3 ms·
the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears. they all start out with the founding myth, told bedtime story style, which wears on the feelers after
by clairity 5y ago
the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears. they all start out with the founding myth, told bedtime story style, which wears on the feelers after a while. i'd suggest getting even more direct and succinct by leaving out the myth: "after running into [this stupid problem] a few dozen times, we decided to try to solve it with [this hopefully novel solution]. it grew [in this direction] to become [our product]." then maybe relate two or three relevant, novel, non-obvious details as conversation starters, along with the requisite who (by, and for), what (major features/options), and how much.
- 1123581321 5y agoI have been getting tired of the format as well. I notice that the first couple clarifying comments by the founders in their launch thread tend to be more candid, revealing and pique my curiousity if the idea is good. One of my favorite pieces of writing advice is to make the conclusion the introduction. Perhaps these startups should let themselves get beaten up in a test launch and then replace their intros with their comments. :)
- bambax 5y ago> the standard format seems to be getting stale to my ears Really? Not to mine. It still sounds very fresh and so different from what one reads everywhere else.