Preparing for South by Southwest Interactive every year, I’m inundated with pitches for services (now they’re apps when they used to be social or merely web-based products) that are fun, sometimes useful and generally something I wouldn’t pay money for. Since the magical breakout of Twitter in 2007 and the Foursquare success of 2009, SXSW has become more and more cluttered with startups trying to break out. It has also become a celebration of startups in general. However, that celebration has turned into a fetish — placing the act of creating a startup on a pedestal without casting any sort of critical eye on the quality or likelihood of that startup or idea succeeding.
For example, Wired just ran a story about the 160 applicants riding on six charted buses from Silicon Valley to Austin prepping some business idea en route to the event. After 48 hours coding on the bus, these applicants will be disgorged in front of a panel of judges that will choose the StartupBus winners. Meanwhile, there are at least six other startup contests or app contests happening during the event (I’m a judge at one of them). But amid the hundreds of startups launching, pitching, forming or otherwise trying to break out at SXSW, how many of them are real businesses? How many of them are thought out beyond a scrawl on a napkin, or a quick debate ahead of a startup weekend?
The Wired story notes that last year’s StartupBus winners DormDorm and DateBrowser never became real businesses:
“Two teams won last year: DormDorm, a startup designed to rent colleges' vacant dorm rooms to travelers during the summer, and DateBrowsr, a Hot or Not for dating profiles the service pulled from several sites. Neither actually became real businesses, but many people involved in the StartupBus' virgin voyage claim the experience was integral to both their personal and professional development, whether from skills learned or from connections made. Mick Johnson from the DormDorm team was accepted into startup funding firm Y Combinator and launched Whereoscope, which tracks family members by their cellphones.”
Of course these didn’t become real businesses. Most dorms already have programs to rent their rooms out during the summer and have had them for years, and a few calls could have easily nixed this idea. As for DateBrowser, that’s not really a business; it’s maybe a toolbar. Wired and the founders gloss over the fact that the winners of this startup competition never even had a chance at becoming a real business by focusing on the learning experience and the connections that the ride helped founders make. But I can’t.
The thousands of startups today that are pitching themselves at app competitions or in industry conferences all seem to think being a startup is enough. That daring to come up with some idea, any idea, and build a beta site is enough. That the users will come and then the business model will come and then the money will come. Google, Facebook and Twitter are their icons. Somehow the act of creating a startup has become the goal instead of the building of a business. As this post in The Awl points out, there are now startups built to merely create launch pages for your startup. (The Awl highlights LaunchRock, but Prefinery is another. I can’t believe there is a me-too startup even trying to build a market for startup launch pages.)
My issue is less with those littering the web with launch pages — if people want to take some time to test out a web site idea in their spare time, that’s far better than watching Two and Half Men reruns — but with the media, the venture firms and the ecosystem that has been built up to worship this idea of a startup. Maybe a little less fawning in the coverage and a little more skepticism is needed. For example, why is Wired devoting space to a startup competition that produced no real startups? If we called it “160 people get on a bus to Austin with their laptops,” it somehow doesn’t have that same cachet. Nor would it be worth sending an actual Wired blogger along to provide “updates from the road, as Wired.com reports every glitch, bathroom stench and late-night code dump on this perilous journey into the dot-com cosmos.”
Eventually, many of these sites will fade away, and domain names purchased on a whim after a late night of coding will expire. Some startups may get bought by Google or Facebook for their engineers, and even fewer will eventually realize their startup has the germ of a business which means that the startup will suddenly “pivot,” face the outcry from users, and perhaps make some money. Perhaps this has always gone on, but without Twitter and the infinite news hole offered to blogs, most of the offerings that fade away never infringed quite so much on people’s consciousness. But again, I’m not sure it’s just the bubble mentality and fawning coverage. On the web, it’s easy and cheap to create a prototype of an app or an idea and call it a startup. But is it a business?
I wonder if it dilutes the value of having a startup or calling yourself an entrepreneur. I think the fetishization of startups has helped create somewhat of a bubble, if not in valuations, then at least in me-too apps that will likely be deleted as soon as SXSW is over and everyone moves on to the next hot app. Yes, it has become cheaper to start a business, but has it also cheapened what it means to build a startup?
This rant seems to be part of a general zeitgeist, so why not wander over to the stories below for other thoughts on the issue:
One Nuclear Bomb Will Ruin Your Whole Startup Bubble from The Awl
The limits of Twitter and Facebook, the Bubble from Scripting News
Foursquare, Facebook, Founders, and Passion from Software Rants & Other Miscellany
Related content from GigaOM Pro (subscription req'd):
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Yes, start-up culture is being fetishized ( by everyone, not just VCs and the tech media ).
The root cause of the problem is that so few use Tim O’Reilly’s ‘Work on stuff that matters” as a parser.
Doing so instantly throws out all the shallow, greedy, me-toos, and shines a light on those start-ups that deserve your attention.
Ref.
http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/work-on-stuff-that-matters-fir.html
“Wired and the founders gloss over the fact that the winners of this startup competition never even had a chance at becoming a real business by focusing on the learning experience and the connections that the ride helped founders make. But I can't.”
Why not? Get over it. At least one of the founders made their way into Y Combinator and I assume is now building something a bit more realistic. These competitions are not intended to be “pro” grade. You sound like an angry pro baseball player whining about all the kids in little league thinking they are going to be stars one day. Everyone needs dreams, and yes there are a lot of idiots with an IDE or a copy of Photoshop that will continue to crank out worthless garbage while trying to get rich quick. Those people can be found everywhere that matters. Ten years ago they were all in Hollywood, now they are in San Fran.
I for one welcome the energy, excitement and interest to the field and wish everyone the best. It’s about time developers got to be rockstars.
Thanks, Kav Latiolais @kavla
160 geeks on a bus sounds like a dave mcclure idea without his wit or substance hunting for their Yuri M.
I guess functionally this speaks to a need for better product management and product marketing in this space.
Technology is fantastic but without product leaders it’s very challenging to move beyond the idea stage. People who can identify the market and need that can be address by that technology and can craft a story around it that resonates with that audience are what really drive a business.
The sixties … sex, drugs and rock’n'roll …
There’s a striking similarity between the culture of startups and the culture of rockbands, up to and including gonzo documentaries and the massively skewed hit/fail ratio. In itself, that’s not a bad thing. After all, it’s where a lot of the real talent stems from.
But … is the future of startups American Idol?
I completely agree. The reoccurring problem that I see is that software developers, especially those focusing on B2B, believe that having a great idea and creating a product is all you need to succeed. From there, they place the product in an app store and wait for the leads and money to roll in.
While I’m all for the lean model and bootstrapping, it seem as though certain traditional business ideas are being haphazardly disregarded, if for no better reason than they are traditional. Product development, marketing, PR, sales etc. are all necessary components of a business model (again, especially when selling to businesses), even a lean startup model. Without them, a startup will likely be little more than a hobbyist.
It’s not fetishization as much as it is a decoupling of ideas and practical businesses. In the “old days” (perhaps ten years ago), the cost and effort of implementing an idea was high enough that the business case had to be worked out fairly thoroughly in order to get the necessary resources. Today, it’s comparatively easy and inexpensive to implement an idea as an app or a website, so the implementation takes places before anyone seriously investigates whether or not it represents a real business opportunity.
True, and it may not be a bad thing. Again, I think it’s great that people are trying to build things in their spare time, but I do wonder if it dilutes the meaning of building a startup or even being an entrepreneur.
Violin Memory CEO: Fusion-io IPO Just the Tip of Flash Iceberg
Training a Distributed Team
The Terabit Age is Almost Upon Us
Apple TV Could Own the Living Room With a la Carte Content
Green Earnings: MolyCorp, Suntech, Evergreen
CloudBees' Founder Discusses What's in His PaaS-focused Cloud Stack
Read Full Article »