3 ms·

I share your opinion, but I would have passed on a Twitter seed round so what do I know. What would really be interesting is to understand why so many smart an

I share your opinion, but I would have passed on a Twitter seed round so what do I know. What would really be interesting is to understand why so many smart and experienced people have the exact opposite opinion.

downandout 12y ago
The only reason that Twitter is successful is because it was embraced by celebrities very early. I would have passed at the seed round stage as well, but that's because no one could have predicted the celebrity embrace of such a service. The reality is that they, along with most other startups, got seed funding not because of the idea but because of the pedigree of the founders. I suspect there is some of that going on here as well. They are all current/former Stanford students and have been involved in successful companies. According to Crunchbase: DoorDash was founded by four Stanford students: Evan Charles Moore worked on the founding team of Vevo; Tony Xu was at Square and Red Laser/eBay; and Andy Fang and Stanley Tang spent a summer together at Facebook. Moore and Xu were friends in Stanford's business school, and Fang and Tang are undergrads. Same deal with Larry and Sergey, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, and most others. They weren't merely college students; they were Ivy League students. As much as people say college doesn't matter anymore, the evidence says otherwise. We'll probably never know if entrepreneurs from lower-tier and public universities can succeed at an equal rate, because they won't be given the funding to try.
- harryh 12y ago
  Celebrities didn't embrace twitter for three years after it was launched. That counts as "very early"?
  - downandout 12y ago
    That must be why they didn't really grow until about 3 years after they were founded: http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740be440e1 http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740... And yes, it was "very early" in their growth cycle. In fact celebrity embrace was the catalyst for their growth. No Ashton Kutcher = no Twitter today.
    - harryh 12y ago
      'eh. I think cause and effect are pretty hard to untangle here. Mostly I think you're wrong. But I'll admit that it's hard to bring real evidence to the table. There were a billion tweets before Ashton though and the celebs showed up because there was an audience to be had. I can see your point of view though.

downandout 12y ago

The only reason that Twitter is successful is because it was embraced by celebrities very early. I would have passed at the seed round stage as well, but that's because no one could have predicted the celebrity embrace of such a service. The reality is that they, along with most other startups, got seed funding not because of the idea but because of the pedigree of the founders. I suspect there is some of that going on here as well. They are all current/former Stanford students and have been involved in successful companies. According to Crunchbase: DoorDash was founded by four Stanford students: Evan Charles Moore worked on the founding team of Vevo; Tony Xu was at Square and Red Laser/eBay; and Andy Fang and Stanley Tang spent a summer together at Facebook. Moore and Xu were friends in Stanford's business school, and Fang and Tang are undergrads. Same deal with Larry and Sergey, Mark Zuckerberg, Evan Spiegel, and most others. They weren't merely college students; they were Ivy League students. As much as people say college doesn't matter anymore, the evidence says otherwise. We'll probably never know if entrepreneurs from lower-tier and public universities can succeed at an equal rate, because they won't be given the funding to try.

harryh 12y ago
Celebrities didn't embrace twitter for three years after it was launched. That counts as "very early"?
- downandout 12y ago
  That must be why they didn't really grow until about 3 years after they were founded: http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740be440e1 http://static1.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=4abbcbef60b187740... And yes, it was "very early" in their growth cycle. In fact celebrity embrace was the catalyst for their growth. No Ashton Kutcher = no Twitter today.
  - harryh 12y ago
    'eh. I think cause and effect are pretty hard to untangle here. Mostly I think you're wrong. But I'll admit that it's hard to bring real evidence to the table. There were a billion tweets before Ashton though and the celebs showed up because there was an audience to be had. I can see your point of view though.