[alephnerd]

YC has always been founder first.

Back when they started in the 2000s, most traditional VCs didn't recognize that high impact individuals can easily pivot or define product categories, and only concentrated on financial engineering (DCF go brrrrrr).

YC often also mentors founders on pivots (I'd say at least a third of all startups that make it to demo day were mentored into some sort of a pivot).

YC also needs to pivot it's marketing to compete with a16z Speedrun and PeakXV Surge, both of which really center on the founder first approach or Operators-turned-Angels - which I assume this marketing shift is about.

[ls-a]

> YC often also mentors founders on pivots

Interesting. I once talked to an investor (not YC) and they asked me what I would do if the product failed. I said one thing I can do is pivot. And they literally responded with "we don't invest in founders who think about pivoting"

> YC also needs to pivot it's marketing to compete with a16z Speedrun and PeakXV Surge

Maybe. A write up about the new design would be cool I think

> YC has always been founder first.

Internally yes there is a "founder community". But publicly I would argue it was product-first.

[throwaway89201]

> YC often also mentors founders on pivots

It doesn't seem unlikely to me that YC coined or at least popularized 'the pivot' in the context of changing business / startup directions. The first mention of using the word in that sense is in this comment [1] which explicitly mentions the usage by YC, while it only gets used when talking about pivot tables or more traditional uses of the word before that.

Edit: The "Lean Startup" blog series [2], which was quite influential, mentions 'the pivot' a little earlier than the post above, and really seems to coin it, so I guess that's the source (edit again: wrong :D).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=806601

[2] https://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/06/pivot-dont-jum...

[dang]

That's a fun question! 806601 was from Sept 2009. I found 3 earlier cases of 'pivot' in the startup sense:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=699611 (July 2009)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=676514 (June 2009)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=562739 (April 2009)

All 3 of those posts were by YC founders, so the term was obviously in circulation by then. The last of them includes a (broken) likn to this article: https://web.archive.org/web/20090703130211/https://redeye.fi....

Edit: that one was discussed here, but the comments didn't say the p-word:

Yogi Berra wisdom for startups - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=537331 - March 2009 (9 comments)

[alephnerd]

> I said one thing I can do is pivot. And they literally responded with "we don't invest in founders who think about pivoting"

I'd say it depends on a VC's investment thesis as well as the stage your startup is at.

For the former, some wouldn't like your answer because it implies a lack of conviction (why should I invest in something the founder doesn't trust). Others wouldn't because it adds a degree of uncertainty (if this B2C reels company pivots into MLOps tooling how can I do due dilligence on my investment).

For the latter, seed/pre-seed that is open to pivoting isn't necessarily a negative flag because they are barely generating revenue as is and are trying to find PMF, but a Series B startup suddenly taking about a pivot might imply they aren't doing so hot.

> A write up about the new design would be cool I think

We ain't the LPs. We don't deserve an answer.

[anonymous908213]

It's a lot deeper than an apparent lack of conviction. Mentioning the possibility of a pivot completely changes the dynamic of the investment. 'No pivot' is asking "please invest in this startup; here's why it's a good idea". 'Pivot possible' is asking "please invest in me; I will find a way to get you a return on investment regardless of the means". Asking someone to invest in you as a person requires a certain level of egoistic thinking. Is the ego warranted? Maybe, but the investor won't know unless they build an extremely close rapport with you. Something like YC does with a 3-month on-premise bootcamp is that exact opportunity for investors to build a close rapport, so investing in people makes sense for YC. But a lot of investors are investing without building that rapport, so investing purely on the merits of business ideas makes more sense for them.

[bflesch]

> YC also needs to pivot it's marketing

Depends who you're marketing to. Do they need to follow what others did or should they stay in their own niche? Because I'm not hanging out on a16z forum because they make fancy marketing materials, I'm one of the thousands of people who bought into the YC brand which was build over decades. Would be stupid to become one with the crowd of sleeky VCs.

As European I'm quite happy I didn't see YC involvement with the current administration, and if they stay a bit clear of the AI supergau I'm sure they'll be fine.

[verdverm]

> YC also needs to pivot

It's been reported that the ratio of mentors to founders had become quite bad. Seems quality has gone down since they tried to scale something that doesn't scale