Why The ‘Fail Fast’ Mantra Needs to Fail | Hacker News Reader

Why The ‘Fail Fast’ Mantra Needs to Fail

bothsidesofthetable.com

45 pointswheels18 comments

Fail Fast is a welcome change from the illusions of 3 year business plans that have been roaming businesses the last 10 years. That doesn't mean, don't think, don't do your research It doesn't mean, don't have a business plan either.

What "fail fast" means is: don't talk about where you are going to be next year, you don't know. Talk about where you are going to be next week and make sure to measure if you in fact are where you want to be that following week.

I've always heard of fail fast in the sense that Eric Ries and Steve Blank talk about it: Get your product in front of customers as soon as possible. Iterate.

Don't hole up and build your grand ideas for 1 year before anybody sees it and gives you feedback because you're afraid to fail.. fast.

But Suster seems to be talking about a different things. It's like corporate types taking a product development methodology and applying it to running a company. That's frightening!

Exactly.

As I commented on his blog.

There is a big difference between planning in an established market such as toothpaste or shipping and then in a disruptive market.

And even in the established markets you never really know what awaits you the coming month.

I'm confused by the angry tone. I thought investors are paying entrepreneurs to give it their all and earnestly take big calculated risks. Both the founders and investors are buying an out-the-money call option on success, so maximizing volatility seems ideal?

Would investors rather have a 1% chance of Google or a 70% chance of steady single digit returns (and total loss otherwise)?

One of the points is that you often need to adjust (sometimes significantly) before you've given the business a chance to succeed. Some fail fast practitioners may see market resistance as disproving the idea, instead of valuable feedback to incorporate into product adjustments.

I don't understand it either. If I were an investor I would rather the startup found out after 3 months and 50,000 that the idea didn't work, than after 3 years and 500,000 (or more).

No product is truly tested until it faces the marketplace. Until then, even the best ideas and plans may be wrong. So why invest deeply in things that might not work? It'd be better to just know.

There seem to be at least two different "fail fasts". I think you're talking about ideas failing fast; Mark's talking about companies failing fast.

It bothers me seeing people giving up too easily. Pisses me off, even. That's what struck a chord for me in Mark's post. It doesn't compute for me when I see people get really excited about an idea, have the first iteration not stick and then just stop. And that seems to be really common. I think that's the rub with Mark too.

Definitely. Companies can always change focus, do something else. But I think you can't push an idea to work when it isn't good enough. Perhaps there is bleed across the two concepts.

People who follow "fail fast" actually work a lot harder, than those living in dreams for years, VC how throw good money after bad money and then fail.

No idea where the notion "fail fast" = easily give up comes from.

Your analogy is off base. The opposite of "fail fast" is not "living in dreams for years." The arguments is: spend time planning before your launch (measure twice, cut once) and don't give up easily if the first iteration doesn't work.

My first "rub" is that people launch products too quickly without thinking / planning first. Measure twice, cut once. I'm all for MVP and learn but not without planning first. My second "rub" is the one you identify. People use the "fail fast" mantra as an excuse to give up early if it doesn't work.

The problem is that when you brand something that will be interpreting differently by people who weren’t part of the zeitgeist when the memo went out about what “fail fast” meant then we educate the next generation of entrepreneurs to do things the wrong way

Very good point.

I always thought that fail fast meant the following:

# From there build the MVP (minimum viable product). I believe in launching with a small set of features and learning from the market before you spend too much money building out a feature rich product or before you put serious capital to work.

# If you validate that there’s a market then go for it! If you don’t believe that your product is resonating then pivot and find one!

(taken from his bullets on "What is the right way to build a startup?")

I really haven't seen any definitions of fail fast where it meant that you waste money, don't respond to the market, and wrap things up.

“we’ll launch a bunch of products and see what works.” That is the old “throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks” approach. It’s intellectually lazy and I doubt many great companies are born this way.

Sony and HP were born this way.

But he makes a great point about commitments. When you pivot, what happens to users who are reliant on your old product?

In my case, I felt committed to my customers, even after I really wanted to close it down. Support was far from a full-time commitment, but it's also not a clean end; the dangling commitment takes some of your attention, and this is a real cost to account for. (On the plus side, I ended up getting an extra $20,000 sale that I couldn't have imagined - maybe that would have happened anyway, or maybe it was karma).

This is conflicting advice "In general when capital is available take it." and "It’s also bad to raise too much, too early."

I also think (based on being told by several serial entrepreneurs) that the proper advice is "Avoid (VC) capital until you absolutely need it."

He's missing the point. If you fail fast, you haven't taken, or wasted, $50,000 of your brother-in-law's money.

The article seems to take a rough tone to argue for this:

Fail faster.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com