3 ms·

"All of these were ideas that seemed bad but turned out to be good, and this is the magic formula for major success." I see this sentiment expressed often, lik

"All of these were ideas that seemed bad but turned out to be good, and this is the magic formula for major success." I see this sentiment expressed often, like it's a good thing that you want to pursue an idea that seems bad. If I were to think about founding a start-up, I'd rather find an opportunity that makes sense and sounds good, validate the opportunity, talk to potential customers, and do as much diligence as possible before diving in. So essentially, if something seems like a bad idea, I'd move on to the next idea. This may make it harder to create a unicorn (since I'd clearly miss some aspect that makes the idea not bad), but I bet it's a better, less risky way of trying to achieve a high-growth start-up with great potential. Good ideas fail as well, but I'd wager it's less often than bad ideas.

pmichaud 11y ago
I think the more nuanced version of the prevailing wisdom is "it seems like a bad idea to everyone else, because of a key set of facts that you know that very few other people know." Knowing that secret, whatever it is, probably requires special insight into a particular area of the world, special ways of thinking that few others are using, and perhaps special methods of operating that few others are using. That's how an idea that looks bad ends up being good.
- babababa 11y ago
  Well put and totally agree - in other words, as the start-up founder, you know it's a good idea. My cynical take on "many bad ideas become major successes" is that as an investor betting on 100 companies, your best economics are from 1 or 2 unicorns, and not 50 base hits. The investor optimized approach is 1 or 2 crazy ideas ended up being prescient and create awesomeness, but the remaining 98 ideas are indeed bad and go nowhere. The founder optimized approach is 50 good ideas create meaningful outcomes that aren't outsized.
vog 11y ago
I think you misunderstood the point of "seemingly bad ideas". This is not about ideas that seem bad to you. This is about ideas that seem bad to others, i.e. ideas that seem okay to you, that you probably even verified in the small, but still have trouble convincing others.
- 77f89faf 11y ago
  Yea, but how much of that is actually [clear understanding of idea + execution of idea] versus [marketing]. I'd say that probably at least partially depends on the group of people you know. The last set of people that I would think would be representative of a random distribution worthy of being a statistical sample is my set of friends, because not only is my idea biased, but I have also selected all of my friends with bias as well. My general rule of thumb is 'bad ideas come out of nowhere' and 'good ideas are things that require effort'. If you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, probably not the best way to go about doing things. Other than that, I think the idea is hardly representative of the product. I would guess that there is probably no reliable correlation between the evaluation of the idea, and the evaluation of the execution. The examples people mention are cherry picked examples. You can hardly evaluate your own potential based on comparing that to a few select examples that have been selected specifically to demonstrate a rhetorical opinion.
- shubhamjain 11y ago
  > This is about ideas that seem bad to others, i.e. ideas that seem okay to you, that you probably even verified in the small, but still have trouble convincing others. Won't a skeptical person find flaw in every idea he is confronted with? In that case, I guess it all boils down to execution. In my opinion, the "idea" need not be very clear but it is okay for it to be filmsy. Building a minimal product with a filmsy idea can help "project" to head in the right direction when you start seeing the facts. Perhaps, the reason why Google and Facebook succeeded wasn't that the ideas were seemingly bad but "idea" didn't exist in the first place. They just wanted to build something for their own and started getting serious when it got traction.
fredliu 11y ago
I vaguely remember sama had a comment some time ago, kind of related to what you are saying here (paraphrasing here): "being contrarian is easy, being contrarian and right is hard." Working on a seemingly bad idea is being contrarian by definition, that's the easy part. And if people just take the advice at its face value and intentionally work on "bad ideas", that's being a fool. The real hard part is "being right", which requires the founder to have a unique vision or belief in his idea, and drives it really hard, maybe even to the point of being "delusional" to outsiders, but again, being delusional about your own idea doesn't guarantee it's "right".

pmichaud 11y ago

I think the more nuanced version of the prevailing wisdom is "it seems like a bad idea to everyone else, because of a key set of facts that you know that very few other people know." Knowing that secret, whatever it is, probably requires special insight into a particular area of the world, special ways of thinking that few others are using, and perhaps special methods of operating that few others are using. That's how an idea that looks bad ends up being good.

babababa 11y ago
Well put and totally agree - in other words, as the start-up founder, you know it's a good idea. My cynical take on "many bad ideas become major successes" is that as an investor betting on 100 companies, your best economics are from 1 or 2 unicorns, and not 50 base hits. The investor optimized approach is 1 or 2 crazy ideas ended up being prescient and create awesomeness, but the remaining 98 ideas are indeed bad and go nowhere. The founder optimized approach is 50 good ideas create meaningful outcomes that aren't outsized.

vog 11y ago

I think you misunderstood the point of "seemingly bad ideas". This is not about ideas that seem bad to you. This is about ideas that seem bad to others, i.e. ideas that seem okay to you, that you probably even verified in the small, but still have trouble convincing others.

77f89faf 11y ago
Yea, but how much of that is actually [clear understanding of idea + execution of idea] versus [marketing]. I'd say that probably at least partially depends on the group of people you know. The last set of people that I would think would be representative of a random distribution worthy of being a statistical sample is my set of friends, because not only is my idea biased, but I have also selected all of my friends with bias as well. My general rule of thumb is 'bad ideas come out of nowhere' and 'good ideas are things that require effort'. If you are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, probably not the best way to go about doing things. Other than that, I think the idea is hardly representative of the product. I would guess that there is probably no reliable correlation between the evaluation of the idea, and the evaluation of the execution. The examples people mention are cherry picked examples. You can hardly evaluate your own potential based on comparing that to a few select examples that have been selected specifically to demonstrate a rhetorical opinion.
shubhamjain 11y ago
> This is about ideas that seem bad to others, i.e. ideas that seem okay to you, that you probably even verified in the small, but still have trouble convincing others. Won't a skeptical person find flaw in every idea he is confronted with? In that case, I guess it all boils down to execution. In my opinion, the "idea" need not be very clear but it is okay for it to be filmsy. Building a minimal product with a filmsy idea can help "project" to head in the right direction when you start seeing the facts. Perhaps, the reason why Google and Facebook succeeded wasn't that the ideas were seemingly bad but "idea" didn't exist in the first place. They just wanted to build something for their own and started getting serious when it got traction.

fredliu 11y ago

I vaguely remember sama had a comment some time ago, kind of related to what you are saying here (paraphrasing here): "being contrarian is easy, being contrarian and right is hard." Working on a seemingly bad idea is being contrarian by definition, that's the easy part. And if people just take the advice at its face value and intentionally work on "bad ideas", that's being a fool. The real hard part is "being right", which requires the founder to have a unique vision or belief in his idea, and drives it really hard, maybe even to the point of being "delusional" to outsiders, but again, being delusional about your own idea doesn't guarantee it's "right".