
When a great idea isn’t enough: Why the “Last.fm for news” died - zeedotme
http://thenextweb.com/uk/2010/12/17/when-a-great-idea-isnt-enough-why-the-last-fm-for-news-died/?awesm=tnw.to_17Cic&utm_content=twitter-publisher-main&utm_medium=tnw.to-twitter&utm_source=direct-tnw.to
======
pclark
I'm one of the founders of Readness. Europe gets a lot of flak for it's
venture capital world. Yes, seed funding is (too) scarce - but Readness didn't
fail because we couldn't raise (and it isn't fair to blame the seed investors
for us failing - everyone has been amazingly friendly and I've made many good
friends "on the other side"), we were not at the point of being able to raise
a meaningful round. We ran out of capital (after 2.5 years of building
multiple products) before we built a compelling product in the space.
Considering we raised less than £50,000 I think we had a good run.

I think it's kind of lame to disseminate why stuff failed in hindsight
publically, but I'm proud that we failed with Readness so fast - it'd be easy
to be so determined we continued iterating for many more years without having
a fresh start to be radically new.

(I have a new startup in the works, don't worry)

------
frb
Sorry, but his article is really one-sided. It just blames the lack of funding
for the failure and disregards other factors and challenges of a startup.

As I understood Readness was somehow funded (4iP) but the funding was then cut
off for some reason. They tried to get into YC but failed and then decided to
kill the service/startup.

What I read from the article is that the founders weren't trying hard enough.
What about other sources for funding? Sure, YC is nice, but it isn't the only
place in the world to get funding. To how many other investors have the
founders reached out? What about the numbers (users, pageviews)? What were
they going to make money from?

 _> "When we returned from San Francisco, we realised that the funding and
resources required to iterate Readness into something that could attract
hyper-growth, were far higher than we had available."_

This reads like: "We weren't abele to get the funding that easy and decided to
kill the service after a half year of operation."

How about slow and steady growth in contrast to hyper-growth? More PR? (I
would have been a potential user, if I knew it existed). Most startups take
definitely more then 6 months to build a solid user base, features and to get
funded. It's _very_ hard work.

As long as you are somehow growing and improving the service, you're good.
Don't count (on) money, build a business/service and work hard. If you need
money to cover your costs of living: bootstrap, do consulting, take another
job.

What I basically want to say is that while funding might an essential aspect
of your startup, it's not the only one and the solution to everything. So,
don't blame it always on funding!

~~~
pclark
It feels oddly ironic for you to criticize an article of being one sided and
then for you to make various assumptions based on the article.

~~~
frb
Maybe you're right. Maybe I let myself get carried away.

However, in the first part of my comment, I ask questions I wish the article
would have answered somehow.

In the second part (after the quote), I'm maybe a little fierce, but it's more
a general statement on a common mistake (giving up too easy) that many fresh
startups make, including some in which I was involved.

It was not my intention to make assumptions. So, in order to improve my
writing, it would be nice if you tell me about the assumptions the you read in
the comment.

That all said, I feel sympathy for the founders and wish them all the best.
Too bad they shut the servie down, as I read about it here for the first time
and would have been a potential user.

~~~
adw
(By the way, you're replying to one - pclark is one of the founders of
Readness/Broadersheet).

News is just a tremendously hard market. My suspicion, and I have scar tissue
to back this up, is that it's a trap. It's one of those things everyone
_thinks_ should be sexy, but the numbers don't work.

~~~
pclark
adw is totally right about news/content. Bad Market, glad to be out.

~~~
atomical
What are the reasons that it's a bad market?

~~~
pclark
Consumers don't feel many pain points that are harsh enough to change habits
and loyalty from current market leaders.

Hard to monetize in scalable manner.

News (and even content) is percieved as small by investors.

Numerous - dozens - of failed startups, that have tried hundreds of
propositions in the past decade - isn't clear what has changed to make those
propositions work today.

Using someone elses content is of questionable legal grounds (EG: when you are
winning, they'll knock)

Current social products like Facebook or Twitter or even Reddit do "good
enough" job for vast majority.

------
jokermatt999
I was interested when I heard about it on HN, and went to sign up
immediately...and then immediately didn't bother with it when I learned it
required Facebook and Chrome. Facebook as a log in is a complete dealbreaker
for me, and I've heard others express this sentiment too.

------
ajays
I'm not so sure it was that great of an idea. Do I really want everyone to
know that I secretly checked out the video of Miley Cyrus taking a bong hit?
Or that I visit the Fark 5x a day?

Not everything that can be shared should be shared, people. :-)

------
daralthus
Wow, why I haven't heard of this? First delicious now this? I was just waiting
for voyurl because of the potential, then bam there was already one and it is
now closing...

------
raccoonone
It seems like a cool idea to me. I'd even thought of working on something
similar.

How many of you would use a service like that?

~~~
atomical
I would not. I primarily share news with friends using Facebook. Facebook has
the one-stop solution for almost every social thing I need.

------
smoody
But why couldn't they get funding?

------
stuaxo
Where TF is last.tv.

Lastfm for tv would be the best thing since er... lastfm.

~~~
nowarninglabel
I'd argue that Netflix is slowly moving towards such a concept.

