
Entrepreneurshit? Please. - BerislavLopac
http://blog.davidkatz.me/post/36010138674/entrepreneurshit-please
======
msuster
I read your response, David. Frankly, I think you do many entrepreneurs an
injustice in assuming that I'm talking about VC funded entrepreneurs only. At
my talk at University of Chicago I repeated advice I give every time I speak
"90+% of you should never raise VC. It's not right for you. Better that you
raise smaller amounts of money and keep control of your business."

And many small startups have a much worse cash situation than those fueled by
VC but your post fails to consider that. Many of them have loans, sibling /
parent money and the like. It's actually much harder on them.

Or how about physical or retail businesses? I know many non-tech entrepreneurs
who have gone through personal bankruptcy due to this. Including my own
parents. Which led them to get divorced.

Bitch, you don't know me. Don't assume you do.

~~~
davidkatz
Fair point Mark, I do not know you. Even though my post may come across as
aggressive, that wasn't my intent. I'm just getting started with blogging, and
next time I'll have to be more careful with my language. Apologies.

I agree that VC funding is not the only path to stressful business, although
it certainly helps a lot. In this sense, VC is a part of a larger problem -
people's tendency to take on more risk than they should. I dare say that if
more people lived and did business within their means, we'd all be calmer,
have less bankruptcies, and maybe even less divorces.

It is very easy to read your post and come away with the feeling that being an
entrepreneur is necessarily stressful, and that just isn't the case. It starts
being stressful when you can't meet your obligations, and that mostly happens
when your ability to meet your obligations is heavily dependent on
circumstances you can't control - circumstances like relying on outside money.

Is VC better than loans from family? Most definitely, because by taking money
from someone who fully appreciates their potential losses, everyone gets to be
less emotional about the whole thing.

Still, I believe that by not taking any outside money, or extracting a heavy
price from yourself, you get a shot at a significantly calmer variant of
Entrepreneurship, and that's something people should know.

~~~
unreal37
Mark, David, respect for you both.

Mark, the method David says, purely bootstrapped, keep your day job until its
profitable, no outside investors even family.... is the safer road and avoids
many of the pitfalls you outline. Of course, you still have to worry about the
market changing, losing a client, your cost structure vs your competitors, and
the like. All the things that your current boss worries about, you get to
inherit.

But also the VC, angel, or other investor method gives you cash up front to
put off some worries on day 1, but as Mark says, when you hire someone, you
have to look them in the face knowing you only have 6 months cash in the bank.

With the bootstrap method, you only have 1 week cash in the bank.

Both can be stressful. I guess having other people depending on you besides
yourself is less stressful in some ways, but also less (0) chance of a home
run exit.

------
neya
Contrary to what other people say, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. I also
think that the title is very much apt. Others - If you've been following the
alternate universe of online memes, "bitch please" is a very famous meme used
to indicate controversy [1] and this title exactly fits the article.

Please don't justify things on your blog for what other people think about the
title or your article, we live in a free world and we are free to speak out
our minds without justifying or being bullied by anyone else.

Really, it's a great article. Thank you very much for writing.

[1]<http://www.troll.me/images/yao-ming/bitch-please.jpg>

~~~
davidkatz
Thanks! Turns out not everyone knows/accepts the meme use of 'Bitch Please'.
Since I didn't want the discussion to gravitate towards the title, I changed
it.

------
ezl
What are you are trying to accomplish with this response to Mark Suster's blog
post? (honest question)

To me, the original post came across as encouragement to all the founders who
feel like they are the only ones busting their butts and still feel stuck.

I felt this particular excerpt from your blog post though was a bit unfair to
Suster:

 _> Suster (who’s a VC now) won’t take his own advice though, because:

> > Of course I do [want to be a founder again]! How could you not want to go
> back to it. It’s addicting. It’s an adrenaline rush like no other._

because in his post, he also says:

 _> Yet one day you wake up and you realize you can’t run as fast as the young
guys. You can’t quite hit the 3-pointers as often. Yes, you have maturity that
makes you a wiser player. But you realize that you can be more helpful as a
coach.

And yes, I sleep better at night as a coach. And I’m happy as a VC._

"His advice" isn't for everyone to be a founder. I think it was just a pep
talk, like: "If you feel like you're spinning your wheels going nowhere and
everyone else is a rock star, don't worry, you're not alone. That's how
everyone does it."

I don't know Mark or anyone he has invested in, nor am I particularly tied to
him. However, it felt a little strong when you issued this warning:

 _> be careful around VCs like Suster, who’d love to give you heaps of money
so you can get up at 4:50am and get a heart attack every time your money
starts to run out._

Keep writing. I like your style and I think its great when people write. Just
leaving my honest feedback as well because I felt some of the aggression was
unwarranted.

~~~
davidkatz
What I'm trying to accomplish is this - pieces like 'Entrepreneurshit'
perpetuate the myth that starting a business is a risky, stressful endeavour.

When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean
anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that
he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.

You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both
enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want
high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the
only way.

~~~
jamiequint
Your whole argument is a straw man though. I don't think anybody is suggesting
that the _only_ type of businesses are VC backed businesses.

Starting a high-growth startup _is_ a risky, stressful endeavor. If you want
to start a business that is not high-growth that is bootstrapped and grows
slow but steady, great! That can result in an awesome financial outcome for
you personally. Some people enjoy chasing hyper-growth and the risks that go
with it, that doesn't make the OPs post wrong, it just means it applies to a
different type of business and a different type of entrepreneur.

~~~
davidkatz
You're absolutely right - there are different types of businesses that fit
different types of entrepreneurs, and that's exactly what Suster fails to
capture. By reading his post, you could easily walk away with the feeling that
entrepreneur = stress.

------
czzarr
It's a good thing some people actually shoot for the stars so that they build
platforms that enable people like you who don't like to gamble to build small
profitable apps living a healthy lifestyle. If nobody shot for the stars, we
would be stuck at the stone age.

~~~
brazzy
I call VC-istan bullshit.

Why exactly does building enabling IT platforms (let alone other technological
advancements) require multiple rounds of funding from outside investors and a
pathological focus on growth with no regard for sustainable structures and
profitability?

------
idan
Before the haters flag this like yesterday: read the damn post. There's a
reason for the acerbic title, and it has absolutely zero to do with
denigration of females.

~~~
dhimes
The author updated his title- perhaps we can, too?

~~~
calibraxis
I agree. Is the original author a "hater" for thoughtfully removing b----?

(Just like it would be inappropriate to see n-----. It's unnecessary and easy
to edit out.)

~~~
iamdave
You can't seriously be comparing B* to N*.

~~~
kami8845
Can't we say "bitch" and "nigger" when we're talking about these words? It's
really no different in my mind if we're factually discussing these words and
their usage.

~~~
iamdave
Sure. Louis CK feels the same way, so do I. And I'm a black guy. Neither word
really bothers me.

------
xpose2000
The only entrepreneur I can relate to is the one spending their time coding,
designing, and implementing ideas. None of which involves hopping on a plane.

~~~
unreal37
What about dealing with customers? What about having to go visit big
$500K/year customers to make sure they sign the contract like you are hoping
they will?

Or the entrepreneur you can relate to doesn't have any customers?

~~~
xpose2000
I'm just going by the type of work that I do on a day-to-day basis. I
personally can't relate to having to fly around to meet and greet with
customers on that level.

There is nothing wrong with this, of course. Plenty of companies and
entrepreneurs work this way. I am just not familiar with it.

------
nhangen
I think you and I read a different article. What I got from Mark's piece was
that entrepreneurship isn't all glitz and glamour like it's made out to be on
the tech blogs and in the business magazines. It's hard work, and sometimes
the chances of success look bleak.

My company did not seek venture funding, but I don't feel that changes the
dynamic of Mark's post as it relates to me. There's something in there for
everybody.

~~~
davidkatz
It isn't all glitz and glamour, and people should know that. However, my issue
with the article is not the 'it's not all glitz and glamour' but the 'it's
shitty, you never see your family, you're constantly stressed, and your
chances suck'. That is discouraging, and totally unnecessary.

If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But
to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.

~~~
ckb
He deals primarily in the high risk/high gain market though. I think if you
asked Mark he would say a business that lets you make just what you need -- a
lifestyle business -- isn't a bad thing at all. The people that want to start
a high risk business and raise money to help them swing for the fences should
be prepared for some stress though. Those people are his audience. I don't
think he meant that simply choosing a path of entrepreneurship means that
everyone will have this experience.

~~~
davidkatz
You're probably right, but he should have chosen his words more carefully.
It's very easy to misunderstand him and conclude that starting a business is
inevitably going to be shitty.

------
louischatriot
Don't really see what the point of the article is. Some entrepreneurs build
try to build small/medium, moderately risky businesses, and that's fine. Some
try to shoor for the stars, high risk/high return. That's fine too.

~~~
davidkatz
It is perfectly fine. However, by saying that 'being an entrepreneur is
shitty' Suster makes his audience believe that this is just what it's like to
start a business, and you better be prepared for it or leave it altogether.
That's wrong, and potentially discouraging to someone who is considering
starting a business.

If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have
no beef at all.

------
sorich87
Your post make it sound like entrepreneurship is all about money. Especially
statements like: "Only quit your day job once you’ve found something that
works, and before you know it, you’ll have a good income and a good life with
little risk and little stress.".

When you want to build the next big thing, to change the World, etc., not
simply to gain some income, building a high growth / high stress startup may
be necessary.

------
tehwalrus
on the title: "bitch please" is a meme. I get that some people claim the word
is sexist, etc, but I like the meme and Randall Munroe's "Science: it works,
bitches!" too much to let them go - as (Randall) explained later, it's usage
here is as a gender-neutral sympathetic term. (alas, I can't find the source
for his justification.)

~~~
yarrel
There isn't one. Randall is wrong. It happens.

~~~
tehwalrus
In terms of feminist theory, this is definitely true - perpetuation of sexism
in language through slang and memes is undoubtedly harmful. (and theory aside,
it's a matter of experimental record that language affects thought, to a
certain extent.)

Sadly, my subjective brain still likes the ring of the phrases. "Science: it
works, earthlings!" sounds just a little too geeky, and "humans!" doesn't
seems to ring true either. And "Children, please..." irritates me from an age-
discrimination perspective (I'm a firm believer that if we patronised our
children less, I'm sure there'd be less extremism and fundamentalism in the
world.)

curse my sexist, subjective brain! :/

------
jheriko
agreed. generally - and i found the title less offensive than the original. an
apt response. :)

~~~
stuaxo
The original did remind me of this -

<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=entremanure>

------
bdcravens
Thank you for this article. I personally feel that small teams (in most cases,
one person) building high quality SaaS apps and creating a generous income
($100-300K/year) will become more common, and is more likely to "win" than the
home run, VC model.

------
debacle
This seems to be nitpicking a bit. Many things have pros and cons, and whether
they are right for you depends on your priorities and personal context.
Entrepreneurship is not right for some people, but it is the only way for
others.

------
yarrel
"It's a meme" is the new "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic, but..."

------
michaelochurch
I've criticized Mark Suster, because he's all over the map in terms of the
quality of what he says (this criticism could also be made of me) but I've
come to admire his honesty.

Most Americans despise "politicians". They like _their_ representatives, but
have a negative view of elected officials, because the amount of bullshit
(fundraising, campaigning) one has to put up with in exchange for the returns
is so immense that the assumption is that no one would do it without an ego
the size of Texas. The assumption is that politicians are either monstrously
egotistical, or taking something out of society (speaking fees, "consulting"
options for their kids) on the side that would justify the absurdity.

"Entrepreneurshit" reminds us that VC-istan startup founding isn't much
different. There are some good Founders out there, but they're basically
private-sector politicians. To be frank, I agree with this assessment. One
caveat: if you're rich enough to own your own time and career (instead of
having to rent them from a boss) then I think the entrepreneurial path is
superior in long-term expectancy, and you can afford the variance. But in that
scenario, I'd probably boot-strap. Multiple liquidation preferences and
participating preferred are for strivers and poors, yo.

I don't know that client-powered, "bootstrapped" companies can claim moral
superiority, either. _Mad Men_ is a good depiction of the sociology of that
world. The industries have changed; people, much less. Most of those firms are
had by the balls by clients (losing a big client triggers an avalanche of
pull-outs) and that's no better than being beholden to investors.

The contemporary "startup" ethos is admirable in many ways but it's also chock
full of ridiculous and embarrassing contradictions-- meritocracy vs. the
extreme importance of connections; "this will be big" vs. taking an acq-hire
welfare check, "changing the world" vs. the patent absurdity of many "social
media" companies-- and if we want it to be more than a self-devouring fad, we
need to have a real conversation about what kind of leadership we need, as a
society, whether we are getting what we want in terms of leaders (I honestly
don't know) and, if not, what we should do to change that.

~~~
vytasgd
Just enjoyed reading your thoughts on the topic. A nice change of pace
compared to aggressive point, counter-point type of comments I normally see.

