Hacker News Reader

Whenever someone advises "don't do this", it's usually pretty easy to come up with valid reason to do this. Fine.

The lesson here is either avoid the sinkhole of conferences/events. Or, if you are so inclined to go, make sure you understand that unless you are extremely focused and efficient, it is likely to be a waste of time for you.

I'd like to echo this. If you're not experienced enough to know when it's okay to break the rule, you shouldn't break the rule.

Sadly if you're not experienced enough to know when it's okay to break the rule, you probably don't know whether or not you're experienced enough to break the rule.

That experience comes from breaking the rule and living through the outcome.

Similarly, if you're not experience to know when it's okay to break the rule, you shouldn't be repeated the rule, because you haven't absorbed why it exists and intelligently talk about its limitations.

A smart person knows the correct answers, but a really smart person knows when they wouldn't be correct.

Fair enough. It's also very easy for people to treat what she says as gospel and go "I must not go to a conventions because this very knowledgeable person who has much more experience than I do said they're not useful. So therefore they must not be useful."

It goes both ways.

It's somewhat circular reasoning, but my view would be: if you're so inexperienced such that you will blindly follow her advice then you should blindly follow her advice. If you aren't so inexperienced such that you don't blindly follow her advice then you're probably OK to not blindly follow her advice.

This is basically true for every field ever. Generally recommended practices are most important for beginners. Once you're experienced you can start recognizing when it isn't applicable. Beginners oftentimes aren't experienced enough to apply nuanced advice, and nuanced advice oftentimes is masqueraded as general, rather than nuanced, advice.

Somewhere inbetween people might get lost but I feel like approach this gets the majority of people on the right track.

But in this case, there are a lot of somewhat experienced people who (mistakenly) think conferences are likely to be valuable. Those are the folks who would be wise to listen to such advice.

Except that you'd be better off following that knowledgable person's advice. People think it goes both ways but it generally doesn't. And that's the trick.

If someone is really going to take the advice of a person they've never met so completely literally, without considering its nuances, then I suggest that they're headed for failure anyway.

Sure, it's easy to treat it as gospel (it's also easy to not think about what you're doing); doesn't mean it's a good idea to do so.

Ay, but it's kind of the like the road out of a forest fire. Sure, you can go both ways, but if you don't know what the hell you're doing, or are even experienced, but not an expert, best to follow the directions of those around you.

No, she doesn't assert that. She lists conferences as one of a number of things that easily distract founders.

I would say that her list sounds like stuff you can tell yourself is real work that will grow your product when it is mostly window dressing. The thing is, there are situations where those things will actually be useful. But, often, they are more style than substance.

I think the difference you're talking about comes down to /why/ you're going to the conference.

If you're going to meet either of the two main goals - growth, talking to users - then you're going to do those things, not to go to a conference.

Conventions are where we get all our customers. Situations are different for everybody.

I think the dichotomy is

A. Go to customer/user conferences? YES YES YES!

B. Go to startup or generic conferences? Not more than once or twice a year.

Everyone in this thread seems to be mixing up the two.

Now unless you're selling to other startups, her advice is crystal clear.

A. Is talking to your users. So its YES. B. Is entertainment with a small benefit. So it's a time sink.

She assumes you are already building what people want.

There is a bit of circular reasoning there. How do you know what people want? If you don't, you might have to go and talk to people. Some of those could be at conventions for example. Certainly true for niche markets.

The assumption perhaps is at this point in the process, you've already been to all the conferences, had coffee with all the VCs and now you are focused on delivering.

I think conferences and conventions are the kind of thing that you can get some utility out of once your business is somewhat established and running, but not so much when you have a new startup that you need to take off the ground. Since YC focuses on the latter it's understandable that they would advise against them.

I worked at one startup (only four employees) that took advantage of conventions and we were able to meet several people we were considering doing business with, sign on for some market data we needed, see what other companies were working on, and meet in person the people we hired to do various things for us.

I worked at another startup with the same number of employees where we never did anything but work, work, work, focus focus focus, everyone was in such a hurry to get everything done that there wasn't time spent to see where the market currently was, what the competition was, and if we were working on products that would be desirable and successful. That company crashed and burned real hard.

If nothing else, conventions give you and your employees a bit of a forced breather from that lifestyle. But again, they aren't truly necessary, they're just tools, and can be useful or a waste of time.

"make new partnerships, check out new hardware/software solutions to save time or money, possibly hunt for some new talent to join the company, discuss business propositions"

I think most of these are also things Jessica cited as distractions or just plain bad ideas for early startups.