

Hundreds of Start-Ups Hope to Be a Copycat Start-Up - nickbilton
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/07/hundreds-of-start-ups-hope-to-be-a-copycat-start-up
Pitches for new start-ups are often copycats with a slight twist of already successful companies.
======
pg
It's a common misconception that a startup describing itself as x of/for y is
a sign of lack of originality.

A lot of original ideas-- perhaps most _good_ original ideas-- are initially
conceived of as x of/for y. Plus it is a good tactic, which we actively
encourage, for startups to describe themselves in those terms initially. It
may not describe a startup perfectly, but it's the the most information you
can convey in one sentence.

Airbnb itself described itself as "Ebay for space" during YC. Viaweb was "the
Microsoft Word of Ecommerce." When we first thought of the idea of a web app,
we thought of it (not merely described it, but thought of it) as using the
browser as an xterm.

I should write an essay about this. This misconception is like some unkillable
zombie idea.

[http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/technology...](http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/technology/article2809058.ece)

~~~
byoung2
It's interesting that a similar technique for pitching movies (e.g. Terminator
meets Titanic) is strongly discouraged while for startups it is encouraged. I
wonder what makes the same approach elicit different reactions across industry
lines.

~~~
chetanahuja
_" while for startups it is encouraged"_

It's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community.
Several investors I know will immediately go into a defensive shell as soon as
they hear the "X for Y" construction. If you're a budding startup, please do
your homework and know your audience before deciding the main tagline of your
pitch.

~~~
byoung2
_It 's PG's advice, by no means universally shared in the investor community_

Look at every major tech blog or site and you'll see list after list of
startups described as "this for that" so even if it's not universal among
investors, it is more than just PG pushing it.

------
ChuckMcM
The author confuses the language of '<this> for <that>' with a copy of. If you
are the 'Uber of Dog Walking' you are not a copy of Uber. Instead you have
taken one part of the Uber puzzle, "on demand access using a smart phone" and
applied it to the problem of finding a dog walker [1]. The sort of language
arises because these techniques and technologies are created without names.

In the physical world, you might have something like a gas turbine engine,
which enabled the jet age. People put the same engine on helicopters. But they
didn't say "These are the jets of vertical flight". Or when they used them as
engines to generate electricity they didn't say "These are Jets for Power
Plants." But the reason they didn't say those things is that it was pretty
clear to everyone what a gas turbine engine was and what it brought to the
table. Modern software startups don't have that luxury.

Of course there _are_ a lot of me too like startups. Just like there are me
too type bands and me too type serial killers. There is a segment of the
population who sees an idea in action and then runs out and tries to do the
same thing. But I don't think the industry is _dominated_ by that mentality.
Mostly because it is rarely successful if it is just a copy.

[1] I make no claim on whether or not finding Dog Walkers on demand is a good
idea or a bad idea.

~~~
yajoe
Like you, I place little weight on the findings from a few keyword searches.
Such vacuous analysis.

That said, there are a few incentives in play for the "X for Y" or "<this> for
<that>" language and why to use it over more simple, implementation-free
descriptive text:

1\. _Newly-entered startups_ : Your wonderful description about why it is more
efficient. See above :)

2\. _< this> companies_ (the Ubers and AirBnBs): Having other people
constantly repeat the Uber and AirBnB label is brand advertising. Period. The
Uber and AirBnB brands have good penetration in the HN demographic, but they
are unknown to >50% of the US and >70% of the world. Those companies need
advertising to fuel growth, so they have an incentive to encourage this
practice since it's free for them AND a lot of startups are getting press in
the midwest, etc.

3\. _< this> Stakeholders_ (investors, accelerators, etc): Moreover, using
<this> in the context of another upstart business suggests that <this> was
successful. When you say Uber for pizza, you are suggesting that Uber is both
a successful model and a successful business. That makes both Uber and Uber's
Stakeholders look really good. It's a form of social proof, which is
especially valuable in this boom.

And remember, the Stakeholders eventually make their money in an IPO and not
from direct profits. These Stakeholders have a strong incentive to convince
others that <this> is a good business and worth mimicking in another market.
"Look at all the others who followed suit." The Stakeholders need more
fundraising rounds. And at a place like YC, you'll hear how it's a good idea
because when you go looking to find the <this> that matches you, you're more
likely to pick a <this> from here.

And at the end of the day, using "X for Y" is co-branding (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-branding](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-
branding) ). It is a tool that has positive and negative aspects. In some
places saying you are "Uber for pizza" means you are willing to skirt local
health codes to deliver pizza faster than it takes to cook...

My advice is to recognize the "<this> for <that>" as a derivative of co-
branding, and to understand the incentives in play for the advice on how to
use it.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I like your analysis of the incentives to do it, it reminded me that there is
another place where it is used, Entertainment. Projects are pitched as "this
is the Rambo for Millenials" or "This is Bonanza in Space."

So in those cases there is an attempt to transfer some of the success 'aura'
of the brand name to the pitched project. No one pitches a movie saying its
like "Heaven's Gate" :-) and I suppose nobody pitches a startup as "The Color
for Dog Walkers."

------
gkoberger
I think something most people miss is in the "X for Y" is that the choice of X
also dictates a feeling.

For example, "1-800-Flowers for cleaning" and "Uber for cleaning" both could
describe the same product, however I'd rather use the latter. I'm building a
developer tool, and "Parse for ___" is very different than "Oracle for ___".

This is good shorthand when talking to investors, and it's even better for the
people building the product to have a guiding light.

It's similar to "mood boards" used in design -- it helps people agree on a
feel for a site, and the final design can capture the mood without actually
copying.

It can also help you make decisions. Your new company doesn't have an identity
or M.O. yet, so when you're stuck, you can ask yourself WWUD? (What Would Uber
Do?)

That being said, you have to eventually grow out of it. If a year into the
process you're still calling yourself "Uber for dog walking", you have an
identity problem -- rather than building your own startup, you're merely co-
oping the goodwill of another company without doing any work yourself.

------
bredman
I think the article short changes the value of startups that can be described
as a specialization of another. There's lots of differentiation that can
happen in a single space across verticals. Think about what features are
important to people who use Word vs. Latex or Blue Nile vs Amazon.

The other thing I would add is I got some advice (which I now agree with) from
a college professor that business should focus on being really
innovative/risky in one dimension, not in all. This seems like a good way
constrain the areas your business will really be innovating in.

------
tchock23
People need a schema for any new idea in order to quickly understand what it
is trying to accomplish.

Saying you are "X for Y" is not being unoriginal; rather, it is a simple hack
to enable faster comprehension.

Heck, I used it to get myself a YC interview (although the company I chose as
my "X" was the wrong choice given my vision for the startup - choose wisely if
you do the "X for Y" thing)

------
carbocation
We have a word describing this kind of "x of/for y" construction: "metaphor"
(or simile or snowclone, depending on exactly how you construct it). It has a
name because it's used all the time.

I think it's ridiculous that startups are getting slammed for using a common
component of human language in their marketing.

------
auctiontheory
When pitching a (traditional, paper, fiction) book to an agent or publisher,
the standard advice is to provide a frame of reference by explaining your work
as "X for Y."

It has nothing to do with copying and everything to do with making your pitch
understood.

------
lazyjones
In other - apparently less exciting - news, some apparently foolish people
even found new car makers, newspapers, furniture stores despite the obvious
lack of originality and crowded markets. What are they thinking!?

------
iamwil
X for Y is just a simple way of explaining something. Smart people can maybe
make two leaps, but most people have trouble making a mental leap that's
further than one step away from what they know. So you start with "X for Y" as
a mental hook to hang their mental hat on. Then you can build from there.

Whether it's actually an original idea or not depends on nuances of the space,
that most people aren't use to talking about, unless they usually think of
this sort of thing. So it's easy to be dismissive.

------
antoinec
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy)
might be useful to the author of this article.

------
chetanahuja
Can't agree with pg's advice about "A for B" construct. Maybe it does help
faster communication (if accurate) in certain cases. But it's useless to
pretend that a reasonably disinterested observer (i.e., not an investor trying
to ride the boom-train to a quick exit without a profitable business) will not
immediately mark you down for an unoriginal fast-follower.

------
agilebyte
Surprised to not see a mention of Samwer brothers.

    
    
      astoundingly unoriginal
    
      we’ll have to contend with the continued unoriginality of Silicon Valley
    

Who is we? As a customer of startups _originality_ does not register on my
radar when evaluating a product and language like "uber for" makes it easier
for me to understand what the product is probably about.

~~~
meerita
Aye, I spotted that one too.

------
kops
Isn't it weird that this author did most of his research on angel.co which
itself can be described as match.com for entrepreneurs?

~~~
spacecowboy
Nice :)

------
linux_devil
Google was not the first search engine and Facebook was not first social
networking site either , its more about who did it right .

------
lvs
I love it. Everyone in this thread is on the defensive because the post is so
incredibly spot-on.

