

Billions worth of value created by tech startups with designer co-founders? - quique
http://designerfund.com/infographic

======
fookyong
This "infographic" (it's a gallery!) got me so riled up that I felt compelled
to blog for the first time in months!

 _Focus on value creation. Design enhances value, it does not create it. Stop
creating shitty startups that look amazing. A product or service that is
indispensably useful yet looks like ass is infinitely more likely to be
successful than a product that solves zero problems but looks like a work of
art. Stop this cycle of creating beautiful novelties, getting your 15 minutes,
then disappearing. Create value._

More below - sorry to self promote but it's relevant :)

<http://yongfook.com/post/14295124427/design-is-horseshit>

~~~
quique
Went to go play soccer with engineers, designers and business folks as a team
and come back to this...alas I guess you put out positive energy into the
universe and it's natural to get negative too...why would you even say 'design
is horseshit,' that's totally unproductive, polarizes people, and disrespects
a LOT of people... who would post something saying 'engineering is horseshit'?
Just doesn't make sense, and I'm an engineer too...why not collaborate and
work together? Our disciplines and skills regardless of general titles are
just means to hopefully create meaningful impact, drop the ego...of course I
agree with you that a product/service that's useful is better than something
that just looks like art, duh, so stop firing up an age-old tired conflict, I
think we've evolved past bickering and being bullies by now...instead of
welcoming peers who can create value with you... you're comments are what keep
designers out of working with startups...

Also, we specifically use the word co-founder in the title and say: "Nearly
every designer founder has a technical co-founder and some have technical
backgrounds which furthers the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration"
and we're encouraging more hyper productive designer-hacker dyads...I think
the reality is that most of brilliant people here in Silicon Valley are scared
to get out of their comfort zone and work on really hard unglamorous problems,
especially those of the other %99, because the feedback loops we've created
promote the beautiful novelties and vanity consumerism versus sustainable
businesses with positive social impact, so again I agree with you...

"Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of
course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works." Did you read previous
comment citing Jesse Schell? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359218> and
specific skills we modern designers in tech need
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358880>

Have you read the software design manifesto by Mitch Kapor
<http://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/1-kapor.html>

Highly recommend exploring design ethnography and user research methods that
focus on value discovery and value creation eg that's why places like IDEO
thrive...

Also do you know we're related through Cookpad? I'm disappointed and surprised
by our statements which seem at odds with your company values...

~~~
wpietri
Because you didn't just "put positive energy into the universe". You hyped
something in a way that was divisive.

~~~
quique
We've been repeatedly explicit about NOT being divisive... you see Larry or
Mark or other folks getting celebrated and you don't see the design community
getting mad...how many design students even know about Mitch or Chad let alone
the general public... Per previous comment
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358720> we posed a question and again
are promoting collaboration and co-creation...

~~~
wpietri
Saying "we are not being divisive" isn't enough to make you not divisive,
unfortunately. It's in the nature of your message, and how people take it.

------
AznHisoka
I don't think design alone, or technical skills alone are enough to get it
done. Both are commodities. Anyone can throw up a spiffy iPhone app or web app
with Node.JS in the backend. Not everyone, on the other hand has domain
expertise, and can create a product with market fit, and sell it.

If you rely too much on your design skills, you'll end up creating something
like Gowalla - something noone wants. if you rely too much on technological
sexiness, you'll end up like SimpleGeo.. I bet they got 100,000+ lines of code
altogether all for naught.

~~~
limedaring
"If you rely too much on your design skills, you'll end up creating something
like Gowalla" ...or you can build something like Kickstarter, which is a
fantastic company, doing amazing things for others, and something that people
want?

You can name plenty of companies with designer founders that haven't IPOed in
the same breath that you name plenty of companies who had developer founders
who haven't either. It's a bit unfair to say just because you rely on one
aspect, you'll end up like a couple companies that have failed.

~~~
AznHisoka
I dun understand your point?

------
pud
What qualifies someone as a designer? Going to design school? Using
Illustrator in the course of business? Having "good taste?"

I've never had the word "designer" on a resume, but I kind of feel like I'd
qualify. But not sure.

~~~
mmahemoff
There's a world of difference between a visual designer and a UX designer, not
to mention a software designer (==architect). Most of the people here are more
like UX designers, which in the context of a founder, means a "product
person".

So if you're a product person (clearly yes), you qualify IMO.

~~~
quique
Great point, that's a whole other discussion about what makes a 'great product
person', that's almost more of a opaque term...

------
nchuhoai
I dont think the value of start-ups with a design co-founder gives us much
more value than saying, designers are very beneficial for a product-oriented
startup.

Im sure we can have similar calculations with value of startups with a single
founder, with a business co-founder, startups that have their hackdays on
friday ...

I don't want to marginalize design co-founders, I am looking for one for
myself, but I dont like these sorts of conclusions and statistics

~~~
quique
Re: I dont think the value of start-ups with a design co-founder gives us much
more value than saying, designers are very beneficial for a product-oriented
startup.

That's the simple point, you got it, we're saying yes they can be very
beneficial for a product-oriented startup just like more engineering and
business focused people are (you'd be surprised by how many people don't act
like that)...then exploring stories about the value these people deliver...
there's no conclusions, we put '?s'

------
feralmoan
Does some type of meeting place exist for backend + UI/design founders to meet
up? I'm having enormous trouble trying to find a design co-founder for my own
startup they're a rare bird out in the wild. (I know this is a selfish post
but I'm acutely feeling their worth)

~~~
linzlovesyou
At least someone on here actually appreciates the work of designer founders :)
As a designer, I've felt the same-- it's definitely hard finding backend/UI
designers who want to cofound with a designer.

------
wpietri
The thing that bothers me about this is what bothers me about the term
"designer" in general. The role of "designer" is by definition a person who
doesn't get their hands dirty. It's one that depends on other people to make
things happen.

I think that's a mistake in a startup for the same reason that it's wrong to
have a role involving control of quality or security or innovation or customer
satisfaction. Those things are pervasive concerns, and if you have one person
or group responsible for them, then it means everybody else isn't.

I intensely value design activities and design thinking. And I value products
that are well designed. But I think treating "designer" as a role is
dangerous.

~~~
quique
"Anyone who makes a decision about how the product should be is a designer.
Designer is a role, not a person. Almost every developer on a team makes some
decision about how the product will be, just through the act of creating the
product. These decisions are design decisions, and when you make them, you're
a designer. For this reason, no matter what role on a development team, an
understanding of the principles of design will make you better at what you
do."...While I agree with Jesse Schell, what we are highlighting, the
potential for designer founders, is not mutually exclusive with your
concern...there are many ways to get design done eg Jared Spool lays out some
types (I am by no means advocating for one size fits all), but I am saying
that having a strong design leader may help your team (the best ones don't
have to control every little detail, they empower others), it's like having an
editor eg [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/technology/what-apple-
has-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/technology/what-apple-has-that-
google-doesnt-an-auteur.html..). my major issue with design thinking and make
everyone a "designer" so easily is you lose a bar of quality, craft, and
professionalism that you want everyone to aspire to be...just like you'd want
your CTO to inspire other developers to work with him/her, you want a designer
founder to do the same...great talent attracts other great talent... It makes
sense that a prerequisite for a tech company is to have a founder with
technical skills. The same heuristic should hold true if you want to
consistently ship well designed products like Pinterest, AirBnB and Path. Why
not have a co-founder with design skills who champions the user experience?

~~~
wpietri
Since I currently have a co-founder with design skills who champions user
experience, I'm for that.

I'm also all for inspiring leaders. But in the startup context, I think the
job of "designer" is as dangerous as its technical equivalent "architect". As
Schell points out, design is a pervasive concern, just like software
architecture is. A CTO who fancies himself chief architect is likely to drive
off good talent, because talented people want to solve whole problems, not
mechanically execute somebody else's vision.

I think the same applies for the visible sorts of design just as much as it
does for the under-the-hood design: if everybody cares (which requires feeling
empowered to make things happen) you'll get a better product.

~~~
limedaring
Exalting designers as founders does not mean the designers are sitting in a
throne ordering their minions to do the coding. I'd argue that any startup
that has a "designer founder" today, that designer is getting their hands
dirty with working with the code — perhaps not to the level of a true
developer, but actually ideating and executing their vision. Why not encourage
this? Does every startup need to just be a business/dev pair with a designer
employee, or is it okay to someone who feels they're a designer first in the
founder position?

~~~
wpietri
My main issue here is with exalting "design" as if it were a separable
activity from the rest of making something. Everybody at a startup should feel
that they're a designer first. Because they are: each person's work should
have a significant impact on the user experience.

------
OoTheNigerian
What got my attention was the amount of funding the fist line of companies got
compared to their counterparts. SlideShare (3m!), Flickr acquired for 35m (!).

Does anyone know why Flickr sold? Why does about.me need 51 employees?

1\. Asides YouTube, the acquisition amounts are not impressive.

2\. How is value being calculated? Funds raised?

3\. They do not even _almost_ match up to Developer founded companies (Google,
Microsoft, Facebook, etc).

4\. What is even the idea of the vs. argument? It takes a good idea, a big
market and good execution to win big. Developers, Designers, Business people,
all contribute to that success.

~~~
quique
1) We acknowledge the outliers like Lotus and YouTube, at least others have
been life changing even if it wasn't billion dollar exits

2) Did you read previous comment:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358703> Public data that was available
to use as 'proxies'/indicators of value: User base, company size, funding, and
acquisition amount...of course we'd like to show profit...a couple companies
like Blurb submitted profit eg revenue 58M in 2010

3) It's not an us vs them comparison, again it's all about collaboration and
multidisciplinary skills

4) Did you read previous comment:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3358727> -Of course the designers
featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, and they
shouldn't, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no
matter what background you come from

-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)

~~~
teej
This acts as a cheerleader for companies with designer co-founders. That's
great, I really appreciate the effort.

The problem is that many of the companies you highlight are -inconsequential-.
If you're going to make a claim about how much impact these companies have
made, you can't turn around and name a bunch of duds[1].

You start the list with mega successes (Android and YouTube are ubiqutous
products that have made a huge impact on millions of people) and then finish
up with failures and unproven startups. To be clear, I'm not saying anything
about design cofounders. It's just that there's this weird implication in what
you've communicated. You're sort of saying that all these companies are in the
same league due to the skill of one of the founders. Something about that just
doesn't sit right.

========================================

[1] -

Sold in a talent acquisition after product failed: Hunch, Gowalla

Sold before they ever did anything: About.me

Niche community product: Forrst, ColourLovers, Foodspotting

Unproven product: Path

~~~
quique
I hear you...this is only our first visualization (will probably do next one
on a timeline etc, so you're point about league isn't really an issue)...this
first piece is more about highlighting case studies we're examining (mega
success and dud failures- I like all types of data)...hopefully this is also a
challenge to the next generation of designers to step up and ship something of
consequence in collaboration with other brilliant folks from different
background like great engineers who have been doing it for decades in deep
tech... design+tech entrepreneurship is still in it's infancy... I do know
that we need to be proactively driving new ideas and not be so reactive. “They
have checkins, and group coupons, and native apps, and just got a valuation of
thirty billion; WE need to have checkins! We need group coupons! Bring on the
native apps!” I hope future designer-entrepreneurs can be more proactive and
present a state that doesn’t yet exist. Addressing latent needs ESPECIALLY in
emerging markets and coming up re-framed business models for the other 99% of
the population.

------
asanwal
The not-so-subtle implication that there is a causal relationship between
design and success is totally unproven. In general, ascribing success to one
factor is always a bad idea. And of course, success = funding is a different
matter altogether.

In a practical sense, however, startups that are fundraising and which have
design chops should use this type of data/meme to their advantage by talking
about design as if it actually has a causal relationship with success. Use
pattern matching to your benefit.

~~~
quique
Of course, stats 101...We put caveats below the infographic: -we're not making
the claim that tech startups with designer founders are statistically better
in some way, instead we are highlighting interesting case studies to explore
further

-Of course the designers featured here can’t possibly take all the credit for any success, it's all about team work and we're celebrating design together no matter what background you come from

-The goal is to raise awareness about the existence of designer founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never been done before (not draw causal claims)

------
prayag
I am surprised you missed Brian and Joe from AirBnB. Both went to Rhode Island
School of Design and AirBnB is probably valued higher than all these companies
combined.

~~~
quique
Of course they're on there! think you prob missed them...

~~~
prayag
I was only looking at acquired companies it seems. Sorry.

------
noodle
Why should someone apply to this fund? I don't see enough meat on this page to
really know what'll happen.

The FAQ is just the "how to apply" section. Is this the fund's first round?
Who was in the previous round? Success stories? Etc..

~~~
limedaring
I think what you're looking for is on the homepage if you scroll:
<http://designerfund.com/>

Shows the overview, the mentors and people involved in the program, and at the
bottom, what's involved in the fund.

Disclaimer: I'm in the current "batch" and have received a non-equity grant.

~~~
noodle
Nope. Is this a program-style thing like YC which involves being present for a
period of time? If I'm accepted will I be expected to move to SV for a period
of time? Why would I want to apply as someone not from SV? Who are some people
who are being funded? Any success stories? Etc..

~~~
limedaring
"Build: Starting in March, designers co-work together at the spaces of
partners on a bi-monthly basis as a motivation function pushing teams to
iterate on product, refine their business, and get market traction." — solves
your first two questions. You need to be in SV.

That said, it IS new, and it's too early for success stories and exits. I'll
pass your critique along to Enrique to help improve the page — thanks for the
critiques!

~~~
noodle
No, I read that and it didn't answer my question, which is why I asked it.
"Partner" = ? Cofounder? Mentor? Etc.. Its not clear. Is everyone on that huge
list in SV? Or are there mentors in NYC? Seattle? Austin? Etc..

Its just light on the details that someone would actually want before hitching
an established business to it.

------
tszming
Actually, the tagline is rather meaningless (I'm not offending anyone),

"Did you know about billions worth of value created by tech startups with XYZ
co-founders?"

Replace XYZ with you choice and here you go.

~~~
quique
Agree see previous comment <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3359246>

Goes back to our goal to raise awareness about the existence of designer
founders and their diverse backgrounds with data in a fun way that has never
been done before (not draw causal claims)

------
dustingetz
hey look. i'm skeptical about this whole "designer co-founder" thing in the
general case. i think other people who know more than me are also skeptical.
Things like this are interesting to explore, but I haven't seen any solid
reasoning from the set of people pushing this, um, cause. I basically see a
lot of designers who think they should have higher valuation on their
contributions.

Lets see some articulate arguments and stop the hand-waving, yeah?

~~~
quique
Did you read below the infographic? We laid out some reasoning...long story
short it's about collaboration and multi-disciplinary skills necessary to
ship, titles are actually not that important... Have you read the software
design manifesto?... agree got to show with data and prove value of course,
like the recent FAB funding round with strong emphasis on design

~~~
dustingetz
i read it, and read it twice more after you commented, and failed to parse any
meaningful information. :/

~~~
quique
Yeah sorry the article layout is actually sloppy, bad design, poor
readability...will work on making more persuasive, data full examples in
future and appreciate your candid feedback...but here were a couple
assertions: -First, as the the consumer tech market becomes more crowded,
differentiated brand and experience design is becoming critical to both short-
term and long-term success.

-Second, successful designer founders will attract the remaining distribution of aspiring entrepreneurial designers, theoretically shifting the supply of designers innovating rather than advertising sugar water.

-The third assertion is that designer founders have unique skills (not just visual) to understand human needs, make products that people actually want by driving new ideas and connecting things that aren’t obviously connected, and to communicate persuasively by visualizing a narrative of the future state of things.

-Furthermore, a startup with a designer founder who can lead and model design practices has a competitive advantage [2], especially when the designer is accompanied by technical and business co-founders. The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution.

-Finally, later-stage companies have an appetite for designer founders who are capable of leading product innovation within their organization and are willing to acquire designer founded startups, which creates a virtuous cycle of wealth.

~~~
dustingetz
#1 "designer founders have unique skills (not just visual) to understand human
needs" I disagree; I think the general case of all founders (technical,
business, design) need this insight.

#2 "The critical mass of combined design, technical, and business skills
enables product iteration to happen faster and at a higher resolution" i guess
this is the crux -- nothing that I've seen stands out as supporting this
argument, especially since I can't yet grant #1.

the remainder of your argument doesn't really make much sense to me.

~~~
quique
Re #1 got it, agree all founders should but great designers should be amazing
at understanding human needs that's what they should be trained in and one of
their primary jobs to focus on, hear a lot about empathy, so hopefully a
designer co-founder will increase your probability of that critical mass of
skill in house among other tangible skills...but why don't you agree with this
one: "First, as the the consumer tech market becomes more crowded,
differentiated brand and experience design is becoming critical to both short-
term and long-term success."?...I didn't really write it as an "argument" but
more as a research statement, hence why we're interviewing a lot of
<http://designerfounders.com> not for profit- I'm passionate about
intersection of design, tech entrepreneurship and education....and how we can
better collaborate radically to create positive social impact, part of that is
bringing folks together with seats at the table...

------
kwamenum86
Instagram's Mike Krieger actually wrote quite a bit of code at Meebo (he is
listed solely as UX). But point taken.

~~~
quique
He's also Stanford HCI and when I talked to him last at WarmGun seems to be
doing a lot of front end work too

------
haberdasher
I like how the Android card has "Chris White" listed, but Andy Rubin's dashing
face.

~~~
quique
we haven't been able to get a hold of Chris yet...google designer wrote him
handwritten note though

------
rokhayakebe
What I see is 0.5 to 1 user per $1 of funding for post 2009 consumer
companies.

~~~
quique
Yeah lot of data private but working on surfacing as much as possible...wish
we could do profit filter of course... main point is to showcase case studies
for further exploration

~~~
rokhayakebe
Actually this is informative. What was important to me was the ability to see
how many users they have, then relate it to their amount of funding. Thanks
for sharing.

------
davidhansen
How are you defining value creation? Why are investment sizes listed, but not
earnings, or even revenue?

Oh, that's right. It's 1999 all over again.

~~~
dmix
> Oh, that's right. It's 1999 all over again.

I've read this same comment so many times over the last 4 years on hacker news
my instinct is to downvote it automatically.

Sure you made a good point about the article mentioning capital raised, not
revenue/profit.

But how does constantly comparing now or last year or 2008 or 2007 to the
dotcom boom adding any value to this or any discussion?

~~~
davidhansen
You've also probably seen thousands of variants on "what ever happened to do
no evil?" posted to myriad Google articles over the years, as well. Such is
the nature of discussion. Sometimes the same idea in a slightly different
context is unique enough to qualify for positive value. Does my comment
qualify? I don't know.

I will just note that some of us lived through the dot com bust, and we
remember quite clearly what the mentality was like, especially for insiders.
For us, the environment today is damn near identical to what it was like then;
we just had slower connections and hardware. When we post semi-snarky comments
like this, we do it partly as a warning. Profits do matter. At some point, the
kids will realize it.

~~~
pg
I lived through the the dot-com bubble, and the environment today is nothing
like it was then. No one is claiming now that there is a "new economy."
Investors are not afraid to put their money in bonds, for fear they'll miss
out on a new, transformative sort of growth in equities. LP money isn't
flooding into new VC funds. VCs aren't funding MBAs with business plans.

dmix's instincts are right; saying it's 1999 all over again is just a facile
put-down.

------
ahoyhere
I'm tired of the useless back and forth over whether "design is horseshit."
That's not only a falsehood, it's a simplistic falsehood. Reducing the work of
something as broad and universal as "design" to "laying on the pretty" is
definitely a one-two punch of reductio ab absurdum and strawman. And yongfook
is smarter than that.

But.

I believe only one of the companies on this list is profitable, maybe two. And
there's no way Behance produces billions of dollars of "value" all by itself,
even with the potential of help from Pulse or Slideshare (MAYBE).

That has nothing to do with the fact that they prioritized design. That has
nothing to do with the fact that they are led by designers.

It has everything to do with VC-driven startup culture which believes getting
funding and getting bought is the way to go, rather than self-funding and
creating a sustainable, profitable business.

It has everything to do with the idea that you DESERVE money NOW, for what you
MAY do or MAY achieve in the future. And the belief that you WILL do or WILL
achieve whatever you imagine, because your internal, imagined narrative is
just like The Kung Fu Kid, complete with montage. If you make the bestest
location checkin app people will flock to you! Cue riches!

But no. You end up bought because you can't sustain yourself.

It also has to do with the absolutely crippling belief that there can be free
money with no strings. Startups are rarely bought because they are profitable
and sustainable, they are bought for a million other reasons. And getting sold
or going on IPO is the only way for 99% of VCs to get their payday, so once
you accept VC, that is the track you are on.

Value is quantum: it only happens when you have a customer. Value is something
you create for the customer, which they are willing to pay you for. If your
customers won't pay for your services, that's the #1 sign that you don't, in
fact, create value. Or if they will not pay you enough to cover your costs,
ditto.

Most startups sadly put themselves in the position of having only one true
customer -- the company that buys them.

------
notatoad
how did forrst get $225k of funding?

and for that matter, what does forrst need $225k for, other than hookers and
blow? it's basically a blog with a shiny template and no authors.

