
Don’t Let Your Hype Write A Check That Your Product Can’t Cash - ssclafani
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/16/hype/
======
rraval
Someone explain how that chart [1] can even be conceived as useful. I'm not
even sure what it measures!

[1]
[http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screen-s...](http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/screen-
shot-2013-03-16-at-6-59-53-pm.png)

------
icambron
Leaving the content of the article completely aside, I've never understood the
"Don't let your X write a check that your Y can't cash" meme. (Other common
example: "Your mouth is writing checks that your body can't cash", which I
think means you've been challenging people but you don't have the matching
physical prowess to win such a challenge.)

If the product is trying to cash the check, then the hype wrote it out to the
product. It's not clear to me why it did that. If the check bounces, it's
because the hype doesn't have any money in its account. But assuming that
money is figurative for some kind of value (e.g. ability to live up to the
hype), it's the product who should have the empty bank account, not the hype.
Why is the product solvant in this story - isn't the point that it isn't? And
the transaction is entirely between the hype and the product, and thus doesn't
really concern anyone else, which seems to defeat the point. I feel like the
story should be that hype wrote a check on behalf of the product that _the
consumer_ can't cash. Or something.

But maybe I'm missing something, like what the check and money are meant to
represent. Can someone explain it to me?

~~~
hayksaakian
> token pedantic comment

oh you

~~~
icambron
It would be pedantic, I think, if I were to say, "you shouldn't say that
because it doesn't make sense." But I genuinely hope that it does make sense
and that someone will explain it to me.

------
jacques_chester
I'm sure that TechCrunch are aware of the irony of blogging about the problems
with breathless hype?

The only other richer example I think of is when Gartner published their "Hype
Curve" book.

Anyhow, given the payoff matrix for hype, most people are always going to try
playing the hype card. If your product doesn't "cash the cheque", who cares?
So long as you got some paying customers out of the publicity, it's a winning
move. The costs of hype (wasted attention, money diverted from other
businesses) are externalities to the hype-user.

~~~
bpatrianakos
All true but there is a price to pay for unwarranted hype you don't mention.
If you have a good product that's hyped to be a world-changing product you may
end up becoming the media's whipping boy (or girl) and just generally lose out
in terms of reputation (which equals users which equals money) in the long
run. Minus the hype one may have a product that could be quite successful. Too
much hype and it goes the opposite direction.

~~~
freshhawk
> Minus the hype one may have a product that could be quite successful

But very likely won't, and the odds of being successful even going the full
hype route are small. Hype works so well in this industry that it's hard to
fault people who balance the risk of blowback against the fact that hype gives
a real boost to the already slim chances of big success.

Especially when you follow the industry and see who wins and how much hype
they (and their competitors) went with. There's truth in what you say, it adds
risk, but it's a formula that works and you're preaching a conservative take
to people already aiming for high risk, low probability goals.

------
graycat
The subject of the article seems to be important for Web 2.0 or mobile
startups about ready to launch, but I don't quite know what to do with the
article. So, here I will ask. Commonly I hear two recommendations:

(1) Launch with a minimum viable product (MVP); launch early; launch often.
Don't do 'premature' optimization.

(2) You have only one chance to make a good first impression.

Maybe there is good in both (1) and (2); maybe one, the other, or both are BS.

I see some conflict here between (1) and (2), don't see the conflict
convincingly resolved in the OP, and remain undecided.

My candidate 'compromise' position is at launch to try to stir up a lot of
excitement but on the product emphasize up front that it is only a version
1.0, have a long TODO list, and are eager for feedback. Maybe mention the big
goal on the horizon but maybe not.

E.g., what is your reaction when you see some hype, try the product, and see
only an MVP? Do you see the glass partly full or partly empty?

Opinions, thoughts, examples, data, etc. requested.

