When is "good enough", good enough? I'd like to say never but it just ain't true.  Good enough is good enough, only when it's not really important, otherwise it should be great. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of "good enough" in the last few years in areas where it's critical because no one wanted to take the time or spend the money to make it great. I've heard a lot of folks say that this is Web 2.0 where no one expects perfection — it's constantly evolving.  For the record, I'd like to say that this is not true.  

You only get one shot at a first impression. In a personal situation you can try and change someone's perception of you over time and it's usually a long, hard-won fight.  In a business setting, changing perception is much harder and often much more expensive. I have never looked twice at many companies because their product was poorly designed and did not work as advertised — even when in beta because by then the majority of issues should be worked out. If there was no attention paid to the user from inception chances are they won't get the religion later on. I'm a typical consumer and there are many more of me out there than an engineer who likes to tinker with products and who can be much more forgiving.  The same goes for corporate materials both online and print and customer services. If there is no attention to detail, or the information is poorly organized, written and designed, I can only guess at the mess behind the curtains.

I know this may sound harsh but if a company is serious about building a solid business then they owe it to themselves and their investors to do it right — the first time around.

It just costs money.  We can get customers for free using social media. Our Web site looks fine. What’s a brand anyway? Engineers are worth spending money on but marketing? Marketing is fluff.  Boy, I could go on! Being a marketing professional, I've heard it all. I have to laugh when I hear someone talk about a company that does not “do” marketing when I know for a fact that they have very sophisticated marketing in place.  Then there are the companies that do great marketing and are revered for it, such as Apple.  And for some reason it’s OK for Apple, but not a start-up?  I agree that you first need a great product and only then should you complement it with great marketing. Why excel in one area to only fall short in another? You’ve invested many hours and sometimes a lot of money, and to create poor marketing or not do it at all is a mistake.

At a certain point in the company lifecycle, it needs dedicated marketing. I would profess that even in the early stages of a company some marketing guidance is needed to work on positioning, branding and public image building. This is definitely not full-time, as product development and product marketing roles are more critical at this stage. When you’re ready to launch and take the company to the next level it’s smart to invest in marketing talent. Marketing plays just as important a role as engineering, just in a different way. It doesn't build the product but it lets the world know that a great one has been built.  It's your calling card to the world.  Sorry, I know that there are some products that are viral but I've only seen a few in all my years. Every entrepreneur believes that their product is so awesome that as soon as someone uses it they will tell ALL their friends. Sorry again, you need someone to create awareness, provide incentives for customers to tell those friends, get and vet prospects so that your sales force can be efficient and can bring revenue into the company more quickly. Even help you recruit those talented and sought after engineers by presenting a picture of a company that everyone wants to work for. Don't be short sighted and don't cheap out on your marketing — it'll show.

I have worked with many, many start-ups over the last 15 years and have developed criteria for those that will be successful within a few hours of working with them. There is one however that stands out from the others — the ability to listen. I have found that a CEO who is willing to listen and incorporate feedback from trusted sources has a much better chance of success than those who think that they have all the answers.  I can't tell you how many CEO's I have worked with that hire great, experienced people and then don't heed their advice.  In some instances they don't even solicit it.  I've categorized them into several types.  There are the "cowboys" who believe they are riding alone and blazing the trail of glory — usually off a cliff. Then there are the "big thinkers" who are convinced that they are the only one with the right idea.  No one else can even imagine the future that they can. Unfortunately they don't pay attention to the customer either and the company/product begins to fall apart.  Lastly, there is the "blind"  CEO who is so convinced that they are going in the right direction that they are blind to external factors that are pointing to a dramatic failure. I don't want to diminish the effort that goes into starting a company.  It is hard, all consuming, and requires great passion. I've seen many good ideas fall by the wayside because of the shortcomings of a founding CEO. From a business and human capital perspective, a lot of money and energy gets wasted. And from the soul, the hopes and dreams of all involved never see the light of day.

Hiring is stagnating in many start-ups.  There is paralysis in finding the "right" candidate. From what I've seen there are a lot of great people out there but the management team has difficulty in determining realistic candidate criteria.  Realistic is the operative word here. There are false assumptions about who will be successful and what the company needs to fill a particular hole in the organization. I've heard such needle-in-the-haystack requirements that companies are setting themselves up for failure before they even begin.  In the meantime the company moves along without a key position being filled. I agree that you don't want to hire the wrong person because it can wreak havoc in the organization and it can be ugly trying to get them out. Overall a bad idea.  However being too cautious means that it takes so long to find someone that the needed work doesn't get done or gets done by an already overworked employee. This does not help the company move forward nor does it do much for morale.  In what I do I often talk with a lot of employees and I can't tell you how many today are truly overwhelmed by the amount of work and what is expected of them.  Some are literally exhausted. A lot of founders think this is fine but first, they stand to gain more than the general employee and the employee knows it. Second it's arrogant to think that anyone should not see their families or even have a life so that you can see your dream come true.  My guess is that once the economy improves your employees will be running for the door.

Back to hiring.  Culture, passion and past accomplishments are what's important.  Do they fit in the organization, do they share the vision and passion, have they performed well in the past and shown the ability to learn? I've seen many high profile candidates fail because they were being hired on pedigree rather than fit.  I've seen CEOs hold out because of their own self-importance in getting what they consider a super star when the best person was right in front of them the whole time or even sitting in the office outside theirs. Feeding your ego is not as important as finding a talented and honest person who will do a great job. My advice is to truly understand what you need to be successful and your culture. For the most part it's really about the work rather than the name. And have the confidence to make an offer!