Lean Startup Census – Dec 2009
Here are the results for the first Lean Startup Census, taken in December 2009. Thanks for participating!
Some highlights from the results:
- Less than half of the respondents (43%) are just curious, learning or getting started with Lean Startup practices.
- The vast majority of respondents are at startups (97%) or companies or 5 or fewer people (84%).
- Only 2 respondents classified their companies as non-startups, and nobody was from a company of over 50 people.
- Most respondents are working on a web application (78%).
- Most respondents are founders (84%) of their companies, holding a CEO or equivalent title (71%). Lots of 1-person startups out there…
- Few people (22%) are leading Lean Startup efforts from a departmental position, such as Marketing, Engineering, or Product Management.
My observations:
- The learning/getting started part of the funnel is small – only 43%. I’d expect that number to go way up if and when Lean Startup practices gain in popularity.
- Even though the original Customer Development material was created from experience in the enterprise software space, it’s being most widely applied in web applications at very small startups.
- There’s still very little adoption from non-founder/non-CEOs and in larger organizations. It’ll be interesting to see if the movement can gain traction through department heads, or if founders/CEOs continue to be the primary champions.
Complete results are available below. Enjoy!
Total responses: 58
1. What is your level of interest or involvement in Lean Startups?
- Curious/Learning – 10
- Getting Started – 15
- Actively Practicing – 28
- Thought Leader (Steve Blank, Eric Ries, Sean Ellis, Andrew Chen, etc.) – 5
2. To which type of company are you applying or planning to apply Lean Startup techniques?
- New Startup – 37
- Existing Startup – 19
- Established Company – 2
- S%P 500 Company – 0
3. Which of the following best describes your company’s offering?
- Web Application – 45
- Online Media – 3
- Packaged Software – 2
- Ecommerce – 1
- Professional Services – 3
- Other – 4
4. How many employees are at your company?
- 1 – 18
- 2-5 – 31
- 6-10 – 4
- 11-50 – 5
- 51-100 – 0
- Over 100 – 0
5. Are you a founder of a company where Lean Startup techniques are being applied?
- Yes – 49
- No – 9
6. What’s your job title?
- CEO – 37
- Marketing, C-level or VP – 1
- Product Management, C-level or VP – 4
- Engineering, C-level or VP – 4
- Marketing, Director or below – 0
- Product Management, Director or below – 1
- Engineering, Director or below – 3
- Other – 8*
*A few of these were “founder” or “founder/CEO” types of answers, which I grouped into the “CEO” category in my analysis above.
7. Do you have any suggestions for future surveys? Feel free to give any ideas for questions and other feedback you might have.
I’m not going to post individual responses, but thanks to those who offered feedback or help. Thanks again for participating!
Filed under: internet & tech, startups | Leave a Comment
Why I’m Not Blogging
I started this blog as an experiment, to learn more about content generation, personal branding, and online media in general. Now that I’ve done a few posts and learned a few things, I’ve come to the conclusion that, like most things, blogging is only worth doing if I’m going to commit fully to it. I need a mission, around which I can develop a brand and produce excellent content about a particular subject area with my own unique perspective. I need time, to think and research and write. And I need a passion to express and share my thoughts. I don’t have any of these things right now, at least not enough of them.
I’m not saying that I’ll never have these things, just that now is not the right time. I may post here and there, but only if I’m inspired to do so. So, please forgive the empty space, and I stand by my previous calls on Lebron, Facebook, Palm, Yahoo, etc. Hope you enjoyed those, at least.
By the way, if you want a better, more in-depth discussion about creating a great blog, try reading Crush It by Gary Vaynerchuk.
Filed under: personal development | Leave a Comment
I don’t know if Yahoo killed themselves with the Microsoft search deal or not, but I do know the following:
- Yahoo is better off without search.
- Microsoft can’t beat Google at search.
Yahoo is better off without search.
One of the biggest complaints about Yahoo has been their lack of focus and identity. Are they a search company or a content company? Well, now it’s clear: Yahoo is officially a content company. That’s a hugely positive step, and I think it’s the right choice, because Yahoo has never really been a search company.
A search company does two things: develop the best search engine and provide the best search advertising platform. If BOSS and Panama, respectively, were Yahoo’s best efforts to date, then Yahoo (as a search company) could never catch Google without a serious shift in focus. As it stood, search would continue to be underinvested and undermonetized, and Google’s shadow would still loom. That kind of burden impacts your strategy, your hiring, your morale, your confidence, your ability to run the company.
Now, that’s not to say that search isn’t a hugely important business. As Jason Calacanis said, “search is the most important business of the 21st century.” However, just because search is huge, that doesn’t mean that Yahoo is required to build their business around it. By outsourcing search, they can still monetize their audience through search without the burden of being Karl Malone (or Ewing or Barkley) to Google’s Michael Jordan. You might not agree with the choice of target (search vs. content) or the execution (this deal), but at least there’s a target now — that’s the most important thing for Yahoo at this point.
Microsoft can’t beat Google at search.
Classic innovator’s dilemma here: Microsoft’s primary business is desktop software, while Google’s is search. When it comes to giving searchers the best results and building the best search advertising platform, Google will always always always win. They have no choice: their entire business (well, 97% of it, anyway) is predicated on delivering these two things. On the other hand, Bing is just a project within Microsoft. Even if it delivered horrible results, Microsoft would still keep it alive. That’s not how you force innovation to happen.
The only real way that Bing would have a chance to beat Google would be for Microsoft to spin it off and make it fend for itself. If Bing had to live and die on its own, it would be forced to figure out how to win. However, I’m pretty sure that we will never see this happen. As poker pro Amir Vahedi put it, in a poker tournament, “in order to live, you have to be willing to die.” I don’t think Microsoft is willing to let Bing die.
One other long-term thing: as Microsoft mounts an attack on Google in search, Google is counterattacking on the OS front. As the desktop goes mobile and Windows becomes less and less relevant, Microsoft better make sure that they have a foothold in smartphones, netbooks, etc. I’d be concerned, since Windows Mobile has all but dropped off the map. Google has to fend off Bing, but Windows is getting eroded from all angles. Microsoft should watch their back…
Filed under: internet & tech | 1 Comment
Tags: bing, google, internet marketing, microsoft, yahoo
You Are Google’s Product
The freeconomics/freemium discussion generated this tweet from Mark Cuban (actually, he’s quoting someone called “wjousts,” whoever that is):
You are not the customer of companies like Google and Facebook. You are the product. The advertisers are the customers.
This little gem was largely overlooked, but I think it’s a HUGE distinction, one that many struggling Web 2.0 startups still don’t get. For example, most people think that Google’s product is the search engine and that we, the searchers, are the customers. Wrong.
By definition, a customer is someone who pays you money for your product. Last time I checked, Google search was free. So, we are not the customers. Likewise, at least in a business model (how you make profit) or revenue model (how you make sales) sense, the product is not the search engine. As Cuban/wjousts said, you, or, more accurately, your searches and clicks, are the product. Google sells access to your searches and clicks to advertisers, who are the real customers.
Make no mistake, Google is an advertising company, not a software company. At least, they are until they come up with a revenue stream that rivals their search business. And that’s going to take a while, since Google is the biggest and most profitable advertising company in history. They made $1.4 billion in profits last QUARTER, and the bulk of that was generated by their search business.
A lot of Web 2.0 startups are run by product development people — product managers, product marketers, engineers, and designers — who think of the product as the web application they’re creating, and their users as their customers. As the shakeout continues, the successful ones will be those who can turn that idea on its head if needed. Google had to.
Filed under: internet & tech, startups | Leave a Comment
Tags: business models, facebook, freeconomics, freemium, google, mark cuban, revenue models
Chrome OS is a good long-term (10-year) play. Google is betting that mobile computing will become smartphone (Android/iPhone/WebOS) and netbook (Chrome OS) dominated, and laptops will mostly disappear. I can see it — I already stopped bringing a laptop on trips and do most communication & reading from my iPhone day-to-day. A netbook will do for most other work: documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc., or you can use a public workstation if you’re on Google Docs or equivalent. Both the cloud and better mobile computing technologies will make the power-user laptop irrelevant, but it will probably take 5-10 years. The only reason I would need one is for code, and virtualization might take care of that case, too.
The only issue here is Google’s ability to focus and be patient. They have plenty of resources to support this, but if someone mounts a significant attack on the search front, I wonder if they can make progress on search, Android, and Chrome OS all at once.
In any case, they HAVE to do this. If and when someone beats them at search, their golden goose will die. They know this is coming (again, think 10 years out), and they need a foothold in something BIG to manage the risk. Hence, Android for smartphones and Chrome OS for netbooks. If and when the cloud, smartphones, and netbooks all mature, mobile computing will just be “computing” — Google wants to be there as it happens.
Filed under: internet & tech | 1 Comment
Tags: android, chrome os, google, iphone, mobile computing, netbooks, smartphones
