mikepk

• Home
• About
• Grazr News
• VibeMetrix News

Names. In startups why do we obsess about them? Naming things is fun. It’s a direct application of creative energies. It’s also something anyone can do so people feel free to give you their two cents at every turn. But how much of an effect does the name of a company really have on it’s success?

Since the inception of our company this is the single piece of feedback we’ve consistently gotten. Usually it’s someone looking at the name, never bothering to check out the service, and giving a reaction tainted with web 2.0 cynicism.

ZOMG it’s like totally web2.0! Worst company name EVAR! Total Flickr RIPOFF! I’m, like, so tired of these, like, missing vowels and stuff.

Originally my hope was that people would ask why the company was named grazr, then we could move into describing “Grazing information instead of drowning in it”, the basic philosophy the company was founded on. Domain squatters forced us to drop the ‘e’ but we also thought it would be kind of funny. In hindsight I guess we should have suspected that the “dropped vowel” company name would become popular then unpopular.

I thought this inability to see past the name was a major factor contributing to the friction we’ve had to gaining users. The truth is, I fell into the same trap as these commenters, it’s easy to focus on the name because it’s “simple”. It’s easy to do “drive-by critiques” without thinking of all the factors involved. Counterintuitively, I think that because there’s so much focus on names it actually indicates that success is not, or only slightly, related to the name choice. Since startups are so hard, and name critiquing is so easy, there is a disconnect there. Trying to bring a new product, code, service, and company to life is very difficult and usually we focus on the easy stuff.

I think the name of a startup has substantially less effect than what would seem to be indicated by the disproportionate amount of energy and effort we put into devising them and critiquing them. We are obsessed with expert rules and guidelines for naming a companies. Even when those rules are overly simplistic, contradictory, and mostly about a “subjective feel”. As startup founders we’re desperate to gain any edge we can, and we’re always on the lookout for tales of experience, rules of thumb, and other things that can help us avoid mistakes. Most naming rules come from a basically flawed process: look at successful companies, assume somehow the name had some serious impact on their success, come up with a rule to fit those names. Unfortunately these rules always contradict themselves because: the name is not what made them great. For any set of companies you use, there exists a set, equal in number, that contradicts the rule you arrive at. There is no way to find the formula for how names increase success because, except for possibly extreme cases, it has very little effect.

Now this is just my personal musing, I wonder if there’d be way to prove this scientifically? Although I know of no one doing this experiment, I’d love to actually get data on naming and how it affects success. Take the entire pool of startups at a particular stage and have experts chose the good names vs. the bad names (with only the names as data). Track those companies over their lifespan. I wonder if the ones they choose as good would show any greater success rate than the others. I’d wager that the predictive ability of experts in choosing names as a success factor would be barely better than random (some names are so truly, dreadfully, awful that they might impinge the success of a company).

So without further ado:

Mikes rules for startup names

1. There are no rules, so even these are probably flawed
2. Don’t obsess.
3. Try and make it easy to remember, say, and write

Supplemental guidelines:

1. Try not to make it sound like (or be) swear words or distasteful concepts.
2. Careful with other languages and unintended meanings

I didn’t make the second set rules because I could easily see something like schitter.com becoming popular, depending on the context I suppose.

Recently I’ve been playing with our stream output and messing with different publishing models, like injecting it into blog posts directly. These were mostly just experiments to get a feel for different ways of displaying Grazr content aside from our traditional “super-widget” view.

I stumbled across this service feedvolley that basically takes feeds and turns them into nicely formatted web pages (most of the themes are modeled after Tumblr). This isn’t something that’s hard to do with code, but feedvolley makes it quick and easy to play around with generating sites, and the addition of themes is nice. Here’s my “Apple News” stream in feedvolley.

It may seem counterintuitive to turn feeds into pages, but feeds can be difficult for people to understand and pages are an accessible type of content for most. It becomes especially interesting when you think of processed or filtered feeds, feeds that have no direct analog back to a particular web page. A clear example would be our streams, the amalgamation of lots of different sources.

It’s interesting to get a feel for what these new pages are like. They are something new with different purpose than their original sources.

I wasn’t expecting this kind of a response from Robert Scoble to my comments on Mathew Ingram’s Blog regarding Twitter and their architectural issues. I really honestly appreciate the feedback on Grazr, even if it’s painful for me to hear as one if it’s creators.

First, I want to say, Grazr is still here. We have lots of users, just not as many as we’d like and not on the growth curve we’d been hoping for. We’ve been trying to evolve and iterate our service to find the elements of it that are compelling, what it “wants” to be. One of the truths of startups is that you rarely “hit it big” with your initial idea. Twitter had no idea what they were onto when they first launched the service. Flickr started as an online game for girls and it took them time to find their niche. The key is accepting feedback and looking for the aspects of your technology that people find interesting and moving emphasis. We are still very much in this process.

Robert, thanks for the feedback. What you’ve pointed out is pretty much an exact list of the issues we’ve identified as we’d planned for our next version of Grazr, one we intend to launch in a few months. The strength of our core team is the technology skill-base, which in a lot of ways gives us the opposite problem as Twitter. Our architecture, services and scaling are extremely solid, but at the same time we’ve brought in some new people to help us redesign, re-articulate and relaunch the service in ways we’re confident are going to be much more consumer-facing and understandable.

I’ll be very interested in your thoughts on the new version. I’ll let you know when we’re ready, I would love to get more (albeit brutal) honest feedback

(I cross posted this to our company blog Feedonomics as well)

It’s nice to have a new blog where I can throw together little experiments. I just changed my stream integrator around a bit so I thought I’d test it again. One of my streams is “Apple News”, so this list should be an up to the hour river-of-news, updated from my favorite Apple news sources.

Powered by Grazr Streams

The machine this blog is on has been a bit flaky at times. I’m still trying to pin down exactly what’s going on, but occasionally it drops in and out. I was experimenting with Ubuntu Hardy Heron and Wordpress 2.5 so I might have pushed too many experiments at once.

I figure I have some time to experiment with the machine since I doubt I have many readers here yet.

Thanks to Fred for pointing out it was down before.

I’ve done a lot of research on start-ups. Having read hundreds of books and too-many-to-count websites and blogs on the subject, I was nothing if not prepared when I decided to take the plunge and leave my corporate job to co-found Grazr. Or was I? The truth is, other’s experience and advice only gets you so far, there is no formula. My favorite blog post on the subject: Every Piece of Startup Advice is a Lie (including mine) by Tony Wright. It’s a list of startup platitudes and how, in almost every case, they come in mutually exclusive pairs with examples supporting each.

That’s why I tend to get heartburn when reading “here’s the formula for startup success” posts. There’s a conversation on Techmeme about PR in the “new world” of web 2.0 by Brian Solis on TechCrunch. We’re keenly interested in the roles of PR and marketing for our company, one of the reasons Adam weighed in on the topic. PR is one of those areas where we’ve tried to follow the “new math” of web 2.0 in building our company. Adam’s post flows from some of the frustrations. We’re constantly analyzing what we’re doing wrong with Grazr and we know we don’t have *it* yet (whatever it is).

Loic Le Meur weighed in on the conversation with a post about the “truth” of “PR bullshit”. I respect Loic, I think he’s done a great job with Seesmic and many of his ventures (like LeWeb), but I think he’s a bit off-base with his post. Don’t get me wrong, it sure feels good the way he describes the role (or lack thereof) of PR in web 2.0, but it’s the extrapolation of his experience into general truisms that I think is wrong.

The tone was set by his first “PR in the new world” truism.

Not a secret #1
who cares about stories, you can get traction and users if you have a good product

Ugh. As an engineer and a technologist, I cringe at the continuation of this myth. The quality and draw of your product is clearly an element of success, but to intimate that this is some fundamental truth is short sighted. How many times has an inferior product gained market dominance over superior products? How often have amazing technology products vanished because they failed to gain exposure to the right people. The history of the technology business is littered with examples. (Windows versus OS/2 anyone?) In most of these cases the equation is complicated, but to discount the role of PR and marketing is folly.

Not a secret #2
Do not pick a PR person, be the spokesperson of the company

He makes the point that the company founder should be the spokesman. For Loic this is definitely true, he’s charismatic and an excellent marketer. I’ve been following Seesmic’s progress, and my earliest exposures were highly polished video messages starring Loic. If you are a CEO or founder that is as charismatic as Loic and/or an innate marketer, then by all means you should be the spokesman. What if you’re in the situation where the CEO or founder brings different personal strengths and assets to the venture? Maybe they’re strong in areas like grand vision, technological expertise, or industry experience. You could make the mistake of saying the founder/CEO should cultivate this skill, but it’s always at the expense of energy that could be applied to the areas in which they’re already strong. One of the best things a CEO or founder can do is recognize their own personal limitations and find or hire others who are strong where they are weak. Is Loic saying that if you’re not good in front of a camera, or good at working the room, you have no business starting a company?

There are other entries on his list on building community and cultivating friendships with bloggers. All of it clearly worked for Loic, but I think seeing your own success through the lens of it being the “right” formula is dangerous for others trying to start companies. The truth for PR in startups is the same as all the other startup advice, there is no formula.

I thought I’d post why I’ve a sudden interest in Twitter and its problems. The truth is, we (Grazr) have some really good technology (IMHO) that could easily be repurposed to do Twitter-like things. As I mentioned before, we really over-thought the scaling issues so that happens to be one of our strengths (handling massive distributed data).

Adam and I discussed possibly building a twitter clone using the foundational pieces of our technology and open-sourcing the results. It wouldn’t take us long and we figured we could do something good for the community and bring Grazr back into the technology conversation (since we get very little attention). The other reason is that we have a lot of open source roots, the team is made up of the guys who helped scale slashdot and release slashcode, the open source version as well as having some ties to MySQL.

The problem is that we were guilty of looking at Twitter through the technology lens. Twitter is not about its technology, it’s about their oddly individualized experience and the people already in the system. There are already open source twitter clones, and closed source twitter-like services, yet none gain traction.

Duncan Riley has a post about killing twitter that I think hits on some of the main problems.

Dave Winer and a few others have previously discussed a distributed, open source Twitter that doesn’t rely on a centralized database. It’s a nice theory, but it ignores two realities: business model and people. Centralization is a business model that works as one company builds something they own, sure open source has its place but no serious startup (note startup, not big players) is going to build a system that doesn’t in some way provide them direct benefits going forward. The second problem is people: Twitter has them, every one who has tried to compete with Twitter so far (Jaiku, Pownce) doesn’t, and people only end up using services where their friends are. The bonus mix is competency: the dev team has to be competent at scaling, developing and running a Twitter like service.

(emphasis mine)

I think the open source arguments are assuming you’re building a company that does exactly what Twitter does, and somehow expects to extract value from that service. I don’t think that’s an argument against open source, there are lots of ways to extract value from a product whose codebase is open sourced. In fact, you could argue even Twitter themselves have yet to find ways to derive value from their own service with a closed model.

I highly agree, though, with the second point and that’s the primary reason why we decided it wasn’t worth it for us to put together a clone. Replicating the technology, that’s easy. Replicating the je ne sais quoi of Twitter and getting people to leave the established twitter audience, that’s hard.

We decided that we would rather target some of our technologies to play in the twitter eco-system that’s emerging rather than replace the twitter service. We actually think Dave Winer’s suggestion that Twitter is a reef, is more apt now than ever before.

The noise regarding “killing twitter” is getting louder but I don’t think Twitter is in too much danger yet. Having said that, there is a downtime-breaking-point at which Twitter could self-destruct. This would be a point where the Twitter experience of a majority of the users is irreparably compromised but I don’t think we’re there yet. Clearly the irritation of the “super users” is a bright red warning flag though.

We’ve tried focusing on our feed streams lately at Grazr (it’s the main focus of our homepage) and at the same time we’ve been playing with some alternate publishing / integration methods. This list of links should dynamically update as the sources in our a-list stream mention twitter along with scaling. Here’s what the A-list is saying:

Powered by Grazr Streams

Dave Winer reacted today to the Twitter communication from Alex Payne. His response is interesting from a number of angles. First, he makes the excellent point that there is no one “Twitter experience”, everyone interacts with Twitter a little differently. He compares the situation to the old story about blind men describing an elephant using only their sense of touch. I couldn’t agree more with him. Dave’s experience is clearly very different from my own. And for “uber-twits” like Robert Scoble, I can’t even imagine what following tens of thousands of people is like.

After these points though, I disagree with where he takes his discussion. First he dismisses Alex’s description of their scaling issues, saying Alex doesn’t understand the problem because it somehow doesn’t mesh with Dave’s particular Twitter needs. I didn’t quite see the same mismatch from Alex’s post but then in quick succession he describes his own needs as three elephant groping blind men, two of which are contradictory regarding message delivery latency, and one requirement to be “on air” all the time.

This then leads to a declaration that Twitter must be decentralized due to the “always-on-air” requirement and that this is a necessary step towards using Twitter for business purposes. This seems like a bit of a stretch, unless I’m misreading it, it sounds like the common refrain of building a “better” twitter outside of or on top of the existing Twitter system. This is once again thinking that Twitter is relatively simple technology and therefore can easily be made better. It’s not the technology though that makes it good in the first place.

I think Dave’s own argument should point to why this will be a very hard thing to do. What is this decentralized Twitter? Who’s needs will it be built for? To stretch the analogy, it’s like now asking one of the blind men to build a better elephant. When they’re done, is it still an elephant? If the compelling aspect of Twitter is the uniquely individual experience drawn from it by users, how can you improve it for yourself without altering it for everyone else? You could argue that many blind men could build different facets of Twitter to suit their own needs, but then the other compelling reason to be on Twitter, that there are people on Twitter, is fractured when these populations of blind arch-types disperse. It seems like Dave’s own requirements are contradictory in some ways.

Suddenly everyone is a scaling expert. I’ve worked in some pretty hard-core engineering environments dealing with these kinds of issues and the truth is scaling is hard. I find it amusing how everyone seems to have the solution for Twitter’s problems. Blog posts, comments like “just use PHP + ZEND dood”, or anything less than a true bottleneck analysis of the system is not going to provide a solution. There’s a reason why people pay big money for database performance consultants, scaling experts and their ilk.

Why is everyone talking about scaling? Because it’s a topic that gives us nerds “stiffys”. This post by Ted Dziuba cracks me up. Quick warning: he’s the guy who used to write “uncov” so yeah, it’s “colorful”. It’s funny but also somewhat painful. His post hits close to home with our experience with Grazr. We put a lot of effort into a good scaling architecture but we’ve not gotten as many users (yet) as we’d like. I even gave a talk at the MySQL conference where this was one of the main points (overemphasis on scaling).

We’ve been working on a new Twitter-based project at Grazr, and after doing some simple calculations I was surprised at the low volume of data/updates they’re really dealing with (yes I understand their topological issues). It’s surprising that after a year they haven’t solved their problems, there’s nothing inherently unique to what Twitter does. Even if their initial system was brain-dead, after a year (and no shortage of cash) I would have thought they would have found a path, no matter how painful, out of their current situation. I think their real problem is that, if the blog reports are to be believed, they’ve not hired people to focus on this issue. I have to repeat scaling is hard so if you want to solve the problem you need people to focus on it. A technology switch is not going to get you there.

I feel for the twitter guys, I do. They’re getting publicly whipped, but it’s in the A-list uber-nerd space. The loudest complaints also seem to come from people that aren’t really looking to change services. There are calls for twitter replacements, but a quick search will find several examples already. I attended a session at Boston BarCamp3 that was on this same topic as well. We even flirted with the idea here at Grazr, to build a twitter like thing. Why build a twitter replacement when there are lots of these things out there already (e.g. Pownce, Jaiku)? Why don’t people switch? Do you think you can out-Twitter Twitter?

The truth is that Twitter is not compelling because of its technology. People, especially technology people, often don’t understand user inertia, user investment in a service, and user experience as something separate from the technology. Would it be better if Twitter wasn’t down so often? Sure. Do I think it’s going to kill them? I think it would take a level of service outage much higher than what people are complaining about now.

Update: The twitter guys have responded. The gist, they’re hiring more people to work on the problem. It’s the classic “replace the engine while the car is running” problem but one I’m sure they’ll fix.