4 ms·

> It surprises me is that investors put money into teams of hugely technical people who can't sell the amazing tech they can build and yet don't insist that the

> It surprises me is that investors put money into teams of hugely technical people who can't sell the amazing tech they can build and yet don't insist that they expand the team to bring in people who _can_ sell right at the start. It's often almost an afterthought, something that can happen later once the product is "finished". I disagree. - Selling from start is difficult (even for good sales people). There isn't any thing to sale at the beginning. - Building from start is essential. - Resources are finite for a startup. Good people (Sales, tech both) costs decent amount (equity or $$$) VC expect founder(s)/CEO to take care of early stage of sales/marketing/advertising etc. till the time scaling on these operations is required. To me it makes sense to avoid (expensive) hiring unless absolutely required, especially in the early days of a startup.

onion2k 13y ago
I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm saying that there needs to be someone in the business very early on who understands sales and marketing and can use that knowledge to input on the product to make it something that will sell, and to build a profile in the media that gets people talking about the product even before it's available, and then when the product is at a sellable stage take it out there and sell it. Without those things the company is very unlikely to succeed. Ideally that's one of the founders, but if none of the founders have the ability to do that then there needs to be someone else added to the team to bring those skills. Many startups fail because they don't realise early enough. My first certainly did.
- jonnathanson 13y ago
  I would add that someone on the early team needs to be "getting out of the building," to use the appropriate lingo, and doing customer development. This is time consuming, non-scaling, shoe leather work. Ideally, yes, this person should be the founder, or at least a founder. But oftentimes, founders are too enamored of their ideas and their early visions to solicit and absorb honest feedback. They rationalize criticisms, or solicit feedback only from friends and industry connections. This is a surprisingly common, and extremely easy trap to fall into. I'm not saying the hypothetical founder needs a sales and/or marketing person on Day One, but he should recognize his strengths and weaknesses, and hire to supplement the latter.

onion2k 13y ago

I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm saying that there needs to be someone in the business very early on who understands sales and marketing and can use that knowledge to input on the product to make it something that will sell, and to build a profile in the media that gets people talking about the product even before it's available, and then when the product is at a sellable stage take it out there and sell it. Without those things the company is very unlikely to succeed. Ideally that's one of the founders, but if none of the founders have the ability to do that then there needs to be someone else added to the team to bring those skills. Many startups fail because they don't realise early enough. My first certainly did.

jonnathanson 13y ago
I would add that someone on the early team needs to be "getting out of the building," to use the appropriate lingo, and doing customer development. This is time consuming, non-scaling, shoe leather work. Ideally, yes, this person should be the founder, or at least a founder. But oftentimes, founders are too enamored of their ideas and their early visions to solicit and absorb honest feedback. They rationalize criticisms, or solicit feedback only from friends and industry connections. This is a surprisingly common, and extremely easy trap to fall into. I'm not saying the hypothetical founder needs a sales and/or marketing person on Day One, but he should recognize his strengths and weaknesses, and hire to supplement the latter.