Comment by version_five
2 years ago
I see variations of this advice a lot, and I think it depends on what you want to do. If your goal is, e.g. to get VC funding then there is a pathway to increasing your odds that has a component of focusing on what sticks.
If your goals are different (and I'd argue more principled) then you may not want to just capitulate and try and optimzie for a known audience or market. This probably has a lower change of success, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. To use the startup founder example, if all you're doing is optimizing for VC funding and putting your own vision and ambitions on the back seat, you could also just consider getting a job.
Also, average strategy generates average rewards. The path people choose really depends on their risk tolerance. I don't think it's right to say one is better than another.
Trent Resnor is an interesting example. If his strategy was as you described, I'd be very curious to know what his motivation was - I'd guess it's more complex than just wanting to be in a successful band. I kind of wish I could visit an alternate universe where his dance music career was the one that took off
I like your point, however, I also think that when we're discussing these options, we're likely focusing on spreading yourself in a domain where you have interest.
Let's take the example of a friend of mine who is a stone mason. He started out doing all kinds of different stone works. From driveways, stone walls, fireplaces, etc etc.
Any job that needed doing, he could do.
But then he did a bathroom which ended up in a bunch of architecture magazines, and that led to another bathroom, which led to a spa.
He now only does high-end bathrooms and spas. That's what the market told him they valued.
He still works in stone, just like Trent works in music. Still loves the craft. If the market had said "we love the walls you make", he probably would have focused on that.