Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Say I'm an interviewer running a podcast about SaaS startups. Which is more useful?

1. I interview a handful of people who have differing opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have experience working in that type of environment, but maybe not leading, if you want a little more variety.

2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like in (1), but I also interview a full time commission visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing nonsense in the context of the conversation.

Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one is actually useful.



When did "useful" become a metric for this podcast?


Number 1 is not very good because you're only taking to people who had successful exits so you're already skewing the conversation.


Skewing it how? To people who probably have good perspective on the issue?





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: