Hacker News Reader

Comment by elliotbnvl | Hacker News Reader

Hmm, not sure on this. If the problem is solving is big enough, I would think people would bite as soon as they're able to validate the software solves their problem. Check out how Jason Cohen founded WP Engine as a counterpoint.

I mean, perhaps ALL of software is so saturated there are no places where this can happen, but I'd rather spend a couple of years discovering that then spend a couple of years learning that one solution I tried to sell isn't valid.

View on HN

A primary driver of SaaS sales is trust. Nobody wants to bet on a platform that is going to pivot or shut down within 12 months. It's not about price, it's about disruption to business in both adopting and offboarding from any solution more complex than a todo list. For a lot of established companies, that unfortunately means they won't even consider you until you've been around for 1-2 years. We have a lot of customers who checked us out on day 1, and now 3-4 years later are coming back saying "Cool, you guys are still in business, now we can try you out for real".

If you're building SaaS, go ahead and take that SaaStr article as gospel (and a lot of their other writing as well). Maybe you're a special unicorn where it doesn't apply, but most likely you aren't.

So, I'm a consultant, and the primary research lead at our company. My buying cycle is longer than your software has existed. I like the idea of the tool, but, I never heard about it. You didn't find me and tell me about it, none of my peers told me about it, etc. I DO go out looking for software to make my life easier, but, I don't do it every day or even every month.

Just keep selling it, it takes time.

I'm not saying it's impossible; just because it might have worked for Jason Cohen doesn't mean you should expect such a short timeframe to work for you. That was also his 4th startup, I believe...

As Jason says in his interviews, if it were that easy, then we'd all have 1000 customers and bootstrapped startups.

Conversely, because it probably won't work, is that a good reason not to try? Given the asymmetrical nature of the risk (three weeks is not a huge chunk out of my life, unlike three years I spent on a previous startup), it seems like a reasonable investment. If it does work, the payoff is worth the risk imo. Or at least, it was in this case -- which is why I took the risk.

While drastically decreasing the amount of risk you take, you're also drastically decreasing the likelihood of success.

Generally speaking, I agree... but does it really apply here?

Wouldn't I be taking a risk in not taking a risk, thus decreasing the likelihood of success... which should then increase the likelihood of success?

I only say this for the sake of argument and I think there's something wrong with this logic, but for the life of me I can't find it.

I think the point he’s making is that you didn’t take enough time to validate either way. If you do this with every idea you can launch and shut down 12 companies a year and not give any one a real chance of validation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com