正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Don’t start with the product. Start with distribution. I give this advice to entrepreneurs all the time because distribution is the hardest part of building a company. “Build it and they will come” almost never works. And even if you expect distribution to be hard—it’ll be 10× harder. HotelTonight...

samshank's profile picture

Sam Shank

18,703 subscribers

328,277 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育财经喜剧
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.
1:27

Evan Spiegel on the lesson that killed his first startup and led to Snapchat: "We focused on building the perfect product for way too long before we got feedback. We worked for like eighteen months to build this perfect full-featured product, which was in direct contravention to how I was always taught to build things. Build a prototype, build an MVP, get it in front of people, learn as quickly as possible. But we had spent all this time building this perfect piece of software and we hadn't thought enough about distribution. While we built this great piece of software, our competitor at the time, Naviance, had secured distribution through all the different college counselors. What piece of software are you going to choose to help your kid get into college? The one recommended by the college counselors or the one from two kids at Stanford? I think it's a pretty easy choice. So we saw very early that we had no distribution advantage. Even if we loved our software, people weren't going to use it because we didn't have a scalable way to get it in people's hands. Around that time when we saw the emergence of the App Store on iPhone, it was very clear that was a distribution channel we could really use and benefit from. But we also needed to build things we could build quickly, things we really were going to use together with our friends so we could be the first early customers. Ultimately Peekaboo and Snapchat represented that." This is exactly the asymmetry Peter Thiel describes in Zero to One: superior distribution by itself can create a monopoly, even with no product differentiation. The converse is not true. Thiel puts an even finer point on it: most businesses get zero distribution channels to work. Poor sales rather than bad product is the most common cause of failure. If you can get just one distribution channel to work, you have a great business. Estée Lauder said: it's not enough to have the most wonderful product in the world. You must be able to sell it. Many founders over-index on product perfection and under-invest in distribution. The world is full of great products nobody knows about, and mediocre products with massive distribution that dominate markets. Evan Spiegel lived it. He built the better product, watched it lose, and then built something he could actually distribute.

David Senra

27,043 次观看 • 3 个月前

David Sacks on why founders get distribution wrong “The biggest mistake I see these days is brilliant founders who are brilliant product people, but they haven't thought about how they're going to make their product grow. They launch their product and it's like crickets chirping.” Having a technique that gets you to scale is very important. “If you're going to have a breakout startup, you've really got to think about how you're going to innovate on distribution, not just product.” What’s tricky about this is what he calls The Law of Distribution Arbitrage: “Successful distribution techniques are copied until they are no longer effective. Think about SEO. The first people to use that technique got a lot of traffic from Google. Then, a whole bunch of people started doing it and they started gaming the system. Eventually, Google did their notorious Panda release and everyone using SEO basically lost traffic.” Friend virality is another example: “If you look at Facebook, the friend virality was very powerful in the early days. Then people got sick of the spam and stopped paying attention… So the techniques that work initially to get distribution don't stay working because everyone copies them until the channels are spammed to death.” Source: Draper University (feb 2014)
3:48

David Sacks on why founders get distribution wrong “The biggest mistake I see these days is brilliant founders who are brilliant product people, but they haven't thought about how they're going to make their product grow. They launch their product and it's like crickets chirping.” Having a technique that gets you to scale is very important. “If you're going to have a breakout startup, you've really got to think about how you're going to innovate on distribution, not just product.” What’s tricky about this is what he calls The Law of Distribution Arbitrage: “Successful distribution techniques are copied until they are no longer effective. Think about SEO. The first people to use that technique got a lot of traffic from Google. Then, a whole bunch of people started doing it and they started gaming the system. Eventually, Google did their notorious Panda release and everyone using SEO basically lost traffic.” Friend virality is another example: “If you look at Facebook, the friend virality was very powerful in the early days. Then people got sick of the spam and stopped paying attention… So the techniques that work initially to get distribution don't stay working because everyone copies them until the channels are spammed to death.” Source: Draper University (feb 2014)

Startup Archive

42,198 次观看 • 2 个月前

David Sacks on why founders get distribution wrong “The biggest mistake I see these days is brilliant founders who are brilliant product people, but they haven't thought about how they're going to make their product grow. They launch their product and it's like crickets chirping.” Having a technique that gets you to scale is very important. “If you're going to have a breakout startup, you've really got to think about how you're going to innovate on distribution, not just product.” What’s tricky about this is what he calls The Law of Distribution Arbitrage: “Successful distribution techniques are copied until they are no longer effective. Think about SEO. The first people to use that technique got a lot of traffic from Google. Then, a whole bunch of people started doing it and they started gaming the system. Eventually, Google did their notorious Panda release and everyone using SEO basically lost traffic.” Friend virality is another example: “If you look at Facebook, the friend virality was very powerful in the early days. Then people got sick of the spam and stopped paying attention… So the techniques that work initially to get distribution don't stay working because everyone copies them until the channels are spammed to death.” Video source: Draper University (2014)
3:48

David Sacks on why founders get distribution wrong “The biggest mistake I see these days is brilliant founders who are brilliant product people, but they haven't thought about how they're going to make their product grow. They launch their product and it's like crickets chirping.” Having a technique that gets you to scale is very important. “If you're going to have a breakout startup, you've really got to think about how you're going to innovate on distribution, not just product.” What’s tricky about this is what he calls The Law of Distribution Arbitrage: “Successful distribution techniques are copied until they are no longer effective. Think about SEO. The first people to use that technique got a lot of traffic from Google. Then, a whole bunch of people started doing it and they started gaming the system. Eventually, Google did their notorious Panda release and everyone using SEO basically lost traffic.” Friend virality is another example: “If you look at Facebook, the friend virality was very powerful in the early days. Then people got sick of the spam and stopped paying attention… So the techniques that work initially to get distribution don't stay working because everyone copies them until the channels are spammed to death.” Video source: Draper University (2014)

Startup Archive

56,468 次观看 • 11 个月前

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)
1:50

Ben Horowitz on the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video source: UC Berkeley (2009)

Startup Archive

36,753 次观看 • 4 个月前

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley
1:50

Ben Horowitz explains the two things every successful technology startup must do 1. Build a product that improves how some large group of people does something by 10x. “You have to build a transformational product. There is no way to build a great new company without a great product… If you look at the great technology companies, the thing that distinguishes them is the ability to keep coming up with a better way of doing things.” 2. Taking the market. “You can come up with the best product, but if you don’t [take the market], you really don’t have a company. Most technology businesses are network effects businesses. You have to win… If you’re an engineer, what business skills do you need to build a technology company? They’re all around the skills that you need to win the market. How do you out-market, out-sell, and beat the competition?… Do you build a good enough company that you go win?” Video Source: UC Berkeley

Startup Archive

77,268 次观看 • 1 年前

ElevenLabs CEO Mati Staniszewski says that research is a head start and product ecosystem creates a moat: “The way we think about it, research is head start.” “We can give advantage to the customer earlier. And it's 6-12 month of advantage.” “You have research, product in parallel that extends that, but the thing that will really give that long-term value is the ecosystem that you create around, whether that's the brand and distribution, whether that's the collection of voices you can have, the collection of integrations you can build, the workflows that you can build.” Source: ElevenLabs CEO Mati Staniszewski on No Priors with sarah guo and Elad Gil
0:50

ElevenLabs CEO Mati Staniszewski says that research is a head start and product ecosystem creates a moat: “The way we think about it, research is head start.” “We can give advantage to the customer earlier. And it's 6-12 month of advantage.” “You have research, product in parallel that extends that, but the thing that will really give that long-term value is the ecosystem that you create around, whether that's the brand and distribution, whether that's the collection of voices you can have, the collection of integrations you can build, the workflows that you can build.” Source: ElevenLabs CEO Mati Staniszewski on No Priors with sarah guo and Elad Gil

a16z

19,730 次观看 • 7 个月前

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”
4:39

Rahul Vohra on how to measure product/market fit Rahul Vohra is the founder and CEO of Superhuman. He was looking for a metric to measure product/market fit so that he and his team could optimize, and he came across the following methodology from Sean Ellis: Simply ask your users: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” with three options: (1) not disappointed, (2) somewhat disappointed, or (3) very disappointed. It turns out that the benchmark for product/market fit across hundreds of venture-backed startups is 40% of respondents saying “very disappointed”. And as Rahul puts it: “If more than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you should focus on growing your company. If less than 40% of your users would be very disappointed without your product, then you’ll probably struggle to grow.” 40% may not sound like a lot, but it’s an incredibly hard benchmark to beat. For example, Slack posed this to 731 customers early in the company’s history, and 51% said they would be very disappointed without Slack. One might expect a terrific product like Slack to have a score of 60-80%, but that wasn’t the case. Rahul’s explanation of why the response options are focused on disappointment rather than happiness is interesting too: “I think the reason behind that is that if you ask people how they feel about a product and you give them positive potential responses, I think it invites more bias. People are more likely to be polite. And it also doesn’t get to the heart of the matter which is: how necessary has your product become in people’s lives? If you’re trying to build a company that’s going to stand the test of time, you really do have to build a product that matters and that people ultimately come to depend on because it’s just so incredible at what it does. And that’s what this question gets to the heart of.”

Michael McGuiness

67,106 次观看 • 2 年前

Dropbox founder Drew Houston on why distribution is more important than product LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman wrote in his book Blitzscaling: "Many people in Silicon Valley like to focus on building products that are, in the famous words of the late Steve Jobs, "insanely great." Great products are certainly a positive, but the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution." Dropbox is a great example of this. As Dropbox founder & CEO Drew Houston explains, great distribution is ultimately how they beat out dozens of competitors with similar product offerings. Drew believes that too many startups overlook the importance of great distribution. Dropbox had a great product, but it succeeded because of its great distribution. They used a combination of organic virality (users shared files with nonusers) and incentivized virality (Basic account holders get 500 MB of extra storage per user they refer; Pro account holders get 1 GB) to grow. Virality helped Dropbox double its 100,000 users at launch to 200,000 users just ten days later, then skyrocket to one million users just seven months after that. An important caveat though: if your distribution strategy focuses on virality, you have to make sure you solve retention first. Bringing new users in through the front door doesn't help you grow if they immediately turn around and leave. According to Drew, Dropbox discovered this truth the hard way, when activation rates revealed that only 40% of the people signing up were actually putting files in their Dropbox and linking them to their computers. As Drew partially explains in the clip, the early Dropbox team went on Craigslist and offered $40 to anyone who'd come in for a 30-minute usability test. They asked these people to go from a Dropbox e-mail invitation to sharing a file with another email address. Zero of the five people tested succeeded--they didn't even come close. This stunned the team. So they made a list of 80+ things in an Excel spreadsheet and sanded down all of the rough edges in the experience. They soon watched their activation rate climb and left the competition in the dust as they marched on to a $9+ billion market cap. Source: Y Combinator (Feb 2017)
2:21

Dropbox founder Drew Houston on why distribution is more important than product LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman wrote in his book Blitzscaling: "Many people in Silicon Valley like to focus on building products that are, in the famous words of the late Steve Jobs, "insanely great." Great products are certainly a positive, but the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution." Dropbox is a great example of this. As Dropbox founder & CEO Drew Houston explains, great distribution is ultimately how they beat out dozens of competitors with similar product offerings. Drew believes that too many startups overlook the importance of great distribution. Dropbox had a great product, but it succeeded because of its great distribution. They used a combination of organic virality (users shared files with nonusers) and incentivized virality (Basic account holders get 500 MB of extra storage per user they refer; Pro account holders get 1 GB) to grow. Virality helped Dropbox double its 100,000 users at launch to 200,000 users just ten days later, then skyrocket to one million users just seven months after that. An important caveat though: if your distribution strategy focuses on virality, you have to make sure you solve retention first. Bringing new users in through the front door doesn't help you grow if they immediately turn around and leave. According to Drew, Dropbox discovered this truth the hard way, when activation rates revealed that only 40% of the people signing up were actually putting files in their Dropbox and linking them to their computers. As Drew partially explains in the clip, the early Dropbox team went on Craigslist and offered $40 to anyone who'd come in for a 30-minute usability test. They asked these people to go from a Dropbox e-mail invitation to sharing a file with another email address. Zero of the five people tested succeeded--they didn't even come close. This stunned the team. So they made a list of 80+ things in an Excel spreadsheet and sanded down all of the rough edges in the experience. They soon watched their activation rate climb and left the competition in the dust as they marched on to a $9+ billion market cap. Source: Y Combinator (Feb 2017)

Startup Archive

29,608 次观看 • 27 天前

Dropbox founder Drew Houston on why distribution is more important than product LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman wrote in his book Blitzscaling: "Many people in Silicon Valley like to focus on building products that are, in the famous words of the late Steve Jobs, "insanely great." Great products are certainly a positive, but the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution." Dropbox is a great example of this. As Dropbox founder & CEO Drew Houston explains, great distribution is ultimately how they beat out dozens of competitors with similar product offerings. Drew believes that too many startups overlook the importance of great distribution. Dropbox had a great product, but it succeeded because of its great distribution. They used a combination of organic virality (users shared files with nonusers) and incentivized virality (Basic account holders get 500 MB of extra storage per user they refer; Pro account holders get 1 GB) to grow. Virality helped Dropbox double its 100,000 users at launch to 200,000 users just ten days later, then skyrocket to one million users just seven months after that. An important caveat though: if your distribution strategy focuses on virality, you have to make sure you solve retention first. Bringing new users in through the front door doesn't help you grow if they immediately turn around and leave. According to Drew, Dropbox discovered this truth the hard way, when activation rates revealed that only 40% of the people signing up were actually putting files in their Dropbox and linking them to their computers. As Drew partially explains in the clip, the early Dropbox team went on Craigslist and offered $40 to anyone who'd come in for a 30-minute usability test. They asked these people to go from a Dropbox e-mail invitation to sharing a file with another email address. Zero of the five people tested succeeded--they didn't even come close. This stunned the team. So they made a list of 80+ things in an Excel spreadsheet and sanded down all of the rough edges in the experience. They soon watched their activation rate climb and left the competition in the dust as they marched on to a $9+ billion market cap. Video source: Y Combinator (2017)
2:21

Dropbox founder Drew Houston on why distribution is more important than product LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman wrote in his book Blitzscaling: "Many people in Silicon Valley like to focus on building products that are, in the famous words of the late Steve Jobs, "insanely great." Great products are certainly a positive, but the cold and unromantic fact is that a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution." Dropbox is a great example of this. As Dropbox founder & CEO Drew Houston explains, great distribution is ultimately how they beat out dozens of competitors with similar product offerings. Drew believes that too many startups overlook the importance of great distribution. Dropbox had a great product, but it succeeded because of its great distribution. They used a combination of organic virality (users shared files with nonusers) and incentivized virality (Basic account holders get 500 MB of extra storage per user they refer; Pro account holders get 1 GB) to grow. Virality helped Dropbox double its 100,000 users at launch to 200,000 users just ten days later, then skyrocket to one million users just seven months after that. An important caveat though: if your distribution strategy focuses on virality, you have to make sure you solve retention first. Bringing new users in through the front door doesn't help you grow if they immediately turn around and leave. According to Drew, Dropbox discovered this truth the hard way, when activation rates revealed that only 40% of the people signing up were actually putting files in their Dropbox and linking them to their computers. As Drew partially explains in the clip, the early Dropbox team went on Craigslist and offered $40 to anyone who'd come in for a 30-minute usability test. They asked these people to go from a Dropbox e-mail invitation to sharing a file with another email address. Zero of the five people tested succeeded--they didn't even come close. This stunned the team. So they made a list of 80+ things in an Excel spreadsheet and sanded down all of the rough edges in the experience. They soon watched their activation rate climb and left the competition in the dust as they marched on to a $9+ billion market cap. Video source: Y Combinator (2017)

Startup Archive

113,218 次观看 • 7 个月前

Mark Zuckerberg just quietly executed the marketing profession. He didn’t announce it. He described it. Zuckerberg: “The AI is actually probably going to be able to find who is going to be interested in your product better than you can.” He is not pitching a better ad tool. He is telling you that your intuition about your own customer is now inferior to his algorithm. For twenty years, the internet was built on demographics. Age. Location. Income. Founders built careers defending customer personas in boardrooms. Zuckerberg is telling you to burn them. Zuckerberg: “Don’t constrain who we’re going to reach.” When you tell the system who to target, you are not helping it. You are crippling it. Every audience filter a marketer applies is a ceiling disguised as a strategy. Human targeting is no longer a competitive advantage. It is a tax. And the takeover does not stop at the audience. It swallows the creative itself. Zuckerberg: “We’re going to be able to come up with like 4,000 different versions of your creative and just test them and figure out which one works best.” No agency on Earth can test four thousand variations in real time. The machine does not have taste. It has math. And math does not lose to intuition at scale. For a generation, distribution was the skill. When every company on Earth plugs into the same omniscient ad engine, distribution stops being a weapon. It becomes infrastructure. Like bandwidth. Like cloud compute. Nobody wins because they have better access to AWS. Soon, nobody will win because they have a better media buyer. Which leaves exactly one variable on the board. Zuckerberg: “You just focus on building the best product.” For a decade, mediocre products survived on superior distribution. Bad products with great funnels printed money. That arbitrage is dead. When distribution becomes a utility, the product has nowhere left to hide. Marketing was the mask. Zuckerberg just pulled it off. Most companies are about to find out they never had a product. They had a campaign.
1:25

Mark Zuckerberg just quietly executed the marketing profession. He didn’t announce it. He described it. Zuckerberg: “The AI is actually probably going to be able to find who is going to be interested in your product better than you can.” He is not pitching a better ad tool. He is telling you that your intuition about your own customer is now inferior to his algorithm. For twenty years, the internet was built on demographics. Age. Location. Income. Founders built careers defending customer personas in boardrooms. Zuckerberg is telling you to burn them. Zuckerberg: “Don’t constrain who we’re going to reach.” When you tell the system who to target, you are not helping it. You are crippling it. Every audience filter a marketer applies is a ceiling disguised as a strategy. Human targeting is no longer a competitive advantage. It is a tax. And the takeover does not stop at the audience. It swallows the creative itself. Zuckerberg: “We’re going to be able to come up with like 4,000 different versions of your creative and just test them and figure out which one works best.” No agency on Earth can test four thousand variations in real time. The machine does not have taste. It has math. And math does not lose to intuition at scale. For a generation, distribution was the skill. When every company on Earth plugs into the same omniscient ad engine, distribution stops being a weapon. It becomes infrastructure. Like bandwidth. Like cloud compute. Nobody wins because they have better access to AWS. Soon, nobody will win because they have a better media buyer. Which leaves exactly one variable on the board. Zuckerberg: “You just focus on building the best product.” For a decade, mediocre products survived on superior distribution. Bad products with great funnels printed money. That arbitrage is dead. When distribution becomes a utility, the product has nowhere left to hide. Marketing was the mask. Zuckerberg just pulled it off. Most companies are about to find out they never had a product. They had a campaign.

Dustin

139,573 次观看 • 3 个月前

Jeff Bezos: “word-of-mouth is more powerful than it has ever been before” In this 2012 interview, Bezos argues this development has dramatic implications for business strategy: “In the past, if you were making a product, the right business strategy was to put 70% of your attention, energy, and dollars into marketing the product and 30% into building a great product. So you could win with a mediocre product if you were a good enough marketer. And I think that is getting harder to do.” He continues: “The right way to respond to this if you’re a company is to say, I’m going to put the vast majority of my energy, attention, and dollars into building a great product or service. And put a smaller amount into shouting about it (marketing). Because I know if I build a great product or service, my customers will tell each other.”
1:39

Jeff Bezos: “word-of-mouth is more powerful than it has ever been before” In this 2012 interview, Bezos argues this development has dramatic implications for business strategy: “In the past, if you were making a product, the right business strategy was to put 70% of your attention, energy, and dollars into marketing the product and 30% into building a great product. So you could win with a mediocre product if you were a good enough marketer. And I think that is getting harder to do.” He continues: “The right way to respond to this if you’re a company is to say, I’m going to put the vast majority of my energy, attention, and dollars into building a great product or service. And put a smaller amount into shouting about it (marketing). Because I know if I build a great product or service, my customers will tell each other.”

Startup Archive

21,805 次观看 • 11 个月前

Marc Andreessen: Most successful companies started “product first” “There are products that become companies, and then there are companies that come up with a product. One of the interesting things over the years is that many of the most successful technology franchises were products first, way before they ever became companies.” In this talk, Marc gives a few examples: • His team at the University of Illinois worked on the research project that became Netscape for three years before it became a company • Bill Gates and Paul Allen were deep into PCs before there was a software business • Jobs and Wozniak built the first Apple computer as hobbyists • Mark Zuckerberg was running Facebook out of his dorm room before he ever thought of starting a company • Twitter was a side project at the failed podcasting app Odeo Marc believes that this “product becomes a company” template is successful because “it’s a demonstration that the product has to exist. The market needs the product so badly that somebody actually built it and deployed it and you can actually see evidence that people want it before there was an economic motivation to do so.” He contrasts this with the failure cases he often sees when entrepreneurs try to figure out the idea after starting a company. “It’s very easy in that process to fool yourself into believing that there’s a market because you want to find something and you have a very strong motivation to come up with an answer. It’s hard to go through that process for three months and then say, ‘you know what, we can’t come up with any good ideas.’” There are of course there exceptions. Marc gives Hewlett Packard as an example. But that’s more the exception than the rule. As Marc explains: “The moral of the story is it has to be a really good idea. That often will be an idea that is preexisting at the time you decide to start a company. And if it isn’t, be really careful because you’re walking on sharp rocks at that point with a high risk of falling off the cliff into the ocean.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2010)
1:53

Marc Andreessen: Most successful companies started “product first” “There are products that become companies, and then there are companies that come up with a product. One of the interesting things over the years is that many of the most successful technology franchises were products first, way before they ever became companies.” In this talk, Marc gives a few examples: • His team at the University of Illinois worked on the research project that became Netscape for three years before it became a company • Bill Gates and Paul Allen were deep into PCs before there was a software business • Jobs and Wozniak built the first Apple computer as hobbyists • Mark Zuckerberg was running Facebook out of his dorm room before he ever thought of starting a company • Twitter was a side project at the failed podcasting app Odeo Marc believes that this “product becomes a company” template is successful because “it’s a demonstration that the product has to exist. The market needs the product so badly that somebody actually built it and deployed it and you can actually see evidence that people want it before there was an economic motivation to do so.” He contrasts this with the failure cases he often sees when entrepreneurs try to figure out the idea after starting a company. “It’s very easy in that process to fool yourself into believing that there’s a market because you want to find something and you have a very strong motivation to come up with an answer. It’s hard to go through that process for three months and then say, ‘you know what, we can’t come up with any good ideas.’” There are of course there exceptions. Marc gives Hewlett Packard as an example. But that’s more the exception than the rule. As Marc explains: “The moral of the story is it has to be a really good idea. That often will be an idea that is preexisting at the time you decide to start a company. And if it isn’t, be really careful because you’re walking on sharp rocks at that point with a high risk of falling off the cliff into the ocean.” Video source: Stanford eCorner (2010)

Startup Archive

35,823 次观看 • 11 个月前

Elon Musk to entrepreneurs: Listen to your instincts! “You want to focus on something that you are personally passionate about, that you personally care about. It's very hard to be motivated for a product that you don't really feel strongly about. It doesn't have to be high-tech. It could be in any field. It's got to be a product that you feel really needs to be there and something that you personally love. I would listen to your instincts. Do you love this product or service? Because it's impossible to know what do other people love. But if you love it, that's a good sign. And that could be small to large, of any kind, in any field. A good test would be that you can't wait for this product to be on the market. If that's the case, you're going in the right direction.” Viva Technology, Paris, June 16, 2023
0:47

Elon Musk to entrepreneurs: Listen to your instincts! “You want to focus on something that you are personally passionate about, that you personally care about. It's very hard to be motivated for a product that you don't really feel strongly about. It doesn't have to be high-tech. It could be in any field. It's got to be a product that you feel really needs to be there and something that you personally love. I would listen to your instincts. Do you love this product or service? Because it's impossible to know what do other people love. But if you love it, that's a good sign. And that could be small to large, of any kind, in any field. A good test would be that you can't wait for this product to be on the market. If that's the case, you're going in the right direction.” Viva Technology, Paris, June 16, 2023

ELON CLIPS

106,592 次观看 • 1 年前

In the AI era, the next great software distribution company won’t look like an app store For the last decade-plus, building a strong software business was mostly a game of scarcity. The hard part was assembling the capital, taste, engineering, and distribution to build one enduring app. The discovery systems we built matched that world: app stores, SEO, search bars, rankings, reviews, ads, marketplaces AI has blown up these constraints Soon, anyone will be able to generate software for anything: a workout injury, a work project, a personal workflow, a one-off analysis, a weird niche need only they have, maybe only in a single moment Some apps will last forever, but most won’t. Many will exist for minutes or hours, and be created even faster But just because software can be created at the speed of thought doesn’t mean everyone will become a developer. Most people won’t want to prompt, build, debug, deploy, or manage software. They’ll just want to be matched with the right tool for the job in front of them The same technological wave enabling software creation at scale is also breaking software distribution at scale. Search assumes the best answer already exists somewhere. App stores assume software is something you browse, compare, install, and keep In a world of personal software, the real question becomes: Who understands enough about me, or has earned enough trust from me, to know what software should exist for me right now? The next great app distribution companies may look less like search engines and more like trusted relationships Some will win by importing and processing personal context: your goals, constraints, calendar, body, files, workflows, history, collaborators, and intent. Others will win by exporting taste and trust: experts, creators, communities, agents, and brands that people rely on to decide what is worth using Either way, the new gateway won’t be a search box or an app store shelf. It will be the layer that recommends, assembles, routes, and personalizes software at the moment of need This is the new frontier: context, recommendation, trust, and distribution in the age of infinite software If you’re building platforms or experiences for this future, we want to meet you. Apply to a16z speedrun 🧊. Applications for SR007 close this weekend Application link below
2:00

In the AI era, the next great software distribution company won’t look like an app store For the last decade-plus, building a strong software business was mostly a game of scarcity. The hard part was assembling the capital, taste, engineering, and distribution to build one enduring app. The discovery systems we built matched that world: app stores, SEO, search bars, rankings, reviews, ads, marketplaces AI has blown up these constraints Soon, anyone will be able to generate software for anything: a workout injury, a work project, a personal workflow, a one-off analysis, a weird niche need only they have, maybe only in a single moment Some apps will last forever, but most won’t. Many will exist for minutes or hours, and be created even faster But just because software can be created at the speed of thought doesn’t mean everyone will become a developer. Most people won’t want to prompt, build, debug, deploy, or manage software. They’ll just want to be matched with the right tool for the job in front of them The same technological wave enabling software creation at scale is also breaking software distribution at scale. Search assumes the best answer already exists somewhere. App stores assume software is something you browse, compare, install, and keep In a world of personal software, the real question becomes: Who understands enough about me, or has earned enough trust from me, to know what software should exist for me right now? The next great app distribution companies may look less like search engines and more like trusted relationships Some will win by importing and processing personal context: your goals, constraints, calendar, body, files, workflows, history, collaborators, and intent. Others will win by exporting taste and trust: experts, creators, communities, agents, and brands that people rely on to decide what is worth using Either way, the new gateway won’t be a search box or an app store shelf. It will be the layer that recommends, assembles, routes, and personalizes software at the moment of need This is the new frontier: context, recommendation, trust, and distribution in the age of infinite software If you’re building platforms or experiences for this future, we want to meet you. Apply to a16z speedrun 🧊. Applications for SR007 close this weekend Application link below

Josh Lu

11,092 次观看 • 2 个月前

Many startups find early pull, but only a few break out. Why? They stop at product/market fit and never find business model fit. Business model fit isn’t just about how much you charge for your product, but HOW you charge for it, and how you align customer value with your pricing. There’s a lot of advice out there about seat-based vs. usage-based vs. outcome-based pricing, but all of that is just noise. The search for business model fit is as specific to your company as the search for product market fit. You need to align your acquisition strategy and monetization strategy with your customer and product. It’s all one interconnected system. Take Slack for example: many associate Slack’s early success with its fun, creative design and fresh approach to communication. That’s what drew people to the product. But a big part of what made Slack a breakout success was business model fit. Freemium wasn’t just an acquisition tactic, it was essential to driving the revenue flywheel, viral expansion, and adoption in the enterprise. Obvious in retrospect, but controversial and against the grain of what others were doing at the time. The best founders don’t just chase product/market fit, they design a business model to make their product unstoppable. If that’s you, we want to meet you a16z speedrun 🧊 - link in replies
2:07

Many startups find early pull, but only a few break out. Why? They stop at product/market fit and never find business model fit. Business model fit isn’t just about how much you charge for your product, but HOW you charge for it, and how you align customer value with your pricing. There’s a lot of advice out there about seat-based vs. usage-based vs. outcome-based pricing, but all of that is just noise. The search for business model fit is as specific to your company as the search for product market fit. You need to align your acquisition strategy and monetization strategy with your customer and product. It’s all one interconnected system. Take Slack for example: many associate Slack’s early success with its fun, creative design and fresh approach to communication. That’s what drew people to the product. But a big part of what made Slack a breakout success was business model fit. Freemium wasn’t just an acquisition tactic, it was essential to driving the revenue flywheel, viral expansion, and adoption in the enterprise. Obvious in retrospect, but controversial and against the grain of what others were doing at the time. The best founders don’t just chase product/market fit, they design a business model to make their product unstoppable. If that’s you, we want to meet you a16z speedrun 🧊 - link in replies

Fareed Mosavat

24,820 次观看 • 10 个月前

Elon Musk: Work on products that you personally love, that you feel really need to exist. “You want to focus on something that you are personally passionate about, that you personally care about. It's very hard to be motivated for a product that you don't really feel strongly about. And it doesn't have to be high-tech. It could be in any field. It's got to be a product that you feel really needs to be there, that you personally love. And I would listen to your instincts. Do you love this product or service? Because it's kind of impossible to know what do other people love. But if you love it, that's a good sign. A good test would be that you can't wait for this product to be on the market. And if that's the case, you're going in the right direction.” Interview at Viva Tech Paris, June 16, 2023
0:54

Elon Musk: Work on products that you personally love, that you feel really need to exist. “You want to focus on something that you are personally passionate about, that you personally care about. It's very hard to be motivated for a product that you don't really feel strongly about. And it doesn't have to be high-tech. It could be in any field. It's got to be a product that you feel really needs to be there, that you personally love. And I would listen to your instincts. Do you love this product or service? Because it's kind of impossible to know what do other people love. But if you love it, that's a good sign. A good test would be that you can't wait for this product to be on the market. And if that's the case, you're going in the right direction.” Interview at Viva Tech Paris, June 16, 2023

ELON CLIPS

36,448 次观看 • 1 年前

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”
2:44

Naval Ravikant’s checklist for starting a company “The most important thing is there are no formulas. At the end of the day, you have to do what you love, and you have to do it even though people tell you it’ll never work. But that being said, if there was a formula [for starting a company], I would put it something like this.” Naval started seven companies before AngelList and this is the checklist he recommends running through before starting a startup: 1. Pick a great cofounder. This is most important: “You can do a company on your own, but it’s like you can raise a child on your own, but you probably shouldn’t. You need someone who’s going to be there with you.” This has it’s own checklist. Your cofounder should be: a. Very high intelligence (”hopefully they make you feel dumb, or they’re not smart enough”) b. Very high energy (”They should be extremely hardworking. A founder is someone who never has to be motivated. You should not have to be telling them to do their job.”) c. Very high integrity. (”a smart, hardworking crook who’s going to cheat you is the worst kind of person to be paired up with.”) 2. Pick a very large market. “Notice I don’t talk about the idea. I think ideas are almost irrelevant… The more important thing is that you pick a large space that you’re knowledgeable and passionate about. And then you will figure out what the right thing to do within that space is.” You want to be able to say to investors: “This is a space where there’s a huge market. I’m really knowledgeable and passionate about it. Here’s the great person that I have doing it with me. And here’s the minimum viable product that we have built. That will show that we can test in the marketplace… You iterate until you get to product/market fit… And then you go and you raise money from people you trust. And you use that money to scale.”

Startup Archive

36,050 次观看 • 1 年前

Peter Obi said “if I am elected as President, Nigeria’s power generation capacity will rise to 10,000MW. 2: Clarification sir Peter Obi -(a): Nigeria has an installed Power Generation Capacity of about 13,000 to 14,000MW. Stop misleading people. -(b): sir Peter Obi you are confusing power generation with transmission and distribution. -(c): bcos we have grid constraints, gas shortages and weak distribution networks from DisCos, we can not wheel them at once. 3: FG from Buhari to Tinubu have been working on grid and distribution lines to deliver more power to the people and industries particularly. 4: Peter Obi write to the MD FGN Power Company to give you update as per Nigeria-Siemens Electricity Project across the country to deal with Transmission and distribution so that you can EDIT your MANIFESTO. -(a): I don’t like you to commit gaffes in public and sharing lies or inaccurate data. 5: We have a center in Onitsha, I am inviting you sir Peter Obi for a visit. After, you will go home and I will leave for Asaba to enjoy my evening.
0:28

Peter Obi said “if I am elected as President, Nigeria’s power generation capacity will rise to 10,000MW. 2: Clarification sir Peter Obi -(a): Nigeria has an installed Power Generation Capacity of about 13,000 to 14,000MW. Stop misleading people. -(b): sir Peter Obi you are confusing power generation with transmission and distribution. -(c): bcos we have grid constraints, gas shortages and weak distribution networks from DisCos, we can not wheel them at once. 3: FG from Buhari to Tinubu have been working on grid and distribution lines to deliver more power to the people and industries particularly. 4: Peter Obi write to the MD FGN Power Company to give you update as per Nigeria-Siemens Electricity Project across the country to deal with Transmission and distribution so that you can EDIT your MANIFESTO. -(a): I don’t like you to commit gaffes in public and sharing lies or inaccurate data. 5: We have a center in Onitsha, I am inviting you sir Peter Obi for a visit. After, you will go home and I will leave for Asaba to enjoy my evening.

Woye

32,450 次观看 • 1 个月前