1. Collecting karma for the submitter. ("Why X is foo" followed by "why X is NOT foo" followed by "Foo is irrelevant, it's actually all about bar").
2. Promoting the guy on the other side of the link. Unfortunately Vibhu Norby is one droplet in the indistinguishable white mist that makes up the ever-expanding Svbtle Borg, so it probably isn't working all that well.
(Yes, I totally do 2. Every chance I get to link to myself, I take.)
Problems:
1. How did Deloitte define their data set? (edit: I found out, it's in the report)
Actually, I thought it was interesting to know what the breakdown was amongst successful startups since I've never seen any data about it, only anecdotes. I did the research. It took several hours. I happen to have a place where I can share the research with people that might care and have something to add. Clearly, I am mistaken.
I guess I'm just cynical about a pattern that I see played out here on HN a lot.
Whenever controversial something hits the front page, there's always a spate of quick and easy responses that turn up in the next few days.
That being said, I think my list of problems still remains.
You say that you have a breakdown of how many founders different successful companies have.
Well, you are already ahead of Ryan Carson and Paul Graham in that you've risen above an exchange of anecdotes at 20 paces.
But I think you oversold it in the title.
"How many founders do successful tech companies have?" is not supported by the data.
First, it's based on a list of "fastest growing". Lots of companies grow fast and then abruptly stop growing. You just substituted one metric in for "success" and didn't say that's what you did.
Second, the list is based on self-submitted reports (scroll down to "Selection and Qualifying Criteria") -- "Deloitte has not audited the ranking ... Some companies that may be eligible to appear in the ranking are not included because they did not submit the required information or otherwise declined to participate".
Third, it doesn't deal with failures, which is more interesting because that is the default condition.
Fourth, it's restricted to North American companies only.
Fifth, how did you define "founder"? That seems to me to still be a slippery wildcard in this whole discussion.
Take Ryan Carson's case. He owns most of the equity. Is he the sole founder? If "founder" is based on legal control, yes. What about the day-to-day? He says he has an employee who is a de-facto co-leader. Are they a founder? Maybe not. What if they'd been there right from the start? And so on.
Good on you for doing the tedious slog of looking up a hundred companies, but ... well, I think you've oversold on the title.
And that's what my gut, knee-jerk, ex-Slashdot cynicism reacted to.
Ok, got you. I can answer these. Indeed, it is not representing all fast growing companies all around the world. However, it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have. Companies with two founders are not more likely to submit themselves to such a report. Anyway, almost all of them are businesses generating tons of revenue. A large percentage of them are public companies and many are 10-15 years old. Feel free to look them up.
A founder is someone listed as a co-founder either on the management page, Wikipedia, or in press mentions. It's not really slippery. It took so much time because I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
In your position I'd have pointed out that the data set shows a clear departure from Benford's Law, suggesting that something about single founders is weird.
> Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have.
Different cultures have different ideas about individual risk and teamwork.
> tons of revenue ... 10-15 years old.
Gosh, you mean young companies have more scope for rapid growth and therefore wind up on a self-selected list of rapidly growing companies?
In no way could this sample be biased against failed young companies.
Also unanswered: are there fewer single founders because there are fewer single founders to begin with, or is it because they fail more often?
Comments
> Makes me ask, what is this doing on HN?
1. Collecting karma for the submitter. ("Why X is foo" followed by "why X is NOT foo" followed by "Foo is irrelevant, it's actually all about bar").
2. Promoting the guy on the other side of the link. Unfortunately Vibhu Norby is one droplet in the indistinguishable white mist that makes up the ever-expanding Svbtle Borg, so it probably isn't working all that well.
(Yes, I totally do 2. Every chance I get to link to myself, I take.)
Problems:
1. How did Deloitte define their data set? (edit: I found out, it's in the report)
2. Does fast growth == success?
3. How is a founder defined?
4. What about companies that failed?
Actually, I thought it was interesting to know what the breakdown was amongst successful startups since I've never seen any data about it, only anecdotes. I did the research. It took several hours. I happen to have a place where I can share the research with people that might care and have something to add. Clearly, I am mistaken.
I guess I'm just cynical about a pattern that I see played out here on HN a lot.
Whenever controversial something hits the front page, there's always a spate of quick and easy responses that turn up in the next few days.
That being said, I think my list of problems still remains.
You say that you have a breakdown of how many founders different successful companies have.
Well, you are already ahead of Ryan Carson and Paul Graham in that you've risen above an exchange of anecdotes at 20 paces.
But I think you oversold it in the title.
"How many founders do successful tech companies have?" is not supported by the data.
First, it's based on a list of "fastest growing". Lots of companies grow fast and then abruptly stop growing. You just substituted one metric in for "success" and didn't say that's what you did.
Second, the list is based on self-submitted reports (scroll down to "Selection and Qualifying Criteria") -- "Deloitte has not audited the ranking ... Some companies that may be eligible to appear in the ranking are not included because they did not submit the required information or otherwise declined to participate".
Third, it doesn't deal with failures, which is more interesting because that is the default condition.
Fourth, it's restricted to North American companies only.
Fifth, how did you define "founder"? That seems to me to still be a slippery wildcard in this whole discussion.
Take Ryan Carson's case. He owns most of the equity. Is he the sole founder? If "founder" is based on legal control, yes. What about the day-to-day? He says he has an employee who is a de-facto co-leader. Are they a founder? Maybe not. What if they'd been there right from the start? And so on.
Good on you for doing the tedious slog of looking up a hundred companies, but ... well, I think you've oversold on the title.
And that's what my gut, knee-jerk, ex-Slashdot cynicism reacted to.
Ok, got you. I can answer these. Indeed, it is not representing all fast growing companies all around the world. However, it doesn't have to. Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have. Companies with two founders are not more likely to submit themselves to such a report. Anyway, almost all of them are businesses generating tons of revenue. A large percentage of them are public companies and many are 10-15 years old. Feel free to look them up.
A founder is someone listed as a co-founder either on the management page, Wikipedia, or in press mentions. It's not really slippery. It took so much time because I wanted to make sure I was doing it right.
In your position I'd have pointed out that the data set shows a clear departure from Benford's Law, suggesting that something about single founders is weird.
> Like I said in the post, there is no reason to believe that biases how many founders they have.
Different cultures have different ideas about individual risk and teamwork.
> tons of revenue ... 10-15 years old.
Gosh, you mean young companies have more scope for rapid growth and therefore wind up on a self-selected list of rapidly growing companies?
In no way could this sample be biased against failed young companies.
Also unanswered: are there fewer single founders because there are fewer single founders to begin with, or is it because they fail more often?