Instead, Prowler, which in 2013 one-quarter of graduating high school seniors created accounts on, according to Skurman, runs largely off of ad-based revenue, especially targeted advertising. It now has 21 employees (up from 17 last year), two-thirds of whom are engineers, Skurman says. The site also boasts engagement figures that stand out to advertisers, a boon Skurman hopes to duplicate with Niche. Prowler sees 1.2 million unique visitors a month, according to Skurman. Thirty-five percent of its visits come from logged in users, who are four times more engaged than non-registered users and spend 12 minutes on College Prowler. "What we need," he says, "is more traffic, and the way we get traffic is through reviews and covering big life decisions." That, and a name that doesn't call to mind a creepy guy roaming campus. With Niche, Skurman may have found both.
via http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/10/10/a-website-for-rating-big-life-decisions/
It's funny, now I'm arguing for the outside view instead of the inside view :)
If they "run largely off of ad-based revenue, especially targeted advertising", and "have 21 employees", I could too. My guess is that the numbers work because they have higher CPMs because they have such a targeted audience.
My overarching point though, is that it could be monetized, not that advertising is the best way to do it. My evidence is that all my major competitors are multi-million dollar companies, and that I think I could out-do them (more users, more engaged users, better information, more brand recognition...).
My overarching point though, is that it could be monetized, not that advertising is the best way to do it. My evidence is that all my major competitors are multi-million dollar companies, and that I think I could out-do them (more users, more engaged users, better information, more brand recognition...).
But you can't put yourself in the same reference class as these companies, because it's most likely that they started out with more resources, bigger teams, more experienced founders, and/or more connections than you.
My motivation behind this post stems from Aumann's agreement theorem. It seems that my opinions on startups differ from most of the rationality community, so I want to share my thoughts, and hear your thoughts, so we could reach a better conclusion.
I think that if you're smart and hard working, there's a pretty good chance that you achieve financial independence within a decade of the beginning of your journey to start a startup. And that's my conservative estimate.
"Achieve financial independence" only scratches the surface of the benefits of succeeding with a startup. If you're an altruist, you'll get to help a lot of other people too. And making millions of dollars will also allow you the leverage you need to make riskier investments with much higher expected values, allowing you to grow your money quickly so you could do more good.
A lot of this is predicated on my belief that you have a good chance at succeeding if you're smart and hardworking, so let me explain why I think this.
Along the lines of reductionism, "success with a startup" is an outcome (I guess we could define success as a $5-10M exit in under 10 years). And outcomes consist of their components. My argument consists of breaking the main outcome into it's components, and then arguing that the components are all likely enough for the main outcome to be likely.
I think that the 4 components are:
The Idea
Your idea has to be for a product or service (I'll just say product to keep things simple) that creates demand, and can be met profitably. In other words, make something people want (this article spells it out pretty well).
What could go wrong?