Showing posts with label Failure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Failure. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 September 2011

A Deeper Look At Blackbox’s Data On Startup Failure And Its Top Cause: Premature Scaling [Infographic]

Rip Empson is a writer at TechCrunch. He’s not here to make friends, he’s here to WIN, and don’t you forget it. You can reach him at rip[at]techcrunch[dot]com ? Learn More

136808v2-max-250x250

Earlier this week, we covered Blackbox, the young company responsible for creating The Startup Genome Report, an ongoing, collaborative R&D project designed to take a comprehensive dive into what makes Silicon Valley startups successful — and not. (Read our initial coverage here.) On Tuesday, we covered the company’s launch of what it calls the Startup Genome Compass, a benchmarking tool for startups that helps founders monitor their progress in different growth categories. Since then, more than 6,000 startups have signed up to use the Compass.

Along with the diagnostic tool, Blackbox also released a new research report on the major causes of startup failure, including perhaps more significantly, the primary cause of startups kicking the bucket: Premature scaling. While this was touched on in our prior coverage, we thought it might be worth elaborating on their findings, including presenting a nifty infographic created by the team over at Visual.ly.

To refresh, since February, Blackbox has collected a dataset from over 3,200 high-growth tech startups, with the results of their studies showing that premature scaling is the primary cause of startup failure, afflicting 70 percent of all the startups that went to meet their maker. And, a related point that’s worthy of note: Based on those 3,200 startups, the experience of entrepreneurs, gender, country origin, education and age had no influence on the predicted likelihood of failure.

But, as some astute readers in the comment section of our prior post pointed out, it certainly can seem dangerous to mine a large and diverse set of data created by startups (and in turn by actual — and equally diverse — human beings) to claim that the world has found one single, ultimate cause of failure that can be used as a prescription for startups of every stripe, across the board. While the Blackbox team may disagree slightly, the study is aimed at helping early-stage companies avoid the deadpool. Simple as that. The Startup Genome is an ongoing research project seemingly intended to illuminate, not force-feed prescriptions. It is scientific in its approach, some of its language may seem dry — and it may not work for everyone.

What’s more, “premature scaling” may seem an overly simplistic term, and it may be easy to misconstrue. The Blackbox team defined premature scaling in their research as a way of denoting the fact that a startup’s core dimensions (product, customer, team, finances and business model) are out of sync. That is to say: One (or more) are moving at different speeds of growth than others. As Blackbox Co-founder Bjoern Herrmann pointed out, “in some cases dysfunctional scaling may be a better description”.

With this description in mind, the research found some fairly striking differences between those startups that scaled prematurely (or dysfunctionally) as opposed to those who were more in sync. Most notably: Not a single startup that scaled prematurely passed the 100,000 user mark. Not only that, but 93 percent of those startups never crossed the $100K-a-year-in-revenue threshold. And, perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, startups that scale properly grow 20 times faster than startups that scaled prematurely.

Investor and serial entrepreneur Brad Feld weighed in on premature scaling to say, “Hiring any substantive number of sales or marketing people before there is customer adoption is premature scaling. All the early hires should be technical or product focused. At least one of the co-founders, though, should be obsessed with sales and marketing from the beginning. Adding one sales person after the product is in the market and one marketing person is fine, but these should be ‘doers’ not ‘VPs’”.

As a further means of elaborating on how the Blackbox team defined their research, Hermann said that they defined startups as “temporary organizations that are designed to evolve into large companies”. Once defined, the team then attempted to bring a scientific approach to understanding the lifecycle of those startups — almost like a behavioral psychologist — by defining six stages of development they evolve through: Discovery, Validation, Efficiency, Scale, Sustain, and Conservation.

Early stage startups are designed, Herrmann said, to search for product/market fit under conditions of extreme uncertainty, whereas late stage startups are designed to search for a repeatable and scalable business model and then scale into large companies designed to execute under conditions of much higher certainty. Sounds reasonable.

But they went further: Every startup, they determined, has an actual stage and a behavioral stage, in which the “Actual stage” is measured by customer response to the startup’s product, through looking at metrics like numbers of users, user growth, activation rate, retention rate, revenue, etc. The “behavioral stage”, then, is made up of five top level dimensions that the startup can control, like Customer, Product, Team, Financials and Business Model. Each dimension, both the Actual and Behavioral are always classified, Herrmann said, into one of the six developmental stages.

In terms of how this model relates to premature scaling, a startup received this label in the research when its behavioral stage became “larger” than its actual stage. An obvious example of premature scaling, the Blackbox Co-founder said, would be a startup that rapidly scales up its team to 30 to 40 people before it has any customers. In this example, the Actual stage of the startup would be in Validation but the Behavioral stage of the team would be in Scale.

On the other hand, Blackbox tends to define “dysfunctional scaling” as a case in which the Behavioral Stage is lower than the actual stage. Startup that provide examples of this, according to Blackbox, include: Tokbox, Friendster, Orkut, Wesabe, Digg, SixApart, Myspace, abd Chatroullete.

But rather than go into each of the individual stages, here’s an example from one: Specifically, that of the olde “customer acquisition” category. Blackbox labeled a startup as scaling prematurely in relation to its customer acquisition when it, for example, spent too much money on acquisition before truly refining its actual product or market fit — or, alternatively, overcompensating or missing product and market fit with too much of a focus on marketing and press spending. An illuminating stat in this case is that startups are 2.3 times more likely to spend more on customer acquisition before getting all other categories in sync. Blackbox cited Color, Webvan, and Pets.com as examples of startups that spent too much, too early on the customer acquisition dimension.

For now, we’ll leave it at that. But for those who are interested in more, check out Blackbox’s research on premature scaling here.

And without further ado, Visual.ly’s infographic on premature scaling is below:


blackbox set out to find a scalable way to accelerate startup. As part of our discovery process we started the startup genome project to uncover the mechanics of how startups...

Learn more

View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Friday, 2 September 2011

AT&T Merger Fail Highlights Failure Of Spectrum Politics

spectrum

Editor’s Note: This guest post was written by Frank Barbieri, a serial entrepreneur and sometimes blogger. You can follow him @frankba

Those reveling in the thumb-in-the-eye the DOJ gave to AT&T over the T-Mobile merger should pause a moment to consider the politics of spectrum allocation in the US.

Anyone who has an iPhone on AT&T knows they need spectrum. Spectrum is a finite resource of airwaves allocated by the federal government (FCC) to businesses based on a bidding process that necessitates demonstrated consumer benefit.

AT&T has been hungry for such spectrum ever since it won a few years of iPhone exclusivity and saw the usage and capacity lines cross on their forecasts and MG develop finger blisters from typing so many hate posts. We all felt AT&T’s constraints as an infuriating experience of dropped calls and poor app connectivity.

So AT&T has been on a spectrum buying spree to try and, well, improve service. They are trying to buy the failed FloTV spectrum from Qualcomm, but it’s not enough. So AT&T is running out of options to improve their service.

You may already know all of this, but what you might not know is that powerful local television broadcasters are squatting on very valuable spectrum with the mere promise of deploying local television services that, well, no one really wants.

Have you heard of the Open Mobile Video Coalition?  I thought not. How about startups like Tivit and Sungale and iMovee?  I thought not as well.

In looking for someone to blame for your bad cell service have a glance at these guys. The OMVC represents the interests of over 800 local television broadcasters who in the transition from analog to digital terrestrial television in 2009 ended up with rights to big chunks of unused, extra spectrum.

The whole reason Congress and the FCC mandated the switch to digital was that digital is far more efficient and thus frees up spectrum for new services. Local broadcasters fought hard against this of course because it meant buying new equipment and potentially losing customers. A product of the haggling was that the local TV companies got to retain access to the spectrum they freed up as long as they use it for “consumer benefit.”

What are the local television broadcasters doing with that extra spectrum? Nothing. Well, nothing that anyone wants. What they are doing is issuing press releases (PDF) saying that live local television is coming to your mobile phone. Aren’t you excited? I thought not.

What they are not saying is:

Qualcomm already tried this, investing several billion dollars in FloTV which was an abject failure.No one wants local television live on their mobile phones. Have you watched daytime local TV lately?No cellphone manufactures are ever going to pay the extra money for another radio receiver in their phones for a service no one wants. Yes, it requires specialized battery-depleting hardware.Broadcasters are in private negotiations with the FCC to share in the profits of selling that spectrum.

Let’s set aside the fact that the sharing of profits with private companies for the sale of a public asset is unprecedented, and just recognize the cynicism of local television owners for a second. They have temporary rights to a public asset. The asset does not enhance their existing business and they have no ideas for using that asset on a service consumers want. So they are blackmailing the public (federal government) for release of that asset, and issuing press releases pretending they are creating the next great consumer service. This stifles innovation that could happen if that asset was used to just give consumers what they want: more, faster, mobile connectivity. It’s like a crazy hermit holed up in a national park with a shotgun demanding the Department of the Interior gives him $100 to leave.

Of course the FCC could just take that spectrum away. There is ample evidence that they are just squatting, and their live television idea is completely bankrupt. But these are broadcasters, with nightly news programs. Eight hundred of them. Starting to follow the path of politics? The FCC doesn’t really want eight hundred local anchors on the nightly news harping about how unjust the FCC is.

So the next time you drop a call on your AT&T iPhone, or can’t load Google Maps when you’re late for a meeting, flip the bird at a local news van if you see one. It will not change the gridlock on spectrum, but it is at least directing your rage at the right target.

Photo credit: Paul Garland


T-Mobile is a mobile telephone operator headquartered in Bonn, Germany. It is a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile has 101 million subscribers making it the worlds sixth largest mobile...

Learn more

Frank founded Transpera with the vision of helping normal people enjoy new kinds of mobile video experiences. Frank formerly ran media products at InfoSpace and prior to that, ran...

Learn more

View the original article here


This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.