Even before Paul Graham and Viaweb, the stats were that about 90% of new businesses fail and a big predictor of success (but still at low odds) was ignorance of those odds.
Our new business just "failed" after 15 years (it was designed to support our family, which unexpectedly grew). But, regardless, when I checked the failure rate reported in gov stats in UK was far lower than the common wisdom held; which surprised me somewhat.
Do you have a source of solid figures to back up that 90%?
The whole "90% of businesses fail" thing is pretty meaningless without a timespan attached to it. Obviously almost all companies eventually go out of business for some reason or another.
About three quarters last more than a year, about half last to 5 years, and about a third last to 10 years.
Also if you forget the whole startup "go big or go home", what also matters is whether the company left the people involved - the founders, the employees - richer than they were before, or did it ruin the founders. Because a business that lasted 5 years and closed because the market dried up, but in that time netted the founder more than a regular job would, is pretty successful in my books.
Thanks for posting that, TeMPOral. It helps to put things in a good perspective - our business has given us much joy, far more joy than a regular job would. Not so great on the money aspect; which I guess is why no-one has stepped up with interest to take it on.
Yes, sorry, the phrase repeated by nearly everyone was "90% [of [small] businesses] fail in the first year". Which compared to your 25% figure is pretty markedly different - that's the sort of discrepancy I was seeing.
> But, regardless, when I checked the failure rate reported in gov stats in UK was far lower than the common wisdom held; which surprised me somewhat.
Does the UK government split into VC backed and not VC-backed? I always thought that number only holds for the "go big or go home" type of business (i.e. VC backed), not for normal ones.
Perhaps they were aiming for 1 and they got 3 or 4? I remember a colleague a few years back had that 'problem' (planned 1 turned to 3) and he got a very generous raise that year.
It’s also possible for someone to become a child’s guardian if their parents lose the ability to fill that role. I don’t know how widespread this is across cultures, but in my family, parents of newborn children name a “godfather” and/or “godmother” (usually an aunt/uncle) who become responsible for this by default.
Do you have a source of solid figures to back up that 90%?