Found+READ: Comments by Daniel Gibbons

Daniel Gibbons — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:06:43 GMT

Mistake #2 is really the one to avoid, although it goes hand-in-hand with #5. I’ve had that nagging feeling in past ventures that I’d be a skeptical buyer, and it’s hard to recover from that position.

Daniel Gibbons — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:09:29 GMT

The trick is to do it without trying to “buy” word of mouth (e.g. hiring an ad agency that promises they’ll deliver viral marketing results). Has to be real people, spreading the word because they like the product, not because they’ve been prodded to do so.

I guess another way of putting it is that there are no shortcuts: you’ve got to get the product right AND make it easy to use and share. One or the other doesn’t cut it.

Daniel Gibbons — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:18:13 GMT

Really good article, and lots of interesting comments. If there are multiple founders, their relationship is so critical, and I don’t think it can ever recover from bad gut feelings or doubts in the early stages. They also need to present a united front to employees. The worst scenario is to have the company divide into camps associated with each founder, thereby fracturing the entire organization.

Co-founders can disagree as much as they like in private, but should present one coherent direction for the business to their staff.

I worked with my current business partner for about a year before we started our new venture, and that allowed us to understand each other’s was of communicating and get to the point where we can have major disagreements but resolve them and move forward.

Daniel Gibbons — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:25:56 GMT

I completely agree with David’s point, above, regarding job titles. It’s always a bad sign when you come across an early stage company that already has “VP soup”; creates the impression that it’s full of opportunists who may very well be talented but aren’t necessarily willing to do the hard work themselves.

Daniel Gibbons — Tue, 08 May 2007 04:12:10 GMT

I don’t buy the co-founder blind date, since it implies that close start-up relationships can form very quickly. Perhaps it’s simply my personality, but I need to work with someone for a significant amount of time (I’d say six months, minimum) before I really feel comfortable enough, so to speak, to jump in to bed. So, the opposite of my romantic relationship history, then…

Daniel Gibbons — Tue, 08 May 2007 04:22:22 GMT

I’d say there are two sets of criteria. First it has to pass the easy to say / spell / explain test, and you have to be able to get the domains. But I’m not a fan of research or focus groups (except the informal kind Xavier describes, which I love), since they’ll never produce a name about which the founders are passionate. Fundamental comfort with the name is in a way more important than any meaning others might attach to it, since your life will become inextricably bound up with it.

We picked ‘Gaboogie’ despite some feedback that it was ‘dumb’ or didn’t mean anything, because we liked saying it and it was easy to attach what we were doing to the name. Oh, and because it works well as a verb. Nothing more, nothing less.

Daniel Gibbons — Sat, 19 May 2007 16:49:55 GMT

One approach you could take is to take the troublesome director through a short presentation on the original business plan he bought into, and the progress you’ve made with respect to that business plan.

In this scenario it’s important to be completely honest about where you are. If things are not on plan, then addressing this issue directly and explaining the strategy to get back on plan will give you more credibility with the director. If it doesn’t then you know there is something seriously wrong with the relationship.

Daniel Gibbons — Tue, 22 May 2007 04:26:57 GMT

It’s a tough call, because I’m a pretty firm believer that it just doesn’t work in half measures. Both feet or neither, and the same goes for the level of risk tolerance that’s required.

Sadly, while the idea of working on things after hours and still getting that paycheck is appealing, the reality is that time to market and focus are critical. If it’s a really good idea that can be turned into a really good business plan, which in turn can be a real, profitable business, chances are someone else is on it, sweating blood, 24/7.

Research is great, planning is great, but they can also be excuses for not getting started.

Daniel Gibbons — Sat, 02 Jun 2007 06:06:52 GMT

Nice list. Number 6 is my favorite. Might as well say ‘I won’t believe in this until you do.’

Daniel Gibbons — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:53:16 GMT

We experimented with an outsourcing model for some of the XHTML / CSS for Gaboogie, with extremely poor results (we had to throw away every line of code that was provided to us).

It’s specific to this niche, I think, but my advice is to stay away from front-end development outsourcing unless your requirements are very simple. If you have a web application to build rather than a simple, content-based website, then I don’t know if there’s any choice but to find the right people and hire them directly.