Sunday, September 8, 2013

Are schools better than parents?

I am in the nice position as a third time founder that I no longer have to look at the world as a zero sum game.  My success and those of other entrepreneurs in learning technology are correlated in my opinion, not inversely correlated as I remember feeling in my first company.  So one of the things I try to do is spend time with other entrepreneurs, especially first-time entrepreneurs with good ideas.  It was startling to me at netgravity how many truly awful decisions I made as I was learning to run a company, and how much pain and anguish they caused.  A good example of this is that I had brought on two venture capitalists who were both from the client-server world when netg was a client-server company (ie people installed our software on their site instead of paying for it as a service and letting us manage it).  When I saw the first saas companies, double click and ad force, it was obvious to me that the business model would work better and the customer experience would be better if we managed the infrastructure.  I then went through almost 2 years arguing with my board over this and putting together several ill-fated strategies for becoming a saas company.  Because of course my vcs preferred the place they had always made money, client server, and they didnt want netg to be a saas company.  Ultimately I created a skunkworks to build our service which became a much bigger and higher growth revenue stream for us than the client server business and of course my board loved it then.  But those two years sucked because my inability to get us into saas quickly dragged my team into all kinds of time wasters and probably cost us several billion in market cap.

So fast forward to today in learning technology.  Its a traditionally horrible market that is about to become ridiculously good, but only if you respect the drivers that made it suck and the ones that make it beautiful.  The thing that has made learning tech suck for 30 years is that schools are exceptionally bad at buying things.  You can read other of my blog posts for the details, but anyone who has run these companies or served on boards can tell you the ways it sucks for as long as you would like to listen.  The thing that has changed is that students now have access to learning through their phones and other devices.  So you don't need to sell things to schools.  We even have examples of companies like edmodo and class dojo in our space who figured this out and are crushing it.

So why is it that almost every entrepreneur I speak with wants to sell to schools?  They all have their key insights on why their sales strategy will work 10x better than anyone's before.  And of course one things startups do well is to explore a huge number of approaches to a well understood problem.  So these companies fail, usually slowly and painfully as investors learn that in fact the buyer hasn't changed, their incentives haven't changed, and the startups outcomes dont change.

My only conclusion is that entrepreneurs, especially first time ones, are problem seeking and solving machines and the structural concern about whether the customer has any money is secondary.  Not only that, but because most entrepreneurs in this space have absorbed its culture, the idea that your buyer is the parent and not the school is very close to heresy.  I can't tell you the number of very smart people I speak with who cannot accept that schools are not the one and only vehicle to improving academic outcomes.  So the idea of engaging parents seems like it misses the point.  I think both of these biases far outweigh the actual reason most entrepreneurs give for selling to schools, which is that they don't know what parents will pay for.  This last one really doesn't take much imagination or creativity to figure out, so my conclusion is that people have actually never spent any time thinking about it, because of the blinders created by one and two.  I hope for the sake of the kids that we see more entrepreneurs break out of this mental prison.


  1. Greetings.

    I'm speaking from the perspective of both a classroom teacher and school media specialist with a master of technology in e-learning. I think you are missing a major point, and I recommend that you read Mark Bauerlein's book "The Dumbest Generation" in order to see why ed tech startups fail: educational technology does not lead to better outcomes for students, and it never has. His book is well-researched and makes its points very clearly.

    I'm not saying ed tech never will be worthwhile. But I follow ed tech, albeit casually, and I can tell you that no one starting up these companies is consulting actual teachers or asking themselves what actual outcomes SHOULD be achieved versus what outcomes technology currently CAN achieve. Can instructors use it to tailor teaching to individual needs? Can they use it to challenge students to work at higher levels of thinking, to critique, to evaluate, to create? At best, current technologies I've seen can do nothing more than train, and training is not teaching. Research has shown, too, that even training-style learning is most successful when there is a qualified instructor helping students along the way.

    Lots of research shows that hybrid learning is as effective as, and in many cases more effective than, either online or face-to-face alone, yet startups try to take the teacher out of the equation. That's your failed model, and it will always fail.

    1. I am so much excited after reading your blog. blog is very much innovative and much helpful for any industry as well as for person.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. However John, Class Dojo and Edmodo aren't monetising / "selling" either - the B2C angle is great but they haven't cracked it... of course its a long-time horizon for them but at some point, their VCs will want to see some return... The issue with the B2C model inherently is the incentive piece for parents. Marginalised children / high risk students whose parents could be investing in additional education products or services on behalf of their child, may not be doing so or may not afford to be able to do so. How do startups navigate this incentive / economics problem?

    I think inherently as you mention John, selling to schools / focusing on B2B, allows an entrepreneur to engage directly with the teacher and build a technology product around them, to supplement their day-to-day work and solve their pain point. This is where main mission-led entrepreneurs want to focus.

    I advise Christina to follow the edtech scene more carefully - plenty of startups are engaging with teachers now and trying to tackle the issues you raise.

    Overall, there will be a gradual shift to B2C, as you highlight John. The danger is when you get a mock 'education' company like Moshi Monsters - great revenue generator relying on pester power to parents but no focus on efficacy and learning outcomes.

    In the developing world, the B2C model is much more accelerated, due to device proliferation and lack of decent government schools. Students and parents are willing to pay to access after-school prep courses or e-content etc.

  4. Somethimes. But somethimes it is better to be not studied such teacher, who doesn't know even rules of behavior!!!

  5. great) liked everything very much)(www masterpapers com) keep it up and dont stop)

  6. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts.