
The Curious Case Of Vancouver Incubator Bootup Labs - jasonlbaptiste
http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/the-curious-case-of-vancouver-incubator-bootup-labs/
======
shadowsun7
Danny Robinson, that same person who left the jackass "why art thou
complaining?" comment on Jamie's blog, has apologized, finally seeing the
light after Techcrunch posted this story:

///////

You’re right. We deserve to be lambasted. If you were actually in my shoes,
you would have already apologized, in person, many times, and done everything
possible to make it right. Which is exactly what we did, and explains why we
have not done so in public prior to now. We feel terrible about what happened
are are truly sorry. We’re still working to make it right and will always be
there for these companies.

///// ([http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/the-curious-case-of-
vancouv...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/15/the-curious-case-of-vancouver-
incubator-bootup-labs/#comment-1029240))

I'm not sure he gets it. There is _nothing_ he can say, no matter how much
apologizing he's done, that will make this seem better. The only thing he can
do is to be humble about this, and to say that he'll work to make sure this
never happens again.

Danny Robinson might be a good man for all I know. But he's really dropped the
ball on this one. And I'm starting to feel sorry for him.

~~~
kno
I agree, really bad PR and crisis management. I’m just left to wonder, what
were they thinking, moving folks from Tucson/ Kansas City with all their
dreams just to drop them by the road side; these are definitely not serious
people.

------
dwwoelfel
Techcrunch misses on some of the small details.

For instance:

"... he shouldn’t have claimed that Bootup Labs was running out of money
(which he did in the _original title of his blog post_ )." [emphasis mine]

I believe that the part in italics should read "original title of his HN
submission."

The article also states that Bootup Labs responded in the comments on HN. I
haven't read every single comment, but I think Techcrunch is confusing a copy-
and-paste of the blog comment by someone not associated with Bootup Labs with
a response by Bootup Labs itself. Here's a link to the comment:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1266863>

~~~
simonk
They both also commented here as well.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1266872>
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267256>

------
josephd
This type of snafu is not unique to Bootuplabs and can happen even to best run
orgs (I remember someone here ranting about ill-treatment at Seedcamp last
year). I think managing nerds gets a little tricky when high expectations are
involved. After enduring the flames,the guys at Bootuplabs have done their
best to explain and apologize about the whole incident. I for one think the
world needs more startup minded groups like this, not less. As a startup
commnunity, I sincerely hope we can be forgiving.

~~~
shadowsun7
>After enduring the flames,the guys at Bootuplabs have done their best to
explain and apologize about the whole incident.

That's the thing, josephd. They _haven't_ done their best to 'explain and
apologize about the whole incident'.

[http://livejamie.com/post/522093261/booted-out-of-bootup-
lab...](http://livejamie.com/post/522093261/booted-out-of-bootup-
labs#comment-44842981)

And the thing is, they're _still_ clinging to this hope that it's possible to
spin this story to their advantage. It's only at this Techcrunch post that
anybody's actually came out and apologized all the way, and even then, Danny's
added the qualifier "if you'd been in my shoes ..."

Which is fine, really, except that just 11 hours ago he left a comment to the
effect of "we took you to Canada, and then we dropped you, why're you
complaining?"

------
aditya
If I were bootup, I would've never accepted startuply if I didn't have the
cash, but I don't see what else they could've done once they realized they
didn't have a backup.

That they didn't have a contingency plan in place or a backup investor is
quite ridiculous, however, these things do happen.

~~~
colinplamondon
I think there are VERY different standards for startups applying to seed
accelerators, versus companies trying to get VC. A lot of startups who do seed
accelerators are, in a large part, going full-time DIRECTLY because of
promised investment. That's certainly been true of a ton of YC startups.

They go full-time because a reputable business promises them funding, and
signs an agreement to that effect. They wouldn't go full-time without the
funding.

When founders are leaving behind their jobs to take part in a program due to a
promise from a seed firm, the partners of that seed firm should be mortgaging
their homes before they completely fuck four companies by dropping them like
this.

And, on Bootup's side, their reputation is irreparably demolished- just google
'Bootup Labs'. How does a budding VC firm recover from _that_?

------
ww520
The comment in <http://bmannconsulting.com/2843/personal/keep-calm-and-carry>
said it best.

------
duck
I think this now can be called "As the Startup Turns" with all this drama.

------
pclark
deals fall through.

~~~
ww520
promises broken.

