> c) Only recently have they learned that a best-in-class product isn't enough to get investors excited without talking about the market.
Isn't the whole point of there existing a separate class of tech-oriented investors and investment managers, who get paid pretty well for their work, that they are knowledgeable and well-positioned to evaluate things like market prospects? If who they fund depends so heavily on social proof and slickness of the pitch to investors (as opposed to the actual product and market potential), seems like capital is being allocated pretty inefficiently...
Thanks for the note - I was disagreeing with the message / sentiment of article. I meet so many first-time entrepreneurs and worked at funded startups where the founders think it is about impressing investors.
Kudos to Stormpulse for the hard work and the cool product. I just did not like the message of the article because I was considering how it would be interpreted by other startups..
Don't miss that:
a) They've been working on the product since 2004 and it's best in class as a result of an insane amount of product development.
b) Every single lead they've generated has come through their "freemium" model, they've never spent a nickel on marketing.
c) Only recently have they learned that a best-in-class product isn't enough to get investors excited without talking about the market.
Matt wrote an incredible post here about the blood, sweat, and tears that went into building a market leading product:
http://wensing.tumblr.com/post/1215873671/bootstrapping-stor...