Most founders spend a lot of time wondering whether they are making the right decision.
Should I share more about my product or protect my intellectual property?
Am I selling to the right people in the right way?
Do I need an advisory board and, if so, who should be on it?
These questions rarely have perfect answers. In fact, some of the most important decisions founders make happen with incomplete information and a degree of uncertainty.
One of the benefits of being part of a startup community is discovering that other founders are often facing similar challenges. Sometimes they are a few steps ahead. Sometimes they have already made the mistakes you’re trying to avoid. Either way, learning from their experiences can provide valuable perspective and make difficult decisions feel less isolating.
At a recent peer group session run by Focused For Business, founders openly shared current business challenges and received input from the group providing alternative perspectives, ideas and practical considerations to help move thinking forward.
What made the discussion particularly valuable was not that definitive answers were reached.
It was that each founder was encouraged to think more clearly about the real problem underneath the visible one.
Founder challenge one: how much should you reveal during a pitch?
One founder highlighted a challenge many technical founders face.
He had developed an internal manufacturing optimisation tool capable of dramatically reducing the time required to model production costs and manufacturing decisions in a particular sector. The software represented significant intellectual property and potential competitive advantage.
The founder was preparing for a major European conference attended by both investors, key customers but also by competing companies.
The dilemma was simple:
How do you demonstrate credibility and traction without revealing too much?
Like many technical founders, this founder’s instinct was to explain the sophistication of the technology itself. But as the discussion unfolded, the group repeatedly redirected the conversation toward customer outcomes rather than technical detail.
Another founder offered one of the clearest observations:
“It’s not about how it looks… it’s the problem it solves.”
That reframing shifted the entire discussion.
Instead of focusing on the software mechanics, the group encouraged this founder to focus on:
- the speed advantage
- the commercial outcome
- the reduction in decision-making time
- the value for customers
The strongest messaging ultimately became:
“From six months to sixty minutes.”
The discussion also challenged the founder’s assumptions around the purpose of the pitch itself. Rather than expecting immediate commercial agreements from a three-minute presentation, the reason for pitching – and what success looked like – needed to be defined more realistically.
Instead of aiming for signed agreements immediately – off the back of a 3 minute pitch and follow-up conversation – the real goal should be identifying and prioritising the right future conversations.
That distinction matters.
Because many founders accidentally optimise pitches for information transfer rather than relationship creation.
Founder challenge two: when should you change your go-to-market strategy?
Another founder of a veterinary staffing platform explained that her business helps veterinary practices manage temporary staffing and locum support through software and operational systems. But after six months of direct sales into independent veterinary practices, customer acquisition remained slow.
Her question was whether she should stop selling directly to practices and instead partner with larger pharmaceutical and veterinary suppliers already serving those customers.
This discussion highlighted a common early-stage founder tension:
When does persistence become a sign you need to evolve your go-to-market strategy?
We immediately reframed the issue.
This was not a complete business pivot.
The product itself remained unchanged.
Instead, this was a route-to-market question:
Should growth come from one-to-one sales, or through strategic distribution partnerships?
The group explored several realities founders often underestimate when changing channels:
Enterprise partnerships are not quick wins
Although large partnerships can create scale, we reminded her that enterprise sales cycles are often significantly longer than founders expect.
Many founders assume selling into larger organisations creates faster growth.
Often the opposite is true.
Corporate procurement, internal approvals and relationship-building can easily take 12 to 18 months.
Founders must understand the partner’s incentive
Several participants highlighted the importance of understanding why a larger organisation would want the partnership in the first place.
The question is never simply:
“Will they like our product?”
The better question is:
“How does this improve their revenue, margins, retention or positioning?”
One founder summarised this directly:
“You’re no longer selling to the individual practices, you’re selling to the pharmaceutical company.”
That requires completely different messaging.
Small companies are not automatically weak
Another valuable moment came when the group discussed a founder’s hesitation about approaching larger organisations as a smaller business.
We encouraged her to reposition that perceived weakness as an advantage:
- speed
- flexibility
- agility
- ability to move faster than larger competitors
This is a common founder mistake.
Many startups present themselves apologetically when speaking to larger organisations, rather than positioning themselves as specialised, responsive and innovative.
Pricing models matter more than founders think
One of the most direct pieces of feedback came from a founder, who questioned whether a founder’s subscription pricing structure itself might be slowing adoption.
His argument was practical:
Customers hesitate to pay recurring retainers for risks they may not yet feel urgently.
Instead, he suggested shifting more of the revenue model toward usage-based value when staffing is actually required.
Whether correct or not, the exchange reflected something important:
Early-stage founders often treat pricing as fixed far too early.
Founder challenge three: what makes a good advisory board?
The final challenge came from a founder who was building an advisory board to support the company’s next phase of growth.
His core concern was not whether advisory boards were valuable.
It was how to structure one properly.
The discussion quickly moved beyond generic advice and focused on a more important question:
“Why do you want one?”
That question became central to the entire discussion.
Because many founders build advisory boards reactively rather than strategically.
He explained that he wanted additional expertise to reduce pressure on a lean founding team and improve decision-making quality.
But the group repeatedly reinforced that advisory boards should be built around specific business challenges, not vague credibility signalling.
Several practical themes emerged:
Recruit for the challenge you currently face
Advisory boards should be designed intentionally around a current strategic need.
A founder shared that her own board had been recruited specifically to help prepare the business for eventual exit and long-term continuity planning.
That clarity shaped who was recruited and why.
Advisors are not free brainstorming resources
One of the strongest moments came when Hatty challenged the idea of advisory relationships being informal or undefined.
She was clear:
If founders are serious about building a serious advisory board, they should expect to pay for expertise.
That financial commitment also forces clarity around expectations and measurable outcomes.
Clear communication prevents frustration
Another founder emphasised the importance of defining boundaries, expectations and levels of involvement from the beginning.
A founder added another practical point that resonated strongly:
Never ask advisors vague questions like “any thoughts?”
Instead, founders should ask focused, specific questions tied to real decisions.
That specificity respects the advisor’s time and usually leads to far better input.
The broader lesson behind all three discussions
Although the founder challenges differed, the underlying themes were remarkably similar.
Each founder was wrestling with uncertainty around growth.
- What should we say publicly?
- Who exactly are we selling to?
- What support do we actually need?
- How do we position ourselves?
- Which assumptions are no longer serving us?
The value of sessions like this is not simply advice.
It is perspective.
Founders spend most of their time deeply inside their own businesses. That proximity can make it difficult to separate symptoms from root problems.
By reframing questions, you uncover the deeper strategic issue underneath the immediate concern.
And often, that is where the real progress begins.
Final thought
One of the strongest themes running throughout the session was patience.
Several founders were wrestling with expectations around speed:
- speed of trust
- speed of sales
- speed of traction
- speed of fundraising
- speed of growth
Many founders underestimate how long trust and credibility actually take to build.
That reminder matters.
Because early-stage growth is rarely linear.
Most founders are not failing because progress feels slower than expected.
They are simply earlier in the process than they hoped to be.
And sometimes, hearing that from other founders is exactly what helps people keep moving forward.
If you are preparing your business for investment, why not join a free, online Funding Strategy Workshop where you will hear three insights that increase your chances of successfully raising investment and can ask any questions you may have. Book your place.
FAQs: Startup founder challenges
What are some of the biggest challenges startup founders face early on?
Many founders struggle with the same core issues: explaining their value clearly, identifying the right route to market, building trust with customers, and knowing where to seek strategic support. Early-stage growth often involves refining positioning, messaging and customer acquisition strategies rather than simply building the product.
How much should founders reveal during investor pitches?
Founders should share enough to demonstrate credibility, traction and customer value without exposing sensitive intellectual property unnecessarily. Investors are usually more interested in the problem being solved, the commercial opportunity and the founder’s understanding of the market than the technical detail itself.
What matters most to investors in early-stage startups?
Investors typically look for evidence that founders understand a meaningful problem, have identified a viable market opportunity and can clearly explain why customers would buy. Strong communication, realistic strategy and founder credibility often matter more than overly detailed product explanations.
When should startups change their go-to-market strategy?
A go-to-market strategy may need adjusting when customer acquisition is consistently slow, expensive or difficult to scale. However, founders should avoid assuming a new channel will produce instant results. Enterprise partnerships and strategic collaborations often involve long sales cycles and relationship-building before meaningful growth appears.
What is the difference between a pivot and a go-to-market change?
A pivot usually involves changing the product, customer problem or business model. A go-to-market change focuses on how the same product reaches customers. Many startups evolve their distribution strategy without fundamentally changing the core business.
