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.
I think this discussion is just semantics at this point. Any highly refined idea to the point of tangibility is indistinguishable from execution at that point.
I wish this post would have given an example of one of these great "ideas" that have clear intrinsic value, even just in retrospect. Like what? Facebook's "idea" of an exclusive social network? That seems more like execution than an idea to me, especially considering we all know the story that multiple teams tried it and one won out -- and the one that got the traction was the one people cared about.
It seems to me that ideas, at best, are negatively important. A bad idea can kill a company obviously, but a "good idea" (whatever that means) guarantees nothing. I'd much rather have an all star team working on a terrible idea, since the idea is the easiest thing to pivot from. You can't pivot from your own team and skills -- well, maybe you can fire everyone (including yourself?), but that's kind of precisely the point.
Exactly. To me, it seems that ideas are not really so distinct from their execution. Of course it's possible to have a 'great idea' without the ability to execute it, and it's possible to possess the ability without the idea, but both of these should be disregarded as uninteresting. Some might say then, that the 'interesting' part is the balance of idea and implementation, but I think that the significant ideas/projects are really only so because of the people that fostered them.
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.
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.
I'm going to disagree with you on that the best companies tend not to pivot. I think there are lots of companies that pivot in such a seamless way that externally it all looks very planned. I also probably consider more things a pivot then you do, pivoting doesn't have to mean simply pivoting from an idea. It could mean pivoting from a plan of attack on an idea, dropping products that don't work, trying another kink in the armor, etc.
These "best" companies tend to be data driven and experiment a lot, we don't always see what is going on. Lots of people outside the kitchen will be able to say, everything they make here is good. You don't know the chef told the staff to make that plate over a dozen times until he was happy. Look at how many iterations of Apple's products were done before Jobs was happy. From the outside it just looks like genius, all the while he was pivoting and refining the ideas and products constantly.
You also discount the time the people spend working on stuff/ideas before the entity is official formed, people rarely take this into account. Much of this tends to happen before people look to raise money, so I could see where this might be a perspective someone on the "other side of the table" would have.
There are lots of "overnight" successes that took 10-15 years to reach that escape velocity that makes them great. They might have great focus during this time, but you can be damn sure they had to change it up a little to make it happen. Harmonix killed it with Guitar Hero and Rock Band, but they had a very long road to get there. Full of pivots.
I think the very best companies all have one thing in common though, they are tenacious, focused, and nothing will stand in their way if they decide to try and conquer something. They will pivot away from what is not working, and constantly refine the battleplan until the target is dead. Look at Toyota, Google, Apple, etc. they all are not afraid of change, pivots and redefining their focus.
Agreed about needing to change at the earliest stage possible, but this is my problem with your thesis. The mantra "ideas are worthless" is only ever used to talk about early stage companies.
The ideas that matter are the ones that survive short term tactical changes. If you don't have one of those, what are you really doing? Ever found yourself saying "well, the idea is that..."
- "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.