为什么创业中心有效
为什么创业中心有效
想要创业?获得Y Combinator的投资。
2011年10月
如果你按人口排序查看美国城市名单,每 capita 的成功创业公司数量相差几个数量级。不知何故,大多数地方似乎都被喷洒了创业杀虫剂。
我对这个问题的思考有很多年。我可以看出,普通城镇就像创业野心的蟑螂旅馆:聪明、有雄心的人进去,但没有创业公司出来。但我从来没能弄清楚旅馆内部到底发生了什么——到底是什么在杀死所有潜在的创业公司。[1]
几周前,我终于想通了。我把问题框错了。问题不是大多数城镇杀死创业公司。而是死亡是创业公司的默认状态,大多数城镇不会拯救它们。与其认为大多数地方被喷洒了创业杀虫剂,不如更准确地认为所有创业公司都被毒药毒害了,少数地方被喷洒了解药。
其他地方的创业公司只是在做创业公司自然做的事情:失败。真正的问题是,像硅谷这样的地方是什么在拯救创业公司?[2]
环境
我认为解药有两个组成部分:身处一个创业公司很酷的地方,以及与能帮助你的人偶然相遇。而驱动这两者的都是你周围的创业公司数量。
第一个组成部分在创业公司生命的第一阶段特别有帮助,那时你从仅仅对创办公司感兴趣到真正去做。创办创业公司是一个相当大的飞跃。这是一件不寻常的事情。但在硅谷,这似乎很正常。[3]
在大多数地方,如果你创办创业公司,人们会把你当作失业者对待。硅谷的人不会仅仅因为你创办公司就自动印象深刻,但他们会关注。任何在这里呆了足够时间的人都知道不要默认持怀疑态度,无论你看起来多么没有经验,或者你的想法听起来多么没有前途,因为他们都见过没有经验、想法听起来没有前途的创始人在几年后成为亿万富翁。
周围有人关心你在做什么是一种非常强大的力量。即使是最有意志的人也会受其影响。在我们创办Y Combinator大约一年后,我对一家知名风险投资公司的合作伙伴说了一些话,这给了他(错误的)印象,认为我正在考虑创办另一家创业公司。他回应得如此热切,以至于大约半秒钟我发现自己正在考虑这样做。
在大多数其他城市,创办创业公司的远景似乎不真实。在硅谷,这不仅是真实的,而且是时尚的。这无疑导致许多不应该创办创业公司的人去创办了。但我认为这没关系。很少有人适合经营创业公司,而且很难提前预测哪些是(我从试图预测的行业中深知这一点),所以很多不应该创办创业公司的人创办创业公司可能是最佳状态。只要你处于生命中的一个阶段,能够承受失败的风险,找出你是否适合经营创业公司的最好方法就是尝试。
机遇
解药的第二个组成部分是与能帮助你的人偶然相遇。这种力量在两个阶段都起作用:既包括从想创办创业公司到实际创办的过渡,也包括从创办公司到成功的过渡。偶然相遇的力量比周围人关心创业公司变化更大,后者像一种影响每个人的背景辐射,但在其最强时,它要强大得多。
偶然相遇产生奇迹来补偿创业公司特有的灾难。在硅谷,可怕的事情不断发生在创业公司身上,就像在其他地方的创业公司一样。硅谷的创业公司更有可能成功的原因是,伟大的事情也发生在它们身上。在硅谷,闪电有一个符号位。
例如,你创办了一个针对大学生的网站,决定搬到帕洛阿尔托过一个夏天在那里工作。然后在帕洛阿尔托的一个随机的郊区街道上,你偶然遇到了肖恩·帕克,他非常了解这个领域,因为他自己创办了一家类似的创业公司,而且他也认识所有投资者。而且,他对2004年的创始人保留公司控制权有先进的看法。
你无法确切地说奇迹会是什么,或者甚至肯定会有一个奇迹发生。最多只能说:如果你在创业中心,意想不到的好事情可能会发生在你身上,特别是如果你应得的话。
我敢打赌,即使是我们资助的创业公司也是如此。即使我们努力为他们有目的地制造事情发生,硅谷有帮助的偶然相遇的频率如此之高,这仍然是我们能提供的显著增量。
偶然相遇的作用类似于放松在产生想法中的作用。大多数人都有这样的经历:努力解决某个问题,无法解决,放弃去睡觉,然后在早上的淋浴中想到答案。让答案出现的是让你的思绪稍微漂移——从而从你前一晚一直在追求的错误路径漂移到旁边正确的路径上。
偶然相遇让你的相识关系漂移,就像淋浴让你的思绪漂移一样。两种情况下的关键都是它们漂移的程度恰到好处。拉里·佩奇和谢尔盖·布林之间的会面是一个好例子。他们让他们的相识关系漂移,但只是稍微漂移;他们都在与有很多共同点的人会面。
对于拉里·佩奇来说,解药最重要的组成部分是谢尔盖·布林,反之亦然。解药是人。使硅谷有效的不是它的物理基础设施,不是天气,也不是任何类似的东西。那些帮助它开始,但现在反应是自我维持的,驱动它的是人。
许多观察家注意到,创业中心最显著的特点之一是人们互相帮助的程度,没有任何期望得到回报。我不确定为什么会这样。也许是因为创业公司不像大多数类型的企业那样是零和游戏;它们很少被竞争对手杀死。也许是因为这么多创业公司创始人有科学背景,在科学中鼓励合作。
Y C的大部分功能是加速这个过程。我们是硅谷中的一个硅谷,在那里,从事创业公司的人员密度和他们互相帮助的意愿都被人为地放大了。
数量
解药的两个组成部分——鼓励创业公司的环境,以及与能帮助你的人偶然相遇——都是由同样的潜在原因驱动的:你周围的创业公司数量。要创建一个创业中心,你需要很多对创业感兴趣的人。
有三个原因。第一个,很明显,是如果你没有足够的密度,偶然相遇就不会发生。[4] 第二个是不同的创业公司需要如此不同的东西,所以你需要很多人来为每个创业公司提供它们最需要的东西。2004年的肖恩·帕克正是Facebook所需要的。另一个创业公司可能需要一个数据库专家,或者一个在电影行业有人脉的人。
顺便说一下,这就是我们资助这么多公司的原因之一。社区越大,其中包含拥有你最需要的那个人的人的机会就越大。
你需要很多人来创建创业中心的第三个原因是,一旦你有足够多的人对同一个问题感兴趣,他们就开始设定社会规范。而当周围的气氛鼓励你做本来似乎过于雄心勃勃的事情时,这是一件特别有价值的事情。在大多数地方,气氛把你拉向平均值。
几天前我飞进湾区。每次飞越硅谷时我都会注意到这一点:不知何故你能感觉到有什么事情正在发生。显然,你可以从地方看起来多么好看出繁荣。但繁荣有不同的种类。硅谷看起来不像波士顿,不像纽约,不像洛杉矶,不像华盛顿特区。我试图想用一个词来描述硅谷辐射的感觉,我想到的词是乐观主义。
注释
[1] 我并不是说在创业公司很少的城市不可能成功,只是更难。如果你足够擅长产生自己的士气,你可以在没有外部鼓励的情况下生存。Wufoo基于坦帕,他们成功了。但Wufoo的人是异常自律的。
[2] 顺便说一句,这种现象不仅限于创业公司。大多数不寻常的雄心都会失败,除非拥有它们的人设法找到正确类型的社区。
[3] 创办公司很常见,但创办创业公司很少见。我在其他地方谈论过这两者之间的区别,但本质上创业公司是一种为规模而设计的新业务。大多数新业务是服务业务,除了罕见情况外,这些业务不会扩展。
[4] 当我写这篇文章时,我见证了硅谷创业公司人员密度的证据。杰西卡和我骑自行车去帕洛阿尔托的大学大道,在极好的Oren’s Hummus吃午饭。当我们走进去时,我们遇到查理·齐弗坐在门附近。塞琳娜·托巴卡瓦拉在出去时停下来打招呼。然后乔什·威尔逊进来取外卖订单。午饭后我们去吃冷冻酸奶。在路上我们遇到了拉杰特·苏里。当我们到达酸奶店时,我们发现戴夫·沈在那里,当我们走出去时,我们遇到了尤里·萨加洛夫。我们和他走了一个街区左右,然后遇到了穆扎米尔·扎维里,然后又走了一个街区后我们遇到了艾丁·森库特。这是帕洛阿尔托的日常生活。我没有试图遇见人;我只是在吃午饭。而且我敢肯定,我看到的每个我认识的创业公司或投资者,还有5个我不认识的。如果罗恩·康威和我们在一起,他会遇到30个他认识的人。
感谢山姆·奥特曼、保罗·布赫海特、杰西卡·利文斯顿和哈吉·塔加阅读本文草稿。
Why Startup Hubs Work
Want to start a startup? Get funded by Y Combinator.
October 2011
If you look at a list of US cities sorted by population, the number of successful startups per capita varies by orders of magnitude. Somehow it’s as if most places were sprayed with startupicide.
I wondered about this for years. I could see the average town was like a roach motel for startup ambitions: smart, ambitious people went in, but no startups came out. But I was never able to figure out exactly what happened inside the motel—exactly what was killing all the potential startups. [1]
A couple weeks ago I finally figured it out. I was framing the question wrong. The problem is not that most towns kill startups. It’s that death is the default for startups, and most towns don’t save them. Instead of thinking of most places as being sprayed with startupicide, it’s more accurate to think of startups as all being poisoned, and a few places being sprayed with the antidote.
Startups in other places are just doing what startups naturally do: fail. The real question is, what’s saving startups in places like Silicon Valley? [2]
Environment
I think there are two components to the antidote: being in a place where startups are the cool thing to do, and chance meetings with people who can help you. And what drives them both is the number of startup people around you.
The first component is particularly helpful in the first stage of a startup’s life, when you go from merely having an interest in starting a company to actually doing it. It’s quite a leap to start a startup. It’s an unusual thing to do. But in Silicon Valley it seems normal. [3]
In most places, if you start a startup, people treat you as if you’re unemployed. People in the Valley aren’t automatically impressed with you just because you’re starting a company, but they pay attention. Anyone who’s been here any amount of time knows not to default to skepticism, no matter how inexperienced you seem or how unpromising your idea sounds at first, because they’ve all seen inexperienced founders with unpromising sounding ideas who a few years later were billionaires.
Having people around you care about what you’re doing is an extraordinarily powerful force. Even the most willful people are susceptible to it. About a year after we started Y Combinator I said something to a partner at a well known VC firm that gave him the (mistaken) impression I was considering starting another startup. He responded so eagerly that for about half a second I found myself considering doing it.
In most other cities, the prospect of starting a startup just doesn’t seem real. In the Valley it’s not only real but fashionable. That no doubt causes a lot of people to start startups who shouldn’t. But I think that’s ok. Few people are suited to running a startup, and it’s very hard to predict beforehand which are (as I know all too well from being in the business of trying to predict beforehand), so lots of people starting startups who shouldn’t is probably the optimal state of affairs. As long as you’re at a point in your life when you can bear the risk of failure, the best way to find out if you’re suited to running a startup is to try it.
Chance
The second component of the antidote is chance meetings with people who can help you. This force works in both phases: both in the transition from the desire to start a startup to starting one, and the transition from starting a company to succeeding. The power of chance meetings is more variable than people around you caring about startups, which is like a sort of background radiation that affects everyone equally, but at its strongest it is far stronger.
Chance meetings produce miracles to compensate for the disasters that characteristically befall startups. In the Valley, terrible things happen to startups all the time, just like they do to startups everywhere. The reason startups are more likely to make it here is that great things happen to them too. In the Valley, lightning has a sign bit.
For example, you start a site for college students and you decide to move to the Valley for the summer to work on it. And then on a random suburban street in Palo Alto you happen to run into Sean Parker, who understands the domain really well because he started a similar startup himself, and also knows all the investors. And moreover has advanced views, for 2004, on founders retaining control of their companies.
You can’t say precisely what the miracle will be, or even for sure that one will happen. The best one can say is: if you’re in a startup hub, unexpected good things will probably happen to you, especially if you deserve them.
I bet this is true even for startups we fund. Even with us working to make things happen for them on purpose rather than by accident, the frequency of helpful chance meetings in the Valley is so high that it’s still a significant increment on what we can deliver.
Chance meetings play a role like the role relaxation plays in having ideas. Most people have had the experience of working hard on some problem, not being able to solve it, giving up and going to bed, and then thinking of the answer in the shower in the morning. What makes the answer appear is letting your thoughts drift a bit—and thus drift off the wrong path you’d been pursuing last night and onto the right one adjacent to it.
Chance meetings let your acquaintance drift in the same way taking a shower lets your thoughts drift. The critical thing in both cases is that they drift just the right amount. The meeting between Larry Page and Sergey Brin was a good example. They let their acquaintance drift, but only a little; they were both meeting someone they had a lot in common with.
For Larry Page the most important component of the antidote was Sergey Brin, and vice versa. The antidote is people. It’s not the physical infrastructure of Silicon Valley that makes it work, or the weather, or anything like that. Those helped get it started, but now that the reaction is self-sustaining what drives it is the people.
Many observers have noticed that one of the most distinctive things about startup hubs is the degree to which people help one another out, with no expectation of getting anything in return. I’m not sure why this is so. Perhaps it’s because startups are less of a zero sum game than most types of business; they are rarely killed by competitors. Or perhaps it’s because so many startup founders have backgrounds in the sciences, where collaboration is encouraged.
A large part of YC’s function is to accelerate that process. We’re a sort of Valley within the Valley, where the density of people working on startups and their willingness to help one another are both artificially amplified.
Numbers
Both components of the antidote—an environment that encourages startups, and chance meetings with people who help you—are driven by the same underlying cause: the number of startup people around you. To make a startup hub, you need a lot of people interested in startups.
There are three reasons. The first, obviously, is that if you don’t have enough density, the chance meetings don’t happen. [4] The second is that different startups need such different things, so you need a lot of people to supply each startup with what they need most. Sean Parker was exactly what Facebook needed in 2004. Another startup might have needed a database guy, or someone with connections in the movie business.
This is one of the reasons we fund such a large number of companies, incidentally. The bigger the community, the greater the chance it will contain the person who has that one thing you need most.
The third reason you need a lot of people to make a startup hub is that once you have enough people interested in the same problem, they start to set the social norms. And it is a particularly valuable thing when the atmosphere around you encourages you to do something that would otherwise seem too ambitious. In most places the atmosphere pulls you back toward the mean.
I flew into the Bay Area a few days ago. I notice this every time I fly over the Valley: somehow you can sense something is going on. Obviously you can sense prosperity in how well kept a place looks. But there are different kinds of prosperity. Silicon Valley doesn’t look like Boston, or New York, or LA, or DC. I tried asking myself what word I’d use to describe the feeling the Valley radiated, and the word that came to mind was optimism.
Notes
[1] I’m not saying it’s impossible to succeed in a city with few other startups, just harder. If you’re sufficiently good at generating your own morale, you can survive without external encouragement. Wufoo was based in Tampa and they succeeded. But the Wufoos are exceptionally disciplined.
[2] Incidentally, this phenomenon is not limited to startups. Most unusual ambitions fail, unless the person who has them manages to find the right sort of community.
[3] Starting a company is common, but starting a startup is rare. I’ve talked about the distinction between the two elsewhere, but essentially a startup is a new business designed for scale. Most new businesses are service businesses and except in rare cases those don’t scale.
[4] As I was writing this, I had a demonstration of the density of startup people in the Valley. Jessica and I bicycled to University Ave in Palo Alto to have lunch at the fabulous Oren’s Hummus. As we walked in, we met Charlie Cheever sitting near the door. Selina Tobaccowala stopped to say hello on her way out. Then Josh Wilson came in to pick up a take out order. After lunch we went to get frozen yogurt. On the way we met Rajat Suri. When we got to the yogurt place, we found Dave Shen there, and as we walked out we ran into Yuri Sagalov. We walked with him for a block or so and we ran into Muzzammil Zaveri, and then a block later we met Aydin Senkut. This is everyday life in Palo Alto. I wasn’t trying to meet people; I was just having lunch. And I’m sure for every startup founder or investor I saw that I knew, there were 5 more I didn’t. If Ron Conway had been with us he would have met 30 people he knew.
Thanks to Sam Altman, Paul Buchheit, Jessica Livingston, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this.