3 ms·

> Do your own thing, and do it better. So that way you don't need to think about copying. This is the exact point I'm trying to make in the paper. Accelerator

by jedc 17y ago

> Do your own thing, and do it better. So that way you don't need to think about copying. This is the exact point I'm trying to make in the paper. Accelerator founders need to look hard at themselves, be innovative, and create their own niche. Trying to just copy YC will simply lead to a sub-standard clone.

trapper 17y ago
The idea that anyone would setup a "clone" without wanting to be better is kind of strange.
- mseebach 17y ago
  No, that's pretty basic. "It works there and is a success, if I copy it bit by bit I'll get success without trying" Also, it oftentimes works: studivz.de blatantly ripped off Facebook (to the point where they didn't even change the name of the stylesheet files) for the German market in 2006 and was hugely successful (for exactly the same reasons Facebook was in the US). They were sold for EUR 100 mln to a publisher. Eventually, obviously, you'll have to innovate your own way, if for no other reason than that someone else copies you and does it.
- jedc 17y ago
  A big reason why YC is cloned is to create an ecosystem in a different city. (ie, the YC for Kentucky, the YC for Seattle, etc.) They have tended to want to be the YC for that particular city/region. They then tend to compare themselves to other local startup options (which are probably pretty bad) and not to the full spectrum of startup options, which is the only way they can get the best startups world-wide.
jacquesm 17y ago
Then don't call it copying. Anyway, your article is fine, it's just that it seems there is a non-existent audience. Those that are dead set on trying to copy YC will do so anyway and those that were busy on different tracks will find that it does not apply to them. It's like everything else, reuse the bits that you think are good, drop the rest and try to find good alternatives. What would be a lot more interesting - at least to me - is how YC stacks up scorewise with the rest of the incubators out there. I haven't seen much proof yet that they do structurally better in the long term.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  There is a 34 page thesis deliberately answering the question "How to Copy YC" (making the conclusion that he makes in the article). There is a good lot of that in there. In the Spreadsheet linked from the article there is listings of lots of funds and their startups. It makes interesting reading; much of it subjective. For example YC has funded astronomically MORE startups than many other funds. On the other hand very few have exited or obtained more funding - and a large number are completely dead (compared to other funds). Techstars has a much much lower "dead" rate and a much higher follow on funding rate. Seedcamp have the "best" success rate (in terms of follow on funding) but fund one of the fewest number of startups. All of that data though is pretty useless for actually comparing them. For example the Seedcamp follow on funding might be as a result of their manouvering of VC's towards the startups and not much to do with the viability of the product. Or the startups coming through YC might well have a tendancy to fail regularly - but the community of startup operators it creates might be huge; and the connections they all make might ensure their second or third venture DOE succeed with a nice fat exit. What Im trying to say is comparing the "success" of an incubator is probably an unbelievably tough task.
  - jedc 17y ago
    YC probably has a comparable success rate in terms of follow-on funding, but it's incredibly difficult to find the information for small angel rounds. (TechStars and Seedcamp helped me make sure my data was accurate, which helped their stats.) But thank you for the comments; putting some hard data and thinking behind this phenemenom was the whole point of my project! :)
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Suppose each accelerator funds the top n startups, where n is the amount of slots they have open. In that case, comparing average results would be unfair. Compared to an accelerator that funds n startups, an accelerator that funds a smaller number n' of startups would fund the top n' startups rather than the median n' startups. If you take the top n' startups funded by YC, where n' is the number of startups funded by Techstars or Seedcamp, how do they compare then?

by jedc 17y ago

trapper 17y ago

The idea that anyone would setup a "clone" without wanting to be better is kind of strange.

mseebach 17y ago
No, that's pretty basic. "It works there and is a success, if I copy it bit by bit I'll get success without trying" Also, it oftentimes works: studivz.de blatantly ripped off Facebook (to the point where they didn't even change the name of the stylesheet files) for the German market in 2006 and was hugely successful (for exactly the same reasons Facebook was in the US). They were sold for EUR 100 mln to a publisher. Eventually, obviously, you'll have to innovate your own way, if for no other reason than that someone else copies you and does it.
jedc 17y ago
A big reason why YC is cloned is to create an ecosystem in a different city. (ie, the YC for Kentucky, the YC for Seattle, etc.) They have tended to want to be the YC for that particular city/region. They then tend to compare themselves to other local startup options (which are probably pretty bad) and not to the full spectrum of startup options, which is the only way they can get the best startups world-wide.

jacquesm 17y ago

Then don't call it copying. Anyway, your article is fine, it's just that it seems there is a non-existent audience. Those that are dead set on trying to copy YC will do so anyway and those that were busy on different tracks will find that it does not apply to them. It's like everything else, reuse the bits that you think are good, drop the rest and try to find good alternatives. What would be a lot more interesting - at least to me - is how YC stacks up scorewise with the rest of the incubators out there. I haven't seen much proof yet that they do structurally better in the long term.

ErrantX 17y ago
There is a 34 page thesis deliberately answering the question "How to Copy YC" (making the conclusion that he makes in the article). There is a good lot of that in there. In the Spreadsheet linked from the article there is listings of lots of funds and their startups. It makes interesting reading; much of it subjective. For example YC has funded astronomically MORE startups than many other funds. On the other hand very few have exited or obtained more funding - and a large number are completely dead (compared to other funds). Techstars has a much much lower "dead" rate and a much higher follow on funding rate. Seedcamp have the "best" success rate (in terms of follow on funding) but fund one of the fewest number of startups. All of that data though is pretty useless for actually comparing them. For example the Seedcamp follow on funding might be as a result of their manouvering of VC's towards the startups and not much to do with the viability of the product. Or the startups coming through YC might well have a tendancy to fail regularly - but the community of startup operators it creates might be huge; and the connections they all make might ensure their second or third venture DOE succeed with a nice fat exit. What Im trying to say is comparing the "success" of an incubator is probably an unbelievably tough task.
- jedc 17y ago
  YC probably has a comparable success rate in terms of follow-on funding, but it's incredibly difficult to find the information for small angel rounds. (TechStars and Seedcamp helped me make sure my data was accurate, which helped their stats.) But thank you for the comments; putting some hard data and thinking behind this phenemenom was the whole point of my project! :)
- philwelch 17y ago
  Suppose each accelerator funds the top n startups, where n is the amount of slots they have open. In that case, comparing average results would be unfair. Compared to an accelerator that funds n startups, an accelerator that funds a smaller number n' of startups would fund the top n' startups rather than the median n' startups. If you take the top n' startups funded by YC, where n' is the number of startups funded by Techstars or Seedcamp, how do they compare then?