Comments on: Marc Andreessen: Not every startup should be a Lean Startup or embrace the pivot

By: Max Reiter

Max Reiter — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:11:26 +0000

Hm… maybe for that reason we don’t have too many rockets built by startups, and most technologically complicated hardware products are developed by wealthy companies that have their own risk capital to spare on R&D? and maybe this is the way it should be?

For me “lean startup” is exactly focusing on market before the product – and i’m still convinced that this is fairly universal. Lo-fi MVP is meant to see if there is a market (product2market fit, early interest, traction, dynamics, etc) before u spend a dime on technology. I seem to be out of sync w/ Marc when he sais that “lean” is used as an excuse to skimp on marketing/sales.

One thing i do agree = lean approach doesn’t cover technology/execution risks until much later. It seems to be much better suited for technologically banal ideas that rely on a premise that “if we have traction and fit, with cash infusion we’ll indeed find a way to implement it”. Or when you’ve got a proven technologically advanced product for free from your previous job

By: zumveeteam

zumveeteam — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:33:40 +0000

All great reasons from Marc but fetish for failure is the most important. A lot of start ups would have gone a lot further if a) they believed in their mission and had a good story to tell and b) had an implementable strategy that gives them direction so they don’t iterate too soon. It’s so much easier to persist when you have both.

By: Noah Parsons

Noah Parsons — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:39:18 +0000

Great point about not all startups being lean startups. It goes beyond the “launching rockets” idea and extends all the way down to the “main street” type of business that really needs to be up and running to figure out if it’s going to work or not. Sure, small businesses can do some form of MVP testing and make sure to talk to potential customers, but it’s much harder to put “lean” practices in place when you’re dealing with physical storefronts instead of code and inexpensive servers from AWS.

Totally agree on the points regarding sales and marketing, too. I’m seeing too many entrepreneurs who are following the lean startup methodology fail to explore what it’s going to take to acquire customers. Here’s where some old-fashioned planning and modeling is required to determine if a reasonable cost-per-acquisition can be attained so that the business can be viable. Entrepreneurs tend to significantly underestimate these costs and end up with a business model that is not sustainable.

By: Tim Ryan

Tim Ryan — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:20:02 +0000

There’s a lot of value in testing out a set of hypothesized problems PRIIOR to even creating an MVP to test a solution. Through problem interviews with early adopters, we can discover whether or not our hypotheses’ resonate. Some people have latent needs but the structure of the interview should help to identify a hint of unmet needs- ours or new one’s not yet considered. We can also use validated learning to test out different segments. A pivot does not have to be a bad thing. It could be as simple as a change in our assumptions about target segments or what problems exist in the marketplace.

By: Matthew Wanderer

Matthew Wanderer — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:32:10 +0000

Andreessen’s views are timely. I think “lean” and “fail” have been hijacked of late. this is true for some of us, but not all of us, as a few in the comments have pointed out nicely.

I started my first venture a long time ago with a borrowed $1k. Lean meant something concrete to me. Fail – while always a possibility – was anathema. I refused to go back to the corporate world.

Now, many years later, I’m working on Tweakable.com with the same financial constraints. Lean hasn’t changed, for the most part. Fail, also, hasn’t changed much for me after all theses years. Both hold treasure troves of experience and knowledge I wouldn’t trade for having had it “easier”.

By: Oberon Sharp

Oberon Sharp — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:52:57 +0000

“Lean” is a classic case of where the meta-narrative becomes the narrative and folks follow a method for its own sake. The technique is really a method to acquire insight as cheaply as possible, and seemingly for those who lack insight in the first place. The results of the method will always be shallow. It is more of a method of triage for treating failure than a way to produce great products.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:15:52 +0000

Awesome

By: jpnorair

jpnorair — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:06:18 +0000

There are investors and there are people doing it. I hope I can have the success Andreesen had, but reading this reminds me of having read every other worthless advice column from every other investor who is trying to tell the world that he wasn’t just lucky. Guess what, there’s only one rule: every story is different. Start a company that makes sense to you, and run your company the way that makes sense to you. If you are a lean person, run it lean. If you don’t have an instinctual idea of how you want to proceed — if you are always reading these kinds of articles and changing your ideas — that is the surest way to fail.

By: Martin Grohman Director of Sustainability GAF

Martin Grohman Director of Sustainability GAF — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 19:20:45 +0000

The whole thing is kind of comical to me. Minimum Viable Product would never work in building products.

By: Mike Fishbein

Mike Fishbein — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:37:25 +0000

“Lean Startup approach, an approach that encourages quick scaling to achieve success.”

It’s actually almost the opposite….Lean encourages customer development and fast iteration before attempting to scale. Finding the right thing to build before building it.