> “Startup ideas are bound to fail. This is not something that I realized until I tried to build one myself.”
I'd like to come out with some pithy remark along the lines of “the plural of anecdote is not data”, but this isn’t even a plural. Here’s a logical fallacy: Someone gave the author a piece of advice, the author didn’t listen to it, the author failed, therefore the advice is true. Does anyone see the problem here?
Don't change what you're doing based on blog posts like this. Better yet, don't ever read blog posts like this.
There is a cancer in the startup community and it's advice like this. Very detailed and specific advice by people with absolutely no track record, no real experience outside of "the community" and with an inflated sense of self.
Blanket statements and declarations from people who aren't even close to qualified to make them are becoming way too common.
So only people who have been wildly successful have the right to share their thoughts? This guy failed and writes a blog post about what he may have done wrong and includes the advice he got from his mentor. Agree, disagree or ignore, but I don't see how your comment adds any value.
BTW - There are plenty of successful people offering awful advice. Can't we just try to evaluate ideas on their merits?
That's funny because the advice mentioned in my post is the advice passed down by the successful entrepreneurs mentioned in my post. The specific advice I mentioned follows closely along the Lean Startup and "3 Steps to the Epiphany". And no where in my post did I offer a self-congratulation.
The advice in your post is terrible because it only applies in some situations. Blog posts like that help nobody because they lack context and if you're simply passing down advice, it's like playing a game of telephone.
I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm pointing out that you have little to no idea what you're talking about.
I think the above came off as overly harsh. I'm sure you're a talented entrepreneur. I have just been seeing so many blanket statements being put out there about startups, and as a guy with a startup who works pretty hard on it - this one rubbed me the wrong way.
I constantly am in disagreement with those who say "what problem does this solve?".
Many, if not most, start-ups don't solve real world problems, and I'd argue that those with the most opportunity capitalize on a consumers want vs. need.
We can start at the top, Twitter, Facebook (contrary to what the article says), Skype, Angry Birds, Little Wings, Pintrest, etc. did not solve a problem.
They created something that people wanted.
Basecamp, MailChimp, SalesForce solved problems. You don't have to solve a problem to have a business.
Skype solved a real problem for people with friends and families around the world. It was near impossible for regular users to make real-time audio/video conferencing work (NetMeeting, ICQ voice plugins) until Skype came along and made it possible.
Sometimes it's hard to understand what problem something solves because you may not be in the target market/demographic.
Pinterest? I have a large number of friends that have used Pinterest to help come up with ideas for apartments, weddings, etc., Previously the only place they could look for inspiration was through online searches or magazines.
Skype? How did you call overseas <edit>for free</edit> prior to Skype? I was able to do it with my Ham Radio license, but for that I had to take a test and buy equipment -- with Skype you just had to install an application and you could run with it.
As for the other game categories, I agree with John, entertainment has a huge demand with a market that seems to be ready for the next exciting game at every corner, Angry Birds and Little Wings filled that demand.
Or let's say it this way - people have the problem of feeling unsatisfied or accomplished. This is a MASSIVE problem and can be solved in many different ways. That's why video games exist. It's also why people run marathons, triathlons, etc. They provide people a sense of accomplishment. For many people this is unattainable elsewhere (work and home, perhaps). I don't think boredom in and of itself is a problem.
I agree. For consumer startups, it's not that important to solve a problem. As you mentioned, Angry Birds and Pinterest do not solve problems - they give us dopamine and entertainment instead. Consumer products need to be like crack, and you also need to be a well-networked crack dealer (marketing).
Entreprise startups do need to solve problems though, or at least help you make more money.
But nor do people pay for a lot of the fashionable consumer products such as Pinterest.
If people aren't prepared to pay then they do not have a viable sustainable business. They can keep taking VC investment and hope to sell to Google or whatever but thats a different thing.
I believe that if you solve a real problem that people are having, consumers will be more likely to open their wallets for it.
[Angry Birds is an interesting one. It's obviously a profitable franchise but the pricing model of mobile apps makes is such that they can be sold as a very cheap impulse buy. Micro payments perhaps make the model of building for desire rather than problem solving more viable.
Twitter solves much the same problem as CB radio without the spectrum or distance limitations. Just because there is also a lot of frivolous chatter does not mean 'stuck in traffic behind a 3 lane accident on 495 south mile marker 77' or 'EC2 zone Y is down' is useless.
Twitter - fixed the same problems at text messages but went public to put a different dynamic on it.
Facebook - solved Photo Sharing, a constantly updated contacts book that is up to date with all of your info.
Skype - Huge disruption, one of the biggest out of any startup. I stay connected with my Dad who travels a lot and with my family in Canada and America.
Angry Birds/Tiny Wings - They're games, the same problems that people have been solving for thousands of years, Boredom.
Pinterest - They made a huge distributed store and it'll become more like this over time, offers consumers millions of choices and lets friends curate those into boards making it easier to find cool things. Letting the small sellers rival amazon.
Twitter - How can I message with a large group of people, and also receive alerts from people I'm interested in?
Facebook - How do I keep in touch with my friends easily?
Skype - How can I call cheaply?
Games - How do I waste my time?
Pintrest - How do collect snapshots of things I'm interested in?
EDIT: Admittedly games are the most vague when you try to define the problem.
This is something that every single person in the valley will tell you as a quick advise. I question it.
For any successful product, you can talk about an underlining problem. Even for Twitter. However that's not the question. Did they really come up with the idea while thinking about the problem? It's not the case for a lot successful entrepreneurs.
Consumer internet business works just like fashion business. It's not about keeping people warm at all. You just want to build something that people desire.
This sounds very much like solving a problem for them. Though, you made a point by putting forward that there is a perception bias in play too. One should also reconsider our definition of a "problem". We usually consider this to be a pain for a normal person. Though twitter and facebook could be seen as a media to satisfy narcissist needs which is not the problem one would expect normal people have.
My impression is that finding a problem to solve to identify a potential viable startup business is just an heuristic. This search could be pushed in error by our bias on identifying and evaluating problems.
Maybe there's another way to look at this: In hindsight.
An idea that succeeds to garner users, clients or customers is one that probably solved a problem, filled a need or fed an interest. An idea that fails. Well, it was just an idea.
Users buy stuff that they want, are attracted to and after all that maybe has some usable value.
When people buy your product, they are buying your story.
So solve problems but its not a sufficient condition for success. Also make it something that builds their self esteems, attracts them and make it look like something they would want.
And yes, you can leave out the value and do all the other parts and make a killing. I'm sure you can fill in teh examples here ...
Let then consider the value of an idea, from a business perspective, as how many people will see a benefit in adopting the product.
Conservatism is a property of human psychology. People will change or reconsider their current habit only if there is a strong incentive to. It's like static friction force.
I think this advice is better served as - "solve problems that everyone has, not just your own"
This, however is a pretty blanket statement, as is the authors. The overall point is actually this:
> As it turns out, it’s not a compelling problem for many people.
This is what the lean-startup and customer development process seeks to find. So here's my advice: go out and talk to customers and take the time to clearly define their problem. In some cases this is your own.
I had an idea. I started a company. I failed miserably. But I still believe that idea was good and I will try again. Its not always that it failed because it was bad idea. Doing best execution is the key. If there was not any Ballmer or Schmidt there could not be any microsoft or google.
I honestly think people focus too much on pain relief/solving problems vs. making people happy. Most ideas can be described in either paradigm, and there's really no reason to argue about it - just make something people want. Maybe they want it because it makes them happy, or maybe it makes them way less sad.
Take bookmarking. Del.icio.us made people really happy because they could keep track of all the sites they liked. It also made people way less sad because they didn't lose track of sites they liked. Either way, people used it.
Solving problems is good. You can also appeal to people's passions or identity. Addictive also seems to work.
If you want to just solve a problem, you gotta understand the worst problems people have. Twitter and Facebook work because they have people on there, who others want to follow or friend. Video games appeal to raw passions, and can also be addictive.
I'd like to come out with some pithy remark along the lines of “the plural of anecdote is not data”, but this isn’t even a plural. Here’s a logical fallacy: Someone gave the author a piece of advice, the author didn’t listen to it, the author failed, therefore the advice is true. Does anyone see the problem here?