
A Huge Mistake Startups Make - we are the x of/for the y - duck
http://www.centernetworks.com/huge-mistake-startup-pitches
======
pg
I'd argue that Opzi is actually better off describing themselves that way than
trying to explain what they are without references to existing things. Yes,
sure, explaining yourself by comparison to existing things raises questions.
No one would claim you're done explaining at that point. But you're now only
those questions away from being done. Whereas if you give people a long
description that attempts to convey all the nuances of what you're doing, you
just lose them entirely. Especially in a noisy environment like a conference
where lots of other startups are presenting.

In an algorithm for calculating answers by successive approximations, it's
fine if the initial approximation is bad, so long as the process converges
rapidly.

~~~
pavel_lishin
The problem with analogies is picking one that doesn't break down too quickly.

------
joshu
sometimes "we're x for y" is an easy summary. sometimes it's a thought
process.

the first is ok, the second is usually bad.

i see a lot of startups like this. "we're foursquare for lipstick! women's
cosmetics is a $47 billion industry, if we could get just 1% of the market
we'd be huge. we're two stanford MBAs, our development is outsourced, and we
have no actual women on our team."

------
jkincaid
Strongly disagree with this (and I've seen my fair share of pitches). I'd much
rather hear you're the "x of y" followed by an explanation of your key
differences than listen to you reinvent the wheel.

~~~
dstein
You just described the exact difference between innovation, and following a
trend. People generally do not like to hear about innovation (new ideas), they
want buzz.

------
mrtron
I think the Quora example does give off a bad vibe.

a) We are a Quora for the enterprise

b) We are Youtube for audio

Quora for the enterprise sounds like a superset. Quora, plus enterprisey
features. Quora could compete, their core competency is in that set.

Youtube for audio sounds like disjoint sets. OK, I know what Youtube does.
They do video well. I could see a good audio site that does it similarly,
allows user submissions, etc. Youtube isn't a competitor, it is a model.

~~~
grackle
Indeed. The key here is recognizing that the "model" approach is fundamentally
different than the "superset" approach. Too often these get blended together.

Portraying your idea as the sum of several individual models can be a very
effective technique. Saying something like "you can send your friends fake
gifts, just like you can on Facebook" and "you have a live chat window like
JustinTV" is more likely to promote understanding and less likely to raise
questions than saying "Imagine if Facebook was better..."

(Yesterday, I actually saw a presenter get grilled for 20 minutes about
features completely unrelated to their program, due largely to the fact that
they took this "Imagine If.." approach.)

------
bherms
I'm not a fan of this approach, or the "we're like x meets y meets z" (mashup
of services), but I can see the value in giving unfamiliar listeners familiar
reference points. As long as you can easily field the followup questions --
you can differentiate yourself or describe competitive advantage -- I think
you're fine.

edit: Another problem I've seen with using this approach is that sometimes
they use existing services to describe their service, and it actually
undercuts their value. For example, someone builds service to capitalize on
the networking, information sharing, and shared knowledge base of pet owners
but sells as "facebook for pet owners." Well, pet owners use Facebook, so the
value proposition is lost in the analogy without further reinforcement.

------
DevX101
I don't have a problem with this description. Us humans think in symbols, and
this is a high compression method to convey a complex idea.

Besides, even if they described it another way, astute observers would be
asking the same question: Why won't Quora, or [include social platform]
compete with you? This is a good question for the founders to know the answer
to, regardless of how they want to frame the description of their company.

------
holman
I disagree. For every startup that can easily and succinctly communicate their
purpose and value, there's ten that stumble over vague, non-descriptive
utterances. If you can say "We're like Facebook for pets", that has value and
we can immediately hone-in on what specifically differentiates you.

------
kirvyteo
It depends on the X and Y. If you say - You are the "successful company" of X
industry for the Y industry, then there is no issue of X overlapping Y, since
X and Y are distinct enough. For Opzi, they are just targeting another segment
in the same industry, and that is too close for comfort.

------
minalecs
Any one know how they answered the question ?

------
aspir
Unless you stop trying to be someone else, and start trying to the best "you"
you can be, you're not a novel opportunity.

~~~
pg
This isn't about what startups are, merely how they describe what they are.

~~~
aspir
What I meant with that last comment was that in a setting like Disrupt, you
are exactly what your audience thinks you are during a pitch, and an "x of y"
description can leave the incorrect first impression that you are "me too"
opportunity, which Opzi and many other startups are not. In non-SV areas, that
thinking is a paradigm that cannot be unshifted. I've seen a great deal of
cool and creative ideas come out of places like OKC that get brushed aside
with the "x of y" description. Arguably, it's one of the more intangible
benefits of SV.

