3 ms·

We do try to talk about this but should talk about it more. It turns out that most people (and certainly most journalists) want to talk about/write about the s

by sama 10y ago

We do try to talk about this but should talk about it more. It turns out that most people (and certainly most journalists) want to talk about/write about the success cases. I'll think about how to best do this.

wpietri 10y ago
I'd especially like to see this in the form of lessons learned. Some of my favorite startup pieces are where a founder sat down, told their story, and said, "Next time, here's what I'm doing different." In the startup world we have to be comfortable making mistakes, but I really want those to be new, interesting mistakes.
- wwwdonohue 10y ago
  Even better, usually, is the second/third-time founder actually operating differently after making those mistakes the first time around. That way it's less "here's how I messed up" and more "here's how I messed up, and I know because what I'm doing now is working a lot better."
  - randall 10y ago
    Lots of bad data there. Sometimes a company just doesn't work (timing / bad market) and founders learn the wrong lessons. Speaking from experience.
  - hn4pigs 10y ago
    Two & Three trick pony's are very rare, usually a guy gets over confident after his first win, put's it all in the pot, and assumes he's going to win the house. Just like poker, its a losers play. Better for recursive 'winning entrepreneurs' to play it like sam, and dole out their money to 100 different excellent candidates, and then manage the winners, and try to cull the losers early. ... Harvard spends a lot of time on case history, and a lot of time on losers. But in general once you have been an entrepreneur its pretty quick to spot a loser or a winner. For first time young guys with a good idea, and the right experience '25 years' is about right, 2 or 3 founders is right, backed by a good CPA and law-firm is rarely mentioned but this can be more key than TECH, as fighting the legal hassles and avoiding taxation are more important than how much money you make, its all about much money you walk away with when the game is over. Very few people play second rounds, I think most lose their health, and of course most fail, and you don't hear about them. These few people who continue to play VC, are in the game for the love of it, the connections of SV and such, for most people the dream is to get out and grow wine grapes, or just get far from the rat race. I think most 'winners' end up like the WOZ, they just retire early and spend their lives doing as they wish, very few become like Jobs and try be a control freak until death. I think a normal person gets very bored with managing people after a certain point. Even fewer 'winners' become VC enablers, again we only hear about the winner's. Most 'winners' are smart enough to know that making money is easy, keeping it is hard, so said Carnegie of steel in the 1800's.
anexprogrammer 10y ago
I'd like to know about this too. With all the startups you see, what are the common patterns to failing? A missing skill, lack of belief, timing, weak message etc? If appropriate, how to recognise the warning signs to correct and avoid being the next failure.
- hn4pigs 10y ago
  A common failure young start-ups is arrogance, & waste. Andy Grove (Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive", so true, I used to be amazed that the first thing startup's did was try to imitate the god's with furniture and building's, and the trappings's of wealth. I think your first $10M gross you need to stay lean&mean, complacency is the opposite of paranoia. In a interview with B-Gate he said his recurrent fear early on was making payroll, cash-flow is a real problem. Keeping the expenses low, and keeping lots of cash on hand to make that payroll in good & bad times is a key often missed, of course a few times the VC's may step in to make that payroll, but that's not really a startup, its more of a parent paying the bill's. I think a key is getting all the employees to understand that their 24/7 task is to do activity's that bring in the money, when this is done the money flows. Money is the blood of politics and business, if you see a 'failed' biz, its because their revenue came to a halt.
  - dzink 10y ago
    Is this an anonymous account for someone at YC?
hkyeti 10y ago
A homejoy post mortem would be a good place to start given it was used a positive case study in a bunch of talks etc
- josephjrobison 10y ago
  Yes I've been fascinated by their story for some reason, especially since Handy has far worse ratings and seems to still be eeking along.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Actually, you could reply to that commenter with a link to the interview you recently did with Livingston where you asked what successful ones have in common. Her answer was focus but she mentioned all kinds of bad habits that led to actual failures. It's a nice start on the list. I'd do it myself but lost some bookmarks in a recent crash/restore cycle.
mathattack 10y ago
The beauty of Silicon Valley is (as put by an interviewer) "You can't succeed without a little road rash." I think it will help to talk about folks whose initial companies went under, and then succeeded later. Or failed later and kept on going.
razzaj 10y ago
failures are at least as important a dataset as successes. Most technical entrepreneurs i know are very pattern oriented people. And in a way Reducing the datasets to successes will invitably bias their patterns one way. If the goal of writing about startups is to encourage more entrepreneurs to take the plunge, writing about success is certainly a good way. However, if the goal is to help entrepreneurs make better decisions, and hopefully lead to a higher success rate, then sharing failure stories becomes necessary.
zenslug83 10y ago
This is a good resource that is just waiting for a website refresh: http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt . Homejoy is #3
zenslug83 10y ago
This is a good resource that is just waiting for a website refresh: http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt . Homejoy is #3

by sama 10y ago

wpietri 10y ago

I'd especially like to see this in the form of lessons learned. Some of my favorite startup pieces are where a founder sat down, told their story, and said, "Next time, here's what I'm doing different." In the startup world we have to be comfortable making mistakes, but I really want those to be new, interesting mistakes.

wwwdonohue 10y ago
Even better, usually, is the second/third-time founder actually operating differently after making those mistakes the first time around. That way it's less "here's how I messed up" and more "here's how I messed up, and I know because what I'm doing now is working a lot better."
- randall 10y ago
  Lots of bad data there. Sometimes a company just doesn't work (timing / bad market) and founders learn the wrong lessons. Speaking from experience.
- hn4pigs 10y ago
  Two & Three trick pony's are very rare, usually a guy gets over confident after his first win, put's it all in the pot, and assumes he's going to win the house. Just like poker, its a losers play. Better for recursive 'winning entrepreneurs' to play it like sam, and dole out their money to 100 different excellent candidates, and then manage the winners, and try to cull the losers early. ... Harvard spends a lot of time on case history, and a lot of time on losers. But in general once you have been an entrepreneur its pretty quick to spot a loser or a winner. For first time young guys with a good idea, and the right experience '25 years' is about right, 2 or 3 founders is right, backed by a good CPA and law-firm is rarely mentioned but this can be more key than TECH, as fighting the legal hassles and avoiding taxation are more important than how much money you make, its all about much money you walk away with when the game is over. Very few people play second rounds, I think most lose their health, and of course most fail, and you don't hear about them. These few people who continue to play VC, are in the game for the love of it, the connections of SV and such, for most people the dream is to get out and grow wine grapes, or just get far from the rat race. I think most 'winners' end up like the WOZ, they just retire early and spend their lives doing as they wish, very few become like Jobs and try be a control freak until death. I think a normal person gets very bored with managing people after a certain point. Even fewer 'winners' become VC enablers, again we only hear about the winner's. Most 'winners' are smart enough to know that making money is easy, keeping it is hard, so said Carnegie of steel in the 1800's.

anexprogrammer 10y ago

I'd like to know about this too. With all the startups you see, what are the common patterns to failing? A missing skill, lack of belief, timing, weak message etc? If appropriate, how to recognise the warning signs to correct and avoid being the next failure.

hn4pigs 10y ago
A common failure young start-ups is arrogance, & waste. Andy Grove (Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive", so true, I used to be amazed that the first thing startup's did was try to imitate the god's with furniture and building's, and the trappings's of wealth. I think your first $10M gross you need to stay lean&mean, complacency is the opposite of paranoia. In a interview with B-Gate he said his recurrent fear early on was making payroll, cash-flow is a real problem. Keeping the expenses low, and keeping lots of cash on hand to make that payroll in good & bad times is a key often missed, of course a few times the VC's may step in to make that payroll, but that's not really a startup, its more of a parent paying the bill's. I think a key is getting all the employees to understand that their 24/7 task is to do activity's that bring in the money, when this is done the money flows. Money is the blood of politics and business, if you see a 'failed' biz, its because their revenue came to a halt.
- dzink 10y ago
  Is this an anonymous account for someone at YC?

hkyeti 10y ago

A homejoy post mortem would be a good place to start given it was used a positive case study in a bunch of talks etc

josephjrobison 10y ago
Yes I've been fascinated by their story for some reason, especially since Handy has far worse ratings and seems to still be eeking along.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nickpsecurity 10y ago

Actually, you could reply to that commenter with a link to the interview you recently did with Livingston where you asked what successful ones have in common. Her answer was focus but she mentioned all kinds of bad habits that led to actual failures. It's a nice start on the list. I'd do it myself but lost some bookmarks in a recent crash/restore cycle.

mathattack 10y ago

The beauty of Silicon Valley is (as put by an interviewer) "You can't succeed without a little road rash." I think it will help to talk about folks whose initial companies went under, and then succeeded later. Or failed later and kept on going.

razzaj 10y ago

failures are at least as important a dataset as successes. Most technical entrepreneurs i know are very pattern oriented people. And in a way Reducing the datasets to successes will invitably bias their patterns one way. If the goal of writing about startups is to encourage more entrepreneurs to take the plunge, writing about success is certainly a good way. However, if the goal is to help entrepreneurs make better decisions, and hopefully lead to a higher success rate, then sharing failure stories becomes necessary.

zenslug83 10y ago

This is a good resource that is just waiting for a website refresh: http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt . Homejoy is #3

zenslug83 10y ago

This is a good resource that is just waiting for a website refresh: http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt http://autopsy.io/?ref=producthunt . Homejoy is #3