[smartbear]

Maybe; all have large target markets and the last two have unique things.

That said, let's say you're 100% correct. I went back and forth on whether to even include the rubric, because I myself (the author) think it's a little silly to pretend there's a formula.

I found in early feedback of the article, however, that it forced people to really ask themselves good questions, which they might not have done if they read only the rest.

Therefore, I felt like it was useful for that reason -- posing good questions that folks should answer -- but I agree with you that it does have the problem of being a "formula" that cannot really be accurate.

[tezza]

Thank you for your article.

The rubric by definition is going to be inaccurate as you say.

I went over it myself for my project, and your breakdown does shed light despite the acknowledged inaccuracy.

For instance it made me google how many 250+ employee English-language businesses there are. In the UK it is around 8,000. That was useful in itself.

[v1l]

Oh absolutely believe that asking yourself these questions is critical. Even if the answers aren't encouraging or positive. In the very least, they make you think about how you might overcome these challenges if they exist for your business.

Didn't mean to dunk on your post. I actually loved it. Just wanted to call out that founders should probably not follow the letter of the law of the formula but more use it as a guide to evaluate ideas and problems.

[smartbear]

You bet! I didn't read it as a dunk at all, and again I agree with the critique!