I find it depressing that one of the primary gatekeepers for TechStars NY uses these criteria to determine who's got the right stuff:
You want to feel that for the past 10 years, they've only been thinking about this one thing. That's how you know they're legit.
If you become creative director at Ogilvy with that beard, that means you're stupidly talented.
It's not that we're giving certain companies an advantage for no reason. They've earned the advantage by either knowing us or knowing people who know us.
This isn't about applying randomly. It's about building relationships.
These last two quotes are particularly disturbing. It's not about your product or your users or your execution. It's about who you know. The process favors the people who are good at networking or pitching, and forces everyone to spend less time on product.
I have mixed feels. The first two quotes I'm fine with, and I am inclined to agree with you on the second two, but he was talking about TechStars applicants, not just any potentially successful business.
Framed another way: Let's assume plenty of applicants have very solid ways of actually building the business. How else can TechStars filter applicants? By filtering out those who don't appear to want/need to be in the program as badly. And a test for that is how the entrepreneurs have connected with the TechStars team.
I am tempted to give TechStars the benefit of the doubt that the mentors and entrepreneurs are thinking about how to build viable businesses and that's assumed by everyone. What's discussed in the article are the steps following that assumption, which is how to get into the program and gather the resources needed to fulfill the viable business's vision.
I dont like the first quote. If you have only thought about but not acted on anything for ten years then it's an out of date idea and youre incapable of enacting anything anyway.
TechStars often accepts companies before they've got a ton of traction. If you're planning on raising money before you've got that traction, pitching and networking isn't nonsense, it's your job.
If you're not willing to go out and schmooze (which I completely understand - it's not particularly fun), that's absolutely fine. Just focus on a business that doesn't need to raise before it takes off.
Sorry. "Nonsense" is too strong a word. I removed it. I also agree that for some companies pitching and networking is important, for raising money, building partnerships, or getting advisors.
But when hundreds of applicants are being forced to spend lots of effort playing a game of schmoozing, and the criteria for acceptance depends more on how much someone likes you rather than what you're building, that screams "flawed system" to me.
Disclaimer: We applied to TechStars and Y Combinator and didn't get in.
You want to feel that for the past 10 years, they've only been thinking about this one thing. That's how you know they're legit.
If you become creative director at Ogilvy with that beard, that means you're stupidly talented.
It's not that we're giving certain companies an advantage for no reason. They've earned the advantage by either knowing us or knowing people who know us.
This isn't about applying randomly. It's about building relationships.
These last two quotes are particularly disturbing. It's not about your product or your users or your execution. It's about who you know. The process favors the people who are good at networking or pitching, and forces everyone to spend less time on product.