Outside the Silicon Valley world, there are numerous similar examples. J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter novel was rejected by 12 publishers, for instance.
The stupidest things can turn out to be hits. I read of a guy who decided to market an electric toothbrush in the early '90s, when that market was considered by skeptics to be mature and saturated. He was quite successful, as it turned out.
I guess the nature of entrepreneurship is that it's entirely unpredictable. Therefore, we can safely disregard the naysayers, even though they are accidentally right 9 times out of 10!
Outside the Silicon Valley world, there are numerous similar examples. J.K. Rowling's first Harry Potter novel was rejected by 12 publishers, for instance.
JK Rowling wrote a crime novel under a different name. The critics praised it, but it was a commerical failure. It's more likely that luck can play a large failure.
That's not true. In the brief four months between being published and the author being revealed as a pseudonym it sold a respectable number of copies (8,500 across all formats - that doesn't sound like a lot, but it was at the time only published in the UK, and for a hardback book that is actually a large amount). By publishing industry standards it was commercially successful.
JK Rowling herself has said the number of copies the book sold in its first three months corresponds fairly well to the number of books she sold under her own name when she was initially published.
> They had the chance to invest in the following companies early, but didn't: Intel, Google, Apple, FedEx, PayPal, and others.
This is misleading unless we know the list size in which these bypassed companies appeared. If the success/failure ratio is 0.01, then it should surprise no one that venture capitalists sometimes miss a winner while carefully investing in startups.
The problem is that it's hard to judge a company/startup solely based on what they're selling or their "big idea". Execution is a much bigger factor and can be harder to see.
Maybe, just maybe, they needed those rejections to become who they are today. Rejections are an important tool to test stability and force adaptability.
Rather than jump into a condemning remark like "That is a stupid idea" I simply say, "I don't get it". Then I talk the idea through with them while trying to understand why they think it is a good idea.
Sometimes I find there was some data I was missing. But, if I still believe it to be a bad idea, rather than tell them their idea is stupid I simply say "I'd never build that because of x, y, & z" which is an honest and unassuming statement.
That's not what the OP is really talking about though, as what you've described is fair and constructive :)
People gossip. I'm not in the Valley myself, but friends are, and from what I've been told the OPs description of behind-the-back unconstructive negativity... Well, I think that's a bad way of helping each other.
To put it simply: I think we need to be a little more sensitive. That doesn't mean we can't be critical, but if you temper that with some empathy, you'll often get better results, in my experience.
If your target market is stupid people, then you need stupid ideas. This is the entire business model of many companies: Upworthy, Buzzfeed, Snapchat, etc etc.
The thing is, what i'd class as "stupid ideas" can still become popular. Personally i still think that twitter and snapchat are stupid ideas. I think they're cool, fun and interesting for the tweens that use them but they're a stupid business idea, because the revenue models are an afterthought, which i dislike.
Stupid is not an objective assessment though. I think Facebook is stupid, and I don't use it. I'm clearly in the minority, but that doesn't make me wrong, because there is no universal, objective standard on what is or is not "stupid."
I think the point is that stupid things can still be popular, and stupid ideas can make for successful businesses. Americans in particular tend to have a purely capitalist viewpoint that equates "profitable" with "good".
Hell, the "Pet Rock" sold millions, and I would hope we can all agree that was a stupid idea.
I think you are proving the point. Yes, I would agree that the pet rock was a stupid idea. Assuming I would find any reason to want a rock as a pet, why would I pay for one when I could simply go out to the garden and find one?
Yet many people did find the idea not only not stupid, but compelling enough to pay for.
So "stupid" is an entirely subjective assessment. I would never have invested in the "pet rock" idea as a funding venture, but clearly if I had done so at the right time, it could have been rewarding to do so.
I don't know about others, but I am surrounded by quite a few 'idea enthusiasts'. People who believe that an idea is everything, and they get emotionally attached to each of their ideas. It makes it very difficult to critique any of their idea as they will make every effort to defend their idea no matter how weak their argument is. In such cases, I could either tell them 'Interesting idea, talk about it later', when I don't mean to talk about it ever again, but still not hurt the person. Or tell them the truth, that I think the idea is 'stupid' (may be following it up by why I think so if asked, though increasingly difficult with so many ideas floating around).
The problem I find with 'idea enthusiasts' is that rather than pick 1 good idea and build on it they have lots of ideas and want to stick them all together which leaves you with a big mess of a product.
I feel that this sort of criticism is less about the actual plausibility of ideas, and more about the intense competition for resources amongst startups right now. People are more positive about new ideas when there aren't five hundred copycats competing for the same limited pool of attention, office space and employees with tiny variations on the same basic themes.
When there's one "stupid idea" making a run at the barricades, it's easy to be supportive. But when every idea immediately clones three other "fast follower" ideas, people get cynical pretty quickly.
In particular, in the current Silicon Valley system, the "stupid ideas" are competing with good ideas for money. Money that went into Snapchat wasn't available to go into a startup doing cleantech, privacy, optical logic, nuclear fusion, or some other technology that is crucial for the future.
Upvote for trying something. I do think there are serious trust issues, though.
As the seller/traveller, I don't want to get screwed in terms of time and money. It's a hassle to around my city to pick up an item, and then to pack it, haul it through two different airports, get it through customs, and then to have to meet the traveller during my busy schedule (and who really wants to do this during their vacation?). It better be worth my while, and I'd like the money upfront so I don't have to take this thing back with me in case the buyer flakes.
As the buyer, I don't want to get screwed by the traveller. I'm sending them the money, and they may never show up.
I would consider trying to find a niche of small, portable products that don't present any customs/duty problems, and then try to scale up from there. Trust platforms like Facebook, PayPal, or escrow may help mitigate in some cases, but not all.
I would actually consider focusing on the very low end. For example, what if it was just a $5 candy exchange. It's actually a meet-new-people-platform, with candy as an excuse for traveller to meet locals.
Great points! You perfectly summed up all top-of-mind issues with this idea. All of this was running through my head as I was cobbling together this shoddy landing page.
(Btw, I just posted the question on Ask HN, is it ok if I reply there? - I thought the idea was so strikingly stupid that no one would care)
Anyway, I have some thoughts about the problems you laid out. I will post a reply on the ask HN thread - and would love to get your thoughts!
That is actually a very good idea, it is something I have pondered myself so maybe that is why I think it is a good idea :)
Of course there are massive challenges associated with international commerce, which means probably only the big dogs (Amazon et al) can tackle this one.
If you just consider exotic foods, the safety issues alone is enough to scare the hell out of any regulator.
One way that this could work would be to perhaps build an Etsy-like network of individual expat/immigrant entrepreneurs who will basically setup shop via your site and be responsible for moving the products.
For instance I have friends who are immigrants and ship products from their home countries and sell them here in the states. So you could set up a service for these people to sell their goods to Americans.
Very good suggestions and thank you for the encouragement.
About your point 'set up a service for these people to sell their goods to Americans.' - Never thought about this. So you are saying that there be dedicated businesses selling to americans, and 'shipped by' people who are travelling? Have I understood your view correctly?
Yes, basically offload all logistic concerns to the entrepreneur and simply provide the online store service.
You would handle things like payment and verifying the identity of your buyers and sellers, but the actual procurement and shipment of goods would be handled by the seller/entrepreneur.
I have a friend who ships handmade handbags from Senegal and sells them in NYC in the summer. She's responsible for dealing with the production issues in Senegal (not fun) and the shipment to NYC.
Now your service would be to offer this person a popular online space to sell the bags to a broader audience.
*It looks like what you are thinking of is for the person doing the traveling to basically buy the stuff and bring it back or vice verse take it with them?...
"It looks like what you are thinking of is for the person doing the traveling to basically buy the stuff and bring it back or vice verse take it with them?"
Not a stupid idea, but I think this will be infeasible largely due to customs.
There are many things that an individual traveler simply cannot bring through customs. Many agricultural products, meats, cheeses, etc. I would guess there are also issues with collection of duty on tech products like iPhones especially if they are being transported for ultimate delivery to another party, and not just the personal property of the traveler.
This is an awesome idea. I live in the UK and often find products available in America that have exorbitant shipping fees or are impossible to buy over here. (e.g this TV http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-Digital-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra/d...)
The current option is package forwarding companies. They usually charge a pretty high fee so they're not worth it. But this is definitely something I'd pay for, so long as it's priced well.
Thanks for the encouraging words. ok, maybe I should post a Ask HN to get feedback on this, so that I don't interrupt this discussion. However I do want to ask you if you believe that someone could be incentivized to bring a TV from America to UK? This is exactly what the idea is - but I always thought 'small easy to carry items' (not TVs). But interesting comment. Thank you.
I would guess the main problem with your idea is that unless you can find a way to cover customs logistics you are effectively encouraging people to break the law. How will you cover people needing to pay import duty and taxes on the goods they are bringing into the country?
Good point. What if it is restricted to items bought in duty-free shops? Eg a nice scotch bought in a duty-free for a friend. Is that still encouraging to break the law? [serious question]
For just about every reason that chaz (above comment) has given. The idea that strangers will bring stuff for you sounds a bit too fantastic. I am still working things out. Would love to hear your views.
I'm sure a lot of the same people who agree with this blog post are the same people who constantly trash Snapchat, which I find to be a beautiful and meaningful product, as trash. I think that may be an even more relevant message - just because it appears trivial or doesn't appear to have meaning for you, doesn't mean it's not a meaningful product/service.
“Opinions are the cheapest commodities on earth. Everyone has a flock of opinions ready to be wished upon anyone who will accept them. If you are influenced by "opinions" when you reach DECISIONS, you will not succeed in any undertaking.” ― Napoleon Hill, Think and Grow Rich: The Landmark Bestseller--Now Revised and Updated for the 21st Century
I agree that more honesty when you don't like ideas is needed. A few years back when I started a company (as the tech founder), we approached a high profile investor. He was positive at first and then cooled off after a few days.
Then he took me for a walk during a convention we attended together, and he said very bluntly: "Listen, this will never work. Your product is nice and you can execute the tech part, but your go to market strategy is all wrong because [XYZ]. I have been known to be wrong before, but you guys are basically driving off a cliff".
The irony is that because we had a bullshit guard up for every word coming from anyone in the industry - that we just said "hey, he's wrong, next investor please". His advice was pure gold, and in retrospect, spot on about the problems we had, that could have been fixed at that stage.
"Stupid idea" "Never work" - these are not constructive things to say. They make people have the same reaction you did. "Your go to market strategy needs to fix XYZ." This is the kind of feedback people are looking for, and when presented this way, will probably result in more successes overall.
"Stupid idea" is indeed not constructive. "Will never work because [XYZ]" is constructive IMHO, although not very polite.
Being Israeli I prefer brutal truths over polite bullshit. And personally I try to be honest with people showing me their ideas - while being positive and polite. But knowing the scene, not all Israelis are like that.
It's very easy to predict failure, and it's also very easy - after the fact - to say "I told you so." These are the "experts" and "gurus" speaking.
The "experts" are indeed expert in rhetoric because after one of their failure prediction ends up actually succeeding, they are quick to point of how it succeeded, often mentioning "luck"; and possibly pointing out the impeding failure.
What I would like to see the "expert" saying is who/what will succeed, and I have yet to find an "expert" who does that.
Interestingly enough, most of these "experts" are nothing more than professional writers/talker and don't actually do anything related to what they are talking about. I like the expression "Monday morning quarterback".
It seems I have accidentally given the article a kudos point for this post, although I didn't intend to. It would be nice if svbtle had more indication about that leaving your cursor over the kudos button has this effect, unlike most normal buttons where you have to click to activate.
Ideas are just starting points from which one eventually pivots to a compelling business model backed by evidence collected from talking to potential customers. If one does not talk to customers or pivot, and simply cranks away on their original idea, well, then that is the stupid part.
Too much focus on other people, and it goes both ways.
You shouldn't be randomly picking apart other people's companies just to make yourself feel better, that is not moving the needle for your own company at all. You also shouldn't be worried about what other random people are saying about your startup since there will always be haters.
Instead you should be heads down focused on your own problems or possibly helping other people who you personally know in private. Posting some criticism on the internet to appear smart or fulfill some other base psychological desire is just a waste of time.
On a separate note, can you really say "that's a great idea" to a startup/team that hasn't yet demonstrated the potential of the idea? I do believe that on some level, a successful start-up idea does have to sound "stupid" - not necessarily the product itself but the idea that you can sell/generate revenue from product/service X.
feedback is feedback. when i hear one of my ideas is stupid/unfeasible/unrealistic/ill-conceived, i now probe for more detail. i try to get beyond semantics to see if i can learn anything.
probing helps me move from reactive to proactive stance, from attached to objective. this way, i can better filter the noise.
note: some of the biggest mistakes i made in my past startup were listening to too many people or not listening closely enough to a few. that is the paradox of good judgment (which i believe comes from some combination of gut instinct and pattern-watching; listening is just another form of data collection for the latter).
It makes sense to try to get what benefit you can out of all criticism, but I think Jeff is still right that critics should try to keep it constructive.
I was talking to a VC about how I at one time thought I'd never use AirBNB - but I've now both rented an AirBNB and rented out my house. He said he had felt the same once but the mistake cost him far more then me.
A stupid idea is just that, an idea. The entrepreneurs ability to convey his vision or idea does not necessarily mean that his execution will be bad. Which leads us to the question: What is a good idea?
http://www.bvp.com/portfolio/antiportfolio
They had the chance to invest in the following companies early, but didn't: Intel, Google, Apple, FedEx, PayPal, and others.