OK, but I suspect that is more of a superstition thing, like "on a full moon more babies are born" - people tend to remember the births on the full moon, but there are not really more babies. Likewise it might be more memorable if a mocked company becomes successful.
At the end of the linked MSNBC video, the reporter (Kate Snow) is arguing that nobody is policing the pledged projects and that she could theoretically "go on there and say I'm gonna raise money to make a record album and then get all the money. And, if I never make a record album, nobody knows any different."
Yes. To be listed on a public stock exchange (NASDAQ, NYSE, etc) a company must be extensively audited (e.g., "does this factory really exist? lets go look") and is subject to various regulations (e.g. Sarbox).
When Chuggy G. raises money for an album on kickstarter, you might be surprised to discover that Accenture does not actually audit her.
There are scammers just like on ebay or any other site where money is exchanged, and in a way the nature of the site sort of implies risk because you're essentially investing in the development of a product, it's like a crowdsource VC, but you can filter through the noise and find interesting ideas with inventors who demonstrate their knowledge of the engineering with high quality videos, previous experience and prototypes.
> I think we have some problems with causation here.
Hell, there's even a problem with correlation here. We've all seen plenty of crap that is mocked and misunderstood that sank to the bottom of the sea without fanfare.
> I think Fred is arguing that it's often necessary or quasi-necessary or something.
I think he's trying to say something along the lines of "even if you're mocked and misunderstood, persevere, because it does not mean that your product is not good."
It's a pretty poor way to go about saying that, though, and it comes off as if he's bitter about what he heard and trying to reassure himself that his product is good.
We remember the startups that were mocked but became breakout successes. We don't remember the 1000 startups that were mocked because they were terrible ideas, and failed because of it.
can't comment on the specific twitter question because that's confidential info. but it is very much on its way to becoming a big and sustainable business.
i think the flaw in my post is you need something more than being mocked and misunderstood. you need traction, usage, momentum, etc.
but when you have that and continue to be mocked and misunderstood, that's a very positive signal to me.
Can you provide any sort of insight into what will make twitter profitable? I'm not asking for numbers or anything, just some idea as to what will make it a long lasting, sustainable business with a real business model? You're original post and this comment are certainly on point in that twitter has traction and it's use is massive and wide spread, but in the end it comes down to who's paying for it? Will twitter move to an optional (freemium) subscription model? Will it admit it's a marketing and advertising dream data set and sell that? I personally don't use twitter and my own bias has always left me not understanding the point (too much noise) but I'm certainly interested in what the plan to become a real business is.
| you need something more than being mocked and misunderstood. you need traction, usage, momentum, etc.
Companies that have traction, usage, momentum, etc and ARE NOT mocked and misunderstood certainly outperform the ones that fit those criteria and were mocked and misunderstood.
Nonetheless, if you look at all the variables that could play a role in a company's success I doubt "mocked & misunderstood" has any predictive value over a large enough sample.
When I was in graduate school I was timid. If I had an idea that people didn't get right away, I wouldn't stick with it.
Today if I'm working on something and people don't think I'm crazy, I think I'm wasting my time. If everybody understands the value of something, you're getting in too late.
I have to say, I do get a certain kick out of seeing the success of things I use, which started out being ridiculed.
Twitter is an excellent example -- in its earlier days it really was something special, but people mocked it in the manner he describes. And of course now it's indispensable. Basically everything Apple made in the last 10 years or so would be another example.
I think it's because to ridicule this things is to imply that their users are essentially idiots, whereas the one doing the ridiculing is a free-thinking skeptic. Then, slowly, you watch them all get iPods and Macbooks and Twitter accounts...
One thing Fred missed to say is, while getting mocked and misunderstood may be the pattern (pattern derived from twitter alone (I kid you not, twitter was the only example in the article)), it doesn't mean all mocked and misunderstood companies will be successful.
I'm surprised at how few here are understanding what Fred is saying. He's saying if it's so far out of people's context that they have a hard time understanding it, that you might be changing the context to something completely new. You might have a whole new ballpark.
Personally, the most mocked and misunderstood web service I can think of within the last couple years is Chatroullette. I guess this rule passed over them.
I would say AirBNB is one of the most mocked and misunderstood companies in the last couple years and it's a great example of a breakout success. A whole lot of people thought nobody would invite strangers into their house.
Twitter has established itself as the social PR tool on the web. Any brand on the web that wants to signal effort and understanding of the game must have a Twitter account with daily updates.
The value for marketers is clear. It's an inexpensive way to build organic traction.
The value for individual users, who are the product, is less clear. Twitter is immensely noisy, and is becoming more noisy as it's use as a PR tool increases. It's not clear to me why, overall, it's worth it for people to read their Twitter feeds. I certainly don't read mine, I just push out a tweet a day to signal I'm trendy.
For example, Fred Wilson's Twitter updates are links to his blog posts plus some (for me) out of context public messages to people I don't know, ie. junk (for me). I might as well unsubscribe and add his RSS to Google Reader and save myself the noise. Just did.
33 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 78.3 ms ] threadMy mother doesn't know shinola about Dropbox, yet I'd say they're successful.
Is that really so with Kickstarter?
When Chuggy G. raises money for an album on kickstarter, you might be surprised to discover that Accenture does not actually audit her.
Being mocked and misunderstood seems neither necessary nor sufficient to making it big.
I think Fred is arguing that it's often necessary or quasi-necessary or something.
This really seems more like an emotional reaction to negative press than Fred's normal well-thought-out posts.
Also, is Twitter profitable yet? That gets asked way too much, but I still don't know the answer yet.
Hell, there's even a problem with correlation here. We've all seen plenty of crap that is mocked and misunderstood that sank to the bottom of the sea without fanfare.
is this a clever ploy to try and get some sagging stock up?
I think he's trying to say something along the lines of "even if you're mocked and misunderstood, persevere, because it does not mean that your product is not good."
It's a pretty poor way to go about saying that, though, and it comes off as if he's bitter about what he heard and trying to reassure himself that his product is good.
We remember the startups that were mocked but became breakout successes. We don't remember the 1000 startups that were mocked because they were terrible ideas, and failed because of it.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
[1] Apparently he really did say it too: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Sourced
i think the flaw in my post is you need something more than being mocked and misunderstood. you need traction, usage, momentum, etc.
but when you have that and continue to be mocked and misunderstood, that's a very positive signal to me.
http://blog.twitter.com/2010/10/promoted-promotions.html
that is what they have been focusing on for the past few years and it is producing a lot of revenue now
Companies that have traction, usage, momentum, etc and ARE NOT mocked and misunderstood certainly outperform the ones that fit those criteria and were mocked and misunderstood.
Nonetheless, if you look at all the variables that could play a role in a company's success I doubt "mocked & misunderstood" has any predictive value over a large enough sample.
When I was in graduate school I was timid. If I had an idea that people didn't get right away, I wouldn't stick with it.
Today if I'm working on something and people don't think I'm crazy, I think I'm wasting my time. If everybody understands the value of something, you're getting in too late.
Twitter is an excellent example -- in its earlier days it really was something special, but people mocked it in the manner he describes. And of course now it's indispensable. Basically everything Apple made in the last 10 years or so would be another example.
I think it's because to ridicule this things is to imply that their users are essentially idiots, whereas the one doing the ridiculing is a free-thinking skeptic. Then, slowly, you watch them all get iPods and Macbooks and Twitter accounts...
The value for marketers is clear. It's an inexpensive way to build organic traction.
The value for individual users, who are the product, is less clear. Twitter is immensely noisy, and is becoming more noisy as it's use as a PR tool increases. It's not clear to me why, overall, it's worth it for people to read their Twitter feeds. I certainly don't read mine, I just push out a tweet a day to signal I'm trendy.
For example, Fred Wilson's Twitter updates are links to his blog posts plus some (for me) out of context public messages to people I don't know, ie. junk (for me). I might as well unsubscribe and add his RSS to Google Reader and save myself the noise. Just did.
Fred's post touches on the silly part. I haven't been able to find much more of Lant's model other than the slide Kottke links to.