
The Co-Founder Myth: Why You Might Not Need One - mayava
http://foundersblock.com/articles/the-co-founder-myth/
======
Todd
It's great to read a counter argument to the prevailing wisdom, with data to
back it up. I've often thought that the argument that "if you can't find at
least one person to join you, then your idea (or you) must not be that great"
was a little disingenuous. That statement makes sense in certain contexts,
such as when someone has just graduated from university and is living rent
free in their parent's basement (it is assumed that their potential co-
founders are in a similar situation). It makes less sense when a person is
working 9-5 and has a mortgage. It turns out that individuals who are willing
to burn the midnight oil for months or years after getting off work because
they are passionate about an idea are quite rare. The likelihood of finding a
similar individual to partner with within their network of friends, and who
will contribute at a commensurate level, is diminishingly small. Perpetuating
the above idea does this group a disservice. Instead of rooting for them we
are, in essence, saying, “there’s something wrong with you or your idea” per
se if you’re a single founder.

~~~
david927
Also, how easy a company is to pitch (and therefore find another to join you)
is absolutely irrelevant to how good the idea is. If there's a relation, it's
most likely inverse -- unless you mean by "good idea", "able to get further
funding." (Pets.com was easy to pitch, Google not so much.)

I'm a sole founder. I progress for the same reason I breathe; there's no "not
breathing." And because I'm a sole founder, nothing can stop me. No co-founder
issues, no arguing. The worst I face is that I can be slowed down. Nothing can
stop me.

~~~
loganfrederick
I see your point, but I would disagree that Google wasn't an easy pitch.
Example: "We're the best search engine. If we're better than everyone else and
easier to use, more people will use us. We'll use those eyeballs to make
money."

~~~
david927
Ah, but there were many search engines touting themselves as better. Better
won't cut it. Google was so much better that people were willing to switch
from Yahoo and the others, and that's an empty pitch. You would have to back
that up, and to back it up means already having achieved your goal. Of the
two, in my opinion, pets.com had the better pitch.

------
DeusExMachina
I had the same bad experience with a cofounder explained in the article, some
years ago.

I started a little company in my city with what I believed was a close friend.
I had a job and I was still at university, while he didn't and had a wife and
a newborn daughter, so I thought he was committed enough. I was wrong because
he had backing from his parents that are quite wealthy.

After some months in which I was the only one that made some work (website
design), bringing some money in the company while he was losing time with the
excuses like "I'm not ready and I don't want to ruin the company reputation
(he was the sales guy), he decided that it was better to split our paths. I
"sold" my part of the company to him and after one year he closed it full of
debts.

From then on I always found myself in a better position doing things alone.
They say that the weight is to much to endure for one single founder, but I
don't think so. I was always able to endure everything. If you have friends or
relatives or a partner in your life, you are never alone. If you need their
support, it does not matter if they are in your venture or not.

~~~
pierrefar
_If you have friends or relatives or a partner in your life, you are never
alone._

Yes! I don't think this is said enough.

I was having this exact chat with my wife last night. I'm working as a
freelancer while building a startup and she's supporting me 100%. What were
talking about is how a husband-wife team would look to potential investors
when clearly one person is doing the most of the visible work, but couldn't do
as much without the other. And one thing that came up is equity and how that
could play out.

I wish I had a good answer.

~~~
maukdaddy
This is a topic we should discuss more on HN. Both my wife and myself are
currently working on an evening MBA program. People are shocked that we are
able to do it at the same time, take classes together, etc. I don't
understand, because I find that we end up supporting each other, motivating
each other, etc.

Along the same lines, I would definitely love to run a company with my wife
one day. Most people I meet are aghast when I suggest running a company with a
spouse. Is this idea really that rare?

~~~
mayava
Thanks for the comments, guys. I'm definitely interested in exploring co-
founder relationships further. Seems to me that bringing on a "good friend" as
a co-founder is a treacherous path (either take off or crash and burn), but
most husband/wife, brother/sister, and very very best friends co-founder
relationships seem to work out. Perhaps the extreme closeness allows the
parties to communicate more openly, be more committed, or better understand
and accommodate each others' weaknesses.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is an "outside" versus "inside" question. From the outside, a team with 2
or 3 is going to be a stronger team than just a person. But this is just a
wide generalization, made by folks trying to find patterns. Startups happen in
Silicon Valley, by teams of young 20-somethings with more dreams than brains.
Most fail, and some change the world.

But there are a lot of guys making money trading collectible buttons on E-bay
or some such. And although some folks don't call these a startup, in my mind
any business you can scale to a large degree from nothing is a startup. And
since we don't have to have the overhead, many former small business ideas are
actually startups. In your unique case, being a sole founder might work
better.

I tend to think that in the 20-30 age range, you need a cofounder. The team
needs breadth of experience and long hours. The coolest startups have the
biggest impact, so you have a lot of work to do! Plus 3 people working
together are about ten times as effective as one person.

Somewhere between 30 and 40 it probably starts making more sense to go it
alone. You know the ropes (hopefully), you're more likely to be playing a
safer game, you're going to leverage. Also, oddly enough, under 17 or so is
probably single-cofounder territory also.

I can't get past the enormous opportunities colleges offer to get to know
closely a group of people over several years. These relationships can be
invaluable with startups.

But I think that the conventional wisdom that startups have some certain shape
or fit comes a lot more from the social nature of the startup community. VCs
and the other hangers-on are always trying to make generalizations, always
looking for boxes to put people in. How many single-founder startups are out
there, bootstrapping, running under the radar, doing very well? Probably ten
for every hotshot team that gets funded.

That's just a guess, and my opinion, and my opinion doesn't matter. If the
sole-founder movement is true, it'll happen with or without us encouraging or
acknowledging it. And if it's not true, no amount of pontificating and
blustering will make it so.

But I'd bet on it.

------
iworkforthem
It is comforting to see some positive stats on one founder startups, it is not
easy to find a co-founder that's just as passionate about the product as I'm.
I am a firm believer that small team work best! Being a single founder company
is very easy to get derailed and overwhelmed, I guess that's why some of the
most successful entrepreneurs I see has got amazing focus to deliver and
follow through.

------
will_critchlow
Interesting to see the data on this. From a personal perspective, I would just
add (as someone who has founded a company with one co-founder but not taken
funding) that you should not underestimate the value of the support in taking
decisions etc. that come from having someone with you who is equally invested
(in an emotional sense rather than just a financial sense).

------
mkramlich
As a single founder I can confirm that I have a massive amount of freedom,
agility, and efficiency. Minimized need to spend time communicating or
convincing or debating. My think-do loop and action latency are minimized. I'm
allowed to act on and leverage any and all insights I may have. Minimized
bureaucracy and paperwork. Minimized chance that somebody else can fuck me
over or let me down. Is it perfect? No. You lose some things but I think what
you gain is much more important at the earliest stages of a business,
especially when small or prerevenue.

Talking with others is good. Drawing on other's talents is good, but ideally
it's done in a tactical way where you're still in control and can make the
ultimate yes/no decisons to go forward, and retain ability to pivot. And yes,
single founder prob most feasible when you have biz skills and tech skills
(enough). If not, co-founders look more attractive.

~~~
mayava
The entrepreneurs I talked to who were successful in a single founder role
were either building low-tech consumer-facing web businesses, or had awesome
tech skills and were able to bring on supplementary help at lower equity
divisions to be treated like co-founders, but without the hefty equity split.
After all, these extra team members were brought on after the companies
typically got a bit of buzz and traction, so they had reduced risk.

------
mkramlich
If I were looking to invest in a startup, especially one by college kids, I
can see the preference to having 2-3 cofounders. Because it reduces my risk as
an investor in the case where one guy gets hit by a bus, and ensures that the
cofounders have somebody they can ask for advice who is intimately
knowledgable about and vested in the success of their venture WITHOUT
necessarily having to lean on me, the investor, all the time -- because my
time is finite and to further increase my success chances and happiness I want
to spend time on many ventures, plus family and friends and life chores.

As an entrepreneur my bias is to single founder, precisely because that also
reduces my risk. and maximizes my time efficiency.

Summary: which number is best depends on your role, whether you are the
entrepreneur or merely the outside investor.

~~~
mayava
Good point about being hit by a bus. Key man risk is something I neglected to
discuss in the article.

