3 ms·

"The business plan can not consist soley of 'Accumulist ranks high with Google." This is really a variation of the general notion in business that you are in t

by larrys 13y ago

"The business plan can not consist soley of 'Accumulist ranks high with Google." This is really a variation of the general notion in business that you are in trouble if you only have several big customers or a few customers control most of your destiny. In this case of course google is not a customer but it's really the same thing. Eggs in a basket. Anyone with any history in business would quickly realize the problem with putting all your eggs in one basket. Certainly one of the reasons I am not a fan of SEO. Live by the sword die by the sword. Rank high at SEO and you can lose that rank. Less likely if you are paying for your advertising. Back in the day the furniture and department stores that were paying for advertising in the local paper had a good situation. A barrier to entry against competition because they paid. It wasn't free. Likewise I was very successful with the yellow pages in on past business. Any competitor could have done the same thing. But they didn't. They were to cheap to just take a chance, even with a small advertisement. I liked the fact that I paid for those ads. They worked very well. Each year we took out a bigger ad. Let's take a real world case here. Let's take grellas who gets almost certainly business from his postings on HN. Let's further assume the fact that he is to big and popular to fail and that he is not likely or even close to likely to get banned from HN. As if. But now let's add that he has managed to build his firm with more associates and rent more space as a result of being on HN (speculation on my part for the purpose of my point). Now let's say something happens and all the sudden HN is not in favor anymore. After all nothing is guaranteed. What does grellas do then (with all that overhead)? How will he quickly come up with more work? Would be much better if grellas had a formula for business that he paid for or had more control over. Not making a specific judgement or suggestion that grellas stop posting or that he is not spending his time wisely. Just drilling down to illustrate that if you get something you don't pay for you lose a certain amount of control (and a barrier to entry) that having to pay gives you.

nl 13y ago
That scenario isn't the same thing at all. A lawyer has recurring income, and something like HN is merely a source of new business. HN closing stops growth, but you don't lose the existing income sources. Demand Media isn't the same - "Google traffic" was the recurring business. When that went away they were screwed. (Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission.)
- larrys 13y ago
  True that a lawyer has recurring income. A "book" of business so to speak. So you are right that the situations are different. But my point is that if you are depending on something to bring you new business in a certain way you have to be careful that that thing doesn't and can't end arbitrarily. To the best of your ability at least. Or be aware of the dangers of losing it (when signing that new lease). Generally if you pay for something you have more control because the transaction is less lopsided. "Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission" Why? Grellas is a public commenter here (whose identity is well known) on quite a large scale. And he is referred to by others in comments. To me it's really no different than making a comment on any commenter. Now if I said "Jane who works for PG" (just made that up) "has to be concerned if bla bla bla" that would be different perhaps. For that matter tptacek has mentioned his wife's name as "Erin" iirc. If he hadn't mentioned her it might be wrong (if I knew her name) to disclose it or to talk about her in any way or that he is even married. Or to disclose the street which he lives on. Etc. I would be curious what others think about this. Not sure I see how using grellas as an example was wrong but I'm open to others thoughts on this.
  - nl 13y ago
    "Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission" Why? Grellas is a public commenter here (whose identity is well known) on quite a large scale. Because you are inserting them in a hypothetical scenario. Imagine the case where an investor Googles their name, finds your discussion of the supposed weakness in their business model and refuses to invest because of how weak their business model is. Or - perhaps even more likely - imagine software that runs sentiment analysis on people's usernames. Suddenly you have associated them with negative sentiment...

by larrys 13y ago

nl 13y ago

That scenario isn't the same thing at all. A lawyer has recurring income, and something like HN is merely a source of new business. HN closing stops growth, but you don't lose the existing income sources. Demand Media isn't the same - "Google traffic" was the recurring business. When that went away they were screwed. (Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission.)

larrys 13y ago
True that a lawyer has recurring income. A "book" of business so to speak. So you are right that the situations are different. But my point is that if you are depending on something to bring you new business in a certain way you have to be careful that that thing doesn't and can't end arbitrarily. To the best of your ability at least. Or be aware of the dangers of losing it (when signing that new lease). Generally if you pay for something you have more control because the transaction is less lopsided. "Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission" Why? Grellas is a public commenter here (whose identity is well known) on quite a large scale. And he is referred to by others in comments. To me it's really no different than making a comment on any commenter. Now if I said "Jane who works for PG" (just made that up) "has to be concerned if bla bla bla" that would be different perhaps. For that matter tptacek has mentioned his wife's name as "Erin" iirc. If he hadn't mentioned her it might be wrong (if I knew her name) to disclose it or to talk about her in any way or that he is even married. Or to disclose the street which he lives on. Etc. I would be curious what others think about this. Not sure I see how using grellas as an example was wrong but I'm open to others thoughts on this.
- nl 13y ago
  "Also, I think it's inadvisable to name real people in hypothetical scenarios without their permission" Why? Grellas is a public commenter here (whose identity is well known) on quite a large scale. Because you are inserting them in a hypothetical scenario. Imagine the case where an investor Googles their name, finds your discussion of the supposed weakness in their business model and refuses to invest because of how weak their business model is. Or - perhaps even more likely - imagine software that runs sentiment analysis on people's usernames. Suddenly you have associated them with negative sentiment...