For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson<jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
[mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Lawson Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:08 AM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
Hi STS,
For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
It was even funnier in person. Jeff does have a knack for presentation. I was very impressed by how Twilio is consuming and producing cloud services. Best of luck to Jeff and Team Twilio.
Brian Myers wrote: > Hilarious! I'm going to keep that handy for the > future.
> -----Original Message----- > From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com > [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] > On Behalf Of Jeff Lawson > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 1:08 AM > To: Seattle Tech Startups > Subject: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've > posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every > Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as > needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list > and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San > Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the > Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings > me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more > vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out for me was:
"Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your > credibility. ;-)
> I'm sorry I missed this one!
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
>> Hi STS,
>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >> threads:
>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
I had never heard the term "lifestyle company" until I joined this group. Someone said I was aiming to start a lifestyle company and at first I was a little put off thinking that "big" companies were real and lifestyle companies were wannabes.
I would love to start a big company, but being a neophyte entrepreneur, I see starting a lifestyle company as just a stepping stone to something bigger and I think it's the right path for me. I'm taking baby steps but moving in the right direction.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Mark Aiken <mai...@niftybrick.com> wrote: > At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out > for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I > had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a > stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask > because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" > currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty > assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >> credibility. ;-)
>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi STS,
>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>> threads:
>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
As with all things, it's a matter of personal preference. My preference is this:
Entrepreneurship is hard. Very hard. And the changes of failure are high. So if I'm going to put in all that work with a high probability of failure, the potential outcome (pie in the sky) should be as large as possible to offset all that risk.
Also, picking a large opportunity or large problem space gives you lots of room to screw it up, restart, find an unexpected corner that's suitably large. If you start with a small problem space, you have little room for mistakes.
So: start with a big pie, and after you screw it all up, drop half on the floor and puke up the rest, the tiny slice you have left should be a viable business.
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that > stuck out for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I > thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does > anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led > to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the > entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified > under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that > need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew > your credibility. ;-)
> I'm sorry I missed this one!
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> > wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
"Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
_____
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out for me was:
"Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
Cheers,
Mark
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your credibility. ;-)
I'm sorry I missed this one!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
Hi STS,
For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
- Aim high (saying nothing about how to get there), or - Follow the "get big fast" model: trade equity for funding, burn cash, focus on volume, not revenue, "monetize" as an afterthought, etc
I'm a fan of the first but not the second. So maybe "go big" isn't as suspect advice as I first thought.
Mark
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <
b...@envisionventures.com> wrote: > I'll take the bait.
> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, > partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial > and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap > over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the > delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular > service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle > Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the > input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd > rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it > possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed > companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average > financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a > Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
> ------------------------------ > *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: > organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM > *To:* Seattle Tech Startups > *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out > for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I > had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a > stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask > because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" > currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty > assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >> credibility. ;-)
>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi STS,
>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>> threads:
>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
I'll confess, I bristle when I hear this "go big" advice and especially when the term "lifestyle business" is tossed around.
From my perspective, "Lifestyle business" is the patronizing term used by many big businesses and investors for businesses that are unwilling to pursue growth at the expense of a) the quality of their product/service and/or b) the happiness of their employees. The terms is often applied to businesses that don't want said investors' money.
I know not everyone uses the term this way, but I think it's used often enough in this vein that it should be retired.
As for money, Bill is right to point out that the "bigger" companies may have greater potential for larger financial returns, but your odds of achieving them are often lower than with the non-"big" companies. I would also argue, that even if your big company does succeed, your odds are also not great of retaining enough equity for that big payday to accrue to you in a significant fashion (beyond what you might get with a higher percentage shot of a non-big business).
To me the "big" idea is to actually create something of your own - something of quality, retain enough equity to control it, and see it through to being an independent money generating and - most importantly - happiness generating venture (for you, the employees, and the people who use your services/products).
I'll let you know when I've accomplished any of those goals. ;)
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:08 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
I guess I'm conflating two things:
* Aim high (saying nothing about how to get there), or * Follow the "get big fast" model: trade equity for funding, burn cash, focus on volume, not revenue, "monetize" as an afterthought, etc I'm a fan of the first but not the second. So maybe "go big" isn't as suspect advice as I first thought.
Mark On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <b...@envisionventures.com<mailto:b...@envisionventures.com>> wrote: I'll take the bait.
"Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
________________________________ From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com<mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com> [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com<mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com>] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out for me was: "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
Cheers,
Mark
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com<mailto:mmaun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your credibility. ;-)
I'm sorry I missed this one!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com<mailto:jeff...@jeffiel.com>> wrote:
Hi STS,
For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 smart people with a truck load of smart money.
I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies showing authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting on a breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation and business is.
There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the weekend.
ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's right-on. Lets retire the term.
Mark.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <
b...@envisionventures.com> wrote: > I'll take the bait.
> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, > partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial > and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap > over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the > delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular > service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle > Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the > input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd > rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it > possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed > companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average > financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a > Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
> ------------------------------ > *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: > organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM > *To:* Seattle Tech Startups > *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out > for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I > had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a > stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask > because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" > currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty > assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >> credibility. ;-)
>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
>>> Hi STS,
>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>> threads:
>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
So let us all note that by mocking this thread, I have inadvertently spawned it again. That's some snake eating it's tail, Kyle Reese, Marty McFly shit for ya.
Unsubscribe, I'm off to get some Quiznos.
-jeff
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Hillel Cooperman wrote:
> I’ll confess, I bristle when I hear this “go big” advice and > especially when the term “lifestyle business” is tossed around.
> From my perspective, “Lifestyle business” is the patronizing term > used by many big businesses and investors for businesses that are > unwilling to pursue growth at the expense of a) the quality of their > product/service and/or b) the happiness of their employees. The > terms is often applied to businesses that don’t want said investors’ > money.
> I know not everyone uses the term this way, but I think it’s used > often enough in this vein that it should be retired.
> As for money, Bill is right to point out that the “bigger” companies > may have greater potential for larger financial returns, but your > odds of achieving them are often lower than with the non-“big” > companies. I would also argue, that even if your big company does > succeed, your odds are also not great of retaining enough equity for > that big payday to accrue to you in a significant fashion (beyond > what you might get with a higher percentage shot of a non-big > business).
> To me the “big” idea is to actually create something of your own – > something of quality, retain enough equity to control it, and see it > through to being an independent money generating and – most > importantly – happiness generating venture (for you, the employees, > and the people who use your services/products).
> I’ll let you know when I’ve accomplished any of those goals. ;)
> From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com > ] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:08 PM > To: Seattle Tech Startups > Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> I guess I'm conflating two things: > Aim high (saying nothing about how to get there), or > Follow the "get big fast" model: trade equity for funding, burn > cash, focus on volume, not revenue, "monetize" as an afterthought, etc > I'm a fan of the first but not the second. So maybe "go big" isn't > as suspect advice as I first thought.
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <b...@envisionventures.com > > wrote: > I'll take the bait.
> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, > partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the > world?
> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual > trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a > marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out > there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to > overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so > you don't trial).
> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a > Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. > Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if > I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger > financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure > whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the > better outcome statistically "on average").
> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is > "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet > is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
> From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com > ] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM > To: Seattle Tech Startups > Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that > stuck out for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I > thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does > anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led > to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the > entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified > under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that > need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew > your credibility. ;-)
> I'm sorry I missed this one!
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> > wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
Also - do the math - using Excel (or Numbers) and compare what the founders can expect to make taking two distinctly different routes: self-funding with eventual acquisition and angel / venture funding. It only takes an extra round (or two) with angels or VCs to dramatically shrink a founders ownership position.
I continue to be surprised there aren't more people trying to intentionally take the self-funding route, especially if their product is software related. Expenses are low, there are really no infrastructure overhead requirements. Everyone thinks they need a big team with big salaries to be successful. Consider just the opposite. Groups like this and all the startup events around town give you way more of a support and advice network than any single VC group can offer - if you're willing to use them.
As everyone seems to agree, you're going to end up working your ass off either way.
The "go big" model is harder and, I'd wager (over a large number of startups), less likely to reward the entrepreneur the same way a self- funded venture might. Take a 3 person startup, for example. 33% of, say, $5MM is more than 4% of $25MM with 1000 times less complexity and cost.
<asbestos coating> Not to make too many enemies - but when I think of VCs I'm reminded of the adage "those that can, do. Those that's can't teach." </asbestos coating>
_________________________________________________ DAVID GELLER Eyejot :: Video Mail in a Blink dav...@eyejot.com
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Hillel Cooperman wrote:
> I’ll confess, I bristle when I hear this “go big” advice and > especially when the term “lifestyle business” is tossed around.
> From my perspective, “Lifestyle business” is the patronizing term > used by many big businesses and investors for businesses that are > unwilling to pursue growth at the expense of a) the quality of their > product/service and/or b) the happiness of their employees. The > terms is often applied to businesses that don’t want said investors’ > money.
> I know not everyone uses the term this way, but I think it’s used > often enough in this vein that it should be retired.
> As for money, Bill is right to point out that the “bigger” companies > may have greater potential for larger financial returns, but your > odds of achieving them are often lower than with the non-“big” > companies. I would also argue, that even if your big company does > succeed, your odds are also not great of retaining enough equity for > that big payday to accrue to you in a significant fashion (beyond > what you might get with a higher percentage shot of a non-big > business).
> To me the “big” idea is to actually create something of your own – > something of quality, retain enough equity to control it, and see it > through to being an independent money generating and – most > importantly – happiness generating venture (for you, the employees, > and the people who use your services/products).
> I’ll let you know when I’ve accomplished any of those goals. ;)
> From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com > ] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:08 PM > To: Seattle Tech Startups > Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> I guess I'm conflating two things: > Aim high (saying nothing about how to get there), or > Follow the "get big fast" model: trade equity for funding, burn > cash, focus on volume, not revenue, "monetize" as an afterthought, etc > I'm a fan of the first but not the second. So maybe "go big" isn't > as suspect advice as I first thought.
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <b...@envisionventures.com > > wrote: > I'll take the bait.
> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, > partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the > world?
> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual > trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a > marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out > there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to > overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so > you don't trial).
> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a > Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. > Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if > I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger > financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure > whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the > better outcome statistically "on average").
> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is > "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet > is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
> From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com > ] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM > To: Seattle Tech Startups > Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that > stuck out for me was:
> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I > thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does > anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led > to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the > entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified > under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that > need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew > your credibility. ;-)
> I'm sorry I missed this one!
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> > wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
Alternatively, we could change the term to mean: Life Style Business -- A business that spurned VCs went it alone, kicked butt, takes in huge piles of money, and now allows the founders to have whatever "life style" they can dream up.
It's 5pm all life-stylers time to head home and have a good time! 'Go big or go home' folks, time for your second shift to start. j/k =) -- Justin M. Laing MerchantOS Main: (866) 554-2453 x92 jus...@merchantos.com www.merchantos.com
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > So let us all note that by mocking this thread, I have inadvertently > spawned it again. That's some snake eating it's tail, Kyle Reese, Marty > McFly shit for ya. > Unsubscribe, I'm off to get some Quiznos.
> -jeff
> On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Hillel Cooperman wrote:
> I’ll confess, I bristle when I hear this “go big” advice and especially > when the term “lifestyle business” is tossed around.
> From my perspective, “Lifestyle business” is the patronizing term used by > many big businesses and investors for businesses that are unwilling to > pursue growth at the expense of a) the quality of their product/service > and/or b) the happiness of their employees. The terms is often applied to > businesses that don’t want said investors’ money.
> I know not everyone uses the term this way, but I think it’s used often > enough in this vein that it should be retired.
> As for money, Bill is right to point out that the “bigger” companies may > have greater potential for larger financial returns, but your odds of > achieving them are often lower than with the non-“big” companies. I would > also argue, that even if your big company does succeed, your odds are also > not great of retaining enough equity for that big payday to accrue to you in > a significant fashion (beyond what you might get with a higher percentage > shot of a non-big business).
> To me the “big” idea is to actually create something of your own – > something of quality, retain enough equity to control it, and see it through > to being an independent money generating and – most importantly – happiness > generating venture (for you, the employees, and the people who use your > services/products).
> I’ll let you know when I’ve accomplished any of those goals. ;)
> *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [ > mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com<organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com> > ] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:08 PM > *To:* Seattle Tech Startups > *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> I guess I'm conflating two things:
> - Aim high (saying nothing about how to get there), or > - Follow the "get big fast" model: trade equity for funding, burn cash, > focus on volume, not revenue, "monetize" as an afterthought, etc
> I'm a fan of the first but not the second. So maybe "go big" isn't as > suspect advice as I first thought.
> Mark > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant < > b...@envisionventures.com> wrote: > I'll take the bait.
> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, > partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial > and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap > over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the > delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular > service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle > Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the > input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd > rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it > possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed > companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average > financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a > Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: > organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken > *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM > *To:* Seattle Tech Startups > *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out > for me was: > "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I > had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a > stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask > because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" > currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty > assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
> Cheers,
> Mark > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your > credibility. ;-)
> I'm sorry I missed this one! > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote: > Hi STS,
> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last > part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup > question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future > threads:
> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle > startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll > definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup > community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. > If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial > environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
Thank you Mark, that is the way I felt when my little company was called lifestyle. I am busting my @ss on this and actually a little stressed right now with to much business... But better that than the alternative.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote: > There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an > individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to > survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home > selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 > smart people with a truck load of smart money.
> I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a > lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I > know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has > taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently > as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
> The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies showing > authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting on a > breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours > finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over > themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation > and business is.
> There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something > entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its > size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, > or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very > productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the > weekend.
> ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's > right-on. Lets retire the term.
> Mark.
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant < > b...@envisionventures.com> wrote:
>> I'll take the bait.
>> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, >> partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
>> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial >> and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap >> over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the >> delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular >> service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
>> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle >> Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the >> input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd >> rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it >> possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed >> companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
>> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average >> financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a >> Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
>> ------------------------------ >> *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: >> organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM >> *To:* Seattle Tech Startups >> *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
>> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck >> out for me was:
>> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
>> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I >> had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a >> stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask >> because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" >> currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty >> assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
>> Cheers,
>> Mark
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >>> credibility. ;-)
>>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com>wrote:
>>>> Hi STS,
>>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>>> threads:
>>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
I'm in the beginning states creating my own 'lifestyle business'. I'd be very interested in meeting others who have done so successfully so I can hopefully learn lessons that you learned the hard way. Accepting Angel and VC money seems to me like it would dilute my ownership and add a ton of stress. I'd think I would be much less agile in my creation of the company because of all the additional stakeholders I'd have to answer to. I guess the counter to this is the additional stakeholders are all striving to make the company a success - that shared time, enthusiasm, & network may make the business grow faster - fast enough to counter the higher % ownership in a bootstrapped / lifestyle business. So far I've been fairly quiet in the STS group, but I'm about to launch my first product at which point I'll probably be a little more visible/vocal in the community. I look forward to meeting all the people bootstrapping so I can learn some lessons and minimize the bumps and bruises as I fall.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Nick Fox <nicolas...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Mark, that is the way I felt when my little company was called > lifestyle. I am busting my @ss on this and actually a little stressed right > now with to much business... But better that than the alternative.
> Nick
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an >> individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to >> survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home >> selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 >> smart people with a truck load of smart money.
>> I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a >> lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I >> know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has >> taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently >> as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
>> The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies showing >> authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting on a >> breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours >> finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over >> themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation >> and business is.
>> There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something >> entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its >> size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, >> or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very >> productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the >> weekend.
>> ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's >> right-on. Lets retire the term.
>> Mark.
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant < >> b...@envisionventures.com> wrote:
>>> I'll take the bait.
>>> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, >>> partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
>>> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial >>> and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap >>> over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the >>> delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular >>> service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
>>> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle >>> Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the >>> input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd >>> rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it >>> possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed >>> companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
>>> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average >>> financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a >>> Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
>>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: >>> organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken >>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM >>> *To:* Seattle Tech Startups >>> *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
>>> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck >>> out for me was:
>>> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
>>> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought >>> I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a >>> stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask >>> because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" >>> currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty >>> assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >>>> credibility. ;-)
>>>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com>wrote:
>>>>> Hi STS,
>>>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>>>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>>>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>>>> threads:
>>>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>>>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>>>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>>>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>>>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>>>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
> I'm in the beginning stages of creating my own 'lifestyle > business'. I'd be very interested in meeting others who have done so successfully so > I can hopefully learn lessons that you learned the hard way. Accepting Angel > and VC money seems to me like it would dilute my ownership and add a ton of > stress. I'd think I would be much less agile in my creation of the company because of all the additional stakeholders > I'd have to answer to. I guess the counter to this is the additional > stakeholders are all striving to make the company a success - that shared > time, enthusiasm, & network may make the business grow faster - fast enough > to counter the higher % ownership in a bootstrapped / lifestyle business. > So far I've been fairly quiet in the STS group, but I'm about to launch my > first product at which point I'll probably be a little more visible/vocal in > the community. I look forward to meeting all the people bootstrapping so I > can learn some lessons and minimize the bumps and bruises as I fall.
> Jeremy
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Nick Fox <nicolas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you Mark, that is the way I felt when my little company was called >> lifestyle. I am busting my @ss on this and actually a little stressed right >> now with to much business... But better that than the alternative.
>> Nick
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an >>> individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to >>> survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home >>> selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 >>> smart people with a truck load of smart money.
>>> I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a >>> lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I >>> know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has >>> taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently >>> as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
>>> The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies >>> showing authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting >>> on a breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours >>> finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over >>> themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation >>> and business is.
>>> There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something >>> entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its >>> size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, >>> or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very >>> productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the >>> weekend.
>>> ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's >>> right-on. Lets retire the term.
>>> Mark.
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant < >>> b...@envisionventures.com> wrote:
>>>> I'll take the bait.
>>>> "Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, >>>> partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
>>>> In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual >>>> trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked >>>> leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, >>>> the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the >>>> particular service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
>>>> At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a >>>> Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given >>>> that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an >>>> entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial >>>> outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle >>>> or investor backed companies end up being the better outcome statistically >>>> "on average").
>>>> But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average >>>> financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a >>>> Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
>>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto: >>>> organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] *On Behalf Of *Mark Aiken >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM >>>> *To:* Seattle Tech Startups >>>> *Subject:* Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
>>>> At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck >>>> out for me was:
>>>> "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
>>>> I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought >>>> I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a >>>> stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask >>>> because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" >>>> currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty >>>> assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Mark
>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your >>>>> credibility. ;-)
>>>>> I'm sorry I missed this one!
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com>wrote:
>>>>>> Hi STS,
>>>>>> For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last >>>>>> part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup >>>>>> question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future >>>>>> threads:
>>>>>> In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle >>>>>> startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll >>>>>> definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup >>>>>> community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. >>>>>> If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial >>>>>> environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
First, I have built a totally bootstrapped company so far which has now grown into a 75-person organization. In the market space we live in, I have seen plenty of what I think of as lifestyle businesses. To me, you almost never decide in the beginning whether you are building a lifestyle businesses because at that time you are working hard to create a livelihood for yourself! In the absence of external investors, the "lifestyle" v/s "go big" choice comes in later when you are profitable and cash-flow positive and are trying to decide whether to reinvest in growing the company further or to take out money to support a more than comfortable lifestyle for yourself.
I have seen many companies in my industry choosing to do the latter rather than trying to grow the company at a big risk to the company that they worked so hard to create in the begining. Brent Frei, one of the founders of Onyx, wrote a TechFlash blog (http://www.techflash.com/What_kind_of_company_are_you_--_product_or_m...) recently on how that "lifestyle" choice nearly wiped out Onyx.
Cheers, Vikram
Vikram Chalana CTO & Co-Founder, Winshuttle, Inc. p. 425.527.6632 c. 425.260.0729 e. vik...@winshuttle.com<mailto:vik...@winshuttle.com> twitter: twitter.com/vchalana
I wouldn’t mind joining a mailing list of bootstrapping entrepreneurs in Seattle. I’d host a mailing list but I have a strongly biased definition of a bootstrapped company. Much like how Marcelo defines a startup on his Seattle Startup Index, I would exclude a lot of folks who consider themselves bootstrapped but, IMO, don’t qualify as one.
This mailing list leans heavily towards the funded (or the funnabees), and many topics here just don’t apply to a bootstrapped company. With that said, the backchannel on this mailing list is amazing, and I have received some fantastic feedback from my questions to the list.
If anyone is interested in the alternative to a “Go Big or Go Home” strategy, attend the Small and Special event on the 30th. I’ll be there too. http://www.smallandspecial.com/
Jeremy
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Przasnyski Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:36 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
I'm in the beginning states creating my own 'lifestyle business'. I'd be very interested in meeting others who have done so successfully so I can hopefully learn lessons that you learned the hard way. Accepting Angel and VC money seems to me like it would dilute my ownership and add a ton of stress. I'd think I would be much less agile in my creation of the company because of all the additional stakeholders I'd have to answer to. I guess the counter to this is the additional stakeholders are all striving to make the company a success - that shared time, enthusiasm, & network may make the business grow faster - fast enough to counter the higher % ownership in a bootstrapped / lifestyle business.
So far I've been fairly quiet in the STS group, but I'm about to launch my first product at which point I'll probably be a little more visible/vocal in the community. I look forward to meeting all the people bootstrapping so I can learn some lessons and minimize the bumps and bruises as I fall.
Jeremy
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Nick Fox <nicolas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Mark, that is the way I felt when my little company was called lifestyle. I am busting my @ss on this and actually a little stressed right now with to much business... But better that than the alternative.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 smart people with a truck load of smart money.
I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies showing authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting on a breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation and business is.
There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the weekend.
ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's right-on. Lets retire the term.
Mark.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant <b...@envisionventures.com> wrote: I'll take the bait.
"Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out for me was: "Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
Cheers,
Mark
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your credibility. ;-)
I'm sorry I missed this one!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
Hi STS,
For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
Bingo, Hillel. Except I'd refine this definition to leave out big business. It is a pejorative used by VCs and angels in an attempt to shame successful self-funded entrepreneurs into giving those VCs and angels some of the company for cheap. If a young entrepreneur is insecure enough to cringe at the label, then he/she is insecure enough to be talked into selling half the company for less than it's worth.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Hillel Cooperman wrote:
I'll confess, I bristle when I hear this "go big" advice and especially when the term "lifestyle business" is tossed around.
From my perspective, "Lifestyle business" is the patronizing term used by many big businesses and investors for businesses that are unwilling to pursue growth at the expense of a) the quality of their product/service and/or b) the happiness of their employees. The terms is often applied to businesses that don't want said investors' money.
After some discussions on the backchannel, I realized I could retain my position on bootstrapping by making the mailing list open. I created a Bootstrap Seattle mailing list in Google Groups. If other bootstrappers, however you define yourself, or bootstrap-wannabies want to join in on the list, you are more than welcome.
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Irish Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:45 AM To: 'Jeremy Przasnyski'; 'Seattle Tech Startups' Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
I wouldn’t mind joining a mailing list of bootstrapping entrepreneurs in Seattle. I’d host a mailing list but I have a strongly biased definition of a bootstrapped company. Much like how Marcelo defines a startup on his Seattle Startup Index, I would exclude a lot of folks who consider themselves bootstrapped but, IMO, don’t qualify as one.
This mailing list leans heavily towards the funded (or the funnabees), and many topics here just don’t apply to a bootstrapped company. With that said, the backchannel on this mailing list is amazing, and I have received some fantastic feedback from my questions to the list.
If anyone is interested in the alternative to a “Go Big or Go Home” strategy, attend the Small and Special event on the 30th. I’ll be there too. http://www.smallandspecial.com/
Imo this is a great mailing list and I don't see the list as leaning heavily towards the funded (and I speak as a bootstrapper who has never looked for external funding for my company)
So I don't see a need for a new bootstrappers-only-list.
I also think the "you're a lifestyler" vs "you sacrifice quality and focus on volume, not revenue/profit" debates are interesting J
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Irish Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:45 AM To: 'Jeremy Przasnyski'; 'Seattle Tech Startups' Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
I wouldn't mind joining a mailing list of bootstrapping entrepreneurs in Seattle. I'd host a mailing list but I have a strongly biased definition of a bootstrapped company. Much like how Marcelo defines a startup on his Seattle Startup Index, I would exclude a lot of folks who consider themselves bootstrapped but, IMO, don't qualify as one.
This mailing list leans heavily towards the funded (or the funnabees), and many topics here just don't apply to a bootstrapped company. With that said, the backchannel on this mailing list is amazing, and I have received some fantastic feedback from my questions to the list.
If anyone is interested in the alternative to a "Go Big or Go Home" strategy, attend the Small and Special event on the 30th. I'll be there too.
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Przasnyski Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:36 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
I'm in the beginning states creating my own 'lifestyle business'. I'd be very interested in meeting others who have done so successfully so I can hopefully learn lessons that you learned the hard way. Accepting Angel and VC money seems to me like it would dilute my ownership and add a ton of stress. I'd think I would be much less agile in my creation of the company because of all the additional stakeholders I'd have to answer to. I guess the counter to this is the additional stakeholders are all striving to make the company a success - that shared time, enthusiasm, & network may make the business grow faster - fast enough to counter the higher % ownership in a bootstrapped / lifestyle business.
So far I've been fairly quiet in the STS group, but I'm about to launch my first product at which point I'll probably be a little more visible/vocal in the community. I look forward to meeting all the people bootstrapping so I can learn some lessons and minimize the bumps and bruises as I fall.
Jeremy
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Nick Fox <nicolas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you Mark, that is the way I felt when my little company was called lifestyle. I am busting my @ss on this and actually a little stressed right now with to much business... But better that than the alternative.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
There's no such thing as a lifestyle business. Every business has an individual or team behind it that is working their tails off first to survive and then to excel. It doesn't matter if it's a single mom at home selling pots on ebay and becoming a power seller, or if it's a team of 10 smart people with a truck load of smart money.
I promise you that every time someone's business is referred to as a lifestyle business, the owner is usually left feeling insulted. Although I know that wasn't Jeff's intention and he was simply using a phrase that has taken on a secondary meaning in Venture circles where it's used frequently as a synonym for non-venture-backed.
The "lifestyle business" is a myth perpetuated by Hollywood movies showing authors in Northwest cabins fly fishing at sunrise and then feasting on a breakfast of fresh trout and coffee while they spend a couple of hours finishing their latest masterpiece that publishers are going to fall over themselves to publish. We all know how different the reality of innovation and business is.
There's nothing wrong with having a work-life balance, which is something entirely different and applies to you and your business no matter what its size. Whether you've raised $82 Million and have a crack VC-selected team, or you're Craig Newmark or Markus Frind, it's possible to have a very productive and finite week and go get lost in a forest somewhere on the weekend.
ps: Hillel's post came through while I was finishing this and it's right-on. Lets retire the term.
Mark.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, William K (Bill) Bryant
"Big" as in vision, scope and ambition attracts talent/team members, partners, customers and capital. Who doesn't want to change the world?
In order to attract market/consumer/customer attention and eventual trial and adoption, whatever you bring to market has to represent a marked leap over whatever existing alternatives are already out there -- otherwise, the delta in benefits isn't sufficient to overcome the risk that the particular service doesn't make it (so you don't trial).
At the end of the day, whether you're pursuing a Big Dream or a Lifestyle Biz, you end up putting in an equal amount of hard work. Given that the input (time) is roughly equal in both settings, if I'm an entrepreneur I'd rather be pursuing a potentially larger financial outcome (albeit it possibly more uncertain - I'm not sure whether lifestyle or investor backed companies end up being the better outcome statistically "on average").
But as has been noted on this list many times, if your goal is "average financial return over a long period of time", your best bet is to work for a Microsoft, IBM, HP and get your gold watch.
_____
From: organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com [mailto:organize-boun...@seattletechstartups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Aiken Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:19 PM To: Seattle Tech Startups Subject: Re: [SeattleTech] Lots of Fun on STS
At the risk of igniting a neverending thread, the only slide that stuck out for me was:
"Go big or go lifestyle?" -> "Big"
I am certainly not trying to disagree, because that would mean I thought I had the right answer myself, which I don't. But does anyone want to take a stab at summarizing the shared wisdom that led to this conclusion? I ask because my mental map of the entrepreneurial space has "go big or go home" currently classified under "2002 - 2008" and "possibly resting on faulty assumptions that need revisiting" :-)
Cheers,
Mark
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Maunder <mmaun...@gmail.com> wrote:
Not bad until the Dave Matthews Band slide at which point you blew your credibility. ;-)
I'm sorry I missed this one!
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Jeff Lawson <jeff...@jeffiel.com> wrote:
Hi STS,
For those who missed the STS meeting tonight, I've posted the last part of my presentation online. It answers every Seattle Tech Startup question ever asked. Feel free to reference it as needed in future threads:
In all seriousness, after 3+ years on this list and in the Seattle startup community, I'm moving down to San Francisco next week. I'll definitely miss the good natured spirit of the Seattle startup community and down the line, I hope life brings me back to Seattle. If I do, I'm sure I'll return to an even more vibrant entrepreneurial environment here. All the best on your endeavors.
|
