Why startups fail, according to their founders • Hacker News Board

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#31

Post by briandear » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 8:19 AM UTC

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #7

curiously wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this seems to be an awful trend I am noticing more and more. Clickbait title and no substance in the article.

Good journalism is expensive compared to what we are seeing in this trend. We have to figure out a way to either lift the "casual journalist" into the limelight, or find a way to pay for good journalism. Or maybe a bit of both. It seems that the really good media companies aren't going away, but most of the others are struggling. I don't look forward to having only a few good media outlets dominate, so we need fix th…

Maybe if these news outlets didn't make their reading experience, especially on mobile, a JavaScript advertising cacophony of cluttered hell, then I might consider clicking some ads to support the publication. Since every pixel has been whored out in the service of very low quality advertising, I don't much care anymore. Imagine if publications went to simply one discrete ad per page. They could charge a much higher CPM and piss readers off less. Drudge did it that way for years and his site makes millions.

I hate all of that Taboola link bait 'recommended for you' crap. Does that really make money for the website? I can't imagine it would, at least not much.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#32

Post by joshuak » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 8:24 AM UTC

This list adds up to 300%

This has been a test.

Based on our research, we've found that startup founders who fail to notice that this list adds up to 300% have startups that will also fail.

Your user ids have been added to the investment exclusion list.

Thank you for participating.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#33

Post by briandear » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 8:37 AM UTC

Bahamut wrote: post #9

OT - is it just me, or does the page load atrociously slowly on mobile?

Goes to my point I mentioned above in response to a comment about low quality journalism. Whe every pixel is dedicated to pimping ad clicks, it makes the experience just awful. There's an area ripe for disruption!

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#34

Post by bjelkeman-again » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 1:16 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #31

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good journalism is expensive compared to what we are seeing in this trend. We have to figure out a way to either lift the "casual journalist" into the limelight, or find a way to pay for good journalism. Or maybe a bit of both. It seems that the really good media companies aren't going away, but most of the others are struggling. I don't look forward to having only a few good media outlets dominate, so we need fix th…

Maybe if these news outlets didn't make their reading experience, especially on mobile, a JavaScript advertising cacophony of cluttered hell, then I might consider clicking some ads to support the publication. Since every pixel has been whored out in the service of very low quality advertising, I don't much care anymore. Imagine if publications went to simply one discrete ad per page. They could charge a much higher…

The best way IMHO how to do this right is actually the Economist, which in the iPad app has not very intrusive ads. Also the website is pretty good for this.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#35

Post by itsybitsycoder » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

joshuak wrote: post #32

This list adds up to 300% This has been a test. Based on our research, we've found that startup founders who fail to notice that this list adds up to 300% have startups that will also fail. Your user ids have been added to the investment exclusion list. Thank you for participating.

That's not impossible, it would just mean that most businesses fail for multiple reasons. Lots of the reasons in the list seem like they could easily go together, e.g. "No Financing/Investor Interest" + "Ran Out Of Cash"? "Burn Out" + "Lack Passion" + "Lose Focus"?

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#36

Post by semerda » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 9:52 PM UTC

epa wrote: post #29

dushonok wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a great team help you to make money out of a product nobody wants? Market fit (#1) is the most important thing

They have the knowledge, collaboration, and commitment to change the concept and push on.

That's assuming the cofounder/s are not dictators. More common issue than you think. Ego issue of Power. Hence why I dislike titles (labels) when one is a small team.

Market fit should be worked out ahead of the team by the cofounders. The great team will contribute to it and over time everything evolves. Should the market shift fruit when you have the team, team transparency will help everyone steer the ship in a different direction. Otherwise the company will run out of cash chasing the founders fixed mindset.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#37

Post by semerda » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

tjradcliffe wrote: post #27

softdev12 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

right. 7) a great team is probably even more important than luck.

I've managed great teams in companies that have failed because they built a product for a market that turned out to mature at about 1% of the level it had been predicted to grow to. It was a great product, delivered on time. It fulfilled a genuine need and it did it better than anything the competition had to offer. But the market wasn't there to sustain the company, and there was no reasonable way to know that far e…

Cash rich companies can afford these experiments. A startup cannot. A poorly planned investment with great execution is a disaster waiting to happen.

So basically to your point. Market fit is pivotal to the health of a startup.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#38

Post by semerda » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 10:10 PM UTC

cyberjunkie wrote: post #24

There are a lot of immature startups throwing away money in vulgar fashion without considering the consequences of it, the value of that money. Startups are run by relatively young folk. Unfortunately, there are few or no shortcuts to years of first-hand experience of learning things the hard way, something most startups don't seem to get. Startups on a daily basis should be governed by a slightly conservative, old-s…

Interesting point you touched up on "the value of that money". The value is learnt through experience. But at who's expense. I highly recommend everyone get into investing their money so they can learn this value before they spend someone else's money.

Re: Why startups fail, according to their founders

#39

Post by joshuak » Mon, Mar 02, 2015, 11:34 PM UTC

itsybitsycoder wrote: post #35

joshuak wrote: post #32

This list adds up to 300% This has been a test. Based on our research, we've found that startup founders who fail to notice that this list adds up to 300% have startups that will also fail. Your user ids have been added to the investment exclusion list. Thank you for participating.

That's not impossible, it would just mean that most businesses fail for multiple reasons. Lots of the reasons in the list seem like they could easily go together, e.g. "No Financing/Investor Interest" + "Ran Out Of Cash"? "Burn Out" + "Lack Passion" + "Lose Focus"?

Yes, but it means the relative percentages are not meaningful. Even if your where to simply normalize them to total 100%.

Likely the servey was, "list 3 or more reasons why your startup failed," and then the top three where used in this list. This can be used for voting and ranking but deriving a percentage is inappropriate. Someone's 3rd choice may be only 1% of the reason they think they failed. there is no concept of relative percentage between the three choices of a single respondent.

If anything it is the set of three answers the respondent considers salient, in which case they are inseparable. They might have answered quite differently if they where asked "what is the single most important reason your startup failed."

Which is what this article claims it is listing.