I read your response, David. Frankly, I think you do many entrepreneurs an injustice in assuming that I'm talking about VC funded entrepreneurs only. At my talk at University of Chicago I repeated advice I give every time I speak "90+% of you should never raise VC. It's not right for you. Better that you raise smaller amounts of money and keep control of your business."
And many small startups have a much worse cash situation than those fueled by VC but your post fails to consider that. Many of them have loans, sibling / parent money and the like. It's actually much harder on them.
Or how about physical or retail businesses? I know many non-tech entrepreneurs who have gone through personal bankruptcy due to this. Including my own parents. Which led them to get divorced.
Fair point Mark, I do not know you. Even though my post may come across as aggressive, that wasn't my intent. I'm just getting started with blogging, and next time I'll have to be more careful with my language. Apologies.
I agree that VC funding is not the only path to stressful business, although it certainly helps a lot. In this sense, VC is a part of a larger problem - people's tendency to take on more risk than they should. I dare say that if more people lived and did business within their means, we'd all be calmer, have less bankruptcies, and maybe even less divorces.
It is very easy to read your post and come away with the feeling that being an entrepreneur is necessarily stressful, and that just isn't the case. It starts being stressful when you can't meet your obligations, and that mostly happens when your ability to meet your obligations is heavily dependent on circumstances you can't control - circumstances like relying on outside money.
Is VC better than loans from family? Most definitely, because by taking money from someone who fully appreciates their potential losses, everyone gets to be less emotional about the whole thing.
Still, I believe that by not taking any outside money, or extracting a heavy price from yourself, you get a shot at a significantly calmer variant of Entrepreneurship, and that's something people should know.
@msuster I can understand how you found the title of the post disrespectful to you but I think he might have been going for the "Bitch Please" meme [1] rather than any actual intention to be disrespectful.
You're a well known and well respected entrepreneur turned VC (as opposed to VCs that have never seen the pain of being an entrepreneur themselves) so I doubt that anyone is going to take the "bitch please" part too seriously.
Ofcourse not being at the receiving end of that post maybe my perspective is different and I'd react similarly.
How could he not think you're talking about VC funded entrepreneurs only. Some selections:
"we have closed $150 million in our 4th fund...now you know why I’ve had many nights away, many airports and much time on the road."
"Raise money. Need money. More money. Yes, please give me money. "
"I mean you never know if your investors are REALLY going to keep backing you. "
"If I told my VCs would they then lose interest in our next round? "
Your slides are from Seedcon which is all about VC.
Almost nothing about making money from paying customers. Almost no worry about if customers are really going to keep backing you, or keep interested. Almost entirely about keeping VCs happy.
I will have to agree with you (Mark) on this one. I was at the the U of C talk and you repeated that line multiple times. I don't know what the OP would assume you were only talking about VC's only. Apparently he doesn't like people giving honest advice!
Contrary to what other people say, I thoroughly enjoyed your article. I also think that the title is very much apt. Others - If you've been following the alternate universe of online memes, "bitch please" is a very famous meme used to indicate controversy [1] and this title exactly fits the article.
Please don't justify things on your blog for what other people think about the title or your article, we live in a free world and we are free to speak out our minds without justifying or being bullied by anyone else.
Really, it's a great article. Thank you very much for writing.
Thanks! Turns out not everyone knows/accepts the meme use of 'Bitch Please'. Since I didn't want the discussion to gravitate towards the title, I changed it.
I did too, as in Suster's post this is responding too, he links to a concept he calls 'conference ho'. Its interesting that both that post and this one have a misogynistic language element.
What are you are trying to accomplish with this response to Mark Suster's blog post? (honest question)
To me, the original post came across as encouragement to all the founders who feel like they are the only ones busting their butts and still feel stuck.
I felt this particular excerpt from your blog post though was a bit unfair to Suster:
> Suster (who’s a VC now) won’t take his own advice though, because:
> > Of course I do [want to be a founder again]! How could you not want to go back to it. It’s addicting. It’s an adrenaline rush like no other.
because in his post, he also says:
> Yet one day you wake up and you realize you can’t run as fast as the young guys. You can’t quite hit the 3-pointers as often. Yes, you have maturity that makes you a wiser player. But you realize that you can be more helpful as a coach.
And yes, I sleep better at night as a coach. And I’m happy as a VC.
"His advice" isn't for everyone to be a founder. I think it was just a pep talk, like: "If you feel like you're spinning your wheels going nowhere and everyone else is a rock star, don't worry, you're not alone. That's how everyone does it."
I don't know Mark or anyone he has invested in, nor am I particularly tied to him. However, it felt a little strong when you issued this warning:
> be careful around VCs like Suster, who’d love to give you heaps of money so you can get up at 4:50am and get a heart attack every time your money starts to run out.
Keep writing. I like your style and I think its great when people write. Just leaving my honest feedback as well because I felt some of the aggression was unwarranted.
What I'm trying to accomplish is this - pieces like 'Entrepreneurshit' perpetuate the myth that starting a business is a risky, stressful endeavour.
When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.
You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the only way.
It's a good thing some people actually shoot for the stars so that they build platforms that enable people like you who don't like to gamble to build small profitable apps living a healthy lifestyle.
If nobody shot for the stars, we would be stuck at the stone age.
Why exactly does building enabling IT platforms (let alone other technological advancements) require multiple rounds of funding from outside investors and a pathological focus on growth with no regard for sustainable structures and profitability?
I find this entirely unpersuasive. Most of the things that are getting funded by VCs are not shoot-for-the-stars world-changers. Look at the list of recent funding announcements:
Mobile-PC syncing of videos. Mobile-PC syncing of contacts. A way to save your child's artwork. Yet another payment solution. Yet another e-signature solution. Fine businesses, I'm sure, but nothing that's worth dying for.
The Silicon Valley hype cycle creates a lot of unnecessary drama. I can agree with you a little, in that people doing big things will sometimes experience big drama. But too many people, VCs included, work that equation backwards: big drama is a great indicator of doing big things!
As far as I can tell, most of the drama is just macho idiocy.
Before the haters flag this like yesterday: read the damn post. There's a reason for the acerbic title, and it has absolutely zero to do with denigration of females.
Is anyone tired of the PC brigade shitting on everything?
"Bitch Please" is a response to when someone says something stupid. A man or a woman can say this stupid thing. The phrase works just fine either way. The fact this was one guy responding to a blog post made by another guy further reenforces this.
It's tiring hearing this stuff so often. Its like the Ruby Conference news yesterday.. turns out the best speakers available for this event were white guys. Well, they are either misogynists or racists.. probably both!
Today.. people feel we need to protect and/or distance ourselves from a call of sexism before it is even made. Its a sad state of affairs.
The only entrepreneur I can relate to is the one spending their time coding, designing, and implementing ideas. None of which involves hopping on a plane.
What about dealing with customers? What about having to go visit big $500K/year customers to make sure they sign the contract like you are hoping they will?
Or the entrepreneur you can relate to doesn't have any customers?
I think you and I read a different article. What I got from Mark's piece was that entrepreneurship isn't all glitz and glamour like it's made out to be on the tech blogs and in the business magazines. It's hard work, and sometimes the chances of success look bleak.
My company did not seek venture funding, but I don't feel that changes the dynamic of Mark's post as it relates to me. There's something in there for everybody.
It isn't all glitz and glamour, and people should know that. However, my issue with the article is not the 'it's not all glitz and glamour' but the 'it's shitty, you never see your family, you're constantly stressed, and your chances suck'. That is discouraging, and totally unnecessary.
If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.
Don't really see what the point of the article is. Some entrepreneurs build try to build small/medium, moderately risky businesses, and that's fine. Some try to shoor for the stars, high risk/high return. That's fine too.
It is perfectly fine. However, by saying that 'being an entrepreneur is shitty' Suster makes his audience believe that this is just what it's like to start a business, and you better be prepared for it or leave it altogether. That's wrong, and potentially discouraging to someone who is considering starting a business.
If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have no beef at all.
Your post make it sound like entrepreneurship is all about money. Especially statements like: "Only quit your day job once you’ve found something that works, and before you know it, you’ll have a good income and a good life with little risk and little stress.".
When you want to build the next big thing, to change the World, etc., not simply to gain some income, building a high growth / high stress startup may be necessary.
on the title: "bitch please" is a meme. I get that some people claim the word is sexist, etc, but I like the meme and Randall Munroe's "Science: it works, bitches!" too much to let them go - as (Randall) explained later, it's usage here is as a gender-neutral sympathetic term. (alas, I can't find the source for his justification.)
"Bitch, please" has been a thing much longer than saying anything "is a meme" was itself a meme. This whole thing is drifting dangerously close to 'yo dawg' territory.
Thank you for this article. I personally feel that small teams (in most cases, one person) building high quality SaaS apps and creating a generous income ($100-300K/year) will become more common, and is more likely to "win" than the home run, VC model.
This seems to be nitpicking a bit. Many things have pros and cons, and whether they are right for you depends on your priorities and personal context. Entrepreneurship is not right for some people, but it is the only way for others.
I've criticized Mark Suster, because he's all over the map in terms of the quality of what he says (this criticism could also be made of me) but I've come to admire his honesty.
Most Americans despise "politicians". They like their representatives, but have a negative view of elected officials, because the amount of bullshit (fundraising, campaigning) one has to put up with in exchange for the returns is so immense that the assumption is that no one would do it without an ego the size of Texas. The assumption is that politicians are either monstrously egotistical, or taking something out of society (speaking fees, "consulting" options for their kids) on the side that would justify the absurdity.
"Entrepreneurshit" reminds us that VC-istan startup founding isn't much different. There are some good Founders out there, but they're basically private-sector politicians. To be frank, I agree with this assessment. One caveat: if you're rich enough to own your own time and career (instead of having to rent them from a boss) then I think the entrepreneurial path is superior in long-term expectancy, and you can afford the variance. But in that scenario, I'd probably boot-strap. Multiple liquidation preferences and participating preferred are for strivers and poors, yo.
I don't know that client-powered, "bootstrapped" companies can claim moral superiority, either. Mad Men is a good depiction of the sociology of that world. The industries have changed; people, much less. Most of those firms are had by the balls by clients (losing a big client triggers an avalanche of pull-outs) and that's no better than being beholden to investors.
The contemporary "startup" ethos is admirable in many ways but it's also chock full of ridiculous and embarrassing contradictions-- meritocracy vs. the extreme importance of connections; "this will be big" vs. taking an acq-hire welfare check, "changing the world" vs. the patent absurdity of many "social media" companies-- and if we want it to be more than a self-devouring fad, we need to have a real conversation about what kind of leadership we need, as a society, whether we are getting what we want in terms of leaders (I honestly don't know) and, if not, what we should do to change that.
[+] [-] msuster|13 years ago|reply
And many small startups have a much worse cash situation than those fueled by VC but your post fails to consider that. Many of them have loans, sibling / parent money and the like. It's actually much harder on them.
Or how about physical or retail businesses? I know many non-tech entrepreneurs who have gone through personal bankruptcy due to this. Including my own parents. Which led them to get divorced.
Bitch, you don't know me. Don't assume you do.
[+] [-] davidkatz|13 years ago|reply
I agree that VC funding is not the only path to stressful business, although it certainly helps a lot. In this sense, VC is a part of a larger problem - people's tendency to take on more risk than they should. I dare say that if more people lived and did business within their means, we'd all be calmer, have less bankruptcies, and maybe even less divorces.
It is very easy to read your post and come away with the feeling that being an entrepreneur is necessarily stressful, and that just isn't the case. It starts being stressful when you can't meet your obligations, and that mostly happens when your ability to meet your obligations is heavily dependent on circumstances you can't control - circumstances like relying on outside money.
Is VC better than loans from family? Most definitely, because by taking money from someone who fully appreciates their potential losses, everyone gets to be less emotional about the whole thing.
Still, I believe that by not taking any outside money, or extracting a heavy price from yourself, you get a shot at a significantly calmer variant of Entrepreneurship, and that's something people should know.
[+] [-] kt9|13 years ago|reply
You're a well known and well respected entrepreneur turned VC (as opposed to VCs that have never seen the pain of being an entrepreneur themselves) so I doubt that anyone is going to take the "bitch please" part too seriously.
Ofcourse not being at the receiving end of that post maybe my perspective is different and I'd react similarly.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=bitch+please+meme&hl=en&...
[+] [-] scott_meade|13 years ago|reply
"we have closed $150 million in our 4th fund...now you know why I’ve had many nights away, many airports and much time on the road."
"Raise money. Need money. More money. Yes, please give me money. "
"I mean you never know if your investors are REALLY going to keep backing you. "
"If I told my VCs would they then lose interest in our next round? "
Your slides are from Seedcon which is all about VC.
Almost nothing about making money from paying customers. Almost no worry about if customers are really going to keep backing you, or keep interested. Almost entirely about keeping VCs happy.
[+] [-] robbiea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] timeshifter|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] neya|13 years ago|reply
Please don't justify things on your blog for what other people think about the title or your article, we live in a free world and we are free to speak out our minds without justifying or being bullied by anyone else.
Really, it's a great article. Thank you very much for writing.
[1]http://www.troll.me/images/yao-ming/bitch-please.jpg
[+] [-] davidkatz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] king_jester|13 years ago|reply
I did too, as in Suster's post this is responding too, he links to a concept he calls 'conference ho'. Its interesting that both that post and this one have a misogynistic language element.
[+] [-] Jun8|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezl|13 years ago|reply
To me, the original post came across as encouragement to all the founders who feel like they are the only ones busting their butts and still feel stuck.
I felt this particular excerpt from your blog post though was a bit unfair to Suster:
> Suster (who’s a VC now) won’t take his own advice though, because:
> > Of course I do [want to be a founder again]! How could you not want to go back to it. It’s addicting. It’s an adrenaline rush like no other.
because in his post, he also says:
> Yet one day you wake up and you realize you can’t run as fast as the young guys. You can’t quite hit the 3-pointers as often. Yes, you have maturity that makes you a wiser player. But you realize that you can be more helpful as a coach.
And yes, I sleep better at night as a coach. And I’m happy as a VC.
"His advice" isn't for everyone to be a founder. I think it was just a pep talk, like: "If you feel like you're spinning your wheels going nowhere and everyone else is a rock star, don't worry, you're not alone. That's how everyone does it."
I don't know Mark or anyone he has invested in, nor am I particularly tied to him. However, it felt a little strong when you issued this warning:
> be careful around VCs like Suster, who’d love to give you heaps of money so you can get up at 4:50am and get a heart attack every time your money starts to run out.
Keep writing. I like your style and I think its great when people write. Just leaving my honest feedback as well because I felt some of the aggression was unwarranted.
[+] [-] davidkatz|13 years ago|reply
When I said 'be careful around VCs like Suster', I didn't actually mean anything about Suster in particular. I'm sure Suster is a great guy, and that he does his best to help entrepreneurs succeed.
You need to be careful with VCs like you need to be careful with casinos. Both enable you to take higher risks than you usually would. Sometimes you'll want high risk, and that's fine, but don't get blinded into thinking that it's the only way.
[+] [-] czzarr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brazzy|13 years ago|reply
Why exactly does building enabling IT platforms (let alone other technological advancements) require multiple rounds of funding from outside investors and a pathological focus on growth with no regard for sustainable structures and profitability?
[+] [-] wpietri|13 years ago|reply
http://www.crunchbase.com/funding-rounds?page=1
Mobile-PC syncing of videos. Mobile-PC syncing of contacts. A way to save your child's artwork. Yet another payment solution. Yet another e-signature solution. Fine businesses, I'm sure, but nothing that's worth dying for.
The Silicon Valley hype cycle creates a lot of unnecessary drama. I can agree with you a little, in that people doing big things will sometimes experience big drama. But too many people, VCs included, work that equation backwards: big drama is a great indicator of doing big things!
As far as I can tell, most of the drama is just macho idiocy.
[+] [-] StavrosK|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] idan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobsy|13 years ago|reply
"Bitch Please" is a response to when someone says something stupid. A man or a woman can say this stupid thing. The phrase works just fine either way. The fact this was one guy responding to a blog post made by another guy further reenforces this.
It's tiring hearing this stuff so often. Its like the Ruby Conference news yesterday.. turns out the best speakers available for this event were white guys. Well, they are either misogynists or racists.. probably both!
Today.. people feel we need to protect and/or distance ourselves from a call of sexism before it is even made. Its a sad state of affairs.
[+] [-] iamdave|13 years ago|reply
Kind of annoyed this needs to be pointed out, even though I know exactly why you did it.
[+] [-] dhimes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xpose2000|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unreal37|13 years ago|reply
Or the entrepreneur you can relate to doesn't have any customers?
[+] [-] nhangen|13 years ago|reply
My company did not seek venture funding, but I don't feel that changes the dynamic of Mark's post as it relates to me. There's something in there for everybody.
[+] [-] davidkatz|13 years ago|reply
If you're going to do high risk/high gain, it's warranted and good advice. But to imply that this is what entrepreneurship is like is unfortunate.
[+] [-] louischatriot|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidkatz|13 years ago|reply
If Suster had written a post about the stress of VC funded startups, I'd have no beef at all.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sorich87|13 years ago|reply
When you want to build the next big thing, to change the World, etc., not simply to gain some income, building a high growth / high stress startup may be necessary.
[+] [-] tehwalrus|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamdave|13 years ago|reply
"Bitch, please" has been a thing much longer than saying anything "is a meme" was itself a meme. This whole thing is drifting dangerously close to 'yo dawg' territory.
[+] [-] yarrel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jheriko|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuaxo|13 years ago|reply
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=entremanure
[+] [-] bdcravens|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yarrel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|13 years ago|reply
Most Americans despise "politicians". They like their representatives, but have a negative view of elected officials, because the amount of bullshit (fundraising, campaigning) one has to put up with in exchange for the returns is so immense that the assumption is that no one would do it without an ego the size of Texas. The assumption is that politicians are either monstrously egotistical, or taking something out of society (speaking fees, "consulting" options for their kids) on the side that would justify the absurdity.
"Entrepreneurshit" reminds us that VC-istan startup founding isn't much different. There are some good Founders out there, but they're basically private-sector politicians. To be frank, I agree with this assessment. One caveat: if you're rich enough to own your own time and career (instead of having to rent them from a boss) then I think the entrepreneurial path is superior in long-term expectancy, and you can afford the variance. But in that scenario, I'd probably boot-strap. Multiple liquidation preferences and participating preferred are for strivers and poors, yo.
I don't know that client-powered, "bootstrapped" companies can claim moral superiority, either. Mad Men is a good depiction of the sociology of that world. The industries have changed; people, much less. Most of those firms are had by the balls by clients (losing a big client triggers an avalanche of pull-outs) and that's no better than being beholden to investors.
The contemporary "startup" ethos is admirable in many ways but it's also chock full of ridiculous and embarrassing contradictions-- meritocracy vs. the extreme importance of connections; "this will be big" vs. taking an acq-hire welfare check, "changing the world" vs. the patent absurdity of many "social media" companies-- and if we want it to be more than a self-devouring fad, we need to have a real conversation about what kind of leadership we need, as a society, whether we are getting what we want in terms of leaders (I honestly don't know) and, if not, what we should do to change that.
[+] [-] vytasgd|13 years ago|reply