Sign up for my email newsletter

Get new updates, usually once a week – it features long-form essays on what’s going on here in Silicon Valley.

I’ve written 550+ essays which have been featured and quoted in The New York Times, Fortune, Wired, and WSJ. The topics range from mobile product design to fundraising to “growth hacking.”

Thanks for reading. -Andrew

Close

@andrewchen

Subscribe · Featured · Recent essays

After the Techcrunch bump: Life in the “Trough of Sorrow”

The life of a startup
A few years back at a YCombinator dinner, Paul Graham and the other partners drew a great diagram depicting the life of a new product. The main discussion is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=173261. It captures a viscerally truthful thing about the life of a new company- first you’re excited, then you’re not, and if you stick with it, you just might make it work. It could take years. But you may fail too, you never know until you do it.

The Question
The big thing is, while you’re in the Trough of Sorrow is, what do you do? How do you beat it?

Traditional business literature won’t help you solve it- most of that stuff is focused on life after product/market fit, after the Trough of Sorrow. A lot of startup stuff is focused on the initial phases, when you don’t have a team, idea, or investors.

What happens when you have a team, an idea, and investors, but it’s not quite working yet? What do you do there?

How to beat the Trough of Sorrow
I have some notes from my personal experience, and from others who have beat the Trough of Sorrow, and wanted to share them. First off, there’s both an emotional component as well as an analytical one.

Dealing with the emotions
Let’s start with the emotional first. First, a couple important things to remember:

  • Getting to product/market fit is hard, and even though you feel like you’re uniquely failing, you’re actually not. Turns out every startup has to go through this, but not every startup survives it. Entrepreneurs will blame themselves for failing, but it’s OK, this is hard and we all start the journey by failing a lot.
  • A corollary to the above is, expect to face the Trough of Sorrow. It’s hard to avoid. Quitting, starting over, executing a “too big” pivot, and other avoidance strategies won’t keep you from hitting a difficult point again, it’ll just delay the inevitable. Instead, just figure out how to work through it.
  • Expect to fight with your cofounders. When things are going great, cofounders tend to go along since the focus will be on keeping the momentum up. When things are mixed or going badly, there will be meaningful disagreements about what to do next
  • Quitting is your decision. There’s a huge spectrum of tools you can use to fix up a broken thing. You can change the product, switch customer segments. You can recapitalize the company, reset the team, and fire your cofounders. You can (usually) find a way to keep going if you want to. Whether or not you want to quit, that’s up to you, but don’t think that quitting and starting a new thing will let you start something up without passing through this difficult phase
  • Churning customers, employees, and cofounders isn’t failing. While you’re going from one iteration to the next, people will fall off the wagon. It just happens. That’s OK! That’s part of what happens, and even though it’ll feel like it’s a failure, don’t let it discourage you. The question is, does the new strategy make more sense than the old one? You only fail when you fail.

An additional thought on quitting: It’s ultimately the entrepreneur’s personal decision to quit, because there’s always some alternative scenario, as unpleasant as it might be. You can always dilute yourself more, raise more capital, or reduce the burn rate. It can add more time to the clock, which might be unpleasant, yet it might save the company. Is it always logical to do that? Maybe, and maybe not! But it’s worth considering that there’s always another move, and an entrepreneur shouldn’t ever feel like they’re somehow “forced” to quit.

A lot of entrepreneurs quit when they hit the Trough of Sorrow, struggle for 12-24 months, and face up to the reality that they’ll have to raise another dilutive round. Is this a good time to quit? Maybe. But given that the majority of startups go through this kind of stage, I’d actually argue that it’s just part of struggle to being successful. Sometimes it just takes 3 years to get through the Trough of Sorrow, but on the other side is something that might really be worth the pain. Maybe :)

I find that when I spend time with startups as an investor/advisor, a lot of my time ends up being about the above issues. Probably 80%, actually. If you can minimize the emotionality of feeling like you’re failing, you can try to keep the team together and get to the problem solving part.

Dealing with the problems
If you can hold everything together, and keep the team productive enough and the runway long enough to try to make a run at the problem, then here’s a few wild unfounded generalities on how to proceed. It’s super hard to generalize here but here’s an attempt.

  • Identify the root problem. Is the product working? Does the onboarding suck? Or is execution on growth lacking? You can figure out the main bottleneck by trying to understand where it’s working and where it’s not. If the problem is high retention and high engagement, but not a lot of people are showing up, just focus on marketing. If the product is low retention and low engagement, you probably have to work on the product. More marketing and optimizing your notifications won’t help there
  • I find that much of the time, startups take too much product risk, and that’s why they aren’t working. Most of the new products I run into aren’t at the phase of “we’re product/market fit, just add more users!” Instead, most of the time, the products are just fundamentally broken. They are asking users to do new things, they exist in new markets with no competitors, and as a result, it’s unclear if the customer behavior is there to support their product. Instead, try to take a known working category and try to invent 20% of it, rather than 90%. Apple didn’t invent the smartphone, the MP3 player, or the computer, and yet they are super innovative and successful. You don’t have to invent a new product category either, and it’s easier to get to product/market fit when you have a baseline competitor to compete against.
  • Resist the urge to start over. There’s always a feeling that if you just rebooted, you’ll somehow avoid the Trough of Sorrow. Not true. Trust your initial instincts in your market and in your product, and figure out how to guide it into a similar place. If smart people invested in you and in the market, there’s probably something there, but you have to find it.
  • Get your product to be stripped down, focused, and so easy to understand that it’s boring. Look, you’re not in this to impress your designery friends, you’re in this to communicate your product’s value prop in simple and focused terms. The closer you are to that, the more boring your product will sound- that’s a good thing!
  • Money buys time, and time buys product iterations. This is why there’s a school of thought that says, raise as much money as you can at every point- before product/market fit, raise the max amount so that you have as many iterations as possible to ensure you get to P/M fit. After P/M fit, raise as much money to maximize the upside. Something a few steps back from that extreme is probably the right one :)
  • Pick up small tactical wins. Even if you do something in the product that doesn’t scale at first, it can be worth it- like prepopulating content, inviting all your friends, doing PR, etc. These small wins build momentum, raise team morale, gets you incremental amounts of capital, and makes it so that you can keep going. Over time, to scale, you can figure out how to systematize these processes or they can end up bootstrapping bigger and more scalable ideas.
  • Small teams are great. They move faster, way faster. If you plan to do lots of product iterations, you don’t need to communicate all the changes and get buy-in from everyone. Conversely big teams have lots of chaos every time there’s a bit pivot. Build out the team afterwards to create the complete featureset, but until then, consumer product teams can just be a few engineers/designers and the product leader. That’s <6 people.

I could write lots more here, but I’ll save some thoughts for next time :)

Finally, I wanted to quickly reference a step-by-step roadmap I wrote a year back with some more thoughts on getting to product/market fit, which you can see here: http://andrewchen.co/2011/05/22/2011-blogging-roadmap-zero-to-productmarket-fit/

Like this post?
Get new updates via newsletter..

  • http://www.leahtn.com/ Leah Neaderthal

    Great points all around. In some cases, one factor in the Trough of Sorrow is that startups haven’t put enough energy or attention into sustainable customer acquisition. I see a lot rely solely on the TechCrunch of Initiation as the be-all, end-all of their acquisition efforts: to bring them a flurry of ready customers who will sign up immediately, tell their friends, be loyal customers and grow their user base.

    As you’ve seen, it doesn’t work that way. But most startups fail to put meaningful programs in place to generate awareness, drive continued traffic, and then move visitors through the purchase funnel to transact (whether that transaction is a download, sign-up or purchase). They focus most of their energy at the top of the funnel, in PR or social media. When that doesn’t work, they try harder in those two areas, forgetting that for each transaction, there is a ‘sales cycle’ – *especially* when they’re creating a new market or are asking users to do something totally new.

    I saw this often in a previous job where companies wanted PR, but beyond their website, they didn’t have anything in place to a) capitalize on the press and convert visitors to users, b) generate awareness and drive usage in other smart ways, or c) nurture relationships with users to build loyalty and drive organic growth. Time and attention in these areas yields meaningful growth that will, later on, give companies a lens through which to truly evaluate their success.

    After the TechCrunch bump, as you mentioned, it’s not necessary to re-evaluate your entire product just because early press didn’t build the user base you need. That’s like saying, “I tried to get to the top of the tree by jumping, but it didn’t work.” Don’t just jump. Build a ladder.

  • http://twitter.com/woozle Dan Tallarico

    Great post! Staying focused and having a cohesive goal is so important for getting through those tough times. It gives the entire team something to look forward to instead of wandering around like lost sheep. I’ve been involved in the infamous “pivot” and it’s easy to go off course and just lose control.

  • http://petegrif.tumblr.com/ Pete Griffiths

    Great post. My only concern would be that you painted such a rosy picture. :)

  • http://twitter.com/chrispycrunch Chris Lau

    RIM is at ‘Wriggles of False hope’ and BB10 is the promised land.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    That’s an insanely generous POV on what’s going on with RIM :) A long time ago, RIM was worth over $50B. Today, it’s worth $4B. Soon, it could be worth $4.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    Great comment Leah.

    I’m in total agreement about sustainable customer acquisition, but I’ll also add that in the common case, the problem seems to lie elsewhere. Most of the time, the problem is that even when there’s unsustainable customer acquisition, people aren’t sticking around after trying out the product. That’s 70-90% of new startups.

    Only once the new startup is through that phase does it make sense to really invest in and scale the distribution side of things. So I think a lot of people are getting stuck a lot earlier in the process, and don’t go through enough iterations to make it work.

    Once they are past that phase though, totally agree, all your points are 100% valid.

  • http://taigeair.com taigeair

    Great article. What if you run out of money? Then you’re forced to quit…

  • http://www.gathercontent.com/ James Deer

    Really nice post.

    My start-up GatherContent, literally experienced the the TechCrunch bump last week (on Tuesday), and now practically all non-engineers are focusing on producing valuable content, and engaging with previous beta users whilst I focus on product.

    It would be far too easy to get caught up in the 1000′s of new sign-ups and other vanity metrics that the press bring. Interestingly we got picked up in China which has driven more traffic & signups than TechCrunch, so it will be interesting to see what happens there.
    For now, we’re doing what we can to build positively on the momentum and test as many hypotheses as possible.
    Plus, it’s always good to see how well servers fair during times of intense traffic.
    I’ll be referencing this post lots over the coming weeks, though fingers crossed we don’t hit the “Trough of Sorrow!”
    Thanks!

  • http://twitter.com/samweber samweber

    I have to believe Chris Lau’s comment was a little sarcastic!

    BTW – Great post Andrew. Time is always on your side. Survive long enough and good things can happen.

  • http://twitter.com/UghimiSoft Mega-Net Computers

    Great write up and so true.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    Then you raise more :) But yes, if you can’t, and it’s not working, it probably makes sense to quit.

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    Congrats on the bump and good luck with the rest of it :)

  • http://techmansworld.blogspot.com/ncr Michael Hazell

    I have to agree with this. Someone at RIM has to think, and they better think fast. Android and iOS is putting them in the grave, and Windows Phone is overcoming the BlackBerry in market share, if it hasn’t already.

  • jessemiller

    Really good point Leah. Coming from a technical background into a CEO role, I feel my first big failing was not thinking about distribution enough. I was overly focused on the product and somehow thought that if it was good enough, people would come. It took me awhile to learn to step back and think about how we were going to get people introduced to the product, using the product, and returning.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hai.huynh.376 Hai Huynh

    Nice post Leah, and completely agree 100%.

  • http://www.facebook.com/arie.shpanya Arie Shpanya

    Hi Andrew,
    First of all, Thanks for a thought provoking post,
    I’m just wondering in trying to figure out your approach:

    So on one hand, you say ” Money buys time, and time buys product iterations…raise the max amount so that you have as many iterations…After P/M fit, raise as much money to maximize the upside”

    On the other hand i’m seeing Appsumo which is really is all about being lean / bootstrap startup that took Basecamp and Tim Ferris style, to the next level.

    AppSumo preaching all day long about wantrepreneurs , etc.. and just about get out of the building and work in ghetto style to reach your break-even point, etc.

    So, can you please clarify.
    What is the holly grail??
    :-)

    Thnx!
    Arie

  • http://andrewchenblog.com Andrew Chen

    I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. You can raise a ton of money, and be super cheap and do lots of iterations. It depends a lot if you are trying to start a big venture capital funded company or if you are trying to start a successful small/medium business. (My advice tends to be oriented at investor-backed startups)

    Either way, you want to be cheap :) But raising lots of investor money helps you keep your business afloat even when times are tough, of course.

  • http://www.menco-finco.com/ edward blake mendez

    thank you andrew for a meaningful article! slugging it out over the last two years has taught me similar emotional experiences; however, it does not appear that we have left the “sea of sorrow” fully, but who knows, right?

    raising cash organically during the sorrow times becomes extremely difficult without outside cash sources. sell the car, sell the house, sell your tv, and yes, call your cousin vinny! it also makes sense to understand which options you close off after selling assets, sacking ineffective team members, or raising additional financing.

    agree with your advice on team size. stay nimble, and you may live another day.

    blake mendez

  • http://sloth.co/ Creative Sloth

    Really good points Andrew. Most posts talk about the spike generated from the initial launch or how they survived the dip. It’s rare to see advice on how to be positive during this phase, there are often lots of arguments between co-founders on what to do next. I think 12 months is generally the milestone where startups realise how difficult it is.

    It’s always easy to say, write some blog posts to generate traffic, get the links, do some marketing. But these are actually very difficult tasks for people just starting up and doesn’t have that influence on others.

    Thank you for the advise! Really good post, especially on the point that startups should find out what the problem is before concentrating their efforts on it. Whether it’s lack of marketing, not a good enough product or others.

Want more? Featured essays and book recommendations