Nobody cares about your startup. And it’s not because they’re stupid, or you’re too early. It’s because you’re saying the wrong damn thing.
I’ve learned through my own startup, as well as working with hundreds of founders through incubators, that the answer to your frustration with this is always the same.
The problem founders always have is that they talk about the problem and their solution.
Which is adorable. And completely wrong.
To most of you reading this, the Problem Solution Statement probably sounds reasonable, and in fact is consistent with the principles of something like Lean Startup. Truth? No one cares.
Effective communication of a solution that creates value, which is what you’re looking for in asking about truly understanding and caring about what the business does, establishes that the reason the problem exists is understood and has been solved.
But Lean Startup also told you to talk to customers, not just pitch VCs. Stop using it like it’s scripture and start using it like it’s a tool.
I know from experience advising that I might sound like I’m talking in circles so let me clarify.
Article Highlights
The Real Reason No One Cares About Your Startup (And It’s Not Your Idea)
Most founders get excited about their idea for a solution to a problem. And the problem in that is that everyone has ideas to solve problems. You have endless competition, despite you thinking that you might not, and whatever you can accomplish, anyone else can accomplish, particularly if they have more resources… the fact that you solved a problem is to me irrelevant given the fact that there’s a cost to me of attempting what you’re providing.
Here’s the reality:
Your idea isn’t special.
Everyone has ideas. Investors have better ones than you. And most of them have already backed someone who’s working on it with more resources.
The trick in effective pitching is to explain why the problem remains a problem.
The fact that you’ve solved a problem? Neat. But unless you’ve nailed why that problem still exists — and why no one else has fixed it — you’re just another founder with a product no one asked for.
You don’t win by solving the problem. You win by showing why the problem persists — and why your approach can’t be easily copied or crushed.
Why does the problem persist? Not that you have a solution for it but that you have a fundamental understanding of why the problem still exist despite the fact that many other people can and do try to solve it.
This is the why.
And the why is not why I care nor even why you care… the value in your business that I care about is that you have tackled the solution in a manner that no one else has capably conceived of, evident in the fact that no one else is doing it as well as you are.
If you fail to explain why the problem persists despite alternatives, you fail to convince your audience that you understand what’s actually going on.
And if you don’t convince me that you understand what’s going on, your solution is temporary, consistent with alternatives, or likely easily put out of business by competition… I’m not taking that risk on you.
Want a cheat code? Try this:
Explain why Uber didn’t already fix it. Explain why Salesforce hasn’t solved it. Explain why Google can’t just build it next quarter.
Make the bar clear: not that you solved something — but that others can’t. Or won’t. Or didn’t know how.
Take ride sharing…
You build a new app that promises faster pickups. Yay. But I live in Lubbock. Or Boise. Or 10 miles outside Austin. You don’t have cars there. So no, I don’t care that you promise 3-minute pickups. You’re lying. Or delusional. Or both.
The real problem isn’t speed, it’s availability. And you didn’t fix that.
The thing is, I might try it and then I’m going to discover that it doesn’t work as you claim.
Why? The problem isn’t that I need a car to arrive more quickly, the problem within the problem is that cars don’t arrive more quickly because there aren’t enough cars available, and you making an app that promises to get cars to ride more quickly, doesn’t convey sufficient value in a way that I care because I doubt it. In fact, I know it’s not possible because Uber and Lyft have the majority of drivers on their platforms throughout the world and you don’t and can’t.
Understand the problem within the problem. Why does this remain a problem.
Why No One Cares About Your Startup
Your pitch isn’t about your product. It’s about your grasp of the systemic failure that keeps the problem alive.
If you can’t tell me why the problem still exists, despite millions of people and billions of dollars trying to solve it, your pitch is worthless.
In our example, you are promising me a better value because a car arrives faster, is b.s. if I’m somewhere you don’t have cars. Follow? Tell me you solved having more vehicles available throughout the world, and THEN you can promise me something better.
Only with the problem causing the problem can you effectively convey real value that people will care about.
Most founders pitch as if they’re trying to impress a product manager at Google. What you need is to pitch like you’re diagnosing a disease no one else has properly understood, and you’ve got the cure.
So before you pitch again, ask yourself this:
Why hasn’t anyone with more money, more people, or more time already solved this?
If you don’t have an answer, don’t pitch. Fix that first.
And I’ll be blunt — if you’re pitching a feature, not a fundamental fix, you’re wasting our time. And in startup land, that’s the only thing more precious than capital.
You think you’ve got a startup? Prove it. Drop your pitch in the comments — I do this all the time, live, so let’s put it in writing. If you can’t explain why the problem still exists despite billion-dollar competition… I’ll fix it with you.
This the marketing problem you’ve pointed out in the past, one step earlier. The Monkey isn’t the tech a/o the product. The Monkey is human behavior – whether that’s hiring, managing, leading, or marketing.
Mark Simchock different strokes reach different folks (or something like that)
Hmmm, I think I get what you’re saying though I zealously believe that all ideas have to start with a problem and a solution, but you make the classic error of composition as it relates to markets.
There is the global market and the addressable market.
If you have a ride sharing startup that works in a dense city like ATX, who gives AF that it doesn’t work in Lubbock?
Lubbock is not in the addressable market, is it?
I am not aware of too many real world products — meaning things that are not simply software or Internet based — that work in the entire global market.
One is always deealing with the addressable market.
Cheers.
Jeffrey L Minch I need a ride to Lubbock and I have your ride-sharing app.
And, I’d think people who live in Lubbock who want to use it, give AF
Lubbock population 225,000.
ATX population 2.6MM.
Lubbock is almost 400 hundred miles and 6 hours from ATX.
Tell me again who is the addressable market and who gives AF.
News flash, it isn’t that one guy who wants an Uber — probably a $2K Uber — to Lubbock. BTW, that guy takes the bloody bus IRL for $130 or a plane for $120 one way.
Smart people do not build businesses on serving every person on the planet. That’s why you consider addressable market rather than global market.
Jeffrey L Minch ride-sharing…. from here to there and from there to here.
If you’re arguing with me that it’s Lubbock, you’re missing the point 😉
Call it Georgetown, if you want. Or Kyle. We ride to and from there all the time. Or maybe, oh, I don’t know, the City of Austin bans it; so, it works in West Lake, right across the street, but not in Austin.
You’re clearly not getting what I’m saying if you’re pushing “Smart people do not build businesses on serving every person on the planet. That’s why you consider addressable market rather than global market.” –> if the damn thing doesn’t work because you haven’t solved the problem that results in your solution NOT working, you’ve failed.
The addressable market for such a thing is anyone who needs a ride in Austin, which can mean to and from anywhere reasonable.
You’ve built this ride-sharing app to result in a faster service, but it ONLY works in Austin…
Make it work for Texas then, and call it the Texas Ride Sharing App. These things don’t work at a hyper-local level because cities borders aren’t uniform and states overrule cities -> understanding the underlying problem that explains why what most pitch as problem-solution, won’t work.
Paul O’Brien Right. And the magic comes from understanding that. Understanding that human behavior is the hard part.
A founder either has a great idea that’s scalable or they don’t. And they will either be believed that they are the ones to build it and execute or they won’t be. Someone like a Y Combinator backs founders with zero experience every cohort that have never pitched anything oftentimes but will put them through their machine to help so that at demo day their 2min (or whatever it is exactly) pitch translates into investment $. That’s now yielded a portfolio worth $800 billion.
So I can’t disagree that a good pitch is essential, because of course it is, but I think the above can trump all of it. Do you have a killer idea and does the investor you’re talking with think you’re the one to actually make it happen or will their $ be better used on another startup. They can fill in the blanks typically just fine.
I think something should be written on how important it is to develop relationships, ideally at a friendship level over time, with proper VCs and angels, so that when you do need to ask for $ they actually know you, can vouch for you, and can either make that investment or refer you to their VC or angel buddy. This is where we’ve not done a good job because we’re so busy running our platform. We’re raising a $5mm seed and I think it could wrap a lot faster had we done a better job with the relationship building/development. Thankfully Carta has us valued at tens of millions of dollars which helps but nothing can beat an actual real relationship with an investor.
You’re right, relationships matter more than most founders realize, and YC’s track record proves that belief in the founder often outweighs experience or even the pitch itself. But what turns belief into conviction is clarity: not just that the idea is scalable, but that the founder deeply understands why the problem still exists despite all the noise, capital, and alternatives. A great pitch isn’t about theatrics, it’s about communicating that insight. That’s what separates a good idea from a fundable business. Relationships open the door, but clarity gets the check.
And let me add this because I tend to have to do so with founders, when we say “pitch” we do NOT mean to VCs or investors. This is about how you communicate what you’re doing, to anyone, and what someone conveys in that message speaks volumes about how they think, their priorities, and what they know.
In my opinion, absolutely true!
Have gotten rid of all my Lean startup scripture and have converted to the Gospel of Paul the Startup Economist
Careful now, I don’t need the stones thrown that I disagree with the bible LOL
Austin by God Texas with 2.6MM people is not hyper local.
Thanks Paul for the great insights. At Everything African, we aim to provide quality and fresh groceries to the population of African heritage (starting in the UK) directly to their doorstep. Our ultimate goal is to provide much more affordability and seamless availability for African-centric products for all Africans in the diaspora and other enthusiasts in the Black population of the world
Babatunde Ajose appreciate you, let’s break this down
“we aim to provide quality and fresh groceries to the population of African heritage (starting in the UK) directly to their doorstep.”
This tells me you have a business, not a startup. That could be wrong, but that’s what it says. This is something you can actively do so it’s going to turn my expectations to evidence of success, growth, and how people can be customers.
“Our ultimate goal is to provide much more affordability and seamless availability for African-centric products for all Africans in the diaspora and other enthusiasts in the Black population of the world”
That’s nice. And I don’t mean that to sound rude, though it might; I’m giving you that reply because it’s what most people think when you pitch with your mission – good for you. Good luck.
Start with Why – say something that would be compelling to everyone. And then get into my point in this article… you say “more affordable” “seamless availability” “quality and fresh” So, what you’re saying is that that’s A) Not available now and B) Not possible through others. Why not??
Note, you might not BE a business, because that question, I presume, is because you need to develop something to make it possible, but your opening statement is a sales pitch. People will think, “Great, do that.”
But then you point out considerations (affordability, etc.) that suggest it’s not possible today. Unless it is.
Either, you have competitors who just aren’t doing it well or bothering to do so. OR there is systemic reason it isn’t being done now.
IF the later, something you need to develop, you have a startup.
And if a startup, you want your audience’s reactions to be different than “great, good luck”
You’re a good example of what I’m talking about here, so thank you.
WHY isn’t this possible now? Tell me and we’ll try to crack a better pitch. Or you’re doing it, in which case, great!
— the difference by way of my article —
Problem Solution Statement – African-centric products aren’t available affordably throughout the world, we deliver that.
Problem within the Problem (and I’m making this up because I don’t know) – African-centric products aren’t available affordably throughout the world because the commerce infrastructure in Africa to provide access to those products is antiquated, we’re developing it.
This is a good point. However investors with this mindset also miss out on working with a business that has a formula for becoming the Unicorn in the herd
There are millions of hospitals and, before the current cuts to Medicaid millions of smaller clinics. Everyone of them have established mandates that they have to follow and best practices for achieving success. However some were more successful than others and retained their customers for longer periods of time due to the way they executed those same practices which exist in every other clinic.
When a potential investor doesn’t pay attention to the distinction between execution models, and focus more attention on the similarities of the competition, they miss the slight difference showing a developing Unicorn.
Active listening is a quality many investors have lost in their search for immediate ROI in route to an exit strategy.
“miss out on working with a business that has a formula for becoming the Unicorn in the herd,” Explain for me, generally. I think you’re giving me an example by way of hospitals and medicare but since I’m not as familiar with that sector, I don’t want to presume.
“When a potential investor doesn’t pay attention to the distinction between execution models, and focus more attention on the similarities of the competition, they miss the slight difference showing a developing Unicorn.”
Yes.
“Active listening is a quality many investors have lost in their search for immediate ROI in route to an exit strategy.”
FOR SURE
Let me clarify here, I’m not talking about pitching as in ONLY to investors. Too many founders make that mistake too – associating “pitch” or “startup pitch” with investors. My point applies broadly, as a journalist, as an economist, or as a potential advisor… if I don’t believe that you understand the core problem, I will doubt your solution.
Much of the *actual* reason for pitch work in GOOD (which I clarify on purpose, because most are not) Incubators and Accelerators, is because what you say conveys how you think, you prioritize, what you think is important, etc. Founders tend to be misled that it’s simply about getting another coffee with a VC … what’s happening is your conveying a lot of information without realizing it.
So, let me try to take a crack at your example, in case I’m following you…
“There are millions of hospitals and, before the current cuts to Medicaid millions of smaller clinics. Everyone of them have established mandates that they have to follow and best practices for achieving success. However some were more successful than others and retained their customers for longer periods of time due to the way they executed those same practices which exist in every other clinic.”
So? What you’re sharing there has nothing to do with a Startup unless you’re talking about breaking that, disrupting it, or at least changing it. What you’re telling me there is the existing execution model works and makes a lot of organizations money. Great, so do that, that’s a business… provide the infrastructure or some such. You’re not going to be a unicorn if you’re just doing what is already being done; that’s not a startup, that’s an existing model, platform, or company.
Now, you added, that they might not notice the slight differences showing a developiing Unicorn.
That’s exactly right and that’s my point.
You’re saying, doing something THEY are not. The difference.
And yes, that’s a startup.
The mistake is in saying here’s the problem they’re missing and here’s how we fix it. Because A) competition has far more resources with which to step on you B) if they’re not doing it, maybe there is a reason and C) Healthcare is highly regulated, it’s nearly impossible to break in with something different.
That’s HARD to trust
Hence my point. WHY hasn’t that difference been overcome? Don’t pitch that you solved it (suspect), pitch why the problem persists and that you’ve figured out how to actually overcome the reasons it’s not solved, in a valuable, competitive, and sustainable way.
Paul O’Brien Thanks so much for thoughtful replies.
First, the affordability issues is due to much bottlenecks in trying to transport african items especially african food through African borders. Its mostly expensive to cargo and thereby making the cost to purchase in the diaspora very high
Also, there are also issues of production as this have been a major problem for African food items even till present day. Take for example Cocoa, the reason it can be properly harnessed is because companies like Nestlé and Cadbury can use enough of their foreign funds to buy from farmers and motivate them to continue harvesting them or set up their own large farms to export and produce to Coffee and Chocolate which are way cheaper abroad than it even in most African countries producing the raw materials
Most importantly, there is the issue of seamless availability as most Africans in diaspora are always limited to what is available in their local African shop (That’s even if they have in some towns or cities in Europe and US)
The main reason we decided to go much into online marketplace is cos building stores all over the world will be financially tasking but simple logistics can easily reach every part of the world
Babatunde Ajose frankly, the thrust of my writing the article is that I am pissed off and tired of Startup Programs and Advisors BECAUSE this isn’t actually thoughtful. This is really basic stuff that should be fundamental to anyone helping startups, and yet most don’t have a clue what they’re doing – screwing up all of you trying.
There are patterns in how people think, prioritize, and speak, and in startups, those patterns mean something differently than in businesses, because you have different challenges and objectives than businesses. We’re just pattern matching and then pointing out the missteps in what is said, or in what order things are said.
It matters, because it kills most investor interest (or even industry help) when people aren’t clear what’s actually going on.
—
Back to you
So, shipping bottlenecks and production issues… so you’re doing to do ecommerce?
You also said seamless availability and there you have a fit. I can see that, you’re building an online marketplace to ensure availability – that’s both possible and plausible.
But that’s not going to close your gap on affordability or fresh groceries. Not evidently anyway.
Paul O’Brien i truly can understand the mismatch just that most startups also become eventual businesses which makes it hard sometimes to differentiate both.
We have already started working on the affordability issues internally and also the logistics which are were the bulk of any major investment capital would definitely be geared towards, not to rule out marketing?, which would surely bring the much desired revenue
Thanks so much for your detailed explanations. I really enjoyed talking to you about my latest venture!!!
David J. Neff This resonates with a lot of what I hear you coach startups on. It’s a good read!
David J. Neff! Hope you’re well my friend. Good to hear we’re in some sync. Corey Pudhorodsky thanks for tagging!
very insightful, Paul O’Brien
I think that there are several questions that founders can ask that would solve these problems. Founders will do anything to not ask these questions.
1. What do some target market users/payers say? Will they use/buy? Too many founders will do anything instead of going to talk to users/payers.
2. Is there enough population density to support this? Population density influences network effects and the ability to be picked up by others. If you live in a low population density region, you tend to have few contacts, less amplification, less opportunity.
3. Are you comfortable enough with asking for help? Most people aren’t.
Solve these issues in yourself first.
Wallace McClure marketing ??
Odongo George Ahere Weza Interactive Entertainment
Hello Paul O’Brien loved this article very great insights.Weza Interactive Entertainment is a video game studio based in Kenya.
We seek to scale our business and provide B2B solutions through gamebased learning and gamification.We have been focussed on grant financing which has been quite limiting,thus we would like to bootstrap with higher paying clients,in the corporate, SME or startup space.
We are still at the ideation phase so nothing has been proven yet.
I have taken the liberty to amend our pitch based the guidance you have provide in your article below.
Paul O’Brien ,our Pitch:
Most Kenyan companies aren’t using gamification not because they’ve tried and failed, but because they don’t understand it, don’t trust it, and don’t know where it fits into their business.
The result? Training programs that don’t stick. Onboarding that bores. Customer engagement that doesn’t convert.
We’re not here to sell games we’re here to make gamification practical, credible, and measurable for Kenyan businesses.
Our studio helps forward-looking companies turn passive learning and engagement into immersive, results-driven experiences—using localized game-based learning and gamified tools built for mobile-first teams and African business culture.
What makes us different? We’re doing the hard part educating the market, building business cases, and lowering the risk of adoption. We don’t just deliver content we provide the strategy, content, and technology to make gamification real for teams that have never seen it work.
As other studios chase game ideas, we’re building the playbook for how Kenyan businesses adopt gamification and how they win with it.
I feel like this was directed to me.
I need to do better
James Ahere my take?
Most Kenyan companies haven’t embraced gamification, not because they’ve tried and failed, but because no one has shown them why it works, where it fits, or how to trust it.
The result? Training that doesn’t stick. Onboarding that bores. Customer engagement that doesn’t convert.
We’re not selling games.
We’re solving the systemic failure that’s kept gamification from being practical, credible, and measurable in African business.
Our studio helps mobile-first, forward-looking teams replace passive training and flat engagement with localized, culturally-relevant, game-based experiences, built for the way Kenyan businesses actually operate.
What makes us different?
While others build games, we’re building the playbook, tackling the real barriers to adoption:
Lack of understanding
No proof of ROI
No one guiding the strategy
We educate the market, build business cases, and reduce risk, so gamification becomes a proven strategy, not a gimmick.
We’re not chasing trends. We’re building the infrastructure for how East African businesses win with gamification, and why they haven’t, until now.
— What’s Improved and why:
STICK to the problem causing the problem.
Address more clearly why the problem persists: “no proof of ROI,” “lack of trust,” “no strategy”
Positions your team as *solving* the adoption problem, not just offering a service
Avoids clichés like “forward-looking companies” unless immediately clarified – no buzzwords! They don’t mean anything
(although, gamification is a buzzword…)
Use bold phrasing like “systemic failure,” “infrastructure,” and “playbook” to raise credibility and keep the focus on the problems – not your claim or sales pitch of a solution.
Includes “why now” logic without saying “why now”
Gustaff Ndalo yeah? Throw your pitch here, let’s do better together
Well put, Paul!
Some great pointers here, Paul!
The story of the pain point and the Pitch! Recently I have seen most of the startups include a ‘Problem Slide’ but the issue is articulation. Its there because they referred Sequoia, Y combinator or some model, which is great! However, they fail at putting across their ideas well.
Paul O’Brien
thank you , your pitch version is very succinct relevant and wholistic .
I am however confused about the problem…I believe the main problem is to increase engagement eg let’s say compliance policy training, the main problem would be non compliance- therefore non compliance would be reduced with better training systems.
When we mention “no proof of ROI”, “lack of trust and no strategy” aren’t these the major challenges that we as service providers have to solve go so as to get the client to their desired reality?
James Ahere now the hard feedback: that depends on if you really have a startup, or if it’s just a new business providing a service.
I’m not talking about the latter, at all. In fact, I’m very harsh that new businesses are not startups and startups are not (yet) businesses. The reason so many get such poor advice is most don’t distinguish between the two. Check this out: https://seobrien.com/new-collar-jobs-and-the-critical-distinction-of-startups-from-small-businesses
Providing better training systems is a business UNLESS you have an innovative platform or business model with which you’re doing it.
“Non-compliance is reduced with better training systems”? Okay, prove it – is a completely valid response. You can’t overcome that by lying and you’re right, if you don’t have it, you’re making a claim that isn’t substantiated. Don’t do that. But that’s business advice, not what I’m talking about here.
If developing something innovative (not better curriculum; something disruptive that could change everything), then you’re a startup. In which case, you don’t have to have proof that better training works because you’re not actually in that business, you’re merely delivering a training.
Paul O’Brien thank you for sharing the article.
Going back to the pitch -“We’re building the playbook,tackling the barriers to adoption e.g lack of understanding,no proof of ROI,no one guiding the strategy”…well,this looks more of infrastructure development,and would likely fit into the startup definition,because we would be experimenting and figuring things out- it’s very niche in terms of the customer profile that would care about this infrastructure being built,questions would be raised on how.big this market/ buyer appetite would be?
With reference to the definitions of Start ups and Small businesses. Where does gamified training for example,or gamified customer experience fall- startup or small business?
James Ahere lots of organizations provide gamified training. Right? Therefore, delivering that, such as it is, is a business.
A startup is a temporary venture in search of a new business model that is sustainable, scalable, and competitive.
If you’re doing what others have already figured out and are doing – that’s not a startup, it’s a business. You’re doing what they do.
A startup would be changing or disrupting that. You might also be providing that, but how to do that is established; to be a startup, you’d be doing something that will likely result in everyone changing to your better model.
I have an AI here, on the right, that tends to be pretty good at more advise specific to a sector (where I might not be). It’s trained on all this so maybe try it for some specifics.
Paul O’Brien yes, and they will hide from that responsibility too much. For some, it’s like taking a dog for drag.
Paul O’Brien awesome! Thank you for taking the time,to share your thoughts and reference material. Deeply appreciated
This is a very valid point too, I have heard countless investors stress the “execution” bit. But again, you need to prove why you say you can execute better
That’s a unique perspective! Being able to find the problem in the problem. If I understood it correctly, people don’t truly care about your business because you fail to explain why the problem still exists despite all the existing solutions.
Not quite but close. Not that they don’t care, though I may have said that, your framing it again has me clarifying.
That, if you don’t understand that, you clearly are at risk to competitors, innovation, policy risks, or other threats. That, your pitch fails if you can’t overcome those considerations, because people aren’t likely to value and take risk on you, footing the switching cost, when you’re going to fail in 6 months because you’re oblivious.
Examples help
Say you are developing a new CMS to build websites, exceptionally optimized for SEO, and making it very easy to build a site at no cost.
Cool, right? Better SEO is a problem that is solved in a better CMS.
But, WordPress just released a free plugin, AI is replacing Google Search, and you have no competitive advantage so Wix and Squarespace can rip it off tomorrow and make you irrelevant.
You pitching me a solution to the SEO problem, ignorant of why no one has bothered to fix that, is why I don’t care.
[…] What they’re doing is typical, ironically, of founders, who hear a problem and the focus on the solution (which by the way founders, is wrong). They hear startups and entrepreneurs in their city frustrate by a lack of capital and so they set out to fix that by bringing capital to market. Why this, and Problem / Solution oriented founders, are wrong is what I call the problem within the problem. […]
I saw this at Capital Factory and Geekdom on more than one occasion. I actually thought it was a Science Fair the first few times when walking by all of those giant project boards. I wonder if there’s a better alternative to that. Capital Factory did have private pitch competitions going.
Insightful
That graphic is worth 1,000 words for sure