"I have a startup" seems a very ODD way of saying what you do when people ask, anyway. It is almost intentionally oblique. Even as a serial entrepreneur, I would probably have a similar "midwestern" reaction if someone said that when I asked them what they did...it's just a weird, passionless answer.
If you ask a person at a big corporation what they do, they don't usually say "I have a job with a big corporation." Do they? Instead, they would usually say something like "I work in accounting for the largest trucking company in the US." or "I'm a salesman with a company that makes office copiers." Boring, but at least it's an honest answer.
An entrepreneur should be able to muster much more passion than "I have a startup" when asked what it is they do. People tend to respond positively when you show passion and enthusiasm and speak directly about what you do. Even if you have to 'dumb it down' for them to understand (or omit secret information.) Maybe this guy should have enthusiastically said, "Yeah, I'm working on a really neat piece of software that helps people to communicate better by XXX"
For some reason, "I have a startup" makes me think of a few people I know that have no passion for school, but have stayed in grad school for years on end so they can avoid choosing a career. People may have pity or confusion in their voice only because what you're saying has a cop-out or apologetic vibe to it...?
This is an great point! Saying that you're working on some excellent software and what its trying to do may be the best way to approach the conversation, especially in the midwest...
Once you describe what you're doing, then you'll be asked who you work for, and when you say yourself the idea of a startup will be better explained.
I'm always hesitant to do so because I feel that describing what project you work on doesn't describe the hours you work, the responsibilities, and all the extras that come with a startup.
I think you're taking the discussion a bit too seriously and missing the point. I'm pretty sure the blog post wasn't a verbatim conversation, but most people who have lived in the Bay Area and worked on a startup recognize the difference in reaction between people in that area versus people in other parts of the country.
I think the point is the thought - in some areas and in some circles - to when a member of intelligentsia says "I have a start-up" is bewilderment: hence the "why didn't you go to college?" follow up question.
The assumption is that if starting/running businesses isn't what people with an education do, unless they have no other choice. The "default" thing for them is to climb the corporate ladder.
In a way I could see where this idea comes from: if you lack a college degree (or have one but not from a top-tier school and not with top grades) you're still locked out of some opportunities. The only way to a high ranking position in some companies is to enter as a "college hire" and advanced through the ranks (senior positions are seldom open to outside applicants and there is fear that an experienced applicant will be bored/unmotivated at a junior or entry-level position; academic record is seen as the "best" indication of potential success for a junior applicant). So for those without a college education, often the only way to a senior position is through start-ups.
What doesn't follow - any more - is that for those with an education the only way to a senior position is through a big company. It's still a way (there are lots of smart people at places such as Google, IBM, Amazon, Yahoo), but no longer the only reliable option. Even those at big companies no longer stay with the same big company: "job-hopping" is pretty common for advancement (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse - seeing less competent employees but with higher salaries due to greater negotiating leverage - can be de-motivating for employees who are uninterested in job hopping themselves).
The only way that this assumption is still slightly true is that only big companies offer the chance to work on certain classes of problems that start-ups can not tackle - but here's hope that this will change (and there are indication it is changing).
The bay area is special from a funding/VC perspective. After pitching in Chicago, Boston, and SF; I've come to realize what makes the valley special: there are so damn many investors that they don't all know each other which reduces "group think."
In cities like Chicago, there are a handful of VCs that all talk to each other. If you pitch to one and they don't like your idea, they trade notes with their other VC buddies in the area and that's it. Your done. Pack up your bags and head to the next city. I could count the number of funded Chicago web startups with one hand.
In the valley there are so many investors with so much more experience willing to fund ideas that investors from other areas simply wouldn't touch. If you pitch to one guy and he doesn't like it, go pitch to another investor... and another... and another... it will be a while before you exhaust this list.
From my experience the bay area doesn't suffer from the same group think problems that most other areas in the world suffer from; including a sizable city like Chicago.
How much does it matter what message a city sends? Empirically, the answer seems to be: a lot. You might think that if you had enough strength of mind to do great things, you'd be able to transcend your environment. Where you live should make at most a couple percent difference. But if you look at the historical evidence, it seems to matter more than that. Most people who did great things were clumped together in a few places where that sort of thing was done at the time.
I don't think that's fair at all. I find Midwesterners my age or below to be just as excited about internet startups as anyone. The guy who plays poker for a living in Las Vegas is just another gambler, the guy who does it in Indiana is a rock star. Same thing with internet entrepreneurs. I know all of the above first hand.
The big difference is that in the Bay Area, people significantly older than myself still get it. In the Midwest they're still not sure what this newfangled Facebook is all about. </sweeping generalization>
I used to have this "blank stare" problem with some of my relatives and former colleagues when they asked what I was working on. I finally realized I was often just being too technical or was using industry-specific terms people weren't familiar with...and sometimes I was being too specific or too general in my explanations. Like I expected everyone else to have the same background and interests as I do. I finally tried putting myself in their shoes. If you're too general, you will sound evasive or apologetic. If you're too specific, it's easy to sound boring. It's a difficult balance to be specific enough that you keep their interest, but not so specific you confuse them or flip their "Techy-talk OFF switch."
I try to use very common analogies and to speak as simply and directly as possible. I usually just explain the selling proposition and/or business model of the startup without any additional information about "how we do it" or "in what industry" or "who our competitors are," etc. If they want more details, they can ask.
I've ended up with a few stock answers I use for every one of my startups. I usually just state the problem, and my solution to that problem, in layman's terms. That usually gets the best response. People usually start asking more specific questions, and we go from there. I try to explain what my startup does, and to convey my passion for the business without sounding too much like a pushy salesman or a nut ;-) If the startup is profitable, I add that tidbit.
I actually went from getting blank stares to getting new business and referrals. A simple, clear answer about the benefits your business offers can literally turn people into customers on the spot...or at least promoters of you and your ideas. Genuine enthusiasm and passion is memorable, and people are drawn to it.
I disagree. Morale is huge deal within a startup. Startups are emotional rollercoasters, and if your environment is always negatively affecting your morale, the lows will eventually drag down your productivity. That doesn't mean you aren't fit for entrepreneurship - if so, why are the majority of successful web startups clustered in the Bay Area?
Respect has to be earned. If one's morale is buttressed by toadies and 'respecting' yes-men who gush about how awesome you are just because of your job title, things are more likely to go off the rails when the sun stops shining.
By all means mix with like-minded people, but your morale and motivation shouldn't depend upon whether or not your neighbour thinks you're 'cool'.
This doesn't really have to do with yes-men. We're not talking about people who feel negatively about your company, but rather the fact that you run one at all. The kind of scorn the article author talks about is not "oh man, there's no future in (field)", but rather "why in the world would you risk running your own company?!". The latter certainly still calls for a thick skin, but it would help if your closest friends and family were supportive about the concept.
In theory, yes it's true that scorn may even help one's entrepreneurial flame. The difference is that starting a company is like starting a fire. Little gusts of wind can buttress and make the fire spread, but it can also knock it out.
Having the support of the community within the bay area is just one less headache to deal with in conjunction with the many headaches of doing a startup.
If you compare one place to another, and clearly one of those locations has an environment more supportive for success in your field, wouldn't that be preferred? Perhaps you are just looking for a challenge, but if you're like the rest of us who are looking to succeed, maximizing the success factors tends to be a good idea.
An abbreviation of 'toadeater'. Originally, a charlatan's helper who ate (or pretended to eat) poisonous toads so that his employer could display his prowess in expelling the poison.
I started a company in Chicago and moved to the Bay Area. the differences are almost exactly what was described in the article. I jumped from a fairly large and prestigious company to start the company and people automatically were incredulous that I would quit. There is no area like the Bay Area for starting company in terms of emotional well being and having fellow entrepreneurs in the same boat.
I'm from Chicago as well and I also find it hard for even my friends to understand why I would bother doing a startup. The people who do understand or relate are fellow tech startups of which there are quite a few actually.
Not always true. I'm in Bay Area, but when I left a big co to join a start-up, I got the question of "why would you quit a big company to join a small place?" and got blank stares as an explanation.
By default joining start-ups, founding businesses just isn't what educated intelligentsia do. If pg is right, that will change.
If you ask a person at a big corporation what they do, they don't usually say "I have a job with a big corporation." Do they? Instead, they would usually say something like "I work in accounting for the largest trucking company in the US." or "I'm a salesman with a company that makes office copiers." Boring, but at least it's an honest answer.
An entrepreneur should be able to muster much more passion than "I have a startup" when asked what it is they do. People tend to respond positively when you show passion and enthusiasm and speak directly about what you do. Even if you have to 'dumb it down' for them to understand (or omit secret information.) Maybe this guy should have enthusiastically said, "Yeah, I'm working on a really neat piece of software that helps people to communicate better by XXX"
For some reason, "I have a startup" makes me think of a few people I know that have no passion for school, but have stayed in grad school for years on end so they can avoid choosing a career. People may have pity or confusion in their voice only because what you're saying has a cop-out or apologetic vibe to it...?