10
8 Comments

Big companies cannot successfully copy small companies

Big companies cannot successfully copy small companies (startups or otherwise) because they cannot execute and pivot fast enough to not lose interest

I worked for a big company for a few years when we were informed we were starting a new project from scratch.

I was happy to learn that new developments are possible after years of maintaining or buying existing startups.

It took me quite a while to learn that this was just copying another startup in the field. I did not even know that startup. It was new to me, but apparently, it was already widespread.

The problems started to pile up right from the start. But for the sake of brevity, I will prioritize by severity:

  • The decisiveness - big companies, are "committed" - It was evident that a direction and partnership with a beta technology of another company were sub-par by far, and we shouldn't rely on it. BUT, we committed to the powers that be. That was the answer I got. Year went by, and that technology failed to deliver and closed, and we got stuck with a pile of code leading nowhere.
  • The "I just wanna have fun" - The project was going on for years with no success, and the vultures were circling in on the budget. One day we got a visit from an executive who told us that it was exciting for him to play with this new cloud thing, so he is taking the budget and firing half (of a very profitable - other product we were maintaining). Six months later, he was fired, but half the team was missing, so no long after, everyone was fired, and the other successful product was sunk.
  • The technology - since we were who we were with what we have known, we used what we know. A slow on-prem technology was great for what we did for years but had no foresight. The cloud was closing fast.
  • The bottom line - Big companies are already successful in bringing in big money. Anything less than 10% of the revenue is slowing down growth. Therefore, management usually cancels new projects when they don't show promise fast enough.

The problem for publicly owned companies or companies that do not have sustained decision stability is that they cannot commit to anything for more than a few months.

Oh, they can maintain a product forever with success. That is what big companies are good at. They cannot be agile enough to pivot when necessary and not lose interest if the product does not immediately succeed.

Therefore such companies can start successfully by copying other startups but quickly fail because they cannot decide on anything quickly enough to get a significant foothold in the market. This is why big companies resort to buying startups or smaller companies.

In the past, big companies were in a hurry to "integrate" startups they bought into the big company. In recent years, they have avoided that. Now big companies leave the startups where they are as they are. Usually for a few years.

Big companies are usually comprised of big hierarchies. The one I was working on had 12 such levels when I arrived. In this setting, there is no way to reach the higher levels to tell them that there is a problem if even one of the levels is a yes man.

So every time someone tells me that if a big company hears my idea, they'll just copy it. I laugh and say "let me tell you a story".

If this was helpful for you, please subscribe to hear more and hit reply to tell me what you think.

on March 20, 2022
  1. 2

    Large companies can compete with smaller companies by forming a small team/sub-company of 5-10 people and giving one person 100% authority as the team leader/the opportunity to become the "small startup" CEO, (with stock+signon+salary) who funded is supported by the main company. They can also start a competition for people to join and give the TOP winner an opportunity to join the startup.

    Most of the time, they can do it if they want. But most of the time they don't because there are lots of risks involved and it's not a guarantee of success. Rather than wasting time or money, they would just acquire companies that do something that works because TIME is MONEY. That company being acquired, their employees would suddenly turn from small startup employees to fortune 500/FAANG employees on their job title.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. 1

      Hi Jorcus,
      This actually happened to me. It is called a "spin-off". Odly enough I had 2 opportunities I refused to do that in the past. One from a holding company who wanted to convert a bootstrap I did to the model you suggested and another which I freelanced which we couldn't get to good terms.

      Big companies with no clear and sustained, long-term decision making, cannot even entertain that. There is probably no form for that in HR :). However, I can see that happening in whole owned companies which are usually private and not public.

      Thanks.

  2. 2

    Big companies are filled with people working for money. Startups are filled with people working for vision.

    When challenge comes only one of those will:

    • Tell their boss they disagree
    • Work whole weekend to resolve the problem

    I'm the co-founder of incorporated startup.

    In the past, big companies were in a hurry to "integrate" startups they bought into the big company. In recent years, they have avoided that. Now big companies leave the startups where they are as they are. Usually for a few years.

    This wasn't the case with us, but if it was it would be 100x better for both sides.

    I'm now exiting it and don't want to work with any corpo-bullshiter ever again.

    1. 2

      Hi Ralic,
      I think I was too inclusive for point making. Obviously there are all kinds of models. The companies I worked for commonly used the model of not integrating (probably read it in some article between golf games :) ).

  3. 1

    100% agree. Large organizations often become too bureaucratic in their decision making process, stifling innovation. While some bureaucracy is required to operate at scale, it is counter-intuitive for building or launching new ideas as budgetary and management approvals can delay or outright stop progress.

  4. 1

    Thank you for sharing this. Would you say that it's also due to higher ups being less saavy? I'm actually thinking that once their aren't any more C-suite people who aren't tech saavy this won't happen at scale anymore.

    What do you think about that?

    1. 2

      Hi,
      Good question.
      I think that for a company with 10k+ employees the C-suite is savvy in making speeches. They may or may not be tech-savvy, but it usually not their job anymore to think like that. It is more about leadership skills (and survival and political skills). If you work for such a company you'll know that you'll need a form to even ask that question :)