Why we stopped raising until we no longer need the money
techfounder.net
techfounder.net
"Build software faster with mature code solutions that let you focus on the interesting and unique parts of your product" and "Binpress is a discovery service and marketplace for source-code components. We bridge the gap between open-source and commercial software, improving the process of software development."
That last statement is content-free fluff. If you would say, "Buy source code snippets and packages" or something, I'd get it immediately.
I'm also not sure you should call anything a "discovery service." Nobody wakes up in the morning and thinks, "I need to find a discovery service today." Pintrest is a discovery service (so is HN) but they don't say that, they say "Browsing pinboards is a fun way to discover new things and get inspiration from people who share your interests."
We can't say "buy source-code snippets" for a couple of reasons - first, we have a mix of free and commercial open-source, and second we do not publish "snippet" sized packages (see our publication guidelines). Our goal is to create an inventory of curated, professional solutions to common needs in software development, whether free or commercial (as long as we verify the publisher is committed to supporting it).
You are probably right about the 'discovery-service' part as a user, we don't use that messaging in our homepage anymore.
It's not perfect, but it at least mentions the key idea of 'marketplace for code'. This phrase (or something like it) should be used, even if you continue by saying that Binpress has open-source code too.
I keep seeing this sort of stuff. "Curated discovery service" is a weasel phrase for "middle man", a species now practically extinct in many spheres of activity thanks to Google and the web.
So, you're a middle man. What can you get that I can't get for myself? What do you know that I don't? What value are you adding? What are your curatorial skills? Prove it. There is your web copy.
Thanks for sharing.
I personally would dedicate the entire 'Featured' and 'Build better software' block to the 'Build better software' product description, and move the 'Featured' area below.
That's assuming you live in Silicon Valley or can target their investors. Elsewhere, especially outside US, it's extremely difficult to raise any significant funding unless you are already huge.
I rest my case.
EDIT to elaborate: Your case just proves my point. You lived in Israel and failed to get funding from Silicon Valley. Now you're in Mountain View, presumably (I'm assuming a lot here, I know) because there's a better startup climate.
Have you ever tried raising in Israel. I understand the funding scene is very active over there.
Naturally, I did try to raise in Israel. The funding scene there is not active at all, perhaps you meant the startup scene. There's very few funds that do seed rounds and they do a very small amount of investments per firm (1-2 a year). The angel scene is also underdeveloped. Israel is not a good place to raise seed money.
That is a mistake too many of us make, I think, and one of the key things you can learn from someone like patio11. Between "I could build that in a weekend", open source, and a fairly critical audience, I think techies are not that great a market for a lot of things. Find a group out there that's not tech savvy, and make something that solves their problem, and they'll think it's wonderful magic.
http://www.lostremote.com/2012/05/07/vidpresso-offers-low-co... http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/07/vidpresso-wants-to-help-tv-... http://pandodaily.com/2012/05/07/vidpresso-aims-to-disrupt-b...
The tech press actually helped with customer acquisition because people were more willing to trust us. I think if you just spend your time meeting the right people, you can get coverage if you, by just being you, can prove you're not a douche / self promoter.
At the risk of over generalizing, early stage VC are interested in portfolio investing in high risk / high return companies.
Well-run, non-viral, near-profitable businesses that could use an influx of cash might be better off with a loan that won't dilute the owners' equity in the company.
I can think of many similar companies that weren't really viral but used an investment as springboard to get huge by developing strong customer acquisition channels (for example, Mint).
it's not like you can say, "whoops, we don't install analytics in beta, but we received good feedbacks from people in HN, so give us the money."
Regarding the 'open beta' - I don't think it's applicable, if you're open to users and anyone can register and growth hasn't happened yet, investors will spot that.
Look at when SEOMoz and Github raised money: they were already multi-million dollar businesses. Raising money was entirely justified.
If you're a B2B product with a revenue model, you don't need funding, you need patience.
Basically, I have come to be of the opinion that the types of businesses that need funding for critical first steps are B2C businesses with no revenue model other than advertising which need a huge critical mass with a lot of infrastructure investment before it can become profitable.
If you have revenue, you don't need a springboard. You just need to wait. There isn't one dry cleaner in New York. I love Chris Savage's post on this topic where he's talking about the idea creation process before Wistia and saying basically that although there are a bunch of companies that already do what you're doing, it's really hard to get people to pay attention online and saturation takes a really long time.
If there's only two of you, break even point is really low, and that's all you need.
Some are preoccupied with glamour and glitz, Actin all boogee and making big movies, But I'll be in the cut call me Incognito, Busy makin joints that will bump for my people, You're listening to a man who was something for nothing, Stay in me forever head, never be frontin
You could do that but you are risking a lot. A well funded competitor with competent founders who understand the market like you do would likely outperform you. (Emphasis on competent founders).
Just one example: I work for Cloudera. As I understand it, we raised a fairly large round when we had almost no employees or revenue, and weren't exactly sure what we were doing. And we absolutely needed to. Hadoop wasn't mature enough for most businesses yet, most businesses weren't really looking to do the things that Hadoop is letting them do yet, and the company was nowhere near mature enough to know how to support enough big enough customers to pay the bills anyway. We needed time, so we needed funding.
3+ years later, everything has matured and there will certainly be no talent acquisition.
More generally, your claim doesn't seem to make much sense. Why does raising money make a nascent company more likely to sell out for a small talent acquisition? The real reason that companies that raise early sell more than companies that raise late is that the set of companies that raise late is a biased sample. It is, by definition, a set of companies that got too big and successful to be talent-acquired.
In the current landscape, early companies that haven't yet started printing money may well find that their best option is to take a fairly large check and work for someone else. I can't see how investment would make them less likely to get past that stage; investment gives them more time to figure out their business, and less incentive to sell because investors will get a cut and not really want them to.