This guest post was written by Ethan Kurzweil. Kurzweil is a Vice President with Bessemer Venture Partners in Menlo Park, California. He works with Internet companies of all types, including Playdom, Zoosk, Crowdflower, Twilio, adap.tv, Reputation.com, Skybox Imaging, and OpenCandy. You can find him on twitter at @ethankurz. The views expressed in this post are his own, and do not represent those of Bessemer. Hardly a day goes by anymore when I don?t hear about a reportedly ?radical, new? business concept summarized succinctly as ?X? (some well-known existing business) for ?Y? (some specific market segment, use case, or other qualifier). These descriptors range from the logical ? ?Groupons for Moms? (okay, clear enough) ? to the absurd ? ?Pandora for Cloud? (huh?). Often, I don?t even understand the analogy, as it?s so obscure, or I have never even heard of the company being compared. Sure, these monikers may satisfy our need for efficiency and brevity, but I?m convinced that in the long-run, we need to expand our collective attention spans just long enough to really describe what our businesses do. Otherwise, we run the risk of setting a model for entrepreneurship that?s entirely devoid of creativity and true innovation. 
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/f-lduZjZkY4/
Johnny Andrew Sauter Kenneth William Schrader Bradley Reed Sorenson Anthony Wayne Stewart Martin Lee Truex Jr Brian Lee Vickers
No comments:
Post a Comment