[mikeokner]

> The ability to take the feedback and double down in just a few days is motivational.

Maybe. I took it slightly differently. They received negative feedback after a 10 minute pitch, and immediately dropped everything to change their product & strategy to appease a potential investor.

Was monetizing in this manner at this moment the right strategy for them? That's a pivotal decision to make and not one I'd throw together at 2 am to try impress a party with no skin in the game.

[glangdale]

Their willingness to make the change may reflect the fact that deep down, they had been thinking that they should monetize, and having YC tell them to do it may just have been the kick in the ass they needed.

It's not like YC told them "put on a chicken suit and dance in front of our headquarters and we might consider you".

Monetizing and finding out whether there's anyone willing to actually pay for the product is a straightforward move. They weren't building a social network or something with a massive network effect. Putting off the terrifying discovery ("hey, will anyone pay for this?") in their case may just have been procrastination - and YC's rejection may have been a useful trigger to end it.

[dyeje]

I think considering they've grown the MRR to $5000 from nothing since then, it looks like it was a pretty good strategy even if you don't like how it was concocted.

[hluska]

It is very rare that I upvote two comments that seem to be in opposition to each other. In this case, I think it's warranted because you're both likely correct.

In your favour, the strategy was successful and they grew to $5k MRR in four months with estimates suggesting they'll hit $100k in recurring annual revenue by the end of the year. It worked so it's hard to criticize it.

But, what if it hadn't, or what if the founders were in a different situation where they had a bigger team? Last minute "we have to do this now" decisions are often wrong. When they're not, they often result in some really ugly code that will be tough to maintain. Further, they can be hard on morale.

Chances are that the founders had this type of conversation and talked about the risks while they were brainstorming. It almost sounds like they had debated this in the past. Those kinds of debates are very valuable and I think that founders need to talk about how a new feature can go bad.

[hinkley]

It can be pretty stressful working for people who pivot too easily.

Some investors may be attracted to this kind of behavior, and I fear they are also the least pleasant to work with. Things can get a little exploitative sometimes.