It's very, very hard to judge whether an idea actually sucks from the elevator pitch, especially if the person giving it isn't experienced and confident about pitching. If we went around saying other people's idea sucks we'd most likely be saying their pitch sucks - they didn't communicate it well enough. That's a problem, but it probably isn't the end of the world.
I think the key thing to remember is that you very rarely "get" something that might be a groundbreaking innovation the first time you hear about it, so holding back on criticism and judgement until you've heard a bit more isn't a bad strategy.
When twitter was first pitched, how many people would have said that the idea sucked? What about airbnb? Kickstarter? pinterest? The list goes on and on.
VCs make money by betting that only 1 in 100 of their investments will be a success. What makes you think that a random person at a start-up event will have any more success.
It's the same thing in the gaming space. 99% of people's game ideas suck (honestly, it's extremely difficult to have a non-shitty idea, especially if you are trying to be unique and invent new game mechanics).
Part of the problem is that everyone thinks they can be a "game designer". It's one of those skills that is not measurable; so if you suck at it, it's hard to tell.
I think that as people gain maturity and experience, their eyes open, and are more willing to give and receive criticism like this (hopefully). Another reason why age and experience are valuable.
At ilab in Brisbane last year, I was honest when I came across some people's ideas: if they'd been attempted (seriously, with actual execution) before and had no luck, I pointed that out. If the idea wasn't fully formed yet, I chatted to other founders about what it was missing, from what I could see.
A lot of Australian founders really didn't like that for the most part, but a couple (whom I'm now friends with!) took it really well, pivoted, or decided to do something else entirely, and they thanked me for the feedback (and the feedback of the mentors that said similar things!).
Mentors giving feedback like that was often met with incredulity and hurt. "You are NOT your idea" is really important, but I have a theory that Australia's (especially Brisbane!) startup scene is so small, and so fledgling, that we're still learning :)
For what it's worth, I was told my idea was good, but my numbers (which were realistic, based on exits from companies that were similar but not the same, about $6-9mil after 2-3 years) were said to be too small for venture capital to try.
VC's and investors in Australia are also learning, and are a lot less willing to give an idea money to try. But that's okay! Things will change, given time and effort.
This is harsh: I visited a company town once, and it struck me that Australia is like a giant company town. Our wealth comes from mining and farming, and the owners share enough to keep things humming. Result: a good life, risk not needed, non-conformity not appreciated.
In comparison, US is more entrepreneurial and SV more so - but to be fair, it's more entrepreneurial than anywhere, and even it suffers from risk-aversion and echo-chamber conformity at times.
What do you think?
EDIT I don't think it's a question of tech or not (Australia is technically highly capable and advanced), but of entrepreneurial or not. Our idea of "entrepreneurial" is opening yet another mine, TV station or restaurant.
And it pisses me off. I live in Brisbane, and I love the people and the city, but I will eat my hat (and film it for YouTube) if the Council/State Gov will ever pump money into building up a proper tech sector here.
Melbourne is a little better, with their "hipster"-styled outlook; I guess that's why it has a bit of hype in the start-up scene here in Aus (they have anti-conformism, to a mild extent).
Sydney, well, there is innovation coming out of there. A number of startups, and they do quite well, but it's a 5:1 ratio of B2B vs B2C startups, so you don't get to _see_ the work being done, unless you are in a vertical they target.
Maybe one day Australia will take tech seriously... until then, I'm biding my time and saving up my personal runway to chase dreams elsewhere in the world, like a lot of people my age.
Governments make investments in infrastructure and other things to encourage local business in particular sectors to come here. I'd like to see my city take the forefront in courting IT in Australia.
Because local industry in Queensland is focused on pulling finite resources out of the ground, which can only last so long before it must move somewhere else. They're not interested in conquering problems that the rest of society faces, and in my personal opinion, basing our state's long term future on the sector (even if it is GREAT temporarily; for ex. my dad is a Civil engineer working on the roads around the mines, makes over $1mil/yr revenue from his business), is going to bite us in the arse.
Because of that, if Queensland and Brisbane wants to stop playing third fiddle to Sydney and Melbourne on a local and world stage, then we need to start doing something in the future.
While I do believe that one of the functions of a government is to encourage a diverse economy, I do not believe that it is the role of government to create it. If there are people in (we'll use your example) Brisbane that are willing, able and capable to begin to build a tech industry, they should. After that has occurred, then the government is in a position to look at how it can best encourage continued growth.
However, it may end up that Sydney is where Australia's tech industry takes root and grows through natural activity and movement instead of Brisbane. This is normal and it will happen. Not every city is 'world class' at everything, it's really not possible.
I have been proven wrong far too many times to believe that I am still in any way a decent judge of what may be a good idea or viable startup.
The best example I can give here is from a few years ago when I was chatting online with some startup folks. One of them was building a Twitter based app where you would enter your tweets and it would post them at an interval you specify. I believe my thoughts at the time were that it must be the lamest idea I ever came across. Fast forward a few years and that startup, now known to the world as Buffer, is making over a million dollars a year and growing at a crazy rate.
I don't believe ideas are inherently good or bad. A lot also depends on timing and execution. Twitter turned out to be a great idea, but I don't think there are many people who could have pulled it off the way Jack Dorsey and his cohorts did.
1. It's very difficult to tell what's a good idea or not. 'Not Invented Here' syndrome is one reason why we think other people's ideas generally suck, but in the end it's almost all down to execution.
2. Startups are hard. It's much more useful to start out gung-ho with a crummy idea, and then learn exactly why it's crummy and adapt than to be shot down before take-off because the idea isn't perfect.
and one slightly less good reason:
3. We want people to like us. It's hard to break down an idea and not breed any resentment.
It is not good manners to tell people that their idea, in your opinion, "sucks". That's why.
I wouldn't tell them that, just as I wouldn't tell them that, in my opinion, their clothing, haircut, or other aspects of personal appearance "suck". Nor that any aspect of their personality "sucks".
i dont really see how you can recreate waze or tumblr in a weekend - especially in their current shape. I guess being less arrogant will allow you to be a better judge of startups ;)
Its not up to other people to validate your startup. That's your job.
If you cannot get that feedback because you are waiting for them to break the rules of social behaviour, then all the other problems of running a startup are simply going to flatten you.
Here are some ideas I only half-heartedly do myself:
1. Have a website with a mailchimp mailing list on it. Ask them to subscribe. Hell, enter their email in front of them right there and then - then wait. If they confirm, they liked your idea, if not they did not.
2. Have a mock-up online and a description. Email people a link to it, with a unique tracking code. If someone clicks the link, they liked your idea.
3. have a MVP and ask them to use it. email them a username and password. If they use it - they liked it.
Basically, waiting around for other people to give you feedback is like waiting around for them to give you money.
Ask for the sale.
In my experience one mans "trash" is another mans "Twitter". Not liking things is highly subjective and such I don't think people should be flat out telling other people they think their ideas are rubbish because lets face it a pitch for a service like Twitter; It's like text messaging, but on the Internet instead — sounds lame when you put it like that, but look at Twitter nowadays, a service that keeps growing and innovating and keeping itself relevant. It was one of quite a few apps that were shot down but succeeded in the end regardless of what others thought.
If someone tells you they're working on an Instagram for cat pictures or an app that will play a random sound at an interval you specify, then yes, tell them it's a horrible idea. But just because an idea sounds simple or has been done before doesn't mean it will fail. It takes more than an idea to succeed.
Well here you are, talking to somebody who's spent months thinking about something from every angle imaginable. And you've given it five minute's thought. Who are you to say their idea sucks? You know nothing about it.
A much better approach is to ask questions. Don't say "your idea sucks", ask "Do you have any users?", don't say "your idea sucks", ask "What sort of growth have you found?" and so on. Eventually you will hit a question where the person doesn't know the answer. Congratulations, you've just helped somebody improve their idea.
> "Well here you are, talking to somebody who's spent months thinking about something from every angle imaginable." (emphasis added)
Sadly, I don't think this is often the case and it's a difficult thing for anyone to do. You're inherently limited by the angles you can think of (which is why you should get out and talk to people).
You're advice is spot-on though. I've been in a number of conversations where probing with questions and getting very well thought out answers has convinced me that the founder really know's what he's talking about.
Which still falls under "every angle imaginable". Increasing the pool of imaginable angles is of course good, but you won't get there if people say your idea sucks instead of sharing their angles with you.
If I know nothing about it, I'll say so. That said, if it's a consumer-facing idea, I likely have thought about it, at some point, often before some of the people I'm talking to were even in high school. Many ideas keep coming around every few years, and people without any sense of history at all may be doomed to repeat it (instead of potentially avoiding the mistakes of previous efforts in the same area).
There's plenty of things I've missed, and I'm not at all any prescient genius at this, but I've been approached by people with 'great ideas' who 'just need someone to build it for them'.
One example from last fall - I liked the idea, but told them they were going to have lots of legal hurdles with the IP and content, and they assured me they wouldn't. Three months later, they told me they were having legal issues with the IP and content. They could have pressed on, but chose not to, because they wanted to finish up school instead. I think they also realized why this 'great idea' isn't being done - it's not because no one thought about it, or that it was some great insight, it's that it's hard to do because much of the content they want is tied up in legal issues.
But... wow - how about that? I looked at the problem for 5 minutes and saw issues they hadn't seen in 12 months of thinking about the problem. Why is that? Maybe because I've been working professionally for 20 years, and they were still in college? Certainly not claiming I'm smarter or more clever, but simply that sometimes having more experience in some areas lets you see issues that the person hooked on the idea hasn't seen (or doesn't want to see).
Your point about questioning is fine, to a point (no pun). Asking too many leading questions can make you come across like a jerk too.
Well, yes. Anything you do can make you look like a jerk if you do it in a jerky way.
And as you point out, sometimes you simply have more experience in an area than the founders do. Obviously there are cases where this will happen and you can immediately tell the idea stands on shaky ground.
But in general that's not the case in "Hey I have this cool idea" conversations.
I don't tell people their ideas suck because the Internet has proven time and time again that success is often less about the idea and more about the execution.
Because it's in my interest not to tell them. What do I gain by telling them their idea sucks? I have an uncomfortable interaction and I potentially make an enemy, or at least someone who now finds it uncomfortable to be around me.
What do I lose by being "nice"? Nothing. How does it serve my interests to go out on a limb and tell it like it is?
because telling someone that something sucks is utterly useless. Try asking constructive questions that will either lead you to realize that it doesnt suck and that the 5 minutes of thought you put into it is orders of magnitude less than the time and effort she/he put into it. Or you will get them to stumble upon a perspective they haven´t yet considered and maybe find a solution to it - or if it truly does suck - realize the same and spend time figuring out what to do. Destructive criticism is utterly pointless in the startup world - or anywhere for that matter.
Mostly because it's not productive. Ideas, especially early ones, are malleable and changing. Saying it "Sucks" is like building a brick wall. Instead you want to ask something that illuminates the way so the idea improves.
That being said, first time entrepreneurs benefit most from this approach while people more experienced can cut to the chase.
48 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadI think the key thing to remember is that you very rarely "get" something that might be a groundbreaking innovation the first time you hear about it, so holding back on criticism and judgement until you've heard a bit more isn't a bad strategy.
VCs make money by betting that only 1 in 100 of their investments will be a success. What makes you think that a random person at a start-up event will have any more success.
Part of the problem is that everyone thinks they can be a "game designer". It's one of those skills that is not measurable; so if you suck at it, it's hard to tell.
I think that as people gain maturity and experience, their eyes open, and are more willing to give and receive criticism like this (hopefully). Another reason why age and experience are valuable.
A lot of Australian founders really didn't like that for the most part, but a couple (whom I'm now friends with!) took it really well, pivoted, or decided to do something else entirely, and they thanked me for the feedback (and the feedback of the mentors that said similar things!).
Mentors giving feedback like that was often met with incredulity and hurt. "You are NOT your idea" is really important, but I have a theory that Australia's (especially Brisbane!) startup scene is so small, and so fledgling, that we're still learning :)
For what it's worth, I was told my idea was good, but my numbers (which were realistic, based on exits from companies that were similar but not the same, about $6-9mil after 2-3 years) were said to be too small for venture capital to try.
VC's and investors in Australia are also learning, and are a lot less willing to give an idea money to try. But that's okay! Things will change, given time and effort.
Seems... odd
In comparison, US is more entrepreneurial and SV more so - but to be fair, it's more entrepreneurial than anywhere, and even it suffers from risk-aversion and echo-chamber conformity at times.
What do you think?
EDIT I don't think it's a question of tech or not (Australia is technically highly capable and advanced), but of entrepreneurial or not. Our idea of "entrepreneurial" is opening yet another mine, TV station or restaurant.
And it pisses me off. I live in Brisbane, and I love the people and the city, but I will eat my hat (and film it for YouTube) if the Council/State Gov will ever pump money into building up a proper tech sector here.
Melbourne is a little better, with their "hipster"-styled outlook; I guess that's why it has a bit of hype in the start-up scene here in Aus (they have anti-conformism, to a mild extent).
Sydney, well, there is innovation coming out of there. A number of startups, and they do quite well, but it's a 5:1 ratio of B2B vs B2C startups, so you don't get to _see_ the work being done, unless you are in a vertical they target.
Maybe one day Australia will take tech seriously... until then, I'm biding my time and saving up my personal runway to chase dreams elsewhere in the world, like a lot of people my age.
Why is that the governments job?
Because local industry in Queensland is focused on pulling finite resources out of the ground, which can only last so long before it must move somewhere else. They're not interested in conquering problems that the rest of society faces, and in my personal opinion, basing our state's long term future on the sector (even if it is GREAT temporarily; for ex. my dad is a Civil engineer working on the roads around the mines, makes over $1mil/yr revenue from his business), is going to bite us in the arse.
Because of that, if Queensland and Brisbane wants to stop playing third fiddle to Sydney and Melbourne on a local and world stage, then we need to start doing something in the future.
However, it may end up that Sydney is where Australia's tech industry takes root and grows through natural activity and movement instead of Brisbane. This is normal and it will happen. Not every city is 'world class' at everything, it's really not possible.
The best example I can give here is from a few years ago when I was chatting online with some startup folks. One of them was building a Twitter based app where you would enter your tweets and it would post them at an interval you specify. I believe my thoughts at the time were that it must be the lamest idea I ever came across. Fast forward a few years and that startup, now known to the world as Buffer, is making over a million dollars a year and growing at a crazy rate.
I can't verify that myself since I don't want to link their app to my linkedin.
$19/month
1. It's very difficult to tell what's a good idea or not. 'Not Invented Here' syndrome is one reason why we think other people's ideas generally suck, but in the end it's almost all down to execution.
2. Startups are hard. It's much more useful to start out gung-ho with a crummy idea, and then learn exactly why it's crummy and adapt than to be shot down before take-off because the idea isn't perfect.
and one slightly less good reason:
3. We want people to like us. It's hard to break down an idea and not breed any resentment.
I wouldn't tell them that, just as I wouldn't tell them that, in my opinion, their clothing, haircut, or other aspects of personal appearance "suck". Nor that any aspect of their personality "sucks".
Then they either suck or they are awesome, but at least they are real enough to be judged at that point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4431289
b) Networking events are for networking.
-Waze
-Twitter
-Instagram
-Tumblr
This is why I don't tell people their ideas suck, I'm a terrible judge of it.
If you cannot get that feedback because you are waiting for them to break the rules of social behaviour, then all the other problems of running a startup are simply going to flatten you.
Here are some ideas I only half-heartedly do myself:
1. Have a website with a mailchimp mailing list on it. Ask them to subscribe. Hell, enter their email in front of them right there and then - then wait. If they confirm, they liked your idea, if not they did not.
2. Have a mock-up online and a description. Email people a link to it, with a unique tracking code. If someone clicks the link, they liked your idea.
3. have a MVP and ask them to use it. email them a username and password. If they use it - they liked it.
Basically, waiting around for other people to give you feedback is like waiting around for them to give you money. Ask for the sale.
If someone tells you they're working on an Instagram for cat pictures or an app that will play a random sound at an interval you specify, then yes, tell them it's a horrible idea. But just because an idea sounds simple or has been done before doesn't mean it will fail. It takes more than an idea to succeed.
Well here you are, talking to somebody who's spent months thinking about something from every angle imaginable. And you've given it five minute's thought. Who are you to say their idea sucks? You know nothing about it.
A much better approach is to ask questions. Don't say "your idea sucks", ask "Do you have any users?", don't say "your idea sucks", ask "What sort of growth have you found?" and so on. Eventually you will hit a question where the person doesn't know the answer. Congratulations, you've just helped somebody improve their idea.
Sadly, I don't think this is often the case and it's a difficult thing for anyone to do. You're inherently limited by the angles you can think of (which is why you should get out and talk to people).
You're advice is spot-on though. I've been in a number of conversations where probing with questions and getting very well thought out answers has convinced me that the founder really know's what he's talking about.
Which still falls under "every angle imaginable". Increasing the pool of imaginable angles is of course good, but you won't get there if people say your idea sucks instead of sharing their angles with you.
Depends on what your view of success and right/wrong is.
There's plenty of things I've missed, and I'm not at all any prescient genius at this, but I've been approached by people with 'great ideas' who 'just need someone to build it for them'.
One example from last fall - I liked the idea, but told them they were going to have lots of legal hurdles with the IP and content, and they assured me they wouldn't. Three months later, they told me they were having legal issues with the IP and content. They could have pressed on, but chose not to, because they wanted to finish up school instead. I think they also realized why this 'great idea' isn't being done - it's not because no one thought about it, or that it was some great insight, it's that it's hard to do because much of the content they want is tied up in legal issues.
But... wow - how about that? I looked at the problem for 5 minutes and saw issues they hadn't seen in 12 months of thinking about the problem. Why is that? Maybe because I've been working professionally for 20 years, and they were still in college? Certainly not claiming I'm smarter or more clever, but simply that sometimes having more experience in some areas lets you see issues that the person hooked on the idea hasn't seen (or doesn't want to see).
Your point about questioning is fine, to a point (no pun). Asking too many leading questions can make you come across like a jerk too.
Well, yes. Anything you do can make you look like a jerk if you do it in a jerky way.
And as you point out, sometimes you simply have more experience in an area than the founders do. Obviously there are cases where this will happen and you can immediately tell the idea stands on shaky ground.
But in general that's not the case in "Hey I have this cool idea" conversations.
What do I lose by being "nice"? Nothing. How does it serve my interests to go out on a limb and tell it like it is?
And if they are, they probably know it already.
That being said, first time entrepreneurs benefit most from this approach while people more experienced can cut to the chase.
It's all about trying to be helpful.
Execute, understand your market, and make fucking money.