

The co-op business model: share whatever you've got - gvb
http://sivers.org/sharing

======
adamjernst
About the UPC reselling... he really lucked out. Sounds like that was allowed
only due to a contract oversight, and has been prohibited since 2002:

<http://www.barcode-us.com/upc/upcResellers.html>

~~~
sivers
Entrepreneurs: “Looking for a loophole, since 1532.”™ ☺

------
moonchrome
This is textbook survivor bias :)

~~~
MBlume
It sounds like you're implying:

a) This strategy (the co-op model) is overwhelmingly likely to fail b) But
every once in a great while, it will succeed c) And some random fluke for whom
it succeeded will think it's a great idea and write a blog post like this one,
so d) The existence of this blog post is not strong evidence against a)

However, given this scenario, we would expect the distribution of S (number of
successful projects a given person started under the co-op model) to be
heavily peaked at 0, with a few outliers at 1, and falling to ~0 at 2. This
author has started _three_ successful projects under the co-op model,
suggesting that this is not _just_ survivor bias -- the right sort of person
can, at least occasionally, find success under this model.

~~~
moonchrome
No, survivorship bias doesn't say anything about probabilities or even the
correctness of conclusion, it's a selection bias. It certainly doesn't imply
probability "falling to ~0 at 2".

Anyway it doesn't really matter since this isn't a study or an attempt to
prove something, I just think it's funny how well this article fits that
definition so I pointed it out.

~~~
chc
If it is probable that a person will be able to repeatedly accomplish
something, looking primarily at successes isn't survivorship bias — it's just
the way the numbers naturally fall out.

------
mark_l_watson
Great advice. The more you give to the world the more you receive back. (At
least that is my hypothesis.)

~~~
_delirium
I do think it ups your odds of receiving back, though a tricky thing I've been
trying to sort out is how much it also matters that you actively try to "own"
it, so as to capture some of the rebound value.

For example, I sometimes have trouble deciding between writing up an
explanation of something as a blog post, versus starting or adding to its
Wikipedia article. If I'm being honest, I think the Wikipedia option often
provides the most value to the world at large: my contribution will be
found/read by more people there, can be improved upon by others to snowball
into even more usefulness, etc. But I would probably _capture_ more of the
value if I blogged it, because that'd build my personal brand, could generate
AdSense/Amazon revenue, etc., while it's harder (though not impossible) to
parlay being a respected Wikipedia editor into any sort of benefit.

~~~
sivers
Interesting observation and distinction! You're right.

I share everything I learn - but only on my own website, not posted on some
external site. I write book reviews and notes for every one I read, but only
shared on my site, not even on Amazon where it would help more people. I guess
it is somewhat selfish!

I want the benefit of getting the direct relationship with the reader, with no
middleman.

It's not JUST giving, it's giving and wanting to capture the rebound value (as
you say). Not as selfless as it seems.

Thanks for bringing this up. (And thanks for doing it on Hacker News, since I
wouldn't have seen it on your own site.)

~~~
sandboxed
I don't think it is selfish at all. You put in the work to learn something and
you are giving it away for free. People who are earnestly searching for
information will find it one way or another.

I'd consider selfish to be learning something and keeping it all to oneself.

------
alexro
I think the most important take-away is that you need to be part of some very
active and vibrant community, like indie musicians.

Otherwise your co-op strategy may get to a stall because not enough people
will care enough

------
_kate_
A little disappointing, I clicked on this thinking that it would be a take on
using a co-op business model in a startup setting. But he doesn't really mean
a co-op business model at all : [http://www.co-
operative.coop/enterprisehub/what-is-a-co-oper...](http://www.co-
operative.coop/enterprisehub/what-is-a-co-operative/)

------
gatlin
I was hoping this would be about worker cooperatives. However, I agree with
everything in the article. There's a great deal of overlap with what I was
hoping to read about and what I did read about.

------
luciferous
Startups with co-op business models should be called "co-ups".

------
clog
The thing I remember Derek the most for is CD Baby and the grand switch from
PHP to Rails which was cancelled after two years; causing great controversy.

His entrepreneur philosophy has beauty to it, but he was totally off track
about the whole PHP/Rails thing. Of course it'll take forever to rewrite an
entire company (practically) in a different framework. Don't do that. If you
want Rails, switch over incrementally to avoid a Big Bang and use it for new
projects.

