
Startups for the 99% - superasn
http://www.trevormckendrick.com/startups-for-the-99/
======
onion2k
I believe that a business being referred to as a "startup" should be something
akin to an insult unless you're very, _very_ early stage. It usually means
you're running a business that's basically failing - no customers, no revenue,
no profit. The sooner you stop being a startup and start being a business the
better.

Obviously there are a few caveats to that as certain things that take more
time and money than others (hardware, biotech, etc), but for most SaaS
businesses (eg most startups) it's true enough.

~~~
mildtrepidation
Call a brand new business a startup. Hell, just drop the term and call it a
new business. Call a failure a failure. I don't see why we have to load these
terms so much or why people insist on pushing their own preconceptions.

People like to bicker about whether it's a startup if it accepts funding,
where the funding comes from and how ownership is established, what kind of
background the founders have and how long their "runway" is, whether it's set
up for an exit or for long term operation... it's ridiculous.

I think the implication is that we've overloaded this term and a few others
when we're talking about many different things in many different contexts but
can't be bothered to clarify what we're talking about, so hey, what I see as a
startup is pretty specific, but I'm not actually going to tell you what I mean
(despite knowing I'm bringing serious bias to the term), so I'm just gonna
throw that term around and disparage anyone with a different interpretation.

If you define "startup" as very early stage, fine. Why would you use it as an
insult for something that's not? Why wouldn't you just say "no, you're just
NOT a startup" and ask what the business model is and why they aren't
profitable?

------
ArekDymalski
It would be great if the author has specified what kind of advice isn't
applicable to non-VC-backed companies. IMHO a part of it is still relevant
even if you don't shoot for the stars. After all every business (even the
"lifestyle" one) needs some good practices to (at least) stay on the market
and avoid the fate of an expensive hobby. Yesterday I had a similar discussion
on the workshop with a group of SMB owners/managers (mostly experienced people
running the business for many yrs - up to 30, but there were also a few
startups). All of them were in real need for an actual change to either grow
or keep up with the evolving market. We were working on their business models
and I was using well known examples of companies as illustrations. One of the
guys suddenly asked "Why are we talking about such big companies? We are not
them." The answer was pretty simple - if you want to learn and get inspired
there's only one direction to look - up.

------
blizkreeg
I wonder if part of the reason why most everyone uses the word 'startup' is
because the alternatives 'small business', 'lifestyle business', or 'SaaS
business' are just not sexy or cool to say.

It would be good for the overall entrepreneurial community if both were given
their due attention (and the credit they deserve) but the tech media loves to
drum up the hype for the former and it's hard not to be influenced by it.

I'm fairly unaffected by the hype and would like to start my own company but
even I cringe at the thought of calling it a small business even if it has no
chance of raising VC (and doesn't need to).

~~~
Zoomla
how about: business? you can add an adjective when it is large enough

------
chromaton
They're two different things, but often have significant overlap. Both need to
get new customers, hire employees, create infrastructure, and so on.

I'll suggest "bootup" for "bootstrapped startup".

~~~
wj
I like "bootup".

------
jiggy2011
Not to mention that the term "startup" in general usage doesn't even have to
mean a technology company. In general terms it could mean a small , new
business with low revenue.

On HN you will often see companies with multi million $ valuations referred to
as startups.

------
bradleyland
> "...how many investors can you name who don’t have an active blog?"

Six months ago? Zero. Today? Four, off hand. This blog post has some sound
advice about evaluating whether your startup should seek outside funding, but
it is based on the false premise that the only VC money worth taking comes
from the top-tier VC firms like USV, Sequoia, etc.

There is a whole world of capital investors outside of the ones you read about
in the news. Think of it as venture capital for the 99%. That doesn't mean all
startups should take outside money; it only means that you shouldn't believe
that just because USV wouldn't invest in your company that no one would.

------
RyanZAG
This is very, very true. The waters are a bit muddy though, because a lot of
those smaller 'would never take VC' startups actually transition into the VC
kind of startup. This is even true for many of the big players in the tech
landscape today. When they started out and before they gained their incredible
traction, a lot of VCs would have laughed them out of the building.

There should still be some way to differentiate the name though. Maybe
something as simple as 'VC-Startup' and 'LS-Startup' (lifestyle)?

------
akbar501
The author's key assertion is that there should be separate terms for the
different types of startups: those that fit with the venture capital model,
and those that don't.

While separate terms may make the differences clearer, the same
differentiation can be obtained with 2 widely used qualifiers: fundable,
scalable

A fundable startup / scalable startup is a business that, if successful, has a
high probability of being huge (>= $1B in market cap).

However, its questionable if the media, bloggers, etc. would start to use each
term accurately.

------
tchock23
I was thinking the same thing as the OP the other day - most of the sites I
visit every day are tailored toward the 1% that gets VC and goes for the gold.

I recently registered startupsinhardmode.com and plan to blog there about the
day-to-day challenges that "the 99%" go through (the DNS should propagate
shortly if anyone is interested in checking it out).

------
jacques_chester
The second category he defined has a pretty good name: small and medium
business.

He even mentions it in passing (as "SMBs").

~~~
vdaniuk
No, they are not. SMBs have stable business model. Startups are searching for
a business model. This is startups 101. Startup can become a smb in the
future. SMB may decide to pivot and create a startup that is developing a
complementary product.

~~~
jacques_chester
Is it the model or the income which matters?

If it's the model, then "startup" means "any business which isn't profitable
with its current model".

If it's the income, then "startup" means "any business which isn't profitable
with its current model".

At least, that's how it appears to me.

~~~
anigbrowl
A valid point. But we don't think of restaurants as startups, even though they
typically take 1-2 years to become profitable.

------
mooreds
Here's a chestnut from over a decade ago that spells it out in black and
white:

Are you Amazon or are you Ben and Jerry's?

[http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000056.html)

------
16s
Some words should be universal... like shark. But I don't think start-up falls
into that category.

------
eldavido
Startup vs. small business.

------
michaelochurch
This link is relevant to the "What defines a startup?" conversation:
[http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macle...](http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/gervais-
macleod-17-building-the-future-and-financing-lifestyle-businesses/)

