We offer a look back and a reflection on what the very best are doing and what is the spice that will ultimately bring success.
Problem one - I'm building an online project, so I need to be primarily a technology company.
Sounds pretty logical - I'm building an online business, I need to have robust technology, it's going to cost a fortune, it's inevitable. But we like to ask founders - is it necessary? Will your customer appreciate it? Can't you build it incrementally and try to fund the development only from the revenue the business will bring in?
The problem tends to be when the founder, salespeople and marketers don't become one team pulling the same rope. Very often we see that the founder is playing on a different field than the programmers. The founder has a natural interest in getting his startup up and running as soon as possible, for as little money as possible. Most importantly, to be in the market early and be able to get initial feedback, customers and move forward.
In contrast, there is often a team of programmers who want to create perfectly described code, to create a robust platform with a lot of features that no competitor has. While development is both time and money consuming, it makes sense.
Successful startups are characterized by their teams pulling together and having common goals, sticking together. We've found that we talk to successful startups with a perspective - how to technically do it in a way that doesn't cost money that will pay off over a long period of time, rather than over the fact that it would be good to still have this feature and that feature, because that's just the way it is in the industry.
When we built Bikeflip, which is now a very successful global startup, we built a minimalist web app first. Today, in hindsight, we see that the key to success was trimming features we didn't necessarily need and focusing on marketing. So don't ask what else could be useful, but what each individual feature can a user really appreciate and pay for.
Why do we build 80 % of projects in stages today?
Many startups follow the traditional and media-popular approach. Mainly to find an investor, create a unique product and focus on more and more rounds of investment.
But we find that this approach encourages more of a focus by founders on raising money and pandering to investors.
But then what kind of care does the project itself receive? Is it really impossible to create a successful online company today without a lot of funding? In some cases and in highly competitive industries, it is certainly difficult without big money, but we argue that the gradual building of the project, the phasing and the effort to develop the project with your own money has an irreplaceable role and tends to be somewhat neglected.
Our long-standing client is a case in point. She was freelancing, she had her loyal clientele, she was really good at it. The only problem was her calendar. She was selling an hour of her time and the time couldn't be inflated. Together we designed and built a platform through which she could scale her work and sell the product, not her time.
We built a simple app for a couple hundred grand. The client didn't have to burn money on marketing, she didn't have to invent anything new, she simply offered it to her clients. Today, it's a fairly well-known online platform, the client is just dealing with its development, her income has multiplied and she's working on something she loves. Zero crowns of external funding, no unicorn, no global app. A regular project that makes money. We build it incrementally, in bits and pieces, tailoring features directly for clients who appreciate it.
In conclusion
Sure, the media doesn't write about it and it's often not called a startup at all. But isn't that the best possible goal? To not be a unicorn with funding from investors, with the pressure of global markets, and at a permanent loss? Isn't it better to have a turnover in the tens of millions, but with the relative certainty of long-term profit and with less but sustainable growth?
Do you want to start a new project? We would be happy to discuss it with you.
Problem one - I'm building an online project, so I need to be primarily a technology company.
Sounds pretty logical - I'm building an online business, I need to have robust technology, it's going to cost a fortune, it's inevitable. But we like to ask founders - is it necessary? Will your customer appreciate it? Can't you build it incrementally and try to fund the development only from the revenue the business will bring in?
The problem tends to be when the founder, salespeople and marketers don't become one team pulling the same rope. Very often we see that the founder is playing on a different field than the programmers. The founder has a natural interest in getting his startup up and running as soon as possible, for as little money as possible. Most importantly, to be in the market early and be able to get initial feedback, customers and move forward.
In contrast, there is often a team of programmers who want to create perfectly described code, to create a robust platform with a lot of features that no competitor has. While development is both time and money consuming, it makes sense.
Successful startups are characterized by their teams pulling together and having common goals, sticking together. We've found that we talk to successful startups with a perspective - how to technically do it in a way that doesn't cost money that will pay off over a long period of time, rather than over the fact that it would be good to still have this feature and that feature, because that's just the way it is in the industry.
When we built Bikeflip, which is now a very successful global startup, we built a minimalist web app first. Today, in hindsight, we see that the key to success was trimming features we didn't necessarily need and focusing on marketing. So don't ask what else could be useful, but what each individual feature can a user really appreciate and pay for.
Why do we build 80 % of projects in stages today?
Many startups follow the traditional and media-popular approach. Mainly to find an investor, create a unique product and focus on more and more rounds of investment.
But we find that this approach encourages more of a focus by founders on raising money and pandering to investors.
But then what kind of care does the project itself receive? Is it really impossible to create a successful online company today without a lot of funding? In some cases and in highly competitive industries, it is certainly difficult without big money, but we argue that the gradual building of the project, the phasing and the effort to develop the project with your own money has an irreplaceable role and tends to be somewhat neglected.
Our long-standing client is a case in point. She was freelancing, she had her loyal clientele, she was really good at it. The only problem was her calendar. She was selling an hour of her time and the time couldn't be inflated. Together we designed and built a platform through which she could scale her work and sell the product, not her time.
We built a simple app for a couple hundred grand. The client didn't have to burn money on marketing, she didn't have to invent anything new, she simply offered it to her clients. Today, it's a fairly well-known online platform, the client is just dealing with its development, her income has multiplied and she's working on something she loves. Zero crowns of external funding, no unicorn, no global app. A regular project that makes money. We build it incrementally, in bits and pieces, tailoring features directly for clients who appreciate it.
In conclusion
Sure, the media doesn't write about it and it's often not called a startup at all. But isn't that the best possible goal? To not be a unicorn with funding from investors, with the pressure of global markets, and at a permanent loss? Isn't it better to have a turnover in the tens of millions, but with the relative certainty of long-term profit and with less but sustainable growth?
Do you want to start a new project? We would be happy to discuss it with you.
