
Just start an experiment, not a damn startup - ccarnino
http://blog.fanchimp.com/just-start-an-experiment-not-a-damn-startup/
======
tomgallard
For what its worth- my first steps when I come up with a 'killer' idea.

1.) Wait a week- if still excited about it go to 2.

2.) Discuss with my other half. As a non-techy she'll often have a very
different view on things which is invaluable.

3.) Find and purchase a domain, and put up a sign up page based on a cheap
theme.

4.) Buy some impressions from Adwords - this is enough to give me an idea of
if anyone is already looking for what I want to build, and if they are get me
some email addresses.

5.) Talk to prospects found in 4.)

6.) If still convinced its a good idea, I might start writing some code.

It is so easy to get going with writing code straight away, rather than
thinking about whether you have any customers and how you're can reach them.
The above approach has saved me many months of wasted effort, and found me a
number of lucrative niches!

~~~
ccarnino
I'm interested in the step 4. I am curious to understand what kind of budget
do you put in Advertising to get the first 50 leads to talk to.

Can you give me more details?

~~~
tomgallard
I don't think there's an exact answer I'm afraid, depends on the product, how
much its going to sell for, and how easy it is to find good keywords that
match your product (and which people are searching on!). But maybe £200-300.

What I will say- is that if a decent numberpeople are signing up with interest
in your product, on the basis of a single page of html, with no release-date,
screenshots or demos in sight, then its probably something they REALLY want!

------
jscottmiller
Cached:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://blog.fanchimp.com/just-
start-an-experiment-not-a-damn-startup/)

------
shazow
This is a matter of regional vocabulary, and the local cultural expectations
that go with it.

You ask any aspiring developer in Silicon Valley what they're working on and
it's always "oh yea, I have a startup I'm trying to get off the ground on
weekends."

In Toronto, there's a very vibrant startup community, but back there we call
them "side projects". Really same idea but the word "startup" means something
rather different than a few kids eating ramen. There are plenty of freelancers
who band together into a consultancy and have a couple of startuppy products
they're working on together. Effectively a bootstrapped team working towards a
unified vision, but they'll still be shy about calling it a startup.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with the investor and acquisition community.
As someone who moved down to Silicon Valley from Toronto, I was very
uncomfortable calling what I did a "startup" up until I was raising funding or
entertaining acquisition opportunities. It just sneaks up on you when it's an
option, and these options hardly exist in Toronto.

~~~
wickedchicken
> This is a matter of regional vocabulary, and the local cultural expectations
> that go with it.

This slow realization made me give up calling people out on calling themselves
hackers. It used to be that a hacker was someone who was particularly adept at
finding clever ways to misuse, change or exploit something.
<http://hacks.mit.edu/> and <http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html>
were the canonical references. Hacks were contrasted with engineering -- both
constructive creative output, but one involved detailed in-the-field knowledge
while the other was a more principled approach. 'Street smarts' vs 'book
smarts' if you will. Both were needed for a successful enterprise. Calling
oneself a hacker was equivalent to giving yourself a nickname -- socially
awkward and decreasing the likelihood the moniker would stick.

Now 'hacking' is synonymous with prototyping, or even more esoteric types of
development (what the hell is 'hacking education' supposed to mean?). This
isn't entirely untrue as quick prototypes often contain "awful, we shouldn't
be doing this" kinds of code. However, they _do_ tend to lack the righteous
"awful, we shouldn't be doing this but damn is that awesome" code tradition
calls for.

Like you said, definitions change and the only thing that matters is if your
idea is communicated; ultimately you have to go with the flow...

~~~
shazow
Very true, that's another example of the same phenomenon. In Toronto,
"entrepreneur" is often a dirty word among who actually get stuff done. It
usually refers to your typical MBA with no industry experience looking for a
code monkey to fulfill his vision.

I don't think "hacker" has yet been tarnished in Toronto the way it has been
here, though.

------
codesuela
I agree with this for the most part but I don't think incorporating is that
much of an issue. I can't speak for the US but in Germany it takes about 5
hours to form a company (UG similar to a LLC or Ltd.) and it costs about 100
or 200 EUR. With a company in place you have peace of mind for all the co-
founders and nobody has to worry about getting screwed over if everything is
notarized and on paper.

~~~
ccarnino
Exactly it depends on the country. In Italy it's a nightmare.

~~~
mrkmcknz
I agree, in the UK it's £15 and done in a few hours online!

------
mmaunder
Creating a company forces you to think about who owns what, who is and isn't
vesting and how they vest. It raises other conversations like who _does_ what
and what value each person contributes.

The post says: "Just if things are going well you’ll create the company and
build the structure of it."

This is the worst time to start the conversation about all the above.

I've been exposed to bitter disputes between company owners (not my company)
about equity ownership and you can't possibly imagine how nasty things can
really get.

These problems are not an issue when there is no pie yet, just the pan you
plan to bake the pie in. Who cares about dividing that up. But pretend your
business starts generating $100,000 per day in cash in the bank. Now ask
yourself "who owns what?".

You may think you know your co-founders and co-owners well, but most people
are unable to predict how they themselves will react in many situations, so
don't assume you can.

My apologies if this post comes off as negative. Creating a company and
watching it grow is one of the most exciting and rewarding things you can do,
and it's so much more fun when you have co-founders and investors to share
your success with. So to keep it fun, have the hard conversations when they're
easy to have.

~~~
ccarnino
I believe that a paper signed by everyone with the share percentage of each
one, it's enough to make clarity and then formalize when it's working.

------
wonderercat
> Set a deadline of 2-4 weeks to ship the first version of the product.

I blame this kind of mentality for much of the derivative rubbish the startup
ecosystem is polluted with. We don't need any more photo/video sharing, link
voting, or file sending apps.

I'm all for validating assumptions early, but some ideas (the ones that
matter) are much, much bigger than 4 weeks to an MVP.

Incidentally,

<http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html>

~~~
ccarnino
I believe that being a first time entrepreneur should not think of creating
something that it's too big. Because it makes you miss the warnings that you
should get.

I believe that if you want to create an Amazon (6+ years of under break-even)
should be done when you have more experience as entrepreneur.

I think that a first time entrepreneur should resolve a real concrete problem,
also not that big, but this way he will understand much more and he will have
some chance of succeeding.

This is the opinion maturated for my personal experience.

------
ccarnino
What do you think about? Am I right?

~~~
nirvana
You're very close. I agree with "Skip"[1] the rest.

However, don't bother with a team or co-founders. Just build an experiment
yourself. Then use that experiment to find a co-founder if you don't have one.

I think co-founders should be people you've known for a long time, a decade or
more (if you're 20 and haven't known anyone that long, then consider working
for awhile and building out a network until you have someone you know well and
trust and have known for 5 years.)

If you can't build the experiment yourself then you're not ready to lead a
company in the space of the experiment (managers should know how to do their
subordinats jobs).... so if you're an idea guy, figure out how to program. Do
your experiment ins super simple code or easy to use tools, a real engineer
can do it right later if the experiment succeeds.

And above all, don't build a company first. There is an unending list of
chores that are involved there. All the time you see advice like "get a
lawyer" and "get an accountant". You don't need an accountant when you have
nothing to account.

[1] You actually say "build a team and skill the rest", but I'm pretty sure
you mean "skip".

~~~
dangero
Exactly. My first few projects I bought domains and set up google apps for
those domains, paid to have logos done, etc. After 3 or 4 failed experiments
on different domains I realized how much time I was wasting setting up all
this stuff when I should have just started building first.

Although, a component of why I did that was because I had big dreams. I wanted
to "play startup" because I didn't actually have any clue how to build one.
The obvious thing that you see about every company is their public website and
their logo, so it makes sense to start mimicking that first.

The irony is that once you start to understand how to actually build a company
you often end up picking a name and incorporating as the LAST thing. In fact,
you try to avoid it for as long as you reasonably can because it makes you
lose your focus on just simply building an excellent product.

~~~
tomgallard
Funnily enough I am completely the opposite way round.

I always wanted to start writing the code first, but then started realising
that was a waste of time if there was no-one to sell it to.

So now I always start with trying to find customers, via a simple sign-up page
or similar, before I even think about writing code.

Not saying that either approach is right, but interesting that we've come at
it from opposite angles, and both ended up changing our opinions completely!

~~~
ccarnino
I come from this path too. I've usually found that writing code is too easy.
Confronting the potential customers is harder to do and I believe the hard
part of the business. IMHO

------
Killah911
What I don't understand from your article is what exactly you're asking one
not to do. I like all your recommendations, but I think incorporating and
getting some proper legal and financial guidance (i.e. tax implications) is
important too. But aren't you technically a "startup" at that point? Does a
StartUp need office space etc to be qualified as one?

------
kouohhashi
Great post! But actually, there are no ideas that are good enough to pass all
the tests. And every ideas need small innovations that we all should come up
with. And to come up with small innovations, we have to tacle the idea
seriously. So, I think most important thing is just doing it. But we should
not start it with others' money, if possible.

------
bestest
Gotta love the ycombinator effect.

~~~
ccarnino
Yes, the crash the server effect :D

~~~
sdfjkl
Step 42) When you go public with your product, make sure your infrastructure
can handle the load so you don't suffer a failed launch. Many users will not
give you a second chance.

~~~
Ecio78
Or maybe host your slashdottable blog on another site/server/service :D

------
sycr
How does this have 22 points when the link is down?

~~~
codesuela
it is down BECAUSE it has 22 upvotes

