4 ms·
I agree that's a great plan (so would 37s, I imagine!). But it's not the one that most people follow because of (IMO) insanely optimistic projections about org
by webwright 18y ago
I agree that's a great plan (so would 37s, I imagine!). But it's not the one that most people follow because of (IMO) insanely optimistic projections about organic growth/sales fueled by (presumably) word of mouth and, er, TechCrunch.
Depending on the market timing-- the half-assed effort might kill you, too. People who bet big can win big, and people who hedge can lose as a direct result of their hedging-- so I don't think your formula is perfect for all markets or goals.
The half-assed stuff is from a headline from a previous post of mine (that was syndicated on VentureHacks and in BusinessWeek). You're the first to take umbrage that I'm aware of. It was playful and tongue-in-cheek, but you're welcome to take offense if it suits you.
- tptacek 18y agoTaking offense always suits me. My question for you: what does it matter whether your market projections are wrong if your company has cash flow? I look at the funded companies that aren't cash flow positive in their 2nd and 3rd years of operation and wonder why people think that's such an awesome plan.
- bfioca 18y agoIt makes sense to not be cash flow positive in the 2nd and 3rd year if you can show that investing in R&D or sales/marketing will accelerate growth by a nice factor. I think you're oversimplifying.
- tptacek 18y agoMore startups fail than exit successfully. "Investment years" are a gamble.
- bfioca 18y agoYeah but that's the point. :)
- tptacek 18y agoNo, it's a terrible idea for the founders. "2 out of 3 businesses fail. So investors need the third to make up for the other 2." Remember, all three of the companies got pushed into a stupid business plan by the "hockey stick" requirement, when a less risky plan could still have made the founders millionaires.