
Ignoring Downturns Is Unhealthy And Dangerous - jkopelman
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/22/ignoring-downturns-is-unhealthy-and-dangerous/
======
senihele
The failure of startup companies is real news, but I wish there were more
focus on the reasons behind the failure. Most coverage I read comes across as
mockery, as to suggest that the concept or group could never have succeeded in
the first place. Perhaps that is often the case, but it teaches others little.
Real investigation into the failure would be both entertaining and edifying.

~~~
mechanical_fish
_Real investigation into the failure would be both entertaining and edifying._

Sure, but as they say: Success has a thousand fathers, failure is a motherless
child.

It's very hard to get a good, real-time post-mortem on a startup. One reason
is that, oftentimes, failure is a big amorphous mess. If all the employees
agreed on what the problem was, they might have been able to do something
about it before it killed the company. :)

(By contrast, it's easy to explain a successful company's success: Just look
at where the money is coming from.)

Moreover, it's in nobody's best interest to call attention to their own bad
decisions, and it's even less wise to poke fun at the bad decisions of your
coworkers, who may be a vital part of the personal network that will keep you
alive after the startup explodes.

The entire point of this Techcrunch article is that doing post-mortem work on
a startup is a thankless task. No matter what you say, you will be treated
like an assassin. Look closely at your complaint:

 _Most coverage I read comes across as mockery, as to suggest that the concept
or group could never have succeeded in the first place._

You call that "mockery", but isn't that the _polite_ alternative? What else
can the coverage say? That the concept was sound, but that the founders made a
bunch of boneheaded mistakes in execution?

~~~
senihele
Distinguishing between concept and execution failures would be a huge start,
actually. Don't you think that makes a big difference in your final evaluation
of the company - particularly from a startup perspective? Absolutely fair
point that it may be difficult to determine where the failure was - but you
could start by interviewing the management and go from there. Isn't journalism
about investigating things that aren't immediately obvious? Anyone can lampoon
a company for failure.

If you think the investigation isn't worth it, either because it is thankless
task or because the cause can't be determined (the founders won't admit to
their mistakes, etc), then why write a story at all? It is just
sensationalism. Publish a report every week with a list of startup failures.
Other startups will get the idea - lots of startups fail - and they will have
learned just as much as if they had read the types of stories that are being
published now.

------
marketer
Making sweeping generalizations from a few events is also unhealthy and
dangerous.

