Thanks for sharing your story. If you need someone to chat with: http://www.startupsanonymo.us/
My Startup has 30 Days to Live
141–150 of 239 posts
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#142So, it sucks, but it happens, and it won't matter nearly as much in June 2014 as it seems to right now. Your co-founder will, hopefully, not find out about this through guessing "Is this my company?" on Twitter, but rather in hearing it from you. You may be heartbroken about it, you may cry a bit (totally OK). Then, you will put on your Responsible Adult pants, call your employee into the office, and tell them the si…
Damn good, Patrick. This is probably the most powerful advice delivered in the most gentle way. It's inspiring even for people intimidated by the prospect of beginning a startup.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the "hacker/cracker" debate equivalent for software entrepreneurship, complete with the person who says other people have "no business" calling themselves something if they don't meet their specific definition of that something. Bolted, of course, to the top of any thread that mentions "bootstrapping" or "VC".
I don't think this distinction is anywhere near as trivial. VC-funded companies have meaningfully different qualities than those that are just trying to build up their revenues. The author failed to internalize this distinction, and it later made him unhappy.
People who break into computers are very different from people who build novel computer systems. The problem isn't the validity of the distinction.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#144I'm going to say this knowing that I may get down voted to heck. And I don't mean it as a "told you so" to the OP, but rather hopefully some cautionary advice for would-be founders. I have come to the opinion that if you are bootstrapping, you have no business calling your company a startup. You are building a small business. And there is nothing shameful about this. You are among solid companions with your local plu…
There are clearly differences, different risks, etc. in different kinds of businesses.
A new concept for a physical retail store is different from "another dry cleaner" vs. a franchise vs. taking over an existing successful business.
A consultancy where you have 20 years experience in the field as a consultant for someone else is totally different from a b2b startup a a field you solidly understand where you have initial clients lined up before you start, vs. a consumer "hits driven" business.
There isn't a universal line between startup and small business; it probably varies with time and with the founders themselves.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#145I'm going to say this knowing that I may get down voted to heck. And I don't mean it as a "told you so" to the OP, but rather hopefully some cautionary advice for would-be founders. I have come to the opinion that if you are bootstrapping, you have no business calling your company a startup. You are building a small business. And there is nothing shameful about this. You are among solid companions with your local plu…
I disagree that startups are about growth. The growth is the key for startups in certain web / social networking space - but definitely not in all areas.
I like Steve Blank definition of the startup: "A startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model". So startups need to have _constant_ progress in their search for repeatable and scalable business model.
For example, if you run a bio-med startup, are you going to grow and sell your drugs out of the door? Nope. Or if your startup is some B2B boring stuff - sometimes you want to work hard to make a couple big customers super happy and work very hard on how to repeat and scale that business model.
Also some local restaurants do become startups - depending if they figured out how to scale their business model.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are free to disagree with PG. Doing so doesn't change the fact that he is the sort of authority who gets cited in Wikipedia articles on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Startup_company The term "startup" originated during the dot-com bubble. The very origin of the term means it is supposed to apply primarily to new tech companies who are designed to grow fast. A barber shop is not a startup. It is a small…
The term "startup" originated during the dot-com bubble. Wow, you get some bullshit ideas about business if you get your mba at wikipedia.
I may have quoted it wrong. Wikipedia says it became popular during the dotcom bubble.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#147I'm going to say this knowing that I may get down voted to heck. And I don't mean it as a "told you so" to the OP, but rather hopefully some cautionary advice for would-be founders. I have come to the opinion that if you are bootstrapping, you have no business calling your company a startup. You are building a small business. And there is nothing shameful about this. You are among solid companions with your local plu…
"Startups are about growth." Indeed... in his essay, "Startup = Growth", PG wrote: "A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows from growth. If you want to…
Startups are not defined by their growth. However, VC-backed startups are customarily focused on growth. The difference between these two statements is subtle but important.
'Revenue first, growth second', a paraphrasing of Clayten Christiansen.
VC's essentially use founders like race horses. They pump in the steroids, exercise them to the point of optimal performance or death, and then put them out to pasture if they don't perform. Founders are part of a portfolio plain and simple. They are part of a stable. The VC's are benevolent trainers but they have one goal: ROI. Their benevolence is in direct correlation to their ROI, which is largely determined by growth. The irony is that Wall Street operates in exactly the same way. The difference is that the relationship between Bank and Borrower or Shareholder and Company is more clearly defined than the relationship between VC and Founder.
There isn't anything wrong with VC's. They play a vital role in the financial community. Yet, at the end of the day, a VC is going to look at a startup as a financial product. VC's are offering their partners a product just like a startup is seeking to offer the market a product. The fortunate part about the rest of the business world, cut-throat though it may be to some, is that no one expects anyone else to be benevolent. They expect people to conduct business.
The better the VC-Startup relationship is defined, the better it will be for the long-term health of founders. On the other hand, VC's have no incentive to change course because their is still a willing market of young people who want to strike it rich. In some sense, it would be far better for the market and founders if data was more readily available. In fact, it is a jilted environment. It is always in the VC's favor because they hold the money. However, it doesn't mean that they hold future value. If it did, they wouldn't need to go fund startups.
The current VC-Founder relationship is imbalanced compared to other portions of the marketplace. The VC's hold additional chips because of the allure of a successful exit, the siren of Silicon Valley.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#148I'm going to say this knowing that I may get down voted to heck. And I don't mean it as a "told you so" to the OP, but rather hopefully some cautionary advice for would-be founders. I have come to the opinion that if you are bootstrapping, you have no business calling your company a startup. You are building a small business. And there is nothing shameful about this. You are among solid companions with your local plu…
Ah, the "hacker/cracker" debate equivalent for software entrepreneurship, complete with the person who says other people have "no business" calling themselves something if they don't meet their specific definition of that something. Bolted, of course, to the top of any thread that mentions "bootstrapping" or "VC".
This is more about an internalized understanding of the type of business you are building for the founders than it is about external perceptions. That can be difficult for some, particularly with the prestige we in this community attribute to the word "startup". But understanding the needs of your business and how you want to grow it are key. If you're thinking of your business as a startup, that massive growth is the only way forward, you'll make decisions like taking VC money. If you think of it as a profitable small business, with measured and planned growth, you can recognize that VC money may not be the answer for you.
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the "hacker/cracker" debate equivalent for software entrepreneurship, complete with the person who says other people have "no business" calling themselves something if they don't meet their specific definition of that something. Bolted, of course, to the top of any thread that mentions "bootstrapping" or "VC".
This is more about an internalized understanding of the type of business you are building for the founders than it is about external perceptions. That can be difficult for some, particularly with the prestige we in this community attribute to the word "startup". But understanding the needs of your business and how you want to grow it are key. If you're thinking of your business as a startup, that massive growth is th…
I think we understand that you believe businesses that don't aim for shoot-the-moon growth shouldn't call themselves "startups".
The problem is, not everybody agrees with you. I've done both kinds of companies and don't think growth trajectory is the defining feature of a "startup". I'm also not particularly interested in debating the point, since it has very little to do with the story we're commenting on. (I also understand your rebuttal to that point, that the problem this person had was not understanding the distinction you're making, but I also disagree with that argument and find it a little mean-spirited.)
Re: My Startup has 30 Days to Live
#150Maybe I missed it, but WHY does your startup have 30 days to live? You ran out of money and have no raise potential? How could your employee and cofounder not know this already?
Founders are all very well aware, employees still in the dark. No raise potential as metrics are nowhere near where they should be. Solid IP and team that might make for a good acquisition, provided investors will OK it (they've rejected one some time ago)
shouldn't you give employees 30 days notice? or is the plan to just fire them when the money runs out? before they've had time to look for another job...