A Huge Mistake Startups Make - we are the x of/for the y

I'd argue that Opzi is actually better off describing themselves that way than trying to explain what they are without references to existing things. Yes, sure, explaining yourself by comparison to existing things raises questions. No one would claim you're done explaining at that point. But you're now only those questions away from being done. Whereas if you give people a long description that attempts to convey all the nuances of what you're doing, you just lose them entirely. Especially in a noisy environment like a conference where lots of other startups are presenting.

In an algorithm for calculating answers by successive approximations, it's fine if the initial approximation is bad, so long as the process converges rapidly.

sometimes "we're x for y" is an easy summary. sometimes it's a thought process.

the first is ok, the second is usually bad.

i see a lot of startups like this. "we're foursquare for lipstick! women's cosmetics is a $47 billion industry, if we could get just 1% of the market we'd be huge. we're two stanford MBAs, our development is outsourced, and we have no actual women on our team."

Strongly disagree with this (and I've seen my fair share of pitches). I'd much rather hear you're the "x of y" followed by an explanation of your key differences than listen to you reinvent the wheel.

I think the Quora example does give off a bad vibe.

a) We are a Quora for the enterprise

b) We are Youtube for audio

Quora for the enterprise sounds like a superset. Quora, plus enterprisey features. Quora could compete, their core competency is in that set.

Youtube for audio sounds like disjoint sets. OK, I know what Youtube does. They do video well. I could see a good audio site that does it similarly, allows user submissions, etc. Youtube isn't a competitor, it is a model.

I'm not a fan of this approach, or the "we're like x meets y meets z" (mashup of services), but I can see the value in giving unfamiliar listeners familiar reference points. As long as you can easily field the followup questions -- you can differentiate yourself or describe competitive advantage -- I think you're fine.

edit: Another problem I've seen with using this approach is that sometimes they use existing services to describe their service, and it actually undercuts their value. For example, someone builds service to capitalize on the networking, information sharing, and shared knowledge base of pet owners but sells as "facebook for pet owners." Well, pet owners use Facebook, so the value proposition is lost in the analogy without further reinforcement.

I don't have a problem with this description. Us humans think in symbols, and this is a high compression method to convey a complex idea.

Besides, even if they described it another way, astute observers would be asking the same question: Why won't Quora, or [include social platform] compete with you? This is a good question for the founders to know the answer to, regardless of how they want to frame the description of their company.

I disagree. For every startup that can easily and succinctly communicate their purpose and value, there's ten that stumble over vague, non-descriptive utterances. If you can say "We're like Facebook for pets", that has value and we can immediately hone-in on what specifically differentiates you.

It depends on the X and Y. If you say - You are the "successful company" of X industry for the Y industry, then there is no issue of X overlapping Y, since X and Y are distinct enough. For Opzi, they are just targeting another segment in the same industry, and that is too close for comfort.

Any one know how they answered the question ?

Unless you stop trying to be someone else, and start trying to the best "you" you can be, you're not a novel opportunity.