[9oliYQjP]

You're giving up after less than a year? I have a rule of thumb. I think that If you want to start a startup, make sure you're willing to devote at least 3 years to getting it going. Otherwise, don't bother. It's difficult enough to get a business off the ground at all, without trying to do so with an extremely tight time constraint. A corollary to this rule I suppose is that you should ensure that you have 3 years worth of resources and motivation before deciding to take a gamble on a startup.

I know it's easier and quicker to create a web startup today, but remember that you are still ultimately interfacing with the rest of the world. The rest of the world still moves at a rather leisurely pace. A lot of successful companies really don't start taking off until the third year of business. The rule of thumb is that for the first year, you're usually losing money. By the second year, you're hoping to break even, and by the third, should the business prove to be viable, you start making a profit. Even in the case of technology companies where this does not hold true nearly as much, there should at least be a parallel resemblance to this trajectory. Instead of being profitable in year 3, perhaps a technology startup begins to generate revenue, or is cash flow positive. The key characteristic is that in year 3, some sort of inflection point for success is reached.

If you don't hit this inflection point in year 3, you probably will never hit it. It's safe to say that you gave it your all, and quit the endeavour. If you do hit that inflection point in year 3 though, the proverbial sky is the limit. But in my opinion, it really does take 3 years worth of effort to say that you really put in a concerted effort.

Do you have the resources and will to give it some more effort? My advice to you is not to consider your current startup a failure. Rather, visualize your startup as a swimmer that's trying to cross a lake but has underestimated the direction and flow of the current. So you're a bit off course from where you need to be. The answer is not to give up on where you wanted to go, but instead change your tactics and find another route to your destination. Maybe it's longer, takes a bit more effort, and requires more time.

All the problems I see with Trogger are ones whose solutions are within your ability to solve. To me, Trogger appears to be a Web 2.0 version of Usenet. Except that it does not address any of the the problems that plagued Usenet:

The inability to prevent spammers from ruining the dialogue.

The fact that conversations in Usenet needed to stay on topic so that finding conversations was easy, but in real life conversations seldom do and people enjoy it that way. Reward tangents. People go off on tangents in conversations because they want to remain engaged. They leave conversations when they're unengaged. Why would you want people to leave your conversations?

The short history of the web has shown that protocols don't make much money by themselves. You don't want to be the protocol of conversations on the Internet. Instead, choose a niche and be the conversation for that niche. Look at Stack Overflow as an example. If the Stack Overflow website was simply released as a general discussion platform, I'm pretty sure the thing would have tanked.

If I were in your shoes and I had the resources to survive for a little while longer, here would be my abstract thought process:

1) Reduce the scope of the problem. You know what discussion boards traditionally suck? Healthy living/workout ones. They're all sh*t, but there's a lot of money in that market. Find a market like that and be THE forum for that market, like Stack Overflow is for software devs looking for technical answers.

2) With the scope reduced, take the opportunity to refactor the user experience. Do you still need to integrate with Twitter and Facebook? If not, cut out those features. Cut out everything you possibly can until you've distilled the design down to the useful minimum. Then don't add features until you start seeing your users really hacking the system to their needs, like posting ascii diagrams to try to illustrate a point (e.g., if you did not have an ability to post pictures).

3) The most important part... Everything you do needs to be thought of as costing money or making money. Ideally your strategy involves trying to balance a cost with a revenue generator. For example, simply to host the site will cost you money. Instead of waiting for $1M to fall out of some VC's hands into your lap, start thinking about ways to offset this cost. On the easy end of the spectrum is ad revenue. Implement ads in a way that people are used to and that will begin to make you some money. Then try to grow this revenue. On the other end of the spectrum is trying to find sponsors. This task will be easier if you have narrowed your scope in step 1 and are targeting a specific market. For example, if you decide to become the ultimate discussion place for plastic surgery, Google plastic surgery and find out who's buying up ad words. Find a way to get in contact with them and offer them the ability to sponsor your website for a fee.

Now, whenever you go to implement a feature you can ask yourself the question "Will this feature make my users happy and cause them to use the website more, thus making sponsors happy or make me more ad revenue?" If not, don't implement the feature. If it will just make them happy but won't make them use your website more, don't bother doing it. It's amazing what this distinction can have in making a business a successful one or not.

[dhouston]

This is dangerous advice; failing fast is way better than failing slow. To get to (in your example) breakeven in year 2, you better be showing traction in year 1 after launch, or at least signs of life, which they were not. No one liked or cared about what they were building, and they wisely realized they had no idea what market they were really going after and (after several months' worth of learning) still had no evidence one even existed.

Given they're still at square one, if they identified a more promising market, they should go for that, and it takes a lot of discipline to admit that all that prior effort is sunk cost.

[diN0bot]

re: walking after a year:

this is curious to me. on the one hand, success can spring from numerous failures, the numerous implying fast! imagine the inventor always inventing, multiple projects at once! a new one every week!

on the other hand, success can spring from committment and dedication. stay focused, don't give up.

i'm not refuting your points--in the end, one has to be smart, strategic. go all out in the right way.

[mcav]

You're an airplane pilot trying to get your bird off the ground. You have to attain a certain velocity to succeed. If your runway is short, you'd better open the throttle wide -- and if it isn't working, you have to decide pretty quickly to give up and try again.

But if the runway is longer, you have more time: continue building speed until you have enough force to lift off.

You just want to avoid giving up when you had plenty of runway.

[9oliYQjP]

Much more succinctly put than I could have put it, but spot on! The problem I'm seeing is a greater number of pilots that think they're flying Harrier jump jets when they're really piloting Cessnas :)

[9oliYQjP]

Sure. I suppose what motivated me to write the original post in this thread is that I'm beginning to see a lot of people jump into startups with a great amount of wishful thinking and a complete misconception of what they are getting into. It's really the computer geek equivalent of a jock joining the military after high school because the ads are cool and he enjoys fighting.

I'm not a huge fan of the strategy to keep on trying until you succeed. There are some things in life that I will simply not be good at. No matter how much I try, there is no way I will be an Olympic swimmer. That ship sailed well over half a lifetime ago. Some people just aren't cut out for running a business. Hell, even some successful business people are tormented by the idea that they were simply lucky, and spend the remainder of their time failing at future business endeavours.

All I'm suggesting is that you need to go into a startup with a reasonable sense of commitment. For most businesses, I think a reasonable time frame to dedicate to it is 3 years. There isn't a fixed gestation period for a successful business the way there is for creating a baby. But 3 years is long enough for you to have seen some highs and lows, to have performed several iterative improvements to the product/service, and (again, hopefully) witnessed the market's initial reaction and longer term assessment of the product/service. It's enough to have executed a few strategical paths and many more tactical manoeuvres. In effect, it's long enough to provide an adequate number of data points (for you) to make the decision to continue or not if the market hasn't made that decision for you already.

For those of you wanting to go into a startup, think of being able to put in a 3 year commitment and now let your mind explore that idea vs the idea of simply putting in a year's worth of effort. You'll come up with a vastly different sense of obstacles that you will face (e.g., cash flow is a problem for a 3 year commitment for most people but not so for a 1 year commitment). The problem is, most people discount these obstacles and then face them anyway because they aren't successful within that first year. Their strategies don't take them into account and are rendered ineffective as a result. Basically, treat a startup as if you're emigrating to a foreign country for a few years as opposed to just visiting one for vacation. All the same sort of obstacles still apply.