[dereking]

Very true, I have always had the same perception maybe even treated it as an undisputed cliché in every startup pitch.

But as time goes on, I seem to be getting more cynical to the perception and start believing a lot of the ideas are just more successful because of the 'market analysis' done before hand (with the exception of trend-makers, for example AirBnB)

Look at Blippar for instance, the startup that triggered this realization when I heard about it.

Augmented Reality has existed for quite some time, there have been countless applications, from real estate to navigation, yet many of similar start-ups have faded as time went on, but they on the other hand have remained due to targeting a cash rich market (Advertising) even though it solves no problem.

I know the above statement is quite simplistic, and surely it does not make the Blippar team justice for all the effort, strategies, etc that they employed. However, the idea of (what I perceive to be artificial) and yet has been so successful in such a short period of time is a bit of an eye opener.

[davismwfl]

I get what you mean.

I think the Natural idea that sucks (has no market or solves no need) will still suck regardless of how much passion and energy that you put into them, maybe just suck a little less. To me an idea still has to either have an existing market, or a definable market with a way to monetize the product/service. Otherwise what is the point, other than if you want a lifestyle business?

From my experience, it seems like when advertising products/services is involved (like Blippar), companies and investors do seem more willing to toss some money at the less defined markets and wackier ideas and see if they stick or create change. So at least from the very tiny bit I read about Blippar, my initial impression is that is where they fit in today. Effectively, a concept that got tossed a little money to see if they can make something stick with consumers and test out some technology that might benefit Qualcom (assuming Crunchbase is right about who their seed investment was from). And who knows how they are paying bills otherwise, maybe it is with significant market consulting to learn about problems which also gives them more runway prolonging an idea that is doomed to die (not saying they will, just a point).

To your other point, I think timing is critical too, there have been some really good ideas that were just to early for the market to accept, yet 10 years later a startup tries it and is successful. Happens to really well funded projects from large investors and firms, e.g. Microsoft, Apple etc.

[js4]

Agreed.

AirBnB and similar companies from that cohort are random occurrences but company building isn't as new of a thing as we think so there are millions of other businesses to use in the sample.

The guys enterprising on the silk road (the old one) weren't chasing after some "I woke up one day and had a vision that everyone in the west was wearing silk". They were probably just trying to execute on a market opportunity that was large enough to risk their life for.

"Narrative driven" startups are easier for people to understand, everyone wants Odysseus to come out on top after all, but is it a factor for success?

I dont think so.

As an entrepreneur its my job to see market opportunities that others do not.

How I come to that realization is irrelevant.