I am the founder of Visual Website Optimizer. And to be fair I have been expecting Optimizely post on TechCrunch as soon as I learnt that it was a YC funded startup. To be honest it bites me to actually read it on TC especially when I emailed you thrice :) But anyway that is life. I guess special connections do matter!
As far as name is concerned, the company's name is Wingify (which isn't as dull as Visual Website Optimizer). The product name was chosen to differentiate it from Google Website Optimizer, as my tool makes creating tests super easy.
As far as differentiation is concerned, well we launched way earlier than Optimizely (so it is them whom you should be asking this question). Actual differentiation comes in the ease of use, while offering all enterprise level features. Here is a comparision table: http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/feature-list.php
As far as interesting story is concerned, well we're bootstrapped (2 people actually), launched two months ago, are profitable (more than just ramen) and have managed to bag customers like Microsoft, Rackspace, 99Designs, Aweber and Threadless. Here is a partial customer list http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/customers.php
I don't know how else to pitch you rather than just providing facts. Please let me know if you wish to do a story, I will be happy to provide you with more stats or make it into an interesting story.
-Paras Chopra
PS: Thanks for mentioning VWO at the end of the post, but I will still stand by saying that it was bit unfair on TC's part.
Happy to see your product doing well, and the fact that it is profitable already. Good going.
I am sure you are pretty cool about it, but take it easy about the TC (or any other such blog's) (non-)coverage. You got paying customers and if this continues, relevant news coverage would follow soon.
Yeah, I know. I am, of course, not dejected that TC didn't cover us. Long term business viability requires much more than a news story but it is always great to be covered on TC because it is a respected blog read by many potential customers and influencers. Optimizely is an interesting product with a great team so they deserve coverage, but so do we because we have an equally interesting product made and marketed without taking any external funding (that's all I'm asking for!).
That's not unfair. YC is a news-maker. So is Ron Conway. So is Sequoia. So is Jason Calcanis (<shudder>). So is Zed Shaw. If Bill Gates launched a VWO competitor tomorrow, would it be unfair if TC covered it?
TechCrunch trades in links, traffic, retweets, and comments. Take two companies of ANY flavor side by side, and TC will pick the one that is somehow associated with a newsmaker (or is otherwise going to drive the metrics they care about).
There's nothing "fair" about it. You're just not speaking the language that bloggers care about. You're talking about case studies, feature comparisons, and testimonials, for pete's sake.
I LOVE VWO. Love it. But I can totally see why TechCrunch would pass on it (even if you gave them the above pitch at a time where they'd get/read the email).
Of course, ultimately it is TC's choice whom they cover. But I totally fail to see why just because it is a YC company, it is news-worthy. And as I said in another comment, I am not concerned that they covered Optimizely. All I mind (that too a little bit) is that they passed on us.
When TC, Mashable or RWW didn't reply I realized A/B testing may not be as sexy as location-based-gaming or a cool new iPhone app. But then covering an A/B testing startup on basis of YC while passing on another A/B testing startup (because it is not YC) is what I call "unfair". Right, I know it is not an ideal world, but someone has to keep reminding what a fair world could be :)
PS: Almost all your examples of news-maker point to the VC/Angel/Web clique and perhaps you are right that blogs that serve that clique may not be interested in a (bootstrapped) startup that doesn't fit the "culture".
I don't understand why "fair" is part of the conversation... Are you suggesting that they should make coverage a pure product meritocracy rather than based on the metrics that drive their business? Certainly product quality impacts the decision, but it's not unfair for them to run their business like a business.
For whatever reason, Y Combinator has engaged enough people to have a kind of 'following' that seems to be like other start-up investment groups. It may be due to PG's writing or it may be because we're all part of the community here, but people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
So it makes sense then that TechCrunch would cover every single YC launch, because this site is going to drive a boat load of traffic their way.
If it makes you feel better, people who read hacker news shouldn't be your target group anyways. The 'winner' in this market will be the people who engages webmasters who are inexperienced and wouldn't have heard of A/B testing before landing on your page.
> people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
Sure, but being here and not being Y combinator funded should not translate in to a disadvantage either. After all, bootstrapping is a lot harder than getting VC money and some names behind you for equity, once your idea is out in the open the least you could ask for is a level playing field in terms of coverage. It's not like a posting about other start-ups would cost TC traffic.
In this case it almost seems like they delayed mentioning paraschopras offering until the YC combinator venture went live.
Whatever happened to rooting for the underdog? I mean a two-person company making it in India with Google as their competitor is as good a story as anything else. You are being unfair.
What?! I never said who I was rooting for. This is business (for techcrunch). The world of software is not a product meritocracy. Again, I love the product, but Paras has failed to craft a story that will drive page views,retweets, and comments. He can solve that with storytelling, a celebrity investor, or some other strategy.
I agree that the david and goliath story has potential. He should play that up.
No, I didn't mean that you were not rooting for him, but that you implied his story was not interesting for bloggers. I said the "david and goliath" aspect of the story was interesting and news-worthy.
Reading the TC story, and this discussion, the gapingvoid cartoonists' line comes to mind:
"Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece on the back of a deli menu would not surprise me. Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece with a silver Cartier fountain pen on an antique writing table in an airy SoHo loft would SERIOUSLY surprise me."
Yeah, I agree with you-- I think you're missing my point. The David and Goliath angle is EXACTLY what he should pursue. He's not. PR is about handing GREAT STORIES to bloggers/reporters. Stuff that is gift-wrapped. That's storytelling, and it's something Paras either isn't good at or isn't throwing effort into.
My point is that the story isn't in the facts, it's in the storytelling. You can call it a juicy steak or a muscle tissue sample of a castrated bull and it's the same damn thing. If you want to catch the eye of key bloggers, you can't make them dig through facts for a great story. They won't take the time to do it.
The product name was chosen to differentiate it from Google Website Optimizer, as my tool makes creating tests super easy.
Leaning the word up against something like GWO seems more like hoping to catch some customers who confuse the two. I know that is probably not what you are doing but it could be interpreted a such and I would stay away from that kind of possible confusion.
If you want it to stand out, call it Wingify. It's not the name that makes the success, it's the product(and the connections and timing etc), but if you want to differentiate your product calling it almost the same isn't going to create anything but confusion.
I plan to write a blog post on how the name helped us. It may sound unsexy or cheap to the startup/programmer community here on HN but for the internet marketers (who are my target customers), having the "Website Optimizer" pits the product exactly opposite to Google's tool (which was well known at the time VWO launched). It helped us position the tool, other wise we would have to educate what Wingify does.
Microsoft's first product was simply called MS-DOS and I don't think having a "OS" word in it caused them any disadvantage (in fact it helped them). But then in days of MS-DOS there were no tech blogs :)
Comments
Hi Jason,
I am the founder of Visual Website Optimizer. And to be fair I have been expecting Optimizely post on TechCrunch as soon as I learnt that it was a YC funded startup. To be honest it bites me to actually read it on TC especially when I emailed you thrice :) But anyway that is life. I guess special connections do matter!
As far as name is concerned, the company's name is Wingify (which isn't as dull as Visual Website Optimizer). The product name was chosen to differentiate it from Google Website Optimizer, as my tool makes creating tests super easy.
As far as differentiation is concerned, well we launched way earlier than Optimizely (so it is them whom you should be asking this question). Actual differentiation comes in the ease of use, while offering all enterprise level features. Here is a comparision table: http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/feature-list.php
As far as interesting story is concerned, well we're bootstrapped (2 people actually), launched two months ago, are profitable (more than just ramen) and have managed to bag customers like Microsoft, Rackspace, 99Designs, Aweber and Threadless. Here is a partial customer list http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/customers.php
The tool has helped numerous small businesses in increasing conversions and sales. Here are some case studies: http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/case-studies.php and if you must compare it with other tools, here are numerous (all non-asked) testimonials comparing VWO with other tools: http://visualwebsiteoptimizer.com/testimonials.php
I don't know how else to pitch you rather than just providing facts. Please let me know if you wish to do a story, I will be happy to provide you with more stats or make it into an interesting story.
-Paras Chopra
PS: Thanks for mentioning VWO at the end of the post, but I will still stand by saying that it was bit unfair on TC's part.
Happy to see your product doing well, and the fact that it is profitable already. Good going.
I am sure you are pretty cool about it, but take it easy about the TC (or any other such blog's) (non-)coverage. You got paying customers and if this continues, relevant news coverage would follow soon.
Cheers.
Yeah, I know. I am, of course, not dejected that TC didn't cover us. Long term business viability requires much more than a news story but it is always great to be covered on TC because it is a respected blog read by many potential customers and influencers. Optimizely is an interesting product with a great team so they deserve coverage, but so do we because we have an equally interesting product made and marketed without taking any external funding (that's all I'm asking for!).
That's not unfair. YC is a news-maker. So is Ron Conway. So is Sequoia. So is Jason Calcanis (<shudder>). So is Zed Shaw. If Bill Gates launched a VWO competitor tomorrow, would it be unfair if TC covered it?
TechCrunch trades in links, traffic, retweets, and comments. Take two companies of ANY flavor side by side, and TC will pick the one that is somehow associated with a newsmaker (or is otherwise going to drive the metrics they care about).
There's nothing "fair" about it. You're just not speaking the language that bloggers care about. You're talking about case studies, feature comparisons, and testimonials, for pete's sake.
I LOVE VWO. Love it. But I can totally see why TechCrunch would pass on it (even if you gave them the above pitch at a time where they'd get/read the email).
Of course, ultimately it is TC's choice whom they cover. But I totally fail to see why just because it is a YC company, it is news-worthy. And as I said in another comment, I am not concerned that they covered Optimizely. All I mind (that too a little bit) is that they passed on us.
When TC, Mashable or RWW didn't reply I realized A/B testing may not be as sexy as location-based-gaming or a cool new iPhone app. But then covering an A/B testing startup on basis of YC while passing on another A/B testing startup (because it is not YC) is what I call "unfair". Right, I know it is not an ideal world, but someone has to keep reminding what a fair world could be :)
PS: Almost all your examples of news-maker point to the VC/Angel/Web clique and perhaps you are right that blogs that serve that clique may not be interested in a (bootstrapped) startup that doesn't fit the "culture".
Very classy response, it gives me great confidence that you will go very far with your company in spite of silly things like this.
It definitely isn't fair, but media coverage is transient, long term what matters is business savvy, customer satisfaction and technology.
No two bit article featuring a 'me too' competitor, funded or not is going to make a difference there in the longer term.
I don't understand why "fair" is part of the conversation... Are you suggesting that they should make coverage a pure product meritocracy rather than based on the metrics that drive their business? Certainly product quality impacts the decision, but it's not unfair for them to run their business like a business.
For whatever reason, Y Combinator has engaged enough people to have a kind of 'following' that seems to be like other start-up investment groups. It may be due to PG's writing or it may be because we're all part of the community here, but people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
So it makes sense then that TechCrunch would cover every single YC launch, because this site is going to drive a boat load of traffic their way.
If it makes you feel better, people who read hacker news shouldn't be your target group anyways. The 'winner' in this market will be the people who engages webmasters who are inexperienced and wouldn't have heard of A/B testing before landing on your page.
> people here WANT to see Y Combinator start-ups do well.
Sure, but being here and not being Y combinator funded should not translate in to a disadvantage either. After all, bootstrapping is a lot harder than getting VC money and some names behind you for equity, once your idea is out in the open the least you could ask for is a level playing field in terms of coverage. It's not like a posting about other start-ups would cost TC traffic.
In this case it almost seems like they delayed mentioning paraschopras offering until the YC combinator venture went live.
Whatever happened to rooting for the underdog? I mean a two-person company making it in India with Google as their competitor is as good a story as anything else. You are being unfair.
I'd say it makes for an even better story just because of that.
That's what I meant also, just my English is twisted sometimes :)
I meant "as good as anything else" in the sense of "better or at least equal to any other story"
What?! I never said who I was rooting for. This is business (for techcrunch). The world of software is not a product meritocracy. Again, I love the product, but Paras has failed to craft a story that will drive page views,retweets, and comments. He can solve that with storytelling, a celebrity investor, or some other strategy.
I agree that the david and goliath story has potential. He should play that up.
No, I didn't mean that you were not rooting for him, but that you implied his story was not interesting for bloggers. I said the "david and goliath" aspect of the story was interesting and news-worthy.
Reading the TC story, and this discussion, the gapingvoid cartoonists' line comes to mind: "Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece on the back of a deli menu would not surprise me. Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece with a silver Cartier fountain pen on an antique writing table in an airy SoHo loft would SERIOUSLY surprise me."
Yeah, I agree with you-- I think you're missing my point. The David and Goliath angle is EXACTLY what he should pursue. He's not. PR is about handing GREAT STORIES to bloggers/reporters. Stuff that is gift-wrapped. That's storytelling, and it's something Paras either isn't good at or isn't throwing effort into.
My point is that the story isn't in the facts, it's in the storytelling. You can call it a juicy steak or a muscle tissue sample of a castrated bull and it's the same damn thing. If you want to catch the eye of key bloggers, you can't make them dig through facts for a great story. They won't take the time to do it.
Unfair or not, I guess it just goes to show that TC is not a reliable news source. Or at least in this case they seem to have failed.
The product name was chosen to differentiate it from Google Website Optimizer, as my tool makes creating tests super easy.
Leaning the word up against something like GWO seems more like hoping to catch some customers who confuse the two. I know that is probably not what you are doing but it could be interpreted a such and I would stay away from that kind of possible confusion.
If you want it to stand out, call it Wingify. It's not the name that makes the success, it's the product(and the connections and timing etc), but if you want to differentiate your product calling it almost the same isn't going to create anything but confusion.
I plan to write a blog post on how the name helped us. It may sound unsexy or cheap to the startup/programmer community here on HN but for the internet marketers (who are my target customers), having the "Website Optimizer" pits the product exactly opposite to Google's tool (which was well known at the time VWO launched). It helped us position the tool, other wise we would have to educate what Wingify does.
Microsoft's first product was simply called MS-DOS and I don't think having a "OS" word in it caused them any disadvantage (in fact it helped them). But then in days of MS-DOS there were no tech blogs :)
How does it pit it against?
It seems to leverage on what google created.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I fail to see the "pitting against" factor.
Because "Visual Website Optimizer" implies ease of use as against the very non-visual "Google Website Optimizer."
nitpick: MS-DOS wasn't their first product
Yeah, I think it was Quick BASIC. But, ironically, that too perfectly fits my example :)