????當(dāng)創(chuàng)業(yè)公司的創(chuàng)始人關(guān)掉公司時(shí)，他們往往會(huì)寫上一篇文章，對(duì)圈中人交代一下自己走過的彎路，這種文章就叫失敗剖析。據(jù)估計(jì)，每10家創(chuàng)業(yè)公司中就有9家會(huì)失敗，這也是為什么失敗剖析文章層出不窮，成為硅谷的陳詞濫調(diào)。這類文章有些寫得坦誠(chéng)、勇敢、發(fā)人深思，還有一些就只知道推卸責(zé)任，或是根本不認(rèn)為自己有什么應(yīng)該檢討之處。當(dāng)創(chuàng)業(yè)家發(fā)表失敗剖析時(shí)，他們往往最青睞由Twitter公司聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人伊萬?威廉姆斯參與創(chuàng)辦的出版平臺(tái)Medium。

????失敗剖析文章風(fēng)行一時(shí)，催生出一種荒誕的失敗崇拜現(xiàn)象，這似乎是一種執(zhí)迷不悟的舉動(dòng)。慶祝失敗（“快速失敗”成了口頭禪）似乎可以讓那些因行為不當(dāng)而失敗的人擺脫困境。進(jìn)一步深入審視會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，這么做似乎并不算過分。要開創(chuàng)一番高速成長(zhǎng)的業(yè)務(wù)猶如坐上過山車。重壓之下，創(chuàng)始人兼首席執(zhí)行官必須時(shí)時(shí)擺出一副成功在握的樣子，哪怕在光鮮的表面背后，公司實(shí)際上早已千瘡百孔。也就是最近，在Ecomom公司首席執(zhí)行官喬迪?謝爾曼悲慘自殺后，科技界才開始承認(rèn)它一貫推崇的“創(chuàng)業(yè)家就是英雄”觀點(diǎn)是有問題的。公開承認(rèn)失敗并加以檢討需要很大勇氣。它還能將各種親身講述的經(jīng)歷提煉為案例，供其他企業(yè)家學(xué)習(xí)。

????近日，CB Insights公司深入剖析了101篇由公司創(chuàng)始人撰寫的失敗剖析文章，探尋了他們心目中自己公司失敗的根本原因。對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析后，這家公司指出，42%的受訪創(chuàng)業(yè)公司選擇的失敗首要原因，是產(chǎn)品缺乏市場(chǎng)需求。

????這其實(shí)是不言自明的。如果壓根就沒人想要你的產(chǎn)品，你的公司當(dāng)然不會(huì)成功。但是很多創(chuàng)業(yè)企業(yè)卻恰恰制造了人們不想要的產(chǎn)品，同時(shí)又不切實(shí)際地希望能夠說服人們接受這些產(chǎn)品。

????關(guān)于這個(gè)現(xiàn)象，一個(gè)最明顯的例子就是手機(jī)。在手機(jī)剛問世時(shí)，人們覺得它只是個(gè)新鮮小玩意兒，不怎么當(dāng)回事。當(dāng)然，現(xiàn)在手機(jī)再也不算什么新鮮玩意了。蘋果公司（Apple）聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人史蒂夫?喬布斯有句名言，“很多時(shí)候，人們并不知道自己真正的需求，直到你放在他們眼前時(shí)他們才會(huì)醒悟。”問題是很多創(chuàng)業(yè)者都太把這句話當(dāng)真了。每出現(xiàn)一個(gè)類似打車軟件制造商Uber這樣估值達(dá)到190億美元的公司，或許便有無數(shù)沒有走出研發(fā)階段的膚淺產(chǎn)品。

????當(dāng)然失敗還和更實(shí)際的問題有關(guān)。受訪創(chuàng)始人們列舉的原因還有，缺乏足夠資金（29%），項(xiàng)目團(tuán)隊(duì)的人員組成問題（23%）以及競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈（19%）。

????When the founder of a startup company shuts down her or his business, it is customary to pen an essay that tells the rest of the community what went wrong, called a failure post-mortem. It’s estimated that nine out of 10 startups fail, which is why the technique has become so common as to be a Silicon Valley cliché. Some of these essays are honest, enlightening, and brave. Others point fingers or issue backward non-apologies. Medium, the publishing platform co-founded by Twitter co-founder Evan Williams, is the preferred medium.

????The proliferation of the failure post-mortem has helped create a bizarre cult of failure that seems wrong-headed. Celebrating failure (“Fail fast” goes the mantra) seems to let people off the hook for bad behavior. Upon closer inspection, it seems less misguided than necessary. Starting a high-growth business is a roller coaster. Founder-CEOs feel pressure to keep up the facade of success, even when things are actually falling apart behind the scenes. Only recently, after the tragic suicide of Jody Sherman, CEO of a startup called Ecomom, did the technology community begin to publicly acknowledge the problems with its “entrepreneur as hero” narrative. Publicly admitting to failure, and examining it, can take guts. It also distills the narrative to a case study from which other entrepreneurs can learn.

????CB Insights recently parsed 101 post-mortem essays by startup founders to pinpoint the reasons they believe their company failed. On Thursday the company crunched the numbers to reveal that the number-one reason for failure, cited by 42% of polled startups, is the lack of a market need for their product.

????That should be self-evident. If no one wants your product, your company isn’t going to succeed. But many startups build things people don’t want with the irrational hope that they’ll convince them otherwise.

????The most prominent modern example of this phenomenon is the mobile phone. People dismissed it as a novelty in its early days. Obviously, they are no longer a novelty. The late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs famously said, “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.” The problem is that entrepreneurs have taken that to heart. For every $19 billion company like Uber, the private transportation service, there are all manner of frivolous products that never evolve past the phase.

????There are more practical concerns. Polled founders also cited a lack of sufficient capital (29%), the assembly of the wrong team for the project (23%), and superior competition (19%) as top reasons for failure.