DISQUS

Galen · 2 years ago

Damon, glad we can serve as an example! Sometimes we think that having a couple more than 2 people might be nice, but I guess we're doing pretty well with 2.

PS: We didn't get a dot com on that link!

Damon Pace · 2 years ago

Galen, of course you'd like more help. So would I. You're still kicking butt without it though. Keep it up.

PS: Fixed the link.

Michael Price · 2 years ago

Are there companies that raise a great deal of money and then blow it in an irresponsible fashion? Sure. However, most companies that raise capital are building a business, not a web site. Marketing Directors, CFO's, salespeople, administrative staff etc. etc. etc. They need to get paid just like web developers do and that's where the bulk of the burn takes place. At some point even Galen is going to need to bring in the bodies to keep up with what he's doing. Great development is fine but nothing happens in a business until somebody sells something and 2 guys in a garage can't provide sales, accounting, customer service etc. Trust me, most investors these days know exactly where the burn should start and end and it doesn't all get spent in the room with the empty pizza boxes and red bull cans.

Galen · 2 years ago

Michael, I agree that most successful companies need more than 2 people and that it usually requires capital, but there are a lot of internet companies that get so excited "building a business" that they actually neglect their business, which is building a compelling website.

I think there is a happy medium between the 37 Signals no-vcs-ever mantra and the business-dude-writes-up-a-huge-business-plan-and-gets-it-funded-before-he-even-starts mantra. This is not the late 90s; trying an internet-based business model is exceedingly cheap!

Damon Pace · 2 years ago

Mike, I completely agree with your point, but the point of my post is to highlight the need for people to understand how to develop a website...not a business. Many of these funded 2.0 companies have no idea how to develop a website. My post was to address web development theory and not business development theory.

Mike Price · 2 years ago

Guys,
No doubt things have changed. Look at Guy Kawasaki, He had a Truemors built for 12 grand. Luckily enough for him he is Guy Kawasaki and that alone is all the PR he needs to get it off the ground. While it may not take as much to get a good Internet start up off the ground these days, one thing hasn't changed, revenue. Like I said before, nothing happens until somebody sells something :) I like your analogy Galen and think you're dead on when you identify the positioning required to succeed as in between 37 signals and the "business dudes". I disagree about the "exceedingly cheap" part though. It's not cheap to start any kind of business these days :) In any case, here's one Geeky Business Dude type that's rooting for you, I really like what you're doing.

Galen · 2 years ago

A side note and not to provoke argument so much as to express myself. Truemors is awful. If it were launched by anyone with less popular blowhard status, it would be so empty that no one would even notice it enough to make fun of it.

First, to say it only cost $12,000 is silly; I would pay Guy Kawasaki $50,000 for half of the publicity he has given it and I'd be getting an incredible deal. So yes, it's easy for popular internet dudes to start copycat sites and direct people to them. Second, a $12k personal glamor site is not a business, it's something a popular internet dude can use to get more speaking engagements.

Paul Graham is my cheap startup hero. He's one of the only people online who writes intelligent, well thought out articles. (I do not count myself in that group).
http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html