

Ask YC: Where I went wrong? - Jaggu

I passed education in 95 and got the good job. But couldn't handle 9-5 job so, had to quite and start my product business - Try 1( to earn more money ). But at that time there was a big wave to go to US on H1 visa and I cound't resist to take that advantage to earn more money ( compare to  product development in india in 1996 ).<p>It took some time to settle in US and then my brain started thinking again about how to become my own boss and to earn more money. So I joined few friends who already had idea but that didn't work well. I was last one to join that group so i didn't had much say so i just stopped working on that(Try 2). <p>So, I started working on my idea to create website with lyrics of all hindi songs in @Year 2000 (Try 3). That didn't go far because in part time it was too much work to do that and i didn't had any clue about whats VC and how to get funding.<p>So, I started working with friend on another idea about how to implement automated reminder system so that Dr. assistant doesn't have to make phone calls to remind patients ( Try 4). That didn't go far because I knew one Dr and he didn't show much interest and I didn't know how to find person who can help us in marketing my/our skills.<p>So, I started working with another friend to brainstorm idea about how to make paper view possible in small motels ( create a software and allow people from different rooms to select picture from available pictures - it is available in big motel/hotel but not in small motel ). At the end of analysis we found that it is not something we can do in part time without much funding( Try 5).<p>In meantime I started doing some work for startup which later got bought by big company but I opted out to join that startup fulltime so, i didn't get much money.<p>During that time I learn about value of Content Management System and found that there is a big market for that kind of software. We thought to use one open source software and then customize that software for different company but again ... who will market our skills for us ??? ( Try 6 )<p>So, I was back to my brainstorming session and my friend - came up with idea to invest in windmills which is alternate and growing trends to produce electricity. We found that investment is more and ROI is not as much as what software startup can provide ( Try 7??? )<p>Now I have applied to YC with one idea which is also seems not very good based on current market trends ( Try 8??? ) so we already have another idea ready to start working in short time - in case we decide not to waste more time on Try 8 ( if we don't get selected by YC or if YC selects us and doesn't like our idea)....<p>Anyway - where I am going wrong ?? <p>To me<p>A. Part-time doesn't work
B  Need to find marketing person who can sell our skills<p>What else went wrong?? Don't worry..u can tell me whatever u think...i need good feedback so that next one doesn't stay in try zone but i wanna make that success...
======
SwellJoe
I see a trend: "Who will market for us?"

The missing answer to this is the thing you're doing wrong.

You! In a startup, you do everything. If you aren't willing and able (or
willing to become able through self-education or taking classes), then you
shouldn't be in a startup...or you need to partner with a person who is
capable of and willing to do the things you can't or won't do.

It's that simple. You have to build a team that answers every need in a
business--and those needs are many. Some things can be removed from your plate
with money, if you have some money. Some things can be put off until you have
money. But some things, like getting customers, are absolutely vital. If you
can't make something and get it into the hands of people that want it, you
haven't done your job.

Also, you seem to like picking business ideas where you have no history and
where having a history could make you far more successful in a shorter time. I
once knew some folks who started a company that did water table surveys for
city and state governments and they built an interesting business with two
guys and a few contractors and no money up front. How did they get into
something like that? Interestingly, they came in sideways...they had been in
the oil and gas industry as drilling site managers (e.g. a non-technical
management field), and many of the same geophysicists they had worked with in
that industry worked in the water table business, as well. They had the in
they needed to bump them into a multi-million dollar business without needing
years to build a reputation (they had spent the years building a reputation
working on oil platforms and in deserts and other crappy places).

If you want to be in windmills, you ought to work in the alternative energy
industry...it'll teach you what those customers want, how it is currently
delivered, and give you some ideas for making it better.

The thing about most companies that YC deals with, is that they are picking a
problem that's new enough to have no established players, and requires very
little money to start. That's a model that anyone in your shoes ought to
consider, regardless of YC involvement.

Windmills aint it. CMS aint it (though some niche markets in that area might
be). Lyrics to hindi songs...if you need VC funding for that, you're not
thinking about the problem in the right way...that's just not a VC kind of
business.

Another problem I'm seeing is: You need an idea that you can commit to. Find
something you really believe in, and do it (or join the team that is doing
it). It sounds like Try 8 is still-born already. When you start using phrases
like "waste more time on", then you can be pretty sure you have an idea you
don't believe in. If you don't believe in it, how the hell do you think you're
going to convince customers and investors to believe in it?

~~~
Jaggu
Yep, In startup we have to do everything ourself but Marketing is something
you learn over the time and thro' connection. Yep I am weak at that and that
is my main problem.

------
DanielBMarkham
First you might want to consider that you did nothing wrong.

I just did kind of a recap of my startup career over on my blog at
[http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/10/who_me_worry....](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2007/10/who_me_worry.php)
Perhaps tonight is the time for people to think about these things.

I read a really great article that was linked from here a couple of weeks ago.
I'll use a baseball metaphor to describe it. I hope you'll understand the
reference. The point was that it's not hitting the home runs that matter, it's
getting the times at bat. That is, if you're always swinging, and you're
always learning, it's just a matter of getting enough pitches.

You want to fail fast and learn from it. What I've found that sucks is that to
qualify an idea, generate the site, and really get humming might take 4-8
weeks. This means you can't just try out ideas by joining a group for a couple
of weeks. Ideas need to be beaten, nurtured, and planned. So if I had any
criticism, I'd say "go out there and build something that works, then ask what
did you do wrong". Because failing is fine, as long as you keep failing
forward.

~~~
SwellJoe
You mean it could take 8 whole weeks? That's like...two months! We could all
be dead by then.

I'm obviously from an older school of thought. I plan on giving an idea two
years...if it's not good enough to justify that, then it's not worth any of my
time.

~~~
nostrademons
I've gone back and forth on the fail-fast vs. go-deep approaches. After
working at my first startup, I leaned towards the go-deep approach, because
they went through 4 business plans in the year I was there, and if they had
concentrated on #2 (they were literally a week or two away from having paying
customers), they might have had cash to survive #3 and 4.

Then when I was graduating from college, the fail-fast approach started making
more sense, because people were making tens of millions on really simple
startup ideas like del.icio.us, Flickr, and Reddit. These succeeded because
they happened to hit the right niche, because they had supercool, detailed
technology. Nowadays, I'm leaning back towards depth, which sucks for us,
because our idea is a fairly shallow fill-a-quick-need idea and my cofounder
is more into the fail-fast hit-the-lotto approach.

My two years in financial software has kinda rubbed off on me: I think that
the real optimal strategy is to do whatever everybody else is not doing. So
startup #1 failed because it was flitting between ideas on the eve of the dot-
com bust, when everyone else was doing the same thing. Flickr, del.icio.us,
etc. did well because they were founded right at the tail end of the dot-com
bust, when the recession had killed off everyone else going after the easy
pickings and left a lot of untapped niches. Now may be the time to go deep,
because there are a zillion Web 2.0 folks picking off every single social
networking idea, every AJAXified calendar, etc.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I know the feeling. You can't just churn for the sake of churning.

I think at the heart of every entrepreneur is a contrarian. I know that I'm
just the type of person that if everybody else went left, I'd go right.

I don't see a conflict between failing fast and going deep. That's because
when I'm in the mode to qualify the work (before I spend 8 weeks on it), I try
to scope it down. Am I getting into six months of development effort? If so,
is that because I want to make my technology hard to reproduce? Or is it just
feature bloat -- I'm putting the kitchen sink in. I know now that I'm failing
fast (giving it 4-12 weeks once approved) with small timeboxes, I'm seeing a
lot more progress. Chase the users, right?

I don't think I'd go back to long timeboxes again, although I might very well
chop off some really gnarly problems and chew on them a little bit at a time
:)

