为什么很多动画人物都戴白手套？ | 问答 | 问答 | 果壳网 科技有意思
为什么很多动画人物都戴白手套？
比如黑猫警长、米老鼠等。
材料物理学士，飞面神教信徒，FFF团资深团员
因为画手很麻烦。。。但是画带上手套的手就很简单了。。。人们可能以种种借口拒绝投资你的企业：你们不是一个“令人信服”的团队，没有“令人信服”的技术，不在一个“令人信服”的市场里；或者你的公司根本就不具备 “风险投资的潜质”——也就是说没有可能上市或者被巨资收购；再或者你的组织受到太多政府或环境因素的干扰。如果拿不到任何风险投资，你是否应该放弃呢？当然不！
白手起家的艺术
译者：发布： 03:13:36 |
(译者：关于 Guy Kawasaki，已经在雷声大雨点大翻译的另一篇文章里有过介绍了。在这篇文章里，作者对如何白手起家创业提出了11条建议。希望这些建议能对创业者们有所启迪。）
有人曾经对我说，一个创业者得到风险投资的几率如同在一个晴天下站在游泳池里被闪电击中一样。这种比喻还是过于乐观了。
人们可能以种种借口拒绝投资你的企业：你们不是一个“令人信服”的团队，没有“令人信服”的技术，不在一个“令人信服”的市场里；或者你的公司根本就不具备 “风险投资的潜质”——也就是说没有可能上市或者被巨资收购；再或者你的组织受到太多政府或环境因素的干扰。如果拿不到任何风险投资，你是否应该放弃呢？当然不！
我可以举出例子来说明，对于许多公司来说，太多的钱比太少的钱更糟糕——这并不是说我不想有一天能运行超级碗（Super Bowl）那样的商业活动。但是直到那天成为现实之前，要想成功还必须白手起家（bootstrapping）。这个词来源于德国故事《吹牛大王历险记》，故事的主人公拉着自己的鞋后跟把自己从海里提了出来。下面是一些白手起家的艺术：
1.注重现金流而不是盈利性（Focus on cash flow, not profitability）。理论上讲，利润是生存的关键。问题是，理论不能用来付帐单。在现实中，你是用现金来付账单的，所以请把重点放在现金流上。如果你要白手起家，那么你的业务应该具备这些特点：必需的资金要少，销售周期和付款期要短，以及具有可重复增加的收入（recurring revenue）。这意味着你要放弃那些需要12个月的时间来完成定单、发货和收账的大单。现金对于白手起家者来说，就是一切。
2.自底向上的预测（Forecast from the bottom up）。很多创业者进行自顶向下的预测：“美国有1亿5千万辆汽车。就算在第一年里只有1％的汽车装了我们的卫星收音系统，那就是150万套系统。”而自底向上的预测是这样的：“在第一年里，我们能够开设10个安装点。每个安装点平均每天安装10套系统的话，第一年的销售量将是 10个安装点 × 10套/天/安装点 × 240天 = 24000 套。”24000和自顶向下中声称的150万保守估计显然相去甚远。你们觉得哪一个更有可能实现呢？
3.先发货，再测试（Ship, then test）。我已经听到批评的声音了：“你怎么能够建议发送那些并不完美的货品呢？”等等，等等。“完美”（perfect）是“足够好”（good enough）的敌人。当你的产品或服务足够好时，尽快向客户提交他们，以获得现金的流入。而且，花费更多的时间并不能保证产品的完美，只会产生更多不需要的功能。发货后，你也能了解到客户需要你真正解决什么问题。当然，这需要在你的信誉和现金流中做一个折衷：你当然不能向客户发送一堆垃圾，但也不能等待你的产品变得完美无瑕。注意：那些同生命科学有关的公司，请忽略这一条建议。
4.忘掉所谓“令人信服”的团队（Forget the “proven” team）。令人信服的团队要求太高——特别是大多数人把这定义为一群在过去十年里为超级大公司工作的人们。这些人，习惯了某种特定的生活方式，但绝不是白手起家的生活方式。聘用那些年轻、便宜、渴望工作的人，那些上手快但并不一定有全面经验的人（people with fast chips, but not necessarily a fully functional instruction set）。当你实现了可观的现金流后，再聘用那些资深的管理者。在那之前，请使用那些你能够负担得起的人，并把他们培养成优秀的雇员。
5.从服务开始做起（Start as a service business）。假如你的想法是要最终成立一个软件公司，让人们花钱买你的软件。这当然是一个很清晰的业务并且有完善的商业模式。但是，在完成你的软件之前，你还可以提供基于你的中期产品的咨询服务等。这样做有两个好处：你可以立即获得收入并让真正的客户来测试你的产品。一旦你的软件经受住了各种各样的测试和考验，你就可以把公司转换为产品型了。
6.注重功能而不是形式（Focus on function, not form）。我喜欢好的“形式”。MacBooks；Audis；Graf skates；Bauer sticks；Breitling watches。你还可以举出很多。但是白手起家者们在买东西时，注重的是功能而不是形式。上面那些形式，相对应的功能分别是：计算；从点A移动到点B；滑冰；滑雪；了解时间。这些功能并不要求那些昂贵的形式。椅子就是用来让你的屁股坐在上面的；它并不需要看上去属于哪个现代艺术的博物馆。你要设计高贵的东西，但是要买便宜的东西。
7.有选择地战斗（Pick your battles）。白手起家者们有选择地战斗。他们不会在所有的战线上开战，因为他们承担不起。如果你要开设一所新的教堂，你真的需要一套10万美金的多媒体视听系统吗？还是从一座讲台上发出的福音？如果你要建设一个靠广告收入的网站（a content wet site based on the advertising model），你需要自己写客户广告发布软件（customer ad-serving software）吗？我不这样认为。
8.雇用尽可能少的员工（Understaff）。许多创业者为可能发生的最好情况而储备雇员。“保守的估计（自顶向下），第一年卫星收音系统的销售量会是150万套。我们最好开设一个24小时营业的客户支持中心。”结果怎样？你根本就不可能销售150万套系统，但你的确为此雇用了200个员工，培训他们，并且把他们安置在一个5万平方英尺的电子化市场中心里。白手起家者们雇用尽可能少的员工，因为他们知道任何糟糕的情况都可能发生。人手不足，按照在硅谷的说法，属于一个“良性问题”（a high quality problem）。相信我，当一个创业者因为销售激增而打电话要求更多的资金时，任何一个风险投资家都会对此惊喜若狂。而惊喜之所以称为惊喜，正是因为它们很少发生。
9.采用直销方式（Go direct）。在白手起家者和他的客户之间最好不要有第三方存在。的确，商店提供了接触消费者的途径，批发商们提供了货品分发的途径。但是上帝发明了电子商务（ecommerce），从而你可以直销你的商品并实现更高的边际利润。上帝的聪明之处还在于，通过直销，你能够了解更多的客户需求。商店和批发商们是用来满足需求的，他们并不创造需求。如果你能够创造足够的需求，你稍后总能找到办法来满足它；如果你不能创造足够的需求，那么所谓世界范围内的分发渠道对你来说毫无意义。
10.用业界的领先者来作比（Position against the leader）。没有钱来做长篇大论的广告吗？没关系。用业界的领先者来作比好了。Toyota是这样推销Lexus的：花一半的价钱，买Mercedes的品质。Toyota用不着解释什么是“Mercedes的品质”。想想看，这能为他们节省多少广告费！其它的像“便宜的iPod”和“属于大众的Bose无噪音耳机”，都有同样的效果。
11.直面惨淡的真相（Take the “red pill”）。正如Neo在The Matrix里做的决定一样。红色药丸会让你知道整个真相；而蓝色药丸则会使你像是醒来时觉得只是做了一场恶梦。白手起家者们没有那种奢侈去选择蓝色药丸。他们每天都在忙于知道真相——这个兔子洞到底有多深。一个简单的计算公式是：现金总数除以烧钱的速度。因为这可以告诉你到底还可以活多久。就像我的朋友Craig Johnson喜欢说的：“钱花光时你就玩完儿了。大多数的创业公司都是这样死掉的。”只要你手里还有钱，你就没有出局。
原文来源：
原文标题：
原文地址：
相关译文来自无觅插件
发表于： 11:06:14
太棒了！！！很有启发。谢谢 拙尘 老大！！！
发表于： 15:08:56
您的文章很好，已收录到我的论坛，并注明出处，如觉不妥，请来信，我会删掉。再次感谢，通过您，看到了这么好的文章，很受启发。
发表于： 23:08:51
fuloom，谢谢你的夸奖。言多必得一个最主要的目的就是希望能够让中文读者接触到更多的国外的信息和观点。我们欢迎任何形式的传播，只要注明出处；另外，如果是转贴的话，我们也希望能够把原文的地址一起贴出，这样对原文作者的劳动和版权也是一种尊重。
发表于： 15:13:20
非常好，受到很多启发！谢谢
发表于： 14:29:10
谢谢。太棒了。
发表于： 12:58:21
好极了!!谢谢你的文章,很有作用
发表于： 08:55:52
发表于： 14:22:07
极品好文啊~~~
拙尘辛苦啦~~~~
发表于： 01:57:58
谢谢，确实是很不错的文章。
发表于： 16:49:07
非常好看的文章,尤其是最后的take the &RED PILL&
发表于： 09:31:11
钱滚钱，不断的滚，越滚越快，越滚越大。
发表于： 09:37:49
完美是目标而不是结果。
发表于： 12:00:09
我也转载了
发表于： 23:36:38
增长。。开扩。。非常感谢!!!!
~~~~~~~辛若啦~~~~~~~~~~
发表于： 09:38:33
发表于： 10:14:06
超级碗（Super Bowl）
应译为超级杯
发表于： 11:35:33
呵呵，谢谢乌龙茶的建议。不过，这里我觉得还是“超级碗”为好。国内有译成“超级杯”的，甚至百度百科上都是这么叫的。不知道是什么原因。下面是我从“中华全国体育总会网”上摘来的：
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
http://www./wenhua/shiliao/-08/483138.html
超级碗（Super Bowl）是美国国家橄榄球联盟NFL（National Football league）一年一度的总决赛，NFL在整整一个赛季的血肉冲撞、激烈厮杀之后，只剩下最优秀的两支球队站在“超级碗”的场地上，进行万众瞩目的最后较量。这是美国最有影响力的体育赛事，“超级碗”冠军是美式职业橄榄球的最高荣誉。
“超级碗”到今年已经39岁了，第一届“超级碗”开始于日，地点是在洛杉矶市，当时它的名字并不叫“超级碗”，而是叫做“美国国家橄榄球联盟冠军赛”，从1969年第三届开始才正式更名为“超级碗”。
“超级碗”这个名字也是有来历的，当时堪萨斯酋长队老板亨特，看见女儿手中的玩具名叫“Super Ball”，“Super Bowl”这两个词马上闪现在他脑海中，因为美式橄榄球体育场的造型都很像一只巨大的碗。
“超级碗”的冠军奖杯———文斯·隆巴蒂杯（Vince Lombardi Trophy)高22英寸，重大约7磅，底座是个三角形的柱子，顶着一个橄榄球。……
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
从上面的印证可见，“超级碗”的来源并不是误传的“超级杯”。另外，我在USC读书的时候，只知Rose Bowl，而不知Super Bowl，呵呵。Rose Bowl 就是在洛杉矶的“玫瑰碗“体育场举行的。（Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl 这些都是大学联赛的“碗赛”，而非职业赛。USC的橄榄球队，不说是全美最厉害，但如果它说自己第二，就没哪支球队敢说自己第一。）
发表于： 22:09:40
有专业精神~！
发表于： 15:28:52
发表于： 16:52:39
条条建议都是金玉良言:),好文!
发表于： 12:45:54
发表于： 19:38:33
小人物的梦想～就是周星驰的电影哈哈！
发表于： 09:25:11
再次欣赏：）
发表于： 22:46:54
Focus on cash flow, not profitability,其中的profitability是不是翻译成利润率更符合原文。“现金流比利润率更重要”因为这段想说的是你能支配的资金和你按照利润率计算出来的有差距。主要是时间上的差距。
Ship, then test。觉得翻译成先做了再说。这里的ship可能指的是开船而不是发货。
发表于： 12:40:09
发表于： 14:51:13
恩，确实很有启发哦
发表于： 23:24:20
发表于： 00:56:57
很有启发！
发表于： 17:02:28
文章不错，翻译的也很好，简单易懂，收藏了~！
发表于： 16:36:52
只要你手里还有钱，你就没有出局——很精辟
发表于： 15:38:28
发表于： 20:56:49
很好,很强大!
发表于： 11:23:30
很有启发性，风险投资只是适合那些具有特别潜质的项目，一般都拿不到。更多的人还是白手起家。
发表于： 14:54:24
精力保持永远充沛，保持坚定的信念，信心，就永远不会出局。
发表于： 16:37:38
:-)
发表于： 16:47:44
作为一种休息，先拜读，留脚印：
原文网址如下：
/2006/01/the_art_of_boot.html
原文如下：
The Art of Bootstrapping
Someone once told me that the probability of an entrepreneur getting venture capital is the same as getting struck by lightning while standing at the bottom of a swimming pool on a sunny day. This may be too optimistic.
Let's say that you can't raise money for whatever reason: You're not a “proven” team with “proven” technology in a “proven” market. Or, your company may simply not be a “VC deal”--that is, something that will go public or be acquired for a zillion dollars. Finally, your organization may be a not-for-product with a cause like the ministry or the environment. Does this mean you should give up? Not at all.
I could build a case that too much money is worse than too little for most organizations—not that I wouldn't like to run a Super Bowl commercial someday. Until that day comes, the key to success is bootstrapping. The term comes from the German legend of Baron Münchhausen pulling himself out of the sea by pulling on his own bootstraps. Here is the art of bootstrapping.
Focus on cash flow, not profitability. The theory is that profits are the key to survival. If you could pay the bills with theories, this would be fine. The reality is that you pay bills with cash, so focus on cash flow. If you know you are going to bootstrap, you should start a business with a small up-front capital requirement, short sales cycles, short payment terms, and recurring revenue. It means passing up the big sale that take twelve months to close, deliver, and collect. Cash is not only king, it's queen and prince too for a bootstrapper.
Forecast from the bottom up. Most entrepreneurs do a top-down forecast: “There are 150 million cars in America. It sure seems reasonable that we can get a mere 1% of car owners to install our satellite radio systems. That's 1.5 million systems in the first year.” The bottom-up forecast goes like this: “We can open up ten installation facilities in the first year. On an average day, they can install ten systems. So our first year sales will be 10 facilities x 10 systems x 240 days = 24,000 satellite radio systems. 24,000 is a long way from the conservative 1.5 million systems in the top-down approach. Guess which number is more likely to happen.
Ship, then test. I can feel the comments coming in already: How can you recommend shipping stuff that isn't perfect? Blah blah blah. ”Perfect“ is the enemy of ”good enough.“ When your product or service is ”good enough,“ get it out because cash flows when you start shipping. Besides perfection doesn't necessarily come with time--more unwanted features do. By shipping, you'll also learn what your customers truly want you to fix. It's definitely a tradeoff: your reputation versus cash flow, so you can't ship pure crap. But you can't wait for perfection either. (Nota bene: life science companies, please ignore this recommendation.)
Forget the ”proven“ team. Proven teams are over-rated--especially when most people define proven teams as people who worked for a billion dollar company for the past ten years. These folks are accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and it's not the bootstrapping lifestyle. Hire young, cheap, and hungry people. People with fast chips, but not necessarily a fully functional instruction set. Once you achieve significant cash flow, you can hire adult supervision. Until then, hire what you can afford and make them into great employees.
Start as a service business. Let's say that you ultimately want to be a software company: people download your software or you send them CDs, and they pay you. That's a nice, clean business with a proven business model. However, until you finish the software, you could provide consulting and services based on your work-in-process software. This has two advantages: immediate revenue and true customer testing of your software. Once the software is field-tested and battle-hardened, flip the switch and become a product company.
Focus on function, not form. Mea culpa: I love good ”form.“ MacBooks. Audis. Graf skates. Bauer sticks. Breitling watches. You name it. But bootstrappers focus on function, not form, when they are buying things. The function is computing, getting from point A to point B, skating, shooting, and knowing the time of day. These functions do not require the more expensive form that I like. All the chair has to do is hold your butt. It doesn't have to look like it belongs in the Museum of Modern Art. Design great stuff, but buy cheap stuff.
Pick your battles. Bootstrappers pick their battles. They don't fight on all fronts because they cannot afford to fight on all fronts. If you were starting a new church, do you really need the $100,000 multimedia audio visual system? Or just a great message from the pulpit? If you're creating a content web site based on the advertising model, do you have to write your own customer ad-serving software? I don't think so.
Understaff. Many entrepreneurs staff up for what could happen, best case. ”Our conservative (albeit top-down) forecast for first year satellite radio sales is 1.5 million units. We'd better create a 24 x 7 customer support center to handle this. Guess what? You sell no where near 1.5 million units, but you do have 200 people hired, trained, and sitting in a 50,000 square foot telemarketing center. Bootstrappers understaff knowing that all hell might break loose. But this would be, as we say in Silicon Valley, a “high quality problem.” Trust me, every venture capitalist fantasizes about an entrepreneur calling up and asking for additional capital because sales are exploding. Also trust me when I tell you that fantasies are fantasies because they seldom happen.
Go direct. The optimal number of mouths (or hands) between a bootstrapper and her customer is zero. Sure, stores provide great customer reach, and wholesalers provide distribution. But God invented ecommerce so that you could sell direct and reap greater margins. And God was doubly smart because She knew that by going direct, you'd also learn more about your customer's needs. Stores and wholesalers fill demand, they don't create it. If you create enough demand, you can always get other organizations to fill it later. If you don't create demand, all the distribution in the world will get you bupkis.
Position against the leader. Don't have the money to explain your story starting from scratch? Then don't try. Instead position against the leader. Toyota introduced Lexus as good as a Mercedes but at half the price--Toyota didn't have to explain what “good as a Mercedes” meant. How much do you think that saved them? “Cheap iPod” and “poor man's Bose noise-cancelling headphones,” would work too.
Take the “red pill.”This refers to the choice that Neo made in The Matrix. The red pill led to learning the whole truth. The blue pill meant waking up wondering if you had a bad dream. Bootstrappers don't have the luxury to take the blue pill. They take the red pill--everyday--to find out how deep the rabbit hole really is. And the deepest rabbit hole for a bootstrapper is a simple calculation: Amount of cash divided by cash burn per month because this will tell you how much longer you can live. And as my friend Craig Johnson likes to say, “The leading cause of failure of startups is death, and death happens when you run out of money.” As long as you have money, you're still in the game.
Written at: Atherton, California.
发表于： 16:49:56
“Someone once told me that the probability of an entrepreneur getting venture capital is the same as getting struck by lightning while standing at the bottom of a swimming pool on a sunny day. This may be too optimistic.”
It can be refined on.
您已经赞过此文了。