I can only think of a handful of product areas that satisfy the three criteria above. I’d argue that the blitzscaling logic implies that the only highly valued companies in this day and age should be monopolies. And the authors acknowledge this, by saying their book should be 'use in times of uncertainty.' But how can you be certain your market size is enormous if you are uncertain? This isn't nitpicking-it's really easy to convince yourself and your board that your $1M revenue business has an enormous market size and is going to topple Cisco. Startups are simply rooted in uncertainty. If you are certain (and correct), and no one else is, then you are a clairvoyant and you belong in a comic book. If such certainty existed, the market would be flooded with similar products.

If (1) isn’t true, then you are blitzing off a cliff.Īnd here's the thing-(1) is rarely true. If (2) isn’t true, then a new entrant competitor can come and compete fairly easily with you. If (3) isn’t true, then first mover advantage doesn’t have much impact on demand.

Network effects on demand are significant (i.e.

The future experience curve is known and guaranteed to be so extreme that the product areas can only support a monopoly due to the cost advantage enjoyed by such a monopoly (i.e.

taxi vs Uber)-Hoffman phrases this as 'the prize is big enough' Future demand is certain to be high, perhaps due to an effective but disruptible product already existing (e.g.Hoffman refers to their book Blitzscaling as 'a handbook for anyone who wants to build their business to a multibillion-dollar market leader in a short number of years'.īlitzscaling may work in certain consumer product areas, but it is not a universal blueprint, as it is implied to be.

I'm just not on board with the widespread use of 'blitzscaling,' the startup growth philosophy popularized by Reid Hoffman and Chris Yeh.

Blitz scaling book