What Comes Before Zero to One?
What Comes Before Zero to One?
0 to 1 is a big, messy process. Breaking it up helps simplify and structure the validation work. (#79)
Everyone in StartupLand has heard the phrase “zero to one”. Most know Peter Thiel’s book, Zero to One, and consider it a must-read.
While reviewing candidates for two CEO roles we’re hiring at Highline Beta (to build new startups), I see a lot of “0 to 1 experience”.
“I love 0 to 1”
“I thrive at 0 to 1”
“I want to go back to building from 0 to 1”
It got me thinking: How do people actually define zero to one?
I asked (on LinkedIn and X) and got a bunch of interesting responses…
Generally most people shared some version of, “0 to 1 is when you go from an idea to traction.”
I was pleasantly surprised at how high a bar people set for hitting 1. Some included actual customer numbers and revenue targets.
But there was a fair bit of uncertainty and variance around the starting point. “When you have an idea…” has some consensus; what you do after is less clear.
How I Define Zero to One
The simplest way to define zero is when you start building. Building = 0.
You can start building without writing code—crafting a clickable prototype or scoping features in a product requirements document (PRD) is building. You’ve kicked off the process of developing a solution. That means you have a solution in mind.
Getting to 1 means you’ve built an MVP, made it available to users/customers, and have traction.
Goddamn it! Stop talking about MVPS! 🤬
Many people argue against the term MVP, but I still like it. My definition is simple (I think): you have a product that creates value and you can prove it.
The definition of traction is difficult to pinpoint because it will vary by product. An enterprise SaaS tool may only need a handful of pilot customers, whereas a consumer mobile app will need many more. A marketplace will need supply and demand to prove transactions. In Lean Analytics we define this as the Stickiness Stage.
Launching alone isn’t a sufficient milestone for saying, “We hit 1!” Set the bar higher. Prove value creation to users/customers and build sufficient confidence for the next stage. Aim for Problem-Solution Fit. You’ve validated a problem, built a solution, and you know the solution creates value/solves the problem. That’s hitting 1. Then move towards Product-Market Fit, which is a whole other can of worms.
If you’ve read this far, you might be wondering, “What about all the validation work that’s needed to start building?” That’s an excellent question.
I’m not suggesting you eschew the work required to validate before building. In fact, more validation is needed than most people are willing to do, because it’s incredibly ambiguous and frustrating work. No one wants to be wrong, but that’s exactly what’ll happen, repeatedly, if you seriously dig into problem validation before building.
If we start 0 at “validate the problem” it makes 0 to 1 more confusing and messy:
The first discovery stage of a new project / product / startup is so messy that it’s hard to know when it ends. Founders—eager to build & launch—rush this stage to “get to 1 as quickly as possible.” I get it, but it’s risky.
On top of that when someone says, “I love 0 to 1” I don’t think they’re referring to that uncertain first part; they’re really talking about building, because most founders (and startup teams) love building. Here’s how I think it should work:
But what about everything before building kicks off? What do we do about that?
Introducing -1 to 0: The Phase that Determines What to Build
Recently I’ve started describing the phase before building as “-1 to 0”. (I’m probably not the first person to use this term.) It’s resonated with people because it breaks them out of a nebulous definition of 0 and puts very clear attention on the earlier part of the process.
Nothing changes in the process, we just define things more clearly.
Why does this matter?
1. Increases the focus on the first stage
Sometimes you have to build something to bring it to life and test it. I 100% agree with that. But if your instinct—every time you have an idea—is to “just build it and see what happens” you’re in for a world of hurt. Any time you skip steps in this process you increase risk while simultaneously increasing your commitment.
More commitment = more time + money = more risk = 😱
If you’ve ever built something, launched it and then heard crickets because no one cared about your “solution” you should be very passionate about the -1 to 0 stage. 🤣
There’s a genuine risk that you spend too long in -1 to 0, over-analyzing everything. I’ve seen people attempt to validate everything before they put a solution into people’s hands. That’s just as bad as doing no validation. You’re wasting time, money and energy. If you’re not prepared to take a leap, even a small one, to get to zero and beyond, you shouldn’t be a founder or work at a startup.
Calling this phase -1 to 0 adds focus to this part of the journey. It’s better than calling it “0 to 0.2” which sounds silly.
2. Changes how you recruit
Recruiting for -1 to 0 is different from 0 to 1.
0 to 1 people are builders. They’ll talk to users and collect feedback, but they want to get their hands dirty and build things.
-1 to 0 people are researchers and explorers. They’re seeking the truth, while minimizing risk.
It’s possible to find people that are great at and love going from -1 to 1, but it’s tough. Most people gravitate to the later stage. It’s more concrete. Roadmaps have emerged. Data is being collected (particularly at the later stages of 1). Features are being optimized. A lot of product managers say they love 0 to 1 but they really mean “0.7 to 1+”.
If you need explorers and truth seekers, you have to hire differently.
You need people that are very comfortable being wrong (invalidating is as important as validating).
You need people that aren’t worried about measuring things quantitatively (there isn’t a lot of data to work with).
You need people who are eager to build things scrappily (i.e. landing pages, clickable prototypes, etc.) with no regard for keeping any of the prototypes or artifacts they create (they’re there for learning!)
You need people who are comfortable having their performance measured through the murkiness of -1 to 0.
At Highline Beta we’ve had some awesome product designers and product managers. Eventually they got fed up with -1 to 0 and wanted to “get back to building product.” We do execute 0 to 1 work, but we do a lot more -1 to 0. And that makes sense, because you invalidate more than you validate. It’s why you commonly see the process visualized as a funnel:
3. Allows for specific skill building
Once you realize -1 to 0 is different from 0 to 1 you can decide how to train employees throughout the process. I’m a big believer in having developers learn how to talk to users. Framing this as a -1 to 0 phase (the work we do to de-risk what we build) gives you structure for training. It doesn’t blend this work into everything else being done to build, ship & manage product. It’s a separate, clearly defined step.
I like “generalist-specialists”—people who have a specific expertise (i.e. UX/UI, product, engineering, etc.) but are also able to “bounce around” between tasks / roles. Most specialists aren’t super comfortable or capable with -1 to 0, but if you can get them onboard with the importance of doing it (in part by defining it as a specific stage in your process), it’ll give you more well-rounded and capable people.
Implications for Venture Studios
If you’re building or running a venture studio (corporate or otherwise), or you’re interested in working at one, please keep reading. Otherwise, you may want to skip ahead.
Defining -1 to 0 differently from 0 to 1 can have significant impact on your venture studio. Venture studios build multiple businesses per year, often working on a few at the same time. They have to excel at the validation process from -1 to 0 in order to make concrete decisions on what to invest in. Every venture studio has a methodology, which all look similar. But there’s a big difference between designing a validation process and executing it.
When you think about all the moving parts of a studio, figuring out the team is key.
If you believe in the importance of -1 to 0, you may need a dedicated team for this phase. These are people that aren’t going to follow through from 0 to 1, but instead hand over their learnings and recommendations to a “build team” (which may or may not include a CEO/Founder right away). Then, the “validation team” goes back to -1 and starts the process all over.
There are pros and cons to this approach:
I lean towards having a dedicated team for -1 to 0. You need people that genuinely love this stage and hone their craft (both the skills & instincts needed). But it takes a lot of organizational design and team alignment to pull off successfully.
Long Live -1 to 0
I love the -1 to 0 phase because it’s the least risky with the most potential. Don’t get me wrong, it’s insanely hard to get through, because you need to have conviction around the problem, with a unique insight + competitive advantage. Few founders / startups do this stage well; going through it seriously is already a leg up.
Naming it -1 to 0, instead of smushing this early validation work into 0 to 1, adds purpose and meaning to what is a critical step in the startup journey.
I was gonna write a very similar article with the exact same distinction but you beat me to it I’ll just reference and evangelize yours at our venture studio. Thank you!!
I think you should plot it in the complex plane. It's moving from (0,i) or perhaps more accurately(0,-i) to (1,0). You are resolving two distinct kinds of challenges, moving from an imaginary product with speculative benefits and no revenue to a real product with a viable Go-To-Market and actual revenue, preferably recurring.