????過去20年間，筆者曾與多位科技行業(yè)的創(chuàng)業(yè)者共事，也親眼見證了風(fēng)投產(chǎn)業(yè)聯(lián)合體（Venture Industrial Complex，VIC）急劇提升的影響力。筆者所謂的“風(fēng)投產(chǎn)業(yè)聯(lián)合體”是指風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家、博客寫手、導(dǎo)師、顧問、種子基金、加速機(jī)構(gòu)和各種會(huì)議組成的松散組織，他們讓美國(guó)人醉心于為了謀取私利，不惜孤注一擲地投入創(chuàng)業(yè)。

????經(jīng)常關(guān)注科技新聞的讀者肯定認(rèn)為，要建立一家成功的初創(chuàng)公司，唯一的途徑就是學(xué)會(huì)編程，從大學(xué)退學(xué)，找風(fēng)投公司融資5,000萬美元，最后根據(jù)點(diǎn)擊量、瀏覽量、收藏?cái)?shù)量，或收益和利潤(rùn)等其他指標(biāo)，把它高價(jià)賣給谷歌（Google）。聽起來是不是很像一個(gè)了不起的創(chuàng)業(yè)故事？但如果這種白手起家的創(chuàng)業(yè)最終大熱倒灶，恐怕就不會(huì)有人覺得它好玩了。

????這些聽上去了不起的創(chuàng)業(yè)故事充斥著許多頗具影響力的商業(yè)和科技出版物，扼殺了真正的創(chuàng)業(yè)精神。然而，推動(dòng)這種宣傳符合VIC的自身利益。我猜，通過認(rèn)同和鼓勵(lì)創(chuàng)業(yè)者走上這條道路，這個(gè)“中間產(chǎn)業(yè)”所產(chǎn)生的利潤(rùn)要遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于所有選擇這種途徑的初創(chuàng)公司創(chuàng)造的利潤(rùn)總和。

????寫到這兒，讀者們肯定在想：“但你忘記了精益創(chuàng)業(yè)模式。在這種模式下，創(chuàng)業(yè)者一切靠自己，想方設(shè)法降低成本，絞盡腦汁尋找成功的方法。”我的回答是：看看周圍那些宣揚(yáng)這種方式的人。他們也是VIC的一員，只不過換了一套說辭而已——從精益創(chuàng)業(yè)開始，等到時(shí)機(jī)成熟，向能真正告訴你如何實(shí)現(xiàn)增長(zhǎng)的風(fēng)投機(jī)構(gòu)大規(guī)模融資。精益創(chuàng)業(yè)往往意味著盡可能減少引進(jìn)外部資本，但事實(shí)上，如果創(chuàng)業(yè)者在一個(gè)行業(yè)內(nèi)有深層的關(guān)系，真正了解客戶的需求，他在創(chuàng)建公司的時(shí)候就不應(yīng)該募集外部資本。

????到目前為止，在公司盈利之前，大多數(shù)科技公司創(chuàng)始人一直都是依靠自己的個(gè)人積蓄，但這種方式很少能得到媒體的關(guān)注。一個(gè)人在一個(gè)行業(yè)內(nèi)工作了二十年之后才靠著自己的積蓄開了公司，目前公司位于亞特蘭大或達(dá)拉斯等二級(jí)科技市場(chǎng)，已經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)盈利，大約有兩百名員工，這樣的故事聽起來有些平淡，不夠令人振奮。但這才是媒體應(yīng)該宣傳的故事，因?yàn)檫@是可以實(shí)現(xiàn)的、常見的創(chuàng)業(yè)過程，正是這樣的公司推動(dòng)了美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)。

????我在這里諷刺VIC并不意味著我不尊重那些熏熏然接受了眼下這種模式的創(chuàng)業(yè)者。他們大多數(shù)人只是了解得不夠透徹：他們周圍的顧問，他們就讀的商學(xué)院，盯著他們的那些博客寫手們，大家都在塑造這樣一種理念：只有這才是唯一的正途。還有另外一些人，他們只是想感受一下項(xiàng)目展示日上聚光燈的熱度，最后能像某位曾經(jīng)的大學(xué)同學(xué)、如今的Facebook第十號(hào)員工一樣，變成有錢人，而且剛剛買下了一座小島。

????但創(chuàng)業(yè)絕不是這樣的。創(chuàng)業(yè)是一個(gè)緩慢積累財(cái)富的過程。

????我接觸過許多成功的科技公司創(chuàng)業(yè)者，他們把公司做大，并實(shí)現(xiàn)盈利，根本沒有求助于VIC。這些創(chuàng)始人憑借自己的積蓄、客戶關(guān)系和一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)運(yùn)氣，取得了成功。許多創(chuàng)業(yè)者是因?yàn)樵谝粋€(gè)行業(yè)內(nèi)工作超過十年，無奈之下才選擇創(chuàng)業(yè)。他們用許多年的時(shí)間，通過一次只攻克一位客戶的方式，逐漸建立起自己的公司。他們自己持有公司的全部股份，從第一天起就要以盈利為原則。

????通過這種方式創(chuàng)業(yè)，可以讓自己在犯錯(cuò)誤的時(shí)候更加靈活，不用擔(dān)心風(fēng)投終止合作。雖然這種方式很少受到媒體的青睞，但好處是創(chuàng)業(yè)者可以自己控制發(fā)展的速度，自己決定在什么地方投下賭注，以及什么時(shí)候?yàn)閳F(tuán)隊(duì)增加什么樣的人才等。俗話說得好，收入是虛榮的，利潤(rùn)才是理性的。

????但知道這種方式和是否適合這種方式卻是兩回事。你需要對(duì)推動(dòng)一個(gè)行業(yè)發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)有深入的理解，要充分了解行業(yè)內(nèi)客戶的需求，要擁有能在長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的不確定性中堅(jiān)持下來的勇氣和資金，要具備在面臨問題時(shí)做出改變的自我意識(shí)，要有足夠的自信，能在身邊籠絡(luò)一批比自己更聰明的人，還要有勇氣面對(duì)“知音難覓”的局面。

????這才是創(chuàng)業(yè)者們一直以來的創(chuàng)業(yè)歷程。只是如今很少有人會(huì)再提起這樣的故事。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????本文作者德文?馬修斯是投資公司Chicago Growth Partners的主理合伙人。

????譯者：劉進(jìn)龍/汪皓

????

????Over the last 20 years working with technology entrepreneurs, I have seen a dramatic increase in the influence of what I like to call the Venture Industrial Complex (VIC) -- a loose group of venture capitalists, bloggers, mentors, advisors, seed funds, accelerators, and conferences that feed the American fascination with all-or-nothing entrepreneurship for personal gain.

????If you regularly consume tech news, you would think the only path to building a successful startup is to learn to code, drop out of college, raise $50 million from venture capital firms, and sell to Google (GOOG) for a huge price based on clicks, views, likes, or something other than revenue or profits. It makes for a great yarn, right? But perhaps it's not as entertaining as when the rags-to-riches tale turns into a spectacular failure.

????Across many high-profile business and tech publications, these stories consume all the oxygen about entrepreneurship. And it is the path that the VIC needs to push to keep feeding its own interests. I would guess that this meta-industry generates more profits from endorsing and encouraging entrepreneurs to get on this path than the combined profits of all the startup companies following this path.

????Now, I can hear you thinking, "but you're forgetting about the lean startup model where you bootstrap, keep costs low, and tweak your way to success." My response: just look around at those who are promoting this approach. It's the same VIC crew with a new spin -- start lean until it's time to raise that big round from an institutional venture capital firm who can really show you how to grow. While starting lean usually means raising as little outside capital as possible, the truth is you shouldn't raise any outside capital to start a business if you have deep relationships in an industry and really know what customers want.

????By far, most tech company founders use personal savings to fund their companies until they are profitable, but this garners little press. It's just not that exciting to read about someone who has spent two decades in an industry before starting his own company with his own money who is now running it profitably and employing a couple hundred employees in a secondary tech market like Atlanta or Dallas. But this is, in fact, the story that needs to be told more often because it is achievable, it is common, and it is companies like these that prop up the U.S. economy.

????Please don't take my cynicism for the VIC as disrespect for the entrepreneurs caught up in the euphoria. Most of them don't know any better; the advisors surrounding them, the business schools teaching them, and the bloggers targeting them are built to feed this notion that theirs is the one true way. For many others, they just want to feel the heat of the bright lights on Demo Day and finally get rich like that guy they went to college with who was employee No. 10 at Facebook and just bought an island.

????But entrepreneurship doesn't work that way. It is the original get-rich-slow business.

????I have met thousands of successful technology entrepreneurs running large and profitable businesses without the aid of the VIC. These founders are succeeding with their own money, customer relationships, and a healthy dose of luck. Many of these entrepreneurs founded a company out of frustration from working in an industry for over a decade, spent years building their company one customer at a time, owned all the equity themselves, and had profit discipline from day one.

????Building your company this way gives you the flexibility to make mistakes along the way without the fear of your VCs pulling the plug. Sure, this way doesn't get much press but it comes with control over how fast you climb, where you place your bets, and who and when you add to your team. As the saying goes, revenue is for vanity and profit is for sanity.

????But knowing the path and being suited for it are two very different things. You need deep insight into the trends driving an industry and the needs of customers in that industry, the stomach and nest egg to slog through years of uncertainty, self-awareness to change when things aren't working, confidence to surround yourself with people smarter than you are, and courage to be alone with your thoughts.

????Entrepreneurs have always built businesses this way. You just don't hear much about it anymore.

????Devin Mathews is a managing partner at Chicago Growth Partners.