You never would have thought by their office space that anything was wrong... http://www.businessinsider.com/living-social-office-tour-201...
LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
31–40 of 238 posts
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#32I know some of Living Social's original investors, and I approached them for an investment in my startup about 8 months ago. Part of our pitch was that daily deals solve and amazingly valuable problem in an inherently not-valuable way, and although our system would take less of a straight line, it would and already WAS solving the problem for a small subset of businesses in a more valuable and vastly more sustainable…
What was your old startup 8 months ago?
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#33* This Has To Be The Worst Written Article I've Seen In A While * Who Designed This Piece Of Art?
[deleted]
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#34I've always felt that companies like Groupon, LivingSocial, and Zynga do way more harm than good. Early on I was impressed by how well these startups were able to capture mainstream attention and change the way so many people live and behave. But at the end of the day, what value does Groupon and Zynga actually add to society? I'm of the opinion that most daily deals and social gaming companies bring out our most pri…
>are antithetical to human progress. This can be said of many startups, and this fact is causing a reactionary feeling toward the Valley in many tech/neckbeard circles.
Agree, technology for the sake of technology and growth for the sake of growth does not a business (or social good) make.
I love so much of what YC does but I wish their motto was not "Make something people want" but rather "Make something people need" because the two can often be diametrically opposed. Kinda like how a parent should not always give their child everything he/she wants (candy at every meal, constant attention, making a mess/scene everywhere you go, etc).
If we as startups only tried to make stuff people "want" then the world might end up looking like the dystopian society in the 2006 film "Idiocracy".
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#35If only they had beat Groupon to an IPO and been the ones to raise a warchest before the market realized these businesses were a terrible idea. Once this funding runs out they will probably be a great bargain basement acquisition for a handful of companies. I feel really bad for the hard working employees who were counting on the stock options =(
You should never count on stock options being anything other than a nice bonus that likely won't materialize. If you're taking a significant haircut on salary or benefits in order to have a shot at a big payday, you're doing it wrong.
Join a startup because you think it'll be a fun ride, not to make a million dollars.
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#36I know some of Living Social's original investors, and I approached them for an investment in my startup about 8 months ago. Part of our pitch was that daily deals solve and amazingly valuable problem in an inherently not-valuable way, and although our system would take less of a straight line, it would and already WAS solving the problem for a small subset of businesses in a more valuable and vastly more sustainable…
Do you think Daily Deals are a fundamentally flawed concept? I tend to think there's nothing wrong with them other than an over-saturation of the market and a prevailing attitude that says all you need is a sufficiently large mailing list to win. But that's just my outsider's view.
They are flawed unless you can do something about retention.
Has anyone tried the concept where the "deal" is that you go, name the site, and get a coupon giving you a deep discount the SECOND time you go back to that store? That would seem to make more sense. Because everyone that the store gives the deal to, has actually paid full price once. And wanted to go back. And if you've been twice, you're more likely to go 3x. And furthermore most of the failed leads were a sale, so nothing was lost.
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#37Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#38I've always felt that companies like Groupon, LivingSocial, and Zynga do way more harm than good. Early on I was impressed by how well these startups were able to capture mainstream attention and change the way so many people live and behave. But at the end of the day, what value does Groupon and Zynga actually add to society? I'm of the opinion that most daily deals and social gaming companies bring out our most pri…
Please define "good" and "human progress." In my experience these terms are often so nebulous as to be meaningless when applied to companies.
EDIT: How can you conclude that I'm wrong if even you haven't defined "good" and "human progress" in your argument?
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think Daily Deals are a fundamentally flawed concept? I tend to think there's nothing wrong with them other than an over-saturation of the market and a prevailing attitude that says all you need is a sufficiently large mailing list to win. But that's just my outsider's view.
They are flawed unless you can do something about retention. Has anyone tried the concept where the "deal" is that you go, name the site, and get a coupon giving you a deep discount the SECOND time you go back to that store? That would seem to make more sense. Because everyone that the store gives the deal to, has actually paid full price once. And wanted to go back. And if you've been twice, you're more likely to go…
This is not (initially) a retention issue. This is a pricing, inventory and product issue. The retention issue can be solved (I'll explain)
Daily deal sites that offer a discount coupon at a price to the consumer which they have already negotiated a steeper discount for themselves, while cheaper for the discount site, is too cheap for comfort for the vendor.
This is a negative incentive for the vendor to keep going with with discounts, thus reducing inventory. further, the discounts are typically on ephemeral things that people dont NEED but just want.
The model should be flipped a bit: offer progressive discounts on repeat business. i.e.: 20% off on first visit, 30% on second, 50% on third - etc.
Incentivise repeat business.
Re: LivingSocial: Employees' and Founders' Common Stock Now Worthless
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think Daily Deals are a fundamentally flawed concept? I tend to think there's nothing wrong with them other than an over-saturation of the market and a prevailing attitude that says all you need is a sufficiently large mailing list to win. But that's just my outsider's view.
They are flawed unless you can do something about retention. Has anyone tried the concept where the "deal" is that you go, name the site, and get a coupon giving you a deep discount the SECOND time you go back to that store? That would seem to make more sense. Because everyone that the store gives the deal to, has actually paid full price once. And wanted to go back. And if you've been twice, you're more likely to go…
CVS, El Pollo Loco to name 2 that I've interacted with lately. When you buy something there, they give you coupons at the register for next time that are pretty deep. I'm guessing this is a proven effective marketing technique judging by the big companies using it.