
Why you should continue working on your bad idea - iisbum
http://joel.is/post/30648299967/why-you-should-continue-working-on-your-bad-idea
======
bdcravens
He lists 3 startup successes: Instagram, Flickr, and Groupon. He talks about
their famous pivots. Problem is, these companies pivoted into the kinds of
companies that we don't need. Groupon's business model has been debated ad
infinitum, and they're trading at 1/5 of their IPO. Instagram and Flickr: free
services that could likely never charge, acquired by big services for the
eyeballs. As long as acquisition is considered the exit, you're doomed. Yes,
there are winners, but that's just a race to the bottom. If your business
can't succeed without VC and without eventual acquisition, you don't have a
business, you have a gamble. Neat programming != a business, but charging for
solving a real need does.

~~~
larrys
"If your business can't succeed without VC and without eventual acquisition,
you don't have a business, you have a gamble."

Yes but a gamble _with benefits_. Specifically if you play your cards right
and get involved with the right group of people, you get your "ticket punched"
which can and does lead to other future opportunities. As much as I would like
to side with your belief (and myself use "gamble" many times to describe what
people are doing) for a young person who can afford to take a chance (or an
older person who doesn't have financial or family concerns) it might be a
gamble worth taking.

Think of it as a person who marries a celebrity fully knowing that the
relationship might not work out. They get to attend parties, they meet
"important" people, they move in the right circles they get their picture in
the press. The relationship breaks up. Are they better off than the same
person who is living in the middle of nowhere and has the same experience? I'd
say they are exposed to things that give them much more opportunity to land on
their feet.

Or as another example someone who pursues a dream to win a gold medal at the
Olympics and doesn't even get a bronze. I'd say it's an experience worth
doing, in general of course.

~~~
asanwal
I think you're overstating the importance of investors. With the exception of
a few firms (Sequoia, Accel, Union Square and maybe 10 others) whose mere name
probably brings you some advantage, most VCs are not all that special (look at
the returns data for proof).

If you're partnered with a middle-of-the-road VC, the reality is that not all
their children (portfolio companies) are equal in their own eyes. Investors
are generally aiming for "return the fund exits" and of their own admission,
of 10 investments, it might be 1 company that does this.

Given they are in it for a financial return and they have limited time to
allocate to companies, they will as self-interest dictates spend more time
with the winners in their portfolio vs. duds.

Your celebrity analogy is a good one except it breaks down because investors
have to be promiscuous. You are not the only special snowflake in their world
that they'll take to parties and if anything, they're going to want to show up
at the party with their "trophy portfolio company" -- not some broken or even
doing ok company.

There is immense survivorship bias in the ecosystem. Those doing well get even
more attention while the others shrivel up and go away. The thing is those
companies that die get little attention as founders and investors generally
don't want to advertise failures.

~~~
larrys
By "right group of people" I'm referring to the people you work with, the
parties you attend, and the people you meet - of which the investors are only
one part.

People namedrop in this industry similar to what they do in the entertainment
industry. Not everyone is clued in as far as how unimportant or ubiquitous
that namedropping is. There is a halo that is created. And guess what if you
get funded even by a firm that people in the know think is "b" list, local
investors in your city or even non-clued in potential employees will still
think it's a big deal. Many people are impressed when someone is a Physician.
They don't always think between the degrees of impressiveness the "MD" degree
gives you a certain cache.

~~~
asanwal
This strikes me as a strategy to build an impressive sounding company vs.
actually building an impressive company.

Namedropping, attending parties, hiring non-clued employees, etc all seem like
very non-core activities that people trying to build real businesses would not
engage in a whole lot (if at all). Those sound like activities that the
increasing class of "wantrapreneurial" folks engage in.

If by namedropping you mean talking about actual customers you have then I
definitely agree.

~~~
larrys
"Namedropping, attending parties, hiring non-clued employees, etc all seem
like very non-core activities that people trying to build real businesses
would not engage in a whole lot (if at all). "

Disagree. Who you know is important. It's not all about building a better
mousetrap and having the world come to your door. Business is done many ways.
People choose different ways to get to the same place.

Also, specifically regarding this: "hiring non-clued employees". There are
many capable people out there who don't necessarily know the "lay of the land"
but are quite capable. The fact that someone is impressed with something that
they shouldn't be impressed with is no reflection on their value in an area of
their expertise which you might hire them for.

------
thejerz
The title says to "continue working on your bad idea" but the article is
really about pivoting. Pivoting is not the same as continuing to work on your
bad idea. Pivoting is about YOU continuing to work, and leaving the bad parts
of your bad idea by the side of the road and moving forward.

Obviously, if an idea is bad, continuing to work on it is stupid. For example:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOOw2yWMSfk>

But if you can take some good parts of your bad idea and move forward, that is
smart. And that's not news; that's a concept from lean startup, and Eric Ries
didn't invent it. It goes back to the Romans.

IMHO, the title is misleading and the article is trite.

~~~
larrys
"Eric Ries didn't invent it. It goes back to the Romans"

While you are correct that Eric didn't _invent_ the concept, perhaps you could
supply some links or further reference to how it ties into the Romans.

~~~
rhizome
probably as perseverance.

------
mindcrime
Well said. This reminds me a bit of what pg had to say at:

<http://www.paulgraham.com/die.html>

 _If you can just avoid dying, you get rich. That sounds like a joke, but it's
actually a pretty good description of what happens in a typical startup. It
certainly describes what happened in Viaweb. We avoided dying till we got
rich._

------
edw519
Nice post, OP. Reminded me of this:

    
    
      Good umpire: I call 'em as I see 'em.
      Better umpire: I call 'em as they are.
      Best umpire: They aren't anything until I call 'em.
    

Similarly:

    
    
      Good founder: I think it was a bad idea.
      Better founder: I know it was a bad idea.
      Best founder: It doesn't become a bad idea until I stop working on it.

~~~
johnrob
The last line is great. Another way it often plays out:

Person (1) has idea, (2) pitches investors (who pass), and (3) abandons idea.

Step 3 is not merely evidence of the investors being right, it's the _reason_
they are right.

------
pcrh
As someone currently wading through the valley of death (not a software
startup)... Currently "ramen profitable", the "breakthrough _might_ occur in
two months...etc, etc

It's difficult... but this blog post doesn't help except say "carry on".

~~~
JonLim
Perhaps I am just an optimist, but wouldn't it be a good time to evaluate
everything happening with your business, look for opportunities to succeed,
and give 'em a try?

I mean the worst that can happen is it doesn't work.

------
bpatrianakos
This was just what I needed and one more reason I love Joel's posts. Over the
summer I stopped working on an idea that would've been pretty cool and is much
better than the one I'm forcing myself to continue with. It's funny because
I've got one of those ideas that I don't think is bad but there only _moments_
when I think it's bad (<https://writeapp.me> if you're curious).

It's tough to continue sometimes when you want the rewards now and all you see
are high bounce rates and a handful of signups that come in short bursts. It's
motivating when you get those bursts but when they're few and far between on
an unfinished project it's hard to keep going. I've found that working on
something that meets your own needs is one way to avoid the problem of not
finishing. In my mind, even if the world hates what I've created, at least I
have a new tool that I've always wanted to use. So instead of creating a win-
lose situation where you only win if people like and use your product you have
a win-win where you win if no one likes it because you use it yourself and you
win if it takes off for obvious reasons. But even so, even with a project like
that, there are times when you feel like giving up. Its the not the definitive
cure but building something you want that others may too is definitely one way
to lessen the chances of giving in to the temptation to give up.

------
wturner
This was a good blog post. I started wikiaudio believing the hype around "do
something" and make a business out of it later. This assumption has turned out
to be a complete crock of shit in my case. If you want to build a business
online I would suggest you do your best to make sure "business" is integral to
it's dna before you get started, and try and validate as ruthlessly as
possible. I still enjoy the site and feel a sense of accomplishment, but I
have no desire to continue writing hundreds of tutorials (and spend literally
hundreds if not thousands of hours in development), just to have it all fall
on def ears with no income from any of it. From a "founder" of a failed online
project I really enjoyed your blog post. I do think after a certain point is
reached you have to accept defeat and look at the project as a means to
another end (personal education, portfolio piece , etc)

------
jonaphin
I guess the nuance he brings is that working on your bad idea hard enough can
lead you to "pivot" towards a better idea.

The other implied argument is that focusing your efforts on ONE project is
often the key to success.

How many of us are project A.D.D.? ...as I love to call it

------
electic
Agreed. However, you should also be aware of the marketplace and also know
when to quit.

------
larrys
In general I agree with the argument to continue to work on "an idea" (as
opposed to a "bad idea") because specifically it keeps you in the game,
active, meeting people, thinking, learning and practicing and targeted. [1]

The only issue I have is the thought of working on a "bad" idea (if that can
even be defined) since time is a precious commodity. The time you spend
occupied with your bad idea is time preventing you from doing the same with
_possibly_ a greater chance of succeeding with a _better_ idea.

Let's take as an example of this thinking, dating.

I've always said that it's much better to go out of your home on a Saturday
night, even alone, even to an unlikely place, because you have a greater
chance of meeting someone than if you are sitting in your house. A potential
date is not going to knock on your door or fall through the roof.

But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to maximize where you are to meet
someone. A Barnes and Noble might be better for some people than a bar or vice
versa depending on the person.

So at a certain point you need to make a decision as far as how you are
spending your time to give you the best chance of gaining from the experience
of the experience.

[1] Focus also gives you fun and enjoyment which puts you in a better state of
mind to have success. Although I don't do it anymore I used to love to spend
hours at the B&N looking for the perfect programming book to help with a
particular thing that I wanted to learn. I really liked and looked forward to
doing that and it had all sorts of positive effects prior to, before, and
after the actual browsing.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Even though it may not amount to anything, working on a bad idea can still be
useful. You might learn a new programming language or API. You might face some
technical challenges which you face again on a future 'good idea' and can work
through more quickly the second time. If you realize your idea is bad and you
have a better one waiting, move to the better one. But if you know it's a bad
idea and don't have anything to move on to there may be advantages to
continuing.

~~~
larrys
More or less part of the point I was making. However using once again the
example of a relationship, the equivalent would be staying in a relationship
that is going nowhere (which doesn't even mean it's "bad" just that you know
it won't end up where you want it to be for some reason..). As a result you
are "tied up" and less able to iterate and take chances with meeting someone
who might be the right person. In other words you have to be free and
available in order to explore dating a new person and I simply feel that while
there is a point to staying on your "bad" idea in order to learn and apply the
knowledge elsewhere, time is not unlimited and being able to work on even
finding or testing a potential new idea is priceless.

When the internet came along I was involved in a manufacturing startup which I
put about a year worth of time and energy into (buying equipment, travel to
shows etc.) After the operation was all setup I got the idea to put in a T-1
line and try the new "internet" thing. In a short time (a few months) it
became apparent that the new idea was much better than the old idea which
would have taken much much more time. I sold off everything and focused solely
on the new idea rather than split my time between two ideas. (And back in
early 1996 btw it wasn't crystal clear that the internet was going to be what
it is today so it was taking somewhat of a gamble since the other idea was
proven and the market was mature..)

