41–46 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they don't want press coverage. If you are making a nice living doing 4 hours a week selling systems to {one weird old industry a solo founder would die to know about} you hardly want to invite competition. Competition ain't good for your lifestyle :-)
And what industry do you work in quickthrower2 :)
Unpopular opinion: if your company is going to succeed, why do you need VC? Sure, (nearly) every really really big company pulled VC at some point, but this is an industry full of survivor bias - and VC's know full well that almost all their punts are going to fail. VC is, arguably, the most expensive money you will ever borrow. If you could borrow a couple of hundred K against, say, obscene house prices in San Franc…
That's exactly what we're doing. The problem is, those aren't generally exciting stories to print. "Ex-google 20 year old founder raises $73 million Series A to build Uber for Cats" would raise eyebrows and gain clicks. [1] https://www.recapped.io
Pretty awesome idea!
Assembling a team is tougher for a lifestyle business. A startup lottery ticket is more desirable. "Build this with me so we might get rich" is better than "build this with me so we might pay ourselves large salaries". Then you've got the current funding climate that absolutely loves companies that look like lifestyle businesses. The temptation to take money is going to be huge. Also - a failed VC-backed startup look…
>Then you've got the current funding climate that absolutely loves companies that look like lifestyle businesses. Can you elaborate on this? I do keep some track of the startup world (since I consult to them) but was not aware of this point. >Also - a failed VC-backed startup looks better resume-wise. Why? Genuine question. Why would a failed small business not look as good?
VC funding is a form of social proof. Also in case of a total failure, as in 0 traction, perhaps even no product - it establishes "realness" of sorts.
Well, to start, the rest of the world outside the Silicon Valley bubble (including other "startup" hubs) call new companies "small businesses". There is a very good distinction here. Small business implies that your business is one that HAS to make money. Sure, it's not a lot. It may be a side job. But it is a business that has an actual plan from day one to make money. Small businesses are still the backbone of the…
I haven't found that to be true in NYC, Boston, Atlanta or Kansas City, where startups are called startups. That being said, with the exception of maybe Kansas City, I consider all of these places east coast tech centers heavily influenced by the largest American tech center, Silicon Valley.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Then you've got the current funding climate that absolutely loves companies that look like lifestyle businesses. Can you elaborate on this? I do keep some track of the startup world (since I consult to them) but was not aware of this point. >Also - a failed VC-backed startup looks better resume-wise. Why? Genuine question. Why would a failed small business not look as good?
My impression of the current seed and pre-seed enviorment is traction trumps everything. Revenue being the favourite sign of traction. A lifestyle business usually tries to establish revenue very early on. Another aspect worth mentioning, though perhaps a minority opinion - the Internet economy has grown enough to make what traditionally would be a simple niche'y product into 9 figure phenomena. The point being, VCs…