YC only helps ~3% of the startups that request help and now they're discouraging people from seeking help elsewhere.
There's gotta be a better way of handling this.
There's gotta be a better way of handling this.
The problem with a bad accelerator is that they can actually harm your company with bad advice and unnecessary distractions.
You really should name and shame the bad accelerators. I know no one likes to be negative, but if there are accelerators out there messing up companies and leading founders astray then it would be best to make this information public. You will take some heat for doing this, but you guys should be able to handle it.
More seriously, it depends on how serious the bad accelerator problem is and you guys are one of the few that have the data on this. If it is a minor problem then I agree there are better ways to help, but if it is a major problem then it needs to be addressed.
Actually just an acknowledgement of the level of the problem with no names attached would be highly useful to the community. Very few people have access to this data and YC is one. The fact that Sam wrote about this makes me suspect that it is a major problem.
Y'know, the way it's done by all professions worthy of the name?
No, it would not be weird at all, and more importantly, it'd be good for consumers of that industry.
I mean, to make my actual argument, instead of just alluding to it, it seems to me that:
1) it's good for consumers of an industry to have ratings of the providers in that industry
2) I can think of three sources for such ratings: crowd-sourced ex-customer ratings, ratings by a purported expert-at-rating, ratings by peers. I think these each have their merits.
3) If ratings-by-peers is indeed useful, then in a given industry, it has to start somewhere.
Sometimes different alumni have very different experiences. Sometimes an accelerator's niche is very relevant to one company's problem but not another's. As Sam's advice said -- it's more useful to qualitatively talk to someone you know (and also trust, or at least consider credible) to evaluate their opinions on the accelerator. There are too many unique factors.
Obviously, this is hard for a new-ish (pre-) accelerator, so one heuristic I've used instead is to review the experience of the accelerators' founders and mentor network. It's a start.
In other words, if you're going to go with another accelerator, commit to that program and decide that you're going to build a real business off it. It worked for both SendGrid and Digital Ocean. Don't expect that you'll be able to bounce between programs and accept help from everyone, because if you need that much help, it starts looking like you really don't have your shit together as a founder.
People who make exploding offers are not just bad, they're also acutely aware of that fact, thus the manufactured scarcity.
Not that I agree with that interpretation; I think YC's viewpoint makes a lot of sense -- especially if it is a proven negative indicator of success.
[1] "If you apply to other accelerators, then we'll be more critical of you."
This is similar to the notion that a startup can "sell the dream" up until the point where they have revenue, after which they're no longer selling dreams, they're selling the trend.
Make a decision, and then make the most of that decision. Sam is not saying it's bad to do other accelerators. However, for very natural reasons, graduates of other accelerators have more expected of them. Likewise, I doubt YC would accept their own graduates for another round.
One of our goals is to release as much advice as we can for free for anyone.
Without that conversations, that sounding board, all that written advice just makes another investopedia/venturehacks guidebook. Most startup founders already do the google legwork and required readings. It's great, but not the main reason why people would apply for YC.
While I do think YC provides a lot of value to their alumni, people can get fixated on the process of raising funds and not building their business. Build a great business making real money and you won’t need funding.
I totally get it, but for every github and Atlassian there's also a Facebook and Snapchat or a hardware startup (wish I could think of one now...) where outside funding is essential.
If your business idea is too big to make without large (seed investment size) amounts of funds then you should pick something else or get a job and slowly build it with your own income.
Suck it up.
You can name the few startups that have done what you're recommending, but every other (high growth) startup did it the way you're knocking.
A great many people try to create startups while maintaining day jobs. You don't hear about those ones, ever.
These type of businesses get very little press, but they are very good to own and run - I of course know nothing about them :)
Though by the traditional silicon valley definition of startup, the ones like you describe can be labeled something like lifestyle businesses, solopreneur ventures, etc. I think people like Chris Guillebeau (The $100 Startup), Jason Fried / DHH (blogs and books), and Marco Ament are successful people to read that are also good examples of starting businesses this way. Maybe even Tim Ferriss (4HWW).
* = Unless you are an A-list celebrity (or Unicorn) in which case we'll take you no matter what.
* You already got advice
* You already built a minimum viable product
* You already got feedback on that product
* You already networked with people who would lead to the next round, growth, etc
* You already spent money on marketing
Unless you've pivoted, what is Y-Combinator (or any second accelerator) going to be able do to help you other than introducing you to another set of investors (that if you chose your first accelerator wisely you might be somewhat connected to
Other than that, there's the cap table that they explicitly mention, 3-8% of a seed stage company is less attractive if there is another 3-8% player involved. Similarly, an A round (that they help you get) is less attractive if 12-16% of the company is already in un-dilutable preferred shares.
* Great advice, solid mvp, good feedback, solid networking but the money you spend on marketing was too little, and done horribly. All this product needs it a good marketing plan and it abruptly begins to hockey stick and gain velocity?
I think the real reason is dilution and/or wanting an 'industry first dibs' on any potentially valuable start up. At least if they see any promise in the product.