shareholders or employees of the status quo so this is a difficult thing to pull off.
Does your business model leverage network effects? Did you get funding from the right investors? Does your business model reward customers for helping you recruit other customers? If so, then your odds are very good regardless of what you do.
If you don't have a network growth strategy, then nobody will know about your startup. You can have the best idea in the history of the universe, it's not going to work because no one has an incentive to use and recommend your product or service but they have an incentive to maintain the status quo.
Investors and users need to stand to gain more from your project than from upholding the status quo. And these days many investors are shareholders or employees of the status quo so this is a difficult thing to pull off.
Is it just me or the logic in #3 is deeply flawed? I mean who of the author’s heroes knew in advance what their companies were going to become (and thus how “special” they were)?
5. You can’t build a story / brand around it
Many articles focus on the idea of building your community etc, but few actually focus on how to do it amidst all the noise
Many articles focus on the idea of building your community etc, but few actually focus on how to do it amidst all the noise
> When I think about entrepreneurs who have given large amounts to causes, the ones I think of like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos
What causes has Bezos given to? He shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as Gates.
What causes has Bezos given to? He shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence as Gates.
This article points out that Bezos has been light on his giving (compared to the richest billionaires) but it also lists out who he has given to, which is a diverse set of interests as well as some princely sums:
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/307...
https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/news-trends/article/307...
> 3. You are the wrong person for the job
This is ridiculously bad advice. How can you expect to make a dent in the universe if you can't even manage to believe in yourself?
This is ridiculously bad advice. How can you expect to make a dent in the universe if you can't even manage to believe in yourself?
It's weird because it's a valid point, but they go on to elaborate using absurdly misguided arguments.
They're mostly developing on the importance of being smart, all the while misunderstanding what being smart is (it's not grades jesus christ) and failing to establish a correlation between smarts and fitness for a particular task.
They're mostly developing on the importance of being smart, all the while misunderstanding what being smart is (it's not grades jesus christ) and failing to establish a correlation between smarts and fitness for a particular task.
How can you expect to make a dent if you spend all your time in a task for which you are unsuited?
I feel like that item ... actually weaves in and out of much of the article and goes from being a question about if you're smart enough in #3 ... but even ties back to point 1 where maybe you don't know the industry, possibly not at all, and the point about assumptions and so forth.
That point almost seems like most of the points tied together.
That point almost seems like most of the points tied together.
This might be good advice for ideas that might be good but not in a field that interests you. Then you aren't the right person for the job.
But the "you're not good enough" justification seems misguided.
But the "you're not good enough" justification seems misguided.
> 2. You are working on more than 1 thing
This is so true it’s almost a cliché. Too often have I been in organizations that try to do a little of everything I hoped to eventually find something that sticks and it has almost never worked out.
This is so true it’s almost a cliché. Too often have I been in organizations that try to do a little of everything I hoped to eventually find something that sticks and it has almost never worked out.
He means side projects or businesses. If you want to build Uber, don't try to build eBay or PayPal on the side. Founders and other early employees have to do a little of everything as there isn't anyone else to do HR, sales, marketing...
Business doesn't have to mean that sort of business. Some guy making $3000 a month selling t-shirts and coffee mugs on etsy has, what I would think of, as a good business. Someone opening up a hotdog stand making $4000 also has a good business.
I noticed this in Zambia, lots of people standing by the side of the road selling soda pop and cigarettes or dried fish, or whatever they could get their hands on. Great businesses, great ideas, I'm glad they're doing it and I commend them for it.
The signs this article talks about are extremely limiting, to the point where the author is saying most people shouldn't bother. I think they apply for starting a big disruptive tech startup. I don't think they apply to an etsy store or hot dog stand, and those are viable and fairly easy to reach businesses. Personally I'd much rather focus on the easily attainable later sort of business rather than focus my time and energy in a quixotic effort to try and be the next Musk or Zuckerberg.