6 ms·

I see as an iterative process. Right now the most readily available data are things like Alexa rankings, twitter followers, etc. which are an imperfect proxy fo

I see as an iterative process. Right now the most readily available data are things like Alexa rankings, twitter followers, etc. which are an imperfect proxy for how well a company is doing. As Mattermark gets traction, I am sure that they will add additional, more reliable sources and that companies will have an incentive to keep their information up to date

pytrin 13y ago
So you're saying, it's fine to start with mostly incorrect data because if you get traction eventually the data will get better? I'm not sure I follow the logic. In the meantime, they're doing a disservice to the companies they're reporting on and investors who might be buying into it.
- ridruejo 13y ago
  Actually, yes. It is a chicken and egg problem, you need to start with something. Re: startups, they can contact Mattermark to correct the information. Re: investors, this is just another datapoint and should certainly not be the main decision factor. Some of them already take a look at this and other data (app store downloads, etc) themselves, this is just more convenient.
7Figures2Commas 13y ago
I see that Mattermark charges $499/month for its "professional" plan. If you're suggesting that the data it's using is imperfect, I'm curious as to why you believe anyone would have an incentive to pay this amount before Mattermark has the ability to acquire better data? For what it's worth, there are already a ton of other sources of data for private companies (Dun & Bradstreet, Experian, FactSet, infoUSA, CB Insights, PrivCo, etc.).
- ridruejo 13y ago
  None of the companies you mention target startups, that's the niche Mattermark is going after. Re: paying and imperfect data, I would turn the argument around: the fact that people are willing to pay money for imperfect data, proves that there is demand for this.
  - 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
    CB Insights and PrivCo absolutely have data on startups, and just because a company is a "startup" doesn't mean that it won't have any visibility in some of the other sources I listed. As for imperfect data, billions are spent every year on all kinds of weight loss supplements of questionable value. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily going to be demand for your weight loss supplement. Here, I see little more than an amalgamation of free data from sources like CrunchBase, AngelList, Twitter and LinkedIn along with a proprietary momentum scoring system that is designed to track a startup's growth but for which no efficacy/validation data is presented. I don't see any reference to the specific metrics that are inputs to the scoring system, but the mention of "traffic graphs, app store ranking, inbound links, social media stats" suggests that the aforementioned free data is what is being used. Of course, "growth" in the abstract is an ambiguous concept and, I would argue, a poor one to try to measure for private companies: 1. What is growing matters. A B2C startup may have a lot more traffic and social media activity than a B2B startup, even though a B2B startup in a lucrative market could be growing its revenue at an exponentially higher rate. This is why angels and venture capitalists will always have to hit the phones and the streets: you can't find the B2B startup that inked $500,000 in deals with Fortune 500 companies in its first six months of existence if you're just looking at Alexa stats or Twitter followers. This information simply isn't being released publicly. If you want an advantage, you have to seek out non-public information. It's why some hedge funds, for instance, go to great lengths to physically monitor in real time the supply chain movements of companies they have or are considering positions in. 2. Very young companies can more easily grow at a faster rate than more mature companies. Going from 0 to 1,000 visitors in the period of a week is generally easier than going from, say, 20,000 to 30,000 in a month, but the former is arguably likely to be a lot less meaningful than the latter for most businesses. 3. How big you need to grow to have a sustainable, highly-profitable business varies substantially from company to company and market to market. In other words, it's all but impossible to distill "growth" down into a single number that allows for an apples to apples comparison of companies in different spaces and at different stages of development.

pytrin 13y ago

So you're saying, it's fine to start with mostly incorrect data because if you get traction eventually the data will get better? I'm not sure I follow the logic. In the meantime, they're doing a disservice to the companies they're reporting on and investors who might be buying into it.

ridruejo 13y ago
Actually, yes. It is a chicken and egg problem, you need to start with something. Re: startups, they can contact Mattermark to correct the information. Re: investors, this is just another datapoint and should certainly not be the main decision factor. Some of them already take a look at this and other data (app store downloads, etc) themselves, this is just more convenient.

7Figures2Commas 13y ago

I see that Mattermark charges $499/month for its "professional" plan. If you're suggesting that the data it's using is imperfect, I'm curious as to why you believe anyone would have an incentive to pay this amount before Mattermark has the ability to acquire better data? For what it's worth, there are already a ton of other sources of data for private companies (Dun & Bradstreet, Experian, FactSet, infoUSA, CB Insights, PrivCo, etc.).

ridruejo 13y ago
None of the companies you mention target startups, that's the niche Mattermark is going after. Re: paying and imperfect data, I would turn the argument around: the fact that people are willing to pay money for imperfect data, proves that there is demand for this.
- 7Figures2Commas 13y ago
  CB Insights and PrivCo absolutely have data on startups, and just because a company is a "startup" doesn't mean that it won't have any visibility in some of the other sources I listed. As for imperfect data, billions are spent every year on all kinds of weight loss supplements of questionable value. That doesn't mean that there's necessarily going to be demand for your weight loss supplement. Here, I see little more than an amalgamation of free data from sources like CrunchBase, AngelList, Twitter and LinkedIn along with a proprietary momentum scoring system that is designed to track a startup's growth but for which no efficacy/validation data is presented. I don't see any reference to the specific metrics that are inputs to the scoring system, but the mention of "traffic graphs, app store ranking, inbound links, social media stats" suggests that the aforementioned free data is what is being used. Of course, "growth" in the abstract is an ambiguous concept and, I would argue, a poor one to try to measure for private companies: 1. What is growing matters. A B2C startup may have a lot more traffic and social media activity than a B2B startup, even though a B2B startup in a lucrative market could be growing its revenue at an exponentially higher rate. This is why angels and venture capitalists will always have to hit the phones and the streets: you can't find the B2B startup that inked $500,000 in deals with Fortune 500 companies in its first six months of existence if you're just looking at Alexa stats or Twitter followers. This information simply isn't being released publicly. If you want an advantage, you have to seek out non-public information. It's why some hedge funds, for instance, go to great lengths to physically monitor in real time the supply chain movements of companies they have or are considering positions in. 2. Very young companies can more easily grow at a faster rate than more mature companies. Going from 0 to 1,000 visitors in the period of a week is generally easier than going from, say, 20,000 to 30,000 in a month, but the former is arguably likely to be a lot less meaningful than the latter for most businesses. 3. How big you need to grow to have a sustainable, highly-profitable business varies substantially from company to company and market to market. In other words, it's all but impossible to distill "growth" down into a single number that allows for an apples to apples comparison of companies in different spaces and at different stages of development.