121–130 of 175 posts
London Business School is world-class and the self-starters who go there are self-selecting.
I can't help but have a very negative reaction to this, not necessarily at the author, but at the startup ecosystem as a whole. These are posted as "lessons" as if they were difficult to learn, when this really should be labeled "things no responsible person would ever not know before even considering raising money." Of course you should be self-critical of your product, of course you should test with real customers,…
Basically, I don't see it as an inherently bad thing. Until we've got Culture terminals and a Hub to chat with to convince us why something is a bad idea, I believe it'll always be this way. The other thing is that sometimes it works, so being an entrepreneur can have the same allure as a lotto ticket, only with even more illusion of control.
I thought this was a great post by OP, and I thank him for it.
Something I see missing from a lot of these startup discussions are the ideas of identity and community. Sure, "solving a problem" is important. But Nike isn't solving a problem that other shoe companies haven't solved a thousand times over. The reason they're successful is that buying into their brand makes you part of a bigger community, and that community has a positive identity attached to it. Same thing with a s…
The functional problem it solves as a shoe may not need solving, but indentifying with a brand, culture and community is a much more powerful need than protection for feet.
If you really think about it...Pain points are primarily emotion driven and solutions need to solve the emotional point much more than the functional one. (the functional point is just the ante to play the game.)
If you have ideas how to make that skill marketable (or even better received)...
Amazingly negative comments on this. How interesting. I thought the post has value, even if they are mistakes that people make over and over... which is interesting, to my mind, and means I should try extra hard to not fall prey to them. It seems like that's easier said than done however, no matter how "obvious" and "simple" it is...
I almost feel like these negative comments are coming from founders who feel like frauds on the inside and need to call out others as frauds to elevate themselves and their own egos.
Here's the truth. This guy took a shot. That makes him more entrepreneurial than 99% of the folks out there! Did he make mistakes. Yes. Could they have been avoided. Probably.
But... he took a shot. He who fails the most, succeeds! You only need one success.
I am reading thru this and it is a good, recommended read however I am getting slightly annoyed with academic attitude of the author. Like batman in the cartoon I want to slap him but not for "sloppy market research". But for using the term "market research" at all. (This is essientially the first and maybe the second point reiterated.) Suppose you were a cook with your own restaurant. How do you figure out what work…
The best way to track how customers found you when they call is to use different phone numbers in your marketing. Even in web forms, asking where you heard about me...I bet 50% of your responses are the first choice in the drop down menu.
Customers Lie. Not maliciously...but you can't expect them to understand and respect the importance accurate tracking on your side of the fence is.
I can't help but have a very negative reaction to this, not necessarily at the author, but at the startup ecosystem as a whole. These are posted as "lessons" as if they were difficult to learn, when this really should be labeled "things no responsible person would ever not know before even considering raising money." Of course you should be self-critical of your product, of course you should test with real customers,…
This idea that there is some magic advice that this article is lacking and that only a seasoned (technical) founder can share with you is a fallacy. You are chasing a unicorn if you cannot accept common sense advice on its face.
Here's a piece of advice and lesson that you might not know (although I hope you do.)
There is something to learn from everyone, and the if you aren't willing to learn from EVERYONE, the problem is you that you aren't willing to learn, not that they don't have something to share with you.
I am reading thru this and it is a good, recommended read however I am getting slightly annoyed with academic attitude of the author. Like batman in the cartoon I want to slap him but not for "sloppy market research". But for using the term "market research" at all. (This is essientially the first and maybe the second point reiterated.) Suppose you were a cook with your own restaurant. How do you figure out what work…
What if you are just learning to cook, and don't have the resources to setup a full kitchen?
A startup is not a 'real' company, writ small. There are tricks to emulate the necessary feedback mechanisms, but your analogy is more appropriate to an operating company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are the strategies you listed not market research?
It is market research, just not named as such. I think OP was simply complaining that the article author approached market research academically, throwing common sense out of the window in the process. Classic outsmarting yourself. You don't need to call it market research for it to be effective (the chef probably doesn't).
Should I consciously avoid using the jargon (which is really a shortcut way of expressing a longer idea to a familiar audience)? No, rather than giving you a long winded discussion of the steps to getting dressed (or whatever the jargon may be), I'll just say, "I got dressed".
It conveys more information in a shorter frame. Why would someone avoid being compact and expressive to a niche audience?