Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmeredith | Hacker News Reader

I haven't read the article, but the branding absolutely sucks. When trying to generate income, Drip, is hardly the connotation I'd want. They should have gone with Flood or Tide. Something big and powerful MADE of Drips. I get what they were going for, but it seems like a tone deaf misfire.

EDIT: And, as u/aronarduino pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the name is already taken (and the TLD drip.com) by a well established tech product.

View on HN

I think the point is not to attract people willing to take money in drips, but people willing to give money in drips. The taking side is the easy side. Getting people to give is the difficult side.

Really? The music that some people make (in my case, Peter Hollens, Taylor Davis, Clamavi De Profundis) makes me so happy I am very glad to give so they can make me more. In this world, it seems a very easy thing to understand that they can only make music if they are paid for it. This is the ideal model, there is no greedy studio stealing most of the money, I am directly connected to the artist, it just makes so much sense to give a few dollars. And also, I am not paying a lot here compared to the amount of quality entertainment time I get.

I don't really understand what your comment has to do with my comment.

> This is the ideal model, there is no greedy studio stealing most of the money

They don't steal most of the money. They are paid according to whatever agreement they have between themselves and the artist. Typically for services rendered, like providing recording, mastering and marketing services.

Kickstarter acquired a startup called Drip last year, and this product was built off that team/idea.

https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/drip-joins-kickstarter

Drip was a startup that acquired from Kickstarter a year or two ago. So they didn't choose the name (and didn't choose to rebrand).

Hmm, so they did. https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/drip-joins-kickstarter

I haven't had a chance to go through the new marketing stuff, but the original terminology of drip referred to the actions of the creators - not the payments. Albums and tracks released by labels were called "drips", not what we paid for them.

And as I pointed out, drip.com was originally registered by this service. They moved off that domain a few years ago and it was eventually taken up by the current occupants.

It's worth mentioning they actually had the domain drip.com but sold it to the current owners. (For a six figure sum, informed a person at the buying company in a recent podcast, Art of Product.)

Bigcos often tend to name products after their project name/strategic initiative /new business model instead of what they do/ what it means to their customer

> (...) but the branding absolutely sucks.

For one, the new domain name extension (.rip) is not really killing it. Not sure what they were thinking, but hey, that's branding.

Drip is also UK slang for a boring, unimpressive person :|

In Canada, the drip is slang for Gonorrhea.

As it is in the U.S.

Given that, the logo they chose is also somewhat... unfortunate.

Yes, my first thought was that Kickstarter needed to get to the doctor and make some awkward phone calls. Really, really unfortunate logo and name combination.

I would have suggested "Momentum", positioning it as tackling the part of creator funding that comes after the initial "kickstart".

Drip also refers to the aftertaste of cocaine in your sinuses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com