This. I think the biggest problem startups make is finding a problem and building a solution, but not realizing there is a difference in problem size, value and pain per your medicine analogy.
> "Its the help a startup needs between "office hours" and execution. I do think that there is a piece missing here, that can be developed."
Pretty much agree with everything you said, this is a good unpacking of what I was trying to briefly convey in the OP.
For example, if one of the founders is strong in Biz Dev, then they probably don't need this (though some level of assistance would still be helpful), but if this is not the case, then getting guidance and potentially full-service assistance with an all-in effort in gaining customer feedback in a valid way that could be just the frequency shift that determined success or failure in an otherwise solid product/idea.
Basically you would be taking the product from something potential customers respond with "maybe" into something they say "Heck yes, take my money!"
I don't think the accelerators/funds are missing the obvious, but I do believe that (because of the high signal-to-noise ratio of the startup bubble) many rookie founders don't discern the importance of this process to their success, and end up "hearing what they want to hear" from mentors/books/etc and pick out things like "focus on the experience", "leverage network effects" or the dreaded "get a distribution partner" instead of simply finding customers who would immediately start paying for a solution to their biggest problems.
Good point, there are a lot of bad ideas out there. But, even the best ideas/products are not what they started out as, they involved pivots and market changes. Was this due to luck, or were the founders fundamentally committed to creating a business that adds value vs. simply in love with their "great idea"?
I like to think successful founders "got there" pivoting or otherwise, by being good at bringing a product to market and building a company around it.
Startups that need to as ef4 put it "outsource the hard stuff" are pretty much proven bad at bringing a product to market, I don't think it's likely their problems will be as simple as customer development vs. being underprepared, inexperienced or just plain unsuitable to found companies.
How much time would this save the average customer? Seems like setting up on the existing platforms are pretty easy already, and rackspace already has an auto deployment option.
>"Most KPIs (traffic, revenue) are too volatile on a daily basis to be useful. Yet “last 30 days daily” is more or less the default option."
YES! If you're building a dashboard, don't answer the question "what data do I have?" or "what does the brass say this should be?" But instead, get out and talk to users, find out what data is most important to them, think outside the box, throw some different ideas out there and see what sticks with users.
And often, the end user has no idea what information is useful to them until it is presented. In that way dashboards are great: they help the end user figure out what data is important to them.
Not really. Humans are more or less incapable of filtering noise and avoiding making premature choices in realtime. "OMFG, this story blipped upward in a statistically insignificant way. Hype it!" Myself and a colleage ran this experiment several times at a large news organization. Realtime is useful for algorithms, useless for humans.
Of course if you are marketing an analytics product, give the customer a realtime dashboard. It's useless but it makes them feel powerful and in control. The news writers would certainly have thrown a fit if we tried to take away their useless chartbeat.
I Just had my 1 year anniversary of standing desk. It is great, although I do sometimes get tired but I have a stool for that.
You can see my desk design here. It was acquired for very cheap: $1 counter top from thrift store, $10 in 2x4's from lowes. and only 1 strategically placed screw in the wall. I also have an anti-fatigue mat and a foot stool that helps a lot.
