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

Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 54 posts

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#41

Post by _delirium »

crassus wrote: post #9
tomasien wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to write "Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" - it's extremely relevant. It's just a rhetorical device to help someone understand a complex issue, it's rarely if ever how you actually came UP with the idea - it's just how you explain it. There is a problem with this though - for example, I'm working on something right now that if you can't see the demo (let's say we're on a phone call), it's…

Slightly OT, but what's up with the rise of the anti-tech media on the east coast? Who reads that trash anyway? It's all about weird tech CEOs, accusations of prejudice, accusations of unoriginality, and the like.

I haven't really noticed a coastal difference in that respect. The LA Review of Books, not to mention any number of lesser outlets, has been holding down the fort for anti-tech west coast media. :)

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#42

Post by chetanahuja »

byoung2 wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #2

It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality. A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey i…

It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry lines.

"while for startups it is encouraged"

It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community. Several investors I know will immediately go into a defensive shell as soon as they hear the "X for Y" construction. If you're a budding startup, please do your homework and know your audience before deciding the main tagline of your pitch.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#43

Post by 6cxs2hd6 »

001sky wrote: post #27
6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the New York Times is trash? If so, I disagree. Although I wouldn't put any institution on a pedestal, I would say that the NYT is demonstrably a non-trashy news organization. Demonstrable in part by the fact you don't love everything they write about your precious industry or coast -- that is in fact an indication that they're doing a good job, i.e. not pleasing everyone all the time.

Are you saying the New York Times is trash WAT? He's referring to the trash they [1,2]. Its more akin saying the east coast media has a napoleon complex wrt the west coast (because the growing wealth threaten's old money/media's sense of self/hegemony). Lots of people use "trashtalk" professionally, eg sportsmen. Hell, it even has its own wikipedia page. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash-talk [2] https://en.wik…

Well I also disagree that the New York Times writes trash, either.

Yes we're all primates. Yes you can usefully analyze a lot of behavior in terms of tribes and regions, and who is the current or former alpha male, etc. At the same time, you can make an effort to transcend that, with at least partial success. An organization like the NYT exists to try. They can never be 100% successful. But I think it's missing the point to fling feces at them, saying, "Hey, they're just flinging feces." O_o

The article has a valid point. What some of y'all need is the Uber of Ubers -- an app that geolocates the nearest business, and spits out a business plan for Uber-izing it. Which you can run down to the average investor who wants to hide in the middle of the tribe/herd.

Obviously not all startups or investors are that unoriginal. pg has a great point that some are original, but need to seem less so -- to simplify their message -- for the average bear. Even so, many startups are yawningly copycat. And some folks doth protest too much when it's pointed out.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#44

Post by dasil003 »

byoung2 wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #2

It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality. A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey i…

It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry lines.

I think it's an equally valid technique in both industries. It's just been around longer in the film industry which has a similar pitch-for-play financing culture as silicon valley, except it's been that way for quite a long time (since the collapse of the studio system really) so there's been a lot longer of the ecosystem to develop a culture of fast-talking pitchmen who may or may not have any substance, but are certainly ripe for satire and mockery either way.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#45

Post by ChuckMcM »

yajoe wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #3

The author confuses the language of ' for ' with a copy of. If you are the 'Uber of Dog Walking' you are not a copy of Uber. Instead you have taken one part of the Uber puzzle, "on demand access using a smart phone" and applied it to the problem of finding a dog walker [1]. The sort of language arises because these techniques and technologies are created without names. In the physical world, you might have something…

Like you, I place little weight on the findings from a few keyword searches. Such vacuous analysis. That said, there are a few incentives in play for the "X for Y" or " for " language and why to use it over more simple, implementation-free descriptive text: 1. Newly-entered startups : Your wonderful description about why it is more efficient. See above :) 2. companies (the Ubers and AirBnBs): Having other people cons…

I like your analysis of the incentives to do it, it reminded me that there is another place where it is used, Entertainment. Projects are pitched as "this is the Rambo for Millenials" or "This is Bonanza in Space."

So in those cases there is an attempt to transfer some of the success 'aura' of the brand name to the pitched project. No one pitches a movie saying its like "Heaven's Gate" :-) and I suppose nobody pitches a startup as "The Color for Dog Walkers."

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#46

Post by namenotrequired »

byoung2 wrote: post #40
pg wrote: post #2

It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is a sign of lack of originality. A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most good original ideas-- are initially conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you can convey i…

It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry lines.

My best friend is a wildlife documentary maker and we often discuss the differences between our fields. Another example is that in his field, everyone's idea is their big secret, while in the startup world, you're constantly reminded that your idea alone is worth very little and that you should talk about it as much as possible. I think the underlying difference is that when you're making a documentary, it's impractical to run "lean" or gather feedback from the market before it's done. You raise money once (based primarily on your idea), then you go to the location and shoot, then you do the montage, etc and ultimately there's a (hopefully big) release. There's barely any feedback loop to speak of.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#47

Post by byoung2 »

chetanahuja wrote: post #42
byoung2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry lines.

"while for startups it is encouraged" It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community. Several investors I know will immediately go into a defensive shell as soon as they hear the "X for Y" construction. If you're a budding startup, please do your homework and know your audience before deciding the main tagline of your pitch.

It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community

Look at every major tech blog or site and you'll see list after list of startups described as "this for that" so even if it's not universal among investors, it is more than just PG pushing it.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#48

Post by iamwil »

X for Y is just a simple way of explaining something. Smart people can maybe make two leaps, but most people have trouble making a mental leap that's further than one step away from what they know. So you start with "X for Y" as a mental hook to hang their mental hat on. Then you can build from there.

Whether it's actually an original idea or not depends on nuances of the space, that most people aren't use to talking about, unless they usually think of this sort of thing. So it's easy to be dismissive.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#49

Post by gress »

pg wrote: post #16
gress wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While that misconception is true, it doesn't negate the point that there are a lot of start-ups that are just playing house, trying to act like a start up in the hope that they'll strike it lucky.

True, but there are wannabees in every field where the people who succeed become rich or famous. There's nothing newsworthy about that sort of background radiation lameness. Or more precisely, it's one of the recipes for an Onion article.

I'm not so sure. A lot depends on how many there are, and how often they get funded, because they will destroy a lot of wealth and provide bad experience for the people they employ along the way. There seems to be more potential for harm than for wannabe pop-stars.

Re: Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up

#50

Post by 001sky »

6cxs2hd6 wrote: post #43
001sky wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the New York Times is trash WAT? He's referring to the trash they [1,2]. Its more akin saying the east coast media has a napoleon complex wrt the west coast (because the growing wealth threaten's old money/media's sense of self/hegemony). Lots of people use "trashtalk" professionally, eg sportsmen. Hell, it even has its own wikipedia page. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trash-talk [2] https://en.wik…

Well I also disagree that the New York Times writes trash, either. Yes we're all primates. Yes you can usefully analyze a lot of behavior in terms of tribes and regions, and who is the current or former alpha male, etc. At the same time, you can make an effort to transcend that, with at least partial success. An organization like the NYT exists to try. They can never be 100% successful. But I think it's missing the p…

Well I also disagree that the New York Times writes trash

Odd that someone who thinks the NYT is a 'transcendental' organization is wedded to a literal interpretaion of word.

Post reply on HN