Why Start-ups Fail

Start-ups are known for their innovative ideas and potential for growth. However, the harsh reality is that a significant number of start-ups fail to achieve success. According to statistics, more than two-thirds of start-ups do not deliver a positive return to investors. This alarming fact raises the question: why do so many start-ups fall short? In this article, we will delve into the patterns of failure that plague start-ups and explore how founders can avoid common pitfalls.

The Blame Game: Founders vs. Circumstances

When discussing the reasons behind start-up failures, many venture capitalists tend to point the finger at the founders. They believe that the inadequacies of the founders, such as a lack of grit, industry acumen, or leadership ability, are to blame for the downfall of a promising venture. However, this oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play. Psychologists refer to this tendency as the fundamental attribution error, where observers emphasize the main actors’ disposition while the main actors cite situational factors beyond their control.

To understand the true reasons behind start-up failures, we need to look beyond the founders and examine the recurring patterns that contribute to the demise of these ventures. In his book, “Why Start-ups Fail,” Harvard Business School professor Tom Eisenmann identifies six common patterns of failure. In this article, we will focus on two of these patterns that are both avoidable and applicable to start-ups within larger organizations. By understanding these patterns, founders can navigate the treacherous waters of entrepreneurship more effectively.

Pattern 1: Good Idea, Bad Bedfellows

One common pattern of failure in start-ups is the mismatch between a great idea and the parties involved in its execution. While venture capitalists often prioritize founders with the right skills and qualities, there are other stakeholders, such as employees, strategic partners, and investors, whose contributions are crucial to a venture’s success. Even if a start-up has an exceptional founder, the lack of support from these other stakeholders can lead to its downfall.

Let’s take the case of Quincy Apparel as an example. Founded by Alexandra Nelson and Christina Wallace, Quincy Apparel aimed to address the unmet needs of young professional women who struggled to find affordable and stylish work apparel that fit them well. Nelson and Wallace devised a unique sizing scheme to cater to these customers. They validated customer demand through trunk shows and secured venture capital funding to launch their direct-to-consumer business model.

Initially, Quincy Apparel showed promise, with strong initial orders and a high percentage of repeat purchases. However, production problems caused garments to fit poorly on some customers, leading to higher-than-expected returns. Processing returns and correcting production issues depleted Quincy’s cash reserves, ultimately forcing the company to shut down within a year of its launch.

The failure of Quincy Apparel can be attributed to the mismatch between the founders’ skills and the requirements of the apparel industry. While Nelson and Wallace had complementary strengths and a compelling value proposition, they lacked experience in clothing design and manufacturing. This led to challenges in sourcing fabrics, pattern making, and quality control, ultimately impacting the overall customer experience. Additionally, the founders’ inability to secure sufficient funding and the lack of guidance from their investors further contributed to the venture’s demise.

To avoid this pattern of failure, start-up founders should recognize the importance of building a well-rounded team that complements their skills. Bringing in co-founders or advisors with industry experience can help compensate for any gaps in knowledge and increase the chances of success. Furthermore, forging partnerships with strategic suppliers or investors who understand the unique challenges of the industry can provide valuable support and guidance throughout the start-up journey.

Pattern 2: False Starts

Another common pattern of failure in start-ups is the tendency to rush into product development without conducting thorough research on customer needs and preferences. The lean start-up approach, popularized by Eric Ries, emphasizes the importance of launching minimum viable products (MVPs) and iterating based on customer feedback. However, many entrepreneurs only partially adopt this approach, neglecting the crucial step of researching customer needs before diving into product development.

Triangulate, an online dating start-up, serves as an illustrative example of this pattern of failure. The founder, Sunil Nagaraj, initially intended to build a matching engine that would be licensed to existing dating sites. However, venture capitalists showed little interest in backing the idea unless Nagaraj could secure a licensing deal first. In an attempt to prove the viability of the matching engine, Nagaraj launched his own dating site called Wings, powered by the engine.

Wings achieved some initial success, but users ultimately found more value in recommended matches based on physical attractiveness, proximity, and message responsiveness – criteria commonly employed by existing dating sites. Additionally, the concept of “wingmen” proved to be cumbersome and intrusive for users. Despite pivoting multiple times, including the launch of a new dating site called DateBuzz, Triangulate struggled to acquire and retain users, leading to its ultimate shutdown.

The failure of Triangulate can be attributed to the lack of up-front customer research and reliance on assumptions rather than validated customer needs. By neglecting to conduct interviews with potential customers and testing MVPs, the founders missed critical opportunities to align their product with market demands. Instead, they rushed into building a fully functional product without thoroughly understanding customer preferences, resulting in wasted time, capital, and missed opportunities for iteration.

To avoid false starts, entrepreneurs should prioritize customer discovery before embarking on product development. This involves conducting rigorous interviews with potential customers to identify their unmet needs and pain points. Additionally, competitive analysis and user testing of existing solutions can provide valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of rival products. By gaining a deep understanding of customer needs and preferences, start-ups can design products that are more likely to succeed in the market.


While start-up failures are a harsh reality, understanding the patterns that contribute to these failures can help founders navigate the uncertain terrain of entrepreneurship. By recognizing the pitfalls of mismatched partnerships and false starts, founders can make informed decisions and increase their chances of success. Building a well-rounded team, conducting thorough customer research, and iterating based on customer feedback are crucial steps in avoiding common failure patterns. With a combination of strategic decision-making and a deep understanding of customer needs, start-ups can defy the odds and thrive in the competitive business landscape.

*Additional Information: The tone of voice for this article should be informative, yet engaging. It should convey a sense of authority and expertise, while still being accessible to readers with varying levels of knowledge on the topic. The article should strike a balance between conveying the seriousness of start-up failures and offering practical advice for avoiding common pitfalls.

Leave A Comment


Recent Posts