3 ms·

Having a working business is just one way. Many successful people become successful with failing businesses, particularly when venture capital is involved. In f

Having a working business is just one way. Many successful people become successful with failing businesses, particularly when venture capital is involved. In fact, you can have many failed businesses, with many bankruptcies even, and still be successful. “Failing up” is a very real thing, and a valid strategy. Being successful requires you to convince others that society owes you something for who you are. A successful business is just one way to do that.

Swizec 7y ago
> Many successful people become successful with failing businesses I agree, you can be a successful person with a failing business. But can you really be a successful founder without having a successful business?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- themagician 7y ago
  Sure you can. Many founders of failed businesses do it over and over again. Some even go on to start their own VC firms. Being a successful founder means making your bosses happy. That means getting a return. That can be monetary, political, etc. Many founders, particularly in the SV area, sell businesses for huge amounts that never made a dime. They sell them at inflated prices and then the acquiring company closes up shop and writes it down or spits them back out for pennies on the dollar. They were never profitable. No value was created. Modern finance creates an unusual landscape. Charisma, storytelling, persistence… there are all traits that can result in a successful exit.
- onion2k 7y ago
  Some founders walk away from failed businesses millions of dollars better off. If money is the metric you use, having a successful business isn't strictly necessary.
- lmeyerov 7y ago
  Put that way, most successful founders are successful at exiting, not building businesses. Those are often related things, but not the same. An exiting founder's team size is proportional to their last funding. But for building a business, they'll go through funny math to tie that to show they won't implode ("no, we're not losing money for every customer, we're aiming for 3yr payback with strong disruption moat and stickiness for net-negative-churn..."). Both kinds can be successful, just a very diff operational mindset. The more I understood various silicon valley ecosystems (ex in sales/marketing/apps/...: "idea -> sales/marketing/discount/hype/first-to-market-driven sales -> race to acquisition by a monopoly who doesn't need the business to be profitable, to find a bigger investor, someone figures out a magical pivot, or else implode"), the more I see most SF->google/yahoo/fb/BigMonopolyCo acquisitions as likely failed businesses with somewhat burnt customers... and materially successful founders, teams, & especially investors. The numbers can be nuts (including > $1B acquisitions squarely in this camp.) I've learned to bucket advice from such founders as being primarily sensible within insider-y & exit-minded frameworks vs. optimizing for building big, meaningful, and sustainable things. The former solve political fights for monopolies and the latter can move societies, so both create value: To each their own.

Swizec 7y ago

> Many successful people become successful with failing businesses I agree, you can be a successful person with a failing business. But can you really be a successful founder without having a successful business?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
themagician 7y ago
Sure you can. Many founders of failed businesses do it over and over again. Some even go on to start their own VC firms. Being a successful founder means making your bosses happy. That means getting a return. That can be monetary, political, etc. Many founders, particularly in the SV area, sell businesses for huge amounts that never made a dime. They sell them at inflated prices and then the acquiring company closes up shop and writes it down or spits them back out for pennies on the dollar. They were never profitable. No value was created. Modern finance creates an unusual landscape. Charisma, storytelling, persistence… there are all traits that can result in a successful exit.
onion2k 7y ago
Some founders walk away from failed businesses millions of dollars better off. If money is the metric you use, having a successful business isn't strictly necessary.
lmeyerov 7y ago
Put that way, most successful founders are successful at exiting, not building businesses. Those are often related things, but not the same. An exiting founder's team size is proportional to their last funding. But for building a business, they'll go through funny math to tie that to show they won't implode ("no, we're not losing money for every customer, we're aiming for 3yr payback with strong disruption moat and stickiness for net-negative-churn..."). Both kinds can be successful, just a very diff operational mindset. The more I understood various silicon valley ecosystems (ex in sales/marketing/apps/...: "idea -> sales/marketing/discount/hype/first-to-market-driven sales -> race to acquisition by a monopoly who doesn't need the business to be profitable, to find a bigger investor, someone figures out a magical pivot, or else implode"), the more I see most SF->google/yahoo/fb/BigMonopolyCo acquisitions as likely failed businesses with somewhat burnt customers... and materially successful founders, teams, & especially investors. The numbers can be nuts (including > $1B acquisitions squarely in this camp.) I've learned to bucket advice from such founders as being primarily sensible within insider-y & exit-minded frameworks vs. optimizing for building big, meaningful, and sustainable things. The former solve political fights for monopolies and the latter can move societies, so both create value: To each their own.