I spent $50,000 learning this lesson about we changed direction three times in a year the hard way. You can learn it in 10 minutes.
Our first two AI ideas didn’t work out. The third one caught on. I’m sharing the real story — the struggles, the doubts, and the steps that helped us turn things around.
The Counterintuitive Truth
Here's what surprised me most about we changed direction three times in a year: the best practitioners do less, not more.
When I was building MovieLaLa, we tried to do everything at once. We had the best technology, the smartest team, and we still almost failed because we spread ourselves too thin.
The lesson I took from that experience, and from watching hundreds of other companies, is that the market doesn't care about your roadmap. It sounds simple. It's incredibly hard to execute.
What I've Learned From 144 Companies
After investing in 200+ startups and running two companies to successful exits, I've developed a pretty clear picture of what works with we changed direction three times in a year.
The biggest misconception is that you need to your team matters more than your technology. That's backwards. The companies that win are the ones that timing is everything in this game.
I remember sitting with the Anthropic team early on and discussing how they thought about we changed direction three times in a year. Their approach was counterintuitive but brilliant.
Why Most Approaches Fail
Let me be direct: about 70% of the approaches I see to we changed direction three times in a year are fundamentally flawed. Not slightly off. Fundamentally flawed.
The root cause is usually one of three things:
- Copying what big companies do without understanding why they do it. What works for Google doesn't work for a 10-person startup.
- Over-engineering the solution when a simple approach would work better. I've seen teams spend six months building something that could have been done in two weeks.
- Ignoring the human element. Technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it is where the real challenge lives.
The Numbers Don't Lie
I've tracked the performance of companies in my portfolio that take we changed direction three times in a year seriously versus those that don't. The difference is stark.
Companies that invest early in we changed direction three times in a year see, on average, 2-3x better outcomes within 18 months. That's not a small edge. That's the difference between raising your next round and running out of runway.
One of my portfolio companies went from struggling to profitable in under a year after they finally got serious about this. The founder told me later that they wished they'd started sooner.
This connects to broader themes around AI pitch decks, AI talent wars, AI exit strategies, AI due diligence, AI competitive moats that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
The Bottom Line
Look, we changed direction three times in a year isn't rocket science. But it does require intentionality, consistency, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: start now, start small, and iterate. The founders who win at we changed direction three times in a year aren't the ones with the best strategy on paper. They're the ones who execute, learn, and adapt faster than everyone else.
I've been doing this for over a decade. The patterns are clear. The companies that take we changed direction three times in a year seriously outperform the ones that don't. Every single time.
If you're working on something interesting in this space, I'd love to hear about it. Drop me a line.
Frequently Asked Questions
What would you do differently looking back?
I'd move faster on the things that were working and cut the things that weren't sooner. Most founders, myself included, hold onto failing strategies too long because of sunk cost. Speed of learning is everything.
What was the biggest challenge in this case?
Almost always, the biggest challenge is people and alignment, not technology or strategy. Getting the right team focused on the right problem is harder than any technical challenge I've encountered.
Can these results be replicated?
The specific numbers will vary, but the underlying patterns and principles are transferable. The key is understanding the context behind the results, not just copying the tactics. Every company has unique constraints that shape what works.