Getting into to either isn't based on ratios and stats. Excellent, top-notch engineers that can get jobs at Google might find it harder to get into TechStars if they lack a viable team + idea. There are a LOT of positions open at Google right now. Not many spots at TechStars. Orders of magnitude difference.
Do you or have you worked there? Neither have I, but friends attest that 9-to-5 is possible there. All depends on the person, their focus and the project they are working on.
In my view, decision-making authority shouldn't be based on percentage of ownership, but rather on the context of the decision and the meritocracy of ideas. The ultimate say should be assigned and the CEO should have ultimate decision, but even then the "healthy" way to establish that isn't through a mathematical forumla or a percent ownership, but rather through trust between individuals and agreed-upon roles.
Decision stalemate (or more generally, just spending too much time squabbling over every decision vs. spending time executing) can happen even when it's not 50/50. The key issue isn't equity stake but rather leadership, trust and culture.
My personal view is that 62% of $0 is zero...so don't sweat the equity stakes too much and instead focus on winning.
Impossible to apply general advice like this to every situation. As usual, reality is "it depends"
Here's a legitimate reason to keep your product or service stealth: when you're in customer development mode and you have plenty of customers to represent your possible target markets and therefore plenty of feedback, and therefore more feedback and exposure would be redundant and likely mean disappointed customers. Why burn through a lot of potential customers when you're not ready presenting them with a bad first time impression.
Congrats on getting a name! I'm not sure, but that might be the longest naming decision period ever...or at least the most customer traction gained by an untitled startup before settling on a real name :)
Well, for you there would be equity upside (vs. contractors that typically get zero) and the chance to gain more responsibility (vs. contractors that typically aren't allowed to manage budget or people)
Well, at some point you become so enthralled with the project and the company that you want to be a part of it vs. thining of yourself as a paid agent doing a job. And if not, you probably aren't a fit and wouldn't get the offer in the first place (at least not in my experiences)
Jor from MediaPiston here. We recently AB tested with a daily deals provider to compare email open rate and click rate of deal descriptions, and beat the internal team to win their business. Not all online services that involve copy writing have to be crud quality just because the writers happen to be working from home.
Well, it would be nice if the author had (or if someone with expertise would) write up some rationale on the strategy and benefits of having APIs. Certainly distribution or monetization can both be benefits of a well crafted API, but if it is pursued blindly for the sake of having one, it could be a way of letting value slip out the door.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I'd imagine that RescueTime's users are early-adopters, and as such may be the tip of the arrow indicating future trends. Hence, this is fairly interesting data.
One interesting aspect is that the NYT pulled these from their log of user's clicking the terms to look them up...so they correspond to their readership's (lack of) vocab
Great post! This part is golden: "When the company picks up your nighttime MBA, that’s a great benefit – but when Teachstreet (a company that helps people find local and online classes) gets its employees together to learn how to build kites, now that’s a quirk. It’s not to say that corporate mandates can’t make great quirks, although the best ones often arise spontaneously from the teams themselves"
I'm looking forward to more on what in a culture can be assigned and determined proactively versus what should be left emergent...after all, the culture is a reflection of what you want to be and what you already are, right?
When i first saw this it made hiring and sorting out non-tech jobs much clearer in my mind. Though i wish there was a version of this for consumer Internet type companies.
Yeah, good point... That is a big (biggest?) part of a typical VC's way of thinking. Similarly on the founder's side is the "emotional control" factor in determining exits and decisions in spite of the terms and VC's objectives. Have you seen any posts about that aspect?
touché. So we agree, shouldn't care about the kind of fridge and it's not beneath them to order it. Btw, hopefully the people in the company care more about the quality of the people, the work and the direction that what is IN the fridge.
I worry about the startup whose CEO cares a single second on what kind of fridge they have. Wrong priorities. Spent that extra 20 minutes on hiring, product planning, sales or coding.
"Office Manager" is a good percentage of the role, but in a chaotic startup environment, settling on the narrower job expectations that come with that title is limiting. Our d-i-a-o-a's were doing usability studies, guerilla marketing, recruiting and other things way beyond the tranditional scope. In a startup, it is good to have generalists and people willing to stretch and do whatever it takes (even for engineers...imagine if one of your devs said "um, sorry, i only do OO, if you need a shell script for XYZ, that work is below me" or whatever...disaster)
With all due respect, this is totally different from exec admin or exec babysitter. When we were 12 people in a small room coding and focused on our product, our do-it-all-office admins were absolutely strategic, important and appreciated by everyone in the company....and they allowed everyone to focus without distractions. And when we were acquired, our d-i-a-o-a were doing due diligence and holding their own with multiple execs and about 5 laywers. They were incredible. I'd lay down on the tracks for them now. Their job was anything but "baby-sitting". And it got each of them into top schools pursuing law and business degrees. By the way, not bad for a first job out of college.
Right on! Good way to characterize it. If you are strafing from zero, the downside risk is low, relatively speaking....so might as well go for it. This is why (in my view) it is good to go for it when you're young and/or it is a bad economy,
Great advice. Part of my decision to do the MBA was based on market timing...I applied just as the web 1.0 bubble was bursting. I hadn't considered much just doing a startup during the down economy, but that would have been a good time, and I know many others who did and it paid off big for them.
I agree. This was my own experience, obviously. People debate these sorts of questions all the time (i.e. what's best X or Y?") and I think there are a couple of things that hardly get any attention that are more important factors than any particular decision...and those are: tenacity and intelligence.
Yes, totally (that was my point). Not dissing the MBA -- it was also an amazing experience and investment / risk. My real point was about weighing the financial considerations of taking the startup plunge against the intangible benefits. There are many forms of "debt", from forgone salary, stress on one's marriage, sacrifices to personal health stemming from high sodium intake from top ramen, etc.