4 ms·

I'm trying to coin the term "portmanco" for these companies. Just like a portmanteau in linguistics simply mashes two words together, a portmanco just mashes tw

by kolbe 11y ago

I'm trying to coin the term "portmanco" for these companies. Just like a portmanteau in linguistics simply mashes two words together, a portmanco just mashes two familiar companies together and calls it a new one.

Terr_ 11y ago
> mashes two familiar companies together and calls it a new one. Hasn't that always been what "merger" meant? :p Edit: My joke is that corporations have been making dumb amalgamations for many many years now. Anybody remember "Mr. Sparkle" from The Simpsons, where two companies in fish vs. heavy-industries combined to sell detergent? That was amusingly-relatable even when it came out 18 years ago.
- jstanley 11y ago
  AirBnB for Dogs isn't a merger between AirBnB and dogs.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    Wait, I thought he said two companies merged, not a company plus an arbitrary concept. (Or is there really a company just named "Dogs" involved in canines?)
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- calpaterson 11y ago
  Sorry, I down-voted you before I understood your joke. :(
  - kolbe 11y ago
    I'm actually still confused about whether it's a joke or if the guy is making a pedantic criticism of my choice of words.
yourapostasy 11y ago
That's disturbingly like what I hear film industry people complaining about for nigh-on decades now. Script pitches are too commonly derivatives starting out with "like X [already super-successful film], but|with|and|except|etc. Y [another successful film]". The general explanation for this phenomena that I've read bandied about (but have no idea of its veracity as I'm just an industry outsider): financing films has gotten so expensive and risky, that only proven models of making money are commonly given green lights. It's considered innovation at the financial level to mix-and-match proven models, because that's all the risk that is willing to be absorbed. What the purchasing side actually wants is too opaque/non-linear/unpredictable/take-your-pick-of-explanation for the big name finance people to consistently figure out what really is innovative. That's probably why YC attracts a lot of attention from the big names, because they hold out the promise of piercing that veil.
- kolbe 11y ago
  I'll be a little bit more cynical than you, and give you my opinion. In the movie industry[1], just like with the start-up industry, we see these types of behaviors pop up when the company or the art stops being the object of the creators affections, but instead it's the money or power. It's the "MBA" attitude that gets railed against on HN, where the only reason these people participate is to cash out, or in some cases with people who are already rich, they want to feel like they're important. Now, these people are plenty smart. They usually have gotten great educations and whatnot, but they lack the drive to be motivated by a love of doing this great thing, rather than accumulating some money. Some of the greatest creations in tech were not motivated by money at all. When a great film maker goes to bed or on vacation, he's sometimes kept awake with ideas on how to make a better film or pondering a new concept. He takes no real vacations, because he loves his art so much that he never even wants to escape it. The money-driven type doesn't. When they go on vacation, they escape. And professionally, they tend take the easiest path to their destination. And the easiest path to cashing out is to look at how other people became successful, and make a small deviation from their path then copy or exploit rent seeking advantages or be unethical. I think that's where all these portmancos come from. It's really really easy to look at existing business models, and come up with a way to blend them into new company. [1] I'll assume everything you just told me is correct

by kolbe 11y ago

Terr_ 11y ago

> mashes two familiar companies together and calls it a new one. Hasn't that always been what "merger" meant? :p Edit: My joke is that corporations have been making dumb amalgamations for many many years now. Anybody remember "Mr. Sparkle" from The Simpsons, where two companies in fish vs. heavy-industries combined to sell detergent? That was amusingly-relatable even when it came out 18 years ago.

jstanley 11y ago
AirBnB for Dogs isn't a merger between AirBnB and dogs.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Wait, I thought he said two companies merged, not a company plus an arbitrary concept. (Or is there really a company just named "Dogs" involved in canines?)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
calpaterson 11y ago
Sorry, I down-voted you before I understood your joke. :(
- kolbe 11y ago
  I'm actually still confused about whether it's a joke or if the guy is making a pedantic criticism of my choice of words.

yourapostasy 11y ago

That's disturbingly like what I hear film industry people complaining about for nigh-on decades now. Script pitches are too commonly derivatives starting out with "like X [already super-successful film], but|with|and|except|etc. Y [another successful film]". The general explanation for this phenomena that I've read bandied about (but have no idea of its veracity as I'm just an industry outsider): financing films has gotten so expensive and risky, that only proven models of making money are commonly given green lights. It's considered innovation at the financial level to mix-and-match proven models, because that's all the risk that is willing to be absorbed. What the purchasing side actually wants is too opaque/non-linear/unpredictable/take-your-pick-of-explanation for the big name finance people to consistently figure out what really is innovative. That's probably why YC attracts a lot of attention from the big names, because they hold out the promise of piercing that veil.

kolbe 11y ago
I'll be a little bit more cynical than you, and give you my opinion. In the movie industry[1], just like with the start-up industry, we see these types of behaviors pop up when the company or the art stops being the object of the creators affections, but instead it's the money or power. It's the "MBA" attitude that gets railed against on HN, where the only reason these people participate is to cash out, or in some cases with people who are already rich, they want to feel like they're important. Now, these people are plenty smart. They usually have gotten great educations and whatnot, but they lack the drive to be motivated by a love of doing this great thing, rather than accumulating some money. Some of the greatest creations in tech were not motivated by money at all. When a great film maker goes to bed or on vacation, he's sometimes kept awake with ideas on how to make a better film or pondering a new concept. He takes no real vacations, because he loves his art so much that he never even wants to escape it. The money-driven type doesn't. When they go on vacation, they escape. And professionally, they tend take the easiest path to their destination. And the easiest path to cashing out is to look at how other people became successful, and make a small deviation from their path then copy or exploit rent seeking advantages or be unethical. I think that's where all these portmancos come from. It's really really easy to look at existing business models, and come up with a way to blend them into new company. [1] I'll assume everything you just told me is correct