That's quotable!

I completely agree with you, however, I think it's important to consider that in some startup situations it's not a question of the most optimum arrangement, maximizing productivity, or increasing efficiencies…it's a matter of taking that first step (JFDI). It's a zero sum game for some founders. For these founders, their startup is born from a solid idea, tenacity, and the will to create a Phoenix from the ashes. They need an initial team and if limited resources force them into a distributed team situation then so be it. For some founders, creating a $20 million company vs. never creating anything at all is an easy decision. By no means am I saying that this is an ideal strategy/situation. I just believe it's one that some founders face and I can't fault them for embracing the “by any means necessary” ethos. I was fortunate enough to assemble a great team that has its core members local but if I felt as though I was put in a situation that called for a distributed team vs. nothing, I would have JFDI and bought the water cooler at a later date.

Have the names been changed to protect the innocent?

This is my 8th startup and I have successfully exited 6 others, the 7th is profitable. I have funded most of my company with Angel money vs. professional money so my mindset is may be very different here. If VC’s don’t want to fund my company because we don’t have a central team I am ok with that. We wouldn’t want or take their money if that was the prerequisite.

This post shows me the extent of how disconnected VC’s are to reality. I respect Mark for his past but he sounds just like every other VC with this post. I think he has completely turned to the darkside.

…but that being said, I think the benefit of working with remote teams depends upon where you are in the life-cycle of your startup. I think it actually makes sense to have a remote team in some of the early phase work of a technology development project. It allows you to bring great talent to bear on the project while spending less then you would have to normally. If the main entrepreneurs “running” the company can capably manage remote teams and effectively transition to full time teams as they get seed funding, then it can often have good results.

From my personal experience I am self funding a start-up with a couple of main team members and the majority of our product work is being done by remote designers and developers based around the US. We have had talks with those partners about their interest in joining full time were we to secure funding, but to get our product to Alpha and Beta testing, we have kept our costs down and innovation high by leveraging this model. As you have reiterated in the past, it is always better to try and get something built then attempt to raise money with a presentation and a pitch. Our plan is to build a product we feel worthy of receiving funding prior to seeking investor interest.

In our case the remote team serves its purpose: access to great talent that would otherwise require large compensation, and the ability to build a functioning product that can communicate the core vision of the founders and give an investor a palpable example of what they are investing in and why.

I have heard you talk about your belief that entrepreneurs should do it themselves w/o multiple partners. Remote teams help keep the core team small to start w/o the need to pay big salaries or take on multiple equity partners. I think, if done well and with the right transition plan…it can be a highly effective methodology for startups.

That being said, I think the benefit of working with remote teams depends upon where you are in the life-cycle of your startup. I think it actually makes sense to have a remote team in some of the early phase work of a tech development project. It allows you to bring great talent to bear on the project while spending less then you would have to normally. If the main entrepreneurs “running” the company can capably manage remote teams then it can often have good results. From my personal experience I am self funding a start-up with a couple of main team members and remote designers and developers all based on the US. We have had talks with those partners about their interest in joining full time were we to secure funding, but while we are getting our product to Alpha and Beta testing, we have kept our costs down and innovation high while trying to build a product we feel worthy of receiving funding. As you have reiterated in the past, it is always better to try and get something built then attempt to raise money with a presentation and a pitch.

In our case the remote team serves its purpose: access to great talent that would otherwise require large compensation, so an actual functioning product can communicate the core vision of the founders and give an investor a palpable example of what they are investing in and why.

I have heard you talk about your belief that entrepreneurs should do it themselves w/o multiple partners and reseed funding to support salaries and taking on multiple partners and without the ability to work remotely I think it is tougher these days to get people