Timothy Ojo

Dear founders, you cannot solve a broken core business model by acquiring other companies. It has never worked, and it will never work. Growth without governance is never a strategy. How does a $22 billion EdTech company collapse in the space of three years? It's simple: they mistook easy borrowing for smart business and tried to expand through debt-fueled acquisitions without a solid plan. This is the story of BYJU's. In 2021, just as the pandemic was unfolding, BYJU'S was a shining star of the Indian startup scene with a valuation of $22 billion. However, by 2024, they were facing insolvency, the founder was facing legal troubles, and the company's value had plummeted. Their main mistake was acquiring various companies without any operational connection, relying on borrowed money. Instead of focusing on improving their existing business, they spent $1.2 billion to buy unrelated companies, which didn’t lead to profitability. They created a confusing mix of businesses that didn’t work well together, resembling corporate hoarding more than a united empire. To show growth to investors, they fostered a toxic sales culture that alienated their main customers: parents. When schools reopened after the pandemic and the demand for online learning dropped, Byju's was left with high debt, high costs, and uncoordinated subsidiaries. Using harsh sales tactics doesn’t build trust; it damages your brand. You can’t fix a failing business by buying other companies. If your business model is flawed, expanding it only makes things worse. Ultimately, growth requires good governance; without it, bankruptcy is inevitable.

Dear founders, you can’t solve a complicated business problem just by raising more money when you lack focus. Changing direction 27 times is not being flexible; it’s a sign of panic fueled by too much funding. For context, let's dig into the failure of a company that was once valued at $4 billion. Olive AI, a healthcare automation company, raised $850 million and reached a $4 billion valuation, with support from investors such as Tiger Global and General Catalyst. By late 2023, Olive AI had quietly sold its remaining core assets and shut down its operations completely. The reason for this downfall? A long-standing lack of product focus, disguised as "strategic agility." Olive AI’s original idea was strong: use AI and computer vision to automate the tedious administrative and billing tasks that cost hospitals billions each year. On paper, it looked like a great, high-profit business opportunity in healthcare software-as-a-service (SaaS). Pitching AI as a solution for healthcare administration sounds exciting, especially in Silicon Valley. However, integrating new technology with a hospital's outdated mainframe is a significant challenge. The company faced serious operational ups and downs. Internal reports show that it changed its main business approach an incredible 27 times during its existence. Instead of focusing on mastering a single valuable workflow in the complex hospital sales process, Olive pursued multiple product lines at once. It jumped from revenue cycle automation to population health and utilization management without a clear direction. Changing your core business model 27 times is not being "lean" or "agile." It shows a major $850 million panic response. They increased their staff to 1,400 people before proving they had a real fit for their products in the market. This led them to quickly deplete their cash reserves while receiving mostly negative customer reviews. There is a thin line between being strategically agile and creating chaos. Changing products frequently for different customer groups, subject to strict regulations, makes it hard to work efficiently, reduces client trust, and leads to knowledge loss within the organization. If you hire 1,400 people before clearly understanding what you are selling and who your customers are, you are surely not creating a tech giant—you are just hosting an expensive networking event. You cannot fix complex problems in the enterprise industry by simply raising more money without a clear focus. You need to master one challenging workflow before trying to build an entire ecosystem.

Dear founders, scaling a business won't solve its lack of profitability; it will only make the eventual losses bigger. Hear me and hear me well. Let me provide context, so you can at least get where I am coming from. In 2021, FARFETCH was a leading luxury e-commerce company worth $26 billion.    By late 2023, its stock had plummeted to just 63 cents per share, leading to a forced sale to Coupang for $500 million.    This drastic decline highlights the weaknesses in the luxury marketplace business model.   FARFETCH grew quickly by using a low-cost, tech-driven marketplace approach, connecting with over 1,400 luxury boutiques and becoming the go-to digital platform for a traditionally exclusive industry. Being the "asset-light" tech middleman for high-end fashion is a brilliant, high-margin way to print money—right up until you decide you actually want to own the heavy, expensive real estate and inventory yourself. As growth naturally slowed post-pandemic, leadership abandoned their lean roots and made a series of highly capital-intensive bets. They bought physical stores like Browns and brand management companies such as New Guards Group, and even tried to restructure with rival YNAP for billions. They took on significant debt to become a large corporate group before their main market was profitable. When global luxury demand dropped in 2023, their high costs and debt led to serious cash-flow issues they couldn't manage. Taking on huge debt to acquire physical stores while your online operations are losing money is like getting a second mortgage for a yacht when you can’t pay your rent. Simply growing bigger doesn’t solve the problem of being unprofitable. If your business relies on high-margin luxury sales to support costly acquisitions, even a small downturn can lead to financial trouble. You need to keep operations lean until your core business can generate profit, regardless of the economy. Aggregation can be a great business model, but not if you end up with the debts of the companies you’re acquiring. If you tackle their supply chain challenges and expenses, you transition from being a tech platform into just another heavily indebted retailer.

Hey LinkedIn Fam. I am currently open to new opportunities in Marketing, Communications, Strategy & Operations. Over the past 7+ years, I've worked across marketing, operations, and communications — building growth strategy, running talent and community operations, and leading cross-functional teams across Africa to the Americas. A few things I've done: - Grew engagement 1,000% and inbound leads 80% through SEO and content strategy - Scaled a community from 2,000 to 10,000+ members - Built email and social channels from zero for early-stage startups I work best where marketing and operations meet — where growth strategy needs process. If your team is having trouble with their strategy and operations, I provide training. I am very skilled at it. Currently building Éclatant and leading marketing at FannDrop, and open to my next full-time or contract role in Marketing Strategy, Growth Operations, or Communications. If you're hiring, or know someone who is, I'd appreciate an intro. Please help by sharing and commenting for wider reach. You can contact me at timothypojo@gmail.com or use the link in the comments to schedule a call.

Dear founders, if your system can't identify ownership during a crisis, you're facing a potential risk. When the fintech middleman Synapse declared bankruptcy in mid-2024, more than 100,000 everyday consumers were shocked to discover that a staggering $265 million of their funds had been frozen. This wasn't a classic, old-school bank run—it was a catastrophic, modern failure of a multi-ledger architectural system. Synapse was once the golden child of the Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) boom, acting as the technological middleware that magically connected flashy, consumer-facing fintech apps to slow, traditional, licensed banks. As the middleman, Synapse maintained the internal bookkeeping ledger to track exactly who owned what inside massive, pooled omnibus bank accounts. Being "middleware" seems like a great, profitable software business until you realize that in finance, it means you're the one stopping millions of dollars from disappearing. The whole system worked seamlessly right up until a major partner dispute triggered a sudden, brutal cash crunch. Under pressure, Synapse's internal ledger completely de-synchronized from the actual cash balances held at the partner banks, revealing a massive, unexplainable shortfall of between $60 million and $90 million. Nobody could reconcile the math under stress. Because multiple different entities held different "pieces of the truth," the entire money flow was completely paralyzed. "Move fast and break things" might work for a photo-sharing app, but when it comes to managing people's rent money, breaking things can lead to serious problems like bankruptcy. Using modular technology makes software faster and more flexible, but in finance, it can create bigger risks. If your business handles financial transactions or data, keeping your ledgers accurate isn't just a routine task—it's crucial for managing risks effectively. Innovation in finance simply cannot outpace data integrity. If you can't clearly identify ownership during a crisis, you don't have a functioning fintech platform; you just have a potential problem waiting to happen.

Dear founders, your distribution channel must be grounded in financial realities, not just feelings. For over 70 years, Tupperware was literally a household verb. But in September 2024, the iconic kitchenware brand filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, drowning under $700 million in debt. Tupperware's downfall wasn't due to a poor product; their plastic was still strong. Instead, they failed to change their sales strategy. They relied on the "Tupperware Party," a successful mid-century model that used neighborhood gatherings to sell products. However, as shopping moved online and became more convenient, Tupperware held on to its old ways to avoid upsetting its salespeople. Making a millennial or Gen-Z buyer sit through a long, uncomfortable sales pitch just to purchase a plastic storage container will likely push them to buy a cheaper version on Amazon instead. While modern competitors like OXO and Rubbermaid Home Products dominated internet searches and filled shelves in big-box retailers, Tupperware stubbornly clung to its traditional direct-sales model for too long. By the time they finally recognized the need for change and secured a deal to feature their products in Target stores in late 2022, they had already lost an entire generation of younger consumers. A temporary surge in sales during the pandemic, driven by increased home cooking, only obscured the ongoing financial struggles they faced. Brand nostalgia might get you a viral retro TikTok video, but it absolutely will not pay off $700 million in legacy corporate debt. Your distribution channel cannot be more sentimental than your financial realities. Sticking with old sales partners at the cost of reaching future customers is a bad strategy. TL:DR: A great product will fail against an average product that's easy to access. If your customers have to work hard just to figure out how to give you their money, they will eventually just give it to someone else.