3 ms·

I have the impression that the importance of traction heavily outweights all others. So much that it is not even worth reading about these small victories like

by soneca 13y ago

I have the impression that the importance of traction heavily outweights all others. So much that it is not even worth reading about these small victories like introductions and other tactics if you don't have traction yet. The only substitute for traction is past traction (on previous startups) or a very big credential (as being on YC or being early employee on a big hit - Facebook, Google, etc). And this narrows the audience to only a few individuals for whom these tactics might apply. Not by chance Paul Graham recent essays are aimed at this YC batch aproaching Demo Day. And, as interesting as is to us, regular folks, reading this; it sounds like reading advices from a pro driver on how to drive a Ferrari. They may be somehow useful, specific tips that you must know if you want to drive a Ferrari. But you first must own a Ferrari. Before you do it, they are just fiction. And if you do have traction, I guess all these tips will have just a marginal influence on the outcome. Posts from VCs and succesfull fundraisers always seems like hindsight rationalization about why it worked. Forgetting that traction was the single most important reason by far. I mean, traction is 99,9% if you are a regular founder, not a star. So wondering about the 0,1% is more of a Maseratti problem.

jusben1369 13y ago
I'd say for most Angel's it's 40% Market/35% Team/25% Traction. After all, a great team with traction but in a small market = no meaningful exit. But a great team in a large market can use funding to grow traction. And an Ok team (you're not sure on them) with real traction in a big market is probably worth the gamble (you can always encourage a key new hire if you see a deficiency)
- soneca 13y ago
  You are right about the market, but I would say that traction changes the opinion for any team (as it is a very subjective evaluation). And team usually perceived as great may generate some doubts if they don't have traction. EDIT: Thinking a little bit more, I guess the market dictate how much money you raise and for how much equity. But if you are fundable or not, I still think is about traction.
SurfScore 13y ago
I think you're right, but I don't think the breakdown is as drastic as 99%. Traction is most important by a wide margin, because it proves that you're doing something right. This is a capitalist society where the market dictates what succeeds, and if the market dictates you're succeeding, then you're a hot commodity. As far as YC goes, most HAVE traction by Demo Day, significantly so. It's not like these companies have an early beta with 20 users and are raising on a name. Most of the time they achieve early traction from a combination of YCs guidance and the fact that if you get into YC, you're typically a pretty good entrepreneur and have a higher likelihood to succeed.
- soneca 13y ago
  I think you are right about YC. These teams usually do have traction.
- badclient 13y ago
  Not to mention traction is a very subjective thing, especially for b2b companies. And even after you get traction, the type of traction begins to matter. For example, you can go sign up 100 paid customers for your product in a week by contacting your Dad's rolodex. You may have see that as traction; most VCs are going to have major questions about how you'll get your next 1,000 customers and why you haven't proven any of those channels yet.

by soneca 13y ago

jusben1369 13y ago

I'd say for most Angel's it's 40% Market/35% Team/25% Traction. After all, a great team with traction but in a small market = no meaningful exit. But a great team in a large market can use funding to grow traction. And an Ok team (you're not sure on them) with real traction in a big market is probably worth the gamble (you can always encourage a key new hire if you see a deficiency)

soneca 13y ago
You are right about the market, but I would say that traction changes the opinion for any team (as it is a very subjective evaluation). And team usually perceived as great may generate some doubts if they don't have traction. EDIT: Thinking a little bit more, I guess the market dictate how much money you raise and for how much equity. But if you are fundable or not, I still think is about traction.

SurfScore 13y ago

I think you're right, but I don't think the breakdown is as drastic as 99%. Traction is most important by a wide margin, because it proves that you're doing something right. This is a capitalist society where the market dictates what succeeds, and if the market dictates you're succeeding, then you're a hot commodity. As far as YC goes, most HAVE traction by Demo Day, significantly so. It's not like these companies have an early beta with 20 users and are raising on a name. Most of the time they achieve early traction from a combination of YCs guidance and the fact that if you get into YC, you're typically a pretty good entrepreneur and have a higher likelihood to succeed.

soneca 13y ago
I think you are right about YC. These teams usually do have traction.
badclient 13y ago
Not to mention traction is a very subjective thing, especially for b2b companies. And even after you get traction, the type of traction begins to matter. For example, you can go sign up 100 paid customers for your product in a week by contacting your Dad's rolodex. You may have see that as traction; most VCs are going to have major questions about how you'll get your next 1,000 customers and why you haven't proven any of those channels yet.