
The 53,651 meme - sharpshoot
http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html
======
jimream
The web is evolving very fast these days. It seems to me that because of our
connections and web browsing habits, people reading this are often
disconnected from how "normal" people view the web. Let me assure you, this
web 2.0 craze we are seeing is no bubble. What will happen? well, in a sense,
web 2.0 is really interactive web 1.0. The future leaders of the social web
will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of today's leaders: Google,
Facebook, Myspace, Del.icio.us, Wikipedia, and Craigslist. (technology
increases exponentially: never forget this)

When a website incorporates all the positives of these types of websites into
1 all encompassing tool for organizing the unlimited information of the
Internet, then we will see something great. We will see an evolution of these
tools and it will not only be something people can use to get more efficiency
out of life, it will actually improve people's lives and societies (globally).

If you think the effects social networks and human/computer interaction are
amazing, wait until you see the children of these sites. It is *absolutely*
not a coincidence that the founders of Reddit played WoW. They realize that
power of a website is directly correlated to the amount of user input into a
website. The dilemma we entrepreneurs are faced with today is creating systems
that encourage maximum participation.

How does this tie into the 53,000 theory? None of the big winners, and I am
talking the big ones, facebook, myspace, google, msnpages, orkut, (these are
the sites that lead the world in user participation) succeeded because of blog
recommendations. They succeeded because they were better ways of experiencing
the Internet, not because some ÃÂexpertÃÂ on techcrunch told the geeks it
was a cool product.

Well, there are many amazing "web 2.0" websites out there that will never be
used by the masses until their friends, not techcrunch, invites them.

On the Internet, the best solution always win. Humans are economical; they do
what is best for themselves. When we create a search/browsing tool that is at
the same time more rewarding and fun than myspace/wikipedia/delicious/digg we
will see the whole world adopt this method, the same way the world has adopted
the Google search, the same way all the ÃÂcoolÃÂ people are on myspace.
This website will not only be as "cool" and as fun, it will actually enhance
people's lives.

This is the future of the web. It is also no coincidence that VC's like the
one whom this post is referring to, have seen a lot of "like delicious but
XXX" or "Digg killers" This is not just hype, one day it will happen. One day
there will be a delicapedieddit that will emerge as the new Internet
powerhouse.

------
nurall
Another way of looking at this is to realize that beta testers are hard to
come by, and one could leverage from the already existing pool of beta testers
(53,651). Most startups want to improve their pre-money valuation before going
to the VC, the most important ingredient for achieving that is a stable system
that is a result of successive relevant iterations of the features. This could
as well be part of any Web 2.0 company's road map for the first few months
upon going live. It is needless to say that for a VC to be convinced, it is
important to have the right kind of users. If there is even a little bit of
overlap between the 53,651 web savvy users and the ideal end-user, it is safe
to assume that viral marketing will take care of itself. An example that
glares in the face is Google. Their systems are the way they are, thanks to
their #1 beta testers, their employees. And one could argue that there are
other beta testers at various levels, namely the actual end users. This
statistic seems to do more good than harm, if regarded positively. The
eventual end users of the system could just be an extension of the 53,651
initial users. Go Techcrunch!!!

------
pg
I think it's reasonable to design for the 53,651. What they use, others will
later. The Apple II was designed for the 53,651.

~~~
greendestiny
As long as the 53,651 are actually interested in using it, not just having a
look or thinking about the startup behind it. I imagine thats the problem with
traffic from places like techcrunch.

------
python_kiss
TechCrunch has 351k feed subscribers not 53,651. I remember when Mashable
covered mainstream startups but, in face of competition, positioned itself
towards a smaller niche (covering social networks). Today Mashable has close
to 80k subscribers.

There is nothing wrong with aiming small.

~~~
e1ven
They had 53K at the time of writing ;) That article is from nearly a year
ago..

I think that that is part of the key to understanding why the 53K are
targetted- Because anything they're talking about now has a good chance of
making it big later on.

It's a risk, and it doesn't always (seldom?) pays out, but if I were to infer
into the minds ofany dozens of developers, I'd think they're looking at the
Techcrunch readers as the type of Early Adopters that they want/need to get
them started- The type of people who are going to get excited about a product,
to tell their friends.

These are the people who will spend a day trying new technologies, whereas
most "normal" people only try it once a friend recommends it. Those targeting
the TC-crowd want to find that friend.

-Colin 

~~~
r0b
Yes, they had 53K a year ago, and now they have over 300K

Doesn't that prove the post wrong? Clearly those 53K were a very powerful
group...

------
ericwan
I'd say there're two kinds of startups which are unknown to mainstream
America. One is the kinds the general public have actually used, but just may
not realize that is a service provided by a startup company. This includes the
likes of Slide or Meebo, which many more people have put their widgets on
their blogs/Myspace than going on to their proprietary website. These startups
are fine; they may just need more PR to the mainstream media.

The startups that are really hard to reach mainstreams are those me-too
startups, which are those "social network for XX" or "youtube cross wikipedia"
kind of thing that users could not tell a slight difference from the sites
that they have been using.

------
r0b
Check out this graph in an old post by Seth Godin:
<http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2005/12/squid_soup_part_2.html> His
point is that in order for a new idea or product to catch on, it first needs
to be adopted by the "innovators" -- the "geeks". Then, and only then, can it
spread to the broader population. If you try to skip the geeks and go straight
to the mass market, you will fail.

I'm not sure I buy that as a hard and fast rule, but I think the concept is
generally solid. If a company makes it on TC, it will subsequently and
consequently grow beyond TC.

------
Readmore
This is an interesting problem that I've wondered about myself. We all talk
about Web 2.0 not being a bubble but maybe that's just because the 'average
joe' doesn't know anything about what's going on. Other than a few stories
about MySpace and YouTube most people never hear about any Internet startups.
How do you cross that divide without spending alot of money on TV commercials?
During the first bubble they were great at getting people's attention but bad
at software, it seems like now things are exactly the opposite.

------
zkinion
I think the main point in this posting is not how bad it is to start off with
the first adopters, but instead to think how they will be alot different than
mainstream users, and what you learn from them (click through, advertising,
new users, etc...) might not be exactly how things will work with the
mainstream crowd.

------
python_kiss
All business start off as micro-niche. Friendster's demographic was considered
a niche just four years ago. Now it is considered "mainstream".

The one thing startups do risk for aiming small is VC investment. Venture
Capitalists are reluctant to write a 7 figure check to a startup aiming for
the 53,651 audience.

------
benatkin
I think it's a good idea to target the early adopters. If you don't, you risk
basing your product on old technology.

