The Case for Boring Startups
- 13 minutes ago
- 5 min read
Most startup writing celebrates the dramatic ideas. The article about the founder who built an AI breakthrough in a garage, the founder who reimagined a category that had not been touched in decades, the founder whose product made the news for being shocking, novel, or strange, all of these tend to dominate the public stories of what entrepreneurship looks like.
The result is that student founders, who read these stories at the start of their own work, come away with the impression that the path to a successful company runs through dramatic ideas, and that picking something less dramatic is a sign of unambitious thinking.
The honest pattern across decades of startup outcomes is closer to the opposite. The companies that compound the most value over time are often the ones that began as deeply unglamorous businesses, working on problems that no one wrote articles about, in categories that did not feel exciting at the start, and the founders behind those companies tend to look back on the boring choice as one of the better decisions they made. This piece is a counter to the pressure to build something flashy, and a defense of the unglamorous spaces that quietly produce some of the most durable companies.
What boring actually means
The word boring, in this context, does not mean low quality or unimportant. It means a category that does not generate excitement at parties, an industry that does not feature in popular media, or a problem that most people would rather not discuss for very long. Examples include accounting software for small contractors, insurance for niche professions, logistics for specific commodity supply chains, and many forms of business to business software that exists to remove friction from work that other people would rather not think about.
These spaces are boring in the sense that they do not produce dinner party energy, but they are often profoundly important to the people who live inside them, and the businesses built in these spaces tend to develop characteristics that exciting businesses rarely develop, including customers who are willing to pay real money, retention rates that hold for years, and competitive landscapes that are not crowded with venture funded competitors trying to outspend each other for attention.
Why boring works
The first reason boring works is that boring categories tend to have less competition. Most founders, faced with the choice between an exciting category and a boring one, choose the exciting category, which means the exciting categories are full of competitors who are pursuing the same audience with similar levels of capital. The boring categories, by contrast, are often underserved by founders, which means that a competent team that decides to work in a boring space often finds itself in a market with much less competitive pressure than it would face elsewhere.
The second reason is that boring categories tend to have stickier customers. The people who use boring software, for example, often integrate it deeply into their work because the software is doing necessary rather than discretionary work, and the cost of switching to a competitor includes real disruption to their existing processes. This produces retention rates that exciting consumer products rarely achieve, and retention is one of the most important drivers of company value over time.
The third reason is that boring categories tend to be valued more honestly by their customers. A user who is paying for software that helps them run their small business is much less price sensitive than a user who is paying for entertainment, because the software is producing measurable value that the user can attribute to their bottom line. This means that boring businesses can often charge higher prices than exciting ones, even when the technical sophistication is similar.
What boring requires
Boring startups are not easier to build than exciting ones, and the difficulty of building them is one of the reasons they are underdeveloped. The work in a boring space requires patience, deep domain understanding, and a willingness to spend time with customers whose work is not glamorous, and these traits are less common in the population of founders who self select into entrepreneurship.
The founders who do well in boring spaces tend to share a few characteristics. They are usually willing to learn an unfamiliar industry deeply enough to speak the language of the people who work in it, which takes months of effort and does not produce immediate rewards. They are also usually patient with customers whose initial reactions to new software are cautious rather than enthusiastic, since the customers in boring categories have often been burned by previous products that promised more than they delivered. And they are usually comfortable with companies that grow steadily rather than dramatically, since the growth curves in boring categories tend to be smoother and less photogenic than the curves in exciting ones.
What boring is not
It is worth being clear that the case for boring startups is not a case for low ambition, since boring companies can be deeply ambitious in scope, in quality of product, and in the size of the market they ultimately serve. Some of the largest software companies in the world were built in spaces that would have been called boring at their founding, and the founders behind those companies were not less ambitious than the founders of consumer apps, they were ambitious in a different direction.
The case is also not a case against working on exciting problems, since exciting problems sometimes produce real companies and there are founders for whom the exciting space is the right space. The case is simply that the cultural pressure to build something exciting often pushes founders away from spaces where their actual chances of success would be higher, and that pressure deserves to be questioned rather than absorbed without thought.
How to know if a boring space is right for you
If you find yourself drawn to a boring problem in a way you cannot easily explain, that is often worth following. The pull toward an unsexy problem is rarer than the pull toward a sexy one, and the unusualness of the pull is itself a useful signal.
Founders who have a genuine interest in a category that no one is paying attention to often find themselves in a market that is much more welcoming to careful work than the more crowded spaces would be.
If you are not naturally drawn to a boring space, you do not need to manufacture an interest in one, since forced interest tends to fade quickly. The point is not to chase boring categories for their own sake, but to take them seriously as a category when they show up in your thinking, and to resist the assumption that they are beneath you simply because they do not generate excitement at the start.
A closing thought
The pressure to build something exciting is one of the more persistent forces in startup culture, and it pushes founders away from spaces where their chances of building a durable business would be meaningfully higher. The case for boring startups is not a case against ambition, since boring companies can be deeply ambitious, it is a case for taking unfashionable categories seriously when they show up in your thinking, and for trusting that a quiet business with real customers and real retention is often a more durable foundation than a noisy business that is still trying to convince anyone that its work matters. The founders who pick the boring path early often find that the path is much less crowded than they expected, and the companies that result tend to look unimpressive for a while before quietly becoming the kind of company that everyone else wishes they had built.
Comments