
Ideas aren't worthless - stefanobernardi
http://bernardi.me/2012/10/ideas-arent-worthless/
======
j45
We sit in the YC house. We full well know that we rarely end up with the idea
we start out with. This makes the idea itself, worthless, and starting to
validate any idea much more important and valuable.

Ideas are relatively worthless because there's so many out there that are
reasonably possible. "Software is eating the world".

Ideas are also relatively worthless because any idea person is paralyzed by at
least 47 of their own before someone shows up asking to sign an NDA for the
48th. Ask any technically capable business minded person.

Ideas are also worthless compared to execution on them.

Ideas are also worthless without the implementation expertise and marketing
expertise to get it real, and the money that it might take, whether its
funding or bootstrapped.

If the idea doesn't come with an owner who can code or market, they better be
bringing their own money or some way to pay for the time of others. I have
plenty of my own reasonably validated ideas and niches dying for attention
that I could rather lose time and my own money on.

The "idea" guys in my life know now an idea is worthless without the real legs
that will prop it up, the skills to build, the skills to build the right
thing, and the skills to find and reach your audience. Giving an idea more
value than traction with a paying audience is confusing activity with results
in many ways.

Ideas might be more valuable to someone who doesn't have any other value to
add in getting from activity to a measurable result.

Got an idea that still stands that test? It's much more worth talking about :)

~~~
dasil003
One thing to consider is the negative value of executing on a bad idea. This
increases the abstract value of good ideas because the bad ideas actively sap
execution potential.

~~~
rhizome
That's total sunk-cost fallacy. You can only work on what you think makes
sense at the time. Don't borrow trouble, or even borrow hindsight-bias.

~~~
dasil003
Huh? I'm talking in the abstract. Yes, people work on what they think makes
sense, but they don't _know_ what makes sense. Therefore an "idea guy" who
tends to have good ideas has a value that may never be achieved by an engineer
who can execute phenomenally well but tends to have bad ideas. Just because
you can't quantify it doesn't mean it's not there.

~~~
rhizome
Yes, people do know what makes sense to work on. That's why they choose to
work on it, whatever it is at whatever time. They can change if they want, or
if it doesn't make sense to do that thing anymore. What quantification is
available? Do you mean "articulable?"

~~~
dasil003
You're talking past my original point and quibbling over semantics.

------
lhnz
Of course ideas aren't worthless.

The reason this meme became popular here is that the audience to Hacker News
is predominately developers, and many are sick of people that don't value the
ability to execute and try to negotiate as if the developer would be lucky to
join them.

Business = Marketing + Advertising + Sales + Idea + Implementation + Finance

Even this is too simple though. However, my point is that business isn't just
about "execution" of an idea into a product...

The most important thing is working in skilled, multi-discipline teams where
people will support each others weak areas.

~~~
theoj
>> many are sick of people that don't value the ability to execute

>> business isn't just about "execution" of an idea into a product

The ability to execute is not limited to engineering. It's also applicable to
the business side (ability to successfully secure funding, find product market
fit, create a marketing and pricing strategy that works, etc).

The other thing is that you cannot neatly separate ideas and execution. As you
break a high level problem into its components, there are ideas at every lower
level that will allow you to succeed. A high level idea cannot succeed without
the supporting lower level ideas (strategies and tactics) in a variety of
disciplines (marketing, product, engineering, etc). If we take Facebook as an
example: many people at several universities had the broad idea, but only one
set of people also had the lower level strategies and tactics to turn that
idea into a multi-billion dollar company.

My take on this: good high level ideas _are_ worthless without the appropriate
low level supporting ideas.

~~~
001sky
_you cannot neatly separate ideas and execution._

This. ^^^ Its all about the performance envelope. And who actually knows it.

Ideas are both general "ideas" (a product, or about a theory, or strategy) as
well as "ideas" are about problem solving (practical, tactical, etc). A top
"technical" guy in any field will be an idea guy, strictly because he is a
problem solver that can abstract his experience back into higher-level
principles.

Example: Programming requires creative problem solving. Likewise, you'd be
amazed at how much "creativity" happens in accounting, tax, and legal
professions. ALthough much of this is of the practical variety ("artisanal")
rather than of the blue sky ("arty").

LIkewise, a top "Idea" guy in any field with have both levels of abstraction
covered. I think somebody once made the remark that if you dream it but can't
ship it, its more like a hallucination than an actual idea. So maybe the bad
ones are not the "idea guys" but "the hallucinators". And in that case, yes,
their value is certainly questionable. =D

------
pbiggar
I find this to be very wrong on many levels. I understand the OP worked in VC,
so he comes from a place of knowledge, but let me deconstruct the argument
slightly.

\- "The idea is the core of a company and what defines it entirely"

But ideas change. An early stage company might work on a completely different
idea next week, or a company that has not found product/market fit might
pivot. Will the company have changed? It will still have the same founding
team, still have the same employees, and the same tech. I don't think there is
any evidence (none was provided) for how an idea "defines a company entirely".

\- "That’s where an investor’s evaluation will start and end"

Bullshit. I know you are (were?) an investor, but it would be wrong to say
that your method of evaluation is the way all people evaluate. Could a team of
idiots with a great idea get funding? To give a pathelogic case, could a team
with an amazing idea to change social networking, made up of unproven non-
coders in a distributed team spread across the Eastern Europe, get funding?
No.

\- "Idea = “market + problem + opportunity”"

Well, if you redefine the term, its quite easy to say it has value. But even
this disregards the value of the team.

\- "If an investor turns you down, they probably think that, in order of
probability: your idea is bad"

Again, different investors are different. There are plenty who look at the
team first.

\- "BUT, extraordinary teams executing extremely well on any idea doesn’t
guarantee success."

Any team worth anything will pivot away from a bad idea.

But the biggest criticism I think I have is that the reason "ideas are
worthless", is because you can't think up a good market, opportunity, and
customer base. You start with the kernel of an idea, and refine it through
continuous customer development, until you have a product which may differ
substantially from the initial idea.

~~~
stefanobernardi
Thanks Paul.

Quick comments: \- "Ideas change".

I agree but, as I say in the post, this is true only at very early stages, and
the best companies tend not to pivot. But this is a personal opinion.

\- "Could a team of idiots with a great idea get funding? To give a pathelogic
case, could a team with an amazing idea to change social networking, made up
of unproven non-coders in a distributed team spread across the Eastern Europe,
get funding? No."

I say this on the post, so I don't see what the comment is about. I say that
after the idea, the investors look at the team and decide if they are the ones
that can execute on it.

\- "Again, different investors are different. There are plenty who look at the
team first."

This might be true, what I'm saying in my post is that unconsciously I think
that the idea you present yourself with will definitely change their opinion
about the team. It's a hypothesis that comes with my observation of the
funding market. I could be totally off.

\- "Any team worth anything will pivot away from a bad idea."

See my last point about pivots. I agree with this, but again, this needs to
happen at the earliest stages possible.

Thanks for your comments btw!

~~~
jacalata
_I say that after the idea, the investors look at the team_

However you start out by saying '[the idea is] where an investor’s evaluation
will start and end.' Setting your article up with a hyperbolic position and
then gradually backing away with exceptions is a link-bait type article style
which makes you look more concerned with attention than reasonable discussion.

------
ISeemToBeAVerb
I think the notion of ideas being worthless is, essentially, an overreaction
to the trend of ideas being grossly overvalued at the expense of more
practical considerations.

In my mind, this belief is best illustrated in the rapid rise of startups who
have an interesting idea, but very little market validation or plans for
monetization.

As with most complex topics, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Ideas are
not worthless, but they're certainly not worth much. To be valuable (in a
business sense) an idea must also be coupled with a strong need or desire
derived from knowledge of the market. Add to that a strong plan for execution
and you've got something of value.

I'm certainly not suggesting that these elements are always known from the
beginning, but for an idea to grow in value, I think these factors need to be
taken into consideration.

~~~
relic
I would think that the idea arises as a result of the need/desire and not the
other way around. I couldn't agree more with the idea that value is the result
of many factors including the idea, the plan, the team, the environment.
Claiming that value is a result of X makes for an interesting
claim/discussion, but in my experience, is hardly ever true. Value is the
result of many, many different factors, including all those that you listed
(need/desire, knowledge of the market, a plan for execution, resources,
timing, etc). Nothing is as simple as we try to make it.

------
staunch
They are worthless, you can't sell them. They are not useless, you can use
them.

~~~
davidw
Just because you cant sell something does not mean that it has no value.

------
methodover
My day job is web app development, but for the past year or so I've dedicated
much of my spare time to making games. Or, more accurately, I've been _trying_
to make games. So far I've just published only one, a mobile game that was not
successful and, I have to admit in hindsight, really wasn't very good.

When it comes to game development in particular, I've heard it over and over
again that 'ideas are worthless.' But it's become obvious to me that the exact
opposite is true: ideas are _everything._ What I've been struggling to do in
this past year is idea-forging, basically. I've been desperately clawing my
way towards an elegant game idea which is both (1) fun/unique/interesting and
(2) small enough in scope that I can create it in my spare time. At many
points I've thought I've had such an idea, only to realize that the idea
wasn't that great or the scope was much larger than I anticipated after some
prototyping.

I completely agree with the article when it comes to how difficult it is to
evaluate ideas before they've been implemented: Good ideas probably don't
often initially look like good ideas. And bad ideas often look incredibly
enticing. And I'm pretty sure that truly new ideas almost always look like bad
ideas until you've actually seen them in action. (I guess this is part of why
we see so many sequels and remakes from established game companies these days.
New game ideas are risky, hard to evaluate, and probably expensive to
prototype.)

------
blindhippo
Ok Ideas aren't "worthless".

However, ideas are worth less then execution. Execution includes the
investigation into the market and the gaining of knowledge of the technologies
and refactoring of potential solutions to the underlying pain.

Given this - the "idea" guy should never, ever, be compensated more then those
who execute.

And ideally, everyone should be in the executing group. There shouldn't ever
be an "idea" person.

~~~
theoj
>> And ideally, everyone should be in the executing group. There shouldn't
ever be an "idea" person.

Agree 100%. Instead of an "idea" person, opt for a "business" person. A
"business" person can do the idea person's job and several more. That means he
can bring much more value to the table in a startup.

------
baddox
Of course not. Words aren't worthless either. Neither are numbers. But if the
only thing you have is a word or a number, you don't really have much, and
it's the same way with ideas.

------
therandomguy
Well... if you define it as “market + problem + opportunity”. Even then you
don't have everything covered. If you are going to go that route you might as
well broaden the definition.

Ideas = "market + problem + opportunity + solution + financials + Porter's 5
forces analysis + implementation plan + team"

I think it is called a Business Plan.

------
djloche
I submitted this recently but this is probably a good place to link to it too:
<http://1014.org/?article=468>

Justin Frankel (Winamp, Gnutella, etc) writes that "Ideas are worth a lot to
society, but not much to individuals. Execution is the opposite."

------
donebizkit
I don't agree that the industry is saying that ideas are worthless. Let's not
forget that the "no idea" entry in the last batch of YC funding was
experimental, which I am curious to find out what came out of it and what were
the results. Also, I think the reason the regular batch of YC funding puts so
much emphasis on teams is because it's a good guarantee that the idea will be
executed one way or the other. YC gets a lot of entries from people that, at
the end of the day, they don't really know or they don't have a history
working with them. Dealing with a team of strangers is definitely safer that
dealing with a single person.

------
gavanwoolery
Worth of product = (quality of idea) * (quality of execution).

An idea, on its own, is worth nothing (good idea * no execution = nothing).

HOWEVER...

Kickstarter (and other similar companies) are changing this notion a bit. Many
companies have raised significant capital off of ideas alone, although
producing a convincing video takes no small effort and the well-funded
campaigns are usually run by people who have done their fair share of
execution in the past. Capital does not equal profit necessarily, but it can
if an excess of capital is raised.

------
Jare
Ideas are the result of a process: brilliance / talent / skill leads to
understanding and insight, which identifies valuable needs and lacks, which
then get synthesized into an idea.

The idea is the final product of that process, that's why it's normally
dismissed as worthless. An idea by itself is like the combination to a lock
for a case you don't have, which is in a place you don't know.

------
BerislavLopac
"Bad ideas are cheap. Good ideas are extremely rare and executing them is
incredibly hard."

And the only way to tell them apart is to execute them.

------
chipsy
Not ideas. Belief. There are tons of good ideas that you dismiss. There are
tons of shitty ideas that you act upon. The difference is that one will call
out to you and say "Make me happen" when the others don't, regardless of how
many rational arguments exist for picking one or the other.

Develop healthy beliefs so that you can believe in healthy ideas.

------
yamalight
> Idea = “market + problem + opportunity” that's quite far from idea, that's
> almost business plan

~~~
stefanobernardi
Thanks yamalight. I just think that when people refer to "idea" they refer to
much more than that, and should.

Imho business plan is way more than that and includes hiring plans, product
timeline, marketing strategies etc.

While idea doesn't just come from "hey wouldn't it be cool if.." but usually
entails a much deeper thought process about a market and an opportunity. Or at
least it should.

~~~
pbiggar
You've redefined the meaning of "idea". Would it be safe to say that an "idea"
- in its traditional meaning, as understood by everyone else - is worthless?

~~~
stefanobernardi
The point is that often the solution idea is derived from the market +
opportunity.

So I'd say that every idea who didn't come from that understanding and
observation is worthless, the ones that are conscious reasonings based on a
lot of factors are not.

Deal? :)

~~~
pbiggar
I think you're saying that ideas are worthless, but ideas can become valuable
when combined with good execution (involving market and opportunity, etc)?

------
Apreche
If you think ideas are worth something, I have a huge pile of them I will
gladly sell you.

~~~
timwiseman
Same. I have many ideas for interesting products. These ideas are not of value
in themselves and I'll happily hand most of them off for the asking (I would
in fact back in kickstarter if anyone seems able to execute.)

Now, an idea + something else can be of value, but then it is beyond a mere
idea. An idea which has been validated by market research to show its
marketable and at least enough technical research to give a rough idea of
development costs and production costs can be valuable, but then you have
added a lot to it.

Even just an idea + a detailed plan for researching and then developping the
idea can be valuable, but again that has at least added something.

I won't quite go so far as to say that a bare idea is worthless (absolutes
often make me hesitate), but without something more it is worth very little.

------
arbuge
Good article. The Valley preconception that great execution on a bad idea will
fix things always rang a bit hollow to me. Seems to me to be the most common
cause of failure - people build great stuff for problems which don't exist.

~~~
swombat
I think the idea (hah) there is not that great execution fixes a bad idea, but
that a great team will discover that the idea sucks and move away from it
while executing. Great execution on a bad idea is not great execution.

~~~
arbuge
True but harder than it sounds in practice. People (1) fall in love with ideas
for long times and (2) are worried about being labelled (or seeing themselves)
as quitters.

------
jokull
The relationship between ideas and execution is not a sum of the parts, but
more like a multiplier.

Excellent idea (1.0) * Excellent execution (1.0) = Excellent result (1.0)

Mediocre idea (0.5) * Excellent execution (1.0) = Mediocre result (0.5)

~~~
27182818284
That's pretty Arbitrary. I prefer

Excellent idea (π) * Excellent execution (2.0) = Excellent result (2π)

------
nodrama
about NDA: I've worked with a friend on an idea. It was my idea. Because of
the way he worked I decided I don't want to continue on that project. He
continued anyway. The funny thing is that even though I told him all the
details of my idea and I helped him even after I stopped working, he didn't
build my idea. The result was similar with what was done before and so was not
enough to differentiate in the market. Essentially he did all the easy stuff
without understanding why it was so important to do the hard/new stuff.

------
dreamdu5t
Paul Graham is wrong. The focus should be on great teams executing good ideas.
Execution matters - but you need an idea to execute. Changing ideas doesn't
mean the ideas don't matter.

------
pherk
Ideas are indeed worthless today. But to believe that completely is stupidity.

Internet, as of today, is a gold rush. Anyone worth his programming skill can
work on an idea and get funded. But then, with the passing of time, all the
low hanging fruits will be gone. Once we reach that point, good ideas will
become scarce. Great ideas may not even emerge. VC funding will be gone too.
Perhaps, in a decade or so.

Internet based companies are extremely easy to replace today. A chilling fact
but true. Compare this with firms like Citibank, British Petroleum, etc. They
have been here for decades and will be here. The same cannot be said for
companies like Facebook and to a large extent Apple.

~~~
davidkatz
As long as new technology emerges, new opportunities will emerge with it.
There's also reason to believe that technological change is accelerating,
leading to ever more possible great ideas.

Your 'perhaps in a decade or so there will be no more great ideas' reminds me
of many failed predictions about the saturation of technology.

------
pubby
Ideas are seeds. Figure out that analogy on your own.

------
dinkman
Well written article, but I think this is the default viewpoint.

