Let's Create a New Tech Startup Myth


The National Venture Capital Association today released data that confirms what we’ve known for a while: Without 1999’s fat exits, the venture industry is looking pretty tired, from a returns perspective. The chart below shows how much every dollar invested in a venture fund returned to its limited partners; for example, in 1996 every dollar invested generated 4.7 times that back to the LP.  The solution for perking up returns seems to be a smaller industry and smaller funds seeking to place smaller amounts of money into startups, but I think there’s more to this story. I think we need a new startup myth.

We’re already seeing the habits of successful entrepreneurs change as a result of it being a lot cheaper to start up a business and easier to connect to an audience. Maybe the ideal technology startup doesn’t need venture capital. Maybe it can be bootstrapped or backed by angels. Maybe the ideal technology startup isn’t really about making it big through an initial public offering. Maybe it’s about selling a compelling feature to a larger company and setting the agenda at a Google (s goog) or a Microsoft (s msft) or a Cisco (s csco). Or perhaps success could be determined by getting a huge share of the market, releasing a product that changes everything or building out a business that employs a lot of people in your hometown?

Many of the definitions of a successful entrepreneur in the technology community are tied deeply to an IPO or a fat exit. But if the new tech startup myth doesn’t require a venture capital funding, then success doesn’t have to be defined by a relatively rapid, huge exit. I see plenty of startups that are doing well take venture capital even when they don’t have to, fueled by this desire to get bigger, faster. They are buying into the myth and may end up pushing their business in a direction they didn’t want it to go. This isn’t bad, but it’s also internalizing a “truth” popularized back in the mid-90s when being a technology startup was synonymous with having venture backing.

Thanks to the rush of capital, that time frame also made that myth of tech success  through a huge IPO look far more achievable than it really is. So I wonder if we need to redefine what a technology startup looks like and how it can achieve success? The venture capital world measures success in money, but there are plenty of businesses and entrepreneurs who think money is only part of the reason to built out a business. Readers, what do you think?


Website Design Guy

1995 was the best year.. i was only 15!.. i call no fair! i have some incredible ideas .. all i need is funds.. hence how i found this blog.. written almost a year ago.. anyone here have information on where to find Capital?

Mark McGuire

Great post. My last start up (Jellyfish.com) is a perfect example of this new start-up model. We raised only angel investment and turned the company to Microsoft in 18 months. But our latest project (Alice.com) shows how the old model certainly isn’t deal. Alice is a bigger swing and is going to take more time and more money (likely VC). So I think you’ll see a more diverse start-up market, but one that resists a one size fits all definition. You can read more of my take here if interested: http://flywheelblog.com/2010/02/a-leaner-meaner-start-up/

JC Otero

I love it. I totally agree. Business is changing and great companies don’t need to be started with TONS of money.

Luckily, I am living in a bootstrap kinda city, Austin, Texas. We have a great entrepreneurship scene here that heavily promotes bootstrapping.

Jeffrey Fry

Stacey, this is a very insightful article. I have studied and been involved in a large number of start ups over the last 10 years, and found out that VCs tend to gamble like my father (that is another disturbing subject), instead of going for the real prize, which is profits. They wanted to cool, Exacta, or Trifecta bet to come through, instead of betting Place and Show on horses who might not have a great pedigree, but look like they could win the race. I would be glad to discuss in more detail, but thanks for sharing your insights.

Ulises I. Orozco

AMEN! Its time that we look at tech startups as business like any other. Fulfill a need in the marketplace, monetize said solution and grow a company through your own means and efforts. Hire employees, stimulate the local economy and grow the wealth of the company through sound business principles.

But then again, thats not what we see from most of these tech startups. We see ideas (as Curtis mentioned) with no business model, a “figure it out as you go” mentality and a gimmick. Its sad, but it almost feels like business sense doesn’t exist in many tech startups – no wonder returns are so dismal.

Tommy Toy

I have often taken pot shots at VC firms because they don’t really understand the basic concepts of what is needed to run a successful technology firm. They think that they do, but they really don’t. As a result, their batting average is terrible, as shown in the chart on VC returns.

As a student of high-technology, startup founders and VC’s need to understand these central principles:

1) Selecting the right industry. Don’t start a new business in an industry just because everybody else is doing it. If you have to be a follower, it is probably already too late. This is the biggest sin that VC’s commit when investing.
2) Identifying valuable opportunities. Founders and VC’s still don’t have a clear handle on the situations or environment that must exist to start a new business and justify investing.
3) Managing technological evolution. Understand what triggers new business opportunities. Hint: Steve Jobs is the master of these four basic principles. Read “Inside Steve’s Brain”.
4) Identifying and satisfying real market needs. You will be surprised how many technology startups don’t follow this very basic principle. Problem: The research for new, industry changing business opportunities is based on traditional research parameters.
5) Understanding customer adoption. Understand how consumers adopt a new product or service over time. The iPad presents a perfect case study. Hint: Watch Apple very carefully.
6) Exploiting established company weaknesses. Never attack a competitor head-on. You will lose every time. Attack the flanks, where they are the weakest.
7) Managing intellectual property to minimize imitation by competitors. Sometimes secrecy is the best protection. Some industries just don’t lend themselves to patenting.
8) Maximizing the economic returns from new products and services. Founders and VC’s still don’t know what to do after they enter a new market in order to capture maximum returns. First-mover doesn’t always work. Again, I go back to the Steve Jobs.
9) Choosing the right organization form. Founders and VC’s still don’t understand the importance of cost, speed, capabilities and information in a startup. They think throwing money at the problem fixes everything. Wrong.

That’s pretty much it in a nut shell. Those who wish to know more can contact me at: pbtconsulting@aol.com.

Thank you

walter sabo

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over an expecting different results. Since the 1980’s VC’s have looked at the companies the same way, invested the same way and expected results that don’t happen. 95% of the money is lost? That’s not the entrepreneur, it’s the investor’s criteria that’s flawed.

For starters, let go of the notion that a patent is valuable. Customers come for content.


it appears to me that what you are suggesting is actually happening and hence the myth is evolving, no real need for a new one. heck, when i started my first venture in 1986, the mantra was to spend the first five years building the biz to reach stability and hopefully by the 10th year there could be an exit or you’d be making enough not to need an exit. in the mid-to-late ’90s we began seeing overnight (or at least w/in 1-3 yrs) successes. hence, the current myth you refer to is less than 15 yrs old and has evolved into being. from what i can tell these days fm the many entrepreneurs i interact with, it is evolving back to a place where they are requiring fewer resources to reach profitability and determine they’re own fates (to exit or not).

sounds like the current myth is a moving target rather than a fixed idea.

Stacey Higginbotham

That is a good point. Most of my friends are entrepreneurs of one type or another, and maybe this whole post comes out of a desire to see entrepreneurship celebrated beyond the type practiced by venture-backed startups.

James Higginbotham


Having worked with startups in Austin since the 90s, I’ve seen both venture-backed, privately-funded, and self-funded. By far the ones where the founders are happiest are the self-funded. They have more freedom to choose the direction they want to go, plus they get to enjoy the reward if they are successful.

The startups that have been taking this self-funding approach 1) build a smaller product up-front 2) focus on revenue as early as possible, and 3) iterate as they learn more. This process requires less VC money up front, helps prove the market, and makes the opportunity for securing VC in the future easier as they have a proven track record and sales.

The downside is that founders have to wear more hats and often do more themselves or with outsourced help due to the lower up-front capital and need for more sweat equity. It seems that many founders prefer this trade off in exchange for full control of their startup, as we are seeing more choose this route over seeking VC funding.

Ron Stack

What you describe is essentially the approach we are taking with Zavee, our social shopping startup. In our case the initial product is inherently fairly sophisticated but we avoided the temptation to gold-plate it. We also avoided the temptation to rush to market with a stripped-down version that might generate some revenues but would under-deliver to the customer. However, we are committed to starting small, learning as we grow (and vice versa) and remaining in control of our destiny.

I would add that another consequence of being self-funded is the need for an exceptionally strong and committed team to support the founders, which we are fortunate to have at Zavee.

James Higginbotham


I agree – developing a strong team early is key, as these are the people that you will spend a lot of time with over the coming months and years developing the business.

It is great to hear that your startup is not rushing too quickly to market. Some markets can handle it, some cannot. It sounds as though your team is striving to find that balance so that you don’t produce poor quality solutions.

All the best to Zavee!


venture money may have returned a good ROI to investors, but it’s always been a sucker’s game for entrpreneurs. I can’t hedge through diversification over multiple investments of my time/energy the way a VC can do with her/his $. As a result, the risk/return profile never made sense for an individual entrepreneur, imho. Didn’t then, doesn’t now.


investing in the good’ol boys vc network days are over. the dismal returns are from bad bets, collusion and shell gaming the system. theres a lack of innovation/ip startups to invest in. not alot of game changers to invest in. internet and mobile digital media innovation has its limits. we are at an apex of innovation.
-context is the new king. whomever can create the best Location Based Service Switchboard wins the game.


The software business has dramatically changed in the last year or two. A small shop now can have a large infrastructure at its disposal, if and when the customers arrive. But that doesn’t mean it’s become easier to make it through the 5-year mark.

The noise level is becoming louder and louder, and making it through that noise is becoming harder by the day. That’s where connections (one thing that VC’s and Angels do have) and some PR money bring big advantages in getting things rolling and keeping the ball moving.

I fear that soon Social Marketing costs will be taking up over 50% of a startups manpower and money very soon.



I think you’ve made some interesting assertions given the poor returns of venture capital to their limited partners. In my past, I was taught that high risk investing (VC & other forms of private equity) required proven sweat equity and business models. Both of these requirements seem lost to the VC community. Hence these results are to be expected and really aren’t that surprising.

That said, bootstrapping should be a mandatory requirement BEFORE any VC investment in my opinion. I’d also add that VC’s need to place less emphasis on eyeballs, funding their friends, and funding startups that offer evolutionary features versus innovative solutions.

My $.02,



If I am correct, this is mostly your issue as a publisher focused on the space. Most of us simply have to put our souls into it and work hard. The fact that 95% of businesses are gone after 5 years isn’t lost on us when we put our time, money and effort into projects. Frankly, I find it symptomatic of finance in general.

While I am not starting another effort out of the goodness of my heart, at its very core I want to make the content I have created for 20 years in education better and make it useful in the classroom. This effort was alway my next one, but I sadly didn’t make the money I wanted on the last! But, tools survive and are useful here.

Go for the low hanging fruit! It is easy and ready to smack the ground. Or, build something worthwhile. It’s your life. But, if you want to change the industry, how will you focus your reporting to make that appealing and valuable. Statements are so easy.


Success is measured individually. See similar comments in the Music Business Is Alive post related to music startups, i.e. bands. RichardBauer.wordpress.com


Maybe VCs should take a real risk and put up big money to tackle big issues instead of just playing it safe, haunting the margins?

Comments are closed.