Take two random people, Bob and Sarah. The chance that each of them is going to start a company is equal.
Leave Bob to get on with his life. Maybe he'll start a company, maybe he won't.
Invite Sarah to a private event at a well-funded VC company and call it "Future Founders".
If either of them definitely wasn't going to start a company then they still won't. If either definitely was then they still will. Nothing has changed.
But if either of them had considered starting, and was wondering whether to or not, being labelled a "Future Founder" and being granted access to a group of 349 other people who rank highly on an entrepreneurial scale, plus direct contact with high profile VCs seems likely to influence their decision. That nudge could easily account for the difference between founders and non-founders.
Did MatterMark factor that in to their findings? Seems a bit self-fulfilling as prophetic judgements go to me.
Leave Bob to get on with his life. Maybe he'll start a company, maybe he won't.
Invite Sarah to a private event at a well-funded VC company and call it "Future Founders".
If either of them definitely wasn't going to start a company then they still won't. If either definitely was then they still will. Nothing has changed.
But if either of them had considered starting, and was wondering whether to or not, being labelled a "Future Founder" and being granted access to a group of 349 other people who rank highly on an entrepreneurial scale, plus direct contact with high profile VCs seems likely to influence their decision. That nudge could easily account for the difference between founders and non-founders.
Did MatterMark factor that in to their findings? Seems a bit self-fulfilling as prophetic judgements go to me.