3 ms·

They're both equally as important; without one you can't sustain the other.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
They're most definitely not equally important. There are far more examples of successful businesses built on the backs of mediocre ideas but with great execution than there are of ones built on the back of great ideas with mediocre execution. Also, your comment smacks of wanting to bitch about something because this is a TechCrunch story...did you even read it? The article is about the backstory of Tweetmeme and the bigger question of compensation for someone who was involved in the early idea of a startup, but wasn't there for the execution and risk-taking that came later.
- bradgessler 17y ago
  If you have awesome execution over a long period of time without new ideas your product/service/whatever will stagnate. On the flip-side if you only have good ideas with poor execution nothing will get off the ground. Both are equally as important from my point-of-view and shouldn't be viewed as zero-sum. And no, I read the headline and skimmed the article.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    Great execution without new ideas over a long period of time describes a large portion of the Fortune 1000. Some industries are not driven by innovation.
    - bradgessler 17y ago
      I disagree. Most Fortune 1000 companies innovate indirectly in their products or services. You need "good ideas" to develop, manufacture, and distribute goods globally. That's why I don't look at "good ideas" and execution separately; ultimately you need good ideas to feed into the execution of a product.
- adharmad 17y ago
  "They're most definitely not equally important. There are far more examples of successful businesses built on the backs of mediocre ideas but with great execution than there are of ones built on the back of great ideas with mediocre execution." That may be because genuinely new ideas are hard to come by today. There is also a lot of risk associated with them. Execution, although it has its pitfalls, largely depends on timing and effort.

They're most definitely not equally important. There are far more examples of successful businesses built on the backs of mediocre ideas but with great execution than there are of ones built on the back of great ideas with mediocre execution. Also, your comment smacks of wanting to bitch about something because this is a TechCrunch story...did you even read it? The article is about the backstory of Tweetmeme and the bigger question of compensation for someone who was involved in the early idea of a startup, but wasn't there for the execution and risk-taking that came later.

bradgessler 17y ago
If you have awesome execution over a long period of time without new ideas your product/service/whatever will stagnate. On the flip-side if you only have good ideas with poor execution nothing will get off the ground. Both are equally as important from my point-of-view and shouldn't be viewed as zero-sum. And no, I read the headline and skimmed the article.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Great execution without new ideas over a long period of time describes a large portion of the Fortune 1000. Some industries are not driven by innovation.
  - bradgessler 17y ago
    I disagree. Most Fortune 1000 companies innovate indirectly in their products or services. You need "good ideas" to develop, manufacture, and distribute goods globally. That's why I don't look at "good ideas" and execution separately; ultimately you need good ideas to feed into the execution of a product.
adharmad 17y ago
"They're most definitely not equally important. There are far more examples of successful businesses built on the backs of mediocre ideas but with great execution than there are of ones built on the back of great ideas with mediocre execution." That may be because genuinely new ideas are hard to come by today. There is also a lot of risk associated with them. Execution, although it has its pitfalls, largely depends on timing and effort.