Why the tech press is ignoring Zulily's huge IPO | Hacker News Reader

Why the tech press is ignoring Zulily's huge IPO

finance.fortune.cnn.com

268 pointsjmduke109 comments

I'm a tech writer, with a child, and wouldn't write about this. It's a really cool story and a neat company, but it's got a few things working against it:

+ Small Audience — Most tech writers get paid by the pageview. The realistic market of readers for this kind of story is probably in the hundreds, maybe low thousands. My wife loves the site, but wouldn't give a fig about the financials. There's a market for investors or competitive intelligence, but it's a very different kind of business.

+ Bad Timing — If this happened in the midst of the Groupon craze you'd be reading all about it. Now that "Daily Deals" have become an elephant's graveyard of broken dreams and wasted billions it's not that interesting in a meta context.

+ What's the Hook? — It's a big number, but a "boring" business. A company called Wayfair in Boston is in a similar spot. They're a massive ecommerce company dealing in home goods, but you've probably never heard of them. They have nice offices, but not crazy ones. They use a logical, but unexciting tech stack. Which would you rather read:

- Seasoned entrepreneurs utilize proven business fundamentals to build niche ecommerce website with steadily growing, but modest profits?

or:

- 6 Unbelievable Tech Tricks these College Students Used to Get a $4B Buyout Offer from Facebook in 18 months!

Your first headline may be dry, but headlines like "6 Unbelievable Techniques Two College Students Used to Get a $4B Buyout Offer from Facebook!" sound like spam to me.

Sensationalism will always work to grab eyes but I don't think that particular brand of headline sensationalism is going to work forever.

Having a reputation for quality journalism makes a news business sustainable, not headline tricks.

"One weird trick to make $4b! See why entrepreneurs hate him!"

Just to amplify your point, I'm actually seeing a lot of faux-content that's exactly like this, and I'm sick of it already. I've never clicked on it and every time I see them my resolve hardens further.

They don't sound like traditional ads, as they're maybe one or two shades away from "one weird trick." They're just too on-the-nose. "One thing which makes alzheimer's worse," "what cruise lines do to fill empty cabins," "10 signs of an affair." I feel dirty just typing these.

> "10 signs of an affair"

Stuff like that pre-dates "one weird trick" adverts.

Oh, sure. It's not "new" in that you'd see it on magazine covers or whatever. And it's not any more appealing in this context, either.

The book http://trustmeimlying.com/ talks about this and the financial motivations behind this. In the age of the pageview journalism the main distribution channels are social networks and Google News, and on those channels headlines are the only thing that people pay attention to.

Congratulations, you just discovered "growth hacking"!

I've heard the term before but this is the first time I had cause to look it up.

And now that I've read it: shouldn't you be offering condolences rather than congratulations?

lol, epic sixpackshortcuts reference.

Or the third option to get a larger audience if you want to write about the IPO

"Why the tech press is ignoring companies huge IPO"

I met Reddit cofounder Alexis Ohanian at a book signing recently. Alexis mentioned that Digg was all the rage in the press when Reddit was on the rise. I understand you saying that this company has a small audience, bad timing, and an insufficient hook. However, it seems that experts often make the same mistake over and over again. As Nassim Taleb would say, tech journalists appear to be Fooled by Randomness. They latch on to the Snapchats of the world and refuse to explore the hidden gems because they don't fit into the trendy, flashy mold.

He's just being honest and saying one will get more page views than another, not evaluating the merits of the underlying businesses. Perfectly rational since it's what he's been incentivized to care about.

There is more US IPO activity going on right now than makes the headlines. You really have to subscribe to an IPO specific news source or blog.

Take this with a grain of salt, I haven't read the S-1 and I don't know much about Zulily.

However, they have shown up as a top US display advertisers going back a year or more. Groupon was in the same spot, buying up massive quantities of inventory to fuel their growth. Before buying in take a close look at how much of their growth is purchased, along with the retention of those purchased users.

Other recent IPOs, like Retailmenot, have even deeper issues (almost complete dependency on free traffic from Google for trademark company names.)

Yep, Chegg is Valley-based tech-driven non-parent company, but coverage of the IPO was pretty much amiss from the tech blogs.

Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. "Trendy and flashy" really is not a factor.

Reddit didn't get a lot of press attention because -- among other things -- the people behind it were not easy to find and talk with. (They still aren't.) If as a journalist I can't connect with you to, say, fact check something I'm writing, your chances of being covered are much lower.

Plus, when Reddit was on the upswing, there were a _lot_ of competing sites that were trying to be "Digg for [niche]," such as DZone as "digg for developers" and dotnetkicks as "digg for the .net people so we can be even more granular," and agileblend and so on. Not to mention older sharing sites like delicious (which is, um, still around?). So initially it seemed like "yet another link sharing site," and one that was far more confusing even to us tech press geeks.

In a way, this speaks to the concept of journalism in an echo chamber and being fooled by randomness. Ultimately, people (including journalists) are bad at prediction. The "accessible" founders that get noticed first get the press' attention. Next to market companies get labeled as [First mover] for [niche].

"Accessibility" has a lot to do with one's connections with journalists and perhaps location to some extent. It seems like a broken model is being used to determine what is newsworthy in tech.

I'd take location out of it. Just as good developers learn to communicate over distance (e.g. over IRC), so do journalists. I know remarkably few tech journalists who still live in the Bay Area.

All good points. People just don't want to recognize what you are saying is true because they want to believe the press is about truth and not about pageviews to make money. The time that this isn't the case is when there is enough advertising money that you can afford to do the stories that have "value" (subjective value anyway).

"What's the Hook?"

One hook that would get the tech press interested is the involvement of a "legacy" (borrowing from Animal House) which the tech community cares about and salivates over. Like Peter Thiel or Jeff Bezos or such and such angel or VC firm etc. Alternatively a celebrity getting behind it would be a hook. Like Ashton Kutcher, Madonna, or even Louis CK.

Why is it not possible to write something about 'How is this Daily Deals site succeeding when Groupon is such a huge failure?'

Because that would take creative journalism. "X ways that such and such did such and such" is much easier.

On topic: I respect you professional opinion, but I'd click on a link that talked about daily deal business models that succeed--in obvious opposition to the infamous Groupon. You'd be writing for investors and the anti-bubble crowd, is there no reward for that?

Off topic: this is not the first time I've seen tech journalists referring to themselves as tech writers. I always thought tech writing was the unsexy job of documenting corporate middleware. If what you do is not journalism, is it just "writing?" If documentation writers aren't tech writers, what are they? "Doc writer" might be more accurate, or better yet, "tech doc writer," but that doesn't seem to be the norm either.

The story about Daily Deals is that although Local Daily Deals such as Groupon and Living Social went through boom and bust the Online Daily Deals such as Woot, Tanga and Zulily did very well before Groupon and continue to do so. That is why Local Daily Deals businesses have expanded into that market with Groupon Goods and LivingSocial Shop.

I do have some data to back that up with Deal Drop (www.getdealdrop.com) which pre-dates Groupon and Tech Drop which I released yesterday (www.getdealdrop.com/blog/tech-drop-android).

I'm shocked this even made it on hacker news.

Here's a market selection tip: find a problem not experienced by mid 20s single men in urban centers and your competition drops by about two orders of magnitude.

Competition may drop among tech startups, but you quickly enter the world of heavyweight long-standing businesses who have the capital and marketshare to stomp you out.

Not many startup 20-something CEO's are worried about competition when launching a new mobile app hatched in a weekend bender but sell something more traditional and essential like kids clothing and you'll spend sleepless nights worrying about Wal-Mart and other established providers who could and (prob) will squash you.

Yep, case in point: http://www.businessinsider.com/jody-sherman-ecomom-and-a-gra...

I'll take Walmart as a competitor over 20 20 something CEOs hacking on Ramen. Walmart might have scale and cost advantages, but their advantages are bounded by physical reality. 20 somehing ramen fueled work for zero, or possibly less than zero if mom and dad are still helping out.

Against Walmart I can use judo business strategy. 20 something's use judo against each other.

Judo business strategy...what? You're telling me that you that motivation is a bigger asset to a few 20 year olds than all of the scale, capital and business experience of Walmart, and therefore you'd rather compete against Walmart? Do you think Walmart became the dominant business it is today by just sitting around and not competing (and winning)?

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Capital, economies of scale, strong management, etc. -- these things are very real advantages and matter to the viability of a business. I'm not saying it's impossible to compete with entrenched businesses, but don't think for a second they're not able to compete right back because they don't have "judo business strategy."

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/judo-business-strategy.a...

http://judoinfo.com/pdf/business.pdf

Judo strategy is when you go up against a larger opponent and use their size to your advantage. It's an easy term to google.

Judo strategy is employed most famously when you price to capture a fraction of the market such that their cost to win those customers back by lowering their prices would have a higher cannibalization cost to existing customers than the benefit of getting the lost customers back. Price is just one of the ways to use a judo strategy, but it is the easiest to understand.

I'm telling you that 20 year olds often have zero opportunity cost, zero holding cost, and zero living cost. Because they exist in a "pre-adult" state, they are scary to compete against because they often can act irrationally for long periods of time with no repercussions.

If there is an opportunity, I'd rather go up against a large multinational company who will almost always act rationally but inefficiently than a field of likely to be irrational opponents.

Big companies are famous for being not-nimble and not investing in "small" niches that won't move their bottom line. So if you can find a niche that BigCo won't be able to move into for years (or won't even want to), then you can have a solid business.

"Hmm, procreation... That could get obscure enough to become hip."

I can't tell how sarcastic you're being. :) Trying to chase what's hip (esp in the eyes of white male 20-somethings living in SV) is exactly the problem. When it comes to procreating, how likely do you think that demographic is to think about problems/opportunities re: raising children?

If they start selling infant size porkpie hats, you'll know I'm right. Getting the skinny jeans over the diapers is going to be a challenge though.

Apparently, not in Japan.

Simplistic answer, "They aren't hackers, they are business people."

I've noticed a strong inverse correlation between people building businesses with expected business practice, and the "tech" press. What Zulily is doing is not a disruptive technology, it is (potentially a disruptive business practice).

It is easy to forget when reading inside the tech 'sphere' that there are lots of things that have to get done everyday by businesses, and those processes can be improved or made more efficient with technology. The closest one I've seen here was 42floors which is trying to disrupt the commercial real estate market, but it isn't a "tech" play, it is a business practices play.

Creating a way to share a moment in time, an instant, right now while preserving that feeling of "instantness" that is a tech play. Eventually, perhaps after this second burst of activity, tech will be just as boring and all the cool kids will be doing bio stuff or space or something.

> What Zulily is doing is not a disruptive technology, it is (potentially a disruptive business practice).

You can say the same for Uber, but they get the standard tech coverage, unlike Zulily.

The key to Uber though was technology, a smart phone app that replaced both the hailing of a cab and the paying of the cab. It wasn't "just another hire car service".

As an example; If Zulily was using a web cam to snap pictures of your kid and send the clothes back pre-fit? That would be a technology angle.

No, its because people in SV use Uber.

Uber’s go-to-market product incorporated a distributed brute-force attack against one of the Traveling Salesman’s cousin problems – they’re a tech for that reason alone.

Chegg is kinda in the same boat as Uber (efficiency of scale with online approach), but even with IPO this week it got basically zero coverage.

I'd say the answer provided is so simplistic that it has very little explanatory power.

Commenters have already mentioned Uber and Groupon, but I'd go further and add YC love child Airbnb as well. They famously sold cereal to stay afloat etc. What does that have to do with tech hacking? Yet they have been lauded everywhere Zulily hasn't.

I'd be interested in how one separates a disruptive business that uses technology from Disruptive Technology? It seems to me there is a hair's breadth of difference between the two.

This is news for the simple reason that it isn't news.

Airbnb does put out highly technical blogs written by their engineers on how they tackled an issue, etc. Such articles in my eyes are relevant to to the "HN crowd" if you must say so.

In addition to those characteristics, Zulily is on well-trodden ground. There are thousands of niche online retailers angling for the breakout Zulily got, or not - maybe they are OK in their niche.

There doesn't seem to be a simple story why Zulily made it. It may be mostly an execution play. Zappos II? Seen it.

Agreed. I don't really see a tech angle to this story, other than the fact that it's a website...

Is groupon a tech company? They seemed to have a "tech ipo".

I guess I'd turn that around and ask if every online retail site should be considered a tech company?

Was Groupon widely covered by the tech press? That's not my recollection but I could be mistaken. One could perhaps question whether Groupon deserved the coverage it got as a "tech company", but that doesn't mean other online retailers should necessarily be covered by the tech press.

To the GPs point, groupon was a sucessful hack.[1] It had young neophyte managment and massive losses. VCs thought is was worth 10's of $Billions. It was covered like the next coming of Netscape...[2]

[1] The nature of the "hack" itself used digital media (email, digital coupons). The main breakthrough seems more of a social/business/marketing hack than anything uniquely driven by hard tech programming or engineering, though. Although I could be corrected on this latter point by someone with specific knowledge.

[2] Part of the story was very high growth and market penetration. There was much "its different this time" type discussion about how this was all enabled by technology.

yes, that's my question as well. Why do i even know about Groupon? It was a lot on HN. And everytime i was wondering why it was here.

This is a question we were asking in the mid-90s about lastminute.com.

Yes, the narrative around Zulily is a lot less theatrical, so it makes worse news. A true story about the Blue Nile team capturing another retail niche is great, but two 24 year olds turning down $3 billion for a thing that takes temporary pictures? Better.

Do market fundamentals make good stories? Maybe. A lot of things grow and make a profit. If growth, profit and speed qualified you for coverage, we'd be reading about hedge funds, not retail firms (let alone social media software firms).

The Blue Nile team isn't ignored because they're in Seattle or they're old though. Valve is in Seattle and has plenty of old people, and they do exciting things people write about all the time. The difference is maternity clothes versus video games. Flash sales versus sexting.

Surely the fundamentals of what the company does can affect its coverage. So forgive people for not finding clothing flash sales terribly exciting.

I still want to hear more about the Blue Nile founders' stories. Gilt (which has a similar concept to Zulily) got tons of coverage as much for brand name clothes as for being run by two brilliant women. Maybe they just need to get out there. Or do nothing, because they got their IPO anyway.

It's not the Zulily team who are missing out for lack of coverage, it's the rest of us who are still trying to build profitable businesses.

They also primarily target female women consumers, which I can only imagine is a major reason it doesn't get much press.

Pinterest primarily targets women as well, but they get lots of press.

What do these have in common: Criteo, Cvent, Benefitfocus, and Veeva Systems

They're all recent tech IPOs (last few weeks). They don't get a lot of coverage in Techcrunch, etc. because that's not what they cover. If you want more comprehensive coverage try something like VentureWire.

> What do these have in common: Criteo, Cvent, Benefitfocus, and Veeva Systems

You didn't give us enough time to answer! I was gonna guess it's that they all look like typos.

It's trivial - they're all in B2B.

People like to talk and read about B2C stuff that they use (or might use), rather than the B2B stuff that is the underwater part of software iceberg.

While I wouldn't call mainstream reporting a whole lot better than the tech press, their biases are certainly different. Unfortunately, the goals are the same.

CNN wants to pull in as many visitors/viewers as possible by reporting skewed and sensationalist versions of all of the horrible, embarrassing, and disastrous things that happen to everyone, everywhere. That this means filtering out a whole lot of interesting but non-controversial things and regurgitating news, lies, and exaggerations constantly really doesn't matter.

The tech press wants to pull in as many visitors/viewers as possible by reporting skewed and sensationalist versions of all the hype, rumors, and scandals that happen to anyone under 25 in stereotypical tech hubs. That this means filtering out a whole lot of interesting but non-controversial things and regurgitating news, lies, and exaggerations constantly really doesn't matter.

It's easy to make fun of the other guy when you're doing exactly the same thing in a different field. Personally, I find it efficient to largely ignore both of them.

Veeva Systems is another that flew under the radar. B2B Life Sciences software company that raised $4M five years ago from Emergence Capital - a stake which was worth $1.2B at the time of their IPO in October.(1)

Good on Dan Primack to shed some light on the "boring" side of VC.

(1) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-16/veeva-ipo-generates...

As a parent and old man, I still have no idea what value SnapChat or Twitter have. Zulily is something I use regularly.

I'm 30, and was explaining what SnapChat is to my 33 year old co-worker while our 22 year old co-worker was listening and chuckling.

It was then I realized we were old.

If something is not tangible it doesn't mean it can have great value to society. I'm sure you use a mobile phone, this is similar but exists everywhere( where there is internet access ) and enables you to communicate with anyone using that service.

My theory on this has been for a while. Not just for coverage, but for the lack of "Older people problems" startups. It's not just they don't get coverage, it is a miracle they are being founded in the first place.

I think it's because young people try to solve (most of the times) young people's problems (music, dating, photos, food delivery, code and technology tools, movies, social activity, even taxi riding, most people with kids buy a van and move to the suburbs). Young people also tend to have a slightly bit more free time, and are more likely to share things they use and like. And I don't mean only teens, I also include professional, smart, rich, educated 25 years old who work in a startup, or own a company, or sold one, or had stocks in one and now are millionaires, and even become VCs, mentoring and helping other startups.

There are billions of dollars on the table that "Old people" companies are taking. Look at all the boring enterprise Java jobs out there, these people are selling stuff. to other companies you haven't heard of, solving business problems you haven't encountered and perhaps never will if you are a 25 years old hacker, because you will never want to go work for these companies.

Older people work there, and even if they have a great idea for a startup they are much less likely to do it.

1) health insurance - prime reason. older people tend to have kids, or in the making. Unless they have some savings, they can't risk losing their health insurance.

2) family, yes, there are successful founders with kids, but it is much easier to start a company when you don't have any. how many people with families move to SF for 3 months for YC and leave their kids and spouse at hime?

3) age bias. VCs look at older people like this - if you had what it takes, why did you get a boring Java job for 10 years till you decided to jump into the water?

4) Enterprise sales is hard. it takes sometimes 2 years of a sales cycle to close a deal. but when you do it can be a 7 figure deal easily.

5) What the article said about young tech writers, I agree

Exactly - Enterprise Software is still a largely untapped area of significant opportunity precisely because it gets little attention from VC, startup folks, and the tech press. That's where the opportunity is.

Not just older people, let's consider some other demographics beyond mostly white wealthy 20-something men:

Women Rural populations Countries other than the US The disabled or those with different capabilities

Now it makes a lot of sense to craft a product for people that have money to spend (young men with disposable income) but if we're truly serious about improving the world, we need to get out of our own experiences.

I'm not going to claim it's easy to understand the position of someone with a completely different background, but I would like to encourage you all to consider if we can make this world a better world for _everyone_ and not just people with AppCash to spend.

I'd also call it a "mindset". The younger generation are far more network focused. I developed a product that doesn't work/share online ... To protect privacy. But, I seem to be a lone wolf in that mindset. Most of these popular technologies utilize online capability. I'm not saying this as a statement of frustration, just a recognition. I deplore the facebooks and other data-mining tools so much that I would never develop a system that was engineered to invasively profile you - it reminds me of an anal probe. Most of my over 40 colleagues are like-minded (at least about privacy). This is a big advantage for the younger generation who see and think very differently.

Being based in Seattle shouldn't particularly hurt it, as Amazon is nearby. But yes, I'll be one of the first to admit that I had never heard of it until this morning when the NYT homepage had a very, very brief item on it. I hope it really is the "old people" thing...those with experience and failures in their past can still continue to reap up money while the young'uns try to fake out the world.

It's probably a two-way-street kind of thing, though...perhaps it's not just the press who ignores them because of the lack of Stanford-dropout-angle, but the older entrepreneurs don't seek the press out as much, especially when already making profits.

Amusingly, searching for "zulily" on Google Finance gets no results. Even when I go directly to "ZU" I can't seem to get a chart.

https://www.google.ca/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AZU&ei=RWmGUrC8OqKCs...

Even more interesting, because Twitter (TWTR) was on Google Finance the night BEFORE the IPO!

The more practical a startup, the less 'sexy' it is; and vice versa.

Maybe it's that this is really hardly a startup -- it's a solid company that just happens to have a web presence as its main outlet to customers?

Launched with a Series A in 2009, has taken 3 up rounds of funding in the years since, now files for an IPO in 2013, exactly 4 years later. Not only is this a textbook VC-funded startup, it's pretty much a perfect illustration of the ideal trajectory and timeline for a VC-funded startup.

It's started just a couple years ago, made a new business niche, had explosive growth from zero and is going to IPO - a startup by any definition.

Having a web outlet to customers is completely unrelated to that; a niche company selling their stuff to a small handful of large companies and not even having a website can be a perfectly valid startup.

I think there's a clear counter-point to your statement in a company like Uber. Better taxi service? That's the definition of practicality, and I still find the business model, and especially the analytics very intriguing ("sexy").

The Seattle dig is just plain lazy. Aside from the obvious established tech names, there are a ton of smaller tech firms, startups, etc.. and even some immensely successful recent IPOs with solid tech-rag coverage. :-P

To be fair, the dig was on the tech press not focusing on Seattle and being Silicon Valley-focused, not on a lack of tech in Seattle, which is certainly not true :)

Interesting, never heard of zulily before.

Found their register-to-view website off-putting. Removed the overlay and discovered they have a UK site (no IP/geolocation sniffing?) .. UK site was broken (none of the akamai resources loaded) and appears to be hosted on tumblr (zulilyuk.tumblr.com)??

It's a daily deals / affiliate marketing / e-commerce site... why would that be tech news? Twitter's IPO was newsworthy for being the "second largest in history for a US internet company."[1]

[1] http://qz.com/145227/final-tally-twitters-ipo-was-bigger-tha...

its not tech news. Its a link bait for techies.

I personally had never heard of zulily (not that it means anything) but i just decided to view their website and Horrors!! .They have this pop-up that wants my email before it will let me view the site. No sir, you cannot kill that pop-up (at least as a everyday non-tech user) WTF. seriously ? Rant aside though, I would consider zulily for my kid because we are always shopping for kids as parents.

This makes me think about my own hard time attracting coverage.

My startup make educational games and applications for kids, that are actually fun (instead of just educational and terribly boring, or entertaining but teaches lots of bad stuff).

Yet... even when I want to tell a journalist to cover us, I don't find a reason to do so... I mean, what we are doing is not sexy, also we don't have famous VC with us, also we did not went to YC (and won't go, the CEO has wife and very little kids and cannot move away for 3 months), we don't know in person anyone famous, we had no crazy or surprising funding, our product despite being novelty in the sense that everyone else go pure entertainment or pure educational is still not much "disrupting", it is just something we found a demand and no offer and decided to offer.

I even met recently the editor of the largest brazillian tech magazine... And I had some small talk with her, but I found no reason whatsoever to give to her to cover us, and it is not that we are unknown, because she uses our products and love them, it is just that... :/

If your product is for kids, you may decide there's no point in trying to get "tech press" coverage anyway.

If you want users, go after mom bloggers. They are the ones that will buy your product if it's good.

Suggest these for a clickbait headline:

"This Company will REVOLUTIONIZE Education Technology... Why Haven't You Heard About Them?"

"Meet the CEO Who Says Most Learning Apps are TOTAL CRAP"

Snapchat: I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself.

Look what I did to the tech media with a few snaps and a Colbert Report appearance? Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan."

Even if the plan is shareholder rewarding! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a maternity clothing e-commerce site goes public, or IBM buys a Blue Bell, PA based mobile device management company, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan".

But when I say that a two-year old, non-profitable messaging company run by 23 year-olds is going to refuse a $3 billion offer from Facebook, well then everyone loses their minds! [Snapchat hands HackerNews an upvote and points it at himself]

Snapchat: Introduce a little disruption. Disrupt the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos. Oh, and you know the thing about disruption? It's fair!

http://vimeo.com/69674685

So...people got scooped by CNN? CNN?

Wow, goddamn folks.

A hastily thrown together blog post really doesn't count as a scoop. As much as the author is patting his back over this story that the ESTABLISHMENT TECH PRESS doesn't want you to know.

Does "e-commerce" even qualify as "tech" anymore? Seems to me in 2013 there's nothing special about most e-commerce technology; it's more commerce/retail, and I'd opine that's why the tech press ignores it for the most part.

In that case, does Snapchat qualify in any way whatsoever? There are at least some technologically-interesting challenges in building large scale e-commerce, but there's nothing special about limited-functionality mobile app technology, in 2013 everyone knows how to do that and it's just more about socialization habits than technology.

Well, maybe they haven't heard of it. I read HN daily and this is the first time I've heard of it. Even if they have, its not exactly in the same league as Twitter and Facebook (speaking solely in terms of popularity and brand recognition.)

Asking 'why doesn't the press cover x' is not really satisfactorily answered by 'maybe they haven't heard of it'. It's their job to hear of things.

Well if we're talking about what journalism's job is, there is a near-infinite number of things that they could be covering that are way more important than anyone's IPO.

It's worth noting that the tech press posted about the filing of the IPO, but not the IPO itself.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/08/flash-sales-site-for-moms-z...

http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/08/flash-sales-for-moms-site-...

TechCrunch now has a mention of the IPO: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/15/zulily-shares-pop-82-above-...

The tech press is a circus. In Hollywood, there are two films that ever matter. The one that had the lowest budget made by kids. And the one that had the largest budget. Anything else is not a story. Same with Silicon Valley. You have to be a 2.0 change the world company by 20-somethings. It also helps if you have no business plan, lots of eyeballs, and a massive valuation. Slow growth, solving an actual need of a market, with rational actors all around? Boring.

"Why the tech press is ignoring Zulily's huge IPO"

Separate issue is that one way to get pageviews after (or in this case before) a story is by doing a story on why the press is doing the wrong thing.

The story about the story in other words.

Happens more often after some big event gets all played out in the media, the milking is done, no more for the talking head on tv, then the media starts to question the coverage of the big event and what was done wrong and why so much attention was paid to it.

Isn't this just an another Groupon for kid stuff?

Tech reporters may not have kids, but they certainly have their fingers burnt after salivating about the Groupon IPO

No, these aren't coupons you use somewhere else. Zulily sells the goods and focuses on stuff for kids and mothers. Also, they seem to pick quality stuff, not just anyone trying offload crap like some other flash sites. My wife uses Zulily all the time and really likes it.

Hopefully this IPO will enable them to ship stuff quicker though, that's the only major complaint about Zulily from everyone I know who uses it.

It's nice to see fellow Seattleites growing a real business here. The more success stories happen in Seattle, the more confident the new founders and investors will be. Giving up is too easy when you think everyone else already did.

On that note, I encourage everyone with startup aspirations to hang out in one of the coworking spaces or incubators, like HUB or SURF (which I'm posting from).

Maybe writers are staying away because the efficacy of the business model at scale is in question. I think some observers are still (justifiably or not) self-aware of how they think the story ends with these kinds of companies.

On Twitter, Primack brought up Fab as an example of this kind of company generating news. But the only news I've heard about Fab lately is bad news.

I have seen a few articles about the announcement of the IPO, but no mention of it today. For what it's worth, I think Zulily is a great site and very useful if you have kids. Maybe flash sale sites are just old news and this one isn't breaking any new ground in that respect, so the company isn't as big of a tech news story.

This is the moment where "ecommerce" stopped being "tech". Just like using electricity, or the telephone is no longer tech. Remember those fancy companies that use the new running-water system? Me neither. That was once tech, but not any more.

Ecommerce is not tech, it's retail. So ya, boring.

Amazon is a huge retailer who just happens to have very innovative tech offerings. They also compete directly with big tech companies. That's the difference.

Daily deals were really hot in 2009 and 2010.

By late 2011, the business model was considered "dying" and the tech press moved on.

how is this better "tech press"?

only one intrepid reporter was brave enough to create a barely 6 paragraph article long on opinion but short on facts.

yes, everyone who didn't throw up a blog post within an hour must believe amazon is in palo alto, have never gone to seattle, and the seattle area does not have a tech scene worth mentioning.

"because news are entertainment, not news" news^H^H^H^H entertainment at 11.

Thought everyone knew that by now.

It's classic, but boring, PR spin.

Is not terribly exciting,or innovative.... It's another incarnation of groupon typed on a niche market. Sorry for being negative, but another shopping site, yeehaa, just what the world needs.... :-(

As opposed to another photo app?!

As opposed to something that advances humanity. Not another McMarketing engine. How about innovative in a new way that transcends the current freeze,that solves some serious issues that really need solved. Not willingly signing up to be spammed, not overtly consumerist. Think Eudaimonia!

You did ask!

I'm all for that, it's just that the tech press doesn't really cover companies that fit that description.

I've seen more smiles and laughter from people using snapchat than probably any other piece of tech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com