> I'd be interested to see a good framework for measuring success in startups that could be used by VCs and the media alike. Breaking even seems like a good st

> I'd be interested to see a good framework for measuring success in startups that could be used by VCs and the media alike. Breaking even seems like a good starting point to me. Of course, this is not good from the VC viewpoint. VCs hate it when you break even early and they don't have a controlling interest, because it means they can't grab more shares (in exchange for new funding which you would then need and they can and will leverage that need) because you don't need them for growth. Also, success is a relative thing. A small firm that doesn't take VC and never reaches the multi-billion dollar heights of Google, but has happy customers, happy employees and founders that enjoy their work is successful in my book. A company that takes millions in VC money, lets the VC dictate company policy and has the whole thing run into the ground is a failure. Measuring success does not happen across a single axis. Unless you define success in the context of what VCs want from your company, the definition becomes blurry very fast. A framework that will satisfy both VCs and the media isn't that hard to formulate. The media will simply copy the VC parameters, most of which is number games. But this is neither a media nor a VC board, so the question is - would you want to work for or start a company that is run by VC/media rules?