[HN Gopher] Highly differentiated startups raise 117% more funding
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Highly differentiated startups raise 117% more funding
        
       Author : tdmckinlay
       Score  : 16 points
       Date   : 2022-07-20 16:39 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (tips.ariyh.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (tips.ariyh.com)
        
       | __alexs wrote:
       | Do they get 117% higher valuations too?
        
       | smt88 wrote:
       | This is terrible research. The results are meaningless.
       | 
       | At best, it's a case of confirmation bias. The most highly-
       | differentiated startups don't raise anything and no one ever
       | hears about them. Crunchbase doesn't capture the majority of
       | these, so the data used here isn't representative.
       | 
       | Then they use NLP to determine how different the products are.
       | 
       | Those of us who get pitched by SaaS vendors all the time know
       | that two companies can do the exact same thing and have totally
       | different product descriptions. Salesforce started talking about
       | IoT for a while, and they still bill themselves more as an ERP
       | when most people still use them as a CRM.
       | 
       | There's also the issue of those who pivoted. Most startups pivot,
       | and the author admits to ignoring pivots altogether!
       | 
       | > "2. Found the websites of all these companies, in the year each
       | startup was launched (using WaybackMachine, a historical archive
       | of web pages)."
       | 
       | > "3. Scraped the text on these websites and ran them through a
       | natural language processing (NLP) machine learning algorithm
       | (doc2vec)."
       | 
       | > "4. Measured how different the startups' value propositions
       | were to those of competitors (e.g. focused on a niche product
       | feature vs others that talked about price)."
        
       | simonw wrote:
       | Pet peeve: does "117% more" mean 1.17 times the expected amount,
       | or 2.17 times the expected amount?
       | 
       | I avoid using this kind of terminology in my writing because I'm
       | never completely sure that my readers will share the same exact
       | definition of how those numbers should be interpreted.
        
         | jrockway wrote:
         | I completely agree with you, but I don't think it's ever
         | ambiguous. I think it always means 2.17 times the expected
         | amount. If a normal startup raises $100, then a highly
         | differentiated startup will raise $217. That's because the
         | article could have been "X raises 20% more", in which case
         | they'd get $120 over the $100 baseline. Basically, I think
         | "more" is the signifier that you don't multiply by 1.17. If
         | that's missing, the number is meaningless.
        
           | simonw wrote:
           | I know that, and you know that. But did the person who wrote
           | the article also know that? How careful were they?
           | 
           | Probably? But not definitely. Which is why I never use that
           | term myself.
           | 
           | Similar to the reason I never say "bi-monthly" - it could
           | mean twice a month, it could mean once every two months. So I
           | don't use the term.
        
             | jrockway wrote:
             | Yeah, sorry, I meant to say I totally agree with you. I
             | mentally explain this to myself every time I see it; 1 hour
             | to understand what the % means, 5 seconds to actually read
             | the article. It's terrible.
        
         | site-packages1 wrote:
         | The latter is the standard meaning. If the author means
         | something different, that means the author is being unclear and
         | it shouldn't be on the reader to parse the author's nonstandard
         | intentions.
         | 
         | From a common sense perspective: If I say something contains
         | "100% more whatever", you would expect it to contain double
         | what it normally contains.
        
         | namecheapTA wrote:
         | It has to be the latter, otherwise they'd say 17% more??
        
           | simonw wrote:
           | That's my assumption to, but I'm never entirely certain
           | that's what they mean.
        
             | yunohn wrote:
             | Do you have some examples where this intuition has turned
             | out to be false and the author meant the former case?
        
       | pjbeam wrote:
       | So startups that convince VCs they aren't just "uber for x" or
       | similar clones excite greater investments? Seems pretty
       | intuitive.
        
       | guywithahat wrote:
       | > Startups can have a more or less differentiated value
       | proposition from their competitors. For example, a company that
       | sells iPhone cases is not very differentiated. One that sells
       | iPhone cases with a built-in earbud holder is more
       | differentiated.
       | 
       | I mean this makes sense, although I worry this is much too broad
       | of a definition to glean data off of, especially when looking in
       | hindsight when it's not as obvious how "differentiated" the
       | company was when they first pitched compared to the rest of the
       | market
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-07-20 23:02 UTC)