

Is It Time to Rethink the Stigma for Tech Companies Led by Couples? - snp
http://allthingsd.com/20120803/is-it-time-to-rethink-the-stigma-for-tech-companies-led-by-couples/

======
rabble
Simon and Nat started Lanyrd (W11) on their honeymoon even! They were planning
on traveling around the world, but got delayed and built the first version in
a couple weeks from a rented apartment in morocco. I bet there are other YC
companies founded by couples as well.

~~~
snp
Don't forget YC itself. :-)

------
untog
Another post with a question mark in with an answer of 'no'.

There are exceptions to all rules, so there's no universal catch all. But all
businesses with an extra layer of "relationship" get messy. That can be a
couple, but more often it's family.

As an outsider there are things going on out of the office that you are not
aware of, gossip, deeply divisive sides in any dispute, and vendettas if you
choose the wrong side.

It's a minefield.

~~~
michaelt

      There are exceptions to all rules, so it would be stupid 
      to not even think about it. But all businesses with an 
      extra layer of "relationship" get messy.
    

I'm sure we'll hear anecdotes to that effect - but is there good quality
research-based evidence to back it up?

All the co-founders I know of are friends with one another, which doesn't seem
to sink companies. And a lot of commentators in the press attribute Germany's
economic strength to its 'Mittelstand' companies - small and medium size
companies, which are often family-owned, export-oriented engineering firms
[1,2].

Call me crazy, but when I'm making investment decisions I like to build my
decisions on sturdier foundations than Betteridge's Law of Headlines.

[1] [http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/the-mittelstand-
ger...](http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/24/the-mittelstand-germanys-
family-secret/) [2] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17300246>

------
philwelch
Phrases like "mom-and-pop store" or "family business" aren't cliches with no
reason or justification behind them. I think any reluctance has more to do
with the sad state of the modern couple than any inherent flaw in the business
model.

~~~
saraid216
It also might have to do with the fact that we're talking about a very
specific field. This is not a field known for humility or stability when it
comes to its startups. This is the land of Change-The-World and Make-Billions-
Overnight and Disrupt-All-The-Things.

~~~
einhverfr
Maybe. But that mentality suggests it is all hope and hype, and a promise of
very little substance, right?

------
trekkin
I think VCs prefer not to fund couples for the same reason they prefer not to
fund single founders - it's a question of control. With two or more co-
founders, nobody has a controlling stake, and VCs can play one cofounder
against the other, if needed, and thus push through their agenda. With a
single founder, or a couple, they lose that dynamics.

~~~
dmor
Yes, I think this is one of the top concerns. I am very forthright with
investors about the fact that one of my cofounders is my husband. The
fundamental question I've been asked (in various ways) is whether or not I
have the balls, and we have the kind of relationship, where I could fire him
it I needed to (I'm the CEO).

After 5 years of marriage and much of the drama that comes with it (deaths,
lost jobs, new cities, near bankruptcy, several months spent on different
continents for business) has helped us figure out how to communicate with each
other about the most difficult parts of life. It can be a bit tough to convey
this in a 60 minute partner meeting though, so I can understand why investors
hesitate.

------
eldavido
Anti-couple bias is incredibly stupid.

If two people are capable of living together, sharing finances, and
potentially raising children, starting a company seems trivial, by way of
comparison.

~~~
saraid216
Well, that's not true. Comparable? Okay. Trivial by comparison? I can't agree
with that.

The activities involved in running a business are a superset of maintaining a
relationship of any stripe. And you have to do them _both_. To rattle off a
few examples, a relationship does not have customers. A relationship does not
have employees. A relationship is not taxed the same way.

I entirely agree that anti-couple bias is incredibly stupid, but it's not
because it's inherently easier to run a company than to carry on a
relationship.

~~~
einhverfr
I don't know if it is a superset. Carrying on a relationship is one thing.
Maintaining a joint household seems to me to require all the same skills....

------
einhverfr
A couple thoughts.

First, I am a _huge_ proponent of couple-founded businesses. I think the
economic entanglements help stabilize the couple, minimizing chances of a
messy divorce. Additionally if you have couples which share the inspiration of
the business, that's a powerful thing. I think that the fact that you don't
have a hard line between work and home life is a big asset that goes the other
way.

I am remembering the story on Dragon and the acquisition gone bad some time
ago on HN and remembering that was another couple-founded company.

------
ludicast
Depending on how you look at it, I believe Amazon is either a single-founder
company or a couple-led company.

Either way it makes all stigmas look retarded.

