New York Magazine Deems Naturally Curly a Bad Investment For No Reason | Hacker News Reader

New York Magazine Deems Naturally Curly a Bad Investment For No Reason

racialicious.com

20 pointsroguecoder42 comments

I read they're putting $1.4M into it, which isn't crazy for a site like this. If it was $14M I'd say something different.

I think of how it's been obvious for a long time that a shoujo site vaugely like Digg or Reddit could take a piece out of Oprah Winfrey's empire, but Pintrest was the first sharing site to really click with women.

And note that Pinterest comes from Iowa, not SV or NYC!

As much as outsiders blame SV for being centered in "worthless" social media plays, my view from a distance is that SV lost interest in early stage social media companies some time ago and lately there's more interest in SAAS and "Freemium" business models, things like Dropbox, github, basecamp, etc.

Part of it is that the technical aspects of running a "good enough" social media site are getting easier and the real challenge is connecting w/ an audience. You can do that from L.A. or Atlanta or Des Moines.

So what's the market demand for a curly hair social network? They didn't provide evidence, but the common sense test would suggest that this is a dumb idea. A lmost as worthless as a network for left handed people. I've never thought how cool it would be to have a social network for blue eyed guys with thinning hair. Some ideas are just ridiculous -- no evidence needed -- just experience and common sense.

When the curly hair network goes IPO, then I'll eat my hat.

Does a good idea promise success? I thought it was PG@YC that was looking for smart people with a clue. Maybe then they would work together to produce a successful venture.

Anyway, ideas are cheap. This is a business and it has been funded and well-positioned to control their exit.

Exactly. The article correctly outlines why "curly hair" is a large business market. It does nothing to explain why these people need their own dedicated social network, why was the whole point behind the offhand comment in the NY magazine.

"These people"? Sounds a bit hostile.

Anyway, many social networks attempt meet pain points. Women with naturally curly hair deal with alot of issues. Lack of products, good stylists, societal issues (e.g., "is curly hair professional?"). It's the kind of thing you probably don't think about unless you have curly hair. Lots of bonding among curly-haired women is already occurring online. A central network is a great idea--I'm thinking it will be really popular. It's part of The Long Tail.

These people is a fairly neutral substitute pronoun for "people with curly hair". I don't think why you hear any hostility in the term.

I'm not interested in debating the validity of whether there is market for this group of people. Just that the article in question does little to support the claim. It argues that a lot of people have curly hair and buy curly-hair products. It says nothing about why these people want to congregate online in a specific social network.

In fact, your 2-sentence paragraph said more than the entire article.

Did you read the article? Your comment is exactly the perspective the article is addressing. They cited acknowledged experts in the field, whereas you've cited "common sense", a subjective term that means nothing without context.

The article makes no mention of people with curly hair meeting each other as a market. It discusses people having curly hair (and, mostly, taking care of it) as a market.

Right. Which is why I doubt the business model of a social network. Perhaps a group buying thing or an Amazon (or etsy) for curly hair products might work. But a social network? That's a stretch. 2 million uniques doesn't mean much if you're talking about a sustainable business model. Uniques do not equal revenue. There are wastelands of social networks that had many more users than 2 million. Also, how was that 2 million verified? 2 million uniques would generally warrant a higher fundraise, the investors are likely betting on a potential business rather than an actual. What's the bounce rate? What's the time on site? What's the demographic profile of the user -- those important questions matter more than a vanity metric of 2 million uniques. Are people engaged with the site? What's the growth rate? 2 million from what? What's the engagement profile? There are a lot of questions that would need answering before assuming that this network is a 'good' idea. Race has nothing to do with it. I'd invest in anything that could turn a profit. Investing only because it addresses a particular racial group without quantifiable metrics -- now THAT'S racist.

Curly hair isn't limited to one ethnic group. There is a actually numbering system for curls (1A-4C, with some permutations) and it traverses different ethnic groups. The numbers are used to make product recommendations, exchange info, etc.

All that it established, if you read between the lines, is that there is a clear market for hair products for women with curly hair, and that the companies that produce those products are looking at targeting those women to sell those products.

It does not address exactly what a social network would accomplish for the consumer beyond acting as a conduit for advertising. That's where the issue is.

If you go to the site, it's not actually a social network. I mean, it has what looks like an off the shelf forum attached, but basically it's a super targeted eHow with a really good affiliate marketing strategy.

Every website is a social network in its press release. Journalists will repeat those descriptions. Don't fight it, you'll lose your mind.

"2 million monthly visitors": that sounds like a market to me. Additional articles show that the startup is already profitable: http://techcocktail.com/the-naturally-curly-network-2011-07#...

Natural hair is political in a way your examples aren't. In fact, your reaction is a perfect example of what the original article is talking about: people projecting their own experiences onto the rest of the world and thus making wrong assumptions about what will succeed or fail. In this case, those assumptions are both gendered and racial in nature: this is a profitable start up that most white men would never have thought to create.

How am I being racist? The idea of a black social network isn't 'bad', it's the fact that they're selling it as a network for a specific hair type. If their premise is code for 'a black woman's network' then they should explicitly say it. I'd invest in that, but not a curly hair network. Projecting some idea that I'm being racist in my analysis is ridiculous. They aren't getting 2 million uniques based on a hair style, there's obviously more to the business than hair.

Still, the business as it's presented is destined to fail unless they have a broader-based pivot in the works.

"Code" to you is "explicit" to the target demographic culture. I'd argue that you are not in that culture--and though I wouldn't say you're being racist (and actually looking back it's _you_ that used the word racist first!), I would say that your criticism is coming from outside the culture.

It isn't all "black women"; it is a specific demographic of black women. The same way hacker's news isn't a website for people with computers or Spotify isn't for everyone with ears.

It's not that you are racist, and I didn't say you were. However, the reason you don't understand that "natural hair" is a unique identity within the African-American community speaks to your lack of experience, and that lack of experience probably has something to do with the culture you come from. That doesn't make you racist, that makes you ignorant, which is fine as long as you don't assert that your ignorance is more correct that statistics that contradict you.

This is why it matters that diverse people build businesses: there are people out there who's needs I couldn't predict because I don't have the experience to know what they are. It is incredibly arrogant, however, to assume that because something isn't a part of your personal experience it either doesn't exist, doesn't matter or is doomed to failure.

According to the article, they're getting 2 million uniques/month, which suggests that demand exists. And with such blindingly obvious product/advertising tie-ins, it seems like there's the potential for actually making money here.

I'm certainly not in any position to make intelligent comments about this market, but I'd be wary of dismissing it because it's something that's not important to you personally. Fashion is another example of a market that many people here don't care about at all but that generates quite a lot of money.

I only have personal knowledge from black women who don't want to perm their hair anymore. It's a huge statement for them for accepting themselves as they are. They share hair style information, hair care and support each other in cases where employers deem braids, for instance, as unacceptable in the work place.

Instead of answering your question about evidence directly -- the article was very clear in providing evidence that Naturally Curly is investment-worthy -- I think it's important to point out what an arbitrary and arrogant comment this is. (It's a step above mkramlich-level commentary, because at least you acknowledge that you have no evidence.)

What you call "common" sense is a collective set of prejudices you rely on as a sort of defense, or shortcut, against having to constantly question your base assumptions. The strength of common sense is not that it's predictive, but that you can make baseless assertions about the world and expect them to be accepted unquestioningly, so long as you are speaking to an audience whose own core beliefs will be comforted and affirmed by your statements. By forwarding common sense as justification enough for unsubstantiated assertions, you're basically pandering.

But, if we strip away your crutch for a moment and ask another set of questions, the point of this article becomes obvious -- because you have illustrated it with (probably unintentional) hilarity. Instead of asking (rhetorically, because you assume that everyone shares your assumptions) why this wouldn't flop, let's ask:

  * Why should anyone believe you know anything about what makes a successful investment and what the predictors of a successful exit are? 
  * Do you know anything about the curly/wavy-haired segment? 
  * Have you ever invested $1.4M (or even $14k) to the effect of generating ROI of whole multiples?
  * Have you ever sold any beauty or hair-care products?

Or, in short:

Who are you, and what is the evidence that you know anything about what you're talking about?

At the end of the day, columns like this one in NY Mag thrive on people like you, whose reliance on unquestioned assumptions allow them to circulate bullshit like it's truth.

I'm a white woman who has been going to naturallycurly.com for at least 5 years. Naturally curly hair is different to cut & style than straight hair, and there are surprisingly few stylists who cut curly hair well. I don't see how race plays into it other than I've never met a black woman with naturally straight hair. The beauty market is huge, and naturallycurly is a great resource for the many women currently underserved because conventional beauty standards dictate straight or wavy hair.

A couple of things.

The ethnic hair care & beauty market approached $3 billion in sales in 2011 (check out Packaged Facts, etc.). Not a small market. And in 2010, that market grew 13%.

There are big trends in social media around natural/naturally curly hair and beauty. I know a couple of startup founders who are building out apps in the ethnic beauty space, and there are already other social networks focused on hair-related issues for diverse women. Lots of high-traffic blogs, too.

All things considered, $1.4m isn't much.

ETA: Many women are very social around beauty, especially hair. I have naturally curly hair, and I can't tell you how many times I am complimented or asked questions (in person and online) by other women (and the occasional man) who are interested in chatting. Having an online network seems a natural next step.

My company iCouch, addresses a $20 billion dollar market growing by 20% -- but that doesn't mean that market creates profitability for companies in the space. Cheese is also a multi billion dollar market, but a Cheese social network doesn't necessarily make money. The market size isn't determined by the market size of the particular niche. The question is what's the market size for people that want to share articles about curly hair. People buy hair products, but it doesn't mean they want to join a network to hang out with other people buying those products. The "XYZ" market is X $billion per year doesn't mean anything to investors, the question is what's the addressable market for your particular product. There is a very big difference.

Yes, yes, we all know how to size markets.

The point I was making is that the market is there AND there is considerable interest around hair texture and styling among diverse women. Those who have researched ethnic personal care (and related issues) frequently discuss the importance and ubiquity of social interaction among those sharing certain beauty attributes. Check google if you're interested in the research--it's out there.

$1.4m is a small risk for a company already getting 2 million uniques a month.

By the way, if you are looking for traditional metrics on curly hair, the most you'll get is general ethnic personal care market sizing--the numbers just aren't as granular for markets around hair texture, skin color, etc. Hopefully soon we'll get access to that kind of data.

ETA: ethnic personal care data can be used as a proxy for curly haired people, but any ethnic group can have curly hair.

Link: http://www.naturallycurly.com/

It's like WebMD, except every article can have an affiliate link. Not to mention all the ads. As long as it gets traffic, there's no reason it shouldn't be crazy profitable.

Except WebMD has a massive, broad based appeal and thousands of pages of content. The amount of content to support a curly network can only be so much. Even sports social networks fall short and there are games constantly. Ultra niche products can be profitable, but certainly not at the numbers to warrant VC interest. I am not knocking the site, I am just questioning it as an investment.

"Humans" is a bigger market than "Humans with curly hair", but the latter is still a bloody huge market segment.

Probably not much hope for expansion to China though.

To the people here who are still dissing this idea: Actually go to naturallycurly.com and look at their site.

This isn't a Facebook clone with "for curly-haired women" tacked onto it. It's a curated collection of articles on beauty and body care with associated discussion groups. (That's where the "social" part comes in.)

Seems like a fantastic business to me.

The article and most of the comments on here are arguing against a straw man. The original Dumb Money article [1] is about "dumb ideas" -- and let's be clear that an idea can be both dumb and profitable.

As to as whether or not NaturallyCurly.com is a bad financial investment, I'm leaning toward yes. It's an advertising play with plenty (2MM) of page views, so this site should be printing money. Plus the site's been around for what, a decade? Why take investment money now, shouldn't 10 years be enough time to monetize? I can't see a reason why an investor would be useful to them -- if they're not making boatloads of dough by now, VC money is useless. If they are making loads of money, why take VC cash?

[1] - http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/dumb-money-techs-stupid...

Sounds like a dumb idea to me too..as did twitter and myspace.

As a curly haired woman, who read the article, I'd add that there is a small cultural shift afoot. Curly means natural, not straightened, not brazilian'd, not a weave, wig or blowout. Curly power: claim it. Next up: naturally grey hair. Straight + dyed hair = how women subjugate ourselves. Read somewhere that Paul Mitchell Hair Products and Patron tequila are behind the Curly Hair Network, and if that's true, then this curly network is content marketing.

> Read somewhere that Paul Mitchell Hair Products and Patron tequila are behind the Curly Hair Network

Perhaps you read that in, erm, the article? The one you said you read?

Or perhaps she read it elsewhere--there are lots of articles that talk about the Curly Hair Network. I saw an announcement about Paul Mitchell's investment on Twitter.

Your comment added so much to this discussion! Since you took the effort to type it, I thought I would recognize it, since the only reason to, erm, leave such a comment would be to snark unnecessarily in order to draw attention to how detail-oriented and sarcastic you are.

Aren't you precious.

This.

Never underestimate the ability of a "dumb" idea to appeal to a massive market that just happens to not include you personally.

Twitter and MySpace aren't niche products. What's a niche social product that hit it big. Github is one of the few examples I can think of, but there's an enterprise component that made that product successful. Also content-based businesses tend to have a very rough time because you're only as good as the content you can support.

... Hacker's News? Slashdot? Ravelry? Ars Technica? Penny Arcade? ESPN? RedState? And that's just off the top of my head.

You seem threatened by someone succeeding at something that has absolutely nothing to do with you. It's really kinda weird.

"Hitting it big" with a multi-billion dollar exit is not an absolute requirement for being a successful company.

Also, 40% of all women hardly sounds niche to me.

An idea can be dumb and also profitable, if it makes you feel any better.

This was familiar to me, so I went digging and found this article on NaturallyCurly.com from 2001.

http://www.naturallycurly.com/curlreading/celebrities/prince...

This "niche social network" has been around for a long time, as a special-interest web site. So it seems that the formula here may be: special interest content + valuable market + social features = profit. Nothing intrinsically bad there.

A blogger ridiculing a blogger who ridiculed a startup....

Is this what we've become? This is second hand crap. This is gossip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com