3 ms·

So basically, the reason not to try to go for revenue is that BigCo will crush you, unless they buy you. But will they every time? In Zenter's case, it was inev

by asdflkj 19y ago

So basically, the reason not to try to go for revenue is that BigCo will crush you, unless they buy you. But will they every time? In Zenter's case, it was inevitable that it would come to that. But are BigCos after every market that exists? Does Google care if $1M can be made a year from something that has nothing to do with any of their products? Duplicating your technology is worth it if a lot of money is at stake, by BigCo's definition of "a lot". But if there isn't? I don't think you will deny that, in theory, there are markets such that if you want to capture them, it's better to go for revenue than for exit. The question that interests me, what percentage of all markets do they comprise[1]? Everyone seems to completely ignore them in favor of the Zenter way, as per pg's advice. Are they insignificant, or underestimated? [1]Of course, there will be no precise percentage figure, unless someone can come up with a list of all the things that people want. pg's next essay, maybe?

nostrademons 19y ago
Oh, I think the majority of markets are ones where it's better to go for revenue rather than exit. By a large margin. After all, most of the country is not Silicon Valley, and most industries outside of tech (and to a lesser extent biotech) do not support acquisitions the way tech does. Actually, I think that even if you're going for an exit, it's better to go for revenue - at least enough to support yourself profitably. You're in a much better negotiating position if you don't need to be acquired. But I assumed that if you're here, you're interested in the normal tech-startup lifecycle. Come out with an innovative product, grow very fast, disrupt some markets, and then get bought. Because that's what PG has experience in, that's what his friends do, and that's what most of the sites featured here do. If you're in a brick & mortar business, you're much better off talking to local entrepreneurs than reading here. Just make sure that you know which strategy you're pursuing (revenue-based growth vs. quick acquisition), and that everything you do - market, team, capital structure, business model, positioning, technology platform, engineering process - supports it. Some tech entrepreneurs think that they'll do a technology business that's based upon slow revenue-based growth - I worked for 2 years at one. However, there's a very real risk of having the market pass you by, and being marginalized in a tiny corner where you're essentially relegated to consulting. If you're going to grow slowly, you need to pick your market niches carefully, you need a robust software engineering process, and you can't afford to enter a market with lock-in.
- asdflkj 19y ago
  Yeah, I see where I went wrong now. I was talking about tech startups, but it didn't occur to me that a company whose market is off BigCo's radar is by definition not a startup. You know, I've learned something today. Thanks for this conversation.

by asdflkj 19y ago

nostrademons 19y ago

Oh, I think the majority of markets are ones where it's better to go for revenue rather than exit. By a large margin. After all, most of the country is not Silicon Valley, and most industries outside of tech (and to a lesser extent biotech) do not support acquisitions the way tech does. Actually, I think that even if you're going for an exit, it's better to go for revenue - at least enough to support yourself profitably. You're in a much better negotiating position if you don't need to be acquired. But I assumed that if you're here, you're interested in the normal tech-startup lifecycle. Come out with an innovative product, grow very fast, disrupt some markets, and then get bought. Because that's what PG has experience in, that's what his friends do, and that's what most of the sites featured here do. If you're in a brick & mortar business, you're much better off talking to local entrepreneurs than reading here. Just make sure that you know which strategy you're pursuing (revenue-based growth vs. quick acquisition), and that everything you do - market, team, capital structure, business model, positioning, technology platform, engineering process - supports it. Some tech entrepreneurs think that they'll do a technology business that's based upon slow revenue-based growth - I worked for 2 years at one. However, there's a very real risk of having the market pass you by, and being marginalized in a tiny corner where you're essentially relegated to consulting. If you're going to grow slowly, you need to pick your market niches carefully, you need a robust software engineering process, and you can't afford to enter a market with lock-in.

asdflkj 19y ago
Yeah, I see where I went wrong now. I was talking about tech startups, but it didn't occur to me that a company whose market is off BigCo's radar is by definition not a startup. You know, I've learned something today. Thanks for this conversation.