3 ms·
>3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher th
by r0naa 10y ago
>3) It turns out that it's harder than it sounds to capture the full value of a smaller market for a bunch of reasons, and so the failure rate is much higher than expected.
What kind of reasons? Direct me to some resources if there are too many to enumerate
- dmux 10y agoI'm interested in this as well. Doesn't this go against Rob Walling's advice in "Start Small Stay Small" as well as Peter Thiel's advice in "Zero to One"?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- danenania 10y agoI read Peter Thiel's advice as being more along the lines of finding a small beachhead that you can conquer to get started, then using that as a base to push into a big market.
- paulsutter 10y agoPrimarily because it's hard to pivot in a small market. When you are in a massive market there are lots of adjacent places to pivot. When you're in a small market, if you miss on the first try, you probably miss completely.
- js4 10y agoThings go wrong in business regardless of market size -team issues, tech issues, funding issues, operational issues etc. Your probability of success in a small market is going to be marginally better than it is in a bigger market. So if you look at it in terms of expected value, the bigger market is more valuable given the probability of failure.