Questions and reflections beginner: beginning
These considerations are not taken from my experience, but the essence is only the result of understanding the materials, mainly located on the IdeaBlog and inVenture sites (since the prospect of shoveling more and, for example, Habr and other places is terrifying :)
Consider the most extreme option: you are not a techie, you have an idea of ​​a certain Internet project and nothing else - no experience, no team, no money for implementation, no connections and acquaintances in relevant circles. With this set, one can only hope that at least something you have in abundance. For example, organizational skills. Or mind. Or perseverance. Best of all at once. Otherwise, obviously there is no need to even try :) However, I am not right - you should always try and by definition. This is the meaning of life.
The main problem is to understand whether the idea is good enough to persistently try to implement it? "Good enough" means you
• studied the existing offers and found that they do not sufficiently satisfy a certain need (s);
• evaluated the potential of this need - how massive, urgent and deep it is, and found that the idea follows these criteria.
It happens, however, that needs are created, which is a vivid example of blogs - before the advent of blog services, diaries were kept by relatively few people and such a phenomenon flourished only in narrow-specific subcultures such as school girls. In other words, the market was very small. At the same time, you can also say that the need is poorly monetized. In general, the question of the needs created, it is philosophical. They are of two kinds - good and bad. You can put a person on the needle, creating a need for drugs. Similarly, you can add a housewife to the series. In both cases, you can earn a lot on the created needs. This is the way of cultivating and exploiting human weaknesses. Another way is to find what helps people to discover their inner potential, not yet explored interesting opportunities for self-development. This, too, can make good money.
')
Examine the existing proposals - this is the first is not a very simple task, because it is unlikely that somewhere in one place there is a list of everything that has been done on this topic. Search engines in this sense will help in the search for materials and help in the search for communities of experts who can prompt more precisely. In short, this is work. Mentioning the relevance of this problem came across in articles on IdeaBlog: “Many domestic entrepreneurs are boiling in their own juice and do not even realize that in the USA or Germany his project has been implemented for a long time, and with a more correct business model.” (By the way, in my opinion, relief users of this stage - an idea in itself, if not for a separate startup, then to improve existing projects). However, in this sense it is useful to know not only about the existing projects, but also about their typification, to have a systematic view of these things. An example of such a systematic approach is, in my opinion, the text of Yaroslav Greshilov on the inVenture blog.
As a natural complement to this activity, you can fill the gap mentioned above - to establish the necessary connections and acquaintances, to build a personal narrow-specific social network so that it helps to solve the main task. Naturally, such a network can be effective only if you are interested in yourself. Otherwise, it will work against you. Arthur Welf expressed, though not about this, a close consideration: “Long before the announcement of the launch of your startup, register several users in those communities where you plan to post messages about the launch, and“ pump ”their reputation - leave literate and reasonable comments to other articles, publish literate articles yourself, etc. - you can say "engage in social activities" . "
Discussing your idea with specialists to evaluate its value is the most useful of things (and even inevitable, given our extreme version of the initial conditions), but, unfortunately, it should be used carefully and carefully. Because you can not just put a detailed description of the idea for everyone to see, because it may be trite by someone else without even saying thanks. Of course, in many cases, such fears are exaggerated, but still. In an open mode, an idea can be discussed only in a rather abstract form, and in a closed one - only with people who can be more or less trusted for some reason. (An interesting note about this on Habré).
In assessing the significance of an idea, one more thing needs to be taken into account: it can certainly be significant and valuable, it can cover a large market, but it is bad to monetize in the short term. This is about how the country's infrastructure - roads, airports, etc. - The need for these things is high, but they require large investments and do not pay off quickly. Such projects can only be done by very large players, as well as by the state. In their place, I would have done such charity - that is, for example, most experts give a positive assessment of the idea, but they don’t want to invest. Then, with this assessment, a person goes to state or charitable foundations. For example, I had a thought about a certain project for scientists. First of all, for the generation that is already leaving, and many of their interesting developments go almost irretrievably with them, because the authors for various reasons could not achieve recognition. Certainly, not all of these causes boil down to the weakness of the mentioned developments. Sometimes this is the absence of competent PR, sometimes the lack of money for development, sometimes the conservatism of the traditional scientific community. Only the future can give adequate estimates in such cases, but this is only on condition that what has been done will survive until the future. What is the task of not only charity, but also the need for any self-respecting society.
So, suppose that this preliminary work has been done and the idea has been found suitable. At least you consider it that way :) However, even if no existing service has implemented it fully, then, on the advice of Anton Nosik, given to me on the sidelines after one of his speeches, you still need to decide whether this idea is in line with the subject matter leading players in the market, and if so, it may be more meaningful to offer them their services. Probably, this is really an option, since you are relieved of a lot of headaches and problems, which allows you to focus more on the creative part than on the organizing part (funny post in LJ on these topics kba.livejournal.com/239324.html ). Probably, it depends on the ratio of values ​​in the specific situation proposed by the employer. Money in this list of values ​​is not the only item. For example, another important condition is growth in a professional (and any other) way. If work for an uncle gives in this sense more than a supposed own business, then personally I would prefer it, even to the detriment of money (this, incidentally, depends on the magnitude of the damage :), that's why I’m saying that various factors are summed up here and more or less important harmonious relationship. By the way, given the initial conditions and the decision to do the project yourself, you still have to share a lot, most likely even a controlling stake. According to Nosik, it’s worth to start things up yourself only if the project is quite original and doesn’t really fit into the directions developed by major players.
To be continued.
Consider the most extreme option: you are not a techie, you have an idea of ​​a certain Internet project and nothing else - no experience, no team, no money for implementation, no connections and acquaintances in relevant circles. With this set, one can only hope that at least something you have in abundance. For example, organizational skills. Or mind. Or perseverance. Best of all at once. Otherwise, obviously there is no need to even try :) However, I am not right - you should always try and by definition. This is the meaning of life.
The main problem is to understand whether the idea is good enough to persistently try to implement it? "Good enough" means you
• studied the existing offers and found that they do not sufficiently satisfy a certain need (s);
• evaluated the potential of this need - how massive, urgent and deep it is, and found that the idea follows these criteria.
It happens, however, that needs are created, which is a vivid example of blogs - before the advent of blog services, diaries were kept by relatively few people and such a phenomenon flourished only in narrow-specific subcultures such as school girls. In other words, the market was very small. At the same time, you can also say that the need is poorly monetized. In general, the question of the needs created, it is philosophical. They are of two kinds - good and bad. You can put a person on the needle, creating a need for drugs. Similarly, you can add a housewife to the series. In both cases, you can earn a lot on the created needs. This is the way of cultivating and exploiting human weaknesses. Another way is to find what helps people to discover their inner potential, not yet explored interesting opportunities for self-development. This, too, can make good money.
')
Examine the existing proposals - this is the first is not a very simple task, because it is unlikely that somewhere in one place there is a list of everything that has been done on this topic. Search engines in this sense will help in the search for materials and help in the search for communities of experts who can prompt more precisely. In short, this is work. Mentioning the relevance of this problem came across in articles on IdeaBlog: “Many domestic entrepreneurs are boiling in their own juice and do not even realize that in the USA or Germany his project has been implemented for a long time, and with a more correct business model.” (By the way, in my opinion, relief users of this stage - an idea in itself, if not for a separate startup, then to improve existing projects). However, in this sense it is useful to know not only about the existing projects, but also about their typification, to have a systematic view of these things. An example of such a systematic approach is, in my opinion, the text of Yaroslav Greshilov on the inVenture blog.
As a natural complement to this activity, you can fill the gap mentioned above - to establish the necessary connections and acquaintances, to build a personal narrow-specific social network so that it helps to solve the main task. Naturally, such a network can be effective only if you are interested in yourself. Otherwise, it will work against you. Arthur Welf expressed, though not about this, a close consideration: “Long before the announcement of the launch of your startup, register several users in those communities where you plan to post messages about the launch, and“ pump ”their reputation - leave literate and reasonable comments to other articles, publish literate articles yourself, etc. - you can say "engage in social activities" . "
Discussing your idea with specialists to evaluate its value is the most useful of things (and even inevitable, given our extreme version of the initial conditions), but, unfortunately, it should be used carefully and carefully. Because you can not just put a detailed description of the idea for everyone to see, because it may be trite by someone else without even saying thanks. Of course, in many cases, such fears are exaggerated, but still. In an open mode, an idea can be discussed only in a rather abstract form, and in a closed one - only with people who can be more or less trusted for some reason. (An interesting note about this on Habré).
In assessing the significance of an idea, one more thing needs to be taken into account: it can certainly be significant and valuable, it can cover a large market, but it is bad to monetize in the short term. This is about how the country's infrastructure - roads, airports, etc. - The need for these things is high, but they require large investments and do not pay off quickly. Such projects can only be done by very large players, as well as by the state. In their place, I would have done such charity - that is, for example, most experts give a positive assessment of the idea, but they don’t want to invest. Then, with this assessment, a person goes to state or charitable foundations. For example, I had a thought about a certain project for scientists. First of all, for the generation that is already leaving, and many of their interesting developments go almost irretrievably with them, because the authors for various reasons could not achieve recognition. Certainly, not all of these causes boil down to the weakness of the mentioned developments. Sometimes this is the absence of competent PR, sometimes the lack of money for development, sometimes the conservatism of the traditional scientific community. Only the future can give adequate estimates in such cases, but this is only on condition that what has been done will survive until the future. What is the task of not only charity, but also the need for any self-respecting society.
So, suppose that this preliminary work has been done and the idea has been found suitable. At least you consider it that way :) However, even if no existing service has implemented it fully, then, on the advice of Anton Nosik, given to me on the sidelines after one of his speeches, you still need to decide whether this idea is in line with the subject matter leading players in the market, and if so, it may be more meaningful to offer them their services. Probably, this is really an option, since you are relieved of a lot of headaches and problems, which allows you to focus more on the creative part than on the organizing part (funny post in LJ on these topics kba.livejournal.com/239324.html ). Probably, it depends on the ratio of values ​​in the specific situation proposed by the employer. Money in this list of values ​​is not the only item. For example, another important condition is growth in a professional (and any other) way. If work for an uncle gives in this sense more than a supposed own business, then personally I would prefer it, even to the detriment of money (this, incidentally, depends on the magnitude of the damage :), that's why I’m saying that various factors are summed up here and more or less important harmonious relationship. By the way, given the initial conditions and the decision to do the project yourself, you still have to share a lot, most likely even a controlling stake. According to Nosik, it’s worth to start things up yourself only if the project is quite original and doesn’t really fit into the directions developed by major players.
To be continued.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/28684/
All Articles