Live data from Hacker News

Black Swan Farming

paulgraham.com

41–50 of 321 posts

Re: Black Swan Farming

#41
post #24

What strikes me about Dropbox and Airbnb more than anything is that they had incredibly strong growth strategies. * Dropbox used rewards for more storage, as well as its fundamental file-sharing tools, to encourage users to sign up their friends and family. * Airbnb gamed Craigslist [1] to encourage property owners to signup on Airbnb. With a strong supply of rental properties, Airbnb was able to build a true case fo…

Well, the way you should think about it is that in order to become big successful businesses, Airbnb and Dropbox needed to have incredibly strong growth strategies. Airbnb struggled for many years before hitting a solid growth strategy (which is far beyond CL) and Dropbox tried tons of other user acquisition strategies before realizing that the double-sided reward system was their way to go.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#42
post #12

The counter-intuitive nature of startup investing is a big part of what makes it so interesting to me. In most aspects of life, we are trained to avoid risk and only pursue "good ideas" (e.g. try to be a lawyer, not a rock star). With startups, I get to focus on things that are probably bad ideas, but possibly great ideas. It's not for everyone, but for those of us who love chasing dreams, it can be a great adventure…

Peter Thiel recently talked a little about this[1] counter-intutive phenomena (that pg states as that effectively all the returns are concentrated in a few big winners):

One intuition is that people do not believe in a power law distribution. They intuitively don’t believe that returns could be that uneven. So when you have an up round with a big increase in valuation, many or even most VCs tend to believe that the step up is too big and they will thus underprice it.

Which is intersting, because he actually talked a little to pg about this during the class where he said it:

Peter Thiel: Do Y-Combinator companies follow a power law distribution?

Paul Graham: Yes. They’re very power law

But Thiel was not happy just stating the phenomena, but he also states on why most people discredit it, when he talked about secrets[2]:

The power law secret operates similarly. In one sense it’s a secret about finance. Startup outcomes are not evenly distributed; the follow a power law distribution. But in another sense it’s a very human secret. People are uncomfortable talking about inequality, so they either ignore it or rationalize it away. It is psychologically difficult for investors to admit that their best investment is worth more than the rest of their portfolio companies combined. So they ignore or hide that fact, and it becomes a secret.

The distribution secret also has two sides to it. Distribution is much more important than people think. That makes it a business secret. But it’s a human secret too, since the people involved in distribution work very hard to hide what’s going on. Salespeople do best when people do not know they’re dealing with salespeople.

[1] http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels...

[2] http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/22866240816/peter-thiels...

Re: Black Swan Farming

#43
post #20

History tends to get rewritten by big successes, so that in retrospect it seems obvious they were going to make it big. For that reason one of my most valuable memories is how lame Facebook sounded to me when I first heard about it. As a thought experiment, I would love to hear what pg and team would have thought about the following companies, had they applied to YC before they grew in popularity (assuming YC existed…

That is a very interesting exercise. I feel pretty sure we'd have been impressed enough by Max and Peter to fund them regardless of the idea (which initially had almost nothing in common with Paypal). I knew Ev before Twitter so I'm sure we would have funded that. Pandora I know nothing about, so I can't guess there. SalesForce I'm pretty sure we would have funded because Benioff radiates "winner" in much the same ov…

a guy 'radiates "winner"'? Really?

I sincerely hope you're being flippant and don't mean that as a serious answer.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#44
post #30
post #24

What strikes me about Dropbox and Airbnb more than anything is that they had incredibly strong growth strategies. * Dropbox used rewards for more storage, as well as its fundamental file-sharing tools, to encourage users to sign up their friends and family. * Airbnb gamed Craigslist [1] to encourage property owners to signup on Airbnb. With a strong supply of rental properties, Airbnb was able to build a true case fo…

By definition, every huge success has a strong growth strategy :) That said, it often isn't obvious from the beginning. When I met Dropbox at YC, I don't recall them having any great plans for how to grow. I think that was discovered later on. Also, that often-repeated Craigslist claim about AirBnB is actually false. They got very few listings from Craigslist.

Thanks for the clarifications.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#45
What is the value of all companies that weren't picked by YC? Are there any notable black swans that are known YC-rejects?

It would be interesting to do an analysis of those companies that were rejected by YC, and see how many "black swans" were present in those rejects, as well as maybe relative value of the rejected startups vs the chosen ones to see how effective the YC selection process is.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#46
post #20

History tends to get rewritten by big successes, so that in retrospect it seems obvious they were going to make it big. For that reason one of my most valuable memories is how lame Facebook sounded to me when I first heard about it. As a thought experiment, I would love to hear what pg and team would have thought about the following companies, had they applied to YC before they grew in popularity (assuming YC existed…

That is a very interesting exercise. I feel pretty sure we'd have been impressed enough by Max and Peter to fund them regardless of the idea (which initially had almost nothing in common with Paypal). I knew Ev before Twitter so I'm sure we would have funded that. Pandora I know nothing about, so I can't guess there. SalesForce I'm pretty sure we would have funded because Benioff radiates "winner" in much the same ov…

Anyone know what the two YC companies Ben from Pinterest was a part of?

Re: Black Swan Farming

#47
Is that really a black swan, tho? I used the term the other day wrt wearing eyeguards while playing squash (to avoid losing an eye) but think I misused it then, too.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#48
Interesting to observe from that really big successes are better executed versions of ideas/products that exist on the market in a big way already (e.g. airbnb, facebook, dropbox, google) and the reason they seem like a bad idea (to investors) is not because they offer something nobody wants, but because they already exist in a too-big-to-challenge of a way? And that they might also seem bad because their starting point might seem like a niche (facebook).

Re: Black Swan Farming

#49
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very interesting exercise. I feel pretty sure we'd have been impressed enough by Max and Peter to fund them regardless of the idea (which initially had almost nothing in common with Paypal). I knew Ev before Twitter so I'm sure we would have funded that. Pandora I know nothing about, so I can't guess there. SalesForce I'm pretty sure we would have funded because Benioff radiates "winner" in much the same ov…

a guy 'radiates "winner"'? Really? I sincerely hope you're being flippant and don't mean that as a serious answer.

I mean it. Have you met either of them? They both seem unstoppable.

Re: Black Swan Farming

#50
post #39

Did Dropbox appear to be a bad idea at the time? I seem to recall that the market was pretty crowded when Dropbox launched, and that everyone was expecting Google to announce a "GDrive". Or does PG mean that the idea can seem bad because the market is already very crowded? I remember talking to William Morgan about the early days of GitHub. He knew the founders from Powerset, and he told me that at the time he though…

Yes, Dropbox was in the Google category of bad ideas: there were already lots of similar things. Success turned out to depend on execution. Dropbox was the first application of its type that worked sufficiently well. But that sort of thing is hard to predict.

I asked a similar question of paul down below but it seems to me that big successes can come in 2 flavors:

1) Execution driven success in a winner take all market. The idea seems good, but there is lots of competition so it's hard to see how the startup will break through & win the market.

2) A genuinely "good idea that initially looks bad" like you describe in your essay.

It's hard to think back and decide which, now successful, companies are 1 vs 2 because of the memory distortion effect, but it really does seem to me like #1 is more common. What do you think?

Post reply on HN