Greg, this is exactly what we are trying to build. We call ourselves a Digital Venture Firm. (Studio would be better.) We built about 30 products for other people and 8 for ourselves. I am interested to know of other companies then the ones you listed above would fit the mold so I can study them more. Metalab (Tiny) and BCGDV were the two we modeled our new website off of - but do you know others?
As startups become more homogenous (they mostly already are), the process learning curve becomes more and more important. It makes a lot of sense that by eliminating that you can improve chances for success. The one place I think the Studio model suffers is that they are by definition generalists - many of the most transformative startups come from earned insights: people inside industries that understand things in a way not apparent to the outside world. That specialized knowledge can be key to unlocking markets and change.
Great observation Jeff. One way we avoid this in our org is by building separate teams centred around each business problem we are trying to solve through products. Development teams are fungible, but the business analysts, product owner, sales and marketing are all specifically built around the product. So, subject matter experts + product management + fungible development teams.
This is mostly fall into a business design and design process. there is a fallacy that most people look at designers just designers by putting wireframe togethers, even designers look at themselves that way. Designers are makers, thinkers, concept builders, researchers, testers, idea generators, and business oriented. that is at least how I see myself.
I really like how much you're focusing on the studio process at the moment.
It makes a lot of sense, as no-code and other developer tools mean ideas can rapidly build products that are sophisticated enough to experiment with and validate. But there are limits.
My opinion (as someone working at a product studio) is that we step in when:
a) it's time to make your no-code solution into a business
b) you're a startup with a great idea and enough capital to build from scratch and iterate over time
c) you're a corporate innovation department with an idea but are unsure about the startup approach, how to build and ensure quality (e.g. integration, scalability, data structure, generally not having crappy spaghetti code), and how to launch, grow and potentially spin out when you don't have the full corporate safety net.
This is great and timely, even now, especially given the recent launch of Metalabel (https://www.metalabel.com/) which has made me wonder about alternative startup structures.
In SF and the Bay Area, we have lots of "incubators" that help with the exploring of startup ideas like South Park Commons (https://www.southparkcommons.com/) and a number of seed-stage VCs but these are focussed on getting venture funding. What doesn't quite exist is the more bootstrapped version. As a result, I have a few founder friends who take the approach of consulting first to understand the needs and audiences more deeply, then pick an idea to pursue --but they lack a community other than their personal networks.
It feels like AI improvements have made the Lean Startup (Eric Ries) notion of build-measure-learn even faster, more rigorous, and easier to implement.
Speaking of communities, I've recently researched some Reddit alternatives (As in, Reddit but without the jerks) — Gave https://upstract.com a try and really liked their approach of small but smart.
How do you structure the 30 day sprint positioning and expectations? I've run a services business for 4-5 years, still struggle with the right mix of terms and structure.
Great stuff!
What are your thoughts about startup studios vs holding companies?
In other words, is there a reason you chose the startup studio route instead of just acquiring already existing businesses?
Greg, this is exactly what we are trying to build. We call ourselves a Digital Venture Firm. (Studio would be better.) We built about 30 products for other people and 8 for ourselves. I am interested to know of other companies then the ones you listed above would fit the mold so I can study them more. Metalab (Tiny) and BCGDV were the two we modeled our new website off of - but do you know others?
As startups become more homogenous (they mostly already are), the process learning curve becomes more and more important. It makes a lot of sense that by eliminating that you can improve chances for success. The one place I think the Studio model suffers is that they are by definition generalists - many of the most transformative startups come from earned insights: people inside industries that understand things in a way not apparent to the outside world. That specialized knowledge can be key to unlocking markets and change.
Great observation Jeff. One way we avoid this in our org is by building separate teams centred around each business problem we are trying to solve through products. Development teams are fungible, but the business analysts, product owner, sales and marketing are all specifically built around the product. So, subject matter experts + product management + fungible development teams.
This is mostly fall into a business design and design process. there is a fallacy that most people look at designers just designers by putting wireframe togethers, even designers look at themselves that way. Designers are makers, thinkers, concept builders, researchers, testers, idea generators, and business oriented. that is at least how I see myself.
I really like how much you're focusing on the studio process at the moment.
It makes a lot of sense, as no-code and other developer tools mean ideas can rapidly build products that are sophisticated enough to experiment with and validate. But there are limits.
My opinion (as someone working at a product studio) is that we step in when:
a) it's time to make your no-code solution into a business
b) you're a startup with a great idea and enough capital to build from scratch and iterate over time
c) you're a corporate innovation department with an idea but are unsure about the startup approach, how to build and ensure quality (e.g. integration, scalability, data structure, generally not having crappy spaghetti code), and how to launch, grow and potentially spin out when you don't have the full corporate safety net.
This is great and timely, even now, especially given the recent launch of Metalabel (https://www.metalabel.com/) which has made me wonder about alternative startup structures.
In SF and the Bay Area, we have lots of "incubators" that help with the exploring of startup ideas like South Park Commons (https://www.southparkcommons.com/) and a number of seed-stage VCs but these are focussed on getting venture funding. What doesn't quite exist is the more bootstrapped version. As a result, I have a few founder friends who take the approach of consulting first to understand the needs and audiences more deeply, then pick an idea to pursue --but they lack a community other than their personal networks.
It feels like AI improvements have made the Lean Startup (Eric Ries) notion of build-measure-learn even faster, more rigorous, and easier to implement.
Thanks!
this is great!
Become your own VC ! Great advice here.
Psyched reading this
Pi is a very good app
Why something is telling me that's the future of studios will be community-first.
Nice post!
But I still can’t find the fastest way to establish a couple of dozens of targeted custdev interviews in any industry.
I think it’s a major step before launching an MVP.
Any thoughts?
Thought provoking concept
Speaking of communities, I've recently researched some Reddit alternatives (As in, Reddit but without the jerks) — Gave https://upstract.com a try and really liked their approach of small but smart.
this is interesting, how do team members get assigned or earn shares for each project they work on?
How do you structure the 30 day sprint positioning and expectations? I've run a services business for 4-5 years, still struggle with the right mix of terms and structure.