-
Website
http://eastcoastblogging.com -
Original page
http://eastcoastblogging.com/2008/09/18/once-again-a-startup-is-defined-as/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Nick O'Neill
2 comments · 1 points
-
gotbob
2 comments · 1 points
-
Leslie Bradshaw
2 comments · 1 points
-
gspederson
2 comments · 1 points
-
Ken Yeung
2 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
If you start a company with $100 million, are you not still a start-up in the beginning? If you start a company with $0 and stay small and nimble for 2 years are you still a start-up or just a small business? What is the difference between a small business and a start-up?
And most people associate start-ups with web entities; but a 10 year old that creates a lemonade stand on the corner has a "start-up". It feels as though people think its "cool" to be labeled as a start-up; people debating who is and who is not.
Essentially a start-up is a new company whose success is unknown. The more stable the company gets with respect to profits, revenue, funding and age the less and less it is a "start-up".
I view level of maturity, revenue, and size as the chief determinants. I'm not going to try to go into much depth here on how these play a role since there is no dictionary definition...
I just think that that TC50 companies might not have been tiny upstarts...but they were startups. None had made much money, gotten many customers, or shown their product off much. Most of their products were very unfinished, they were mostly small companies, and they hadn't proven themselves with their current endeavors.
So I'm okay with the companies that were there being labeled as startups, at least in terms of their financing.
--
re: Martin's comment, completely agree (I missed it when I was originally writing this)
Overall I think TC50 was a good experience but like other conferences and even raising VC money you need to have some flash and excitement which costs money and it was clear that many of the companies on stage had a lot of funding.
I won't be disclosing how much money I have raised but I will say I bet I spent less than what Ashton Kutchers startup Blah Girls did on they're 8 minute presentation. Which in my opinion will probably be successful and is an interesting idea but I fail to see the innovation - which I think should at least be a common theme among all "start-ups" regardless of they're funding.
A start-up should be more defined by the time the company has been around and not the money involved. Whether it is defined by 6 months, a year, 2 , 3, etc. That has a better indication of a company or site being claimed as a start-up than the money involved.
Craig
www.budgetpulse.com
The demopit certainly had more excitement and diversity though.
If you look at the cost of startup a decade ago versus the cost of a startup right now, it is definitely diminishing. The startups at TC50 with under $300,000 probably would have had a lot tougher time with fixed cost in the past. Money is a factor, but it is not the only one. But the question is open and is a good discussion :)