3 ms·
"Good execution" is somewhat of a question-begging term, and the details differ depending on who you talk to. If you have an idea, execute it, and make lots of
by aristus 16y ago
"Good execution" is somewhat of a question-begging term, and the details differ depending on who you talk to. If you have an idea, execute it, and make lots of money, it's hard to argue that the execution was bad.
In general, I think a good execution would be one that a) didn't take years to launch b) doesn't take enormous effort to maintain as-is, c) can be iterated on, d) actually solves a need, e) in an efficient and compelling manner. An investor would mention other things like a good hiring pipeline and management structure, IP, business relationships, etc.
Here's the thing: the only people you really have to convince of your execution is your customers.
- kschua 16y agoSo in you opinion, what did Facebook execute better than Friendster which in turn execute better than Sixapart or one of e many social networking ideas in the past Is it better marketing, things like "Status", "Like" etc?
- aristus 16y agoWell, again, this is a question-begging term. There is no magic bullet -- there are only things that, in hindsight, worked very very well, and disasters that you avoided. Friendster in particular shot themselves repeatedly in the foot by: a) fetishizing immense graph calculations which made their site unbearably slow & expensive to run. b) ignoring a huge influx of overseas users until they became a big capex problem c) not working out ways to exclude or better monetize those overseas users d) not really innovating because they were preoccupied with a). Now things could have turned out differently. If those hugely expensive graph calculations had been hugely beneficial to the user experience, they would have won, hands-down. But that turned out not to be the case. It was a bad bet. Hard to say if it was "bad execution".