[ozataman]

Seems to me like a somewhat empty bag of words. My general interpretation is "walk before you run"; I don't see the need for working hard to find a rule that applies everywhere. The obvious point is that you probably need to have something substantial (market wants your product, fans clamoring on HN, you have a few initial clients, you make some money.. something) before thinking bigger.

If we have to impose a timeline, though, I would say that all 3 elements (market fit, strategy, biz model) have to be considered together, all the time in the leaders' heads (and officially recognized once in a while). Please remember that there is only a single digit (or so) number of Twitter-like stories in the world. Just think of the numerous times that kind of linear thinking (forget about biz. model - let's just pour money into this thing for a long time, or, let's build this cool product without a strategy although I don't even know what cool means without a strategy) approach has failed. In those rare cases, you probably still think about the biz model, as in "it doesn't yet exist but will exist likely in one of X forms once we reach status Y".

I might have a different definition of strategy, but you need some kind of strategy, which at a high level might even just mean "approach", to be able to do anything, including validating an initial market fit. Even starting small, testing/iterating and seeking market fit and later switching gears itself is a form of high level strategy. A ship without a direction gets nowhere, even if you're a small ship in a really-well charted sea.

Unless, of course, he means by product-market fit "an idea for a product/service that the market wants", which would be just about the first thing to do in any business, as championed by the likes of the book "Four Steps to the Epiphany". I suspect those bootstrapping (to at least some degree) would likely know this from deeper in their hearts than others who've had an easier time with plenty of funding upfront. Everything else by definition has the workings of a strategy, whether you admit it or not. If you're not explicit about it though, you're just letting the waves take you places you hope will be good.

Edit: The issue I take is that the article puts strategy into a step in the timeline or process, whereas I believe it needs to be everywhere, all the time. You can't have product-market fit without strategy AND/ORD you can't build a solid, sustainable business without thinking about strategy/market-needs/biz model and probably more at the same time, holistically throughout your existence. It's not just that "don't forget about strategy before biz model!!". Jumping to biz model without having a strategy is impossible - it just means your strategy implicitly is to "grab the money in the best way you see possible right now", without charting a longer term objective.

[fredwilson]

as the person who wrote the "empty bag of words", i'd like to say that i agree that a business needs to have strategy at its core. but product strategy and business strategy are two different things. get the product right first, then figure out the business strategy, then business model. and twitter isn't the only business i've invested in. i've been doing this for 27 years and have invested in hundreds of startups. i used twitter as an example but my message was based on the totality of the experience, not just one company

[mindcrime]

The issue I take is that the article puts strategy into a step in the timeline or process, whereas I believe it needs to be everywhere, all the time. You can't have product-market fit without strategy AND/ORD you can't build a solid, sustainable business without thinking about strategy/market-needs/biz model and probably more at the same time, holistically throughout your existence.

Yes. Business model and strategy are so inherently related (practically "joined at the hip") that I'm not even sure it makes sense to try and divorce the two and talk about them separately. And to the extent that you can talk about them as separate things, it seems obvious to me that changes in one are likely to drive changes in the other.

What is strategy? Well, one definition is "the things you do that your competitors don't". Another is "it's the things you don't do". Well, changing your business model is changing "what you do" (or "don't do" as it were).

And to flip things around... let's say you have some kind of SaaS application, and you've chosen "freemium" as your business model. Your "strategy" now is still "what you do that your competition doesn't". Changes to strategy that can fit within the "freemium" model are strategy that can evolve idependently of the business model. For example, you may have chosen to compete on "product quality" as a metric, so you may spend far more money on testing and QA than a competitor, in order to try and create a product that is better. That's "strategy" and that's independent of the "business model"... except when it isn't.

Like, when the freemium model doesn't drive enough revenue to support the dicated investment in testing and QA. So what do you change, the strategy or the business model? Which one is really more "primal"? I think you can look at it either way, and you have to keep things in harmony one way or the other.

So we're back to how business model and strategy are largely "joined at the hip". Some elements of either can evolve independently of the other, but you just can't divorce them totally and put them into a timeline.

So my advice is not to rush into business model without first finding product market fit and then taking the time to lock down on a crisp, clear, and smart strategy for your business.

My only argument with this is the use of the term "locked down" to refer to strategy. Your environment isn't static and unchanging and your strategy can't really be either. Strategy, IMHO, is a dynamic and iterative process that is never "done".

[pshin45]

> Seems to me like a somewhat empty bag of words.

And the "dismissive and snarky comment voted to the top" trend continues...