4 ms·

Thank you for the feedback! I agree and also humbly disagree. Let me please explain. So the product and service is #1. We have various ideas how to execute thi

Thank you for the feedback! I agree and also humbly disagree. Let me please explain. So the product and service is #1. We have various ideas how to execute this. This doesn't mean we believe we can "beat" Amazon. That isn't our goal at all, nor does it need to be. Our goal is to make it easy and convenient for the average American to shop sustainable friendly products. That said, because it's worker owned co-op vs an investor owned business there is potential to actually build "a customer centric company" ;) This is bc unlike Amazon we aren't under same economic pressures as a typical VC or investor owned company. Plus, there is growing concern around income inequality, job security and general democracy both in the work place and in society. Consumers are looking for alternatives. By building this as a worker owned co-op we address all these things and more. Yes "content" or product/service is king, but by building it as a worker owned co-op we may actually have a market advantage that consumers will be able to see.

0xffff2 6y ago
>... unlike Amazon we aren't under same economic pressures as a typical VC or investor owned company. I think it's a high bar to say that (a) the economic pressures faced by a typical VC backed company are the same as those faced by a typical investor owned company, and (b) that Amazon faces the same pressures as a typical investor backed company. Public company investors don't usually expect the kind of meteoric growth that VC's do, and Amazon has a long history of reinvesting in itself to the detriment of their profitability. Not the playbook associated with stereotypical public company economic pressures.
jasode 6y ago
>That said, because it's worker owned co-op vs an investor owned business there is potential to actually build "a customer centric company" ;) This is bc unlike Amazon we aren't under same economic pressures as a typical VC or investor owned company. You're right. Your proposed worker-owned co-op still has economic pressure; it's just a different type of pressure: It is financially constrained by workers' savings to contribute capital. I made a previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 But that limitation is ok if everyone involved understands how it puts a different financial risk on creating a viable business. So potential worker/members would need to know what a realistic capital contribution would be. $5000? $10000? And probably some "sweat equity" too. E.g. a programmer that could earn $200k salary from a business maybe needs to work for free to help build the co-cop from nothing. Therefore, a scenario is the programmers paying $5k into the business and with $0 income for several months to code the website, etc. That would be economic pressure for many people. Am I way off? What are your ideas to present a palatable (while also realistic) financial scenario to attract co-op members?
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Your right about capital being an issue but worker coop members don't work for free, or at least when I worked for Poptel I did not.. You can raise capital via other means and even take investment just have to stay below 50% +1 Not all worker coops have an ante like Mondragon does
ryanmickle 6y ago
It’s hard to argue with your market. If you look at any value-centered or “conscious” business that is successful (there are many, I used to run a blog on conscious business), they are successful because they offer a competitive product or service (e.g. Method home products, which filled a gap in design centric, non-toxic cleaning products, then landed distribution through Target). The values and org structure exist to support the founders’ or owners’ vision and its operations, but it never creates competitive advantage.

0xffff2 6y ago

>... unlike Amazon we aren't under same economic pressures as a typical VC or investor owned company. I think it's a high bar to say that (a) the economic pressures faced by a typical VC backed company are the same as those faced by a typical investor owned company, and (b) that Amazon faces the same pressures as a typical investor backed company. Public company investors don't usually expect the kind of meteoric growth that VC's do, and Amazon has a long history of reinvesting in itself to the detriment of their profitability. Not the playbook associated with stereotypical public company economic pressures.

jasode 6y ago

>That said, because it's worker owned co-op vs an investor owned business there is potential to actually build "a customer centric company" ;) This is bc unlike Amazon we aren't under same economic pressures as a typical VC or investor owned company. You're right. Your proposed worker-owned co-op still has economic pressure; it's just a different type of pressure: It is financially constrained by workers' savings to contribute capital. I made a previous comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 But that limitation is ok if everyone involved understands how it puts a different financial risk on creating a viable business. So potential worker/members would need to know what a realistic capital contribution would be. $5000? $10000? And probably some "sweat equity" too. E.g. a programmer that could earn $200k salary from a business maybe needs to work for free to help build the co-cop from nothing. Therefore, a scenario is the programmers paying $5k into the business and with $0 income for several months to code the website, etc. That would be economic pressure for many people. Am I way off? What are your ideas to present a palatable (while also realistic) financial scenario to attract co-op members?

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
Your right about capital being an issue but worker coop members don't work for free, or at least when I worked for Poptel I did not.. You can raise capital via other means and even take investment just have to stay below 50% +1 Not all worker coops have an ante like Mondragon does

ryanmickle 6y ago

It’s hard to argue with your market. If you look at any value-centered or “conscious” business that is successful (there are many, I used to run a blog on conscious business), they are successful because they offer a competitive product or service (e.g. Method home products, which filled a gap in design centric, non-toxic cleaning products, then landed distribution through Target). The values and org structure exist to support the founders’ or owners’ vision and its operations, but it never creates competitive advantage.