I've left out a lot of the X or Y slideware related aspirational statements he made. I think his comments on being a contrarian these days and the need for an investment thesis was interesting.
From the comments, it looks like a lot of people are struggling with this one because Reid Hoffman was (absolutely) lacking in specific, concrete advice.
I think it's missing Reid's point -- everyone here is either (well, likely) thinking about founding something, or well on their way.
When he poses his questions, I think that he's trying to help us reflect on where we are, and how we can tackle the hazy questions (flexible v. persistent, short term v. long term, etc.) that will drive our decisions. This midway course lecture isn't about giving lessons -- it's about helping us to reflect.
"Product distribution is more important than what the product is."
It's not enough to be contrarian. You should also be right.
"It's useful to be able to recognize whether you are on track or not. To have both that belief, but also paranoia, about am I tracking over my investment thesis."
You need to be able to articulate the vision well.
One of the founders needs to be able to build networks of people.
What is my distribution edge? What is the hack that I know that other people don't know?
Just as you spend 20+ hours with a possible CEO, go in depth in conversations with a potential co-founder to identify all the parameters and set expectations. Go over the parameters that might lead to a divorce.
This talk might have been brilliant, but I wasn't really able to take away any concrete lessons or advice from it. In my opinion it was far too vague. I've really enjoyed the other talks though.
I found it very interesting when he spoke about founders who've learned to mimic an attribute investors find important. He notes that ignoring a single investor's feedback is fine, but ignoring the world in general is usually disaster.
I imagine the rise of this sort of mimicry leads investors who previously would consider investing in an idea and seemingly great founders to more strongly favor traction. I wonder if the YC partners keep track of the change in the percentage of startups accepted with an idea alone or complete a prototype just before an interview.
I'm also curious about the percentage of successful (or surviving) YC startups that were accepted with no traction versus those accepted with a product that had a quickly growing number of users. This value may be misleading, though, because the sample size isn't enormous, and there are so many other variables that affect the survival of a startup.
>I imagine the rise of this sort of mimicry leads investors who previously would consider investing in an idea and seemingly great founders to more strongly favor traction.
Not sure if you came to that conclusion inductively or deductively based on experience, but it is basically 100% the case. Every potential investor we have spoken with doesn't really seem to care about anything but traction.
I've just recently begun learning about the startup world, so I have almost no experience. Unfortunately, this result will restrict those who don't already know and cannot afford the time to learn how to build a prototype. Thankfully, the effort required to get a software prototype built has been dropping significantly.
Prototypes /= traction so that almost won't help either. I had a prototype two years ago. Nobody cared. We had an MVP a year ago, nobody cared. Now we are out there actively selling and even then investors are saying: We want to see that you will have 1MM in revenue in the next 12 months before we decide.
A rule of thumb in fundraising is this: "When you don't need money you will be able to get it."
I agree that a prototype /= traction, but it is a necessary step to get traction. I understand that marketing/sales are necessary to expose the product to target users, but a prototype allows founders to reiterate based on feedback to build what people want.
I agree with your rule of thumb too. One analogy that best described it IMO goes something like, "Investors are there to throw gas on the fire, not ignite it."
I understand that marketing/sales are necessary to expose the product to target users, but a prototype allows founders to reiterate based on feedback to build what people want.
This is certainly true as it will help validate your idea/market, and it is a step toward traction. A common mistake though is to assess positive feedback to a prototype as traction. Your quote is also apt. Here is another from me, right now:
I don't mean to be flippant but can someone separate out the concrete recommendations from the abstract motivational speaking?
All I hear is a series of "X or Y?" slides, which sort of imply there's a decisive answer on the way, but when you peer through the verbiage it ends up being some form of "Do both!"
This one hurts because its true:
“If I ever hear a founder talk about oh this is how I have a balanced life so on and so forth — they’re not committed to winning.”
So that you know that the work-life balance in SV is not anyone's priority, no matter what we say or jazz hands or post in lovely medium blog posts.
Don't you know? It's crucial for startup founders to have an 18th-century dystopian surveillance system of skills. In fact, if you play the video backward, you can actually hear Reid recite the entire text of Foucault's Discipline and Punish.
Great guess. I was trying to imagine what sort of metaphor he was evoking with Panopticon - as though the super-founder can see every task that is required of him - works, but it's a stretch. Panoply is much better.
Haven't watched this one yet, but all the lectures have had at least one really great insight to learn from. Thanks for uploading them so quickly, it's really nice.
Oprah Winfrey (The Oprah Winfrey Show), Jan Koum (WhatsApp), Jack Ma (Alibaba), Evan Williams (Twitter), Caterina Fake (Flickr), Hosain Rahman (Jawbone), Dustin Moskovitz (Facebook), Paul Graham (YC), Adora Cheung (Homejoy), Kevin Hale (Wufoo), Leah Busque (TaskRabbit), Brian Chesky (AirBnB), Patrick Collison (Stripe), Benjamin Franklin (USA)
More business graduates gravitating to the "tech" field full of useless piffy advice peddling themselves and their shoddy unoriginal offerings. When will these people realize they are like chefs who can't cook, nobody cares what they think.
I know I'm in the belly of the beast here but you all need to hear it.
I've left out a lot of the X or Y slideware related aspirational statements he made. I think his comments on being a contrarian these days and the need for an investment thesis was interesting.