3 ms·

I think one issue (for those of us who are the kind of people that read this site) is that "entrepreneurship" and "startup" are overloaded terms. Most of the di

I think one issue (for those of us who are the kind of people that read this site) is that "entrepreneurship" and "startup" are overloaded terms. Most of the discussion here is about "startups" with huge growth ambitions. But what you're describing here is just "starting a business". Both things are "entrepreneurship", but they are extremely different beasts, with different paths to and likelihoods of success. The billion dollar "startup" narrative is so seductive, but most hard-working ambitious people who want to be their own boss should just be starting businesses in the more traditional sense, taking on smaller investment or debt more wisely, paying attention to costs and revenues, and growing organically. This is no different than business starts in any other era, it just happens that a lot of viable businesses now happen to benefit from focusing on software.

blagie 4y ago
Perhaps. I have several friends who have started ventures in the multi-hundred-million to low single-digital-billion-dollar range in various industries. All of them brought technology into traditionally low-tech industries. Some took on a lot of VC, but some grew organically: - In some contexts, consulting is an easy way to get started building a product, to avoid needing much external investment. In others, it's a trap and a distraction which will prevent you from focusing on building a product. - An initial product can stagnate into a lifestyle business / living dead (a business which pays the bills, but never grows beyond a few $M), or it can have a pathway into a larger market. Technology (and not just software) is eating the world, and those pathways do exist. A lot of industries are being disrupted by technology plays. The connection is strategy. You want a good beachhead which has a nice growth path to a larger market, and ideally one no one is targeting. There are risks from point A to point B to point C, of course, with strategy, execution, timing, luck, etc., and plenty companies cap out at much less, but plenty of them make it too. What I'm a bit surprised at, thinking through this, is the number of times I've seen this sort of play work. I know at least a half-dozen companies in the >>$100M range where I know the CEO pretty well as a friend. All of those did take external investment at some point, but a few, much less than you'd expect.
drewcon 4y ago
Totally disagree. We started a business in a market with huge TAM, venture backed, and have had meaningfully scaled customer and revenue growth… But that market is seafood supply chain compliance, and I guarantee you no influencer gives a flying fuck about it or even knows it exists. It’s gross, it’s not sexy, the people working in it are absolutely not on this website. If you get out of the echo chamber, there are loads of places that need help from software, can pay for it, but have no idea how to create it themselves.
- mannymanman 4y ago
  How do you suggest getting out of the echo chamber without leaving my job? I need to continue in my current role because I don't have a big safety net, but I want to get exposure to non-tech industries and find out inefficiencies. As an aside, how did you zero in on seafood supply chain compliance? Were you in that industry previously?
- sanderjd 4y ago
  I don't think this is a disagreement...

blagie 4y ago

Perhaps. I have several friends who have started ventures in the multi-hundred-million to low single-digital-billion-dollar range in various industries. All of them brought technology into traditionally low-tech industries. Some took on a lot of VC, but some grew organically: - In some contexts, consulting is an easy way to get started building a product, to avoid needing much external investment. In others, it's a trap and a distraction which will prevent you from focusing on building a product. - An initial product can stagnate into a lifestyle business / living dead (a business which pays the bills, but never grows beyond a few $M), or it can have a pathway into a larger market. Technology (and not just software) is eating the world, and those pathways do exist. A lot of industries are being disrupted by technology plays. The connection is strategy. You want a good beachhead which has a nice growth path to a larger market, and ideally one no one is targeting. There are risks from point A to point B to point C, of course, with strategy, execution, timing, luck, etc., and plenty companies cap out at much less, but plenty of them make it too. What I'm a bit surprised at, thinking through this, is the number of times I've seen this sort of play work. I know at least a half-dozen companies in the >>$100M range where I know the CEO pretty well as a friend. All of those did take external investment at some point, but a few, much less than you'd expect.

drewcon 4y ago

Totally disagree. We started a business in a market with huge TAM, venture backed, and have had meaningfully scaled customer and revenue growth… But that market is seafood supply chain compliance, and I guarantee you no influencer gives a flying fuck about it or even knows it exists. It’s gross, it’s not sexy, the people working in it are absolutely not on this website. If you get out of the echo chamber, there are loads of places that need help from software, can pay for it, but have no idea how to create it themselves.

mannymanman 4y ago
How do you suggest getting out of the echo chamber without leaving my job? I need to continue in my current role because I don't have a big safety net, but I want to get exposure to non-tech industries and find out inefficiencies. As an aside, how did you zero in on seafood supply chain compliance? Were you in that industry previously?
sanderjd 4y ago
I don't think this is a disagreement...