The Scene Will Kill You
bhargreaves.com
bhargreaves.com
It doesn't bother me, though, because the truth is, it doesn't matter how many times you've met Fred Wilson, or how many times your name shows up in SAI. If you build something that people love, then the VC's and journalists line up around the block. And if you don't? I don't think Union Square has ever written a check because they saw a guy at all the right parties.
Chris Dixon draws the distinction between "builders" and "extractors," (1) which I really like. Are you building something? Or are you trying to take something?
And I do think that coders are in a different category, because even if you're a "scene-y" dev, at least you could build something of value, whereas most of the scenesters (who completely lack code/design/even business backgrounds) never will.
Btw... great post, Brad.
The problem is that you might be building a product that other SV/SF companies think would be useful, but to the vast majority, of little utility.
You can take someone who's C-level (just coasting) at one company, transplant them to another company, and they might become an A-level player. If someone thinks the work they're doing is pointless, they're probably not going to invest much effort in that work, regardless of how smart they are. Put them in a situation where they really care about how well the company does, and you might see very different results.
Conversely, you can take someone who was A-level at one company, transplant them into another company, and find they're suddenly underperforming. If there's a culture mismatch or they think everyone around them is a doofus, they're probably not going to do a good job.
I think that the article's point is pretty much right on, unless someone's job is specifically to sell to people in the Scene. After all, if they're engaged in the Scene, they're probably not engaged with their work, and that's really what being an A-level player is about.
I submit that it is possible to enjoy the perks of the Scene like meeting other folks doing similar things, sharing ideas, comparing practices and so forth in moderation, without getting sucked into a time-wasting echo-chamber that doesn't provide any value.
There are higher-level attitudes like: "I won't commit to something I can't deliver / If I commit to something I will deliver" that may fall under your attitude categorization, and also correlate to the person's record.
(This doesn't capture all the people who could be A-players, or are at that level but aren't known to many.)
If I could snap my fingers and remove all such people from history, we would probably be colonizing Alpha Centauri right now.
The one build while being a part of the scene was far more successful, but only compared to the first, I do think having a scene is one of the most valuable startup resources possible, however if you let it drive your product it will most likely push you towards some niche echo chamber type product.
I think my best filter is to take in advice others have learned from their experience, but take caution when people give you advice / suggestion about your product.
I can definitely relate to the sentiments, but I think giving developers a "pass" on their involvement in The Scene (or maybe their own scene) is letting them (us) off easy.
We have our own superficial criteria for who's hot/not. It's what language you write, how you host, how you deploy, how you test, how you data (Yes it's a verb now. You're welcome).
I know it seems like these are substantive issues. And sometimes they are. But ultimately, as long as a technical solution gets the job done, it's fine. I'm not talking about getting the job done poorly. That's not getting the job done.
And as someone who's working on a very un-sexy project (that I hope will be substantive and meaningful to a lot of people outside this community), I can say being outside the scene is a cold place to be.
I'm not really complaining. Nor offering a solution. So take that.
As a counter to my own argument... http://www.mailchimp.com/blog/ewww-you-use-php/
Sure, there are language nerds and IRC-fueled rivalries, but when interviewing prospective employees it would seem they're choosing from the most myopic. If they are entry-level FOOC one-lang kids, it seems additionally strange that their attitudes would form the basis for a blog post with such sweeping characterizations.
It just seems like he's either putting way to much stock into the thoughts of unseasoned professionals, or for some reason they're interviewing lots of non-PHP people for PHP positions. I don't know, his argument and reception of language backlash in this context just seems a bit dated and I'm left wondering if it's just a matter of their posting poorly-written job ads.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Crime+and+Misdemeanors-a057475...
(It's the best link I could find.) Substitute "developer" for "artist", "Brooklyn" for "East Village", and "VC" for "collector", and you get the same thing.
Of course, this is true in just about anything.
It is kind of off-topic, but I think search rankings are now less a indication of authority and more an indication of the searchers personal preferences.
I made it through that whole article, and still have absolutely no clue what he might be talking about or trying to warn against.
This post is why I stopped going to tech meetups (the non-programming kind) a long time ago.
It's a bit over the top for my taste .. reads a bit like a teaser for a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
So I don't honestly think that the scene will kill you all by it's lonesome. It will mess you up if you don't have a plan, and don't know why you're playing in it. The scene will kill if you ignore what Chuck D said: "Don't believe the hype."