5 ms·

I tweeted about this yesterday and I firmly believe the conversation around this would be a lot more fruitful if startups & founders would evaluate and focus th

I tweeted about this yesterday and I firmly believe the conversation around this would be a lot more fruitful if startups & founders would evaluate and focus their companies on _helping the world_ & stop with this "changing the world" bullshit. The latter is arrogant, presumptuous, and often not true; the former is a genuine desire and wish. Few people and companies, in the history of our existence, arguably, truly change the world (i.e., make history and alter our lives for better). And none of them claim to be changing the world while they're doing so. Everyone else and every other company is a footnote but that doesn't mean it cannot help people and our world at large in some way while alive.

joelrunyon 11y ago
The main underlying difference between the two is: Helping the world = focus on customers. Change the world = focus on the company. Part of the problem is the innate need of companies in SV to pitch themselves to VCs and in order to do that - they need to hyperbolize their mission - hence why you get a lot more "WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD" blathering.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  "the uber of x" "trainers hate him" "you wont believe what happened next" Those are all consequences of the current internet culture where everyhing is a product. Some are really pitching to VCs, some are maybe good idea, most are just following the trends that works to generate interest. The catch is curiosity doesn't mean conversions and while views generated by clickbaiting may seem good in a pitch value is mostly in the actual returning customers. This had been know from ages, but today it is only the last bullet point of 'growth hackers', known today under minimise churn rate. As the weight moved to virality and marketing views to revenue plummeted and at the current advertising cost per click to fuel the gtowth of apps with a 0.1% conversion or less you really need millions. And here we get back to the main point: those millions to drive views to lure VCs for more millions to build more views are not actually making the product any better. Are making for big headlines at most. And the fun part is, they call whose whom suceed unicorn because in this system of advertisement fueled growth means they're mostly pumping millions in ads on whatever, without any confirmation on the actual product sustenaibility beyond the growth spiral, and having to have a million user before discovering if the product is actually useful is a plan so retarded that it doesn't faze me chances of one of this suceeding are as good as winning the lottery.

joelrunyon 11y ago

The main underlying difference between the two is: Helping the world = focus on customers. Change the world = focus on the company. Part of the problem is the innate need of companies in SV to pitch themselves to VCs and in order to do that - they need to hyperbolize their mission - hence why you get a lot more "WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD" blathering.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
"the uber of x" "trainers hate him" "you wont believe what happened next" Those are all consequences of the current internet culture where everyhing is a product. Some are really pitching to VCs, some are maybe good idea, most are just following the trends that works to generate interest. The catch is curiosity doesn't mean conversions and while views generated by clickbaiting may seem good in a pitch value is mostly in the actual returning customers. This had been know from ages, but today it is only the last bullet point of 'growth hackers', known today under minimise churn rate. As the weight moved to virality and marketing views to revenue plummeted and at the current advertising cost per click to fuel the gtowth of apps with a 0.1% conversion or less you really need millions. And here we get back to the main point: those millions to drive views to lure VCs for more millions to build more views are not actually making the product any better. Are making for big headlines at most. And the fun part is, they call whose whom suceed unicorn because in this system of advertisement fueled growth means they're mostly pumping millions in ads on whatever, without any confirmation on the actual product sustenaibility beyond the growth spiral, and having to have a million user before discovering if the product is actually useful is a plan so retarded that it doesn't faze me chances of one of this suceeding are as good as winning the lottery.