this will be mod'd down but it's the truth. Below I reveal entrepreneurship's REAL dirty little secret. it's that if you're talking to an early founder about helping in any way, shape, or form, you are going to get screwed - the question is for how long, and for how much. is it just going to be your opportunity cost at accepting the wage that you were offered and any other compensation? or are you even going to get p…
Modded down indeed, but for incoherence.
Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
31–40 of 55 posts
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#32this will be mod'd down but it's the truth. Below I reveal entrepreneurship's REAL dirty little secret. it's that if you're talking to an early founder about helping in any way, shape, or form, you are going to get screwed - the question is for how long, and for how much. is it just going to be your opportunity cost at accepting the wage that you were offered and any other compensation? or are you even going to get p…
Modded down indeed, but for incoherence.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#33Yeah for a few months. The kind of people who are going to start their own company are not the kind of welfare recipients we should care about (inner city kids and white trash) -- they are those for whom welfare was created, as temporary safety net.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#34this will be mod'd down but it's the truth. Below I reveal entrepreneurship's REAL dirty little secret. it's that if you're talking to an early founder about helping in any way, shape, or form, you are going to get screwed - the question is for how long, and for how much. is it just going to be your opportunity cost at accepting the wage that you were offered and any other compensation? or are you even going to get p…
I'd mod you down not because you did not have something to add to the conversation, not even because you provoked me to do so, but because your comment is so unreadable.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#35Without finishing the article, or knowing anything about the author, I knew that this couldn't be somebody who has ever tried his hand at starting a business. The fact that he repeatedly quotes Eric Ries and Steve Blank makes this article a little hilarious to me as well. I for one am only really interested in hearing stories from actual entrepreneurs who have tried and failed or tried and succeeded. Both are equally…
Both Eric Ries and Steve Blank are actual entrepreneurs who have tried on multiple occasions and have both success and failure in their experience. Eric Ries founded CatalystRecruiting as an undergrad, worked as an engineer for a few years, and then co-founded and was CTO of IMVU, which had a string of internal failures followed by perseverance and success. His experience there seems to have formed the core of the Le…
I personally don't find much value in Eric Ries advice and think he capitalized on the brand value of his education and a couple of minor business successes to write a highly successful and oft-cited book. I feel the same way about Seth Godin, Guy Kawasaki, and Tim Ferris. More power to them for building their personal brands and book sales through the insecurity of people just starting out, but I wouldn't spend too much time studying their prescriptions for success, because in reality, there is no such thing.
My point in the original post was that any author spending so much time citing startup gurus can't himself know too much about what he is talking about. It is like writing about new technology by reblogging Engadget articles.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#36We all know what happens to a plan when it sees the light of day.
As for cash-flow management, my parents called it spend less than you earn if you want to stay in business. But that is just we.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#37So, from a UK POV, the caution this article seems to urge, seems more applicable to the UK than the US.
I highlight this because I believe failure is as useful as success, I think there is possibly more to learn from a failure. I almost feel like a few failures are essential so that lessons can be learned, and stronger new start ups emerge with stronger founders. I believe the US is way better at this than the UK, and possibly Europe.
Or perhaps I have too a rosier view of the US in this respect? Dunno.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#38this will be mod'd down but it's the truth. Below I reveal entrepreneurship's REAL dirty little secret. it's that if you're talking to an early founder about helping in any way, shape, or form, you are going to get screwed - the question is for how long, and for how much. is it just going to be your opportunity cost at accepting the wage that you were offered and any other compensation? or are you even going to get p…
EDIT:
It's inside my edit window and several people have asked for clarification, so I'll try to clarify. If something is unclear, ask, and if it's outside the edit window anymore I will reply.
(1) (footnote from above) The Zynga case is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020462190457701... (there's a search engine friendly url if ever I saw one)
this is the rare case where you get to zynga size before the "clawback", which is very formal and unusual for that reason...it's not just a couple of heated skype conversations when you're tiny. usually there is no such thing, and the collaboration breaks down around your first few sales or after the product can actually be finished by someone on a small wage. Conveniently, the founders are left holding the "bag".
(2) Hollywood accounting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Gump#Author_controversy
clarification on "search engine friendly URL" - I meant I think the wall street journal should put the title in the URL so that it's matched in pages such as this one, and so Google gives the article more weight!).
(3) Under marxist theory, anyone who actually owns the means of production (e.g. the web server hosting the content let's say) makes money off of "surprus profit" that workers contribute. If the workers owned the means of production, they would be better off. So, this part of my comment was that it sounds like marxist to talk about ripping off workers, who are voluntarily contributing their labor under capitalist laws. But it only sounds that way -- critics of hollywood accounting do not criticize capitalism, nor that a film distributor can make 500,000,000 worldwide after spending 100,000,000 all told, with the rest being the retained profit. The analogy with marxist discontent is only superfluous, not deep.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#39>We need to discourage those who aren’t fit to start their own business. I request you to define "fit". How can one know if one is "fit". The line is very blurry I believe, unless there is something that I am missing here. Not unlike many others here, I aspire to be an entrepreneur too. But after reading this article I am left undecided on what side I "fit" in. Am I not supposed to be doing this? How am I (or others…
The skill to have (and it is easy for me, but it may not be for everyone) is to know what's right and what you're going to do, while at the same time separating the signal from the noise out there and integrating what the signal tells you about the market into your business.
There are a surprising number of people who think their mission in life is to "help" entrepreneurs... who think that their opinions are helpful independant of whether they are or not.
IF you remain unsure, there's nothing wrong with working for others (or working for someone else's startup) and doing your own thing on the side. Side projects can be very educational-- I learned as much from my side projects as I did from my day jobs working for startups.
You don't have to start off on your own right now, if you feel you're not ready.
Also, I don't think the chances of success for starting business are very small. I think they are probably better than 50/50. (Of the dozens of businesses I've started in my life, nearly all have been profitable.) People think a "startup" is this magical thing that is a "Scalable business", but most of the businesses I've started in my side projects have been scalable as well.
Moving to the bay area and starting a web site that has no real business model other than "sell advertising once we get to 50 million users" and high real costs making it dependent on external financing, on the other hand, is an approach that has very, very small chances.
I think the real problem is that this is the only model people seem to think exists.
Re: Entrepreneurship's Dirty Little Secret
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Modded down indeed, but for incoherence.
I've added clarifications, let me know if there is anything left unclear. (I didn't want to explain every comment, thought it would be condescending or unnecessary, but I've explained anything I thought was unclear in an edit, and can add more if anything is still unclear.
You appear to suggest that Zynga is typical. It isn't. Indeed, it's gotten so much press because it is very different than the Silicon Valley norms.
From the exits I've seen, early employees generally do well when founders do well. The only financial games I've heard of are ones that VC investors play with founders. E.g., the joy of "participating preferred". But even those aren't games like Hollywood plays: nobody bends the rules or hides profits.
As a counterexample to Zynga, consider Google. The NY Times estimated in 2007 that there were more than 1,000 employees worth $5m or more thanks to stock and options: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/technology/12google.html