
New Rules for the New Bubble - DanielRibeiro
http://www.slideshare.net/sblank/sxsw-new-rules-for-the-new-bubble-031211
======
richcollins
It's refreshing to see someone admit up-front that its just about the money
(flip). Hearing founders talk over and over again about how they want to
change the world when their primary motivation is status gets old.

------
gyardley
Albert Camus once said "Every revolutionary ends up becoming either an
oppressor or a heretic." From this presentation, it looks like Steve Blank has
chosen to go the heretic route. Wide distribution first, worry about
monetization later? Engineering a financial transaction from the beginning?
I'm a long way from Chicago, but I can _still_ hear Jason Fried's head
exploding.

Personally, I suspect Steve is right, but only over the very short term. We've
got a nascent tech bubble (and a commodities bubble, and a booming stock
market) because our central bank's glued to a zero-interest-rate policy, and
is further stimulating the economy through quantitative easing - pumping about
$3B a day into the economy through bond purchases. All that cash has to go
somewhere, and it is - anywhere it can get higher yields than the bond market.

This economic stimulation is all being done to keep the economy healthy in the
face of unprecedented federal deficits - but it's a house of cards, and it'll
explode as soon as foreign investors want higher rates for the privilege of
holding American bonds. When this happens, the tech bubble goes away, and any
company pursuing a bubble strategy is hosed. At that time, having a
bootstrapped startup generating decent cashflow will look pretty good - not as
good as selling during a bubble, but a hell of a lot better than _not_ selling
after a bubble.

That's why I'm curious about the timeframe in Steve's slides. Why does he
think the bubble period ends in 2014? Three years is a pretty short timeframe
for generating massive hype, getting huge, and flipping a company - is this
advice even actionable?

~~~
mlossos
Fantastically succinct market analysis and reality check.

Continuing the aside: Going short in 1998 would have been too soon, 2001 Q2
too late. Countless startups have flipped in the past few years after only a
year or two of growth. There's ample time to build something valuable and flip
it in the next few years. History repeats itself but that won't help us
predict the market.

(I'd give bonus points for your Camus quote!)

------
mattbauer
There should be an asterisk at the of the title Steve Blank's SXSW talk
saying:

While new rules are in place for the new bubble they only apply to startups
operating in the bubble. All other startups should continue following the
rules for their respective sphere. Entrepreneurs should continue to start
startups in any sphere.

He talks about four paths to startup liquidity. I hope he noted the latter
doesn't replace the former. It should seem obvious but in the world of the new
iPad making the original iPad a paperweight, I don't think it is. I'd argue
for the continued validity of the former business models.

I wrote in more detail about this on my blog:

[http://mattbauer.github.com/2011/03/13/new-rules-for-the-
new...](http://mattbauer.github.com/2011/03/13/new-rules-for-the-new-bubble-
the-warning.html)

------
rozim
I esp liked the sequence starting at Slide 47 - Any company can be described
in 9 building blocks - thru the complete picture of the idea, slide 57.

~~~
devijvers
It comes from the book Business Model Generation:

<http://www.businessmodelgeneration.com/>

A very very good book, I can recommend it. The way the book was written is
also very inspirational.

------
spoon16
is there are recording of the talk that goes with this deck?

------
Estragon
Could someone point out the difference between slides 67 and 68 for me?

~~~
DanielRibeiro
No difference, just duplicated.

~~~
Estragon
Thanks.

------
Montagist
Interesting way of looking at it - the startup -is- the prototype. Then
against I suppose that's why they're called startups. If they had longevity
then the name would be misleading. haha

