The suite approach is indeed working famously well for HubSpot 😂 That plus I think a rare agreement with the board that long-term-growth and customer happiness Matter.
> It encourages companies to push them beyond what they are naturally suited to do.
This I think is the essence of the point. My addition would be that I think the excesses pressured companies without the correct combination of intangibles (PMF, FPF, FMPF etc) to make it happen, and it sort of then happened through sheer power of narrative control and aligned incentives.
Whether this is any different to how you sell a new style of <anything else> I don't know, but it just happens in a much quicker and more visible way (to us)?
I like the simple explanation that when interest rates were zero no one cared that much, everyone was spending, everyone was growing, everything was overvalued. Now that we're much more focused on cashflow and back to running profitable businesses some companies end up being overvalued and it shows in the variety of ways you listed. There are great examples of companies raising money and continuing to raise as they grow (how much did Snowflake raise total? And seems they have been just getting better and better) - but some markets may just be too small for the $ invested but it's taken time for that to play itself out.
one additional thought on the bootstrapped vs VC funded part. I think there is also a component here where once a startup gets VC funding the money often serves as a magnifying glass for the ALREADY existing problems. The product problems, the tech problems, the market problems and of course the people problems. You know... mo money mo problems. However the money also comes with strings attached - like making more money. That fact atleast gives people a common goal. There are far worse common goals than making money for VCs - for example making a founders dreams come true. :-)
Does venture capital ruin great products?
The suite approach is indeed working famously well for HubSpot 😂 That plus I think a rare agreement with the board that long-term-growth and customer happiness Matter.
> It encourages companies to push them beyond what they are naturally suited to do.
This I think is the essence of the point. My addition would be that I think the excesses pressured companies without the correct combination of intangibles (PMF, FPF, FMPF etc) to make it happen, and it sort of then happened through sheer power of narrative control and aligned incentives.
Whether this is any different to how you sell a new style of <anything else> I don't know, but it just happens in a much quicker and more visible way (to us)?
I like the simple explanation that when interest rates were zero no one cared that much, everyone was spending, everyone was growing, everything was overvalued. Now that we're much more focused on cashflow and back to running profitable businesses some companies end up being overvalued and it shows in the variety of ways you listed. There are great examples of companies raising money and continuing to raise as they grow (how much did Snowflake raise total? And seems they have been just getting better and better) - but some markets may just be too small for the $ invested but it's taken time for that to play itself out.
bootstrap companies are like pets, vc backed startups like cattle
one additional thought on the bootstrapped vs VC funded part. I think there is also a component here where once a startup gets VC funding the money often serves as a magnifying glass for the ALREADY existing problems. The product problems, the tech problems, the market problems and of course the people problems. You know... mo money mo problems. However the money also comes with strings attached - like making more money. That fact atleast gives people a common goal. There are far worse common goals than making money for VCs - for example making a founders dreams come true. :-)
yes I think the customer/vendor relationship becomes secondary. Lost to speculators