3 ms·
Statistics on how many startups fail because of X is dubious. Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses chance at succeeding. Ev
by napierzaza 16y ago
Statistics on how many startups fail because of X is dubious. Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses chance at succeeding. Even a large margin of small businesses fail in the first 3-4 years.
Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big fast" companies? Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction.
- scott_s 16y agoI don't think the intended lesson is "You have to be a fast follower." There are probably many fast followers that fail. Rather, it's "You don't have to be first." His argument is that being first is not correlated with success. If that's true, then you probably don't need to fret about being first.
- regularfry 16y ago> Who's to say whether doing the opposite of X would improve any businesses chance at succeeding. Well, if you read the article, you'll see that is dealt with explicitly. 47% of pioneers failed, according to the cited study, as opposed to 8% of fast followers. > Are the slow starters more successful? Do THEY get as big as the "get big fast" companies? The example of Ford vs GM would indicate that they can; or at least that there's no advantage in being first. > Don't just shake the fail stick because you can do it in either direction. Only if you can come up with numbers to refute the study, or a better argument than "I don't believe this is measurable" to render it null. Otherwise you're just waving a twig in the air.