5 ms·

It’s great what they did, very impressive and excellent product. However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without

It’s great what they did, very impressive and excellent product. However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”. They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating. They didn’t spend “a dime on marketing”, but they did spend time promoting their product on several platforms, including producthunt, and they do have a blog (which is where the article is hosted), and they do have one full-time employee (out of four), in charge of marketing. So maybe what they truly meant is that they didn’t pay for advertising, but that’s different than not spending money on marketing, which they did, and in fact you could even say that it’s probably a significant part of their budget (given one of the only four team members is dedicated to marketing).

maxs 6y ago
Is there such a thing as true boostrapping? One always has to put some sweat/time in the pre-revenue phase. This time has a cost (opportunity cost + you could have had a job / did consulting)
- notfromhere 6y ago
  If they didn’t write their own OS is it even bootstrapping?
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    They probably used a computer obtained for another project. With off the shelf parts.
  - dekerta 6y ago
    If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe
    - mdeck_ 6y ago
      –Carl Sagan (which you’ve just slightly misquoted) Credit where credit is due :)
dkarras 6y ago
the hairsplitting of HN never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Yes, realistically, bootstrapping means you are only allowed to use money you find on the street, and "no marketing spend" means you press "publish" and can only wait.
- ookblah 6y ago
  right? apparently if you worked for decades then tried to start your own company with savings that isn't bootstrapping lol.
  - purerandomness 6y ago
    Exactly, there's a term for it: "Investing". Different words exist for different reasons, and the bootstrapping community has a reason to make sure that term is not being confused with investing.
    - darkwater 6y ago
      How can it be an investment if you are the sole artificer of the outcome of your investment? An investor finds one or more companies that look good and are worth their money and then mostly wait for the profits. But in this case the same people who put the money are the ones planning and executing the business plan. What's the difference in using money earned by running another company rather than using money earned by working for another company? It's the very definition of hair-splitting.
      - purerandomness 6y ago
        > What's the difference [...]? The distinction is very clear: Bootstrapping a business means you can do it without funds, in a "poor" country, without inheriting money or having savings. It's important because it shifts focus towards executing a business model that is likely to succeed without having to experiment and see "what sticks" first. Productizing a consulting business is one example. You repackage knowledge you gained while working for clients, into its own product. The only expense in that phase is your 4,99€/mo root server. The distinction is important because there are people who are interested in one, but not the other, or who can only do one, but not the other. When we talk about different things, we need different terms to make sure we know what it is that we are talking about.
IncRnd 6y ago
> However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”. > They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating. That is the definition of bootstrapping with no need for quotes. They pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, starting with existing resources and created something more complex and effective.
- filoleg 6y ago
  Exactly. If Jeff Bezos starts a new company tomorrow and funds it using only his own wealth with no outside investments, it counts as bootstrapped. Of course it would be less impressive if someone of Jeff's caliber bootstraps a company, as opposed to a much less wealthy individual. But it would still be bootstrapping in both cases.

maxs 6y ago

Is there such a thing as true boostrapping? One always has to put some sweat/time in the pre-revenue phase. This time has a cost (opportunity cost + you could have had a job / did consulting)

notfromhere 6y ago
If they didn’t write their own OS is it even bootstrapping?
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  They probably used a computer obtained for another project. With off the shelf parts.
- dekerta 6y ago
  If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe
  - mdeck_ 6y ago
    –Carl Sagan (which you’ve just slightly misquoted) Credit where credit is due :)

dkarras 6y ago

the hairsplitting of HN never ceases to amaze and amuse me. Yes, realistically, bootstrapping means you are only allowed to use money you find on the street, and "no marketing spend" means you press "publish" and can only wait.

ookblah 6y ago
right? apparently if you worked for decades then tried to start your own company with savings that isn't bootstrapping lol.
- purerandomness 6y ago
  Exactly, there's a term for it: "Investing". Different words exist for different reasons, and the bootstrapping community has a reason to make sure that term is not being confused with investing.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    How can it be an investment if you are the sole artificer of the outcome of your investment? An investor finds one or more companies that look good and are worth their money and then mostly wait for the profits. But in this case the same people who put the money are the ones planning and executing the business plan. What's the difference in using money earned by running another company rather than using money earned by working for another company? It's the very definition of hair-splitting.
    - purerandomness 6y ago
      > What's the difference [...]? The distinction is very clear: Bootstrapping a business means you can do it without funds, in a "poor" country, without inheriting money or having savings. It's important because it shifts focus towards executing a business model that is likely to succeed without having to experiment and see "what sticks" first. Productizing a consulting business is one example. You repackage knowledge you gained while working for clients, into its own product. The only expense in that phase is your 4,99€/mo root server. The distinction is important because there are people who are interested in one, but not the other, or who can only do one, but not the other. When we talk about different things, we need different terms to make sure we know what it is that we are talking about.

IncRnd 6y ago

> However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”. > They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating. That is the definition of bootstrapping with no need for quotes. They pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, starting with existing resources and created something more complex and effective.

filoleg 6y ago
Exactly. If Jeff Bezos starts a new company tomorrow and funds it using only his own wealth with no outside investments, it counts as bootstrapped. Of course it would be less impressive if someone of Jeff's caliber bootstraps a company, as opposed to a much less wealthy individual. But it would still be bootstrapping in both cases.