Attractive Challenges

𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐥𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐤𝐞

Some markets keep attracting talented founders despite a long history of startup failures. Something we like to call "tarpit ideas" - they look promising on the surface but have repeatedly trapped even the most capable entrepreneurs.

What makes certain industries so appealing yet so lethal? And how do you decide when a founder's brilliance can overcome a market's inherent challenges?

This week, I contrast two founders in notoriously difficult markets - one I backed despite industry headwinds, and another I passed on despite exceptional founder credentials.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐀: 𝐘𝐞𝐬 ✅

The farm-to-table ecosystem represents one of the most fragmented and technologically resistant markets I've encountered. Yet this founder's approach convinced me that some difficult markets are worth the challenge.

First, they demonstrated exceptional problem identification. Through extensive market research, they understood that while farmers and food producers are technology-resistant, the antiquated systems currently in place created genuine pain points that a thoughtfully designed solution could address.

Second, they brought a pragmatic execution strategy that acknowledged the market's challenges. Rather than trying to revolutionize the entire industry overnight, they identified specific workflows where even conservative stakeholders would welcome improvements, creating a realistic entry point.

Most impressively, they showed a rare ability to mobilize resources in a capital-efficient way. By leveraging existing relationships within the industry and building an MVP that addressed core needs without unnecessary features, they found a path to demonstrate value without burning through capital.

While I recognized the inherent challenges of the food industry - low margins, fragmentation, and tech resistance - the founder's problem-solving ability and research-backed approach suggested they could navigate these obstacles.

This combination made it a yes.

𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐁: 𝐍𝐨 ❌  

This travel planning app had a compelling pitch: leveraging AI to create seamless trip planning and booking experiences. The founder had even more impressive credentials.

Their background as a technical engineer meant they could build the entire product themselves - a significant advantage in the early stages. Most notably, they had already achieved a small exit with a previous venture, demonstrating they could start and successfully sell a company.

Their technical brilliance, hustle, and proven track record made them exactly the type of founder I typically back without hesitation. However, the travel app space represents what I consider a classic "tarpit idea."

First, user frequency creates fundamental challenges. Most people plan significant travel only a few times per year, creating an inherently high customer acquisition cost relative to lifetime value.

Second, the market is dominated by well-capitalized incumbents who can outspend startups on both customer acquisition and feature development.

Third, while travelers frequently experience pain points, the willingness to pay for solutions remains low when free alternatives exist.

Even the most talented founder would struggle to overcome these structural market barriers without burning through enormous capital. If they had pivoted to a different idea or found a truly unique approach to the travel market, this would have been a different conversation.

This combination made it a reluctant no.

𝐌𝐲 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐤

𝐀 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐫

Q: How do you identify "tarpit ideas" before investing significant time and resources?

I look for several key warning signs that a market might be a tarpit:

• Frequency trap: How often will customers use your product? Low-frequency usage creates challenging unit economics.

• Incumbent advantage: Are you competing against established players with massive resources who already own the customer relationship?

• Willingness-to-pay reality: Do customers express frustration but still refuse to pay for solutions? This signals a market where perceived pain doesn't translate to purchasing behavior.

• Graveyard test: How many well-funded, well-led startups have already died trying to solve this same problem? A crowded startup graveyard is the clearest warning sign.

The most dangerous tarpits are those that feel intuitively appealing because we've all experienced the problem personally - travel planning, restaurant reservations, email management, or expense tracking, to name a few.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭?

𝐂𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬

The appeal of tarpit markets is precisely what makes them dangerous - they represent real problems that many people have experienced. This creates an illusion of opportunity that continues to attract talented founders despite the structural barriers to success.

As an investor, I've learned that a great founder in a challenging but viable market will outperform an exceptional founder in a true tarpit market. Market dynamics can elevate average execution, but even brilliant execution rarely overcomes fundamentally flawed market economics.

For founders, the lesson is crucial: validate not just whether a problem exists, but whether the market structure allows for a viable business to solve it. The best way to avoid the tarpit is to study those who got stuck before you.

Auditing more talent next week,
Will Stringer

𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤

P.S. If you found value in this entry, add it to someone else's ledger by forwarding this email. If you're that someone, subscribe here to get inside access to how I invest in exceptional people.