This is a good approach for non technical people, no doubt. That is if it really suites their skillset.
As a non-technical founder, you are likely good at building and maintaining relationships. You are probably good at selling things. You might be great at framing, so people buy into your vision or get excited about your ideas. These are amazing, difficult-to-acquire skills.
Unfortunately, too many non-technical founders do not have those skills. Many people believe that an idea and "hustle" (working hard, being persistent) is enough. Now they just need to find people to build it, people to market it, people to sell it. They have this great idea! the rest will just fall into place.
The OP saw teams that made it through the YC process. Likely, those are not your average non-technical founders. If you do have those skills, then for sure - this is great advice.
I'm really not a big fan of the technical/nontechnical distinction. Here's a better idea: Be a useful co-founder. In your example, it would appear that our subject is not skilled, so the first thing they need to do is develop an edge that will allow them to be of use to a company.
I don't usually come across helpful posts on TC, but this one caught my eye. Basically, if you look like the stereotypical idea guy/gal, you need to put the startup dreams aside for a bit, work at an established company, gain some experience, and, here it comes, develop skills.
Now, I'd argue this guy (the TC guy) is spreading himself a bit too thin, but the idea of being the utility player on the team is pretty good. When combined with your work experience, you might be an attractive candidate. Go a step beyond that by following OP's advice and, you know, actually build something.
It doesn't need to be a home run, but it should speak for itself, and when you have something, anything really, that speaks for itself, you're in pretty good shape.
Contacts/access/name are useless if that's the primary skill someone brings. If you are an intelligent engineer, a few months in the Bay Area will get you contacts with investors. A great product will also get you contacts and access.
Domain knowledge is useful, however (i.e. a lawyer at a startup doing online legal documents).
I wouldn't put too much weight on general contacts/access/name either but if they are relevant to the domain and will have access to the target market and publicity in the target market it is worth something. I'm thinking a real leader in the relevant field (not technology start ups but your target market) and even in that case value will depend on the situation.
All of which are fairly devoid of utility at an early stage startup. And even for the instances where those roles are useful, it is not anything that anyone with raw analytical brainpower can't do by themselves.
You don't generally have the luxury of having people to build it, people to market it and people to sell it. The fact is, you as a founder need to build something from nothing. The OP does a great job of explaining what that means for a non-technical founder.
your average non-technical founder is extremely likely to fail. If you want to give advice to the them, it should start: become exceptional.
Minor nitpick: the average founder is extremely likely to fail, technical or otherwise. Being a technical founder doesn't really dramatically increase the odds of success. As someone who suffers from "build it and they will come" syndrome, the article is actually decent advice for ANY founder, not just founders who aren't "technical".
you are absolutely right, I didn't mean it just as non-technical and I certainly have suffered from the same syndrome. To be fair and honest, everyone is likely to fail, I was just pointing out that the success stories in the startup world don't tend to come from the average, so building advice around the average is..
Comments
This is a good approach for non technical people, no doubt. That is if it really suites their skillset.
As a non-technical founder, you are likely good at building and maintaining relationships. You are probably good at selling things. You might be great at framing, so people buy into your vision or get excited about your ideas. These are amazing, difficult-to-acquire skills.
Unfortunately, too many non-technical founders do not have those skills. Many people believe that an idea and "hustle" (working hard, being persistent) is enough. Now they just need to find people to build it, people to market it, people to sell it. They have this great idea! the rest will just fall into place.
The OP saw teams that made it through the YC process. Likely, those are not your average non-technical founders. If you do have those skills, then for sure - this is great advice.
If they are non technical and don't have the hustle and flow skills then what exactly would they be bringing to a startup generally?
Assuming of course it's not money cause money solves most problems.
I'm really not a big fan of the technical/nontechnical distinction. Here's a better idea: Be a useful co-founder. In your example, it would appear that our subject is not skilled, so the first thing they need to do is develop an edge that will allow them to be of use to a company.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/08/thoughts-from-a-former-busi...
I don't usually come across helpful posts on TC, but this one caught my eye. Basically, if you look like the stereotypical idea guy/gal, you need to put the startup dreams aside for a bit, work at an established company, gain some experience, and, here it comes, develop skills.
Now, I'd argue this guy (the TC guy) is spreading himself a bit too thin, but the idea of being the utility player on the team is pretty good. When combined with your work experience, you might be an attractive candidate. Go a step beyond that by following OP's advice and, you know, actually build something.
It doesn't need to be a home run, but it should speak for itself, and when you have something, anything really, that speaks for itself, you're in pretty good shape.
Potentially domain knowledge, contacts, access, name...
Whether they are what is required will depend on the situation.
Contacts/access/name are useless if that's the primary skill someone brings. If you are an intelligent engineer, a few months in the Bay Area will get you contacts with investors. A great product will also get you contacts and access.
Domain knowledge is useful, however (i.e. a lawyer at a startup doing online legal documents).
I wouldn't put too much weight on general contacts/access/name either but if they are relevant to the domain and will have access to the target market and publicity in the target market it is worth something. I'm thinking a real leader in the relevant field (not technology start ups but your target market) and even in that case value will depend on the situation.
Contacts/access/name is about more than investors, in some industries that's what you need to reach customers or suppliers.
I put that under "domain expertise."
Whole range of advisory, strategic or research roles perhaps. Roles like these don't necessary require strong soft-skills or sales\marketing chops.
All of which are fairly devoid of utility at an early stage startup. And even for the instances where those roles are useful, it is not anything that anyone with raw analytical brainpower can't do by themselves.
You don't generally have the luxury of having people to build it, people to market it and people to sell it. The fact is, you as a founder need to build something from nothing. The OP does a great job of explaining what that means for a non-technical founder.
your average non-technical founder is extremely likely to fail. If you want to give advice to the them, it should start: become exceptional.
Minor nitpick: the average founder is extremely likely to fail, technical or otherwise. Being a technical founder doesn't really dramatically increase the odds of success. As someone who suffers from "build it and they will come" syndrome, the article is actually decent advice for ANY founder, not just founders who aren't "technical".
you are absolutely right, I didn't mean it just as non-technical and I certainly have suffered from the same syndrome. To be fair and honest, everyone is likely to fail, I was just pointing out that the success stories in the startup world don't tend to come from the average, so building advice around the average is..