Default Alive or Default Dead?
October 2015 When I talk to a startup that's been operating for more than 8 or 9 months, the first thing I want to know is almost always the same.
2015 年 10 月 当我与一家已经运营超过 8 或 9 个月的初创公司交谈时，我想知道的第一件事几乎总是相同的。
Assuming their expenses remain constant and their revenue growth is what it has been over the last several months, do they make it to profitability on the money they have left?
假设他们的支出保持不变，并且收入增长与过去几个月相同，那么他们能否用剩下的钱实现盈利？
Or to put it more dramatically, by default do they live or die?
或者更戏剧性地说，默认情况下他们是生还是死？
The startling thing is how often the founders themselves don't know.
令人惊讶的是，创始人自己常常不知道这一点。
Half the founders I talk to don't know whether they're default alive or default dead.
我采访过的创始人中有一半不知道他们是默认活着还是默认死亡。
If you're among that number, Trevor Blackwell has made a handy calculator you can use to find out.
如果您属于这个数字，特雷弗·布莱克威尔（Trevor Blackwell）制作了一个方便的计算器，您可以用它来找出答案。
The reason I want to know first whether a startup is default alive or default dead is that the rest of the conversation depends on the answer.
我首先想知道一家初创公司是默认存活还是默认死亡的原因是，对话的其余部分取决于答案。
If the company is default alive, we can talk about ambitious new things they could do.
如果公司默认还活着，我们可以讨论他们可以做的雄心勃勃的新事情。
If it's default dead, we probably need
如果它默认死亡，我们可能需要
to talk about how to save it.
说说如何保存吧。
We know the current trajectory ends badly.
我们知道目前的轨迹结局很糟糕。
How can they get off that trajectory?
他们怎样才能摆脱这个轨迹呢？
Why do so few founders know whether they're default alive or default dead?
为什么很少有创始人知道自己是默认活着还是默认死亡？
Mainly, I think, because they're not used to asking that.
我认为主要是因为他们不习惯问这个问题。
It's not a question that makes sense to ask early on, any more than it makes sense to ask a 3 year old how he plans to support himself.
尽早问这个问题是没有意义的，就像问一个三岁的孩子打算如何养活自己一样。
But as the company grows older, the question switches from
但随着公司年龄的增长，问题从
meaningless to critical.
批评毫无意义。
That kind of switch often takes people by surprise.
这种转变常常让人感到惊讶。
I propose the following solution: instead of starting to ask too late whether you're default alive or default dead, start asking too early.
我提出以下解决方案：与其开始太晚询问您是否默认活着或默认死亡，不如开始太早询问。
It's hard to say precisely when the question switches polarity.
很难准确地说出问题何时会转变极性。
But it's probably not that dangerous to start worrying too early that you're default dead, whereas it's very dangerous to
但过早开始担心自己默认死亡可能并没有那么危险，但如果
start worrying too late.
开始担心为时已晚。
The reason is a phenomenon I wrote about earlier: the fatal pinch .
原因是我之前写过的一个现象：致命的捏。
The fatal pinch is default dead + slow growth + not enough time to fix it.
致命的困境是默认死亡+缓慢增长+没有足够的时间来修复它。
And the way founders end up in it is by not realizing that's where they're headed.
而创始人最终陷入困境的方式就是没有意识到这就是他们的前进方向。
There is another reason founders don't ask themselves whether they're default alive or default dead: they assume it will be easy to raise more money.
创始人不问自己是违约还活着还是违约死还有另一个原因：他们认为筹集更多资金很容易。
But that assumption is often false, and worse still, the
但这种假设往往是错误的，更糟糕的是，
more you depend on it, the falser it becomes.
你越依赖它，它就越虚假。
Maybe it will help to separate facts from hopes.
也许这有助于区分事实和希望。
Instead of thinking of the future with vague optimism, explicitly separate the components.
不要以模糊的乐观态度思考未来，而是明确地将各个组成部分分开。
Say "We're default dead, but we're counting on investors to save us." Maybe as you say that, it will set off the same alarms in your head that it does in mine.
说“我们已经违约了，但我们指望投资者来拯救我们。”也许正如你所说，它会在你的脑海中引起和我的头脑相同的警报。
And if you set off the alarms sufficiently early, you may be able to avoid the fatal pinch.
如果你足够早地发出警报，你也许能够避免致命的夹伤。
It would be safe to be default dead if you could count on investors saving you.
如果你能指望投资者来拯救你，那么违约死亡是安全的。
As a rule their interest is a function of growth.
一般来说，他们的兴趣是增长的函数。
If you have steep revenue growth, say over 5x a year, you can start to count on investors being interested even if you're not profitable.
如果您的收入增长迅速，例如每年超过 5 倍，即使您没有盈利，您也可以开始指望投资者感兴趣。
[ 1
[ 1