A lot of people are damn religious about bootrapping businesses. Especially nowadays when it’s so easy to start a software business– you just need a few hackers, Ruby on Rails, a cheap virtual server and you’re ready to roll, right?

Sure.

But just because it’s cheaper to start a software company, doesn’t mean that it’s that much cheaper to make it from when you launch a product to the point where you’re sitting back, drinking a margarita, and marveling at the recurring revenue machine you’ve created.

The way I look at it, there are three bars that matter to me.

1) Making enough money that the business brings in enough money to pay the overhead. Rent, servers, lawyers, whatever. Hopefully you keep this really lean.
2) Making enough money that the founders get an insultingly low (but still existent) salary.
3) Making enough money that the founders can take home roughly what they’d make if they went and got a real job.

Bootstrappers are woefully bad at guessing how long it’ll take to get over these bars.

Let’s look at everyone’s favorite example of bootstrapping: 37signals (whose products and philosophies I love, by the way). According to a recent post, it took them about 6 months to build Basecamp, with DHH spending 10 hours a week (they don’t mention how much time other folks invested, but let’s assume it’s 2 other people at 10 hours a week). It turns out that with a really popular blog, a very successful consulting firm, and all of the attention that they got with Ruby on Rails, it took them about a year to get to the point where they could give up consulting and work on it full-time. I assume that they were somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd bar (mentioned above) before they made the leap, though they might’ve taken a pay cut as a leap of faith in the growth that Basecamp was experiencing. DHH sez:

“It didn’t turn into a smash hit overnight either. We ran Basecamp for a year alongside our other obligations before it was doing well enough to pay all the bills and afford our full-time attention. Most good businesses didn’t become great ones within the 12-18 months that the poster boys of the startup lottery did.”

Amen!

I’ll give you an example closer to home. RescueTime (my baby) was on TechCrunch 3 times, LifeHacker twice, and add in a few thousand other blogs (of varying flavors and colors). We are a Y Combinator company, which gives us plenty of geek cred. We’ve been [edit for clarity] mentioned in an article on the cover of the New York Times, and have gotten mentions in PC World, US News and World Report, BusinessWeek, and more. More important than that, we’ve got happy users who seem to like telling their friends (the old fashioned kind of viral marketing!). I think most SaaS startups would feel very lucky to get this kind of attention– we certainly do. But for all of this attention, I really don’t expect to clear that second bar for many many months (we’re only a month or two into having an offering that people can pay money for, so give us time!).

Let me be clear about the type of startups I’m talking about– I’m talking about low-cost (or free) product companies with price points low enough that having a human being actually SELL the damn software would be inane. Whether it’s a payout of $.83 for an ad click or $24 bucks a month for BaseCamp– having a human being wandering around selling this stuff doesn’t scale, and chances are your founding team doesn’t consist of anyone who is a motivated (and skilled) software/ad salesperson anyways.

On the other hand, if your price point is high (generally requiring a more complex or premium offering) or if you have a services component (web development consulting, managed hosting, etc)– you’re golden… Or at least you have great potential to ramp up revenue fast (as you can justify a sales effort and fairly easily convert time into money). Of course, there are the obvious downsides– for enterprise software you have to build… enterprise software (capital intensive and damn ugly). And then you should expect to spend 60-70% of your cash on sales and marketing. If you go the services-heavy route, you’re simply selling time for money… You can make a nice business out of this (I ran a consultancy for 7 years which I eventually sold out of) but there’s virtually no equity to be built– no one wants to buy a consulting business.

In my opinion, if you aren’t prepared for 18-24 months before you actually get your first paycheck (either through savings, doing it part-time / half-assed, or seed funding) you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

Tomorrow I’m speaking on a panel at the 6 Hour Startup Conference. It should be good fun and (hopefully) informative, so if you’re spinning up a new company (or pondering it), you should come on by. Here are two things I won’t be doing at the conference:

• Pitching my own company
• Reading bullet items from a PowerPoint deck

Here’s a great quote from a great blog post about conferences and meetups:

“Here’s what a speaker owes an audience that travels to engage in person: more than they could get by just reading the transcript.”

I’m not a stellar public speaker (and it’s more challenging to reliably deliver value on an unstructured panel like this), so I hope we can deliver.

I can’t help but think that the startup world is a bit drunk on the concept of viral distribution. Distribution is a huge problem for startups, so I suppose that I can’t blame them.

First of all, I want to point out that I think viral distribution freakin’ rocks. It’s amazing. It’s awe-inspiring. If you can build virality into your app, do it– and do it early. What I’m focusing on in this post is when a startup is presented with a choice of “viral or value”. Either in the very earliest days when deciding what idea/problem/space to pursue (“We really love this idea, but this OTHER idea has soooo much inherent virality!”), or when making choices about features and initiatives in your startup (“THIS would make our users happy, but THIS would really bring in the new eyeballs!”). While we all like to go on about all of the hats we wear as entrepreneurs, it’s damn hard to be maniacal about making your users happy AND be investing time and energy in distribution.

So, as I watch myself continue to back-burner features at RescueTime that have viral/SEO potential, it occurs to me that it’s probably worth running through my thoughts on WHY. Thus this blog post. You can run through my thoughts with me.

“It’s easier to build a great business on top of an existing viral engine than it is to build virality into an existing business”

This was said to me by a hacker who was working with a team on a “stealth viral business”. At the time, I found myself nodding. You can’t throw a rock in Silicon Valley (or Seattle) without hitting a startup that has tried to staple on a viral loop to their application or service. “I know!” Manager X says. “Let’s add a tell-a-friend bucket to our app. And we need to widgetize it. Oh, and we should probably make a funny video about it! Then we’ll explode!” It turns out that viral loops are HARD.

But, as I think about it, I can name something that’s a LOT harder, and that’s building a product that people really want. In fact, I can fairly readily name off a long list of Facebook Apps and widget companies that have, with fairly minimal effort, built apps that are viral. I can’t as easily name off companies that have created great products that people love over a long weekend of coding. Products are HARD. Virality is, comparatively, much easier.

Another point to illustrate this– Top Facebook Apps are hemmoraging active users (some have lost 30-40% from peak). Presumably, these app creators are alarmed. I can imagine small teams huddled over a table frantically running through how they can make their apps more fun, more useful, more real. Here is an army of smart and well-financed people who are trying to add a great product onto an existing viral loop. I don’t think many of them are having a lot of success.

Virality Isn’t New

It’s important to note that virality isn’t new, especially if you argue that word-of-mouth is the same thing. For the purposes of this post, I’m talking about the type of virality that Andrew Chen (who is one of my absolute favorite bloggers) defines as:

“I tend to think of Viral Marketing that include both systematic and unsystematic ways that your current customers acquire new customers… In some of these cases, the virality has been “built-in” to the system – for example, but chain letters explicitly promise you something in return for sending on a letter, as do Multi-Level Marketing systems like Tupperware. These incentives and systematic design are originated with the intent to propagate a viral process.”

In the standard word-of-mouth model, you have:

1. User tries product.
2. User loves product.
3. User evangelizes product to everyone they know.
4. Some subset of those preached to (greater than 1) tries the product.
5. Rinse, repeat.

Think Google, Apple, Microsoft (in the early days), etc.

In the viral-focused model you have:

1. User tries the product.
2. As part of trying the product, they (sometimes unwittingly) tell everyone they know about the product.
3. Some subset of those victims tries the product.
4. Rinse, repeat.

Think Facebook Apps, chain letters, tupperware parties, Geocities, and Hotmail. Or, let’s roll back to another web investment mini-craze– the SEO/Vertical Search business. Any SEO/user-generated content business is inherently viral. User creates account. Some subset of new users create a page of content. Content gets indexed by search engines. The new page brings in some traffic. Eventually, that user-created page converts a visitors to a content creator. Rinse, repeat.

Paul Graham (“ah, yes– the obligatory PG quote”) talks about the concept of getting upwind of revenue:

“In Patrick O’Brian’s novels, his captains always try to get upwind of their opponents. If you’re upwind, you decide when and if to engage the other ship. Craigslist is effectively upwind of enormous revenues. They’d face some challenges if they wanted to make more, but not the sort you face when you’re tacking upwind, trying to force a crappy product on ambivalent users by spending ten times as much on sales as on development.”

What I THINK he’s also advocating for is the concept of getting “upwind of distribution”.

It seems to me that when you remove the “user loves the product” step, you’re failing to solve the CORE problem that needs to be solved to build a great company. If you can’t create and maintain unique value with your widget or Facebook app, you’re doomed to experience the same fate as chain letters, mood rings, and GeoCities. You might well be able to get in and get out (with millions of dollars in your pocket) before you “jump the shark“. If your startup has a user-generated-content component, you might be able to amass enough SEO-fodder to make a healthy living on advertising, but that has its own challenges.

Hopefully you’ve got some grand capital-efficient plans to get it in front of your target market (WE do– we haven’t even gotten started at this front). But if your wondering why users aren’t coming to your web site, chances are you have a product problem– not a marketing problem.

One of the frustrating things about iterative software development is that you never get to do a heroic launch (a la Steve Jobs). Your software starts off to be barely good enough for someone to endure. The next week it’s better. Rinse, repeat. If you’re good, someday you wake up and you’ve built great software. We’ve got a long road before this day, but we think we’re onto something.

Anyhoo, hat tip to Web Worker Daily!

They posted a note describing some of the cool new features in RescueTime, including the very first version of RescueTime Groups, which seems damn promising. Give it a look!

[edit: I should probably have made a stronger point that I am talking about early early early stage startups. 2-5 people, pre-funding. Carry on!]

There is a tremendous amount of venom loosed towards so called “business guys” or “idea guys” (as I’ve called ‘em) in the startup community. They can’t catch a break.

A big part of the reason is that we’ve all had that hellish experience with the MBA. The guy who has his “big idea” and “just needs someone to build it”, presumably why he stands back and waves his hands a lot (and occasionally plays golf in space). You can find CraigsList littered with ads by biz guys, incredulous that hackers aren’t falling all over themselves to execute on their ideas.

It doesn’t take a lot of hunting around to learn that great technology startups aren’t generally built on the shoulders of a great business guy. Here’s a gem of a quote from a gem of an essay:

If you work your way down the Forbes 400 making an x next to the name of each person with an MBA, you’ll learn something important about business school. You don’t even hit an MBA till number 22, Phil Knight, the CEO of Nike. There are only four MBAs in the top 50. What you notice in the Forbes 400 are a lot of people with technical backgrounds. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Jeff Bezos, Gordon Moore. The rulers of the technology business tend to come from technology, not business. So if you want to invest two years in something that will help you succeed in business, the evidence suggests you’d do better to learn how to hack than get an MBA.

Take a look at the genesis of your favorite startup and find me the MBA. Find me the program manager. They just aren’t there.

So your startup doesn’t need a business guy. In fact, there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that having a business guy in your software startup has a reverse corrolation with success.

So, take a walk, biz guy. We don’t need you.

Or do we?

It turns out that it’s not so simple as that. Startups are diverse– each startup has different needs. How do you think SalesForce.com would’ve done if it’d been started by a bunch of hackers? How do you think Zappos.com would have fared if it wasn’t started by a zealot for customer service and support? There are plenty of examples of great software startups with a critical founder who wasn’t really a technologist (arguably, Apple is a great example of this). And there’s no denying that for startups that have something that they intend to CHARGE for, a business guy is incredibly valuable– so long as he actually can dive in and do sales largely full-time. Most business guys I know turn there nose up at cold-call style sales– which is really what you need.

So what does every startup absolutely need?

Startups need BUILDERS. People who make stuff. Absolute animals, as Paul Graham puts it. People whose output is positively awe-inspiring.

But startups also need a product genius. Someone who has great instincts about what people want and need.

So what’s to stop a business guy from being a product genius? Not a darn thing. Sure, there are plenty of biz guys who are stupid about products, but it certainly doesn’t take much work to find a hacker who has a truly awful idea for a product.

It’s just not so simple.

But I’ll tell you something that is simple: a hacker or designer’s output is strongly correlative with their sense of ownership. Here are a pile of modifiers that can effect a sense of ownership:

• The builder *IS* the “idea guy”. It’s his idea. (+50)
• The builder isn’t the “idea guy”, but has the problem that the product is trying to solve. (+40)
• The builder isn’t the “idea guy” and doesn’t really have the problem that the product is trying to solve, but can really empathize with the problem. (+30)
• The builder is a principal author of HOW the solution is built, even if WHAT is being built isn’t entirely his baby. (+20)
• The builder stands to make truckloads of money if the product takes off. (+20 * the number of truckloads)

In a world where startups are beset with endless challenges and frustration, anything you can do to heap on a feeling of ownership among the people who are actually building stuff is critical.

If there’s any indisputable advantage that startups have over big business, it’s the insane amount of sheer output that a startup can generate. Part of this is just being lean and bureaucracy-free, but a huge part of it is the motivation that comes with a sense of ownership. I think it’s pretty safe to say that the bigger a company gets and the more pure-play “managers” that get hired, the farther away the builders get from this feeling.

For all the startups out there who have a biz guy playing golf in space while a collection of hackers and designers slave away on the idea that they don’t really love…. Well, I don’t think you are necessarily doomed to failure. But I think you’ve taken an uphill road that’s a bit too steep for my tastes.

I wrote a little guest post over at FoundRead (part of the GigaOm network). Give it a read!

http://gigaom.com/2008/04/02/ycombinator/

There’s quite a flap over Paul Graham’s recent essay.

The attacking author quotes a comment on Reddit (always a good sign) as a good summary of the essay of why we should all be terribly offended.

“I work with young startup founders in their twenties. They’re geniuses, and play by their own rules. Oh… you haven’t founded a company? You suck.”

I kinda feel like there is a reading comprehension problem here. Paul added a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the article to clarify, but I’m going to boil down what I got.

The point I got from the essay is:

“I work with young startup founders in their twenties [note: he works with me and a mess of other founders who are also in their thirties... at least 1 or 2 are in their forties]. They seem stressed, but they seem happier and more alive. I think it might be a socio-biological thing– human beings are meant to be working in smaller groups, with clearer goals, and more ‘on the line’. Small businesses and startups seem like the best place to find this environment.”

Period.

Saying stuff like “happier and more alive” (which PG did not– I’m paraphrasing) does not mean that everyone else is miserable and dead inside.

Anyways, this isn’t a wild idea. There are piles of studies out there that have found a correlation between self-employment and satisfaction/happiness. Incidentally, there’s also a strong correlation between self-employment and making less money (but that’s good news, because there are ALSO studies that show that money doesn’t do much for happiness once you manage to have enough coming in to cover the necessities)

I think that common sense goes a long ways in UI design… But not all the way. It’s a learned skill like any other. I was reading up on calendar controls today (which I’m obsessed with, by the way) and caught a great post by the curmudgeonly Jakob Nielsen. Here’s the snippet I like best (he’s describing the top application design mistakes):

“Affordance” means what you can do to an object. For example, a checkbox affords turning on and off, and a slider affords moving up or down. “Perceived affordances” are actions you understand just by looking at the object, before you start using it (or feeling it, if it’s a physical device rather than an on-screen UI element). All of this is discussed in Don Norman’s book The Design of Everyday Things.

Perceived affordances are especially important in UI design, because all screen pixels afford clicking — even though nothing usually happens if you click. There are so many visible things on a computer screen that users don’t have time for a mine sweeping game, clicking around hoping to find something actionable. (Exception: small children sometimes like to explore screens by clicking around.)

Drag-and-drop designs are often the worst offenders when it’s not apparent that something can be dragged or where something can be dropped. (Or what will happen if you do drag or drop.) In contrast, simple checkboxes and command buttons usually make it painfully obvious what you can click.

Common symptoms of the lack of perceived affordances are:

• * Users say, “What do I do here?”
• * Users don’t go near a feature that would help them.
• * A profusion of screen text tries to overcome these two problems. (Even worse are verbose, multi-stage instructions that disappear after you perform the first of several actions.)

When I tested some of the first Macintosh applications in the mid-1980s, users were often stumped by the empty screen that appeared when they launched, say, MacWrite. What do I do here, indeed. The first step was supposed to be to create a new document, but that command was not shown anywhere in the otherwise highly visible Macintosh UI unless you happened to pull down the File menu. Later application releases opened up with a blank document on the screen, complete with an inviting, blinking insertion point that provided the perceived affordance for “start typing.”

Don Norman recently wrote a fine piece entitled “Why is 37Signals So Arrogant?“. As a student of link/click bait, I have to applaud him. Bravo! It’s right up there with Jason Calacanis’ post about firing anyone who isn’t a workaholic (his followup is a bit more measured).

So I’m going to do one better than Don Norman, and tell you exactly why 37Signals is so arrogant.

But, first I’m going to tell you that they’re not. At least not in the way that Norman is saying. 37Signals listens VERY HARD to their users. It’s amazing to note that up until recently (correct me if I’m wrong) Jason Fried read (and sometimes responded to) every single support email. In light of this, to say that 37Signals doesn’t listen to their users is absurd.

Norman and Nielsen have always argued that the best way to understand users is to watch them use your product. I tend to agree- but dealing with support yourself as a product developer is a close second– it’s an amazing way to feel the pain and confusion of your users. Most product developers hire a cheap support staff as soon as they can manage– to get themselves out of the muck. These guys didn’t.

But, come on. Read their blog. Take a look at DHH’s (in)famous “Fuck You” Slide. These guys are clearly arrogant.

Here’s why.

Take a look at the people that most people envy. Hell, start in high school and work your way up. How many times have you said, “why is that girl dating that absolute JERK?” Look at all of the people who are successful in this world and you’ll find a fairly common theme. There is a decided absence of humble and self-deprecating people. There aren’t a lot of people on top who are frequently saying, “I am wrong and you are right”.

So it’s easy to say that as software geeks we are above that. We grew up on the wrong end of “nice guys finish last” and we’re going to be bigger than that. But look at the giants of our world. Steve Jobs. Linus Torvalds. Paul Graham. Joel Spolsky. Bill Gates. Jakob Neilsen. There are certainly degrees of it in this collection of stars, but every single one of them speaks and acts with near-absolute assurance and authority. They embrace controversy and sometimes provoke it. Every single one of ‘em has been called arrogant.

As masters of marketing, the fellas at 37Signals are (either consciously or unconsciously) lumping themselves in with the guys at the top of the food chain. They are the high school equivalent of the insensitive guy in the letterman’s jacket who always gets the girl. They are talking the talk, stirring the pot, saying surprising things, pissing people off, and daring the world to prove them wrong.

You might not like them, but you’re looking at them and listening to them– which is more than you can say for the thousands of other 10-person profitable software companies out there.

I would like to finish by saying that I’m better than you. I’m right. You’re wrong. My [insert language/platform/dev tool] is better than your [insert language/platform/dev tool].

Thanks for listening.

Well, not all of it. That title was blatant click-bait. You’re here and I’ve won. Nyah!

I’ve long been passionate about reading and digesting every tidbit of information about what it takes to build a successful startup. I’m an avid reader of people like Seth Godin, Paul Graham, Guy Kawasaki, the fellas at VentureHacks, Fred Wilson, Josh Kopelman, Andrew Chen, and more. As a participant in the YCombinator program, I have weekly dinners with entrepreneurs who have “hit it big” (Marc Andreessen, Ev Williams, Paul Buchheit, Chris Sacca, & Joe Kraus, to name a few).

All of the things I’ve learned are incredibly useful and all of it (paradoxically) can be incredibly wrong.

Let me explain my thinking here. Human beings love formulas. Human beings who succeed naturally think that they’ve stumbled onto a magical step-by-step guide on how other people can succeed, too. They blog about it, speak about it, and generally spread their wisdom far and wide.

The funny thing is that when you read/hear enough of this stuff, you start hearing brilliant and successful people presenting advice that directly conflicts with the advice from other brilliant and successful people.

Here are a few examples:

• “Release Early and Listen to your users” VS “Ignore your Users and Build for Yourself.”
• “Seek out Press early and often” VS “go guerrilla until you have a brilliant product“
• “Failure to scale kills” VS “you can have tons of downtime and still grow like gangbusters“
• “Take more funding than you need” VS “overfunding kills“
• “Viral always wins” VS Google Search (which is not REMOTELY viral).
• “Design is critical for user engagement and trust” VS um…. MySpace. CraigsList. Google.
• “Starting a business on Microsoft technologies is ridiculous” VS MySpace or PlentyOfFish (2-3 people, classic ASP, a few MS servers = millions of bucks)
• Headcount! VS Keeping your team lean to force scarcity (CraigsList and 37Signals)

The list goes on. Find me a startup truism and I’ll find you a successful startup which is a living and breathing counter-example. All of the advice that you read and hear is incredibly valuable– but it’s very situational. Add it to your “startup utility belt” and whip it out when you hit a bump in the road that looks familiar. “Andreessen ran into this and solved the problem thusly. That’s what I’ll try!” But don’t think that you can arm yourself with a list of platitudes and expect to build a startup.

The Two Truisms that Aren’t Lies

Now that I’ve finished saying that there’s no formula, I’m going to give you the two pieces of advice that (near as I can tell) EVERY successful founder has followed. Zero exceptions.

1. Build something people want. This will make or break you. Period. The success of your idea is a function of how much people want it and how many people want it. Make your product better on this front every single week. Every single DAY, if you can. Everything else is a distraction. If you can’t say, “What I’m doing RIGHT NOW will make [people want what we have more] or [more people want what we have]” you should seriously question how you’re spending your time. (Which begs the question, what the hell am I doing writing this blog post?!). FWIW, I think you should exhaust the former (increase the how much your users love you) before the latter (increase how many users love you)
2. Don’t stop. Persist. Keep going. The idea of an overnight success is largely ridiculous, even if the press loves to tell you otherwise. (just ask Matt Mullenweg of WordPress). You’ll think you are on the verge of death early and often, but you aren’t– and you can make it through if you start with an idea that people want and keep working on #1. Read Paul’s Essay, “How Not to Die“– it’ll help!

I can’t think of a single startup that has died from an over-emphasis on these two points. Can you?