When evaluating others' success, ask if their strategy would work for most people who adopt it, or if it relied heavily on luck. If a strategy isn't reproducible and leaves many casualties behind, it's not a model to be learned from, regardless of the impressive outlier outcome.
Related Insights
In domains with extreme outcomes (music, startups), success is heavily influenced by luck, making it difficult to replicate. A more effective strategy is to study the common failure modes of the vast majority of talented people who tried. This provides a clearer roadmap of what to avoid than trying to copy a lucky winner.
A good outcome does not automatically validate the decision-making process, as luck plays a significant role. Howard Marks stresses the importance of intellectual humility in recognizing that a successful result could have stemmed from wrong reasons or randomness, a crucial distinction for repeatable success.
Founders who succeed by randomly trying ideas rather than using a systematic process don't learn repeatable skills. This lucky break can be detrimental, as it validates a flawed strategy and prevents the founder from learning the principles needed for consistent, future success.
A common mistake in venture capital is investing too early based on founder pedigree or gut feel, which is akin to 'shooting in the dark'. A more disciplined private equity approach waits for companies to establish repeatable, business-driven key performance metrics before committing capital, reducing portfolio variance.
Instead of imitating successful competitors' tactics, deconstruct them to understand the underlying psychological principle (e.g., scarcity, social proof). This allows for authentic adaptation to your specific context, avoiding the high risk of failure from blind copying which ignores differences in brand and audience.
Chomps' founders learned not to blindly copy the strategies of successful brands. They advise founders to gather wide-ranging feedback but to ultimately analyze it through their own company's unique context, as what works for one brand is not a guarantee of success for another.
An entrepreneur's success rate dramatically shifted from 0 for 12 to 5 for 5 not because his execution improved, but because his project selection did. He stopped chasing high-risk, "one in a million" moonshots (like building the next social network) and focused on businesses with clearer paths to revenue (e-commerce, services).
Much online startup advice comes from founders with a single lucky success or a large pre-existing audience, making their advice often not repeatable. Seek guidance from those who have demonstrated success multiple times, proving their methods are based on skill and strategy, not just luck or circumstance.
Rapid startup success stories are misleading. A company's quick victory is almost always the result of its founder's decade-long journey of grinding, learning, and failing. The compounding effect of skills, credibility, and network building is the true engine behind the breakthrough moment.
Seeing an existing successful business is validation, not a deterrent. By copying their current model, you start where they are today, bypassing their years of risky experimentation and learning. The market is large enough for multiple winners.
