http://techcrunch.com/2007/11/15/social-networking-platform-...
CrowdVine also let people setup custom white-label social networks, though I suppose its founder didn't have as neat of a background story as a Ning founder.
It's probably a nice business model, but not a "startup" by PG's standards, since this type of thing doesn't grow rapidly, intentionally.
Why? Seems from experience to be far less likely to produce an "Our Incredible Journey" message.
I don't want to sign up for a service, love it, find it useful and be told GTFO after 2 years, ps Google bought us.
I've also got very wary of using any new Google, Facebook etc service. Chances are, it won't last.
There's something incredibly unhealthy about the way it's all about getting to $1bn and to hell with the product, customers, that got you there etc. I also think the burn rates have got out of hand. Surely there's a better way than burning £20m a year to produce something you'll shutter without a second thought when it runs out. What happened to seeking profit and longevity?
I'm very glad I had my time in startups though!
I am a bit concerned though companies don't care about the customer and customer support any more... I wonder if they are counting on peoples laziness on searching and moving to an alternative product/service or is it as simple as there are no alternatives with different policies?
I think the public have got far too accepting of little or no support. Yes it's easy to switch, but most people don't unless it's a commodity service - you have to risk the unknown, maybe migrate years of data with little certainty that support in the new home will be better. Sales support tends to be great (and unscripted from more aware staff).
There's a magic size, let us imagine it at 100 people where nearly all human endeavours become crap. Try getting support out of your electric utility, car maker, government, phone service, national charity, hard drive maker etc. Personally I think it's connected with the size where they will still hurt at, or at least talk about, your loss.
It's certainly possible to get far beyond this size and still give great support - look at Amazon and Apple. Amazon got far beyond that size before starting to become a bit rubbish. Essentially until they started ruining the brand trying to move into food, tablets, 3rd party merchants and everything. Apple have the advantage of their restricted OSX hardware, iOS app store and so on that they have a fairly known quantity to provide support for. I think the key to be in this category is what you think your brand stands for.
I think in many, particularly social spaces, it's easy to forget we're not the customer. eg, you can actually get responsive support out of Google adwords or if you buy a Nexus from them (not always great support, but they answer promptly enough). So we're never getting support for search, G+, Facebook or Twitter. I'm sure there;s scope to do it much better, even for the free services.
Lastly, I think specifically in the startup space when you're aiming for 20% growth a month, or even a quarter is going to make it far more difficult to do well. Especially if your offering is evolving as fast - even your staff will struggle to stay aware. So it becomes about great user stories, and outreach (PR) and devcons. Good for growth, but chances are individual customers get lost in the gaps. I think the tendency to shoot for an IPO or buyout is unhealthy here - individual experience matters less if you don't need to care about ongoing trading profit whilst getting big fast. That said there's plenty of services I don't think would have happened, or be great without being big. Small Spotify doesn't get music licences, small Uber doesn't have availability when you need it, etc.
EDIT: Didn't realise I'd written that much!
I see your point. Now that you mention, it makes sense that the fear of the unknown may be preventing people from changing, even though they are not satisfied with they're current support.
Although, I think it can still be of a very high risk not to have a good support even when you want to be profitable in short term. I can see a few companies rushing into launching new/unfinished products, trying to get the market with their innovations before someone else. That can go really bad if they don't provide a good support for their new/unfinished/faulty product or service (maybe bad word spreading can haunt them?).
And yes, I can see the brand as a relevant part in this matter. The amount and quality of the support provided can definitely help defining a brand and what it stands for.
Great examples on Google products, Spotify and Uber! Regarding free products (search, G+, etc), I still think the free experience can lead to a product up-selling, cross-selling and perhaps in some cases to get customer's loyalty, so I think this kind of support, although non-profitable in short term, can still be relevant.
Startups, I don't have much of an input really.. it does look a bit overwhelming to me to set 20% growth a month goals.. so I don't really know what to expect.
Don't forget people don't usually switch because of support, more because something is not working or they've upset you. People can switch utilities or bank easy enough, yet they almost never do, unless they're really upset. Better the devil you know, I guess.
Good support can pay off for word of mouth referrals, especially if they've had a bad time elsewhere. I think it works best for techie things like web hosting, or a SaaS where you're integrating and likely need a little support. For an ISP you never phone support, until you hate them because it's broke, then they switch to the next cheapest, which will be just as bad. (I stuck with a small ISP who gives astonishing support, they cost only a little more) :)
That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
It's a balance. It's hard.
I may get downvoted for this comment. Oh well.
I think I get PG's label of startup and why it matters to him and to HN followers. But let us not forget that most businesses are not started as a PG like "startup" and never go through the PG "startup" approach. Look around at the restaurants, small manufacturers, service companies like printer repairs and more. These are the companies that drive the economy.
I am tech centric and like many startups and what they seem to offer but I think sometimes things on HN get distorted. I am not anti-startup. In fact I'll be at SXSW and paying attention to the headline grabbers to see what interests me.
I hope MightyBell survives and I wish Gina the best of luck.
Let us not forget the small business persons that struggle everyday to survive and grow just a little, one customer at a time.
You can have good engineering, good product and good vision and still lose horribly, you can shift the probabilities a little but beyond that I don't think you can.
Of course the belief that you are going to succeed is required as well so you end up with lots of people 100% sure they are going to succeed for which a small percentage do (for a given definition of succeed).
I think the whole culture around SV-style startups is both fascinating and disconcerting.
Considering who runs HN, I'd be more surprised if there were no glorification - or at least very positive attidude - of startups.
Do "we"?
As I write this, you've got nothing but agreement below you. No angry screeds about how important startups are.
We have an endless stream of mockery about unicorns. You know about the Zenefits, Uber, and Airbnb's issues precisely because you heard about them on HN; hardly the case that they've been hidden.
HN may value entrepreneurs and consider startups at least a valid life style choice, but if you really look, I think the gestalt merely thinks that it glorifies startups... if you look at what is actually being expressed, it's quite harsh on the excesses of the startup world.
It seems to be TechCrunch and such that cheerlead moreso than HN, which is usually being cynical, crotchety, and contrarian about "startups".