Prompted by the negative feedback that this essay received, ranging from being a sales pitch in disguise, to being a word salad going in all directions without answering the central question posed by the author right in the opening paragraphs, I had to go and re-examine the piece and see if these concerns are valid or not, and unexpectedly the second reading reaffirmed my initial positive reaction that this is actually a good piece, maybe not the best, but still good.
In spirit of open discussion and intellectual curiosity here, I share my insights in the following order matching that of the post:
1) PG opens with the best advice that he could dispense to prospective applicants which is "what you've learned from users".
2) He proceeds to ask himself the same question.
3) He then informs readers that his users; startup founders, usually face the same set of problems across the board.
4) Since these problems are the same, he thought of automating the solution to scale his business (dogfooding in some sense).
5) That blew up in his face spectacularly that he had to rework the plan and concede that his solution won't scale.
6) But these same problems are not recognized uniformly by founders as they sometimes face difficulties identifying them in the first place, that's where the YC partners' role come to fill this unmet need.
7) Even when people are good at identifying problems, some are bad at determining the severity or urgency that these problems pose, cue again the YC partners' role.
8) Even when they're good at risk assessment, some are bad at risk mitigation, and won't listen to the advice given by the partners but it is not made clear what he means exactly by "not listening", dismissing/not acting on solutions proposed by YC staff, or not acknowledging that there's a problem to begin with?
9) Getting down to business to solve these problems warrants focus, and how this focus is tied into speed, and how YC can help with that.
10) Startup colleagues are more important than YC partners when it comes to realizing success with their feedback, guidance and even practical help, and how YC is the best in class in this regard.
Even though the marketing language, esp the value propositions in the piece is a bit stronger for my taste, but I can't say with honesty that it overpowered the core message of the essay nor was it incoherent or disjointed in anyway that made following or understanding impossible as some have claimed here.
I agree, and this is coming from somehow who's been relatively disillusioned with pg's essays of late - I made this comment about another pg essay about a year ago:
While I still think many of those points apply to this essay (yes, whether or not it's a sales pitch "in disguise", it's still a sales pitch), they don't bother me as much here because pg is specifically talking about his experiences in YC and startups in general. If there is one person who I think has earned the title of "expert on early stage startup experiences and lessons learned" it is Paul Graham.
Yes, he touches on a lot of different points, but I still found it to be a useful read. If anything, I'd be interested in some more pointed follow-up, e.g "Here are some of the top common problems startups hit", with specific examples, or "Here are 5 times founders ignored our advice, and what happened".
While I don't agree with your view regarding the classification of this piece as a sales pitch -- it's infused with variable value proposition statements, it doesn't detract from the core message -- I share your sentiment that PG is one of the leading experts in the world of startup accelerators.
Regarding your suggestions, I don't think that this listicle-heavy Buzzfeed type of writing suits PG. I'm more drawn to his abstract and enigmatic writing style.
> without answering the central question posed by the author right in the opening paragraphs
I love that it doesn't and how it doesn't. I also find it hilarious that we have been so trained by SEO and modern day marketing gurus to expect The Answer (either roughly 90% down the page or alternatively within a list of 10 short, bulleted paragraphs) that an open question makes people uncomfortable.
Maybe PG should listen to his users, in this specific case his readers, and provide a summary at the top of the article on each post for people running on a busy schedule.
I for once felt like returning to the days of college when I finished writing this comment where I'd prepare summaries for lecture notes for me and my friends, very nostalgic times.
In spirit of open discussion and intellectual curiosity here, I share my insights in the following order matching that of the post:
1) PG opens with the best advice that he could dispense to prospective applicants which is "what you've learned from users".
2) He proceeds to ask himself the same question.
3) He then informs readers that his users; startup founders, usually face the same set of problems across the board.
4) Since these problems are the same, he thought of automating the solution to scale his business (dogfooding in some sense).
5) That blew up in his face spectacularly that he had to rework the plan and concede that his solution won't scale.
6) But these same problems are not recognized uniformly by founders as they sometimes face difficulties identifying them in the first place, that's where the YC partners' role come to fill this unmet need.
7) Even when people are good at identifying problems, some are bad at determining the severity or urgency that these problems pose, cue again the YC partners' role.
8) Even when they're good at risk assessment, some are bad at risk mitigation, and won't listen to the advice given by the partners but it is not made clear what he means exactly by "not listening", dismissing/not acting on solutions proposed by YC staff, or not acknowledging that there's a problem to begin with?
9) Getting down to business to solve these problems warrants focus, and how this focus is tied into speed, and how YC can help with that.
10) Startup colleagues are more important than YC partners when it comes to realizing success with their feedback, guidance and even practical help, and how YC is the best in class in this regard.
Even though the marketing language, esp the value propositions in the piece is a bit stronger for my taste, but I can't say with honesty that it overpowered the core message of the essay nor was it incoherent or disjointed in anyway that made following or understanding impossible as some have claimed here.
Verdict: 8/10