Featuring the awesome 2012 fellows, and shot by the lovely, talented and patient Samantha Stark.
Very few investors tell you “no”. Overwhelmingly, they just never email you back, even after they were the ones initiating the conversation. If they do tell you no, their reasons are often weird or cryptic.
Facts: In my youth, I assembled computers for fun and profit. I laboured over IO conflicts. I swore blue murder at corrupt DLLs. I taught myself HTML, CSS, BASIC, Visual Basic and Turbo Pascal. I owned a machine that booted into DOS; I upgraded that machine to Windows 3.1. I dallied with RedHat. I battled script kiddies as an ‘@’ on IRC. I slapped people around with a large trout. I read and memorized the words of The Mentor and the colours of the books.
Fact: I did not, at any point, consider becoming a developer of any persuasion. Alright, I did consider it. But I was less than enamored of having to take Mathematics/Further Mathematics/Physics in lieu of my preferred Literature/French/Economics combination. I had also, due to the way my (excellent, all-girl, somewhat myopic in their subject grouping) high school scheduled these classes, not been able to take technical drawing.
And so it was I went along the path of humanities, with regular deviations to stay up all night when I broke all my domains at a stroke (there was a time, children, when you had to do manual upgrades/reinstalls of WordPress, and those things could go terribly, terribly wrong). And along the way I cultivated a well-developed reddit habit, and never quite got over my fondness for plain text files.
I didn’t study mathematics or computer science, and I could never dare to argue that my dilettantism with various languages, scripts and frameworks would ever qualify me as a developer.
But I am a problem-solver by nature and nurture, and I love technology. And I learn best by doing or teaching. And man, do I love challenges.
So today – partly on a whim, partly because I have for some weeks been surrounded by talented developers of all stripes and inclinations, and partly because I’ve been enchanted by the ethos & team behind Skillcrush – I decided to get my technowonk on and set up (yet another) blog.
The devil is in the details of the ‘setting up’ – SpintoApp, which launched into public beta today (and which I read about on Hacker News, as good international relations majors do) – requires a working knowledge of Git, a more than passing familiarity with the command line and a willingness to spend some time haunting Stack Overflow if you possess insufficient quantities of either. Oh, and a Markdown- compatible editor (I recommend ByWord).
These words might mean nothing to you, or you might be in stitches at the sheer n00bness of it all. Doesn’t matter. There is no One True Path. The tools and technology available today have made it cheaper, easier and more possible than even for ‘non-technical‘ people to learn and experiment.
I don’t agree with the argument that “everyone should know how to code”, but I do feel very strongly that no one should feel too intimidated to learn.
I spent much of the past three weeks trying to convince people – friends, random strangers, even people in LinkedIn Groups (I know, I know) – to fill in a survey about their news consumption habits. I cajoled. I implored. I offered dinner, drinks, lunch, babysitting. I received more than one “will I win the new iPad?” query.
And I felt utterly hypocritical throughout.
Because I loathe surveys. I despise forms. I’ve abandoned sign-up processes because the data requirements were too onerous. I angry-click closed those cheery pop-up boxes asking for my feedback. I deeply resent every time I get an email from an online retailer asking, “How did we do?” [In a not unrelated development, I tend to fill in surveys only when I am really, really pissed off about the quality of service received.]
A plague of surveys. An outbreak of requests for feedback.
But why? The NY Times offered the following explanation for the survey epidemic in a piece on March 16:
One reason is that software companies like SurveyGizmo and QuestionPro have made it possible for small companies to create customer surveys at a fraction of the cost of traditional surveys done by established research companies. Businesses of all sizes, desperate to lock in customer loyalty, see surveys as a window into the emotional world of their customers and a database that will offer guidance on how to please them.
I could blame Eric Ries and the rise of the “lean startup” philosophy, one of the central tenets of which is eschewing so-called vanity metrics (like page views and followers) in favour of actionable metrics. I could also blame Dave McClure, who in 2007 unleashed pirate metrics onto the world.
Here’s more from one of McClure’s blog posts in 2007:
The basic concept is based on 5 types of measurements of user behavior:
A: Acquisition – where / what channels do users come from?
A: Activation – what % have a “happy” initial experience?
R: Retention – do they come back & re-visit over time?
R: Referral – do they like it enough to tell their friends?
R: Revenue – can you monetize any of this behavior?
(… otherwise known as “AARRR!”, and thus the “Pirate” designation ;)
But I shall save the blame for one Frederick F. Reicheld and his 2003 Harvard Business Review article, “One Number You Need to Grow“.
Cue dramatic irony:
Reicheld argued that a single survey question – “would you recommend this company to a friend?” – was a company’s best predictor of revenue growth. This so-called “net promoter score” has been embraced by corporate behemoths (including Apple) and lean startups alike.
The third R of McClure’s model – “referral” – is just net promoter score with an eyepatch and a peg-leg.
Cue relevant anecdotal evidence:
Companies love this kind of data. But the consumers who provide it? Not so much.
Here’s the NY Times again:
Consumer patience may be fraying under the onslaught. The constant nagging has led to a condition known as survey fatigue and declining response rates over the last decade.
The NY Times said companies are throwing money at the problem:
On their register receipts, stores like Walmart, Petco and Rite Aid include a Web address and an invitation to fill out a survey, with the chance to win a prize. At Staples, the prize is a $5,000 store card.At Staples, the prize [for filling out a survey] is a $5,000 store card.
From AARRR to aargh.
Would You Recommend Us? – Businessweek, 2006
What’s Wrong With the Net Promoter Score – ClickZ, 2009
What Do Companies Like Amazon, Virgin America, Apple and Trader Joe’s Have in Common? – Daily Disruption
The Order of AARRR – Market By Numbers
“qualitative feedback is most effective when it’s overwhelmingly negative. A strong negative signal…”15 Mar
“qualitative feedback is most effective when it’s overwhelmingly negative. A strong negative signal indicates that your assumptions most likely won’t work and lets you quickly abandon or refine it. If 5 out 5 customers tell you they don’t have a problem, that’s pretty significant!
On the other hand, a strong positive signal doesn’t necessarily mean it will scale or that the customer isn’t lying. All it does is give you permission to move forward until that can be verified later through quantitative data.”
‘It turns out that “never give up” is a dangerous lesson to take to heart with start-up companies. Emotional attachment to a vision shouldn’t override the messages the market is sending you. When the feedback from the market is not positive, when customers are not buying, when you have tried to pivot several times and you still haven’t gotten a foothold, it is wise to make a real and carefully considered evaluation and decide if your vision truly makes sense.’
“in-home research visits are key to Facebook’s continued success. “A company can be very strong technically,” she explains, “but without that connection to what people want, it’s difficult to build loyalty. In the end, it’s all about people. We don’t want to think about users. We want to think about people.””
“the single most important thing product owners can do to add value to their team, their product and…”12 Mar
“the single most important thing product owners can do to add value to their team, their product and their company is a user test”
Elsewhere on Ent!
Takeaways: Jason Schwartz’s ‘How Product is Built’ class at GA
Date: March 6 2012, 18:00 – 19:30
When it comes to building teams – especially when those teams consist of people in far-flung offices around the world – I’m yet to be persuaded that anything is more important than culture*.
And by culture I mean the shared stories, the common values, that explicitly articulated and implicitly understood characteristics that inspire people to rally around that cause, that product, that service. The why-you-want-to-work-here-when-X-would-pay-you-twice-as-much. The-this-is-why-I-get-up-in-at-dawn-on-a-day-when-I’m-not-even-supposed-to-be-in-because-the-team-needs-me-and-hey-they-didn’t-even-have-to-ask factor.
I’ve worked on two projects that I may claim to have helped build and shape; both of these projects had quite distinct cultures.
But what they had in common was excellence über Alles. And yes, that included being excellent to each other (or put another way, jerks need not apply).
Two of my favourite blogs both recently featured culture-as-it-relates-to-startups as a theme, and I thought I’d highlight them as the lesson is relevant to the takeaway from the General Assembly class (which was, not surprisingly, all about culture). Continue reading
Date: March 5 2012, 20:00-21:30
[This session was the third in a series of four; I missed the first two due to travel and schedule madness, but I'm attending the fourth on March 19]
Jason Schwartz, a product manager/UX specialist and the founder of Matchbook (a location-based app), offered a high-level and useful overview of the science of product management. Some highlights from the class are below.