@andrewchen

Get the newsletter · 2018 essays (PDF) · Featured · Recent

Stanford CS major seeks sales/marketing monkey

Silicon Valley is mean to MBAs
This tumblr, Whartonite Seeks Code Monkey, made me laugh.

It’s full of emails from clueless Wharton MBAs which read like this:

LOL right?

This also reminds me of the famous quote on valuing startups:

Add $1,000,000 in value for every engineer.
Subtract $500,000 in value for every MBA.

Here’s why it’s hard: The nerd perspective is, they don’t need you
Much of the reason why it’s insanely hard to find a really good technical cofounder is that the best ones really don’t need you. Or at least they don’t think they need you.

Because there’s an illustrious track record of engineering-founded companies succeeding, spanning from HP to Facebook, there’s a lot of datapoints that say that a 20-yo Stanford computer science major can do it himself, or at least with his other CS roommates. Similarly, the very best alums out of places like Facebook and Google have lots of access to capital, advice, and people- these are all recipes for making you (the biz founder) completely irrelevant.

So I think the right point of view is just to accept that the amount of leverage strong technical folks in the Valley have is just the facts, and you’ll have to work around that.

Remember this:

They are not the code monkey. You are the biz monkey.

That’s just how it is.

Picking the right idea
One key way to mitigate this is to pick the right idea that doesn’t require ridiculous amounts of technical expertise upfront. You can build a great company that’s extremely sales driven rather than product driven in categories like:

  • Enterprise sales
  • Groupon for X
  • Blog/media sites aka Content farms
  • Marketplaces
  • Ad network

I’m sure I’m leaving many other categories out.

For anything above, a lot of the work is in sales, and the actual technical infrastructure doesn’t require a strong engineer to pull together, at least initially. You’ll need them to scale it, but at that point hopefully you’ll have more money and more momentum.

For the kinds of ideas above, they might be easy enough to build in the short-run that you can get a different kind of coder at first. You can get someone who can code up a site and potentially have some visual design background, rather than an “engineer” who has theoretical understanding of computer science, understands performance tradeoffs, etc. There are more of the former than that latter in the world.

At the same time, note that many of the ideas above may not be particularly exciting to an engineer that wants to play with technologies. So perhaps something that combines the two can help – for example, MySQL is a great example of a cool technology (at the time) but clearly couldn’t have been turned into a company without a lot of business types running around.

Understanding and communicating what you really bring to the table
If you read through the Wharonite Seeks Code Monkey blog,  you can see that obviously they are mostly noobs and don’t know what exactly is the valuable part of what a biz cofounder can do versus not. This is true of many startups, both biz and geek-led, but there is huge overvaluation of the initial idea.

What do geeks really need help with? It’s very simple- there’s a class of purely business-related stuff that adds value:

  • selling stuff and making money
  • getting partnerships and marketing/distribution of the product
  • funding the company
  • scalable marketing/monetization strategy (ad arb / viral / freemium / etc.)
  • team recruiting, particularly of other engineers and disciplines (not other MBAs please)

If you are an expert at any of the above and can show it, then there’s a lot more value. Very few business folks, particularly newly-minted MBAs (with the exception of Stanford folks) or industry-switchers can really deliver on these though, which is why they’re not bringing much to the table.

Then there’s a class of things that are much more product-oriented, and while it overlaps with the skillset of some engineers, if you have great skills in any of the following, they are clearly valuable too:

  • design, especially visual design
  • UI/frontend skills – HTML/CSS/JS – even if mediocre!
  • copywriting within the product for help text, marketing, etc
  • user research and customer development
  • usability testing

Again, it all depends on what you’re really good at and what the particular product needs – enterprise might require less of the above, but a more solid initial product might help.

Worst comes to worst, write it yourself
And finally, there’s a nice track record of technical-enough people writing the first version of something and then having great engineers build it up later. Foursquare was like that, for example. More recently, David Binetti of Votizen wrote the first version of his product. I have immense respect for folks who do this, because it means they’re making “good-enough” progress without waiting for exactly the right technical partner to show up.

Any other thoughts or tips to share?
If you guys have other thoughts on ideas or thoughts on this topic, especially from those who are on the technical side, of how to attract and partner with engineers, write me a note in the comments! I’ll update this post as we go.

PS. Get new updates/analysis on tech and startups

I write a high-quality, weekly newsletter covering what's happening in Silicon Valley, focused on startups, marketing, and mobile.

Views expressed in “content” (including posts, podcasts, videos) linked on this website or posted in social media and other platforms (collectively, “content distribution outlets”) are my own and are not the views of AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) or its respective affiliates. AH Capital Management is an investment adviser registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply any special skill or training. The posts are not directed to any investors or potential investors, and do not constitute an offer to sell -- or a solicitation of an offer to buy -- any securities, and may not be used or relied upon in evaluating the merits of any investment.

The content should not be construed as or relied upon in any manner as investment, legal, tax, or other advice. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. Any charts provided here are for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Certain information contained in here has been obtained from third-party sources. While taken from sources believed to be reliable, I have not independently verified such information and makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. The content speaks only as of the date indicated.

Under no circumstances should any posts or other information provided on this website -- or on associated content distribution outlets -- be construed as an offer soliciting the purchase or sale of any security or interest in any pooled investment vehicle sponsored, discussed, or mentioned by a16z personnel. Nor should it be construed as an offer to provide investment advisory services; an offer to invest in an a16z-managed pooled investment vehicle will be made separately and only by means of the confidential offering documents of the specific pooled investment vehicles -- which should be read in their entirety, and only to those who, among other requirements, meet certain qualifications under federal securities laws. Such investors, defined as accredited investors and qualified purchasers, are generally deemed capable of evaluating the merits and risks of prospective investments and financial matters. There can be no assurances that a16z’s investment objectives will be achieved or investment strategies will be successful. Any investment in a vehicle managed by a16z involves a high degree of risk including the risk that the entire amount invested is lost. Any investments or portfolio companies mentioned, referred to, or described are not representative of all investments in vehicles managed by a16z and there can be no assurance that the investments will be profitable or that other investments made in the future will have similar characteristics or results. A list of investments made by funds managed by a16z is available at https://a16z.com/investments/. Excluded from this list are investments (and certain publicly traded cryptocurrencies/ digital assets) for which the issuer has not provided permission for a16z to disclose publicly. Past results of Andreessen Horowitz’s investments, pooled investment vehicles, or investment strategies are not necessarily indicative of future results. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.