

Startup founders vs entrepreneurs - glitch273
http://swombat.com/2013/6/4/startup-founders-vs-entrepreneurs

======
bmac27
"My personal opinion is that if you're starting off from a position of
weakness (i.e. you're poor and not famous), and especially if you're not in a
startup hub like Silicon Valley, it makes a lot more sense to go down the
entrepreneurial route than to go via the startup route."

I think this is particularly good advice if you're not a developer or aren't
able to make the time available to really dig into learning how to code. Odds
are you aren't Steve Jobs and won't be able to recruit the technical partner
you want to work with to build your uber brilliant idea for reasons
articulated here many times before.

There's nothing defeatist about building a viable, cash-generating business in
lieu of standing around waiting for the magical technical co-founder of your
dreams to fall into your lap. Plus, if you create something of value (be it
content or otherwise) in the field you're looking to get involved in, you're
much more likely to put yourself in a position to be able to recruit the kind
of person you want to work with anyway.

~~~
bennyg
I actually hate that quote. What's to stop a poor developer who's not in SV
from making an awesome, scalable tech startup?

    
    
      Startup founders are, quite simply, people who found startups. They register a business (maybe) and create something that might turn into a business at some point, or even do turn it into a business successfully.
    

What's stopping me from trying to change the world from Alabama? What's
stopping me from making some really cool stuff that I want to see across the
whole world, or at least this country, from the deep south? I can spin up a
Heroku instance in 5 minutes, and get an app going in under a day. Another day
to make a MVP iOS app (then a week to the App Store), and effectively I have
infinite reach. There's a very serious, debilitating mindset a lot of people
have on this board about necessary VC funding, and a necessary Silicon Valley
geographic base. None of those things are true anymore. And likely, weren't
necessarily true in the past. It's grotesque that people think funding is what
you should strive for. It's horrifying that people are motivated by a
TechCrunch article and an exit. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but that's not
WHY I'm an entrepreneur. An exit isn't even a motivation of mine. I want a lot
of people to use my creations, and to love them. If I can get paid well to
achieve that goal - that would be great. If I can get other people paid well
for helping me achieve that goal (ie hiring a team), then that's even better.

Sorry for the rant, but I think that quote is entirely off-base and absolutely
repulsive.

~~~
swombat
I think you may want to re-read the article and the quote, and the comment
you're responding to, and get a bit of context. You sound like a knee-jerk
reaction that's actually agreeing with half the article, but in a really
needlessly aggressive way.

Nothing's stopping you. But you'll find certain paths easier than others,
depending on what you want. That's what the article is about.

Reading my article, you might notice that I'm arguing, precisely, that you
don't need VC funding or SV or any of those things to start a successful
business.

That said, if you approach it with the "build it up and worry about the money
later" that is often present in typical startups, you will probably (not
certainly) fail hard.

As for the comment you're replying to, he's also stating the point that in
some parts of the world (most parts), you're better off getting on with
starting a business that works anywhere, rather than waiting for the "magical
tech cofounder" who's going to start a tech startup with you and take it to
infinity and beyond. You might notice he's addressing that specifically to
people who can't "spin up a Heroku instance in 5 minutes".

------
kn0thing
The author's point about "entrepreneurs" not being exclusive to the world of
startups is exactly what I hope to show with my book this fall. It's a
dangerous mindset because in this internet age, we need _more_ people to be
thinking about themselves as entrepreneurs.

~~~
bornhuetter
I am reading a good book by Daniel Pink called "To Sell Is Human" at the
moment, which makes the point that many people who do not think they are
working in "sales" actually are. It sounds trite, but he does go into a lot of
useful detail and advice from there - and this ties into your point. I look
forward to your book.

~~~
kn0thing
Thanks! Kindle'd!

------
simonbarker87
Excellent point that I try to make to people who come to me with ideas. They
all believe that they can raise money for an app and then sell it before they
ever need to test their business model. There is nothing wrong with starting
small, taking it slowly and growing a business on profit reinvestment.

Having said that, we've taken VC as we had no choice. So, when you want to
start a capital intensive business then taking money is often the only option
- just make sure your business model is solid.

------
saddino
As someone who has been both, I don't think the distinction is that important.
Either route carries enormous pressures and the associated stress that comes
along for the ride. Plenty of lifestyle businesses have taken the same toll on
their founders' marriages, families, net worth and more. In fact, probably
more entrepreneurs have offed themselves due to business failures than startup
founders.

The actual question for would be business owners is: does the intensity of
your passion drive you towards accepting this risk? If you are unsure, then
either title is probably the wrong one for you.

~~~
swombat
_In fact, probably more entrepreneurs have offed themselves due to business
failures than startup founders._

Certainly, since historically entrepreneurs have outnumbered startup founders
by a very wide margin and for a very long period.

I disagree that the entrepreneurial route carries that much risk. Importantly,
as an entrepreneur you're largely in control of the risk. You can manage it,
minimise it, explore it, etc. You can take (large amounts of) money out of the
business any time you want if it's making that money. You don't have to wait
on a binary exit event years down the line, that may be foiled because another
similar startup got even further than you and took the market away. Hundreds
of thousands of businesses make plenty of money for their owners without ever
getting near an IPO or acquisition.

I've done both too - I much prefer the entrepreneur route. As I argue in the
article, I also believe that it's more transferrable. Entrepreneurs are always
in need, everywhere in the world. Startup founders, nowhere near as much.

------
mindcrime
_You can be an entrepreneur today and a startup founder tomorrow, or both at
the same time, or just a startup founder._

I don't exactly agree with this distinction between "startup founder" and
"entrepreneur". What I mean is, I think "startup founders" are a subset of
"entrepreneurs". So while you can clearly be an entrepreneur without being a
startup founder, I don't see how you can be a startup founder and not be an
entrepreneur.

That said, I think I agree with the overall point that I think swombat was
making, regarding the different "paths" a business can take: take VC money,
plan on being scalable, go for the moonshot, etc., versus looking for
profitability early on, and choosing organic growth, and a slow, steady
progression.

That bit is definitely an important distinction, and founders (of all ilks)
should think about it. But I don't quite think it maps to "entrepreneur"
versus "startup founder" from a terminology point of view. But that's just me
and my biases.

It also strikes me that you aren't committed to one "path" forever. A company
could, theoretically, start with the "slow and steady" approach, self-fund /
bootstrap, grow slowly _while seeking product /market fit, business model
validation, etc_. and then, once the foundation is laid, go out and look to
raise VC money or private equity money to accelerate growth to the "big time".

~~~
swombat
Having observed quite a lot of startup founders at incubators, networking
events, and of course online, I think there definitely are "startup founders"
who are not entrepreneurs. They are looking for a job that happens to be CEO
of their own startup, rather than to create a business that meets a need and
makes some money.

Totally agree with your other points though - you can shift from one path to
the other, and back, both as a person and as a business. As a person, I myself
was certainly a "startup founder" on my first two startups, as I considered
myself a startup founder and entrepreneurial but I actually had zero clue
about how to create a business.

It's only when I started GrantTree, and I took on the role of creating all the
pieces of the business around my cofounder's sales abilities, that I learned
to be an entrepreneur. Before that, I had a job whose title was "cofounder".
My thesis is that's the case for many "startup founders".

PS: We can of course disagree on this, and that doesn't make your or my
opinion any less, but just thought I'd restate in case I was unclear.

~~~
mindcrime
_PS: We can of course disagree on this, and that doesn't make your or my
opinion any less, but just thought I'd restate in case I was unclear._

Sure, I don't even think we disagree about much. I'm really just quibbling
about terminology, and - as you mentioned - people are constantly arguing
about the exact definition of terms like "entrepreneur" and "startup" etc.

I will just add that I haven't met a lot of the kind of people you talk about
here:

 _I think there definitely are "startup founders" who are not entrepreneurs.
They are looking for a job that happens to be CEO of their own startup, rather
than to create a business that meets a need and makes some money._

which may come down to geography, or maybe I do meet those people but they
don't register because I mentally filter them out very quickly, or whatever.
But now that you word it that way, I can see how you could reasonably talk
about a "startup founder" who isn't _really_ an entrepreneur.

 _As a person, I myself was certainly a "startup founder" on my first two
startups, as I considered myself a startup founder and entrepreneurial but I
actually had zero clue about how to create a business._

I know the feeling. Before I read _The Art of the Start_ and _The Four Steps
to the Epiphany_ I had only the very, very vaguest of notions of exactly how
to go from "I have an idea" to "I have a business". Luckily, between those
books, and a lot of great articles linked here at HN (and very pointedly, a
lot of yours, swombat!) I think I now have a reasonable idea of what it takes
to turn the idea into a business. Now, we might still fail for any number of
reasons, but at least we're not just stumbling around in the dark.

And, for what it's worth, we are currently going with the bootstrapped, "try
to be profitable as as early as possible" model. These days, I try to frame
most of my decision making in terms of "What is the most important thing I can
do right now, in terms of getting to revenue"? (And no, posting here isn't
contributing much to that goal, but everybody needs an outlet of some sort now
and then, besides work!)

------
sauliuz
One of the main reasons there are many startup founders who dont really care
about being entrepreneurs (making money or closing value/profit loop as Daniel
says) is a great desire by VC community to profit on the tech startup boom.
Look at the majority of new startup accelerators out there and the message
they are transmiting.. The fact is that all these groups are funded by clever
investor money to play the numbers game. Simple as that. And in this numbers
game majority of scalable startup founders are being left hanging in the air.
This creates virtual reality of some sort.. Check out this interview with
Steve Blank, he wraps it up nicely
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYCE3980kPA>

~~~
swombat
Absolutely. I respect the VCs and angels for playing this game successfully,
and startup founders really _should_ know better than to play this without any
idea of the alternatives. My issue is that many founders think this is the
only way to do business.

------
onion2k
Daniel defines "entrepreneur" as something that doesn't include startup
founders, and then argues why startup founders aren't entrepreneurs. Err..
duh?

That's great, if, and it's a very big if, you agree with the initial and very
limited definition of "entrepreneur". The fact is "entrepreneur" doesn't mean
"someone who sets out to start a business in order to make money", which is
Daniel's definition. An entrepreneur is someone who starts a business. It's
that simple. Startup founders _are_ entrepreneurs. They are often aiming very
high, sometimes a bit naive, and occasionally downright delusional, but they
definitely fit the entrepreneur mould. To suggest otherwise is wrong.

~~~
swombat
I use that definition because I'm trying to make a point. Clearly, I _am_
trying to appropriate the word "entrepreneur" to mean something more specific
than "anyone who starts a business". That is a pretty useless definition for
my purposes.

------
forgingahead
Great article which really needs to be "stickied" at the top of places like HN
and Techcrunch and the like. Semantics aside, the general point about there
being business success and life outside the Silicon-Valley-raise-VC bubble is
so important, and one that so many new and promising potential business-people
completely miss.

------
beatpanda
See also: <http://37signals.com/speaks#startupschool>

~~~
swombat
Excellent talk, definitely worth watching, and related to this article's
topic.

