the 18 mistakes that kill startups

In the Q & A period after a recent talk, someone asked what made startups fail. After standing there gaping for a few seconds I realized this was kind of a trick question. It's equivalent to asking how to make a startup succeed—if you avoid every cause of failure, you succeed—and that's too big a question to answer on the fly.

Afterwards I realized it could be helpful to look at the problem from this direction. If you have a list of all the things you shouldn't do, you can turn that into a recipe for succeeding just by negating. And this form of list may be more useful in practice. It's easier to catch yourself doing something you shouldn't than always to remember to do something you should. [1]

In a sense there's just one mistake that kills startups: not making something users want. If you make something users want, you'll probably be fine, whatever else you do or don't do. And if you don't make something users want, then you're dead, whatever else you do or don't do. So really this is a list of 18 things that cause startups not to make something users want. Nearly all failure funnels through that.

1. Single Founder

Have you ever noticed how few successful startups were founded by just one person? Even companies you think of as having one founder, like Oracle, usually turn out to have more. It seems unlikely this is a coincidence.

What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his friends are the ones who know him best.

But even if the founder's friends were all wrong and the company is a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. Starting a startup is too hard for one person. Even if you could do all the work yourself, you need colleagues to brainstorm with, to talk you out of stupid decisions, and to cheer you up when things go wrong.

The last one might be the most important. The low points in a startup are so low that few could bear them alone. When you have multiple founders, esprit de corps binds them together in a way that seems to violate conservation laws. Each thinks "I can't let my friends down." This is one of the most powerful forces in human nature, and it's missing when there's just one founder.

2. Bad Location

Startups prosper in some places and not others. Silicon Valley dominates, then Boston, then Seattle, Austin, Denver, and New York. After that there's not much. Even in New York the number of startups per capita is probably a 20th of what it is in Silicon Valley. In towns like Houston and Chicago and Detroit it's too small to measure.

Why is the falloff so sharp? Probably for the same reason it is in other industries. What's the sixth largest fashion center in the US? The sixth largest center for oil, or finance, or publishing? Whatever they are they're probably so far from the top that it would be misleading even to call them centers.

It's an interesting question why cities become startup hubs, but the reason startups prosper in them is probably the same as it is for any industry: that's where the experts are. Standards are higher; people are more sympathetic to what you're doing; the kind of people you want to hire want to live there; supporting industries are there; the people you run into in chance meetings are in the same business. Who knows exactly how these factors combine to boost startups in Silicon Valley and squish them in Detroit, but it's clear they do from the number of startups per capita in each.

3. Marginal Niche

Most of the groups that apply to Y Combinator suffer from a common problem: choosing a small, obscure niche in the hope of avoiding competition.

If you watch little kids playing sports, you notice that below a certain age they're afraid of the ball. When the ball comes near them their instinct is to avoid it. I didn't make a lot of catches as an eight year old outfielder, because whenever a fly ball came my way, I used to close my eyes and hold my glove up more for protection than in the hope of catching it.

Choosing a marginal project is the startup equivalent of my eight year old strategy for dealing with fly balls. If you make anything good, you're going to have competitors, so you may as well face that. You can only avoid competition by avoiding good ideas.

I think this shrinking from big problems is mostly unconscious. It's not that people think of grand ideas but decide to pursue smaller ones because they seem safer. Your unconscious won't even let you think of grand ideas. So the solution may be to think about ideas without involving yourself. What would be a great idea for someone else to do as a startup?

4. Derivative Idea

Many of the applications we get are imitations of some existing company. That's one source of ideas, but not the best. If you look at the origins of successful startups, few were started in imitation of some other startup. Where did they get their ideas? Usually from some specific, unsolved problem the founders identified.

Our startup made software for making online stores. When we started it, there wasn't any; the few sites you could order from were hand-made at great expense by web consultants. We knew that if online shopping ever took off, these sites would have to be generated by software, so we wrote some. Pretty straightforward.

It seems like the best problems to solve are ones that affect you personally. Apple happened because Steve Wozniak wanted a computer, Google because Larry and Sergey couldn't find stuff online, Hotmail because Sabeer Bhatia and Jack Smith couldn't exchange email at work.

So instead of copying the Facebook, with some variation that the Facebook rightly ignored, look for ideas from the other direction. Instead of starting from companies and working back to the problems they solved, look for problems and imagine the company that might solve them. [2] What do people complain about? What do you wish there was?

5. Obstinacy

In some fields the way to succeed is to have a vision of what you want to achieve, and to hold true to it no matter what setbacks you encounter. Starting startups is not one of them. The stick-to-your-vision approach works for something like winning an Olympic gold medal, where the problem is well-defined. Startups are more like science, where you need to follow the trail wherever it leads.

So don't get too attached to your original plan, because it's probably wrong. Most successful startups end up doing something different than they originally intended—often so different that it doesn't even seem like the same company. You have to be prepared to see the better idea when it arrives. And the hardest part of that is often discarding your old idea.

But openness to new ideas has to be tuned just right. Switching to a new idea every week will be equally fatal. Is there some kind of external test you can use? One is to ask whether the ideas represent some kind of progression. If in each new idea you're able to re-use most of what you built for the previous ones, then you're probably in a process that converges. Whereas if you keep restarting from scratch, that's a bad sign.

Fortunately there's someone you can ask for advice: your users. If you're thinking about turning in some new direction and your users seem excited about it, it's probably a good bet.

6. Hiring Bad Programmers

I forgot to include this in the early versions of the list, because nearly all the founders I know are programmers. This is not a serious problem for them. They might accidentally hire someone bad, but it's not going to kill the company. In a pinch they can do whatever's required themselves.

But when I think about what killed most of the startups in the e-commerce business back in the 90s, it was bad programmers. A lot of those companies were started by business guys who thought the way startups worked was that you had some clever idea and then hired programmers to implement it. That's actually much harder than it sounds—almost impossibly hard in fact—because business guys can't tell which are the good programmers. They don't even get a shot at the best ones, because no one really good wants a job implementing the vision of a business guy.

In practice what happens is that the business guys choose people they think are good programmers (it says here on his resume that he's a Microsoft Certified Developer) but who aren't. Then they're mystified to find that their startup lumbers along like a World War II bomber while their competitors scream past like jet fighters. This kind of startup is in the same position as a big company, but without the advantages.

So how do you pick good programmers if you're not a programmer? I don't think there's an answer. I was about to say you'd have to find a good programmer to help you hire people. But if you can't recognize good programmers, how would you even do that?

置小公司于死地的18个错误

置小公司于死地的18个错误

通知：后来才发现拙尘已经翻译过这篇文章，而且翻译得很到位，早知这样我是无论如何也不会再翻译的，资源浪费。我已经翻译的这些段落继续保留，有兴趣的朋友可以看看。我更推荐大家看看拙尘的翻译，真的很精彩：http://www.yeeyan.com/articles/view/little/114。以后类似的事情尽量避免，呵呵。

pestwave注：在翻译时startup译成小公司。按照风险投资的说法，startup是指风险投资者为公司提供资助的早期阶段，这种公司通常基于描述管理团队背景和市场财务项目的商业计划。此时的投资和贷款又被称为种子资金。本文的startup指的就是的这种公司，尤其是网络科技公司。本文在翻译时略有删节。

如果你有一份不该做的事情的清单，你可以把它作为一个处方，通过避免这些事情获得成功。

从某种程度上讲置小公司于死地的原因只有一个：没有提供用户需要的东西。如果你提供了用户需要的东西，那么你很可能会安然无恙，不管你做不做其它的事情。如果你不能提供用户需要的东西，那么你死定了，不管你做不做其它的事情。那么下面是一份真正的清单，列举了导致小公司不能提供用户需要的东西的原因。几乎所有的失败都与此有关。

1.唯一的创始人

你有没有注意过，鲜有成功的小公司是由一个人创建的？甚至那些你以为是由一个人创建的公司，如Oracle公司，通常也是由更多的人创建的。这看上去并非巧合。

一个人创业有什么不好？首先，这好比是没有底气的选举。这很可能意味著创始人没有人和他一起讨论如何启动公司。那相当危险，因为他的朋友们最了解他。

即便是创始人的朋友们都是错的，公司胜券在握，他仍然处于不利地位。启动新公司对一个人来说太难了。即便你能做所有的工作，你还是需要同事去进行头脑风暴，劝你放弃愚蠢的决策，当出现问题时为你打气。

最有一点也许是最重要的一点。新公司的承受力如此之差以至于很少有人能一个人扛过。当几个人一起创业时，团队精神以一种违背守恒定律的方式将大家凝聚在一起。每个人都想“我不能让朋友们失望。”这是人性中最强大的力量，一个人创业时则没有这些力量。

2.位置不佳

小公司只能在一些地方成功。硅谷优势最明显，然后是波士顿，然后西雅图，奥斯丁，丹佛，和纽约。其它的就没多少了。甚至在纽约人均拥有小公司的比例也只有硅谷的二十分之一。在像休斯顿，芝加哥和底特律一样的城市里几乎可以忽略不计。

为什么有的地方能成为创业中心是一个很有趣的问题，但是小公司能够成功的原因似乎和其它的行业一样：那里专家云集。标准更高；人们更容易接受你做的事情；你想雇用的人想在那里工作；支持性产业在那里；你无意中遇到的人会是同行。谁知道这些因素是怎样结合起来促使让硅谷的小公司成功而让底特律的小公司失败的呢，但是从人均拥有小公司的数量来看确实如此。

3.边缘市场

很多向Y Combinator公司申请资助的团体都遇到了一个同样的问题：为了避免竞争选择一个狭小模糊的市场。

如果你见过小孩儿玩耍，你会发现某个年龄段以下的人怕球。有球飞来时他们的直觉是躲开。当我还是一个八岁的外场手时我没怎么接到过球，因为当有球向我飞来时，我通常闭上眼举起手套保护自己而不是去抓球。

选择边缘项目的小公司和我当时的情况类似。如果你做的好，就会有对手，所以你要面对。你避免竞争的唯一办法就是放弃伟大的创意。

我想这种在困难问题面前退缩大多数是下意识的。并非人们想到了伟大的创意却因为保险而决定实施不太伟大的创意。你的下意识甚至不让你去思考伟大的创意。所以解决办法就是抛开自己思考创意。对别人成立的小公司来说怎样算是一个伟大的创意呢？

4.派生创意

我们很多应用软件都是对现有公司的模仿。那是一个创意的来源，但不是最好的。如果你看看那些成功的小公司，鲜有几家是模仿的别的小公司成功的。他们的创意是哪来的？通常来自于创始人发现的某些特定的，尚未解决的问题。

似乎最好的问题就是那些影响到你本人的问题。苹果公司成立是因为Steve Wozniak想要台电脑，Google是因为Larry和Sergey找不到在线的东西，Hotmail是因为Sabeer Bhatia和Jack Smith不能在工作中交换邮件。

所以不要去模仿Facebook，用那些Facebook正好放弃的衍生版本，换个方向寻找创意。不要去现有公司和他们解决的问题中寻找创意，寻找问题和能解决问题的公司。人们在抱怨什么？你希望怎样？

5.顽固不化

在某些领域成功的方法就是知道你要做什么，并且风雨无阻地坚持下去。刚启动的小公司不在此列。坚持不懈的办法在赢取奥运金牌时奏效，因为问题很明确。而小公司更像是科学，你要跟踪轨迹去探索。

所以不要囿于原始计划，因为它很可能是错误的。很多成功的小公司到最后都是从事的别的工作，而非原来的计划——通常和原来的公司大相径庭。你必须为更好的创意做好准备。其中的难点就是如何摒弃陈旧的观念。

但是采纳新创意也要得法。一周换一个想法同样要命。有没有可供参考的外部测试呢？其中的方法之一就是想想这些创意是否代表了某种进步。如果在每一个新的创意中你都利用了以前的准备工作，那么你很可能处在一个集中的过程当中。但如果你总是从头开始，那是个凶兆。

幸运的是你可以找人提供建议：你的用户。如果你正考虑调整方向而用户也喜欢这样，这或许是个好兆头。

6.雇佣蹩脚程序员

在上一个版本的清单中我忘了提这一点了，因为几乎我知道的所有创始人都是程序员。这对他们不是什么大问题。他们也可能雇到蹩脚程序员，但是不至于葬送公司前途。必要时大不了自己玩儿全活儿。

但是回头想想是什么让90年代的电子商务公司失败的，我想是蹩脚程序员。很多那样的公司都是由商人人成立，他们认为小公司运作的方式就是你有一个不错的创意，接着找程序员去实现它。那实际上比听上去要难得多——事实上几乎不可能——因为商人区分不出蹩脚程序员。他们甚至都没遇到过顶尖的程序员，因为真正好的程序员都不想为实现一个商人的想法去工作。

那么如果你不是程序员你怎么挑选程序员呢？我觉得没有答案。我想说你得找个好的程序员替你选人。但是你不知道谁是好的程序员，所以你无论如何也做不到。

7.选择错误的平台

一个相关的问题（既然很可能是由蹩脚程序员造成的）就是选择错误的平台。比如，我认为在网络泡沫时代，很多小公司都因为决定在Windows上建立基于服务器的应用程序而自取灭亡。Hotmail被微软收购几年后仍然运转在FreeBSD上，很可能是因为Windows无法应对负荷。如果Hotmail的创始人选择使用Windows，他们或许早就完了。

平台这个词很模糊。它可以是一个操作系统，或者一种编程语言，或者基于某种编程语言的“框架”。它意味着一些既能带来帮助又能带来限制的东西，就像是房子的地基。

关于平台可怕的事情就是，通常有一些在外行看来还过得去，负责任的选择，但是，像90年代的Windows一样，你一旦选择了它你就会毁掉自己。Java applets或许就是最生动的例子。这本来被认为是发布程序的最新方法。但是这么想的小公司几乎全军覆没了。

如何选择正确的平台呢？最常见的办法就是雇佣好的程序员让他们帮你选择。但如果你不是程序员的话也有一个窍门：访问一个顶尖的计算机科学系看看他们在开发项目时使用的东西。

8.启动太慢

大大小小的公司在完成软件时都不容易。这是无法避免的；软件通常都会完成85%。要完成整个过程并向用户发布一些东西需要很大的努力。

小公司寻找各种各样的借口推迟启动。大部分理由和人们日常生活中的拖延理由差不多。必须先做点什么。可能。但是如果软件全都完成了，万事俱备只欠东风，你还会继续等么？

一些推迟公司启动的明显问题会暴露出来：进度太慢；没有真正理解问题；害怕和用户接触；害怕被人评价；揽的事情太多；追求完美。幸运的是通过简单的迫使自己快速启动一些东西，你就能解决这些问题。

9启动太快

启动太慢葬送的小公司很可能是启动太快葬送的小公司的一百倍，但是启动太快的可能性很大。这里的危险在于你可能会毁掉自己的名声。你启动了一些东西，早期使用者去试用，如果不好他们再也不会回来。

那么最少启动多少合适呢？我们建议小公司先考虑一下自己的计划，识别出一个核心部分既（a）本身有用又（b）能逐渐扩展到整个工程，然后速战速决。

你想要打动的早期使用者非常宽容。他们不会期望新产品解决一切问题；只要有用就行。

10.不理解特定用户

不了解用户你就无法建立他们喜欢的东西。前面我说过最成功的小公司似乎都是从解决创始人自己的问题开始做起的。或许这里有一个法则：你创造的财富和你对你正在解决的问题的理解成正比，你最理解的问题就是自己的问题。

那只是一个理论。反过来则不成立：如果你试图解决你不理解的问题，那么你注定失败。

但是很多创始人似乎一厢情愿地假设会有人，他们也不知道是谁，喜欢他们的东西。是创始人么？不是，创始人不是目标市场。那是谁呢？年轻人。对当地事件感兴趣的人（那永远都是个热门）。或者“商业”用户。什么样的商业用户？加油站？电影摄影棚？还是国防部合同商？

你当然可以为用户而不是自己制造东西。我们就这么做。但是你要明白你正在进入危险区。实际上你是在飞行，所以你要（a）有意识的换挡，而不是像平常一样可以凭直觉办事。（b）看好你的飞行工具。

在这种情况下飞行工具就是用户。为别人设计你必须靠经验。你不能再猜测什么能行什么不行；你必须寻找用户，观察他们的反应。所以如果你想为年轻人或者“商业”用户或者其他组织做点东西，你必须劝说某些特定人试用你的东西。如果你做不到的话就会误入歧途。

11.缺钱

大多数成功的小公司都会在某一阶段需要资助。正如不只有一个创始人一样，从统计学上来讲成功的几率要大一些。那么需要多少资助呢？

小公司资助以时间来衡量。每个尚未盈利的小公司开始时在资金用光不得不停下来之前都有一段时间。好比是飞机跑道，就像问“你剩余的跑道还有多长？”这个比喻很恰当，因为它提醒你当钱花光的时候你或者起飞或者死掉。

所以如果你从投资者那里融资时，你要拿够了钱以便能走到下一步，不管下一步是什么。幸运的是你有一定的控制权决定花多少钱，下一步怎么走。我们建议小公司启动时两者起点都要低：几乎不怎么花钱，同时刚开始的目标只是建立一个牢固的原型。这样你有很大的灵活性。