Thankfully I qualified my no. Otherwise I could look like an idiot for claiming that it isn’t occasionally the incubator’s fault for a startup’s failure, even though it does happen sometimes.

Being an outsider to Provo Labs, I didn’t know the exact details of the management structure that was in place. If the incubator provides the day-to-day management, then I would be quick to admit that the incubator has a crucial role in the success or failure of the startup. I would still add, though, that those working under management still have the choice of waiting for commands from on high, or doing something about what isn’t happening.

The words your wife Lindsey used were “Provo Labs has failed. Yes, I use the word failed because Provo Labs has failed many people.” The main point of my post is to point out an important use of the word failed. It is accurate to describe certain actions of Provo Labs as failures. It is not ok to call the incubator firm a failure. I said “I… pointed to some mistakes, shortcomings, and failures that occurred in Provo Labs” followed by “If the fund never provides a positive return on investment before its investors and employees give up on it, then it would be a failure.” Condemn sin (failed actions) without condemning the person (company). So yes, if your wife meant certain actions and disappointments, then that’s correct. If she meant ultimate failure, then that is not correct. I wrote to make sure the distinction was clear.

From my perspective the answer depends on how much the incubator is involved in the startup. In the case of Provo Labs, the startups were being staffed generally by Provo Labs employees who were canned when the failing startups were shut down. This would indicate a direct day-to-day management of the startups rather than a seed funding relationship where the funding source has little to do with the startup’s daily affairs.

Given that, let’s call a failure a failure. It’s not a four letter word. The greatest businesses in the world are led by men who have failed at one time or another. The difference is they got up and didn’t spend a lot of time saying, “Hey, I didn’t really fall down, rather the earth moved vertically and hit me where I stood.”

Failure is always a bitter pill, but trying to dress it up with the clothes of the emperor just invited the laughter and derision of the crowd. Calling it what it is, learning from it, and being honest about it seems to be the most profitable approach to failure.

I think some of that has happened here. I think some frenzied activity in the dressing room has also happened. That’s unfortunate. Either way, the lessons of failure are taught and learned. Our only choice is how we take the pill–swallow quick and wash it down with new activity or chew it until the bitterness makes us ill.

I’d like to choose swallow quick.

The tone of your post resonates a desire to avoid using the word failure, which I disagree with. Are you assuming that Lindsey used the term “failed” as ultimate failure? On a constructive note, yes, Provo Labs is still alive. But it has made some sizable mistakes and needs to learn quickly from those losses to avoid inevitable failure.

Disclosure: I am married to the lovely Lindsey Snow.

That is precisely what I was trying to say - you take a (calculated) risk when you sign up to work for a startup. Part of your calculation should be to judge whether the startup has calculated its risks well.

“Provo Labs… can still do amazing things.”

I meant it. Some of the projects begun at Provo Labs are about to bear fruit, such as 10Speed Media’s video affiliate network. Lacking inside information and data, I can’t give you hard facts, but I personally know nearly a dozen of Provo Labs’ (and its companies’) employees, and I know they have done, can do, and will do amazing things. Provo Labs as an incubator still has a future.

“Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with admitting failure… What IS wrong is not admitting to failure.”

I don’t see anyone “not admitting to failure and not taking responsibility” in this case. Paul and I both pointed to some mistakes, shortcomings, and failures that occurred in Provo Labs. To say that Provo Labs has failed as an incubator, however, is entirely premature - it still has funds and is still learning.

The whole point of parallel entrepreneurship is to try a bunch of things and see which work and which don’t. Mistakes and cutting your losses are part of the process, and to say that Provo Labs has failed after some mistakes and cut losses is inaccurate. If the fund never provides a positive return on investment before its investors and employees give up on it, then it would be a failure. That hasn’t happened yet.

I would add the word “calculated” to risk, which Provo Labs lacked. Calculating risk mitigates desistance.

“Provo Labs… can still do amazing things.”

Has it already done amazing things? Can you substantiate that claim or is that something you’d like to believe?

Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with admitting to failure. No accomplished entrepreneur makes it without first failing. What IS wrong is not admitting to failure and not taking responsibility for weaknesses which impede growth.