Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Eugene Theodore's avatar

Absolutely agree with your core principle here, Scott—businesses must solve real problems first. Period.

But I’d offer a caution: your piece, while powerfully argued, risks becoming dangerously selective in its examples—and that selectivity can mislead founders into skipping crucial steps.

Yes, brand workshops, vision boards, and carefully shaded logos before you’ve solved a real problem are a vanity trap. No argument there.

But on the other end of the spectrum? I’ve seen far too many founders crash and burn precisely because all they did was start with a problem. They built a technically sound solution, launched it... and no one cared. Why? Because humans aren’t utilitarian automatons. If we were, we’d all shop at the same store, eat the same protein bars, and wear the same grey sweatpants.

People buy into more than a solution—they buy into meaning, identity, emotion, and difference. And that’s where brand (yes, even early brand thinking) comes in—not as decoration, but as a bridge between the problem you solve and the people you’re solving it for.

Tesla didn’t just succeed because it solved the EV problem. It succeeded because its mission, values, and founder mythology were already aligned—even if they weren’t printed on a mission statement. So yes, they "skipped" the brand-building… because they didn’t need to do it on paper. It was already embedded. But fast forward to today, and Tesla's brutal sales drop—despite still solving the EV problem—proves that violating the "soft brand" elements like trust, values, and public alignment does have a cost, even in a problem-first business.

So I’d offer this:

👉 Start with a problem.

👉 But don’t pretend that’s enough. Humans still need to care. And caring isn’t always rational.

Expand full comment

No posts