The most interesting part to me was this: "He’d been telling a version of that same story every single day for months and months during development—to us, to his friends, his family. He was constantly working on it, refining it. Every time he’d get a puzzled look or a request for clarification from his unwitting early audience, he’d sand it down, tweak it slightly, until it was perfectly polished."
I did the same thing for 12 years as CEO of Postmates and I still do it when I work on new ideas. I thought it was something I just did. But reading this I have to assume it is more common.
For me the internal part of this is far more important than any external pitch. Storytelling is a key skill for keeping an organisation aligned. Every company I've worked for that felt disjointed wasn't because of a lack of structure or process, it was the lack of a unifying narrative that people can follow and weave their work into. Once you have that, the sales and marketing part is pretty natural because you're already living the message like you mean it.
People need a “why” to what they do. Generally “I do what I’m told because that is what the process says” doesn’t scale as well as “we are here to get airplanes where they need to go”. The narrative doesn’t have to be outlandish, in fact unrealistic stories give narratives a bad reputation.
What you do need is a simple why you are coming to work that is beyond “to get a paycheck”.
I don't see those things as opposed - you want teams aligned, you want people to be able to plan and collaborate both the short and long term. A good process left shifts as much as possible so teams start out fairly well aligned and don't necessarily drift apart. A bad process requires constant interventions to pull teams back together. I think a clear, compelling narrative of where an organisation is going and why helps here, but it's certainly not the only prescription.
Process without narrative means nobody knows why they are doing what they are doing, which means nobody can question, change, or iteratively improve on it. This works fine for a while.
Tail Winds + Vision into-> Mission into-> Purpose. A world class leader understands deeply the coalescing ripples of shift across multiple sectors that result in the change their business is addressing, using this knowledge and extending it out into the future is called vision. If you can paint a good vision, you can then explain some missions people could go on over the period of time that matches your vision that results in positive things for the group, this is how an individual finds their purpose and is a prerequisite for a high functioning team (see tuckman's). The reason this is hard from a leadership perspective is that humans do not hear messages the same way, so you have to do what we call message modulation, where you tell the story many different ways depending on the constituent you're addressing until or such that, they understand what you are saying. You also have to be careful your modulation doesn't introduce confusion, 1 2 | 3 4 - if pipe is your baseline message, to be good at this, you have to think about what happens when 1 and 4 converse.
>A world class leader understands deeply the coalescing ripples of shift across multiple sectors that result in the change their business is addressing, using this knowledge and extending it out into the future is called vision.
So few leaders understand this. Its not common, not even among 'successful' leaders. More than anyone likes to admit, lots of businesses big and small built their backs on exploiting some luck and then achieving a relatively dominate position and holding it by the virtue of traditional business tactics. There's alot of copying, and very little actual innovative thinking.
This is even true of 'visionaries' but I think there is a difference between outright copying w/ refinement vs taking technology (or technologies) and using them in genuinely unforeseen ways, or otherwise marrying them together in ways nobody else really has.
Most success is entirely circumstantial. Right place, right time, things out of the control of anything. Certainly thats not visionary. Its refining someone else's idea (which is different than taking existing technology, refining it, and using it in entirely different ways than it was intended)
Steve Jobs was unique in that he forged success despite circumstances. In multiple aspects of Apple's history there was no good reason for them to succeed the way they did but he actually had genuine vision. Few others have had that kind of vision. Bill Gates demonstrated this earlier in his career (by the late 90s, Microsoft was exploiting monopoly not visionary innovation). Perhaps a few others I can't think of off the top of my head right now.
I can't say the same for 90+% of business people. It should be more humbling than it is. Unfortunately every CEO seems to think they have the 'magic' and they don't.
It's part of what separates "founder" from "executive" in my mind. Most good execs I know understand market fundamentals due to either eduction or solid experience, it's what is taught in HBS, Columbia, etc. Most founders know it from gut, they can just see change and they run at it, but it's part of the shift from founder to executive, you have to operationalize it for a business to be sustainable. Because you are competing against luck (Clay Christensen), you are inevitability foundational relying on solid vision, but because business is extremely complicated and hard to nail most businesses bleed out to find death by a 1000 paper cuts. Friend of mine has a linkedin profile you might find interesting: https://www.linkedin.com/in/agnazem/details/experience/
I'll also add, there are a lot of managers out there fancying themself in leadership, and lots of leaders who fancy themselves managers, this thinking that there is an ability to co-mingle, is generally incorrect.
(I teach business for a living, this stuff is a lot of what I teach new founders how to understand.)
Indeed, and probably why Steve got fired and had to take timeout. I break down some more nuance of it here if you're curious: https://b.h4x.zip/inventors/
I've never come across a leader with a strong corporate vision. Can you think of any relatively unknown companies that have become successful, and would you be willing to share their story?
Most of the founders and business I know you would probably also know, name a big devtool company from the 2011's era and I probably know the story well, the example I often use is my friend: https://www.linkedin.com/in/agnazem/details/experience/
- it's very easy from his linkedin to see how he thought about things. Jeff Lawson is another great example, Matthew Prince and Michelle Zatlyn also fantastic.
I'm sad you've never come across a leader with a strong corporate vision, when you work with them it truly is a joy.
Uniqueness is not the end goal, first and foremost it should be competitive. Just highlight where exactly you do things differently (and better) than others.
If that's not possible to formulate even internally, the company is in trouble.
100% - I used to sell/evangelize/promote/pitch the vision of the educational non-profit I used to work for every. single. day. to. every. single. person. Loved it, still do, and still storytelling at my current gig.
It's one of the first lessons I teach the founders in my classes, I learned it building DigitalOcean, I think it was Michael Dell who told me "yeah your job just becomes saying the same thing different ways all the time". Best I've seen at it is Flo the founder of mesosphere.
Don't think you can build a startup into a business if you can't learn how to do this.
And it’s a good lesson. The first hurdle for many (me included) was getting over the fact I’m going to repeat myself - a lot. And that’s ok. There’s a reason Coca-Cola still advertises. Repetition works. When telling someone the story, you never know what’s in their head at that moment. They might be thinking about some other important thing they have to do that day and not hear anything you said.
I do the same thing when I have a new idea. If people don’t seem as excited, I either refine the story or reconsider it entirely. It tests the idea, but also my understanding of why I want to build it. Is my hype justified or will it falter once the caffeine wears off?
I don't know how common it is for the different people who do an elevator pitch, but IIUC most successful standup comedians do this incremental testing and refining of bits very heavily.
One difference I'd call out is that the delivery is different in what's understood as a formal rehearsed performance, than when speaking in informal one-on-one contexts.
IMHO, for informal, it's OK if you use pretty much the same canned explanation each time (especially for an elevator pitch, which is understood as a thing), just don't pretend you're speaking off-the-cuff.
For example, don't pause like you're thinking of the right term or analogy to use. (I've seen Steve Jobs videos where he seems to do this. And I had a colleague who would do it for one key metaphor term, even though they said the same bit about their research to different visitors almost every day.)
If you go to a standup performance or TED talk, you're expecting a heavily-rehearsed performance, with artificial flourishes. But if you're having a one-on-one conversation with someone, you want a bespoke, genuine, engaged, adaptive interaction. Canned bits in that are OK, but don't pretend those bits are fresh.
You can still do that, just know it's disingenuous, inauthentic, and disrespectful to your audience. May be worth it to you, for example if you don't care about that particular audience.
Just as movie stars get paid a lot to compensate for dealing with the unpleasant life-ruining consequences of fame, CEOs get paid a lot to compensate for the monotony.
I also do this as I refine any pitch. I tell it to everyone over and over, tweaking it slightly, refining, etc… One difference is I don’t think the polishing ever ends until it’s time to move on to something else.
Hey Bastian, would love to have a chat about the impact of total automation in the food space (prep, package, deliver). We have 10 years R&D down, about to raise US GTM round, didn't find you on LinkedIn, email in profile. Cheers.
Even just saying the whole thing out loud again and again, makes the talk better. Because, you would understand what you whizzing past, what you are spending time on and reduces the time you would buffer while talking.
Which vegetables taste noticeabley worse? Whenever I travel abroad I try to eat as much fruit as possible because of how terrible nearly all of it is in the US. Melons and mangoes are basically a totally different fruit. My cousin from Kenya refuses to even try his favorite fruit in the US. But vegetables, especially after cooking, seem ok. Only thing I can think of are maybe out of season fresh tomatoes.
My photos linked above are licensed under creative commons, so feel free to use any. I'd be interested in helping with the project too and can supply higher res if needed.
I am not sure why you are so bitter but it’s important do understand that all you do is create more hate with comments like this. The only thing anyone is asking for is to protect the deposits of the people who bank(ed) with SVB. That is it.
Both you, op and others are being ignorant on this. Insurance payment or bailout is external money, this is making depositors whole using the bank's assets, not FDIC or government money. Tax payers are not making anyone whole as I understand yellen's proposal.
Nope. YC and other investors are explicitly asking for something beyond the normal process - no possible haircuts, no delays, $10M guaranteed, whatever. That can't be covered just by SVB assets. (It can be mostly covered. But that's not what they're begging for.)
And that's without getting into the question of whether they should be allowed to still reap the rewards of being a customer of a risk-taking bank for years before the event.
The solvency gap is minuscule and there are known buyers lining up. They will pay a premium to acquire the business of 40k companies (and whatever is left of the brand) and that capital (along with the assets) is ensuring creditors are made whole while shareholders get wiped. There is no bailout; people just seem to project 2007 onto a completely different situation.
Yes, the way I read this request (and Yelen’s response) the government’s “commitment” is meant to provide a floor for private offers so as to immediately address concerns, not as a primary path forward.
Please keep this subthread's context in mind - it starts with
> The only thing anyone is asking for...
And my comment is about what those people are asking for. They're claiming they're not asking for a bailout, while asking for a bailout. They are confused, or lying, or both.
When the government has to step in and use money to back things up, that’s a bailout. “Making depositors whole” can only be accomplished if the assets owned by SVB are bought for more than their market value, where the government is on the hook for the delta. That’s a bailout.
When a person doesn't want himself and every other ordinary person to be robbed by millionaires and billionaires, that is not "hate". That is not what "hate" is.
Founders drained the whole Bay Area of anything culturally interesting, tech companies all just did massive layoffs, years of shouting "learn to code" at every other profession, the world's art output fed into an AI meat grinder with "whoops sorry but also it's legally okay" to enrich a few VCs, but you can't imagine why someone might be bitter about demands to compensate their business mistakes from the public purse?
Define costs, specifically. What are the 'costs' of ensuring that depositors have their money, while taking over long-term SVB investments that the government can wait out? What are the 'costs' of tens of thousands of job losses? What are the specific 'costs' of significant centralization of banking, as any new VC would immediately require a start-up to move it's money to JPM or GS?
The cost is that we keep publicizing risk and privatizing gains. SVB took advantage of Trump-era deregulation to make more profit and now that they've screwed up they want help. The people who deposited money at SVB profited from those choices and now they also want a bailout.
Making depositors whole is important and should happen. Confidence in the banking system is important. A company that needs banking should not be subject to the same risk as a shareholder.
If depositors gained single penny of interest on their deposits. They should have been certain there is some risk. Including losing money above 250k. And they have less than zero right to cry when risk realises.
Everyone wants this but no one really wants this. The reason these restrictions exist is because of food quality issues, conditions at the pickup, wait times, courier feedback etc. Every food delivery co at some point did deliveries from certain places and went on to restrict them because for one reason or another the experience was not great for the customer / fleet or the merchant. At least that's how we did things at Postmates
I'm not a fan of companies telling me what I want. I'm aware things take time, and the food we order from this place travels well and reheats well. Post a click-thru warning and let me decide for myself.
The restaurant probably doesn't want the bad press associated with other customers getting cold/melted/soggy/etc food. Also, the restaurant may want to limit the amount of takeaway, as the venue may be small to accommodate too many carriers coming and going. Also, the courier may not like the route, maybe it takes too long (due to distance, but also traffic and other road conditions) and it's not worthwhile for them. The point is that you are just one piece of the equation and those apps are not necessarily telling you what you want, but telling you what they want.
Shouldn't those concerns be addressed by the restaurant itself, rather through various delivery platforms? After all, there's no real difference between you going to pick up the food yourself and you hiring a contractor to do it.
There is a difference. People are far less likely to go themselves, so that may be manageable by the restaurant. The app brings a lot more orders in. The restaurant possibly solved the problem by telling the delivery platform. If they suddenly had a bunch of couriers showing up at their door at peak times their solution would likely be similar, by telling the customer that they live too far away so they won’t let them order takeaway or something else along those lines. But the restaurants probably prefer to deal with a single party that can handle that bit of customer satisfaction for them.
Why is the delivery service concerned about the food quality at all? Post office is not concerned about quality of products it ships and I don't see anyone expecting it to be.
The Postal service is a utility competing on efficiency and price. That's not what "tech unicorns" get billion dollar valuations to compete on. Tech is about building a "platform" to siphon off money for all eternity while doing little of the ongoing labor of delivering or producing the value. To build that platform you need a moat, because otherwise somebody will come in a compete on price, so you build brand loyalty by gate-keeping the quality of stuff on your platform. That way any competing platform will initially be primarily populated by all the stores too "bad" to be marketed with the incumbent.
It's quite simply not financially lucrative enough to run a utility for venture capitalists. In a more sane, less inflated economic climate, this might change.
Because they aren't just "delivery services" and don't want to be, as a delivery service (or any other sustainable, boring "utility business") has poor potential for monopolising a market and the "growth & engagement" VC tech-bros want.
The definition of a t-shaped person here is wrong. I always understood it as: An individual who has empathy and ability to collaborate across disciplines coupled with deep knowledge in a specific area. Based on Tom Kelly (IDEO), probably 2005
I did the same thing for 12 years as CEO of Postmates and I still do it when I work on new ideas. I thought it was something I just did. But reading this I have to assume it is more common.