6 ms·

These kinds of things are very easy to call out in hindsight, so, I do sympathize with the investors at least a bit. Based on a collection of screenshots I put

These kinds of things are very easy to call out in hindsight, so, I do sympathize with the investors at least a bit. Based on a collection of screenshots I put together of Airbnb's homepage over time (using content from the Internet Archive) I wouldn't have invested either in early versions of Airbnb: http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ Fred Wilson got his email from PG, I believe, in January 2009 and if you look at the Airbnb homepage then - the site is no where near as promising as it is now.

johnx123-up 11y ago
FWIW, in terms of design, I think, for their current site, they've got inspiration from Agriya script. Why Everyone At Airbnb Is A Pirate article explains why http://www.fastcompany.com/3013899/bottom-line/why-everyone-at-airbnb-is-a-pirate http://www.fastcompany.com/3013899/bottom-line/why-everyone-...
nether 11y ago
How did other VC funded startup pages look? I don't think it looks particularly dated compared to its peers. This was the era of "web 2.0" which seems daft today.
seeingfurther 11y ago
This post isn't meant to call out poor judgement in VCs, but rather to encourage all the struggling founders out there who receive these emails on a daily basis.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  This is how I read it too. As someone who spent more than a few years in sales, I was trained to take rejection as a positive. The more rejections you get, the closer you get to a sale. The only time you don't is when you stop looking for more clients. It's all a numbers game. If you look at rejection as something that gets you closer to success, you'll be encouraged, instead of discouraged when you get these types of letters.
  - fapjacks 11y ago
    Ah, this is very interesting. That is definitely one way to look at slogging through rejections: That you're one closer to a sale.
AgentConundrum 11y ago
Having not followed Airbnb very closely - I have no interest whatsoever in using the service either as a traveller or a host - your link clarified one thing that's always sort of bugged me. I had never understood how "air" fit with B&B. It wasn't until I saw the original screenshot that I understood that it's "AirB & B" rather than "Air B&B".
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  Wow I just realized I also had no idea. Interesting and it makes so much more sense now.
- mandeepj 11y ago
  full details here - https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Airbnb-get-its-name-What-does-the-name-mean https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Airbnb-get-its-name-What-doe...
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Thanks for the link. I've never heard of an inflatable mattress being called an "airbed," so I still didn't get it.
morgante 11y ago
I don't agree. The fundamental business model of Airbnb didn't change through all those homepage iterations—those were just redesigns of the exact same concept. In fact, for the time I think Airbnb's original designs were quite current.
- carrotleads 11y ago
  Yeah that is exactly what I thought as well.. its not like they pivoted... maybe the homepage pitch changes... All this episode should highlight is that founders should not think that VC's have some sort of wisdom when they reject... They follow only one wisdom and that is traction... if you got that and in huge spades, then everything can be explained in a wise manner.. and we will marvel at their wisdom.
- annnnd 11y ago
  Is it just me or do the early designs actually look better?
- cowsandmilk 11y ago
  Presentation matters. Airbnb's story even shows that. Taking professional photos of listings is what turned the company around.
hamhamed 11y ago
funny how they started by returning results based on event searches and today they stopped supporting it. Now there are startups trying to do that same thing: https://www.stay22.com/ https://www.stay22.com/ (disclaimer: my startup!)
sanmon3186 11y ago
Just curious to know how this could have been done better. Those who believe the design of 2008-09 Airbnb was not up to mark, mind explaining this to a guy with little UX design understanding.
shanev 11y ago
Investors aren't the only ones who missed out. I'm sure a lot of potential early employees did too based on the 2008 homepage design. I know I did. Joe asked me if I'd be interested in developing their iPhone app, but I rejected because I didn't see how they could take off when Couchsurfing was free. In retrospect I should have known they'd be successful no matter what they did. To this day Joe is the most passionate and charismatic person I've ever met. He was always into connecting people and building relationships. I first met him at Jelly, a coworking space he ran out of his San Francisco apartment. So great to see him achieving his mission at a large scale.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jasode 11y ago
>I wouldn't have invested either in early versions of Airbnb: http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ Fred Wilson got his email from PG, I believe, in January 2009 and if you look at the Airbnb homepage then - the site is no where near as promising as it is now. I disagree somewhat. I think that is hindsight bias to relate the website's 2008 designs to cause&effect of VC decisions. The April 2015 website designs looks "prettier" but as far as communicating to unknowing customers (and uninformed VCs) what Airbnb actually does, the "uglier" 2008 designs are actually better. Notice that the 2008 designs have icons/pictures of an actual "bed" and a "breakfast". It's concrete visual communication. But the 2015 photos instead, show "people" in what I call "aspirational lifestyle" poses. It's abstract visual communication. (And I just took another quick look at airbnb.com today July 13 2015 and now the home page shows photos of "destinations" overlayed with city names in prominent white font. So now the page design taps into the romanticisms of the Condé Nast Traveler. The visual abstractions continue.) I think it's fascinating the lifecycle of companies's visual style that transition from The Concrete --> The Abstract. The visuals including marketing, advertisements, and home webpage designs. The concrete approach has to show the actual product. The abstract does not. At this point, I think Airbnb can get away with abstract visuals because they are well-known enough now to not have to waste landing page pixels on an actual "bed" or "eggs & toast". That's what 7 years of penetrating the public consciousness allows you to do. These days, I would guess that the majority of visitors already know (by way of friends & family) what Airbnb does before they visit airbnb.com. Therefore, if the company is a startup nobody knows, they must use concrete visuals. If a company is established and successful, they have the luxury of being abstract. I don't think tomorrow's YC2016 unknown company should base their website's information design based on airbnb's 2015 website. Instead, look at their 2008 designs even though they are uglier. Other examples of companies doing abstract visuals: Nike's "Just Do It" commercials often do not highlight any shoes in obvious ways and instead show sweaty people running or playing.[1] (If one didn't know Nike was a shoe and sports apparel company, one might think that commercial was about karate lessons.) Viagra commercial don't show the actual pills but instead shows older couples holding hands walking the beach or a guy sailing a boat.[2] This is unlike many Tylenol pills commercials showing the actual pills.[3] Even in the tech world has examples. Anyone remember the old IBM OS/2 Warp commercials in 1990s? The entire commercial was showing people's faces looking at a computer screen (presumably of OS/2). The camera didn't show what they were looking at -- therefore you saw no GUI demostrations. The camera also didn't show the software box. It was just a bunch of reaction shots of people's faces showing astonishment ("wow!", "cool!", etc). [4] The abstract commmercials from Nike & IBM are not suitable for convincing investors who don't understand athletic shoes or operating system software. Likewise, the 2015 versions of airbnb.com showing abstract lifestyle photos are not useful for potential investors either. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5dZZBKTXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5dZZBKTXQ [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ZqQ55T25c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ZqQ55T25c [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIYEC9mNqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIYEC9mNqM [4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YZbrhBhjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YZbrhBhjQ
mangeletti 11y ago
Firstly, what a great idea (startup timelines). FWIW, I love the wayback machine, and I probably use it 1-2 times per week. The thing I took away from your timeline of airbnb was the same thing I think successful people try to explain time and time again, and it's the same lesson that makes the investors passing up airbnb seem more like a minor, unavoidable incident. The lesson is that a business or idea isn't a success until a team works mega hard at making it a success, and even then it has a huge chance of failing. This lesson is made clear to me in part by the reminder that airbnb has been around since the first year after I learned to program, and that feels like an eternity ago. If I spent 3 years working on a brand with a good team and with VC backing, I'd expect to see some resemblance of success also, as long as the idea wasn't terrible. Hard work pays off, but it's easy to look back at these success stories as some sort of lottery winners.

johnx123-up 11y ago

FWIW, in terms of design, I think, for their current site, they've got inspiration from Agriya script. Why Everyone At Airbnb Is A Pirate article explains why http://www.fastcompany.com/3013899/bottom-line/why-everyone-at-airbnb-is-a-pirate http://www.fastcompany.com/3013899/bottom-line/why-everyone-...

nether 11y ago

How did other VC funded startup pages look? I don't think it looks particularly dated compared to its peers. This was the era of "web 2.0" which seems daft today.

seeingfurther 11y ago

This post isn't meant to call out poor judgement in VCs, but rather to encourage all the struggling founders out there who receive these emails on a daily basis.

at-fates-hands 11y ago
This is how I read it too. As someone who spent more than a few years in sales, I was trained to take rejection as a positive. The more rejections you get, the closer you get to a sale. The only time you don't is when you stop looking for more clients. It's all a numbers game. If you look at rejection as something that gets you closer to success, you'll be encouraged, instead of discouraged when you get these types of letters.
- fapjacks 11y ago
  Ah, this is very interesting. That is definitely one way to look at slogging through rejections: That you're one closer to a sale.

AgentConundrum 11y ago

Having not followed Airbnb very closely - I have no interest whatsoever in using the service either as a traveller or a host - your link clarified one thing that's always sort of bugged me. I had never understood how "air" fit with B&B. It wasn't until I saw the original screenshot that I understood that it's "AirB & B" rather than "Air B&B".

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
Wow I just realized I also had no idea. Interesting and it makes so much more sense now.
mandeepj 11y ago
full details here - https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Airbnb-get-its-name-What-does-the-name-mean https://www.quora.com/Where-did-Airbnb-get-its-name-What-doe...
- coldpie 11y ago
  Thanks for the link. I've never heard of an inflatable mattress being called an "airbed," so I still didn't get it.

morgante 11y ago

I don't agree. The fundamental business model of Airbnb didn't change through all those homepage iterations—those were just redesigns of the exact same concept. In fact, for the time I think Airbnb's original designs were quite current.

carrotleads 11y ago
Yeah that is exactly what I thought as well.. its not like they pivoted... maybe the homepage pitch changes... All this episode should highlight is that founders should not think that VC's have some sort of wisdom when they reject... They follow only one wisdom and that is traction... if you got that and in huge spades, then everything can be explained in a wise manner.. and we will marvel at their wisdom.
annnnd 11y ago
Is it just me or do the early designs actually look better?
cowsandmilk 11y ago
Presentation matters. Airbnb's story even shows that. Taking professional photos of listings is what turned the company around.

hamhamed 11y ago

funny how they started by returning results based on event searches and today they stopped supporting it. Now there are startups trying to do that same thing: https://www.stay22.com/ https://www.stay22.com/ (disclaimer: my startup!)

sanmon3186 11y ago

Just curious to know how this could have been done better. Those who believe the design of 2008-09 Airbnb was not up to mark, mind explaining this to a guy with little UX design understanding.

shanev 11y ago

Investors aren't the only ones who missed out. I'm sure a lot of potential early employees did too based on the 2008 homepage design. I know I did. Joe asked me if I'd be interested in developing their iPhone app, but I rejected because I didn't see how they could take off when Couchsurfing was free. In retrospect I should have known they'd be successful no matter what they did. To this day Joe is the most passionate and charismatic person I've ever met. He was always into connecting people and building relationships. I first met him at Jelly, a coworking space he ran out of his San Francisco apartment. So great to see him achieving his mission at a large scale.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jasode 11y ago

>I wouldn't have invested either in early versions of Airbnb: http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ http://www.startuptimelines.org/startup-timelines/airbnb/ Fred Wilson got his email from PG, I believe, in January 2009 and if you look at the Airbnb homepage then - the site is no where near as promising as it is now. I disagree somewhat. I think that is hindsight bias to relate the website's 2008 designs to cause&effect of VC decisions. The April 2015 website designs looks "prettier" but as far as communicating to unknowing customers (and uninformed VCs) what Airbnb actually does, the "uglier" 2008 designs are actually better. Notice that the 2008 designs have icons/pictures of an actual "bed" and a "breakfast". It's concrete visual communication. But the 2015 photos instead, show "people" in what I call "aspirational lifestyle" poses. It's abstract visual communication. (And I just took another quick look at airbnb.com today July 13 2015 and now the home page shows photos of "destinations" overlayed with city names in prominent white font. So now the page design taps into the romanticisms of the Condé Nast Traveler. The visual abstractions continue.) I think it's fascinating the lifecycle of companies's visual style that transition from The Concrete --> The Abstract. The visuals including marketing, advertisements, and home webpage designs. The concrete approach has to show the actual product. The abstract does not. At this point, I think Airbnb can get away with abstract visuals because they are well-known enough now to not have to waste landing page pixels on an actual "bed" or "eggs & toast". That's what 7 years of penetrating the public consciousness allows you to do. These days, I would guess that the majority of visitors already know (by way of friends & family) what Airbnb does before they visit airbnb.com. Therefore, if the company is a startup nobody knows, they must use concrete visuals. If a company is established and successful, they have the luxury of being abstract. I don't think tomorrow's YC2016 unknown company should base their website's information design based on airbnb's 2015 website. Instead, look at their 2008 designs even though they are uglier. Other examples of companies doing abstract visuals: Nike's "Just Do It" commercials often do not highlight any shoes in obvious ways and instead show sweaty people running or playing.[1] (If one didn't know Nike was a shoe and sports apparel company, one might think that commercial was about karate lessons.) Viagra commercial don't show the actual pills but instead shows older couples holding hands walking the beach or a guy sailing a boat.[2] This is unlike many Tylenol pills commercials showing the actual pills.[3] Even in the tech world has examples. Anyone remember the old IBM OS/2 Warp commercials in 1990s? The entire commercial was showing people's faces looking at a computer screen (presumably of OS/2). The camera didn't show what they were looking at -- therefore you saw no GUI demostrations. The camera also didn't show the software box. It was just a bunch of reaction shots of people's faces showing astonishment ("wow!", "cool!", etc). [4] The abstract commmercials from Nike & IBM are not suitable for convincing investors who don't understand athletic shoes or operating system software. Likewise, the 2015 versions of airbnb.com showing abstract lifestyle photos are not useful for potential investors either. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5dZZBKTXQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5dZZBKTXQ [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ZqQ55T25c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ZqQ55T25c [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIYEC9mNqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LIYEC9mNqM [4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YZbrhBhjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YZbrhBhjQ

mangeletti 11y ago

Firstly, what a great idea (startup timelines). FWIW, I love the wayback machine, and I probably use it 1-2 times per week. The thing I took away from your timeline of airbnb was the same thing I think successful people try to explain time and time again, and it's the same lesson that makes the investors passing up airbnb seem more like a minor, unavoidable incident. The lesson is that a business or idea isn't a success until a team works mega hard at making it a success, and even then it has a huge chance of failing. This lesson is made clear to me in part by the reminder that airbnb has been around since the first year after I learned to program, and that feels like an eternity ago. If I spent 3 years working on a brand with a good team and with VC backing, I'd expect to see some resemblance of success also, as long as the idea wasn't terrible. Hard work pays off, but it's easy to look back at these success stories as some sort of lottery winners.