I might soon be part of an internet startup. We're talking with a relative about setting up a consultancy & business news service on a certain sector, and I've generated a part of the idea and accepted to take on the technical/editorial side for a while (I've almost a year til when I start my master's, and will probably work up until when I start my thesis; so almost two years). If things work out, this might be a dream job (except academia) for me, and even very lucrative. But I'm fairly n00b in this space, both business and professional work, though I have the technical skills. Thus I'm seeking general advice on

• how to organise this thing: how to make sure we communicate well on dates and plans and how to make educated guesses when setting up an agenda

• how much will it cost: we'll start with making a database and running a sector-specific blog/news site as publicity (though I'll make sure the content is quite decent, not just a showpiece), but then later we'll introduce a tangential online service and a mobile app leveraging that crowd

• working with non-techies: I'll be the only techie in this startup and I need to help people with gathering, storing, organising and utilising historical data with certain variables, ensuring they keep an accurate record and can make quality queries easily; the 3 people apart from me will be non technical

I think quite a bit of you here have been involved in this sort of scenario, so maybe you could have some advice for me. I'd appreciate anything, examples of approaches, links to tools, what not, anything you think could be useful. Thanks a lot in advance!

I just watched an interesting This Week in Startups interview with the CEO of a nascent but successful new "news" organization from the Netherlands called De Correspondent. They are launching a new US-based company called The Correspondent, which has some high profile supporters. This list includes Nate Silver, William Julius Wilson, Rosanne Cash, and some others.

Their business model allows them to attract high-quality journalists by optimizing for journalistic integrity and independence. They have around 60,000 members paying around $70 per year in the Netherlands. They do no advertising business and are a for-profit corp with a dividend cap of 5% to make themselves unattractive to VC-type investors. The CEO claims they "ignore the news," meaning that they try to avoid the sound-bite quips that can be very distracting. They do not report on individual's scandals, instead focusing on systemic issues.

Journalists are required to share their stories with the members as they are developing. Stories are not guarded secrets while in development unlike traditional news organizations. This allows members to contribute to the stories via a form of curated crowdsourcing. For example, they reached out to members when doing a story on Shell, and found a few members who had access to the company which led to discovery of Shell's own internal Inconvenient Truth type video which was made in 1991.

The CEO also mentioned that he always includes a developer or designer in story discussions so that the latest investigation and presentation tools can be used on a story from day one.

Please take a look at the links and let me know what you think of this model, and its chances in the US market. I am pretty excited for anyone trying anything new in this space. What do you think? Would you pay for something like this?

^{Edit: I'm not sure if there is a better ~group for this topic, please move it if there is. Also, formatting, phrasing, and clarity.}

Here is a direct link to the CEO's Medium account with more information.

I've hard a lot of great results using Google's OKR (Objectives and Key Results) framework in my roles leading technical and product teams. I've been tasked with bringing this framework across my organization, including to teams like marketing and business development.

My main issue recently has been around defining the key results of the projects that our teams are going to be pursuing. All of the advice I've gotten in the past has been to ensure that KRs are quantitative, NOT qualitative. This has been at odds with some of the projects the marketing and business teams are planning on working on. These are projects like...

• create a new marketing plan given the new budget constraints
• audit the distribution process to increase our information about the retail sales process

The push back I am getting is along the lines of "when I create the new marketing plan, the project will be complete, and therefore it's just whether or not I finished the plan that matters." i.e. if the objective is finished then the project is a success. My point of view is that ALL projects should have metrics attached to them, and if we can't measure the progress then we cannot show the added value to the business as a result of our effort.

The natural response is: what metrics would you attribute to projects like these? And THAT'S where I could use help. Coming from a product/tech background, my understanding of marketing, biz, and operations leaves something to be desired.

For the marketing plan, I suggested a metric could be to reduce the monthly marketing budget from $current to $future. For the distribution audit, I suggest we track the # of insights/recommendations we produced as a result of the audit. The pushback was that these metrics "didn't really matter" and that "how can we set a goal on insights - even one good insight could be worth a lot, but I could come up with 4 crappy insights just to achieve a numerical goal."

I'm a bit at a loss. I understand their point of view, and I really feel in my heart that we need to be pursuing measurable KRs. Do you have any advice?