[Editorial] Startups, knowledge entrepreneurship, and the lecture market?
Haebom
Startup culture has been regarded as a symbol of innovation and transformation, but the reality beneath the surface is often not as appealing as the glamorous image. Lately, YouTube is flooded with videos exposing the exaggerations and tricks used by so-called success gurus or those selling lectures for 10 million won a month. What if we applied this to startup culture?
Startups set out with the bold goal of changing the world. But many of them excessively package their mission and innovation, promoting what are in reality minor tweaks or services as if they've made a revolutionary invention. Sometimes I wonder if it's just for IR, but exaggerated and misleading expressions are often used—like inflating user numbers, boosting revenue figures, or claiming first place in some unknown field.
Also, labeling things as marketing or hooking, many of these are actually overly provocative or outright false. Socially, we've agreed that this approach of announcing first and fudging the numbers later is dangerous—even illegal—but some people still see value in spinning this as a story. Revenue and profit, annual salary and revenue, investment capital and returns: these are all distinctly different concepts, yet so many still mix these up and end up misleading customers, investors, or users—whether it's on crowdfunding sites, lecture platforms, or social networks. Let's circle back to startups.
Illusions and Reality
Through this, the startup ecosystem has created a history of spectacular failures, and behind these are the stories of countless employees who were burned out or laid off under constant stress and pressure. Honestly, when you look at the people and careers exhausted by the supposedly wonderful challenge of entrepreneurship, it's hard to call it simply admirable.
Investment is a major force fueling these illusions. Founders, desperate for venture capital, often try to dress up their ideas as revolutionary and even attempt to imitate icons like Steve Jobs. But this is just aggressive marketing of unproven concepts—more about selling hype than real value or innovation. I've seen companies where, even as products falter, founders conduct interviews claiming they're making the best product out there, fooling both their own team and themselves. Sometimes, this goes beyond just seeking investment, looking more like a desire for fame above all else. (I believe that startup has now closed.)
This culture is further intensified by attempts to woo the ‘best talent.’ Job descriptions in startups get packaged as if they’re a religious calling or a mission to serve, but things like unlimited vacations or endless snacks are just a mask to hide overwork and stifled creativity. Working in such an environment often means clocking in over 70 hours a week, while all those early perks quickly vanish. Employees unfamiliar with corporate investment basics—stock options, share buybacks, and the like—often end up with very little when the startup finally exits.
On top of that, the excessive hype in some startups creates serious inequality. While just a handful of founders and CEOs pile up massive wealth, ordinary employees spend years waiting for a small equity payout—often only to be disappointed even after an acquisition. This gap only grows as the collective delusion of startup culture and its glorification of non-stop work take hold. I often call these people ‘reward junkies’—they post stories like, “I gave it my all again tonight!” after late-night work, constantly sharing their interests and efforts online for everyone to see what they're up to.
This culture also fosters elitism and selective bias. Most accelerators and networking events serve only a select group of founders, typically excluding women, those without prestigious backgrounds, or people lacking the right connections. This perpetuates the illusion that anyone can succeed in startups, while in reality, many talented individuals—facing systemic barriers—are left out. (Sometimes, personal relationships beyond investment screening play a role here, too.)
But now cracks are starting to show in startup culture. On anonymous message boards and in closed groups, you see more criticism about misguided hiring, incompetent leadership, and lack of work-life balance. Those who speak up publicly about these problems are often branded as disloyal or accused of failing to adapt to the culture. Put simply, even pointing out issues—asking, “Is this right?”—can be taboo, blinding people to reality. Of course, pointing out every flaw isn’t always helpful, but blocking all honest, meaningful feedback and criticism is a serious issue. (Most people say, "Just take it easy," but really hate it if you actually do.)
Looking for what’s real...
All this reminds us that startups are often built on bravado, inequality, and overblown stories. To achieve true innovation and shared prosperity, we need to move past this culture and focus on genuine value and developing technology that benefits everyone. That's the only way innovation will have real meaning for more people. Honestly, it’s not easy to pretend things are going well when they’re not—and it’s actually you who suffers the most. In fact, when you focus on your product and quality, that's when a startup earns real value, and people praise it. The successful startups and founders I've seen up close are intensely focused, almost like craftsmen, quietly working with total commitment—and the market rewards them with usage, followers, and more. Sure, self-promotion matters, but in the end, you need real substance to back it up. The Slash Page team I’m writing this from is a good example, too.
Recently, stories about so-called successful people, like Jangsa's God and Jacheong, have come up, pointing out exaggerations, out-of-order storytelling, and even lies. The latest fads, like personal marketing or "getting rich through AI," seem no different to me. Did they actually get rich with AI? No—they made money by selling lectures. The same goes for personal branding. They don't earn money simply by becoming a brand themselves but by monetizing personal branding lectures and high view counts. Does giving it a flashy label like personal branding really make a difference?
Personal perspective
Back when the idea of ‘Prompt Engineering’ was trending, lots of people started making and selling lectures or e-books on it. Personally, I disliked this, so I released a document like the one below for free. Afterwards, I got a few offers to publish, all of which I declined. Those really into ML or AI know: even a slight change in the model card can totally reshape prompt formats or rules.
MidJourney and Adobe are great examples. Every time a new version comes out, the way you input prompts or enter specific values changes, and tools like Gamma or DID are SaaS-based, so every update brings fresh methods. We should think about whether selling these ever-changing How-to guides as if they could transform your life really makes sense. Recently, I’ve often seen people around me using phrases like ‘knowledge entrepreneurship’ to market specific courses. Are those lectures truly helpful and valuable? That's worth considering.
Personally, I got to know the team at Notion, translated a user guide, published a book, and even gave a few early lectures. They were really just workshops—costing about 10,000 won—but I still did them. Publishing the book also brought a few more lecture requests. But did those lectures really matter? Honestly, I had doubts. Does knowing how to use Notion automatically make you a high performer? Is knowing a specific tool or methodology really worth the kind of money being spent? Those are the things I wondered about.
Because of that, I’ve stopped giving most Notion-related lectures, and now mainly do consulting or outsourcing to set up workspaces tailored to a team or product. AI or other topics I talk about are usually less about what's trending and more about discussion or sharing personal perspectives. I'm thankful people keep reaching out despite my shortcomings, but I believe that, as AI becomes more common and knowledge easier to access, what matters isn’t just passing on knowledge but sharing your own ideas and experiences. That feels like the better direction for society.
I started out writing about startups and somehow ended up talking about lectures, but I’m not referring to any particular startup or lecturer here. It's just that opening up YouTube, there are so many thumbnails full of exposes, outrage, and finger-pointing—it made me want to pause and reflect on things myself.
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.
haebom@kakao.com
---
I post articles related to IT 💻, economy 💰, and humanities 🎭.
If you are curious about my thoughts, perspectives or interests, please subscribe.
haebom@kakao.com
5
땅콩이
투자 없이 프로덕트 개발하는 스타트업 대표로서 너무 공감되는 글이네요 좋은 글 잘 읽었습니다. 😊
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.
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.
See latest comments