👇 Thread. New deck getting published this week: "Consumer startups are awesome, and here's what I'm looking to invest in at Andreessen Horowitz." If you want to read it, subscribe to my newsletter here: https://t.co/262t8eh0wf
More from Startups
Led Zeppelin wrote “Rock And Roll” in 30 minutes.
The White Stripes, “Seven Nation Army”, 10 min during a soundcheck.
The Rolling Stones, “I Can’t Get No Satisfaction”, 40min.
Making a startup in 24 hours is perfectly fine.
I worked on my first startup for 2.5years. It was an events app. Sunk in cost and expectations were so high, that I had to close it, despite getting consistent revenue.
In comparison, I wrote @CryptoJobsList in 2 days. And it's way more meaningful than what I've been doing in my events startup for 2.5 years.
When I let go of my engineering ego and let go of expectations that I need to raise capital and hustle for 4+ years — I started lauching fast and interating fast without any expectations — then I started coming up with something truly meaningful and useful ✨
12 startups in 12 months by @levelsio
24 hour startup by @thepatwalls
— are great challenges that make you focus on the end product value, iterate fast and see what sticks and ruthlessly kill what does not work.
Thanks to @chamath for laying this out in Social Capital's 2018 annual letter.
I've always appreciated his outspokenness.
2/ The hardest thing for most startups today is the path to market: first finding product-market fit & a way to reach customers, then building a ruthless machine to acquire, monetize & retain them.
3/ Because of this, when the VC industry invests capital into fast growing startups today, the plurality (if not majority) of invested capital will go into user acquisition and ad spending, for better or worse— usually worse.
4/ Todays massive venture-backed advertising, sales, and user acquisition playbook has morphed into one that champions growth at any cost.
This is creating a big bill that will soon come due...
5/ Ad impressions and click-throughs are bid up to outrageous prices by startups flush with venture money, and prospective users demand more and more subsidized products to gain their initial attention.
before they get to Product-Market-Fit.
What would be the reasons?
Here are some, I see on a daily basis. They are related to issues with founders or market (in no particular order):
1) Founders haven't studied or trained on basic things of startups: idea validation, market validation, customer value-proposition, team-building, product building, basic finance, and total money required to do few iterations.
A: Work for a startup for a few years and learn.
2) Founders are solving a problem that they face in their daily life at home or work and start solving for themselves before checking whether there are others who care about the same problem. After building the product, they realize the market issue.
A: Idea validation failure
3) Too headstrong and think every potential customer can't imagine the value unless they experience the product. Hence, start building the product.
A: If you are deep and know you are at the same league as in Steve Jobs, this makes sense
4) Founders talk to few friends and colleagues and start building a product. After building the product, they realize there is no high demand for the product.
A: Spend month(s) on the problem and not on the solution.
9-5s aren\u2019t the problem— Hustle Smarter \U0001f4b8 (@Hustle_Smarterr) September 26, 2020
Letting them be your only income stream is
The biggest asset you\u2019ll ever have is yourself— Hustle Smarter \U0001f4b8 (@Hustle_Smarterr) September 26, 2020
Invest in it wisely
18-25?— Hustle Smarter \U0001f4b8 (@Hustle_Smarterr) September 27, 2020
Now is the time to take risks and improve
Don\u2019t waste this time
What would you say to someone who feels \u201clost\u201d?— Hustle Smarter \U0001f4b8 (@Hustle_Smarterr) October 7, 2020
I think investors are just hedging their bets on the team
Actively finding a cofounder seems odd and forced to tick a box ✅
If you (potentially) have one, great!
💰Pay amazing folks (contract/FTE/PTE)
One pro is to share the burden with someone who cares as much about the business as you do.
Going looking for a cofounder (whether you’re pressured to or not) seems like a disaster
You May Also Like
Over the last 2 months, Marketing Examples welcomed 31,000 first time visitors. 4,000 of these visitors subscribed to the email list.
That’s an email opt-in of 12.9%.
The industry average is 2%. The top 10 percentile average is 5%.
So, screw it, I’ll go there:
“Marketing Examples is one of the best websites in the world at converting passers-by into email subscribers.“
What follows is a series of things I've observed whilst trying to build a website which maximises email subscribers.
1 - Being obvious works
I imagine a few of you have read The Alchemist. Pretty good book right? How many of you signed up to Paulo Coelho's email list?
No matter how good your work no one is going to go out of their way to sign up to your email list. You have to make it obvious
There are four ways to sign up to the Marketing Examples email list:
1) From the fixed position navbar
2) At the end of any article
3) Through the exit intent popup
4) Directly from the subscribe page
From any given point you're only one click away from subscribing.
I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.
He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉
I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.
No matter how much whining is done about it.
I'm exhausted but it's worth it.
Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.
Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!
President Trump just attacked Adam on Twitter with his most profane insult yet. Will you chip in $5 to send Trump a message and show him you stand with Adam?— Adam Schiff (@AdamSchiff) November 19, 2018
1/ Get specific
Landing page copy is full of unfalsifiable, blanket claims: “more, easier, faster ...”
If you want to stand out get specific. You can’t bullshit specifics:
2/ Call out the type of customer you serve
People pay attention when they know something is specifically for them:
“What? Loads of authors are using this. I’m an author. Maybe I should be too ...”
3/ Use value-based messaging
Talk less about your product and more about the value your product brings.
People don’t want a better toothbrush. They want a brighter smile:
4/ Write for one reader
You're not talking to 1000 people. You're talking to the single person reading your page. So write like it.
An informal tone and addressing your users personally (“you”) makes a big difference:
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Fun going down this list and thinking: "Hmm, plausible at a well-run modern software shop", "Hmm, possible, but requires implausible tradeoffs", "Literally disallowed by languages", and "If you were to attempt doing that our test suite wouldn't let you merge."
I think we as an industry celebrate (not quite the right word) failure too much and don't celebrate success nearly enough. There is no DailyWTF for competent execution, word of which generally stays pretty local to the source while incompetence passes into legend.
Alrighty let me try to thread the needle on being the change I want to see in the world while not giving away anything that will get me in trouble:
Ruby has wonderful developer ergonomics. Typed languages are easier for machines to guarantee the correctness of. We built a type checker for Ruby (and I believe it is slated for OSS release sometime).