3 ms·

Fast is not how you win either as shown by the recent unicorns. The truth is that sometimes you need to go slow and sometimes you need to go fast. Actually I do

by rpedela 10y ago

Fast is not how you win either as shown by the recent unicorns. The truth is that sometimes you need to go slow and sometimes you need to go fast. Actually I don't really like the term "slow" because it suggests laziness, bureaucracy, or decision paralysis. I like the term "patience" better. Be diligent and efficient, but not hasty and if you get a bit of good luck (e.g. being a Parse competitor when Parse announces it will shutdown) then move really fast to capitalize on it.

AndrewKemendo 10y ago
Depends on what you're measuring. Fast is absolutely how you win - but it matters when you are fast. That's the whole point of Venture money, to go fast aka "Growth Capital". You don't do that in the beginning, you are patient but if you want to grow, you have to grow quickly, otherwise you get taken out by a larger competitor who can get to market faster. Failed unicorns put growth capital before they have a solid market position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_capital
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > if you want to grow, you have to grow quickly, otherwise you get taken out by a larger competitor who can get to market faster. This only applies if you're in the pre-launch phase and you haven't gotten to market yet. For those organizations that are already on the market, how fast your ramp up does not always mean you will win. The inherent risk of VC-fuelled fast growth is that the excessive funding will overshoot the actual value very quickly - and suddenly what was supposed to be a healthy $1B business becomes a "$30B" (on paper) series-J failure with no hope of getting a reasonable exit. In that case, I feel the slow/patient growth to $1B is far better for everyone involved (except VC). There is a long list of (ex-)startups that make me scratch my head: in what parallel-universe could they possibly be worth $X - which ever way you slice it - their revenue cannot support the exuberant valuations.

by rpedela 10y ago

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

Depends on what you're measuring. Fast is absolutely how you win - but it matters when you are fast. That's the whole point of Venture money, to go fast aka "Growth Capital". You don't do that in the beginning, you are patient but if you want to grow, you have to grow quickly, otherwise you get taken out by a larger competitor who can get to market faster. Failed unicorns put growth capital before they have a solid market position. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_capital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_capital

sangnoir 10y ago
> if you want to grow, you have to grow quickly, otherwise you get taken out by a larger competitor who can get to market faster. This only applies if you're in the pre-launch phase and you haven't gotten to market yet. For those organizations that are already on the market, how fast your ramp up does not always mean you will win. The inherent risk of VC-fuelled fast growth is that the excessive funding will overshoot the actual value very quickly - and suddenly what was supposed to be a healthy $1B business becomes a "$30B" (on paper) series-J failure with no hope of getting a reasonable exit. In that case, I feel the slow/patient growth to $1B is far better for everyone involved (except VC). There is a long list of (ex-)startups that make me scratch my head: in what parallel-universe could they possibly be worth $X - which ever way you slice it - their revenue cannot support the exuberant valuations.