Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Before You Grow

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Before You Grow

#111

Post by [deleted] »

jzwinck wrote: post #108
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removed my "clueless" generalization. It's anecdotal, but most that I've encountered (relating to SaaS products) don't have much of a technical background at all, just throwing money at buzzwords, meanwhile they think critical services such as logging aren't worth going after, just because it's not trendy. I'm sure it varies from industry to industry.

Logging is indeed a critical part of many processes, but it's very hard to do it in a way that pleases everyone. Most loggers don't even support renewable inputs like bamboo. Before you think this is a mere joke, consider that normal people don't even know what computer logging is, much less want to become a user of a logging service. The addressable eyeballs are few, and it's a market chock full of free products alr…

[deleted]

Re: Before You Grow

#112

Post by dllthomas »

logicallee wrote: post #41
morgante wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're obviously parodying the "one neat trick" trope.

I don't think so because they're not talking about a marketing gimmick, but rather talking about an actual business strategy - I just found it distracting. They could have at least put it in quotation marks if they really meant to include it in their writing for some reason. I've withdrawn the criticism.

I don't know if it's a "gimmick", but it seems precisely "marketing".

Re: Before You Grow

#113

Post by logicallee »

dllthomas wrote: post #112
logicallee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so because they're not talking about a marketing gimmick, but rather talking about an actual business strategy - I just found it distracting. They could have at least put it in quotation marks if they really meant to include it in their writing for some reason. I've withdrawn the criticism.

I don't know if it's a "gimmick", but it seems precisely "marketing".

I think you didn't get the point blazespin wrote: they said (or I read it as them saying) that since there's no way to get a "test market" in the U.S., rather than blow their "one shot" on the launch version which they can't iterate on before the whole U.S. market sees it, they use a proxy for a U.S. test market: they use a smaller foreign market. They don't care about "burning" those users or losing their "one chance" to launch, since those markets are small or at any rate a smaller launch. They then take their learnings, incorporate them and launch in the U.S. with a first version that is markedly better.

so it's product development. the point isn't about marketing at all. (Except in a broad sense.) it's a product development trick, like a closed beta. I don't think you would call a closed beta "marketing" exactly.

at least, this is what I read the comment as.

Re: Before You Grow

#114

Post by arikrak »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #83

Another alternative: don't build something huge, don't get funding from VCs, build a comfortable business for yourself instead of a gimmicky trend that will be irrelevant in a few years. I feel like this is really underrated these days, if you spend the time truly earning it, not only is it more rewarding but the company may last more than 3-4 years. Build a small focused product to generate some revenue, then hopefu…

Is there any data on the success rate of companies that aim small? A lot of the allure of the startup is a chance to strike it big. If one isn't doing that anyways, might make more sense to join a big company since they offer a considerably higher expected return on your work.

(Also if one can get funding, it lets one get paid an actual salary more quickly.)

Re: Before You Grow

#115

Post by seanlinehan »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #103
khuknows wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not affiliated with this site in any way, but Indiehackers shares many examples of people doing exactly this: https://www.indiehackers.com/businesses

Indie Hackers is a great site! I have my first little product on there ( http://apex.sh/ping/ ), making just over 3k/m now (50% each month FWIW), sure it's not millions but now I have time/freedom to work on the next thing. Plus the freedom is worth thousands alone in my opinion, if I have the choice I'll never go back to startups. It seems like startups are the default these days, and so many of them would probably…

You can also build a successful startup not being a slave working 14hr days. Both small businesses and big businesses can be either well run or poorly run. It's mostly a function of building the right culture, having the right systems in place, and having enough resources to not burn your team out.

Re: Before You Grow

#116

Post by alexqgb »

tjholowaychuk wrote: post #91
coffeemug wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't get funding from clueless VCs Usually if people put money down and there is an entire industry around it, the collective mindset of that industry is close to optimal. They might be wrong on a couple of important issues. They also might be very wrong, but they're still close to optimal by definition because nobody's doing it better. TL;DR: calling entire world-class industries clueless implies naiveté.

Removed my "clueless" generalization. It's anecdotal, but most that I've encountered (relating to SaaS products) don't have much of a technical background at all, just throwing money at buzzwords, meanwhile they think critical services such as logging aren't worth going after, just because it's not trendy. I'm sure it varies from industry to industry.

Serious money is rarely thrown at anyone - no matter how buzzy their language - without some sign of a defensible offering that has product / market fit in a sector with healthy prospects + a team that can clearly execute against the opportunity.

While it's easy to find sensational stories to the contrary, bear in mind that sensationalism is a cheap path to sales, meaning not every narrator is reliable. Indeed, if you start raising money yourself you'll quickly discover how unreliable many "sources" can be.

Re: Before You Grow

#117

Post by elwell »

elwell wrote: post #32
silvaben wrote: post #22

I recently came across an app lets you measure NPS directly on your website - https://www.metriculator.com Seems really nice. I figured it might be useful for folks trying to run an NPS survey after reading Sam's recommendation.

I hate sites that have these.

IMO, if bothering the user at all, you should limit the number of options to two. E.g., after finishing a certain process like submitting an order, you can ask the user "Do you like our website? YES / NO". If NO, then you can take them to another form so they can complain with details. Having choices 1-10 is way too granular (we're not trying to get Yelp ratings). And popping up on the screen makes me want to leave the site.

On the positive side, I have had pleasure of using some well-designed interfaces, and the giving of positive feedback probably reinforced in my mind that I liked the site. I.e., it made me cognizant of the good design.

Re: Before You Grow

#118

Post by tjholowaychuk »

arikrak wrote: post #114
tjholowaychuk wrote: post #83

Another alternative: don't build something huge, don't get funding from VCs, build a comfortable business for yourself instead of a gimmicky trend that will be irrelevant in a few years. I feel like this is really underrated these days, if you spend the time truly earning it, not only is it more rewarding but the company may last more than 3-4 years. Build a small focused product to generate some revenue, then hopefu…

Is there any data on the success rate of companies that aim small? A lot of the allure of the startup is a chance to strike it big. If one isn't doing that anyways, might make more sense to join a big company since they offer a considerably higher expected return on your work. (Also if one can get funding, it lets one get paid an actual salary more quickly.)

I have no clue, it seems uncommon in software, but personally I'd choose working 3 hours a day over 200k/yr any day.

IMO having a small team constraint is powerful too, you really have to optimize things otherwise you're screwed. Basically the opposite of a startup, where you'd toss money at the problem while you try and attract more people, making the product increasingly brittle.

Re: Before You Grow

#119

Post by rsp1984 »

qwrusz wrote: post #77

This is good advice but on a practical level isn't clearly compatible with other advice like "fix the plane while it's flying". Also I was under the impression YCombinator focuses on helping companies grow and organizes a demo day 3 months later to help them raise money from VCs. The pg article even mentions growth targets during YC. If this is true then companies accepted to YC should already have a product people l…

I'm not affiliated with YC in any sense but trying to clarify some things:

"fix the plane while it's flying".

This is typically advice for startups that have found product-market-fit (i.e. have a product people love) but there are a million other things broken. In that case the advice is often to fix these things "while flying", i.e. while simultaneously growing sales and the company in general.

"organizes a demo day 3 months later to help them raise money from VCs"

I understand the purpose is primarily to help companies raise seed/angel rounds, not big "institutional" rounds. And just generally make connections for later.

"The pg article even mentions growth targets during YC."

Clearly this is not applicable to all companies. E.g. what's the "growth target" for a company like Rigetti who build a quantum computer?

"One for early startups still working on product, another YC for startups working on growth"

One of the primary (if not the most important) benefits of YC is the network. You get that regardless of whether you're in product or growth stage.

"pitching VCs without growth doesn't seem to work"

Depends on what you're pitching for. Seed and Series-A are two entirely different games.

"So founders raise money by showing early "growth" without PML (product/market love), then they go back to work..."

Good investors aren't fooled by that and will ask the right questions to quickly uncover any fake metrics. Besides that a seed round is typically raised on team, talent, idea and early traction, not growth.

Re: Before You Grow

#120

Post by dllthomas »

logicallee wrote: post #113
dllthomas wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's a "gimmick", but it seems precisely "marketing".

I think you didn't get the point blazespin wrote: they said (or I read it as them saying) that since there's no way to get a "test market" in the U.S., rather than blow their "one shot" on the launch version which they can't iterate on before the whole U.S. market sees it, they use a proxy for a U.S. test market: they use a smaller foreign market. They don't care about "burning" those users or losing their "one chanc…

That was the point I got from it. My point was that it sounds a lot like what's done by the people I know who work in marketing at big companies. Marketing is not just (or even mostly) advertising.
Post reply on HN