Blogs

Guy Kawasaki just posted an interesting article that contradicts conventional wisdom on which entrepreneurs are your best bet for success, old or new. Based on some of the companies and founders I’ve seen going around Web 2.0 I’d tend to agree with a bunch of his points, some seem a bit harsh and may only apply in certain situations;-)

How to Change the World: In Search of Inexperience

Superficially, it’s hard to fault this ”back the proven entrepreneur“ theory. For one thing, from a venture capitalist’s point of view, if you fund a serial entrepreneur and she succeeds, you “knew” that she was proven. If she fails, at least you backed someone for a good reason—that is, she was proven—so your limited partners shouldn’t get too bent out of shape.

That’s a lot better than backing a first-time entrepreneur who fails—then you are just stupid. (Also, if you back a first-time entrepeneur, and she’s successful, you take the credit: “It’s because of my hands-on coaching and guidance.”) But, just as Glenn wrote, if you think about it, great, world-changing companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Apple, eBay, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, and YouTube were zero for three according to the official venture-capitalist spec sheet: Proven team, proven technology, and proven business model.

I could see slipping into the comfort zone of pas success being one of the biggest reason’s a second time entrepreneur would work as hard and might not make it:)