There are three distinct phases in the journey of building a great tech company: technology, product, and commercialization. These phases are sequential yet interconnected and sometimes overlap. Needless to say, mastering each is critical to the company’s eventual success. However, it’s important to recognize their differences.

• Building technology is about founders creating what they love. It’s driven by passion and expertise and often leads to groundbreaking innovations.

• Building a product is about creating something others love to use. This is where usability and solving real problems come into focus.

• Commercialization is about building something people will pay for and driving revenue. This phase transforms users into paying customers or finds someone else to pay for it, such as advertisers.

These phases are related but distinct. Great technology doesn’t guarantee anyone will use it, and a widely-used product doesn’t always lead to revenue. I’ve seen many technologists create incredible technologies no one adopts, as well as popular products that fail to commercialize effectively (though it’s rare for a product with tens of millions of users to fail entirely).

For deep tech companies, these phases often have minimal overlap and unfold sequentially. The technology might take years to develop before a usable product emerges, and commercialization may come even later.

In contrast, shallow tech B2B SaaS products often see complete overlap between the phases. For example, a subscription model is typically apparent from the outset, and the tech, product, and commercialization phases blend seamlessly.

Wattpad is also a good example of how these phases can play out differently. Initially, we built our technology and product hand in hand, creating a platform loved by millions of users. However, its commercialization—whether through ads, subscriptions, or movies, the three revenue models we had—was deliberately delayed. Many people assumed we didn’t know how to make money without understanding this counterintuitive approach (but of course, we purposely kept some of our strategies under wraps). This approach allowed us to use “free” as a potent weapon to dominate—and eliminate—our competitors in a winner-takes-all strategy. Operating for years with minimal revenue was clearly the right decision for the market dynamics and our long-term goals. More on this in a separate blog post.

Given this variability, asking, “What is your revenue?” must be thoughtful and context-specific. For some companies, the absence of revenue may be an intentional and brilliant strategy. For others, insufficient revenue could signal serious trouble. It all depends on the company’s stage, strategy, and goals. Understanding the sequence, timing, and specific needs of a business model is crucial for both investors and entrepreneurs. Zero revenue could be a blessing in the right context. On the other hand, pushing for revenue growth—let alone the wrong type of revenue growth—can be fatal, a scenario we’ve seen many times.

At Two Small Fish Ventures, we are very thoughtful and experienced investors. We understand that starting to generate revenue—or choosing not to generate revenue—at the right time is one of the secrets to success that very few people have mastered. We practise what we preach. Over the past two years, all but one of TSF’s investments have been pre-revenue.

No revenue? No problem. In fact, that’s great. Bring them on!

P.S. This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given.