6 ms·

Ansel from PSL here. Absolutely. Because we're venture-backed and are spinning out venture-backed companies, we are limited to billion dollar ideas. It's not u

Ansel from PSL here. Absolutely. Because we're venture-backed and are spinning out venture-backed companies, we are limited to billion dollar ideas. It's not uncommon for us to kill great ideas that could "only" make tens of millions of dollars. We're hoping through blog posts like this and other means to be able to share more of them because we want those companies to exist, we're just not set up to create them!

crikli 7y ago
Hey Ansel, thanks for responding and for validating my train of thought...I don't have that much exposure to the VC world so the things I suspect far outweigh the things I know. :)
sprsimplestuff 7y ago
feel free to start sharing those "small market" ideas haha
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  After they've been vetted of course ;)
awb 7y ago
> we are limited to billion dollar ideas How did matchmaking for music lessons get into the discussion as a billion dollar idea? Referrals for tutoring in any subject (math, reading, music, etc.) would be a bigger market, but even then it might not be a $1B company.
- rubyn00bie 7y ago
  Well I was right there with you, thinking it was a completely shit idea, but a little math shows how it at least popped up on the radar (and I don't think its quite so bad myself after some thought): 100,000 music instructors, $60 per hour, at 365 days per year is roughly: $2.19 billion gross revenue per year-hour in the segment. Assuming, the average hours per day are like 3.5 (I can't imagine folks doing this are giving lessons for a full 8 hours per day, 5 days a week), that gives a total market of like: ~$7.65bn. Assuming they could earn a 20% stake in 100% of the market, that's like $1.53bn. Looking at the numbers, I think there is likely more potential than they realized[1]. I would suspect that by and large, digital advertising is capturing almost none of the market as kinda proven by their analysis. Looking at how low the frequency of searches were compared to the sheer number of employed individuals tells me something is off as a whole with the analysis. That is to say, digital advertising isn't showing the volume of or demand for musical teaching service because it's highly likely everyone believes it's incapable of doing so or adding value... That (driving the market online) is the problem to be solved in the space, because it sounds _hard_, and solving hard problems tends to be the way to make a lot of money. The other opportunity I would look at is, sort of from the other side: how to fix (what I assume to be likely) most music instructor's "underemployment" problems (i.e. inconsistent, few, or not enough hours). I imagine this angle would probably net more gross sign-ups as well since users (instructors) would be advertising the platform for you. With all that said, you'd have to assume there is latent under-served demand (25-35%) in the market too to bother with anything I've said... that 25% is essentially what would be left over for others after you've captured the niche. One last thought, for the VC since it looks like they're reading HN. Have you thought about doing retroactive market analysis where unicorns now exist to see what the market looked like then (e.g. short-term vacation rentals in ~2006)? Might give you some strong signals for where there is potential... [1] They are indeed a VC so it may not be in their best interest (time value of money, opportunity costs, etc)... Edit: Adjust some bad arithmetic.
  - awb 7y ago
    $60/hr and booking 3.5hrs per day all 365 days of the year are all really high estimates IMO. That's $76k/year. My guess is that only the top 1% of music tutors are making that much per year. And only 100k tutors in the US is an incredibly small market.
    - patmorgan23 7y ago
      Yeah booking 10-15 hrs a week at $35/hr for 40 weeks would probably be a much more representative sample (Thats $14,000/year per person on the low end)
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > That is to say, digital advertising isn't showing the volume of or demand for musical teaching service because it's highly likely everyone believes it's incapable of doing so or adding value An ad for online one-to-one art lessons has been popping up in my Wechat moments. Judging by the ad copy, they feel they have two strengths: 1. No need to transport your kid to and from the lesson. 2. Your kid will like this more than classroom-based lessons. I conclude that the market they're trying to serve is parents who would like their children to learn to draw. But there are a lot of those, and their selling points seem pretty reasonable.
  - ssivark 7y ago
    > Assuming they could earn a 20% stake in 100% of the market, that's like $1.53bn. That makes no sense. Why would/should instructors+students continue to give them 20% commission for follow-up classes beyond the first one? It seems like just wishful thinking. The app store situation is very unusual (monopoly/monopsony), and does not apply in this context.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Yeah, this is the problem Wag has been having... and they ended up trying some draconian things to try to prevent people from working outside the system. These market place ideas don't work nearly as well for businesses where there are long term, repeated, interactions between seller and purchaser. They work best when there is a one time exchange, because a market is really getting paid to make an introduction. edit: I see now that many people made this argument much more eloquently in other comments on this thread.
- nautilus12 7y ago
  > How did matchmaking for music lessons get into the discussion as a billion dollar idea? This is a near perfect example of how "big business" can kill the spirit of entrepreneurship. The idea (or VC cocaine induced fever dream) that every idea should be a billion dollar idea is exactly whats wrong with the current tech climate.
- anstosa 7y ago
  Brainstorming and validation rarely starts with a perfect idea. It starts with some about of demand, an unsolved problem or an inefficient market. We start to dig and as we talk to potential customers we get a better understanding of the problem and pivot accordingly. Sometimes we end up unearthing a great idea, sometimes not. It's worth remembering that finding billion dollar business narratives often involve some amount of market creation or expansion. It's not just "can we capture enough of the market that exists". It's "would customers pay more for a better experience?", "would more people become customers if the process was easier? Or cheaper?". - Ansel from PSL
arminiusreturns 7y ago
Does this apply to the vast majority of VC's? So if I want to do a yc pitch it needs to be able to have unicorn level potential? Who would you target as investors for tens of millions ideas if so? I'm guessing a larger focus on angels and IB's after a more proven, traditional profit model is shown (often a much different model than VC-startup profit model).
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Yes, VC returns are dominated by the huge hits, so everyone is chasing those. Google almost certainly returned more than every other investment made that year for example. For a tens of millions pitch go to Earnest Capital who will be perfectly happy to invest. https://earnestcapital.com/ https://earnestcapital.com/
- anstosa 7y ago
  Yes due to how the economics of traditional venture funds work, in order to achieve the returns that limited partners expect, investments are made in companies with unicorn potential. Some will do well, most will fail, sometimes one will actually become a unicorn but because you don't know which is which you need every at bat to have a path to a home run. This means that if your business is the right shape, VC is a fast way to raise a tremendous about of money. But that's NOT to say that every company can or should raise a tremendous about of money. There are less traditional VCs, angel investors, debt, and other financial vehicles that can help businesses succeed. There are tons of examples of companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars who raised little or no money to get there (Webflow and Atlassian are two top-of-mind examples). - Ansel from PSL
snowwrestler 7y ago
Have you found many billion-dollar ideas by following this ad-testing methodology?
- anstosa 7y ago
  We have spun out 20 companies over the last 4 years which we are confident meet this criteria using this methodology. All are venture backed (led by investors other than us) and still operating (except for 1 which sold to Nike last year) - Ansel from PSL
TheKarateKid 7y ago
I understand the logic, but I can't help but feel that this type of assessment is really shortsighted. Would Facebook have passed this "test"? There was Myspace and Friendster dominating. How about Instagram? Why would anyone want to share photos elsewhere when everyone posted their lives on Facebook? We all know how those stories ended. Your firm's method only addresses the current market in current conditions. Having the foresight to see the currently unseen before anyone else is what yields amazing results. And if this is the main reason for killing something like this off... let's just say I'm glad I don't have my funds there. :)

crikli 7y ago

Hey Ansel, thanks for responding and for validating my train of thought...I don't have that much exposure to the VC world so the things I suspect far outweigh the things I know. :)

sprsimplestuff 7y ago

feel free to start sharing those "small market" ideas haha

chiefalchemist 7y ago
After they've been vetted of course ;)

awb 7y ago

> we are limited to billion dollar ideas How did matchmaking for music lessons get into the discussion as a billion dollar idea? Referrals for tutoring in any subject (math, reading, music, etc.) would be a bigger market, but even then it might not be a $1B company.

rubyn00bie 7y ago
Well I was right there with you, thinking it was a completely shit idea, but a little math shows how it at least popped up on the radar (and I don't think its quite so bad myself after some thought): 100,000 music instructors, $60 per hour, at 365 days per year is roughly: $2.19 billion gross revenue per year-hour in the segment. Assuming, the average hours per day are like 3.5 (I can't imagine folks doing this are giving lessons for a full 8 hours per day, 5 days a week), that gives a total market of like: ~$7.65bn. Assuming they could earn a 20% stake in 100% of the market, that's like $1.53bn. Looking at the numbers, I think there is likely more potential than they realized[1]. I would suspect that by and large, digital advertising is capturing almost none of the market as kinda proven by their analysis. Looking at how low the frequency of searches were compared to the sheer number of employed individuals tells me something is off as a whole with the analysis. That is to say, digital advertising isn't showing the volume of or demand for musical teaching service because it's highly likely everyone believes it's incapable of doing so or adding value... That (driving the market online) is the problem to be solved in the space, because it sounds _hard_, and solving hard problems tends to be the way to make a lot of money. The other opportunity I would look at is, sort of from the other side: how to fix (what I assume to be likely) most music instructor's "underemployment" problems (i.e. inconsistent, few, or not enough hours). I imagine this angle would probably net more gross sign-ups as well since users (instructors) would be advertising the platform for you. With all that said, you'd have to assume there is latent under-served demand (25-35%) in the market too to bother with anything I've said... that 25% is essentially what would be left over for others after you've captured the niche. One last thought, for the VC since it looks like they're reading HN. Have you thought about doing retroactive market analysis where unicorns now exist to see what the market looked like then (e.g. short-term vacation rentals in ~2006)? Might give you some strong signals for where there is potential... [1] They are indeed a VC so it may not be in their best interest (time value of money, opportunity costs, etc)... Edit: Adjust some bad arithmetic.
- awb 7y ago
  $60/hr and booking 3.5hrs per day all 365 days of the year are all really high estimates IMO. That's $76k/year. My guess is that only the top 1% of music tutors are making that much per year. And only 100k tutors in the US is an incredibly small market.
  - patmorgan23 7y ago
    Yeah booking 10-15 hrs a week at $35/hr for 40 weeks would probably be a much more representative sample (Thats $14,000/year per person on the low end)
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > That is to say, digital advertising isn't showing the volume of or demand for musical teaching service because it's highly likely everyone believes it's incapable of doing so or adding value An ad for online one-to-one art lessons has been popping up in my Wechat moments. Judging by the ad copy, they feel they have two strengths: 1. No need to transport your kid to and from the lesson. 2. Your kid will like this more than classroom-based lessons. I conclude that the market they're trying to serve is parents who would like their children to learn to draw. But there are a lot of those, and their selling points seem pretty reasonable.
- ssivark 7y ago
  > Assuming they could earn a 20% stake in 100% of the market, that's like $1.53bn. That makes no sense. Why would/should instructors+students continue to give them 20% commission for follow-up classes beyond the first one? It seems like just wishful thinking. The app store situation is very unusual (monopoly/monopsony), and does not apply in this context.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Yeah, this is the problem Wag has been having... and they ended up trying some draconian things to try to prevent people from working outside the system. These market place ideas don't work nearly as well for businesses where there are long term, repeated, interactions between seller and purchaser. They work best when there is a one time exchange, because a market is really getting paid to make an introduction. edit: I see now that many people made this argument much more eloquently in other comments on this thread.
nautilus12 7y ago
> How did matchmaking for music lessons get into the discussion as a billion dollar idea? This is a near perfect example of how "big business" can kill the spirit of entrepreneurship. The idea (or VC cocaine induced fever dream) that every idea should be a billion dollar idea is exactly whats wrong with the current tech climate.
anstosa 7y ago
Brainstorming and validation rarely starts with a perfect idea. It starts with some about of demand, an unsolved problem or an inefficient market. We start to dig and as we talk to potential customers we get a better understanding of the problem and pivot accordingly. Sometimes we end up unearthing a great idea, sometimes not. It's worth remembering that finding billion dollar business narratives often involve some amount of market creation or expansion. It's not just "can we capture enough of the market that exists". It's "would customers pay more for a better experience?", "would more people become customers if the process was easier? Or cheaper?". - Ansel from PSL

arminiusreturns 7y ago

Does this apply to the vast majority of VC's? So if I want to do a yc pitch it needs to be able to have unicorn level potential? Who would you target as investors for tens of millions ideas if so? I'm guessing a larger focus on angels and IB's after a more proven, traditional profit model is shown (often a much different model than VC-startup profit model).

barry-cotter 7y ago
Yes, VC returns are dominated by the huge hits, so everyone is chasing those. Google almost certainly returned more than every other investment made that year for example. For a tens of millions pitch go to Earnest Capital who will be perfectly happy to invest. https://earnestcapital.com/ https://earnestcapital.com/
anstosa 7y ago
Yes due to how the economics of traditional venture funds work, in order to achieve the returns that limited partners expect, investments are made in companies with unicorn potential. Some will do well, most will fail, sometimes one will actually become a unicorn but because you don't know which is which you need every at bat to have a path to a home run. This means that if your business is the right shape, VC is a fast way to raise a tremendous about of money. But that's NOT to say that every company can or should raise a tremendous about of money. There are less traditional VCs, angel investors, debt, and other financial vehicles that can help businesses succeed. There are tons of examples of companies worth hundreds of millions of dollars who raised little or no money to get there (Webflow and Atlassian are two top-of-mind examples). - Ansel from PSL

snowwrestler 7y ago

Have you found many billion-dollar ideas by following this ad-testing methodology?

anstosa 7y ago
We have spun out 20 companies over the last 4 years which we are confident meet this criteria using this methodology. All are venture backed (led by investors other than us) and still operating (except for 1 which sold to Nike last year) - Ansel from PSL

TheKarateKid 7y ago

I understand the logic, but I can't help but feel that this type of assessment is really shortsighted. Would Facebook have passed this "test"? There was Myspace and Friendster dominating. How about Instagram? Why would anyone want to share photos elsewhere when everyone posted their lives on Facebook? We all know how those stories ended. Your firm's method only addresses the current market in current conditions. Having the foresight to see the currently unseen before anyone else is what yields amazing results. And if this is the main reason for killing something like this off... let's just say I'm glad I don't have my funds there. :)