6 ms·

I personally can't fathom why someone would feel the need to start networking before a working product exists. CEO? Why would you need a CEO when there isn't a

by mroman 18y ago

I personally can't fathom why someone would feel the need to start networking before a working product exists. CEO? Why would you need a CEO when there isn't a company to run either on paper or in actuality?

konsl 18y ago
Founders should always be networking.
- mroman 18y ago
  Personally, that strikes me as a bit too generic for a tech startup. The value of the startup stems from the value of the technology it produces, not the value of the network of contacts one of the founders has built. While networking can be valuable, allocating resources to networking BEFORE there is a working product is a huge mistake.
  - incomethax 18y ago
    I can agree from personal experience. Premature networking can kill a startup. Edit: What I mean by this is networking at the expense of product/technology building.
  - orianmarx 18y ago
    Well, that really depends on what you define as value. There are plenty of tech companies out there that created tons of "valuable" code but were not successful because somebody else got the attention or was able to strike one critical deal. As for allocating resources to networking before there is a working product, check out www.path101.com. I met these guys when they did an open brainstorming session with nothing but a preliminary pitch deck and not a line of code. Being open from very early on enabled them to find angel investors and their first employees, and when it came time to doing an alpha launch they had tons of people that had been eager to try the thing out for months.
    - mroman 18y ago
      I agree that vaporware has been successfully marketed before, however, that is not my idea of creating value, so I agree that it depends on how one defines value, and I would not want that - marketing non-existent products - to become the meaning of value within the context of a tech startup, that is best left to a marketing/publicity outfit if you ask me. I also think it is wrong to conduct market studies under the guise of a real product offer. What happens when it turns out that the bullet points with features cannot be implemented, or are simply not the best solution for the users? I find pg's thoughts on the subject of how problems may end up being redefined as they are being worked on to be very wise advice.
- greendestiny 18y ago
  Yeah but would you have startup destroying conflicts over whether or not founders were bringing in investors and advisors before you had a product? I'm not sure I'd question the commitment of people who were actively building the product either. It sounds like this startup really had some forward momentum with people getting stuff done. I'm not sure the authors expectations were reasonable, and I think he had to work fairly hard to kill this startup.
  - mroman 18y ago
    I think that courting investors and obtaining advisors is one thing, general networking is another, which is what I am referring to, and by general networking I mean building contacts/telling people about what you are doing/determining who can provide you with what. I agree with the second part of your comment. On the other hand, some folks take being pragmatic to an extreme, as in no order/uniformity/quality control/structure/thought into design/effort to identify possible future issues and a general just get whatever done in a hurry and push it out the door attitude . . . which is all just as bad as too much formally define roles/establish this and that and the other/talk about and plan stuff to death/posture around with this and that and the other . . .
    - greendestiny 18y ago
      I agree with all of that. I mean the author may have been saved a lot of hassle further down the track with failing quickly, or he might have killed a good potential company - I really can't say even though I put forth an opinion on it. If you have good people, some funding, a demo and the start of a code base then thats a lot to lose over your expectations on networking and days of the week devoted to the startup. Even if the truth is more networking and fulltime cofounders would have helped.
      - orianmarx 18y ago
        You know, maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I thought we had a great thing going right up to the end. But what happened when we landed YC was that a lot of stuff came to the surface that hadn't been addressed well enough before, including a partner's belief that a lot of my effort up to that point had been worthless and he didn't trust me to do any better going forward. That was a pretty rough pill to swallow, especially after being responsible for most of the YC application, leading the three interviews we did to get accepted and building the front end for what we demoed. I certainly may have killed the startup by emphasizing things that I thought were important, but it doesn't make any sense to think I was actively trying to kill it. My point was that I was blindsided by what happened in the end, so now I've gone back to think about how we got there and, you know, these are some of the conclusions I've drawn and of course they could still be wrong.
- brianlash 18y ago
  Eh... founders should always be talking with different, intelligent people and soaking up ideas. If that's what you mean by networking, fine. But I think the networking tptacek refers to is the type that's organized X times/mo. and for the purpose of professional development. It's those ad hoc events where this group is encouraged to co-mingle with this one. It has its place, but just as useful at times is getting together with a group of peers you trust and exchanging notes. Having a few beers and talking about what challenges you're having, what breakthroughs you've made... I think the tradtional idea of networking is overemphasized among a lot of startups (and sometimes dangerously so) because it's an abstraction away from the work that keeps them alive. You've got to make sure you keep a watchful eye on your schedule and don't confuse attending X and Y event for Z productivity.
  - orianmarx 18y ago
    I agree that "professional networking" is often a waste of time, but meeting other startups and potential users and sharing ideas has always been valuable to me. That's what I was trying to say by referring to "connecting" and not just "networking". Maybe there's a better word...
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      Making friends.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Agree, networking is over-emphasized. We did a lot of networking at the outset, with no particular plan or strategy, and it doesn't feel like time well spent. Not sure I'm saying "my kind of networking meets X times per month", but I will say this: we organized monthly meetups for the professionals in our market (computer/network security), made it as all-inclusive as we could, and it's been far more valuable to us than the vanity networking we did early on. Isn't this one of the major recurring criticisms of valley culture? That all those people do is go to parties with the same people every night?
    - 18y ago
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- webwright 18y ago
  Not always. There are times to put your head down and build (depending on team composition and what your business is doing, of course) It totally depends on the product, but from the YC PoV, you have 3 months to build something that dazzles investors. Generally, YC discourages hunting for networking/bizdev/funding deals because you have EXACTLY ONE SHOT to impress a room full of the most important early stage investors on the planet.
  - orianmarx 18y ago
    But YC also requires you to be in the same location as the other startups and to attend two dinners each week, plus it encourages visiting the YC partners during "office hours".
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  >Founders should always be networking. I don't think Wozniak did much networking. I don't know what would have happened if Jobs got mad at him because he didn't.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Founders shouldn't network in place of building. You can always network after you've got a product, but if you can't do both at once, product comes first.
mhartl 18y ago
The best time to build a network is before you need it.
- mroman 18y ago
  I don't think a network is very crucial to a startup's survival. I think the value of the technology is. IMO, where value exists, everything naturally follows, including people/companies that want to network with value. I found the story to be rather depressing, yet there were a few points that were - to me anyway - glaringly obvious. Someone focusing on suit type endeavors when that someone is an engineer/geek/hacker/techie/[insert name for us here] is irresponsible in that it amounts to a gross misallocation of resources. In other words, any double digit IQ'er wearing a suit can network, but not everyone can design and code and troubleshoot, which is what creates value.
  - SwellJoe 18y ago
    IMO, where value exists, everything naturally follows, including people/companies that want to network with value. This is overly optimistic about the capacity of your fellow man to recognize value. Sometimes you just have to tell them what the value is, and if you don't have a network, you have no one to tell. Sounds ridiculous to nerds like you and I, I know, but if you spend a little time in the corporate world you'll begin to see how much major purchase decisions are made based on what a trusted individual recommends. A lot of times the "trusted" individual is a vendor with a vested interest in selling something. This actually works better in the long run than you might think, because most people work in the same business for many years, and if one vendor screws them (while seeming very nice), they have time to learn and change to another vendor (probably also someone they've spoken to before). But, I do think the OP does have some prioritization issues. It always comes back to the product. If you don't have a great product, you don't have a company worth networking for.
    - mroman 18y ago
      I see your points, and agree. You hit it on the head when you pointed out that it seems obvious to us nerds.
sebastian 18y ago
I second this opinion. The last position a tech startup needs to worry about filling is a CEO, CMO, etc. A CEO twittering all day long, hanging out / socializing / spending money at conferences and meetups is NOT going to bring ANY value to the startup at all. You first need a product! Once you have a product out of the door, a proven idea and a cash flow you can start worrying about filling up those hi-procrastination roles. Until then worry about finding people who can code, can design, can hack, can do anything that has a measurable outcome.
- alain94040 18y ago
  As much as I wish you were correct, reality says otherwise. When I was 100% a geek, I would agree with you: the product (code) is everything, who cares about those other minor business annoyances? Reality: how programmers does it take to implement a good product that people will buy? More than you can afford. How do you afford them? Raise money. Which for you may mean "pitch to dumb rich people", but that's still a CEO's job. At any time in the project development, a good pitch to the right business partner can turn the company around and greatly improve its prospects. Yes, if you don't do any of those "CEO" things, you may still succeed because you push through an amazing product. But why take the chance? Try to do everything well, the product development, as well as the CEO/pitching part.
trapper 18y ago
There are some great companies built without a product. Often times you can fake sell before a product exists and give a refund to prove that a market exists before development. Otherwise all your product dev can be wasted. I know successful (>10M revenue) companies who have mocked up a brochure and sold it this way. Their thought was "if they don't bring out a credit card right away you aren't solving a pain, you dont have a product".
- abl 18y ago
  True, Microsoft is an example, Gates went out and bought what would become MS-DOS, AFTER he made the deal with IBM. However, this has to be looked at in context - he had the money to buy it from someone else.
  - mroman 18y ago
    Right, I remember reading something to that effect once . . . that event sort of proves both opposing opinions doesn't it? Yes, you can make money by selling vaporware, and yes, it is evil and abominable people/companies that do it (which is why I won't do it)
    - abl 18y ago
      I wouldn't go as far as labeling it evil - as long as you have the resources and the "follow-through" to make vaporware into a real product. It took a significant amount of resourcefulness to land a deal with IBM, whether it was easy because of prior contacts, or hard-earned from the ground up, is notwithstanding. However, the final product was delivered, and the quality was good is most respects. But Gates' goal was not to build a product from the start, and Orian's goal was, which makes the situation quite different.
      - mroman 18y ago
        I think it is evil because it basically amounts to making a bet with other people's money . . . I realize that "what if" scenarios sound unrealistic at times, however . . . seriously, what if - in that particular case with Gates, for example - the product had turned out to have some major showstopping flaws? Consumers/users ALWAYS get screwed in those type of scenarios. I don't believe in taking risks with other people's money.
tlrobinson 18y ago
See the last 1 minute of Tim Bray's FOWA talk: http://events.carsonified.com/fowa/2008/london/highlights/tim-bray/ http://events.carsonified.com/fowa/2008/london/highlights/ti...

by mroman 18y ago

konsl 18y ago

Founders should always be networking.

mroman 18y ago
Personally, that strikes me as a bit too generic for a tech startup. The value of the startup stems from the value of the technology it produces, not the value of the network of contacts one of the founders has built. While networking can be valuable, allocating resources to networking BEFORE there is a working product is a huge mistake.
- incomethax 18y ago
  I can agree from personal experience. Premature networking can kill a startup. Edit: What I mean by this is networking at the expense of product/technology building.
- orianmarx 18y ago
  Well, that really depends on what you define as value. There are plenty of tech companies out there that created tons of "valuable" code but were not successful because somebody else got the attention or was able to strike one critical deal. As for allocating resources to networking before there is a working product, check out www.path101.com. I met these guys when they did an open brainstorming session with nothing but a preliminary pitch deck and not a line of code. Being open from very early on enabled them to find angel investors and their first employees, and when it came time to doing an alpha launch they had tons of people that had been eager to try the thing out for months.
  - mroman 18y ago
    I agree that vaporware has been successfully marketed before, however, that is not my idea of creating value, so I agree that it depends on how one defines value, and I would not want that - marketing non-existent products - to become the meaning of value within the context of a tech startup, that is best left to a marketing/publicity outfit if you ask me. I also think it is wrong to conduct market studies under the guise of a real product offer. What happens when it turns out that the bullet points with features cannot be implemented, or are simply not the best solution for the users? I find pg's thoughts on the subject of how problems may end up being redefined as they are being worked on to be very wise advice.
greendestiny 18y ago
Yeah but would you have startup destroying conflicts over whether or not founders were bringing in investors and advisors before you had a product? I'm not sure I'd question the commitment of people who were actively building the product either. It sounds like this startup really had some forward momentum with people getting stuff done. I'm not sure the authors expectations were reasonable, and I think he had to work fairly hard to kill this startup.
- mroman 18y ago
  I think that courting investors and obtaining advisors is one thing, general networking is another, which is what I am referring to, and by general networking I mean building contacts/telling people about what you are doing/determining who can provide you with what. I agree with the second part of your comment. On the other hand, some folks take being pragmatic to an extreme, as in no order/uniformity/quality control/structure/thought into design/effort to identify possible future issues and a general just get whatever done in a hurry and push it out the door attitude . . . which is all just as bad as too much formally define roles/establish this and that and the other/talk about and plan stuff to death/posture around with this and that and the other . . .
  - greendestiny 18y ago
    I agree with all of that. I mean the author may have been saved a lot of hassle further down the track with failing quickly, or he might have killed a good potential company - I really can't say even though I put forth an opinion on it. If you have good people, some funding, a demo and the start of a code base then thats a lot to lose over your expectations on networking and days of the week devoted to the startup. Even if the truth is more networking and fulltime cofounders would have helped.
    - orianmarx 18y ago
      You know, maybe I didn't make it clear enough that I thought we had a great thing going right up to the end. But what happened when we landed YC was that a lot of stuff came to the surface that hadn't been addressed well enough before, including a partner's belief that a lot of my effort up to that point had been worthless and he didn't trust me to do any better going forward. That was a pretty rough pill to swallow, especially after being responsible for most of the YC application, leading the three interviews we did to get accepted and building the front end for what we demoed. I certainly may have killed the startup by emphasizing things that I thought were important, but it doesn't make any sense to think I was actively trying to kill it. My point was that I was blindsided by what happened in the end, so now I've gone back to think about how we got there and, you know, these are some of the conclusions I've drawn and of course they could still be wrong.
brianlash 18y ago
Eh... founders should always be talking with different, intelligent people and soaking up ideas. If that's what you mean by networking, fine. But I think the networking tptacek refers to is the type that's organized X times/mo. and for the purpose of professional development. It's those ad hoc events where this group is encouraged to co-mingle with this one. It has its place, but just as useful at times is getting together with a group of peers you trust and exchanging notes. Having a few beers and talking about what challenges you're having, what breakthroughs you've made... I think the tradtional idea of networking is overemphasized among a lot of startups (and sometimes dangerously so) because it's an abstraction away from the work that keeps them alive. You've got to make sure you keep a watchful eye on your schedule and don't confuse attending X and Y event for Z productivity.
- orianmarx 18y ago
  I agree that "professional networking" is often a waste of time, but meeting other startups and potential users and sharing ideas has always been valuable to me. That's what I was trying to say by referring to "connecting" and not just "networking". Maybe there's a better word...
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    Making friends.
- tptacek 18y ago
  Agree, networking is over-emphasized. We did a lot of networking at the outset, with no particular plan or strategy, and it doesn't feel like time well spent. Not sure I'm saying "my kind of networking meets X times per month", but I will say this: we organized monthly meetups for the professionals in our market (computer/network security), made it as all-inclusive as we could, and it's been far more valuable to us than the vanity networking we did early on. Isn't this one of the major recurring criticisms of valley culture? That all those people do is go to parties with the same people every night?
  - 18y ago
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
webwright 18y ago
Not always. There are times to put your head down and build (depending on team composition and what your business is doing, of course) It totally depends on the product, but from the YC PoV, you have 3 months to build something that dazzles investors. Generally, YC discourages hunting for networking/bizdev/funding deals because you have EXACTLY ONE SHOT to impress a room full of the most important early stage investors on the planet.
- orianmarx 18y ago
  But YC also requires you to be in the same location as the other startups and to attend two dinners each week, plus it encourages visiting the YC partners during "office hours".
Prrometheus 18y ago
>Founders should always be networking. I don't think Wozniak did much networking. I don't know what would have happened if Jobs got mad at him because he didn't.
run4yourlives 18y ago
Founders shouldn't network in place of building. You can always network after you've got a product, but if you can't do both at once, product comes first.

mhartl 18y ago

The best time to build a network is before you need it.

mroman 18y ago
I don't think a network is very crucial to a startup's survival. I think the value of the technology is. IMO, where value exists, everything naturally follows, including people/companies that want to network with value. I found the story to be rather depressing, yet there were a few points that were - to me anyway - glaringly obvious. Someone focusing on suit type endeavors when that someone is an engineer/geek/hacker/techie/[insert name for us here] is irresponsible in that it amounts to a gross misallocation of resources. In other words, any double digit IQ'er wearing a suit can network, but not everyone can design and code and troubleshoot, which is what creates value.
- SwellJoe 18y ago
  IMO, where value exists, everything naturally follows, including people/companies that want to network with value. This is overly optimistic about the capacity of your fellow man to recognize value. Sometimes you just have to tell them what the value is, and if you don't have a network, you have no one to tell. Sounds ridiculous to nerds like you and I, I know, but if you spend a little time in the corporate world you'll begin to see how much major purchase decisions are made based on what a trusted individual recommends. A lot of times the "trusted" individual is a vendor with a vested interest in selling something. This actually works better in the long run than you might think, because most people work in the same business for many years, and if one vendor screws them (while seeming very nice), they have time to learn and change to another vendor (probably also someone they've spoken to before). But, I do think the OP does have some prioritization issues. It always comes back to the product. If you don't have a great product, you don't have a company worth networking for.
  - mroman 18y ago
    I see your points, and agree. You hit it on the head when you pointed out that it seems obvious to us nerds.

sebastian 18y ago

I second this opinion. The last position a tech startup needs to worry about filling is a CEO, CMO, etc. A CEO twittering all day long, hanging out / socializing / spending money at conferences and meetups is NOT going to bring ANY value to the startup at all. You first need a product! Once you have a product out of the door, a proven idea and a cash flow you can start worrying about filling up those hi-procrastination roles. Until then worry about finding people who can code, can design, can hack, can do anything that has a measurable outcome.

alain94040 18y ago
As much as I wish you were correct, reality says otherwise. When I was 100% a geek, I would agree with you: the product (code) is everything, who cares about those other minor business annoyances? Reality: how programmers does it take to implement a good product that people will buy? More than you can afford. How do you afford them? Raise money. Which for you may mean "pitch to dumb rich people", but that's still a CEO's job. At any time in the project development, a good pitch to the right business partner can turn the company around and greatly improve its prospects. Yes, if you don't do any of those "CEO" things, you may still succeed because you push through an amazing product. But why take the chance? Try to do everything well, the product development, as well as the CEO/pitching part.

trapper 18y ago

There are some great companies built without a product. Often times you can fake sell before a product exists and give a refund to prove that a market exists before development. Otherwise all your product dev can be wasted. I know successful (>10M revenue) companies who have mocked up a brochure and sold it this way. Their thought was "if they don't bring out a credit card right away you aren't solving a pain, you dont have a product".

abl 18y ago
True, Microsoft is an example, Gates went out and bought what would become MS-DOS, AFTER he made the deal with IBM. However, this has to be looked at in context - he had the money to buy it from someone else.
- mroman 18y ago
  Right, I remember reading something to that effect once . . . that event sort of proves both opposing opinions doesn't it? Yes, you can make money by selling vaporware, and yes, it is evil and abominable people/companies that do it (which is why I won't do it)
  - abl 18y ago
    I wouldn't go as far as labeling it evil - as long as you have the resources and the "follow-through" to make vaporware into a real product. It took a significant amount of resourcefulness to land a deal with IBM, whether it was easy because of prior contacts, or hard-earned from the ground up, is notwithstanding. However, the final product was delivered, and the quality was good is most respects. But Gates' goal was not to build a product from the start, and Orian's goal was, which makes the situation quite different.
    - mroman 18y ago
      I think it is evil because it basically amounts to making a bet with other people's money . . . I realize that "what if" scenarios sound unrealistic at times, however . . . seriously, what if - in that particular case with Gates, for example - the product had turned out to have some major showstopping flaws? Consumers/users ALWAYS get screwed in those type of scenarios. I don't believe in taking risks with other people's money.

tlrobinson 18y ago

See the last 1 minute of Tim Bray's FOWA talk: http://events.carsonified.com/fowa/2008/london/highlights/tim-bray/ http://events.carsonified.com/fowa/2008/london/highlights/ti...