NBC owned women.com and women.net from the takeover of iVillage.
A domain broker - Benjamin Padnos - won the domains at auction at SEDO for $1m in 2010, but the CEO of NBC - Jeff Zucker - blocked the domain name sale personally.
Padnos wound up suing NBC and SEDO and settling, taking the domain names(1).
Then he sold them to Susan in 2012 who purchased them with "some of the money she’d earned [at facebook]" (2)(3)
I have a ton of respect for the commitment on that transaction.
2012 was actually a relatively GOOD time to buy TLD's, compared to today's even-more-insane-than-insane-market.
And given that the WHOIS for Women.com is literally registered to her name / email I hope that she's still as fired up about landing that whale as she should be!
(1) http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/04/nbc-done-lawsuit/
(2) http://dotweekly.com/company-domain-movers-riot-games-amex/
Network: Being an entrepreneur is a lonely path. There are few people who truly understand what you’re going through and even if your friends (or parents) are well meaning, they still don’t get it. YC is the ultimate network and you will be surrounding by people who do get it."
These two points from her essay reveal more about the true nature of YC than perhaps the author intended.
In theory, when you join YC, you and your cofounders give Paul & Co. a sizable chunk of equity in your budding startup in exchange for advice dispensed over dinner--advice and dinners which, given the valuations of certain YC-backed startups and the percentage of equity surrendered, cannot possibly, no matter how enlightening the advice or delicious the dinners, be worth the price paid in shares.
Why then are so many founders eager to make what on the surface seems like a terrible deal? Because what they actually get in exchange for their equity is not mere mentoring, but the access to top VCs like Andreeson Horowitz and Sequoia. Those VCs can in turn, using their money and media connections, hype-up your startup and work to get you bought out/acquihired.
We like to pretend that the startup game is a meritocracy and not all like the cronyism that goes on in corporate boardrooms where CEOs doubling as board members vote on each other's lavish compensation packages, but it is not difficult to recall examples that suggest it is all too similar.
Take Loopt. It was a dying product with a dwindling userbase that while novel in concept for 2004, was clearly too early to market and soon found itself in a market awash with location-aware competitors like Foursqaure and Gowalla. But because Loopt had gone through YC and took investment from board members of Sequoia, strings were pulled to get Greendot to acquire Loopt and reward Sam with a life-changing exit and provide him and his investors with a justification for branding Loopt a success. From there, he went on to succeed PG as YC's president, and using that platform, he's written--without any hint of irony--polemics decrying the lack of innovation[1] and calling for startups to work on "breakthrough technologies"[2] despite having as his major accomplishment a failed feature phone version of Grindr.[3]
I'm happy for Susan and hope her startup is successful, but her experiences has only reinforced my view that success in the Valley startup game is much more about luck and connections than skill and execution. She was suspiciously vague about her financial situation, but one can infer from the essay (buying the domain, flying back and forth, hiring a "full stack" dev), that it's probably much better than most mothers of two, married or otherwise. The requirement that you "move to the bay area"[4] (which she technically violated) all but ensures mothers who aren't rich won't apply, which completely negates her message of "I'm a mom and I did it and so can you!"
[1] http://blog.samaltman.com/what-happened-to-innovation-1
[2] http://blog.samaltman.com/new-rfs-breakthrough-technologies
This is true of almost any club (the Free Masons, your local BPOE, Boy Scouts, etc.). You join, you get to know people, those people help you with your interests, and in return you help them with their interests. It isn't particularly difficult to see why this success might backfire and reduce/limit actual innovation, because it creates a powerful echo chamber – in part by design, to achieve specific goals, and in part by accident, because the people accepted by the club tend to meet predefined expectations.
The problem is, as I see it, that escaping that kind of feedback loop is very difficult, once an organization is in it, because the momentum making the loop bigger is difficult to redirect into an energy to make the loop different. Harvard could announce that it will no longer accept children from powerful/wealthy families, Davos could release a statement that this year it will be hosted in conjunction with the Communist International, and YC could relocate to Uganda for a season – but that's not what these organizations do, so after a point, they aren't able to innovate outside of very specific boundaries.
The answer to that, of course, is create new organizations with different boundaries/priorities, but Christ, that reeks of effort.
In certain ecosystems fire is a necessary component of ecological vitality. It is destructive in the short term but leads to a more robust and diverse ecosystem in the long term. Coming back to your points we have reached a certain kind of equilibrium in the startup ecosystem where the incumbents through network effects have become entrenched and are now actively detrimental to diversity and innovation. I don't know what the equivalent of fire would be in the startup and technology ecosystem.
Point #2: You need to expand your view of meritocracy beyond just product/code. Expanding who you know, how much they like/admire you, and how much they want to work with you is part of meritocracy. Imagine it as a multiplier to product merit and,as a founder, you NEED to imagine it as part of your job. In a failure scenario, it absolutely helps turn a zero into a one. But it also helps you hire, sell products, raise money, get press, do bizdev deals, sell companies, etc.
All sorts of other nits I could pick with your comment. Strawmen (really? Does anyone go into YC thinking advice at dinners is the primary value they offer?) and ad hominem attacks (what does Sam's previous company have to do with the merits of his "polemics"?).
Some stats to challenge the "rich white dudes raining gold on each other" theory:
52% of founding teams in the Valley have 1st generation immigrants on them. Just shy of half of the top-ranked venture companies (in case you think all of these immigrant-heavy startups are floundering while rich white guys are winning). Does anyone believe that a meaningful percentage of this group is rich and white? The same study also found that immigrants were key members of the product or management teams in more than 75% of those companies.
This is why I also include skin color, culture, gender, and how rich my parents are in my definition of merit. This allows me to honestly believe that all my success is based on merit.
Because nothing says, "merit", like being connected to a small group of very wealthy, very insular people who have the ability to magically bestow success on whoever they please.
This is a lot like the original definition of meritocracy. A very negative one.[1] If merit is determined solely by the people already in places of power like A16Z on the arbitrary measure of "how much they like/admire you" then it is exactly like and by definition Cronyism.[2] I'm not making a value judgement, but if it quacks like a duck...
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Early_definitions [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism#Concept
Why are you counting these as part of meritocracy, rather than deviations from it?
(If they're sufficiently small deviations, you could still call the overall ecosystem a meritocracy. But then you have a meritocracy with deviations, and enshrining the deviations as part of meritocracy seems like a mistake.)
(I could also see an argument that "meritocracy plus it matters how likeable you are" would be preferable in many ways to just pure meritocracy. But "meritocracy plus it matters who you know" seems like a bad direction to go in.)
These things may very well be critical to success, but that's not what the term 'meritocracy' actually means as it is commonly used and understood.
"I hired hitwomen to slay all of my competitor's developers. We are now on top because of our company's longstanding culture of meritocracy."
Edit: Meritocracy is not synonymous with success. In the way you are going, all successful startups become meritocracies by virtue of being successful.
This article looks at only founding teams which get the vast majority of equity. The study found that while less than 1 percent of venture-capital-backed company founders were African American and 12 percent were Asian, 83 percent had a racial composition that was entirely Caucasian.[1] The study mentioned was done by CB Insight from 2010.[2]
This lack of diversity in the founders that receive VC funding may not be that surprising given the lack of diversity of the investors making those choices.[3] And it's not too hard to find other sources that say there is a lack of diversity at the top.[4]
[1] http://elitedaily.com/money/venture-capitalists-still-overwh...
[2]http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/data-race-gender-silicon-vall...
[3] http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/05/14/swisher-wadhw...
[4] http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272646...
Ehhh, that's the textbook definition of cronyism, the opposite of meritocracy.
Second, there is a tendency to think for "meritocracy" as a very cold, dead thing. This kind of thinking is like applying an engineering mentality to human culture, society and personal interactions. The result is often a bureaucratic version of meritocracy, like a college application. These are not without their own biases, problems and everything else. They also strip nuance out of the process. This is a serious problem when you're looking for novelty, creativity, black swans, etc.
In any case, imagine Andy Warhol in the 80s with his stable of artists, models, musicians and Warhol Superstars. He supported them in various ways. This paved their access to audiences, money, collaborators, publishers, patrons, etc. etc. Was Andy Warhol running a cronyism ring or was he a prominent figure in a community of artists? Was the Velvet Underground's success a product of cronyism?
There's merit to the concept of cronyism in, for example, the government of a country. But, it's actually just a subcategory within a wider context of human interaction, important human interaction.
I think your definitions of meritocracy and/or cronyism just aren't rich enough to capture what's going on here.
If Leonard Cohen had a show where he introduced new artists he liked (personally and musically), I would pay attention. Leonard Cohen has whatever right to my attention as a listener that I choose to give him. Same for producers, collaborators, record labels, concert organizers and anyone else who values his opinion, or even his favor.
Communities are complex.
Next, you are also massively undervaluing Susan's work. Did you read that she kept failing for 2 years and still kept at it? If you were already rich, would you go through that kind of hustle as opposed to enjoying your margarita on a private island? Did you also read that she was pregnant while making her attempt and with 3-year baby in hand? Do you have any idea how is it like to be pregnant and working on something as taxing as startup while also taking care of 3-year old? If you don't I humbly suggest to ask this to your mom.
Next, Loopt was innovative in its time but unfortunately way too easily and quickly copiable. Being still able to sell that is actually a business success and tells you something about Sam's ability to win over investors and break a way against odds.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Launch-Pad-Inside-Combinator-ebook...
Again, 7% is an enormous chunk of a company, and for a firm like Dropbox, such a stake runs easily into the millions. YC on its face has always been a terrible deal, except it isn't, because YC is the first step in a sequence that ends with you getting bought by Facebook or Google regardless of whether you actually deserve it, and that's why people sign up--not to hear advice from Sam Altman.
And I wasn't devaluing Susan's work at all. My point was that for other women with similar ambition and talent but without similar financial independence, YC would be a non-starter.
It is not "we like", is it just a rule of the game - to pretend that it is about meritocracy, to wear a hoodie.
>decrying the lack of innovation
being formally pro-innovation is just a rule like the "meritocracy" rule.
The game is a well-oiled money making machine and like any such machine it is very risk-averse, and with any innovation (or, God forbid, "breakthrough technology") being a risk, it is thus in particular innovation-averse.
If you were made rich by some (recent) lucky coincidence, then you can also do whatever you want.
Great message, a bit hidden. Unveiled by hacker news, thank you!
Building relationships is a core part of business development, if a business lacks appropriate connections then it's something they should work on either by building bizdev skills internally or hiring. In the same way that if someones a tech founder with no marketing skills, they have to learn it or hire for it. You're not going to win just by having the best technical product, you have to have the best business.
Similarly luck isn't automatic, if you work to put yourself in positions where you have the opportunity to be lucky you're much more likely to have that luck. One of the big advantages of being in startup hub like SF is you're moving somewhere where your far more likely to have valuable serendipitous meetings than anywhere else.
I do not recommend this approach and in fact, it’s 100% against YC. You are required to move and you should. It’s exhausting and it takes your focus off of the most important things: talking to users, shipping code, and exercising. Nowhere in that list is commuting."
If you had to do it all again, would you move and leave your children behind? That seems like an impossible choice to make, and the tone of your story makes it sound like it all worked out well for you. Would you really not recommend the approach you took to someone in a similar situation?
This was the easiest investment ever.
That Jordan guy judging from his behavior even with his reply on Reddit seems like a youngster that wants to make easy bucks and doesn't care about the future.
If I was you I'd make a legal case and go full on him.
Mothers sometimes have complications during birth. This can cause considerable physical difficulty in the following months. Here's some advice about recovery after c-section. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Caesarean-section/Pages/Recover...
This post was written by a female parent. We call those "mothers". If it had been written by a male parent it would have used the word "father".
There is currently a gender imbalance and so posts from people who are not male have some interest.
My story of applying, getting in, and being a white man in Y Combinator.
My story of applying, getting in, and being a Java 9to5 developer in Y Combinator.
I think it really is that simple.
You already have 2 instances of 'I' in a single sentence (not counting the one in quotes). So on average you're ahead of her already.
There are 48 instances of "I", 19 of "my", and 6 of "me". So on average 90% of sentences have one instance.
If I did it again, and budget permitting, I probably would split time — weekends in Chicago, Monday through Thurs or Friday in Mountain View.
What was interesting was how shocked family members and friends were that we'd work something out like this. If it had been a military deployment, though, no one would have batted an eye.
However, as a man, I think it is deemed more common / acceptable to travel on business. My project manager is former military and now contracts with FEMA, deploying weeks to months at a time, leaving wife and two kids behind.
One day a week to seize an opportunity is rational and part of biz dev in this case. There are women who deploy in the military leaving children to be raised by relatives (I know a few). It is not always the preferable option, but certainly something women are capable of if the circumstances require.
Also, with technology, a lot can be done in that commute time ("rolling calls" are typical in LA traffic) - not to mention the value of "think time" and "alone time" for someone who is probably "on" 24-7.
It seems that Susan has a great background for YC. Her work experience (Facebook - hello) and the fact she applied with a cofounder (just heard on #StartupSchool that half of applicants don't have one) signifies "archetype" to me, albeit the female, mom version. Sounds like a perfect cultural fit.
But yeah, of course a mom can do YC! (If she's rich and has a very, very supportive partner.)
And yeah, I do remember that tweet from Sam she highlighted. And the thing I tweeted back to him, unacknowledged, still stands: daycare in SoMa is almost impossible to find, in some cases has a two-and-a-half year waiting list. Gee, I wonder why about half the women in tech leave mid-career.
* yes, that's the going rate in LA for two children, possibly more if one is a newborn, and/or if you pay your nanny on the books instead of off.
Save tasks that need complete focus for when your child is napping or sleeping at night. Do the stuff you can easily break from and start up again while your child needs (some but not undivided) attention like being strapped into a highchair for meals/coloring, watching a movie, or playing with toys/ipad/whatever else you allow.
One great advantage we have as parents is being able to quickly recharge by enjoying time teaching/playing/snuggling with our little ones.
That said, to have children as an entrepreneur, a support system of some kind is critical.
I found it distracting and it struck me as lazy writing. Apparently, though, you can't criticize writing style on HN submissions.
eg, how many instances of "team"?
cmd+f=(team)=1
_______________
Here’s my story:
I left my role at Facebook 2 years ago to build women.com. With wide eyes and beginners confidence, I struck out on my own. I crafted my vision, wore a hoodie, and tried to raise a seed round on a dream and a deck. After 3 months of fund raising, I received term sheets (pre-product and pre-tech <>team<>), but success was fleeting. My partner and I hit the skids, split up, and ended our partnership.
However, this was my dream and a couple of speed bumps weren’t going to crush it. I decided to bootstrap and get a working MVP into the hands of users.
--------------------------
Although this contextual snippet may also explain a bit more regarding both observations. The word 'team' only appears within a parenthetical--and even then only within a vignette of previuous failure.
perhaps, even if nothing but for PR purposes, this type of presentation may be improved by being more even handed going forward?.
This just seems like a leadership coaching pont. If she were in another similar/leadership role (non CEO) it would still be relevant.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/08/27/are-modern-p...
So, with ~50% of the top venture backed companies being founded by immigrants and 75% of them having immigrants in key product/management positions, you think we're in a "burn it down" moment? This doesn't even account for the non-immigrants-non-insider people who succeed in the Valley every day. I'm all for working to reduce cronyism, racism, ageism, etc. But I don't think we're remotely near needing to set fire to things (metaphorically or otherwise).
Investments need to be evaluated on the basis of the valuation at time of investment.
Certainly there are many companies who could raise money at higher valuations elsewhere who go through YC, but almost none of them could raise at a >$15m valuation (YC doesn't typically invest in post-A companies).
..and this is because Facebook and Google are not independent companies with their own self-interest at heart, but stooges of YC remote controlled by a secret cabal of YC alumni?
There's obviously a certain level of "accident of birth", you have a much better chance if you were born in a developed country, one where you can go to university, etc. But if we standardise at say pool of CS graduates from good universities it's certainly a much more level playing field.
If we take what's probably the most important relationship in the startup world, that of co-founders, most co-founders meet each other through work, actively seeking through professional networks or university. There's very few co-founders who met through family connections.
Similarly for investors, investors will take a recommendation from one of their portfolio founders who've worked with someone much more seriously than that from a family friend who just knows someone socially.
Also, a "pool of CS graduates from good universities" is already biased toward people who were born into (relative) privilege. Have you considered that you "haven't seen any evidence" because you are effectively excluding from your analysis a large quantity of the data?
Look, I'm not saying it's pointless for those who were born into poor or middle class (or even many upper-middle class) families without connections to try. I'm saying it's disingenuous to pretend that a system that self-selects against those very people is somehow a meritocracy or that it is not, in fact, self-selecting against people who aren't, essentially "born lucky."
Because hiring, sales, pr, marketing, bizdev and fundraising are all part of startup success... Building and cultivating a good network is hugely valuable for all of that, no?
The question is whether or not SV is meritocratic; your argument appears to be along the lines of "these things are valuable in SV, so they are part of meritocracy", which is circular.
I assume you had quite a bit of money saved in order to afford your typical living expense, flying to and from YC every weekend, and a place to stay in Mountain View.
If you did in fact save, were you doing that actively in the event that you got into YC or did you essentially just drain your savings once you got in?
Is that the whitewashed version of "squatter"?
Middle man during a transaction, ties seller to buyer.
Squatter:
Someone who knowingly infringes on another entity's legal rights hoping to sell the domain name to them at a premium lower than what it would cost to take the domain by force through legal action.
In my dictionary a squatter is one who meets this criteria:
1. Buys a domain with the sole intention of reselling it for profit.
2. Does nothing with it while sitting on it... ie. doesn't develop a website one it other than a shitty squatter landing page.
I'm going to add some stats to my OP.
So yes, you may as well be championing gender, race and background, since you've already redefined 'merit' (in a rather perverse way, imho).
Edit: I see others have also commented on this and the Wikipedia link from another comment is interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
I guess I'll try to say it slightly differently to clarify: "it's worth working to expand who you know, how much they like/admire you and how much they want to work with you". This is a skill you can get better at. It's hard work that you need to do. And yes, sadly, this work is certainly easier if you're a 25 year old white guy who went to Stanford.
Do you think people who have worked to have a deep network of folks to sell to, hire from, get introductions from, etc., have done meritorious work? I'm suggesting that how hard you work on this stuff (and how good you get at it) is part of your merit (in the world of startups/entrepreneurship). I certainly don't think it's the only part.
Given that about half of the top venture backed startups are founded by immigrants, I'd say the startup is more meritocratic than a lot of people seem to think. But I'd agree with you that we have a ways to go.
I'm shocked by how hard people make it seem to be a working or entrepreneurial parent. Life is not easy for anyone anyway, but I feel like I'm even more driven and emotionally centered as a mother.
I went self-employed the week after my 2nd child was born, working from home around my two children. I was profitable in my first month and every month after that until I stopped nearly 2 years later. It was one of the best learning experiences of my working life so far but it was also HARD. Really, really bloody hard.
The first three years of my daughter's life I was also caregiving for a dying parent and working full time. Life is hard. But parents are just as capable - if not more driven and willing to sacrifice - than anyone else and I don't think we should marvel at that (or as in recent news, imply women should freeze their eggs to pursue their careers). People have been having kids and working from the beginning of time. I know women from previous generations who have had ten or more kids and worked full time. Very common in the American South during the 20th century.
Do you disagree with my assertion that if you want to start a company, you have to have lots of time, and if you don't have that, then you'll have to trade something else for that (like money: for hiring people, paying for flights, etc)?
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If you have no time, and no money, don't expect to be able to start a successful startup.
And that's exactly it. The overwhelming majority of the world will never start a startup. Or become a top scientist. And those that do grow up in poverty but start businesses / become academics / other success have time to spend studying/being entrepreneurs, and those that have little time because of other obligations but still manage to do these things have to make enormous time sacrifices.
The world isn't egalitarian, and it's wishful thinking to think it is.
Which isn't to say that network-building isn't meritorious, but you can't use that particular argument for it.
(It's also not relevant how meritocratic SV culture is in other areas.)
You're right, of course people have been having kids and working single "the beginning of time", but that doesn't change whether or not they find it hard, does it? Playing "who's got it worse" top trumps only serves to alienate those who ARE struggling at a time when they most need support.
And I wasn't offended, for the record.
pa·tron·ize ˈpātrəˌnīz,ˈpatrəˌnīz/Submit verb verb: patronise 1. treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority. "“She's a good-hearted girl,” he said in a patronizing voice" synonyms: treat condescendingly, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, treat like a child, treat with disdain.
I don't look down on fellow parents or treat them with disdain (nor do I consider myself superior). If anything, I think the notion people hold that WOMEN IN PARTICULAR cannot be effective or even exceptional parents AND entrepreneurs is patronizing.
Even more so, the suggestion that they are unworthy of the support provided to other entrepreneurs by virtue of said parenthood is patronizing. So I believe your [insert adjective of choice] response is misdirected.
If you are not offended by my comments, your choice of words and the tone of your response suggests otherwise.