Breaking a myth: Data shows you don't actually need a co-founder
We are often told that starting a startup on your own is madness. There are thousands of articles out there that tell you that and why why you need a co-founder. Probably solid advice, but data from CrunchBase shows a different side of the story. More than half of startups with an exit did so with just a single founder. The average is 1.72 founders.
techcrunch.com
Okay, but to be really pedantic, the data says 1.8 which is closer to 2 people than to 1, so really isn't this an argument that two co-founders are better than one?
They meant a person + midget co-founder
No that isn't what the data shows. But it also doesn't show 1 is best. In fact they didn't really test anything at all.
Really they should have looked at successful AND unsuccessful startups and seen if the number of founders was significantly different in the successful group.
As it is we have no idea if the number of founders is just the same distribution in both groups and success is completely random or the thing we would like to know.. is the number of founders in some way correlated with success.
This makes sense!
This comment was deleted a year ago.
What confuses the discussion here, is that, we are making a sharp distinction between founder(s) and team members.
While yes, there is a sharp legal distinction, in practical terms, it might not.
What I mean is: If a sole founder, offers very good compensation incentives to a number of team members, that company would practically have multiple co-founders.
And this setup comes with a huge advantage: no conflicts when if comes to decision making. (one of the main reasons multi founder businesses fail)
Conclusion, the team is more important than the number of founders.
Absolutely agreed.
This should actually be the preferred option, when you don't have co-founders who have had a long working relationship with you.
This comment was deleted a year ago.
In literal terms, you are right.
Practically out there, a founder or co-founder IS a shareholder.
That's why I implied the connection. Good observation though, thanks
The thing is, there really is no right or wrong answer.
The main benefits of being a solo founder include:
The main benefits of being on a team include:
Eh, I'm torn on this!
Sometimes there's just not enough time in the day of a solo founder to focus on everything, especially when you're looking at large work and complex tasks.
To improve that, all you would need is $$ and delegation skills.
I get both sides. But data only tells a part of the story. I worked with a CEO that manages multiple companies, one of them is a SaaS startup as a solo founder. How you ask? by Hiring junior kickass employees and mentoring them to flourish fast. Our data science lead went from intern to lead within a year.
Maybe if you don't need founder that doesn't mean you don't need team member.
Solo founders are 250% more likely to make money. But it depends on the route you take. My solo projects have made money faster than anything done in a team. But the ceiling is also usually lower.
to be more precise in explanation data doesn't prove anything about you( as a general rule). It just suggests that you probably (that is the biggest chances are) ..... etc etc.
you can always be in the minority (sometimes it means 49 %)
some other times you can be the very first outlier
As a solo founder - this data pleases me 😁
Okay