Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
readwriteweb.com
Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
1–10 of 64 posts
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#2I think their metrics of success are silly (zero discussion of revenue, only caring about VC perception, etc.), but the other conclusions don't surprise me.
What I've noticed from copy-cat incubators and accelerators is that they incorrectly observe what YC is and apply something very different. Many of these programs are more like a class, with structured lessons and methods to success. Attendance might as well be required. YC is more like college: you get out of it what you put in to it. "office hours" are named that way for a reason.
Independence is a strong part of being an entrepreneur. Of course inexperienced entrepreneurs need help, but having no experience at all is an indicator of probable failure. I can only imagine this is amplified when the mentors and investors lack real startup experience.
It also needs to be said that the fallout from failed incubators in smaller cities can be negative. I've heard stories of damaged relationships, investors picking "favorites" and turning groups against each other. Unfortunate stuff.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#3Isn't that kind of the idea? It's a high-risk investment and most startups aren't going to go anywhere.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#4Isn't that kind of the idea? It's a high-risk investment and most startups aren't going to go anywhere.
Sure, but if _none_ of these second tier accelerators are producing _any_ successes, let alone any A rounds, it makes sense to question whether there's really any reward in participating in one at all.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#5Not really a secret[1]:
Peter Thiel: Do Y-Combinator companies follow a power law distribution?
Paul Graham: Yes. They’re very power law
[1] http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/21869934240/peter-thiels...
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#6Isn't that kind of the idea? It's a high-risk investment and most startups aren't going to go anywhere.
Sure, but if _none_ of these second tier accelerators are producing _any_ successes, let alone any A rounds, it makes sense to question whether there's really any reward in participating in one at all.
Agree with maxko. Basically he outlines the 3 major benefits of joining an accelerator program. He then questions whether many of the accelerators can deliver all or any of those 3 stated benefits with a relatively depressing outcome.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#7Report author:
"It takes years for companies to get traction and get an exit."
"There were not enough exits to evaluate"
Yet RWW concludes "startup accelerator fail" and "a lot of accelerators are just spinning their wheels."
Here's another hypothesis: The lack of exits reflects the fact that most accelerators are themselves only a few years old, and it takes a longer period of time to build a successful venture and achieve an exit.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#8using the exits as one criteria to judge the overall startup accelerator program and labeling it as a failing attempt is premature.
Even in the article Gilani says "takes years for companies to get traction and get an exit".
I think the success of these programs will depend on who the accelerator program is, type, region and other factors, but for sure it is too early to draw conclusions.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#9The quality of these incubators is going down but it is still not so low that I can be accepted (I'm half joking).
Anyway, the key for successful incubator is that they have strong team - with experience, knowledge, and connections.
What I noticed that majority of these second-tier incubators have only connections (ex-Googler, ex-Facebook, ex-bubble-company) but they do lack other two.
Re: Startup Accelerator Fail: Most Graduates Go Nowhere
#10Interesting to see a number around the rate of accelerator graduates that go on to raise venture funding (45%) but what would be more interesting is to compare this number to number of new companies overall that go on to raise venture capital.
I would imagine this number to be substantially lower than 45%, which would seem to turn 45% into an argument for accelerators and not against them.