Lessons from a Conversation with Uspace’s Founder
Today, I had a valuable dialogue with Uspace’s founder, Dr. Hossein Moradi. Uspace.ir is an online platform for discovering and booking ecotourism accommodations, traditional hotels, and local stays across the country. The insights I gained from this conversation were more than helpful to me.
At the beginning, he talked about three years of “malnutrition,” as he called it, when their sales were simply not enough to sustain the business. He mentioned a mistake they made at the time: expanding a company’s focus when you do not even have your feet on steady ground. He also connected this to an engineering and academic mindset: trying to build something comprehensive that could serve everyone instead of solving one specific problem really well. So, they realized the mistake and decided to focus on one specific area: ecotourism accommodation. They saw both growth potential in this area and less competition compared to more crowded parts of the market.
He mentioned that the “malnutrition era” ended after three years when they focused on ecotourism. But there was another problem waiting for them: the chicken-and-egg problem. They needed customers to attract suppliers, and suppliers to attract customers. They solved this in an interesting way. They built a large network of accommodation providers, attracted users through search, and then connected those users with the providers. The interesting part for me was not the specific tactic. It was the underlying principle: When a business depends on two sides of a market, you sometimes have to create the conditions for one side to appear before the other side has a reason to participate.
Although they started growing after three years, he said they really suffered from the lack of qualified mentors who could help them. If such mentorship had been available, those three years could have been reduced drastically. I asked him what he would do differently now, with the benefit of hindsight. He said they would start selling much sooner. He also suggested that startups should not postpone selling. They should enter the market as soon as possible, because selling is not just about gaining more money. It is one of the most practical learning tools. Going into the market, talking to customers, trying to sell, and seeing what people actually respond to can teach you things that planning alone cannot.
As they grew, much bigger problems arrived: competitors with much greater financial resources than Uspace. He said some of them outperformed Uspace, while some of them lost despite having more financial resources. According to him, one reason was that they spent a lot of money on marketing before actually understanding market demand. Having more money was an advantage, but knowing where and why to spend it mattered just as much. He also mentioned that, besides money and technology, there are things that cannot easily be acquired: long-term relationships and trust with accommodation providers.
One thing that was particularly interesting to me was his perspective on the difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics. He said that many experienced people in business often confuse the two. They see negativity in the macroeconomy and infer that the microeconomy is doomed as well. He argued that this is not necessarily accurate. We see many businesses making even more money during periods of macroeconomic crisis. This does not mean that the macroeconomy has no effect on them, but it does mean that its effect is not necessarily the same for every business. He continued by saying that some consultants look at the macroeconomic situation and start prescribing the same conclusion to every startup. The macro environment matters. But the actual business, its customers, economics, and position in the market have to be understood separately.
A Consultant Should Understand the Business Before Applying the Framework.
This was one of the points I found especially relevant because I am interested in consulting. We talked about how easy it can be to approach a company with a familiar framework and try to make the situation fit it. But a framework should help us understand a business, not replace understanding it. The same economic conditions can produce very different outcomes for different companies. So, before asking, “Which framework should I apply?”, perhaps the better question is: “What is actually happening inside this business?”
Another lesson I took from the conversation was less technical and more personal. The CEO emphasized that reading, studying, and collecting knowledge are valuable, but they do not automatically create the courage required to make decisions. He described courage almost like a muscle: it develops through taking responsibility, entering unfamiliar situations, making decisions, and learning from the consequences. At some point, you have to stop preparing to act and actually act.
Perhaps the most personal part of the conversation was our discussion of what entrepreneurship ultimately gives you. Financial return is obviously part of the equation. But the CEO also talked about the relationships built along the way, the people you meet, the experiences you accumulate, and the sense of meaning that can come from building something. That changed the way I was thinking about the journey. A business can create financial value. But building a business can also create human value: relationships, experiences, perspective, and a network of people you would never have met otherwise. And perhaps that is one reason entrepreneurship remains meaningful even when the financial outcome is uncertain.