Comments on: The credit crunch, startups and optimism http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/ What's Next? Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:16:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: roo http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88903 roo Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:50:37 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88903 Good points, all. Does he really believe the reach and audience are equivalent though? Or just different? One might argue that engagement is more important than eyeballs, after all. Good points, all. Does he really believe the reach and audience are equivalent though? Or just different? One might argue that engagement is more important than eyeballs, after all.

]]> By: Ian Betteridge http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88841 Ian Betteridge Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:12:45 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88841 Darren is half-right about Gucci: The world of Gucci is the world of Beckham etc <i>and</i> people who want to be like them. Buying a load of ads on watch blogger sites would be (a) preaching the to converted, and (b) too low-rent for Gucci. Gucci needs to be seen in magazines which are, themselves, high-value brands. The fact that Vaynerchuk thinks Twitter's reach and audience is equivalent to that of a newspaper also kind of shows he's talking out of his ass. That kind of comment plays well with a tech/geek audience, but in the real world it's pretty easily shown up as nonsense. Darren is half-right about Gucci: The world of Gucci is the world of Beckham etc and people who want to be like them. Buying a load of ads on watch blogger sites would be (a) preaching the to converted, and (b) too low-rent for Gucci. Gucci needs to be seen in magazines which are, themselves, high-value brands.

The fact that Vaynerchuk thinks Twitter’s reach and audience is equivalent to that of a newspaper also kind of shows he’s talking out of his ass. That kind of comment plays well with a tech/geek audience, but in the real world it’s pretty easily shown up as nonsense.

]]> By: roo http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88725 roo Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:44:45 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88725 Understood, Cait, and perfectly valid venting. I actually agree with you. I thought that was an 'interesting' tactic too, and likely to cause problems with dedicated employees who have perfectly reasonable family commitments. Understood, Cait, and perfectly valid venting. I actually agree with you. I thought that was an ‘interesting’ tactic too, and likely to cause problems with dedicated employees who have perfectly reasonable family commitments.

]]> By: Cait http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88717 Cait Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:34:41 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88717 Jason's post is tough but reasonable to ride out the storm for the most part, but I have to suck my cheeks in at point 8. Sure, I'll come along to a 2 hour long meeting on a Sunday, and I'll bring the kids and some drawing pads too, shall I? I don't know... does he have kids? In my experience, parents are the hrdest working, most reliable crew you've got. The reason? They are working their asses off for the sake of feeding their children, rather than the sake of a hopeful IPO (erm... hmmm... is this October 2000 right now?) or a trekking holiday in Patagonia. So suggesting something which will deliberately disadvantage anyone with young kids is a teeny bit stupid. Sorry Roo, I know it wasn't your comment or anything. It just got me in a huff! x C. Jason’s post is tough but reasonable to ride out the storm for the most part, but I have to suck my cheeks in at point 8.

Sure, I’ll come along to a 2 hour long meeting on a Sunday, and I’ll bring the kids and some drawing pads too, shall I?

I don’t know… does he have kids? In my experience, parents are the hrdest working, most reliable crew you’ve got. The reason? They are working their asses off for the sake of feeding their children, rather than the sake of a hopeful IPO (erm… hmmm… is this October 2000 right now?) or a trekking holiday in Patagonia.

So suggesting something which will deliberately disadvantage anyone with young kids is a teeny bit stupid.

Sorry Roo, I know it wasn’t your comment or anything. It just got me in a huff!

x
C.

]]> By: kyb http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88541 kyb Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:26:33 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88541 Good point Darren, when I worked at IBM, I thought that this was one of their problems - they put so much effort into hiring only good people, but good people will quickly get demotivated when you give them rubbish jobs and they'll find other more interesting things to do with their time, before eventually leaving. There are lots of different jobs that have to be done in an organisation, and you need to find people who are happy to do each one of them if you want to run efficiently. Setting yourself apart from the masses as a luxury brand is a double edged sword - the important thing for a brand like that is to have the masses envy. That's why it's important for luxury brands to spend money advertising to people who will never buy them. They aren't supposed to buy them, they're supposed to want them. Good point Darren, when I worked at IBM, I thought that this was one of their problems – they put so much effort into hiring only good people, but good people will quickly get demotivated when you give them rubbish jobs and they’ll find other more interesting things to do with their time, before eventually leaving.

There are lots of different jobs that have to be done in an organisation, and you need to find people who are happy to do each one of them if you want to run efficiently.

Setting yourself apart from the masses as a luxury brand is a double edged sword – the important thing for a brand like that is to have the masses envy. That’s why it’s important for luxury brands to spend money advertising to people who will never buy them. They aren’t supposed to buy them, they’re supposed to want them.

]]> By: Darren http://rooreynolds.com/2008/10/13/crunch-startups-and-optimism/comment-page-1/#comment-88490 Darren Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:50:02 +0000 http://rooreynolds.com/?p=910#comment-88490 Interesting. It's easy to come up with lists like this, they appear to be sensible, if not blindingly obvious points, but I wonder how accurate some of them are. If you have a company made up 100% of the top, brilliantly amazingly dedicated people, I wonder how much stuff would actually get done. Are these the same people that would be happy to do some of the mundane tasks that anyone could do, but someone has to, or else the whole business falls apart? Or are they all wanting to be the leaders, setting the direction and proving how good they are? If you're a two person company, clearly you need two brilliant people, but if you're a 20, 100, 1000 person company, does that still hold true? Do people who buy Gucci really want to belong to some community of similar people they can relate to? Don't they want to belong to a community of Mischa Barton, Paris Hilton and David Beckham? It's easy to assume that things that work for the tech community translate elsewhere, but I'm not sure they always do. Isn't the whole point of luxury goods to set yourself apart from the masses? Interesting. It’s easy to come up with lists like this, they appear to be sensible, if not blindingly obvious points, but I wonder how accurate some of them are.

If you have a company made up 100% of the top, brilliantly amazingly dedicated people, I wonder how much stuff would actually get done. Are these the same people that would be happy to do some of the mundane tasks that anyone could do, but someone has to, or else the whole business falls apart? Or are they all wanting to be the leaders, setting the direction and proving how good they are? If you’re a two person company, clearly you need two brilliant people, but if you’re a 20, 100, 1000 person company, does that still hold true?

Do people who buy Gucci really want to belong to some community of similar people they can relate to? Don’t they want to belong to a community of Mischa Barton, Paris Hilton and David Beckham? It’s easy to assume that things that work for the tech community translate elsewhere, but I’m not sure they always do. Isn’t the whole point of luxury goods to set yourself apart from the masses?

]]>