I'm somewhere between Survival and Stability stage. I should (and do) focus on building a business around the product. Pumping out features alone will not make T1 sustainable. There is much more around it and I feel the pain of not focusing on it earlier.
I just finished Zero to Sold by @arvidkahl - here's what I got out of it for me personally, to apply on my efforts to build https://t.co/wRlOaEKfD2 👇
I'm somewhere between Survival and Stability stage. I should (and do) focus on building a business around the product. Pumping out features alone will not make T1 sustainable. There is much more around it and I feel the pain of not focusing on it earlier.
I think I did an OK job last year to build, validate and grow the project. It was validated when the first customer entered their credit card details, and it continued from there.
From 42€ payout, to >8000€ in 9 months.
Documenting Standard Operating Procedures so my current and future team and helpers can onboard quickly and support me. It uncovers automation possibilities and it clears up my head by not having all of this manual stuff in there.
Getting on this soon 💪
I have to do a better job of defining and communicating it. It's hard though. >10k users are on T1 and I'm still struggling with clearly defining why... which makes me feel really stupid.
I thought I'm already quite good on this one but especially on SaaS accounts I still use my personal github login a lot. Will separate to a service-account soon so I can share it with a team, etc. It makes onboarding much easier.
I have to take a close look at retention vs acquisition. Both numbers aren't great on T1 but it's more important to reduce churn (=> increase retention) than acquire more users. We will start to reach out to churned customers soon to learn more.
Not for outsiders, but for me. I had something similar but I have not followed standard practices - which I do now.
Will update my P&L statements once a month get a quick and true overview of the financials of the business.
I don't want to sell T1. Nonetheless, building a business as if you would want to sell will make it so much more maintainable.
It's like building a codebase as if you want to open source it. The docs, processes & tests will be better and automated, I promise you.
While I have rejected all outside investment-opportunities, it's still valuable to talk. Especially since there are many nice alternatives to classic VCs now, like @earnestcapital or @tinyseedfund. I've closed my eyes too much in 2020.
That's the dream.
Thanks @arvidkahl 💞
More from Culture
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x