4 ms·
While I really appreciate the intent of what you're writing, "product/market" fit is also really difficult to concretely define and understand. I think this is
by cl42 10y ago
While I really appreciate the intent of what you're writing, "product/market" fit is also really difficult to concretely define and understand. I think this is particularly true in B2B and enterprise sales -- you can easily scale to 20-30 people without feeling like you've found product/market fit even if you have users, customers, and are profitable. Whenever I hear the focus on product/market fit I worry that people are seeking a romantic ideal that happens to very few companies (i.e., a product that sells itself, has no churn, and scales easily).
There are many companies that grew well beyond 40 people without having the above.
Happy to debate it though, as I'm not even sure I'm right, so would love to hear people's thoughts.
- hacknat 10y agoI completely agree, and it's my main concern. The outline that you present is completely acceptable, and even great, for a lifestyle business, it really isn't acceptable for a VC funded startup though. I honestly wish more founders had the guts to admit when they haven't succeeded, even when they've made a bit of money. I've seen so many founders go out on funding rounds pitching scale in their market that the employees know isn't possible (and often they know too). We all learn from failure, but a lot of people in this industry sort of half-succeed and don't have the guts to admit their idea didn't work. They plug along on the fumes of a bloated funding scene that is all to prepared to throw good money after "meh" money. I don't really have an answer either, but this all makes the founders who have high burn rates actually look smart, IMO, because at least they're failing faster than everyone else.