Ask HN: Can we brainstorm a better way to find a co-founder?

[tropchan]

I haven’t seen a great solution to this problem - have you? Many thought leaders have weighed in from Drew Houston who summarizes the dilemma well (http://www.quora.com/How-do-I-find-good-technical-co-founders) to Jason Freedman who gives great advice from the perspective of a non-technical person (http://humbledmba.com/please-please-please-stop-asking-how-to-find). The reality is that entrepreneurs come from a range of backgrounds across all sectors and finding someone you know well, trust, and is fully committed launching a biz (especially an unproven concept) is really hard. The advice many people offer is to use your network, go to meetups, and try online tools like http://founderdating.com. I have tried this, but frankly it’s not a quick process unless you are willing to pick someone you barely know (this works sometimes a la Kevin Rose).

So what’s the solution? My process is to put myself around the “type” of people I need to meet (this could be technical, a specific skill, etc). For me, I want to meet a CTO. However, instead of rushing the process I am simply looking to meet people as determined to build a company as myself. If they are technical or non-technical it doesn’t matter, but I believe opportunities will come from simply getting to know like-minded people. In the meantime I am following this approach: 1) Learning to code (at least the basics) 2) Do as much as possible to validate your idea (talk to customers/users, presell, etc) 3) Find a technical adviser that you trust (help with finding the right person) 4) Paying someone to prototype ($1-5K isn’t a lot to test a business) 5) Get to know potential Co-Founders

What do you think of this approach? Would a private facebook group an interesting ice-breaker to show what you are working on, get feedback, and make friendships - with the goal of helping and getting to people rather than solely finding a co-founder. If so, I made this: https://www.facebook.com/groups/842762052466224/. What's your solution to this problem? I am open to any and all ideas.

[quantisan]

I was a developer that partnered with a stranger. He's an MBA with a purely business background. I'm the full stack + product guy. I'm never co-founding a business with a stranger ever again.

We failed probably because of not what you're thinking. My business co-founder brought more to the table than I could imagine. I've gained a lot of respect for the hard work of sales, marketing, fundraising, and the people that make these tasks seem so easy.

We got hundreds of customers, made $10k revenue per month, and had a staff of 5 at one time. All bootstrapped over the course of 12 months.

The thing is, we were not happy working with each other. When shit hits the fan (which happens often in a new business), we just get on each other's nerves. On paper, we have perfectly complimentary skill set. He's a charming people person. I'm a proficient developer. In reality, the fact that we're so opposite means that we're always seeing and doings things differently. When we're in a grind, he wants to hi-fives to boost morale and I want to put my head down to ship faster.

If I were to do it again. I'd find a smart, hardworking person that brings me energy and that I'd bring them energy when the shit hits the fan. I wouldn't care if they're a CEO, CTO, C-whatever-O. I'd look for someone that I'd enjoy working with above all else.

[blazespin]

Agreed. You need someone you can happily brainstorm with for hours and hours on end. If it isn't fun, if either of you would rather be doing something else, I find that's a good sign it's time to cut loose. Brainstorming problems is what you'll be doing endlessly when you are building a company together. I also find its the one thing most easily measured.

That being said, just because you can brainstorm with someone doesn't mean you'll be successful. You could be mediocre which is why it's easy for you to find someone you can brainstorm with. But it is a sign of a good cofounder.

[mpdehaan2]

Being able to brainstorm and trust is huge. You have to be able to jointly strategize all the time, drop all barriers, and really know how someone thinks.

Mediocre non-brilliance is better if they can drop those walls, and admit where they need help, because hard work and drive gets things done.

[late2part]

A thousand times this. Life is short, don't work with assholes, and more appropriately, don't work with people you don't respect and enjoy.

In larger companies you have to work with people you respect but don't like. Don't do that in a startup, it takes away the passion and the motivation.

[blazespin]

This is the mistake everyone makes. Don't think in terms of someone being an asshole (unless it is you). Think in terms of chemistry.

[mpdehaan2]

A thousand times yes. What you say happens and then some, and then more.

I would suggest not trying to "find" a cofounder -- the "cofounder" idea of a word is itself a weirdness here, almost mythologized -- you're either there at the beginning or you are not, and if you are, you're a founder. If that person's name wasn't just JUMPING at you when you had a company idea, you don't want one, or need one.

If you did not naturally find an idea with someone, do it yourself. Be the CEO and hire the help you need (and get rid of them if they don't work out), but don't give up control.

This is basically marriage (you'll probably spend more time with them than family at times) -- and you don't marry someone you don't love. You must really really know them. And that takes years, and can end your startup if you choose incorrectly.

If you are trying to get someone to implement your business idea, hire technical help. If you are technical and need business help, hire somebody to be your VP of Sales/Finance/whatever.

[tropchan]

Good advice. I negotiated a sort of earn-in with my initial co-founder because we didn't know each other well at all. My friend introduced us, and after a couple months I knew it wasn't going to last. We split and went our own ways - It would be nice to get to know some people working on cool stuff even if it has nothing to do with being a co-founder.

[UweSchmidt]

Sounds fixable with a bit of counseling? In fact you can articulate all the problems already, which is amazing.

[vonklaus]

> We failed probably because of not what you're thinking.

No. We were all thinking that.

Edit: You didn't see 2 total strangers with no history and completely different ideologies having problems running a business together? That is what these downvotes and OP seem to suggest.

[scrollaway]

I'd really like you not to speak on my behalf.

[jasode]

>For me, I want to meet a CTO.

You have to realize that it's harder for a "business" guy to attract a technical cofounder rather than for a programmer whiz to attract a business guy. It's definitely a handicap. The programmer can build something and that can jumpstart the cascade of people (including business people) to join the cause.

As a non-tech person, what do you offer potential tech cofounders? If you give off vibes that "I'm the idea man!" or "I'm the guy with the big vision!", it will not impress quality programmers.

Therefore, you have to play up your strengths if you have notable ones. For example, perhaps you can call up some friends & family and raise $750,000 in cash to launch your product idea. A lot of programmers don't have the contacts to raise funds like that. Or maybe you want to create a digital music distribution website and you have Beyonce, Taylor Swift, and Lady Gaga's personal cell phone #s on your speed dial as potential first wave of customers. Again, the typical programmer isn't going to have social connections like that.

[notduncansmith]

The idea that technical people are the only ones who can build something is one of the things that drives me away from most potential business cofounders. There are plenty of tools and free online resources that within a month or so, you should have the skills to hack some kind of prototype together in a reasonable amount of time. Lack of investigation into any of those opportunities signals to me that either a) the person doesn't believe enough in the idea to get their hands dirty, b) they consider themselves somehow above that kind of work, or c) that they're simply "not smart/savvy enough". The first two are obviously bad, and the third is not someone who I feel would be able to push through the fear and uncertainty that comes with starting a business.

To look at it from the other side, I wouldn't approach a potential CEO without bringing some business connections of my own to the table and ideally some seed money, or a potential CMO without some existing marketing efforts.

[mhuffman]

Wow! Where to start with this. Have you considered that some people with a head for business just might not grok programming? And vice-versa? Even if they do, have you considered that an amateurish prototype, that looks and acts like shit, might turn off some viable early-round potential partners?

The second point is even more ridiculous. If you not only develop, but have business connections and seed money, why court a CEO? At that point you simply need a couple of investment partners to fatten out your staff and you are all done!

Every person in a company does not need to be able to do everything in that company -- and shouldn't! That is why people have different responsibilities, strengths, and weaknesses.

It is a million times better to have a well-connected and capable CEO, and a talented CTO than to have both a CEO and CTO that both are ok at business and ok at development.

[jameshush]

I have to agree with @crdb. The CEO of the company I work at has a sociology degree, but bought a book on PHP/MySQL because "nobody wanted to program my stupid ideas so I just had to figure it out." He created the MVP himself by using copy/pasta jQuery soup, in line SQL queries and GoDaddy hosted PHP. He was able to get 100,000 customers though and got a CTO on board to convert the MVP to something scaleable (which I'm working on now too).

The CEO doesn't code anymore, but I had huge respect that he learned enough to get the ball going.

[notduncansmith]

The point is not for one person to, as you said, "be able to do everything in that company". The point is to have an appreciable respect for what others do, and have enough faith in your idea to take a solid crack at the parts you don't have an expert to handle yet. I'm not saying the CEO's MVP implementation has to be anything worth keeping. It can be a shoddy Wordpress mess, or even a very thorough clickable demo if they're afraid to touch code - but they should have something that demonstrates some thought put into the actual application (and that they value the skills I, as a potential CTO, bring to the table).

> If you not only develop, but have business connections and seed money, why court a CEO?

Because it takes more than connections and seed money to be a proper CEO. You need to have a strong sense of product direction, and the ability to steer the company in a successful way - something that a developer who has a few investor relationships and a bit of cash may well indeed lack.

> It is a million times better to have a well-connected and capable CEO, and a talented CTO than to have both a CEO and CTO that both are ok at business and ok at development.

I agree, and I don't recall saying anything to the contrary.

[crdb]

> Have you considered that some people with a head for business just might not grok programming?

Bollocks to that. I was an FX trader who copy/pasted values for excel formula results because I was scared they'd go away if I typed something in another cell.

It took a short while but I taught myself. Programming and technology are rational, a set of facts about the world that are inherently understandable at most levels of abstraction unlike, say, volatility trading on a proprietary basis or private equity.

The cost of being technically incompetent - and by that I do not mean knowing how to follow instructions for how to build a RoR app on a blog, and deploy it on Heroku's free tier (OK, I used bottle.py and JS, but it only took me 3 days) - is incredibly high for a non-connected business founder. There are a lot of people out there with slick talk and "great" "technical" CVs which will impress someone used to navigate in finance-land where the rules are different. These people also happen to be expensive, both in hard cash raised for the company, opportunity cost of launching slower or ruining your reputation, and in the future value of the cash flow you'll inevitably have to outlay to fix the code rot they set in motion before they job hopped yet again. I'm not going to go into what happens when you hire a student "because he's cheap and I just need an MVP", that should be pretty obvious.

When my business friends ask me how to do the technical part, I tell them they have a choice: either they go and read the books I give them (SICP, Codd & Date, etc.) or they trust me entirely, let me hire the CTO, and trust HIM entirely with the technical aspect of the business. Only one took me up on that last offer; they got on well, he trusted the guy, who built the product, they raised USD 600k within a few months, and I just heard that they did 200k USD in revenue last week. Well, a second also did, for an internal team; but they tried to micro-manage the guy against my explicit instructions and he quit 3 months later, letting me know his thoughts on the way out.

I'm not saying become your own CTO. My co-founder solves problems around 30x faster than I do - the ones I can solve, anyway - which we know because I've had to write, badly, some of the codebase for some of our clients (in one case, ~12% of total LoC and 80% of the SQL, although 0% of the Haskell). But being aware of what's going on, being able to help with SQL, HTML and CSS, knowing what dev ops is, figuring out the BI by yourself, being able to talk to clients and write a good functional spec that really separates model and implementation, it doesn't come naturally. You have to study and lay the bases and understand just enough about the field to know how to work with the technical side.

[mhuffman]

I get what you are saying but disagree with your original premise.

It is akin to saying, "It is silly for a programer to not already be a businessman (businesswoman) when seeking a partner, because there are books and websites online and in just a few days he ought to be able to get by in the business world".

It is nice for you that you made an MVP for yourself. Likewise it is nice that you have plenty of business contacts, etc.

However, my point is that it is absurd to think that just a few days of intense study will turn a programmer into an MBA or and MBA into a programmer.

People recognize this and that is why they seek people that are strong where they are weak. So together they are more than individually.

[crdb]

Months, not days (really, this "I want it tomorrow" culture is quite harmful). And yes, I do think developers who become co-founders or C-levels should take some time to familiarize themselves with basic legal and financial concepts as well. Things like optionality and the time value of money, and protective provisions. And basic accounting. And, in our case, international tax and labour laws. Helps when those discussions come up. Helps filter out incompetent but slick sales types (after all, Sturgeon's Law also holds for businessmen).

Nevertheless, it's not black and white. I personally think that being familiar with a little bit from all the fields that you will eventually touch as a founder, is immensely value adding. But if you have a good network in a trustworthy environment, you can get away with not.

[blazespin]

Definite up votes. Or you have an MBA from Harvard that VCs love. Or a successful exit under your belt. You have to bring to the table real assets and accomplishments. Personality is not a plus at first and will only play out over time. Same thing with brains/creativity. These are not easily measurable.

That being said, if you are unproven, you could relax your standards and try to convince a kid out of university to be your CTO.

[shalmanese]

I disagree. I've found in my experience it's far easier in theory for a business guy to attract a technology co-founder than the other way around. This insight isn't clear from the outside due to a) the existence of "business" guys who do no business and complain vocally and b) the existence of tech+some business guys who know enough business to get their product off the ground and then find a good business guy to balance them out. Every purely tech guy I've seen come to me looking for a co-founder, I've had to tell them I could help you find one but you'd basically have to throw away all your code and start again from scratch. For the tech guys for which their code is their baby, this is not a welcome message and they instead go find someone else to tell them how they've made the best mousetrap in the world.

Here's how to be a non-technical co-founder that makes tech guys excited and willing to hop on board:

* Articulate a vision that's broad, compelling and unique. Filter tech guys by the ones who are already excited by that vision rather than trying to convince them away from their pet cause.

* Become so educated in the field that you can confidently answer any of the tech guy's questions and that you can educate and provide insight into the field from the very start of the conversation.

* Talk to customers, find ones for who this is a hair on fire problem, take a short video of those customers explaining their needs and edit it down to a short sizzle reel.

* Create a landing page, put in a field for explaining why leads are signing up, demonstrate to the tech guy that you're not just capturing random email addresses but passionate fans.

* Use that same landing page to A/B test pitches, show data on how you can hone product/market fit via experimentation.

* Get signed Letters of Intent from businesses detailing what their purchase commitments are willing to be if a set of well defined features were to be built.

* Map out a series of go-to market strategies, research the pros and cons of each one, demonstrate you have some unique insights or resources that would give your startup an unfair advantage.

* Build out an early front end prototype using non-technical tools. Have it hooked into a completely human powered backend (it's surprising how far you can get with just SMS for example, or email), run the entire system yourself to better understand the user's needs. Show how a small piece of technology could immediately super charge both the quality and scalability of the operation.

* Go out and raise money contingent on finding a co-founder and search for co-founders contingent on raising money. Both groups are risk averse and like to see validation. Providing the mutual validation gets both to hop on board at the same time.

* Learn programming in your spare time using free tools. Demonstrate to your tech cofounder that you're committed to understanding where they are coming from and respect the work they do.

* Help everyone you can in your local community. Offer advice, intros, free work (but not too much) and be known as the connector and who everyone needs to know. Follow up with people on a regular interval and ask how they're going and see if there's anything they need help with that you're uniquely suited to do. At the same time, be cynically strategic about this. Like hangs out with like and you eventually get connected with higher ability tiers of people if you demonstrate the value you can bring. Find people slightly above your talent range and deliver the world to their plate. Skill up and repeat.

* Just, in general, be a nice person and someone people want to work with. There's many different shades of nice and you also have to be someone authentic to your personality. Don't be afraid to be polarizing, I'm personally the "asshole nice" person in person and that turns quite a few people off but the ones who it clicks with, we click really well.

In general, when I meet a non-business co-founder who's in the process of trying to get something started, I advise them not even to start looking for a technical co-founder yet. You can get so much done nowadays without touching technology and the class of people you're able to attract exponentially increases the further along you are. The people who get excited about hearing this message, I pay attention to more and try to help in any way. The people who balk at this, I can't see them ever getting far.

edit: Another psychological factor that makes a huge difference is shifting from what I call a "scarcity" mindset to an "abundance" mindset because scarcity attracts scarcity and abundance attracts abundance.

For example, it's immensely frustrating to me when I meet people who are job hunting and I ask them what they're after and they reply with some version of "Oh, I could really work anywhere". The reason they say that is because they think any job is better than no job and better to be overly broad so as to not miss out on any opportunities. In actuality, it's the opposite, telling me you could work anywhere means I can't find anything for you.

Instead, where I can really add value is if you outline a set of broad theses about what you're excited about and I can suggest companies working towards those aims I know people at. During the course of that conversation, other areas of interest or other companies come up and by the end, there's usually 3 or 4 very strong intros I can send. The reason why these people are successful is because they are in an abundance mindset where they feel like they could work at a lot of places and are really more concerned about finding the right place for them and they're willing to be polarizing to do it.

For job hunters, especially junior ones, I'm willing to go through the work of shifting them from a scarcity mindset to an abundance one and help them when networking with other people in the future. If you're at the co-founder stage though and you're still in the scarcity mindset, I have no sympathy for you and I'll just politely disengage.

[rokhayakebe]

Honestly, most of the things you list above make one sound like a semi-technical founder.

[shalmanese]

What about it sounds semi-technical? I've helped two people (a doctor and a restaurant chef) who I was the first person they've ever talked to who knew programming and I helped push them through these steps and they got pretty far. But they were people who were in the top 0.1% of something else and were thus, willing and able to be helped.

[88e282102ae2e5b]

But that's the thing. You have to understand your business in order to lead it. It's like some people want to be CEO of a car company even though they don't have a driver's license.

[sharemywin]

you had me at step 3...lol.

[11thEarlOfMar]

It's like asking if we can brainstorm on a better way to find a spouse. Do you really want to find a spouse quickly? Or would you be more comfortable marrying your high-school sweetheart?

The YC folks will say founder breakups are the most common reason for start up failures. So what I'd want to see is a highly granular failure analysis of founder break ups. It's psychology, right? So something like the actual stories of 100 randomly selected startup failures would inform us as to the most common causes. Could be working styles, asymmetric effort, personality disorders, personal/family issues, health,... Once you have a histogram, find a way to test for those failure modes before getting hitched to a co-founder.

[morgante]

This list of 92 startup failures was recently shared on HN: http://autopsy.io/

[alain94040]

I gave a presentation on "how to find a co-founder" several times. Guess what: by slide 2, I give away the answer: the best co-founder is someone you already worked with. Not helpful? That's the truth.

Instead of trying to find a co-founder quickly, find a good contributor to your project. They may grow into becoming a co-founder over time, or they may "just" be your first employee. No one can really tell until time passes. So give it time, resist labels, and keep making progress.

From the perspective of the potential co-founder, the co-founder title is earned. "Be so good they can't ignore you" is exactly the mantra you want to become a co-founder. Make your contribution to the startup so significant that everyone will think of you as one of the founders.

Don't be that "paper co-founder" who negotiated the title but never put in the effort.

[joeyspn]

> ... the best co-founder is someone you already worked with. Not helpful? That's the truth.

Not really.

I started-up with a co-worker (of 2 years) and a guy whom I hadn't worked with before and guess who was the first to bring problems to the company and quit? The guy I previously worked with...

Truth is you don't really know a person until you're both in a seriously f*ckd up situation. That's what my experience has taught me.

[crdb]

I think what Alain is saying is you don't know how somebody is until you have worked a significant period of time with them, including stressful times where things went wrong (my own benchmark of whether someone is trustworthy is pretty much how they behave in such times - agreeing with your experience).

Going with a stranger might still be a good option if e.g. your previous company had bad quality staff, or if you were a business person and never had any contact with any technical people, but it's still akin to playing roulette.

[blazespin]

Hackathons are a good place to make introductions. They attract the right crowd.

[shalmanese]

The explanation for why there's no good answer is because the people who most want a co-founder are the people who least deserve a co-founder. People who are easily able to find a co-founder just do it instead of asking questions on the Internet. This is intensely frustrating to the people asking because they feel like life owes them a co-founder somehow and if they only found the right hacks, one would magically appear. Instead, the answer is simply to be more impressive and tell more people how impressive you are and things by and largely fall into place.

I'm also highly skeptical of any marketplace solution like Founder Dating. The median outcome of a startups failure so a median quality co-founder will almost certainly result in failure. You need to find people on the extreme end of the bell curve for success to be likely. Those people are highly unlikely to frequent marketplaces since they have more demand than supply. To the extent that any successful startups get formed from Founder Dating, I wager it's more accident than engineered.

[Ixiaus]

If you're technical looking for a cofounder, you should have a prototype built already in order to attract good business / operations people and you should understand that you must own everything and toil for endless hours to get that product built.

If you're business / operations looking for a cofounder, you should have some money raised already and you should understand that you must always be raising. It doesn't stop. Ever. Just as building the product doesn't stop. Ever.

Operations focused people should be really fucking good at sieving hires. Heart, skill, engagement, and team coordination are critical in an early stage startup and hiring one grumpy butt or that intern you think is smart but cheap could really screw you badly.

(just a few thoughts on my numerous lessons learned over building four startups)

[paulscliu]

My approach is the following: 1. Learn to code 2. Build the prototype 3. Try to sell the prototype to verify the market 4. Bootstrap the business 5. Get the business going then people (co-founder, investor,etc...) will show up

[smaili]

I couldn't agree more with this. People will come to you once you have something that works.

[sharemywin]

customer discovery should probable come first. before you waste time building something talk to some people and see if they would pay for it. then, completely ignore everyone's advice and build it anyway. ;)

[bhayden]

I would stop focusing on finding a co-founder and focus instead on starting a business. A CTO isn't the solution to wanting something developed and not having money to pay someone. Find something you can do by yourself. If you're capable you will find and hire a CTO later.

[EliRivers]

Why is a co-founder needed? What are you expecting a co-founder to bring that an employee won't? Is the real question here "how do I find someone with the needed skills, willing to work for peanuts in exchange for shares in the new business?"

[meira]

There is no such a thing as "technical co-founder". A developer can start and test a project faster alone. Smart "business" guys with money sometimes meet with someone that could do it alone and find a way to share the ride. If you want to develop something, I'd suggest you to learn how to develop. Or spend enough money to hire someone to do so. But for free, as a "co-founder", it'll always be hard and when it happens, usually it don't last long. And the fault is on the "business" side. Technology is not about business. If you start a free/open source project with a great purpose, you'll find tons of developers willing to help your endeavour.

[baristaGeek]

You just don't "search and find" for a co-founder. I think it's rather that you already know him but you don't know he will be your co-founder sometime soon.

Engage in a lot of side-projects, it doesn't matter if you are in high school, college or a full-time job. You'll know what people you like working with, but most importantly, like as a person.

Now, the question is: Once you have a group of talented and smart people which you have a background working with and who you like their personality, how do you choose just 1 or 2 of them? That's a hard question. The good thing is that you're scratching your head not because you have a potential co-founder deficit, but rather a surplus.

[brudgers]

If a business founder is looking for a CTO to double staff from one to two, it's already a bit of a lost cause. The title doesn't add value and suggests a mindset that isn't focused on whatever it takes to get things done. Instead it emphasizes a tendency toward bureaucratic partitioning.

If I were a technical person, the primary trait I'd want in a co-founder is a willingness to do whatever needs to be done, and an aversion to structures that allow "it's your job, not mine" discussions. There's a difference between complementary skills and specialization. At 30 people specialization becomes hard to avoid, at two people both need to own everything.

Good luck.

[andreasklinger]

Imho:

Get traction with whatever you got at your hands.

There is nothing more trustworthy and attractive than traction.

Not being engineer has never been an excuse not to get traction. Not in the last hundred generations and wont be in the next.

Business != Building != Engineering

Good luck!

[88e282102ae2e5b]

Those two articles you linked to were spot on, but I don't think you really took to heart what they were saying. I'll make it explicit (and know that this comes from a place of tough love): The reason it's hard to find a technical co-founder is that you don't bring much value, if any, to a startup.

You don't have a proven track record running technical companies, because if you did, you wouldn't have this problem.

You don't have a programming background, so you won't understand the implications of your decisions on the product (basic programming won't help you here, I'm afraid, though it's a good start, and I absolutely encourage you to continue).

You can't make hiring decisions for technical staff, because you can't evaluate their skills.

Perhaps you have some great idea. But great ideas are a dime a dozen. The moment you gain any momentum, a dozen clones will pop up. Execution is what matters, and that's up to the CTO to deliver, for the most part.

A CTO could just hire you as a strategy consultant, salesperson and/or market analyst, just for a salary. You need to be able to say why you merit equity and decision-making authority if you want to be CEO. Could you answer that question if you were being totally honest with them? If you can't, perhaps you should look for work outside of the C-suite for now.

[jules]

The real question here is what you bring to the table in an early stage startup. You can put yourself around the type of people you need to meet, but at the end of the day they are not going to be your co-founder unless you bring something to the table. Why do they absolutely need you in order to succeed? Maybe:

- You are a sales or marketing wizard

- You have domain specific knowledge and experience

- You have critical connections

- You have funding

You probably need several of these to be an attractive co-founder. Another way of saying it is: what will you be working on every day that will cause the startup to succeed? The technical co-founder is going to work on building the product every day. Without that you can't succeed. Why does he need you to succeed? That is what you need to communicate to potential co-founders.

If you have a good way to convince potential co-founders that they need you, then how to find them? It could be that you are successful with founder dating programs but starting a startup is a huge commitment. Do you really want to do that with a stranger? I think it makes a lot more sense to do it with a college friend or a former colleague.

[mkagenius]

While at it, its important not to forget the amount of founder disputes which kills the company as often as any other factor. Going solo can be hard but its not impossible. If your vision is clear as a business guy, you can hire freelancers to get a prototype, and market it yourself to get the early validation. Worrying about co-founders before that would be a waste of time in my opinion.

[ttaylorr]

I don't know if there is a good answer to this question simply because I don't think we're looking at it the right way.

In my mind, a product/business/whathaveyou should be a collaboration between two or three individuals, who, should the project grow, become cofounders.

I don't think the process should be:

  1) create idea
  2) idea becomes business
  3) "oh shit who will help me cofound this co.?"
  4) find cofounder through means described in this thread
  5) run successful business

...rather, the process should be:

  1) with friends, create idea
  2) develop idea
  3) create profitable business, with the aforementioned friends as cofounders.

In my mind, the later described process works with a high success rate since you have essentially "vetted" your friends in step 1. However, I don't know if you really can vet your friends against the challenges described in step 3, but perhaps that is what dooms a large percentage of startups.

Who knows.

[kumph]

Maybe you're looking for me?

If you're interested in becoming co-founder of a growing, cash-flow positive business in a giant market, please reach out.

In short, Forkable is "Pandora for Lunch". AngelList profile: https://angel.co/forkable

My email can be guessed from my first name, "Joe"

[bshimmin]

I absolutely love these "$EXISTING_BUSINESS for $TOTALLY_RANDOM_THING" startups, and this might just be my favourite. What does "Pandora for Lunch" even mean? Is it Pandora the streaming radio service or Pandora the jewellery company? Neither seems at all applicable to lunch!

[kumph]

The streaming radio service. You sign up, tell us about your diet, and every week we email you a calendar of lunches from awesome local restaurants. Easily modify the suggestions with our online interface, or just sit back and let the good food come.

As for the "X for Y" meme, I agree they tend to oversimplify. Nivi of AngelList provides compelling arguments why they are worthwhile anyway: http://venturehacks.com/articles/high-concept-pitch

[bshimmin]

That article does little to justify the "X for Y" meme. The reason for it is that "X" is famous and successful already and people are trying to capitalise on that, and because a three word summary is pithy and easy to remember.

As to your startup - Pandora is a streaming radio service which actually, you know, streams radio, as a service. Emailing lunch menus (or calendars, or whatever) is not as to lunch as streaming radio is to traditional radio, so your "X for Y" makes very little sense!

[kumph]

If you agree with the underlying premise that a good high concept pitch is essential to a startup, then those seem like pretty good reasons to adopt this sort of meme, at least if the comparison holds.

Anyway, I'm surprised you don't see how this particular comparison holds. Pandora auto-suggests and delivers musical content over the course of a few hours or so. Forkable auto-suggests and delivers "nutritional content" over the course of a week or so. Does that make sense to you?

[bshimmin]

Pandora delivers music that you can listen to; unless your startup delivers food that I can eat, I don't really see how the two are all that similar - unless you're suggesting people print out the emails and then eat them.

But hey, perhaps I'm too stupid for your startup (usually I just make a sandwich for lunch, so I'll probably cope either way!).

[crdb]

Ha, I read that to mean streaming business meetings with strangers, to help you discover people outside your network and habits... it might be a cool solution to a problem I have, which is how to meet people who have a different worldview and background (one solution was just moving countries). A kind of anonymous Weave with recommendations...

[EC1]

You're not going to find a better way than founderdating (already established), LinkedIn (already established), and networking events in person.

You're not going to tick off some company-optimized checklist and magically fall into the lap of your perfect co founder.

People work for months or even years with a co founder only to realize they aren't a match.

You even said it yourself:

>I want to meet a CTO. However, instead of rushing the process I am simply looking to meet people as determined to build a company as myself.

Networking events, Linkedin, Founderdating, Angel.co etc. Your facebook group is tiers worse than the above listings so I'm not sure why you posted at all if your "solution" is a facebook group.

Sorry to be a dick but this doesn't remotely solve the problem. You just made Facebook group #1857126126.

[AndrewKemendo]

I don't think this is actually broken. The traits needed for quality cofounders are actually pretty rare and even more so for founders who get along well enough to make a great company.

I see this the same way as I do looking for a spouse. You can't shortcut this process and founder "dating" sites or mixers will have the same problems as dating ones. You have to make sure you are bringing to the table the skills needed to fill the roles you will be playing. In this regard it's a bit more straight forward than dating because you should be able to point to a history of accomplishments that prove you can fill those roles.

Beyond that though it's just a series of interactions that make the other person feel comfortable partnering with you.

[codingdave]

I think one key is to find someone who has the same motivations as you - are you aiming for the same goal? Do you have the same drive? Why are you looking in the first place?

But I also don't frequently see this drive to "find a co-founder" outside of discussions tied to YC. For YC, yes, having a co-founding team is a key component. But outside of YC, if you want to start a company, you just do it. Maybe you have other people involved, maybe not. Circumstances vary. Finding a co-founder is an option, and maybe even a good idea, but is not a road-blocking milestone.

[baristaGeek]

For people who have absolutely no technical skill and are extremmely business oriented, who want to build a high-tech concept but don't have the time to acquire the skills, I'd recommend to outsource the development of an MVP and start monetizing. If a technical co-founder sees that he is more likely to join.

[rokhayakebe]

If you are non-technical invest your time into learning how to build, or paying someone to build MVPs. Once a product has some traction, bringing in talent will be easier and certainly cheaper (equity-wise).

If you are a technical founder, invest your time into learning marketing. It really only takes trial and error.

[msutherl]

I'm not looking to found a startup, but I have spent some time thinking about how to network effectively. I agree with others here that there are no shortcuts, but I've had success with some of these tactics:

1. Do put yourself out there. Go to a lot of events, accept invitations, make it known that you're interested in meeting more people (encourage friends to make introductions).

2. Don't let social events fatigue you: get in, get what you want, get out. However, once somebody opens up to you, i.e. invites you for dinner or drinks after an event, you need to switch modes: put in the time, treat them well, even if it compromises other parts of your life. If you're not giving something up, you're not giving anything.

3. Make friends in different cities or countries, then travel and stay with them. They will introduce you to their friends, who may then introduce you to their friends, etc. (Best, of course, if you're invited.)

4. You must actually be worth meeting, so be sure you've already put in the work and thought out a narrative that ties your past accomplishments into a story building toward future success.

5. Be interesting. Read, think, write, have a point of view.

6. Be interested. If you talk too much, you reveal that nobody wants to listen to you. If you show authentic interest in other people, doors magically open.

7. The best "hack" I can think of is to make use of the Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn social graphs. Pay attention to the suggested friends / follow feeds. For people you particularly like, go through who they follow and identify potential friends, allies, collaborators, social gateways, etc. After you have a list of people you might like to meet, you can start to be strategic about framing yourself and putting yourself in the right places to meet (and interest) them.

8. Remember that meeting one person is an opportunity to meet their friends and anyone they think you should know. After you've gotten to know somebody a little bit, it's ok to ask if they know anyone you should meet. Or you may not have to ask: if you get an invite to an event, always accept it – you never know who you might meet.

9. Think in terms of building a social graph. Read a bit about the study of social networks including "social capital", the roles of different nodes in the network, strong ties vs. weak ties, etc.

10. There's no excuse for bad social skills. Learn good manners and be prepared to adapt to new cultural expectations.

Again, as others have emphasized, there's no easy way. High value people are already overwhelmed by demand. As a friend once advised me in regard to dating, "be the flower to the bee."