Startup culture has been seen as a symbol of innovation and transformation, but the reality behind it is often not as beautiful as the shiny image. Recently, YouTube has been flooded with videos exposing the exaggerations and consumer deception of existing success instructors or those selling 10 million won per month lectures. What if we apply this to startup culture?
Startups start out with a bold goal of changing the world. However, many of them over-package their missions and innovations, advertising them as if they were revolutionary inventions that would change the world, when in reality they are just minor improvements in functionality or services. Well, to some extent, it seems like they are for IR, but they often use exaggerated and misleading expressions (inflating the number of users, inflating sales, being number one in an unknown field, etc.)
Also, to wrap it up with the words marketing and hooking, these are often too provocative and false from the beginning. We have a social agreement that the method of buying first and then matching the numbers later is very dangerous, and we know it is illegal, but some people seem to see this as a meaningful story. Sales and profits, annual salaries and sales are clearly different concepts, and investment funds and profits are also clearly different concepts, but there are already too many cases where these are mixed up and customers, investors, and users are misunderstood. Whether it's crowdfunding sites, lecture platforms, or SNS. Let's talk about startups again.
Fantasy and its Reality
In this process, the startup ecosystem is writing a history of splendid failures, and behind these failures are the stories of countless workers who have been burned out or laid off due to the constant pressure and stress. In fact, when you look at the people and careers that have gone into the wonderful challenge of starting a business, it is not all that great.
Investment money is one of the main reasons for this illusion. In order to attract venture capital, founders try to package their ideas as revolutionary and imitate the image of innovators like Steve Jobs. However, this is over-marketing of unproven ideas, and it is closer to selling illusions than real value or innovation. I have seen cases where people deceived their members and even themselves by interviewing them and saying that they are making the best product externally, even though the product is not performing well. In some ways, this seems like the type of people who just want to be famous beyond the investment. (I know it is now closed.)
This culture is further reinforced by attempts to attract top talent. Startup job descriptions are often packaged as a religious calling or a call to service, but in reality, benefits like unlimited vacation and unlimited snacks are just a mask for overwork and limited creativity. Working in this culture often means working 70+ hours a week, and any benefits offered early on quickly wear out. Employees who have no basic understanding of corporate investment, such as stock options or share buybacks, often end up with very little compensation when the startup actually exits.
Also, the hype of some startups creates a serious level of inequality. While a handful of founders and CEOs amass enormous wealth, ordinary employees wait years for a small stake, often facing disappointing results even after acquisition. This inequality is exacerbated by the collective delusion of startup culture and its advocacy of endless working hours. I often call these people reward addicts, who often post stories like “I burned it today!” as they leave work at dawn, and upload their efforts and interests to social media so that you can always see what they’re doing.
This culture also promotes elitism and selective bias. Many accelerators and networking events only serve a small group of founders, excluding most women, people with no education, and those without connections. This promotes the myth that startup success is within everyone’s reach, while in reality, it leaves out many talented individuals who face systemic barriers (sometimes involving personal relationships outside of the investment process).
But now the cracks in startup culture are showing. On anonymous message boards and in closed groups, criticisms are being raised about misguided hiring strategies, incompetent leadership, and lack of work-life balance. Those who point these issues out publicly are often labeled as disloyal or accused of not adapting to the culture. In simple terms, there are cases where pointing out what is not going well or questioning whether something is right is taboo, making it impossible to see reality. Of course, telling all the facts is not necessarily positive. However, there is a significant problem with completely preventing sound and meaningful criticism. (Of course, most people say, “Take it easy,” but in reality, they really hate it.)
In search of the truth...
This situation reminds us that startup culture is actually based on pretense, inequality, and exaggerated stories. In order to pursue true innovation and shared prosperity, we need to go beyond this culture and focus on real value and technology development for everyone. This is the only way to make innovation truly meaningful to more people. To be honest, it is not easy to pretend to be working when it is not, and it will be the most painful for you. Rather, when you focus on products and quality, the startup itself will have meaning and be praised by everyone. At least, I have seen many successful startups and startup members who have done something so fiercely and quietly that they are doing something with a level of immersion close to that of a craftsman, and the market praises (uses, follows). Of course, self-PR is important, but in the end, PR is only possible when there is substance or material. The Slash Page team that I am writing this article for is the same.
Recently, there have been stories of exaggeration, reversal of order, and lies in the cases of famous 'successful people' such as Jangsa Shin and Jacheong. I think the recent hot topics of personal marketing and getting rich with AI are similar. Did they eventually get rich with AI? They got rich by selling lectures. Personal branding is the same. They also do not make money by becoming a brand themselves, but by making money with personal branding lectures and views. Does it make a difference if we call it personal branding?
Personal experience
When the concept of Prompt Engineering came up in the past, there were many people who made lectures and sold e-books using it. Personally, I didn't like this, so I released the document below for free. After that, I received several publishing offers, but I declined them all. Those who are really interested in ML/AI know that even if only the model card changes, the input method or formula of Prompt is almost completely reorganized.
Midjourney, Adobe, etc. are good examples. Every time the version is updated, the prompt input method and the method of entering specific values change, and since various tools such as Gamma and DID are SaaS-type products, new methods appear with each update. We need to think about selling the constantly changing How-to to people as if it were something that can change their lives. Recently, I often see cases around me where certain lectures are sold using the expression "knowledge creation?" You need to think about whether the lecture is really helpful and valuable.
Personally, I met a team called Notion and translated a guide, and through that connection, I published a book and attended a lecture in the beginning. Well, it was more like a workshop and I paid 10,000 won, but I attended anyway. In addition, I received a few lectures after publishing a book. However, I personally had doubts about whether those lectures were meaningful. Do you become a good worker just because you know how to use Notion? Is it worth paying that much money just because you know a specific tool or methodology? These are the same questions.
As a result, there are almost no lectures related to Notion, and they are mainly about consulting or outsourcing to configure workspaces to fit the service or team, and even lectures on AI or other things end up talking about discourse or personal thoughts rather than what is currently trendy. I am grateful that you continue to visit despite the shortcomings, but I personally think that in an era where AI is becoming widespread and knowledge acquisition is becoming easier, what we can do is not simply convey knowledge, but share our own thoughts and stories, which is more socially correct.
I was writing about startups and ended up talking about lectures, but this isn't about any specific startups or lecturers. This is a post I wrote to reflect on myself after seeing so many thumbnails on YouTube that were full of attacks, revelations, and anger.
Subscribe to 'haebom'
📚 Welcome to Haebom's archives. --- I post articles related to IT 💻, economy 💰, and humanities 🎭. If you are curious about my thoughts, perspectives or interests, please subscribe. Would you like to be notified when new articles are posted? 🔔 Yes, that means subscribe. haebom@kakao.com
Subscribe
2
29
땅콩이
투자 없이 프로덕트 개발하는 스타트업 대표로서 너무 공감되는 글이네요 좋은 글 잘 읽었습니다. 😊
1
Haebom
정말 대단하십니다. 사실 투자를 받는다가 항상 좋은 선택은 아니라는 것도 추후에 다뤄보겠습니다. 댓글 감사합니다.
3
3k9pvQ
존경합니다.
쿠
쿠쿠하세요
맞는 이야기네요. 몇몇 인플루언서뿐만아니라 대부분의 사람들이 뭔가 있어보이는 언어로 포장해서 일반인들도 노력하면 바뀔수 있다고 말하지만 현실은 "우리 강의를 들어야지"라는 걸로 결론짓더라고요. 내용이 좋은 것도 아닌 미사여구랑 온갖 명언 등 있어보이는 단어로만 포장된 빈 내용 또는 형식적인 누구나 말만한 내용이구요. 어떻게보면 자기자신을 내비칠 수 있는 여러 매체가 생기면서, 돈을 버는 방법으로 과대포장이 주류가 되어가는 것 처럼 보이네요.
2
Haebom
경험이 많거나 영리한 분들은 알아서들 피할 수 있지만 사회초년생 혹은 해당 분야에 대해 잘 모르는 경우 속기가 너무 쉬운 것이 어찌보면 결국 사회적 비용을 늘리는 일 같습니다. 서로를 믿지 못하게 되면서 서로 검증의 검증을 요구하는 사회로 변하는 것 같아요.
