Is the problem you are solving really a problem?

Sun, Oct 4, 2009

Entrepreneurship, Inspiration

OK, I’m going to get on my soapbox for a minute. Apologies have been offered in advance…

Came across this article today about California (via Mark Suster and Michael Schneider) and the lousy state (no pun intended) that we’re in: Will California become America’s first failed state? The article talks about people facing real problems. Stuff like high unemployment, spending cuts in health care and education and people losing their homes. You know…real problems.

And then I flip over to TechCrunch and started reading a few of the articles about the start-ups that are being covered and to be honest, I got a little nauseous. Before I say why I will say this. Mike Arrington and the TC crew have done more to support entrepreneurs than anyone else on the planet. And, as anyone who knows me will attest, I bleed entrepreneurship. I’ll do almost anything to help an entrepreneur in need. It’s not easy to be out there pursuing your dream and I get that. But here were the last few articles that were posted about start-up companies on quite likely the world’s most influential start-up blog.

Dropico Lets You Drag And Drop Pictures Across Social Networks

Birddi Is A Spanish Twitter Clone

Design Community Decorati Will Be Your Personal Interior Decorator

Sidebar Will Deliver Personalized Mobile Apps And Content To Your Phone

No disrespect at all to any of those start-ups but I do think it’s really, really important for all of us entrepreneurs to take a big step back and ask whether what we’re pouring our time and energy into is really solving the important problems. I’m certainly not the first person to write this. Tim O’Reilly has implored upon us to “work on stuff that matters.” And Umair Haque has been talking for years about the need to create thick value. And in fairness to TechCrunch even their own Sarah Lacy recently wrote her own “memo” to start-ups about changing the world (btw, definitely read this response to her memo).

But I think that’s kind of the problem here. We are way too focused on the incremental stuff, the stuff that will make our Facebook experience or Twitter experience marginally better. The next social game that can eek out a few more dollars in revenue or the next ad network that delivers a 2% better ECPM. None of those things are bad. It’s just that the opportunity cost of those things is very high. It means you’re not working on something that just might solve a really big problem. A real problem.

I’d love to see more entrepreneurs doing that and I’d love to see more people shining spotlights on the entrepreneurs who are. Where attention goes energy will flow. Just think of all the people who do whatever they can do to get on the latest crappy reality TV show. We need to give start-ups that are changing the world a bigger stage on which to share their ideas and products.

I’m an advisor for a tiny start-up called SocialEarth.org. They probably get a tenth of a percent of the traffic that TechCrunch does (if that). But what I love (love!) is that their articles are focusing on the right stuff. Whether they will succeed or not almost isn’t even the point. Whether eduFire helps change education for the better or not isn’t the point. The point is that trying to solve the world’s biggest problems or helping to empower the people who are (through writing about them, investing in them, etc.) is hands down the most important work on the planet. And we absolutely need more people, especially the world’s brightest and most energetic people, to take up the cause.

This post was written by:

Jon - who has written 27 posts on JonBischke.com.


Contact the author

  • Loved the soapbox rant. It's easy to get caught up in "marginal change" ideas when everything you read is focused on the latest social media or advertising trends.

    If an aspiring entrepreneur asked you what question needed to be solved today, that nobody else was tackling, what would it be?

    BTW, love SocialEarth.org. Stumbled upon them a month ago - great reads.
  • Why don't more of us tackle really big problems? Well, why do really big problems exist in the first place?

    How did big problems become big? Did they start off small and snowball, or were they simply always really big problems? Which problems emerged through market failures (misallocation of money, passion, time, attention, etc.) and how can creating / fixing those markets help solve really big problems?

    I'd submit that few us tackle really big problems because few of us really can - at least on our own. Individuals can start solving really big problems, but it takes groups, communities and societies for the solutions to flourish and succeed. And that's really what I take from your thoughts: the need for more people to pay attention and devote time to creating and supporting people solving big problems (with attention and money), because that's the only way big problems get solved.

    Allen's question is great, because it reminds us that even us with the desire to tackle big problems may lack the direction to focus our energies. Perhaps that's a market that needs fixing :)
  • Hari
    @allenburt: It's not about solving a problem that nobody else is tackling. It's about solving it better than anyone else. An easy example comes from Nicholas Kristof's recent Tweet: "Pneumonia kills more children than AIDS or malaria, is preventable, and gets negligible attention."

    @Taylor: I think big problems just require more boldness and more innovation. 1000 timid people have nothing on 1 bold, innovative person. You can find many case studies online about how one person rethought what seemed like an impossible problem and designed a simple, radical, and effective solution. Examples in India: http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/India-sta...

    Thanks, Jon. I've always had difficulty understanding why people are so excited about projects that seem so trivial except maybe for the pure pleasure of working on them. My focus is definitely on high impact & high profit projects that are *exciting and worthwhile* to do.
  • "More boldness and more innovation" is part of the problem, but without the attention of markets (financial and passion) it doesn't solve anything. It's not about devoting 1000 timid people to solve something, but gathering and empowering 1000 timid people to follow, support, and pitch in however they can, even if their "help" is nothing more than reading or talking about a really big problem rather than the incremental problems that Jon points out.
  • orin
    It all comes down to incentive - and our society is structured in such a way that it doesn't provide an incentive for solving those particular problems. I'm not talking about government grants or programs as a solution - but that something a bit more built into the depths of the system. When successful reality TV contestants can make a better living than nobel prize winning scientists, something is askew at a pretty fundamental level.
  • The inertia problem with big problems is certainly real. I, for one, don't like the idea of tackling problems with scale. But that doesn't mean the problems I'm trying to solve aren't big problems. To me, big means important. Big is why I left the world I was in to focus on other people's big problems, albeit in a small geographic area and each problem individually small on its own. I think the best way to tackle big problems is in bite-sized chunks. More than that, inertia gets you. Unless you have a community, as Taylor points out.

    Of course, the problem with limited scale is revenue. If it were possible to make loads of money on small problems that make a big difference without much cost, well, those problems probably would get arbitraged pretty quickly.

    Great post, Jon. First time I've seen the blog but I'll be back!
  • Yes. Yes, yes, yes.

    Vickie
  • Great stuff, and I think one of Umair's points reconciles the "what's the incentive" counterpoint: venture investors in the tech space seem to have been pretty limited in imagination.

    That's wildly anecdotal, but insofar as tech-based companies are likely to address many of the "big" problems in a disruptive way the nets out "better for society"....seems like his thesis stands to reason.
  • chinamike
    Ah, but where can we go to get trained as entrepreneurs? Might not these small, incremental improvements not be tests bed for larger, more risk taking behaviors?

    There is a lot to be said for the idea that we need to walk before we can run. If these companies (or ideas) are exposing young entrepreneurs to the discipline of the market and the value of thinking big I say it is all worth it. If it is helping them build their networks and create successful track records for down the road I say go for it!

    My number one advice to entrepreneurs is to start small and learn about what it takes to succeed. I personally like that they are taking small steps in protected boxes learning the skills necessary to succeed.
blog comments powered by Disqus