Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Worst VC Firms' Websites

bernardi.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#31

Post by mnicole »

hkmurakami wrote: post #28
webwright wrote: post #26

It's certainly reasonable to say that VCs shouldn't be great at building web sites. But I want my investors to give a damn. One of my favorited tweets (by Alexis Ohanian): "Give a damn. Give so many damns. As a startup/small shop, it's the only competitive advantage you have against incumbents." I think their website can be a reflection of how much they give a damn. Maybe they are an incumbent and they don't have to.…

Wouldn't you want your investors to give a damn about their portfolio companies, rather than give a damn about their own facade of a website?

I will never understand this mentality. A website is a storefront, it creates trust. Do you want your portfolio company working out of a basement, a shack?

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#32

Post by webwright »

hkmurakami wrote: post #28
webwright wrote: post #26

It's certainly reasonable to say that VCs shouldn't be great at building web sites. But I want my investors to give a damn. One of my favorited tweets (by Alexis Ohanian): "Give a damn. Give so many damns. As a startup/small shop, it's the only competitive advantage you have against incumbents." I think their website can be a reflection of how much they give a damn. Maybe they are an incumbent and they don't have to.…

Wouldn't you want your investors to give a damn about their portfolio companies, rather than give a damn about their own facade of a website?

False choice. VCs have a functionally unlimited budget-- they can give a damn about both with a negligible cost.

And their web site isn't a "facade"-- it's how they communicate with their future portfolio companies, press, people looking for jobs at startups, new partner/associate prospects, LPs, etc.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#33

Post by conorh »

webwright wrote: post #32
hkmurakami wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you want your investors to give a damn about their portfolio companies, rather than give a damn about their own facade of a website?

False choice. VCs have a functionally unlimited budget-- they can give a damn about both with a negligible cost. And their web site isn't a "facade"-- it's how they communicate with their future portfolio companies, press, people looking for jobs at startups, new partner/associate prospects, LPs, etc.

I will say, having worked on two VC sites now (see comments on http://kpcb.com below - KP is an exception to this). Most VCs can be incredibly cheap when it comes to these types of expenses, for whatever reason they are not willing to pay what it takes to get it done well.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#34

Post by biot »

stefanobernardi wrote: post #3
coverband wrote: post #2

This title doesn't convey the meaning you intended. ("Bad web sites", not "bad VCs"...)

You're right. Any better suggestions?

The title is currently "Worst VC Firms' Websites". Just move the adjective over: "VC Firms' Worst Websites" or to get rid of the semi-ambiguous possessive: "Worst Websites of VC Firms".

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#35

Post by sopooneo »

mnicole wrote: post #31
hkmurakami wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you want your investors to give a damn about their portfolio companies, rather than give a damn about their own facade of a website?

I will never understand this mentality. A website is a storefront, it creates trust. Do you want your portfolio company working out of a basement, a shack?

I agree with you. But from another angle, these companies are already world famous. In a way, a poor design on their web sites may become an indicator of trustworthiness in their small niche. Like sometimes very high quality products come in drab packaging, because (a) they don't have to show off, and (b) it distinguishes them from the reasonably good and they don't have to worry about being mistaken for the really bad.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#36

Post by kalininalex »

hkmurakami wrote: post #27
vijayr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

off topic, why is GEICO ad on the front page of BH?

Well GEICO is owned by BH, but you're right, that doesn't quite explain why BH would choose to put an ad there. Maybe it's because GEICO is the only company/service that BH owns where every single extra pair of eyeballs that see a company's ad benefits the company. (Seeing ads on the BH page for railroad companies or electricity companies or even clothing companies probably doesn't nearly as much good for the firms a…

GEICO is by far the most favorite company of Warren Buffett (with probably Ajit Jain's National Idemnity close second). I think this is more of an expression of sentiment rather than real advertising.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#37

Post by fleitz »

showerst wrote: post #10

I'm not so sure there's much of a correlation between successful investing and having a nice site ... http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ That said, I suppose it's fair to expect that companies funding web technology have passable sites.

Looks like it was designed by Craig Newmark.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#38

Post by ryanlchan »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #20

You know who else has a horrible website? Berkshire Hathaway http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ . Lets think about this for a minute. Do VC firms want people to go to their website and email them about a cool investment? How do people actually interact with VC firms is that its usually a one on one with the company that they are trying to invest in. Therefore, they don't really need a expensive website to be successfu…

There's a great point here - the VCs are just like any good start up, and are investing only in things that help make them more successful. The difference here is that the VCs are likely satisfied focusing on qualifying inbound leads, whereas most of the businesses we see on HN are actively trying to attract traffic with outbound messaging.

A nice looking webpage is the VC equivalent of a 'vanity metric' - sure it looks good, but does it help them source great investments? Perhaps it raises the number of views on their website, but are any of them the high-quality entrepreneurs they'd like to invest in?

Frankly, I'd think that the problem that the top VC firms is not knowing enough people, it is finding enough time to properly evaluate them all. If you're picking a VC based on their website and not their intrinsic business worth or ability to help you succeed, you probably aren't the kind of business they're looking for.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#39

Post by stefanobernardi »

sopooneo wrote: post #35
mnicole wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand this mentality. A website is a storefront, it creates trust. Do you want your portfolio company working out of a basement, a shack?

I agree with you. But from another angle, these companies are already world famous. In a way, a poor design on their web sites may become an indicator of trustworthiness in their small niche. Like sometimes very high quality products come in drab packaging, because (a) they don't have to show off, and (b) it distinguishes them from the reasonably good and they don't have to worry about being mistaken for the really b…

This is actually a very interesting point. But it's not industry wide in this case, meaning that some of the top firms have pretty awesome sites, so that's what got me curious.

Re: Worst VC Firms' Websites

#40

Post by stefanobernardi »

ryanlchan wrote: post #38
zitterbewegung wrote: post #20

You know who else has a horrible website? Berkshire Hathaway http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ . Lets think about this for a minute. Do VC firms want people to go to their website and email them about a cool investment? How do people actually interact with VC firms is that its usually a one on one with the company that they are trying to invest in. Therefore, they don't really need a expensive website to be successfu…

There's a great point here - the VCs are just like any good start up, and are investing only in things that help make them more successful. The difference here is that the VCs are likely satisfied focusing on qualifying inbound leads, whereas most of the businesses we see on HN are actively trying to attract traffic with outbound messaging. A nice looking webpage is the VC equivalent of a 'vanity metric' - sure it lo…

That is very probably true.

I also think that the stage of the VC plays a big role here. Usually early stage VCs are the ones that will be the most involved in product, and also given their abundance at the moment, they need to "show off" that they know what they're talking about.

Late stage VCs add value in a very different way, operations, sales, finance, etc. and thus have absolutely no idea nor interest on how to create a compelling website.

Post reply on HN