MattDMND
New Contributor
User Power
Value/Post Ratio
150%
- Mar 3, 2021
- 12
- 18
I'll cut to the chase: I've re-read for the fourth time the Fastlane to see if I am still on track.
I'm calling you fellows and @MJ DeMarco himself, as I need a thumb up or down:
during the pandemic, I built a DTC beauty nutrition brand in the UK from Italy, selling out my first batch of MOQs in 5 months on Amazon FBA.
The idea was to use that as a test for a DTC (omnichannel in fact) aggregator of brands, similar to Thrasio but created, instead of acquired (similar to BBG-Berlin Brands Group).
Despite the early traction, the business operations were a nightmare:
- AMZ was used as a test, not a destination. But its lack of data, communication with customers, and policies are a Putin-like fortress. Moreover, I chose one of the most complicated industries, as it crossed all the NO-NOs of AMZ: food, liquid, glass packaged! OMG!
TNX, no, Jeff! I won't do it again.
So, I pivoted the model to a startup studio.
That's my million dollar question to you guys and to you @MJ DeMarco :
I know the commandment of monogamy and the focus theory, right?
But, the startup studio model, has monogamy: on co-founding operations!
So, as apparently, it lacks focus, as it launches multiple brands at the same time or serially (I launch a new brand every 6 months, try to get traction if data show promises, I keep growing it, otherwise I kill it and launch a new one), its core focus is in its business model: finding external co-founders to use as managers and operators in exchange of equity. So, even without the power of money leverage, it focuses on human resource leverage.
Of course, it's complicated, much more than to be a simple tech company with its own internal products: that's why I split the company into two main areas: a SaaS only one, when I license software, sell it and outsource operations (not customer support, though); and the studio operation, when I put more ambitious projects, potentially scaleable or sellable, but that need human resources. So the focus is on the co-founders recruiting and spin-off of the newco, which enables multiples.
Essentially, it's like when a business success enables polygamy, except you don't have to wait for an exit, as polygamy IS the business model.
Then, personally, as overall management, I keep a focus strategy mutated from Al Ries himself (the creator of the Focus strategy) of 70/20/10.
70% of my focus (both as weekly time, daily time, energy, and resources) is on the actual main product, 20% on the next launch, and 10% on the plan B operation. And all these eventually switch over time.
If all this sounds more complicated than it should, it's cause it is: it would be much ways easier to just run a software company.
But my mind is multipotential: I tried in the past to focus on one thing only, for years, but I got burned. My mind works parallelly, not linearly. It's a physical matter of fact.
So after 3 failed startups with the right product-market fit, and early traction, where the only enemy was my focus, I decided to go for the old adage "if you can't beat them, team up with them" and turn the lack of focus into the main business model.
Now I'd like to know your thoughts: does all this make some sense to you? Where (if) you see discrepancies?
Consider that startup studios are all around us, and many very successful (behind Dollar Shave Club for example was Science Inc, a startup studio). They decrease startup failure rates by 50%, switching resources as it fits.
But usually, they have big budgets and investments backing them: I run one of the first bootstrapped startup studios.
I'm even finding teammates here on the forum.
Please share your thoughts...
Thank you!
I'm calling you fellows and @MJ DeMarco himself, as I need a thumb up or down:
during the pandemic, I built a DTC beauty nutrition brand in the UK from Italy, selling out my first batch of MOQs in 5 months on Amazon FBA.
The idea was to use that as a test for a DTC (omnichannel in fact) aggregator of brands, similar to Thrasio but created, instead of acquired (similar to BBG-Berlin Brands Group).
Despite the early traction, the business operations were a nightmare:
- AMZ was used as a test, not a destination. But its lack of data, communication with customers, and policies are a Putin-like fortress. Moreover, I chose one of the most complicated industries, as it crossed all the NO-NOs of AMZ: food, liquid, glass packaged! OMG!
TNX, no, Jeff! I won't do it again.
So, I pivoted the model to a startup studio.
That's my million dollar question to you guys and to you @MJ DeMarco :
I know the commandment of monogamy and the focus theory, right?
But, the startup studio model, has monogamy: on co-founding operations!
So, as apparently, it lacks focus, as it launches multiple brands at the same time or serially (I launch a new brand every 6 months, try to get traction if data show promises, I keep growing it, otherwise I kill it and launch a new one), its core focus is in its business model: finding external co-founders to use as managers and operators in exchange of equity. So, even without the power of money leverage, it focuses on human resource leverage.
Of course, it's complicated, much more than to be a simple tech company with its own internal products: that's why I split the company into two main areas: a SaaS only one, when I license software, sell it and outsource operations (not customer support, though); and the studio operation, when I put more ambitious projects, potentially scaleable or sellable, but that need human resources. So the focus is on the co-founders recruiting and spin-off of the newco, which enables multiples.
Essentially, it's like when a business success enables polygamy, except you don't have to wait for an exit, as polygamy IS the business model.
Then, personally, as overall management, I keep a focus strategy mutated from Al Ries himself (the creator of the Focus strategy) of 70/20/10.
70% of my focus (both as weekly time, daily time, energy, and resources) is on the actual main product, 20% on the next launch, and 10% on the plan B operation. And all these eventually switch over time.
If all this sounds more complicated than it should, it's cause it is: it would be much ways easier to just run a software company.
But my mind is multipotential: I tried in the past to focus on one thing only, for years, but I got burned. My mind works parallelly, not linearly. It's a physical matter of fact.
So after 3 failed startups with the right product-market fit, and early traction, where the only enemy was my focus, I decided to go for the old adage "if you can't beat them, team up with them" and turn the lack of focus into the main business model.
Now I'd like to know your thoughts: does all this make some sense to you? Where (if) you see discrepancies?
Consider that startup studios are all around us, and many very successful (behind Dollar Shave Club for example was Science Inc, a startup studio). They decrease startup failure rates by 50%, switching resources as it fits.
But usually, they have big budgets and investments backing them: I run one of the first bootstrapped startup studios.
I'm even finding teammates here on the forum.
Please share your thoughts...
Thank you!
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.
