
James Hong: Reinventing HOTorNOT, Part I - brett
http://james.hotornot.com/2007/06/reinventing-hotornot-part-i.html
======
staunch
The excuses for not sharing revenue seem disingenuous. Nothing was stopping
them from just writing fat profit sharing checks every month. Perhaps that's
not an ideal way of creating a sense of ownership, but it certainly aligns
interests well. The guys developing the site would lose money if they messed
anything up and make more if they did well. Much of the financial world
operates on this type of model.

As for the change in direction, why not just start a new site and promote the
heck out of it on HOTorNOT? Something like what Evan Williams did with
Odeo/Twitter. That seems like the truly risky and adventurous path.

~~~
willarson
Risky for the employees, but the founders are already wealthy enough that
taking the risk probably doesn't bother them much.

~~~
staunch
Those guys are well-known in The Valley and there's a lot of eyes on anything
they do. They'd be risking their reputation as successful entrepreneurs.
Staying with their successful site is a way of preventing total failure.
Playing it safe.

------
mxh
The article makes reference to the fact that once a dating site becomes free,
you don't have to scan user content for contact info any more. I think this is
a buried lede; free sites aren't just paid sites with lower costs, they have
different (and sometimes better) characteristics than their paid counterparts:

1.) Easier to signup - no need to force users to drag out their credit cards

2.) Enhanced anonymity - no need to tie an account to a real person

3.) Simpler operation - the site owner doesn't have to worry that the users
are ripping him off/subverting his business model

4.) Lower expectations - how much can a user complain if he's getting
something for free?

~~~
steve
"no need to tie an account to a real person"

So now fat girls that pretend they are thin models to get dates is a
feature?:)

