I think I'd throw more money at those initiatives where they grow meat in labs. Factory farming is a horror, and cattle do tremendous amounts of damage to land all over the world.
Veganism is part of a solution to end animal abuse, but it's currently too hard of a cultural adjustment for people. We need a better, commercially viable solution.
Can you explain the basics behind your process for speaking to investors after demo day? Did you just compile a list of people to speak with, or was there networking involved at YC which led to the right people?
Sorry if this sounds basic. I've read a lot of articles, but the process of talking to investors still seems hazy to me.
First, we compiled a list of the best possible investors (for us, Max Levchin was on the list given his PayPal background) and found ways to get to them. (warm introduction is best, but not always possible)
We also were very open to meeting people along the way through recommendations. For example, one of my good friends Nils Johnson knew Eric Dunn very well and recommended that we talk given his deep payments background. This conversation was what ultimately catalyzed our seed round.
I think cold emails to investors rarely work. What you really want to do is build a network of folks who believe in you. Hopefully some of those folks have money to invest, and others who don't can help add new nodes to the network.
The e-mail thing is the killer. Can you make recommendations for how to network with investors when someone is coming from outside Silicon Valley?
I too am in the finance space and my networks are concentrated in NY and Chicago. However, because I want to take a more product-centric approach initially, I feel like I should be talking to people in California instead. Just one problem: I don't know too many finance people in California.
Is the short answer to just fly out there and do my best to network within the span of a few months?
I don't really like the word "network" as a verb. It implies that you are trying to schmooze your way into getting people to like you at cocktail parties. (I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying that's what the term implies to me) I don't think that's an effective strategy.
What I might recommend is spending a few months out here building some real relationships with smart people who are genuinely interested in your business. If you've got a quality concept & product, then good people will take notice. But it's a long process, measured in many months (maybe a year).
Note that YC is probably the most effective way to short circuit this, since it provides a strong signal of quality and helps open a ton of doors - but most importantly it gives you a large, smart & well connected peer group with whom to build relationships with.
Just wanted to throw more weight behind this comment. This book is excellent and is super easy to follow. It's one of those rare technical books that actually does an amazing job explaining things.
I just wanted to add that I think I see what the OP meant by "soft launch." I think the OP asked a good question, because most startup business guides say launch something minimal and iterate. Whereas, app-store gurus seem to place a heavy emphasis on the initial bump. (That is, they hint that you either succeed on the initial push or die.)
I see what you mean now. Odd that they think that way though. Sure, there's more clutter, and if your app contributes to that, I suppose the 1st bump is all you get, but if you have a quality product, the sales process is the same as in any other channel.
I called Comcast trying to sign up for their top-tier service when I was working from home. The guy on the other side kept asking me what on earth I'd need the top tier service for and kept asking me questions. Then he scheduled the visit for the tech on the wrong date. Every time I deal with Comcast, it's a hassle.
I can't believe I got interrogated when I signed up for service. Worst customer service ever.
Serious question regarding #1: What if I am the market because I am addressing a need I have that others have not addressed? Is the question then whether others have the same general needs?
Do I get to walk around thinking I have instant validation, or am I rolling the dice on the likelihood that others have the same problem?
You'll still want to validate that it's a problem others share, that others share deeply, and that others share the same way.
That last part is critical. Human psychology is a funny thing. Two people might experience the same pain point, but articulate two wildly different needs. Or they might have tangential pain points, nominally clustered around the same topic. And sometimes, one user's problem is another user's solution. All of these things can happen.
It is totally valid and worthwhile to start with a pain point you have. A lot of startups began that way. But never assume you (n=1) stand in for an entire market. You can't use personal anecdote or self-insight as a proxy for market validation. Not even Steve Jobs got to do that, despite popular misconceptions.
Insight can be a path to validation. A shortcut starting point. But treat it like a hypothesis, not a foregone conclusion. Hypotheses should be tested.
I was once in that situation, and I learned that yes, you do need to validate that others have the same issue and that they're willing to pay for the solution and that there are enough such people to make this a viable business.
The product I created was a tool for a small niche of artists (of which I was a part). It solved a major problem I had, and I knew that others had the same problem. I even ran it by a few other artists and they loved the idea. What I failed to validate was whether they'd pay for the service. As it turns out, most artists in this niche can't afford to pay even $18/month for a service, and they're just as happy using a manual alternative.
I was about to ask the exact same question. I'm trying to solve a problem that I (and some colleagues) face daily, which I assume others must face too. Actually, I sorta know others have had the same problem because when I first looked for a solution, I came across a few posts and discussions offering terrible solutions that I didn't like. After being annoyed enough, I figured I'd try and see if I could develop a solution.
Until you talk to other people, you're rolling the dice. Trust your gut and go ask a bunch of people if they have the same need (and if it's going to be a paid thing, whether or not they'd pony up for it if it existed). If the answers come back positive, high five yourself and go make it!
What if a competitor has already validated the market for me? For example, they exist and have existed for a few years, but still don't service my need. Is it valid to assume I can attack their market share?
Assumptions are inherently risky but ultimately you always end up having to go with your gut. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do the background research and talk to people first though! Even if you are right, you'll very likely discover that the proto idea you have now needs changing or tweaking in ways you would never have imagined had you not talked to some people in your target audience first.
I'm actually working on something right now that started like that. There are a load of large, well established incumbents operating in the market I'm about to try and pitch a tent in but none of them offer a service that does what I want. My gut told me I wasn't the only one who'd prefer my approach to the problem, so I talked to a bunch of people, refined the idea a little, did a load of research and when that all came back positive I quit my job and started building it. I'll let you know how it pans out :)
I know that as engineers we'd like to avoid talking to strangers as much as possible, but there's simply nothing better than speaking with your potential customers.
Having a competitor is a good sign, but how do you know they're profitable? How do you know they're solving the problem well enough that they're even worth imitating? How do you know they're not frustrating the hell out of their users? If you speak to potential customers, you'll know.
This is critical. As a marketer, I've seen - far too often, mind you - a severe disconnect between the perception of one's customers, and the reality.
Not saying that you need to have full personas, in which you include ALL motivations, demographics, customer journeys - the works - but it helps to have something on paper that you can refer to.
Well, I've been reading the competitor's press releases mainly and reviews of their product on the internet. Since I've never done this before, I just don't know how much of their frustrations I can count as a form of validation. :-)
Why are you resistant to doing the market valuation?
It is cheap and beneficial. No matter hire certain you are it will validate and refine your offering. You get to learn the market size, the price point and create reasonable estimates for adoption all while collecting free feedback on features.
No matter how certain you are talk with your customers!
No resistance, just trying to get some input on how to do this stage of the process properly. In particular, I've been reading a lot of feedback on competitors' products.
Veganism is part of a solution to end animal abuse, but it's currently too hard of a cultural adjustment for people. We need a better, commercially viable solution.