6 ms·

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

by 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.
jamiequint 18y ago
I agree with your point in the very early stages of a company Networking for the purpose of getting to know people can be useful, but during the early stages of a startup if you are out talking to people your goal should be to understand your target market better. Otherwise, don't worry about networking instead of coding until you need to raise money. I completely disagree with this point... "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." What do you plan to do if that person doesn't exist? Wait to sell your product until you can hire one? Get another co-founder to go out and raise money? PG talks about Sam Altman pitching phone execs the early days of Loopt to great success, and his background was CS not sales. "any double digit IQ'er wearing a suit can network, but not everyone can design and code and troubleshoot, which is what creates value." There are two fallacies here. First, the fallacy that everyone can network equally well. Some people are incredible at networking, they can network so well that they are a valuable asset to a company for that reason alone. (See Keith Ferazzi) Everyone can "network" but only certain people can make their network pay very well. Second, that only coding creates value. A great product still doesn't sell itself. What do you think Apple would be without brilliant marketing? You can have the best product in the world technically, but in terms of market value you have nothing if its not sold.
- kogir 18y ago
  "PG talks about Sam Altman pitching phone execs the early days of Loopt to great success, and his background was CS not sales." Of note is that while pitching execs in the early days he was also doing at least 2x the development work of anyone else. He didn't stop coding until long after we had a fully functional demo application that was good enough to raise our series A.
- mroman 18y ago
  If that person does not exist, then one needs to be hired eventually, as it would be better to wait than to have a person not adept at the task doing it wrong. I am sure that some are better than others at networking, my point was (minus my admittedly harsh figurative description) that high intelligence and knowledge are best applied to something that mandates intelligence, as opposed to something that does not mandate a high level of intelligence and knowledge. Those kinds of activities (networking, sales, marketing) do not mandate exceptional intelligence, from what I have seen those mostly require innate skill and experience. Many people can network, sell, and market. Not many can code. Now, I mentioned more than coding when I referred to what I believe creates value, however I will respond to your point by saying that 1) creating value is conducive to attracting attention IMO 2) I did not state that there should be no networking/marketing/promotion at all, I wrote that it should not be done before a product is ready, and that it should be done by someone adept at it (usually not a propeller head like me, for example, although I am sure some guys are skilled at those activities as well as tech work)
  - jamiequint 18y ago
    "Those kinds of activities (networking, sales, marketing) do not mandate exceptional intelligence, from what I have seen those mostly require innate skill and experience. Many people can network, sell, and market. Not many can code." I still think this is arguable, you describe what separates star marketers from the rest is "innate skill" in this case innate marketing/sales/networking skill. However, I think I can equally make the case for star marketers. I'll discuss you're argument from the marketing perspective because its the area I'm most familiar with and feel most qualified to speak for. Marketing isn't just a game of follow these rules and you will be successful, its not just a matter of experience either. If it were, marketing agencies wouldn't be differentiable and campaigns like Absolut wouldn't have cult-like status. Just as there is an so described "innate skill" for programmers I would argue that there is a similar type of "innate skill" that separates the best marketers from the rest. To say that intelligence on the same level as programming isn't mandated for marketing is demeaning to that profession as a whole and represents a misunderstanding of what really goes into a well defined marketing strategy. Admittedly, it may not be as quantitatively measured as programming, but that does not mean it requires less intelligence or is less demanding. I do agree with your point that creating value is conducive to attracting attention, but by no means is it a limiting factor. There are plenty of historical examples where things of little to no value, when marketed well, rose to great success. (The pet rock, among other things) I've done a fair amount of both programming and marketing, and while I don't claim to be a "star" at either, I still cringe when people dismiss one or the other categorically as being of little added value. It happens from both sides and most of the time just represents a lack of understanding of the efforts that go into either.

by mroman 18y ago

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.

jamiequint 18y ago

I agree with your point in the very early stages of a company Networking for the purpose of getting to know people can be useful, but during the early stages of a startup if you are out talking to people your goal should be to understand your target market better. Otherwise, don't worry about networking instead of coding until you need to raise money. I completely disagree with this point... "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." What do you plan to do if that person doesn't exist? Wait to sell your product until you can hire one? Get another co-founder to go out and raise money? PG talks about Sam Altman pitching phone execs the early days of Loopt to great success, and his background was CS not sales. "any double digit IQ'er wearing a suit can network, but not everyone can design and code and troubleshoot, which is what creates value." There are two fallacies here. First, the fallacy that everyone can network equally well. Some people are incredible at networking, they can network so well that they are a valuable asset to a company for that reason alone. (See Keith Ferazzi) Everyone can "network" but only certain people can make their network pay very well. Second, that only coding creates value. A great product still doesn't sell itself. What do you think Apple would be without brilliant marketing? You can have the best product in the world technically, but in terms of market value you have nothing if its not sold.

kogir 18y ago
"PG talks about Sam Altman pitching phone execs the early days of Loopt to great success, and his background was CS not sales." Of note is that while pitching execs in the early days he was also doing at least 2x the development work of anyone else. He didn't stop coding until long after we had a fully functional demo application that was good enough to raise our series A.
mroman 18y ago
If that person does not exist, then one needs to be hired eventually, as it would be better to wait than to have a person not adept at the task doing it wrong. I am sure that some are better than others at networking, my point was (minus my admittedly harsh figurative description) that high intelligence and knowledge are best applied to something that mandates intelligence, as opposed to something that does not mandate a high level of intelligence and knowledge. Those kinds of activities (networking, sales, marketing) do not mandate exceptional intelligence, from what I have seen those mostly require innate skill and experience. Many people can network, sell, and market. Not many can code. Now, I mentioned more than coding when I referred to what I believe creates value, however I will respond to your point by saying that 1) creating value is conducive to attracting attention IMO 2) I did not state that there should be no networking/marketing/promotion at all, I wrote that it should not be done before a product is ready, and that it should be done by someone adept at it (usually not a propeller head like me, for example, although I am sure some guys are skilled at those activities as well as tech work)
- jamiequint 18y ago
  "Those kinds of activities (networking, sales, marketing) do not mandate exceptional intelligence, from what I have seen those mostly require innate skill and experience. Many people can network, sell, and market. Not many can code." I still think this is arguable, you describe what separates star marketers from the rest is "innate skill" in this case innate marketing/sales/networking skill. However, I think I can equally make the case for star marketers. I'll discuss you're argument from the marketing perspective because its the area I'm most familiar with and feel most qualified to speak for. Marketing isn't just a game of follow these rules and you will be successful, its not just a matter of experience either. If it were, marketing agencies wouldn't be differentiable and campaigns like Absolut wouldn't have cult-like status. Just as there is an so described "innate skill" for programmers I would argue that there is a similar type of "innate skill" that separates the best marketers from the rest. To say that intelligence on the same level as programming isn't mandated for marketing is demeaning to that profession as a whole and represents a misunderstanding of what really goes into a well defined marketing strategy. Admittedly, it may not be as quantitatively measured as programming, but that does not mean it requires less intelligence or is less demanding. I do agree with your point that creating value is conducive to attracting attention, but by no means is it a limiting factor. There are plenty of historical examples where things of little to no value, when marketed well, rose to great success. (The pet rock, among other things) I've done a fair amount of both programming and marketing, and while I don't claim to be a "star" at either, I still cringe when people dismiss one or the other categorically as being of little added value. It happens from both sides and most of the time just represents a lack of understanding of the efforts that go into either.