The Crunchies are the Kid's Choice Awards of the startup scene.
blog.styleguidance.com
blog.styleguidance.com
An award that is voted by a small group of people is susceptible to internal politics. If it's large group, the nominees that cater to the lowest common denominator win. And then there are the ones compiled by a few journalists with a deadline and a PR-influenced perception. Sometimes awards are well deserved, but it's almost random. Simply don't let awards annoy you or impress you.
(But in the case of the Crunchies, I think they are widely understood to be a meaningless PR stunt.)
If you'd been to Startup School in October, this would have been blindingly obvious.
Pincus was the closer for a reason -- the mood in the room was instantly I want to go to there, and the temperature went up ten degrees. Even Zuckerburg was hooting and hollering!
On the other hand, almost none of us young hackers would want to work for Hsieh -- his company's culture is steeped in an entirely different demographic, and he admitted as much in his speech.
I mean sure, these guys aren't the only ones who did these rebill offers. But they were the target of the whole Scamville issue.
Turning around, a month later and picking the guy behind this, as one of the 6 for people to vote for, just seems wrong.
If we don't regulate, what we find ethical as a startup community, then 5-10 years down the line Congress will do it for us. And trust me, we won't like it one bit, if they have to step in to protect the consumer.
That start ups are about money first. And what they did was technically legal. Unethical moves like this happen in broad day light and in headlines all the time.
Generalizing, the vast majority of the American (other countries, too) population honestly doesn't raise enough of a stink.
Is it because we are uneducated, don't understand the impact, or merely don't care because things won't change for us tomorrow? We do not grasp the gradual net effect of many 'tomorrows' as the cause because it is too far removed from the action.
[Edit] I said something harsh and kind of dumb here before, and have removed it. I'm sorry.
I found Pincus' talk to be the worst--more so than the annual McAdoo flat-pack speech about funding.
Pincus didn't just meander, he started wandering around a Matrix simulation room and just kept opening doors and slamming them shut. His tone was also bitter, particularly about his thoughts about being "misaligned" at successfully exiting.
Worse was the video at the end. What was that? What was the point of that other than a direct recruitment video? Great entrepreneurs leverage great opportunities but to be so flagrant about it? That MTV quick-cut infomercial had no redeeming factor.
Tony Hsieh didn't speak of a nerd-nirvana perhaps, but what he did speak of was building an organization. He spoke of values and skillsets that the audience in attendance SHOULD think about and work TOWARDS. It's not of now, it's of leadership skillsets that's required in just another 5 years. Maybe less if the precocious attendees have their way.
But you did use the right word: blindingly.
When I interview somewhere I don't ask myself "is this CEO the most exciting person in this room". I want to see that he has good business acumen, that he makes smart decisions and recognizes when things are going bad and cuts losses appropriately. I want a business man, not a motivational speaker.
Hsieh wasn't a founder (but was around early on) and got the company to a $1.2 billion sale after a little more than 10 years, and in the top 1000 sites on the web. Which is of course very impressive, but...
Mark Pinkus got the company he founded to a multi-billion valuation and in the top 100 sites on the web in under 2 years and is looking like IPO material in an IPO-less era. Regardless of what you think of his scruples, it's easy to see why he gets counted impressive.
http://www.balsamiq.com/blog/2010/01/03/a-look-back-at-2009/
The numbers here absolutely dominate anything tinychat has going for them at the moment, as far as I know.
That's the problem with user voting...the one with the biggest audience, always wins.
Seriously, every 10 minutes a banner would pop up asking you to vote for them. The vast majority of their users couldn't care less about the awards, but would vote just to make the damn thing go away.
We are seeing amazing growth and should hit 5mm uniques/mo shortly! :) Anyways thanks to those who voted for us and enjoy tinychat
The site was actually designed by the alpha users. I had them give me ideas of what to do, and then I'd show them 3-4 mockups, and they'd vote for the best looking one. Went through 5 major redesigns until we hit the current version(which they all loved).
To tell the truth, I'm not really a huge fan of it either, but it was a quick hack job to get something out ASAP. My philosophy is that the sooner you start, the sooner you grow. Wasting an extra 1-2 months on a perfect design makes no sense when you have no users.
I'm actually already working on a redesign. Should be a little bit more mainstream. Don't get me wrong, it'll still have the fashion feel...but it'll look a lot more refined.
BTW I don't know why you are being downvoted, since I fully agree with you.
Maybe just because my comment was off topic.
I was pretty sure that the site was yours (the OP), so I thought I'd give you some feedback. Good luck.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
Also the juggling comedians act and the Richter Scales were fun. Listening to who won "best PR firm", not so much.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
And why can't there be two parties? The crunchies(kid's choice awards) and the starties(oscars)
My point is that criticizing is easy, but pulling of such an award show is not as easy as it looks. Actually, you'd be very aware of that fact if you attended the first Crunchies 3 years ago. This year, the transitions mostly worked out, they were not 2 hours late, and almost no awkward moments on stage.