Ask HN: Entrepreneurs who tried over and over but never “got there”. Why not?
4 comments
I'm not your target audience - I achieved my (extremely modest - would't count by your standards) entrenpreneurial goals the first time, but found I didn't like it.
---
I realize you're talking about people in terms of networking etc, and money in terms of fancy MBA tricks, but... if you don't like people or money, it will be hard to be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurial success is measured in money. And the only way to get money is to get people to give it to you.
So, it's really about people - their problems, their needs, how much pain that causes, how they do things now, what alternatives they know about, what they can adopt, how difficult that will be.
This is real marketing (not the "advertising" it's sometimes thought to be).
---
You mean Antonio Salieri, presented as Mozart's rival?
I think that zone is ideal for entrepreneurs, because you are smart enough to solve problems, while still dumb enough to feel them as problems worth solving - i.e. you can identify with the struggles of ordinary folk (I think geniuses don't really quite believe that other people find things so difficult.)
On the other hand, there's an argument that genius is not something you are (e.g. high IQ), but something you do. There are acts of genius, not geniuses. And all these acts of genius took a lot of time and effort (perhaps somewhat hidden, as preparation before and application afterwards). It helps to be smart, but maybe will and physical constitution are more important.
---
Finally, the choice of problem is crucial. There must be a gap in the market - going back to the people part. There must be something to discover.
Einstein was smart and hardworking, but after general relativity, he didn't discover anything of note... which seems to have been because there was nothing of note left to discover in that area, with the available data. At least, nothing as significant has been discovered since him, and university physics departments have shrunk.
---
I realize you're talking about people in terms of networking etc, and money in terms of fancy MBA tricks, but... if you don't like people or money, it will be hard to be an entrepreneur. Entrepreneurial success is measured in money. And the only way to get money is to get people to give it to you.
So, it's really about people - their problems, their needs, how much pain that causes, how they do things now, what alternatives they know about, what they can adopt, how difficult that will be.
This is real marketing (not the "advertising" it's sometimes thought to be).
---
You mean Antonio Salieri, presented as Mozart's rival?
I think that zone is ideal for entrepreneurs, because you are smart enough to solve problems, while still dumb enough to feel them as problems worth solving - i.e. you can identify with the struggles of ordinary folk (I think geniuses don't really quite believe that other people find things so difficult.)
On the other hand, there's an argument that genius is not something you are (e.g. high IQ), but something you do. There are acts of genius, not geniuses. And all these acts of genius took a lot of time and effort (perhaps somewhat hidden, as preparation before and application afterwards). It helps to be smart, but maybe will and physical constitution are more important.
---
Finally, the choice of problem is crucial. There must be a gap in the market - going back to the people part. There must be something to discover.
Einstein was smart and hardworking, but after general relativity, he didn't discover anything of note... which seems to have been because there was nothing of note left to discover in that area, with the available data. At least, nothing as significant has been discovered since him, and university physics departments have shrunk.
The why is market demand. You must attack markets with a lot of competition (I.e. a lot of demand). You cannot have technical risk AND market risk.
Also, startups have different stages. The networking/fundraising, etc. Actually comes AFTER product/market fit.
Also, startups have different stages. The networking/fundraising, etc. Actually comes AFTER product/market fit.
Sound like you need a marketing co-founder :-)
Agreed. In 2013, I was the introverted builder who hated spreadsheets and wine n' dine networking events. I met a co-founder who changed my life (for the better).
It's not going well. Again.
This time around, I haven't yet figured out the "why" apart from things I knew were potential issues ahead of time. I guess that's progress? (i.e. At least I anticipated and accepted them before diving in vs being surprised.)
More generally, I think my weaknesses are introversion - a hardcore resistance to networking, fundraising, relationship-building, team-assembly, self-promotion - and intelligence (I guess?). I'm in the "Salieri zone" at the top 1%; smart enough to recognize genius, but not actually genius myself.
I also hate anything relating to finance. I'm a builder at heart and want to scream when it comes to valuation, options pools, market analysis, etc. You know, the MBA stuff. (Good thing all the schools rejected me.)
Everything else: work ethic, technical aptitude, resources, upbringing, physical health... nothing abnormal.
How about you? What's your story?