It’s great what they did, very impressive and excellent product.
However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”.
They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating.
They didn’t spend “a dime on marketing”, but they did spend time promoting their product on several platforms, including producthunt, and they do have a blog (which is where the article is hosted), and they do have one full-time employee (out of four), in charge of marketing. So maybe what they truly meant is that they didn’t pay for advertising, but that’s different than not spending money on marketing, which they did, and in fact you could even say that it’s probably a significant part of their budget (given one of the only four team members is dedicated to marketing).
Is there such a thing as true boostrapping? One always has to put some sweat/time in the pre-revenue phase. This time has a cost (opportunity cost + you could have had a job / did consulting)
> However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”.
> They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating.
That is the definition of bootstrapping with no need for quotes. They pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, starting with existing resources and created something more complex and effective.
Exactly. If Jeff Bezos starts a new company tomorrow and funds it using only his own wealth with no outside investments, it counts as bootstrapped.
Of course it would be less impressive if someone of Jeff's caliber bootstraps a company, as opposed to a much less wealthy individual. But it would still be bootstrapping in both cases.
the hairsplitting of HN never ceases to amaze and amuse me.
Yes, realistically, bootstrapping means you are only allowed to use money you find on the street, and "no marketing spend" means you press "publish" and can only wait.
IMO, the parent comment was not hairsplitting, it was making quite valid critiques. Take the marketing critique. Far FAR too many techies think "marketing" == "advertising". It's not. Paid advertising is a small part of the art that is marketing. I considered the comment to quite helpful.
>Far FAR too many techies think "marketing" == "advertising". It's not
>Paid advertising is a small part of the art that is marketing.
Sure, I agree that paid advertising is just a small part of marketing. But the post didn't say "we didn't do any marketing". The post said "without spending a dime on marketing".
It isn't supposed to mean they haven't done any marketing. Clearly they did, given the post in question itself. It is supposed to mean they haven't spent any money on marketing. Have they spent any money on marketing? If no, then they are fully in the clear. Unless somehow people assumed the devs just published their work and left it at that, which is a very unreasonable assumption, because how would people find out about the app in the first place if that was the case.
Just like with Tesla. They intentionally spend zero on marketing. But it would be silly to argue that Tesla doesn't do any marketing. Elon's tweets alone can be considered marketing. It's just that there is no actual budget spent on it.
I think the OP has a valid observation. You don't say "we didn't spend a dime for our software" when you have hired someone to write it for you. Why would it be different for marketing?
How can it be an investment if you are the sole artificer of the outcome of your investment? An investor finds one or more companies that look good and are worth their money and then mostly wait for the profits. But in this case the same people who put the money are the ones planning and executing the business plan. What's the difference in using money earned by running another company rather than using money earned by working for another company? It's the very definition of hair-splitting.
The distinction is very clear: Bootstrapping a business means you can do it without funds, in a "poor" country, without inheriting money or having savings.
It's important because it shifts focus towards executing a business model that is likely to succeed without having to experiment and see "what sticks" first.
Productizing a consulting business is one example. You repackage knowledge you gained while working for clients, into its own product. The only expense in that phase is your 4,99€/mo root server.
The distinction is important because there are people who are interested in one, but not the other, or who can only do one, but not the other.
When we talk about different things, we need different terms to make sure we know what it is that we are talking about.
However, the article is a bit misleading, mainly for two reasons: “bootstrapped”, and “without spending a dime on marketing”.
They “bootstrapped” by financing the company with another profitable company. That technically means they were their own investors, but they weren’t limited only to the revenue that their email company was generating.
They didn’t spend “a dime on marketing”, but they did spend time promoting their product on several platforms, including producthunt, and they do have a blog (which is where the article is hosted), and they do have one full-time employee (out of four), in charge of marketing. So maybe what they truly meant is that they didn’t pay for advertising, but that’s different than not spending money on marketing, which they did, and in fact you could even say that it’s probably a significant part of their budget (given one of the only four team members is dedicated to marketing).