Chris Dixon: The bowling pin strategy

quoted from The bowling pin strategy

A huge challenge for user-generated websites is overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem: attracting users and contributors when you are starting with zero content. One way to approach this challenge is to use what Geoffrey Moore calls the bowling pin strategy: find a niche where the chicken-and-egg problem is more easily overcome and then find ways to hop from that niche to other niches and eventually to the broader market.

Facebook executed the bowling pin strategy brilliantly by starting at Harvard and then spreading out to other colleges and eventually the general public.  If Facebook started out with, say, 1000 users spread randomly across the world, it wouldn’t have been very useful to anyone.  But having the first 1000 users at Harvard made it extremely useful to Harvard students.  Those students in turn had friends at other colleges, allowing Facebook to hop from one school to another.

Yelp also used a bowling pin strategy by focusing first on getting critical mass in one location – San Francisco – and then expanding out from there.  They also focused on activities that (at the time) social networking users favored: dining out, clubbing and shopping. Contrast this to their direct competitors that were started around the same time, were equally well funded, yet have been far less successful.

How do you identify a good initial niche?  First, it has to be a true community – people who have shared interests and frequently interact with one another.  They should also have a particularly strong need for your product to be willing to put up with an initial lack of content. Stack Overflow chose programmers as their first niche, presumably because that’s a community where the Stack Overflow founders were influential and where the competing websites weren’t satisfying demand. Quora chose technology investors and entrepreneurs, presumably also because that’s where the founders were influential and well connected. Both of these niches tend to be very active online and are likely to have have many other interests, hence the spillover potential into other niches is high. (Stack Overflow’s cooking site is growing nicely – many of the initial users are programmers who crossed over).

Location based services like Foursquare started out focused primarily on dense cities like New York City where users are more likely to serendipitously bump into friends or use tips to discover new things. Facebook has such massive scale that it is able to roll out its LBS product (Places) to 500M users at once and not bother with a niche strategy.  Presumably certain groups are more likely to use Facebook check-ins than others, but with Facebook’s scale they can let the users figure this out instead of having to plan it deliberately. That said, history suggests that big companies who rely on this “carpet bombing strategy” are often upended by focused startups who take over one niche at a time.

Focus is a really important for early stage startups, as it forces you to stay close to your customers while achieving product / market fit. It also allows you to concentrate any word-of-mouth effects you may have, helping you build your brand + critical mass. Great post by Chris (as usual).

Comments

Separating Men from boys

(This was published to my letter.ly newsletter June 17th. To get more like this, sign up at letter.ly/dave. Thanks! It helps pay my rent. I'm not kidding — letter.ly already pays 30% of my rent!)

Hi all,
 
Since i'm out fundraising for Postling right now, I thought I'd briefly talk about something I've noticed – there are true early stage VCs, and then there are investment bankers who invest in companies who call themselves startups. What I mean by that is there are VCs who recognize a good team + good idea + good market and will, without hesitation, pull out the check book. And then there are VCs who want to see revenue / run-rate projections to "prove" value. Guess which ones end up doing better?
 
I'll give a little more detail. Right now my company is in an interesting position where we've had sustained strong user growth and we've started to get some revenue from the paid features we launched last month. And I've been talking to about a dozen VCs. Some of them (all East Coast based) say, "We like the idea, we like the team, we like the market" but hem and haw about investing because they want to see more "revenue traction".
 
Then you talk to other VCs (mostly West Coast but some East Coast) who immediately get it. Their reactions are "Love it" and "This makes total sense" and "You're going to be like X but a lot more profitable". And these people don't need to see what my free -> paid conversion rate is, because they know a great team in a great market will make magic happen.
 
This is a big reason why a small number of funds are very successful and everyone else has done terribly. You're either in it to win, or you're in it to collect your management fee. The truth comes out when it's time to make the tough decisions.
 
Dave
 
NB — As a side note, notice how the majority of returns are coming from small funds and not big ones. In fact, as Josh Kopelman says, "small funds are 24 times more likely to produce returns above 2X than large funds". There are a couple reasons why that is, but one of them is that it's the small funds that are focusing on early stage investing, and that's where the most tough calls are concentrated. In later stage investing, you've got all kinds of financial models available to help you make more comfortable decisions. The true winners are super-angels like Ron Conway, Dave McClure, Founders Collective, etc.

Comments

HackNY demo event

Just got this sent to me by one of the organizers:


 

** 2010 hackNY Demo Fest **
 
WHERE: 109 Warren Weaver Hall (Courant Institute), NYU; 251 Mercer Street 10011
WHEN: Friday July 30, 6-8 pm
 
WHAT: The 2010 class of hackNY Fellows invites you to attend our 2010 hackNY Demo Fest Friday, July 30, 6-8 pm in rm 109 of the Courant Institute, NYU (251 Mercer St. between 3rd and 4th street). The class of 2010 will be presenting their accomplishments during their 10 week internships as part of the hackNY Fellows program. Please do come meet the Fellows and hear about what they've accomplished and learned, both working with some of NYC's best startups as well as in lectures from members of NYC's startup community.
 
Please contact info@hackNY.org or visit http://hackNY.org for more information.
 
ABOUT HACKNY:
hackNY is an initiative to mentor and federate the next generation of NYC tech all-stars. During the summer hackNY organizes the hackNY
Fellows program, in which selected fellows are matched with NYC startups able to demonstrate a mentoring environment, with technical needs matched to the skills of the selected Fellow. Fellows also enjoy shared housing and a set of lectures from leaders in the NYC startup
ecosystem, including founders, CTOs, and investors.
During the school year hackNY organizes student hackathons to help students learn about opportunities in NYC's great emerging tech startup ecosystem, as well as to help them meet their fellow members of the student-hacking population.
 
SPECIAL THANKS:
The success of the 2010 hackNY Fellow program would have been impossible without the active support of the entire NYC tech ecosystem, including numerous founders, CTOs, technologists,
educators, investors, and students. Financial support for the 2010 class of Fellows was provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Special thanks to NYU and the Courant Institute for their logistical support both with summer housing and with the hackNY student hackathons. We thank as well Alex Qin and Arikia Milikan for assistance throughout the summer, and thank our summer lecturers: Fred Brooks, Kristina Chodorow, Kushal Dave, Chris Dixon, Ann Miura-Ko, Jonah Peretti, Chris Poole, Martin Wattenberg, and Albert Wenger.
** 2010 hackNY Demo Fest **
 
WHERE: 109 Warren Weaver Hall (Courant Institute), NYU; 251 Mercer Street 1=
0011
WHEN: Friday July 30, 6-8 pm
REGISTER HERE: http://hacknydemofest.eventbrite.com
 
WHAT: The 2010 class of hackNY Fellows invites you to attend our 2010
hackNY Demo Fest Friday, July 30, 6-8 pm in rm 109 of the Courant
Institute, NYU (251 Mercer St. between 3rd and 4th street). The class
of 2010 will be presenting their accomplishments during their 10 week
internships as part of the hackNY Fellows program. Please do come meet
the Fellows and hear about what they've accomplished and learned, both
working with some of NYC's best startups as well as in lectures from
members of NYC's startup community.
 
Please contact info@hackNY.org or visit http://hackNY.org for more information.
 
ABOUT HACKNY:
hackNY is an initiative to mentor and federate the next generation of
NYC tech all-stars. During the summer hackNY organizes the hackNY
Fellows program, in which selected fellows are matched with NYC
startups able to demonstrate a mentoring environment, with technical
needs matched to the skills of the selected Fellow. Fellows also enjoy
shared housing and a set of lectures from leaders in the NYC startup
ecosystem, including founders, CTOs, and investors.
During the school year hackNY organizes student hackathons to help
students learn about opportunities in NYC's great emerging tech
startup ecosystem, as well as to help them meet their fellow members
of the student-hacking population.
 
SPECIAL THANKS:
The success of the 2010 hackNY Fellow program would have been
impossible without the active support of the entire NYC tech
ecosystem, including numerous founders, CTOs, technologists,
educators, investors, and students. Financial support for the 2010
class of Fellows was provided by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Special thanks to NYU and the Courant Institute for their logistical
support both with summer housing and with the hackNY student
hackathons. We thank as well Alex Qin and Arikia Milikan for
assistance throughout the summer, and thank our summer lecturers: Fred
Brooks, Kristina Chodorow, Kushal Dave, Chris Dixon, Ann Miura-Ko,
Jonah Peretti, Chris Poole, Martin Wattenberg, and Albert Wenger.

Comments

The Starving Startup

This was published to my letter.ly subscribers on 5/29. I just published another one yesterday called "Zombie startups, fake liquidity, and flailing VCs". Sign up at letter.ly/dave to get them first.


Today I want to talk about something that hit me pretty hard this past week on the last day of the TechCrunch Disrupt conference: for all the talk about Lean Startup vs. Fat Startups, no one was talking about the Starving startup.

Really quick background on what Lean and Fat startups are. "Lean startup" is this idea that startups who don't have product / market fit should stay quick and agile as they iterate and pivot. For example, don't hire an expensive VP of Sales and a 10 person sales team until you know you've got a product you can sell scalably. "Fat startup" is this idea that in some cases you need to spend heavily to win, because the gap between being #1 in a market and everyone else is large.

What I realized is that all this talk about "lean" was being misinterpreted by many (myself included) as "cheap". Stay small, don't hire unless absolutely necessary, figure out the perfect business model… and then raise a bunch of growth capital and ramp up. I think we've taken it too far and created the "Starving" startup. 

A starving startup typically has 1 product & business focused founder and one technical founder. Following the lean startup concepts, they build, test, and iterate on their product. Since it's just the two of them, it can take 1-2 years to find product / market fit – there is only so much 2 people can do, and typically the bottleneck is in engineering early on as the product gets built. After months or years of effort, they finally achieve product / market fit, as greater than 40% their survey respondents say they would be very disappointed if the product suddenly was no longer available. Congratulations!

Here's the problem: 1-2 years is an eternity for consumer web software, because "fast followers" can generally leapfrog the time you spent making mistakes, copy your successes, and be out in the market quickly. Heck, they might even get to product / market fit faster than you, by copying the general direction you're taking but making key innovations. Suddenly, you're fighting for your life in a crowded market… a market you created!

This is a long-winded (sorry!) way of saying I think startups need to raise more seed money than they have been. $200k (or $350k, the amount we raised) is too little. Sure, it keeps you hungry (literally!), but you're just not moving fast enough. If managed properly, an 8-12 person team with $1.5 million in seed money can make dramatic progress. Basically, an experienced and agile entrepreneur + access to capital is a powerful combination, so take the money! 

From an investors point of view, I can understand the hesitation – you want an entrepreneur to turn assumptions into facts and "de-risk" (hate that word, sorry) before investing significant capital. But if you come across an amazing team and a strong market, I think investors need to convince founders to take on more capital and increase burn to $50-$100k / month, while still practicing all of the agile "lean startup" techniques that Eric Ries, Steve Blank, and Sean Ellis have been preaching. Remember, just because you are thinking lean doesn't mean you need to starve.

Comments

Email Personalization

(This was the very first paid email newsletter I sent out, a little over a month ago. I'm publishing it here because people have asked for examples of the content I publish to my letter.ly. You can sign up for future newsletters at letter.ly/dave. It'll cost you $4/month — the price of a latte — but as a group you can help get a poor entrepreneur out of NJ.)

There's been some talk recently (FredDaveMarkMike) about how email needs to be fixed. The general complaint is that recency is a terrible sorting algorithm and what would be better is a system that took into account the importance of the sender, the relevancy of topic, the closeness in social network, etc. Joshua thinks email is stuck because users are so used to email that they now reject any new innovations (which is an interesting concept in itself), rejecting startups like GistXobniEtacts, and Rapportive. Even Gmail (with it's marginal innovations) is a distant third to market leaders Hotmail and Yahoo.
 
So what's going on? Why can't we "sort by magic"? The problem isn't with the algorithm, it's with the user experience.
 
Getting a personalization algorithm right is really hard. You need to have massive amounts of data, strong signals of intent to sort through the data, and checks in place to avoid overrepresentation of popular items. Amazon can do it in books, but has trouble in apparel (seasonal items don't have any purchase data when they hit the shelves, and too many people go to amazon to buy "safe" apparel like white t-shirts and socks). But one of the most underrated necessities of a successful personalization feature is the user experience.
 
If you go to Your Store on amazon, you'll notice that each item that is recommended to you comes with an explanation as to why that product was chosen. "Recommended because you purchased X" or "Recommended because you added Y to your Shopping Cart". This is critical because algorithms are by nature black boxes, and people (who generally distrust technology) hate what they don't understand. So the first step is to explain why you are making the recommendation.
 
The second thing you'll notice is the "Fix This" link. This is just as important as the explanation, as it changes the algorithm from a hated black box to something the user can improve. Bought that gadget as a gift? Remove it from consideration. Want to see more variance in your results? You can change that (OK, not on Amazon, but theoretically). 
 
So the way for email personalization to work is to explain why the algorithm thinks these emails are the most important ones for you to look at and provide mechanisms to tweak the algorithm so that it truly is perfect for you.

Comments

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »