And Tinder has done this from the word go. I remember talking to Rad and a few others when they were ramping up and the first thing I said was, "oh, OK, so you're part of IAC" and they got all defensive and tried to pretend like the fact that their offices, all their capital, all their equipment and their paychecks were from IAC was irrelevant and that they were still totally indie.
From talking to IAC people, they don't care what the founder say -- to a point -- as long as people are using the app. As this article made clear however, if you get too far off the messaging and start to oversell the "independent" angle, you will be smacked back into reality.
And then thing is, it isn't cool for a lot of companies to lie about their history -- but if you don't create this false narrative (and let's be clear, 90% of the startup narratives you hear are altered to make the story more attractive. The same is true for any other aspect of business (see also: Hollywood)), people won't pay attention. To a certain extent, as a society, we wall want to have that great Cindarella story.
We want to believe Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team (even though that's not really what happened [1]) and then went on to be one of the greatest players of all time, because it helps create hope within ourselves that we too can overcome the odds and be that successful.
A successful startup born out of an incubator that is funded by a multi-billion dollar company with direct reports to the incumbent in an industry it is trying to "disrupt" is far less compelling for everyone than "we had this idea for this app and it spread like wildfire and now the VCs are coming knocking at our door."
That said, as icky and gross as I find every single person in this entire Tinder saga (to be clear, I think Wolfe was absolutely a victim but that doesn't mean I'd want to hang out with her), the truly notable aspect of the company (to me at least), which was its astonishing growth, was legit. That didn't happen because of IAC or Match (at least, not directly, meaning b/c of those employees or that branding). And that's still laudable. The service might be run by total jerks, but it's growth rate is still laudable and is still an interesting narrative into itself, even if we accept that the whole rags to riches, came out of nowhere aspect, is bullshit (which it is).
Comments
And Tinder has done this from the word go. I remember talking to Rad and a few others when they were ramping up and the first thing I said was, "oh, OK, so you're part of IAC" and they got all defensive and tried to pretend like the fact that their offices, all their capital, all their equipment and their paychecks were from IAC was irrelevant and that they were still totally indie.
From talking to IAC people, they don't care what the founder say -- to a point -- as long as people are using the app. As this article made clear however, if you get too far off the messaging and start to oversell the "independent" angle, you will be smacked back into reality.
And then thing is, it isn't cool for a lot of companies to lie about their history -- but if you don't create this false narrative (and let's be clear, 90% of the startup narratives you hear are altered to make the story more attractive. The same is true for any other aspect of business (see also: Hollywood)), people won't pay attention. To a certain extent, as a society, we wall want to have that great Cindarella story.
We want to believe Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team (even though that's not really what happened [1]) and then went on to be one of the greatest players of all time, because it helps create hope within ourselves that we too can overcome the odds and be that successful.
A successful startup born out of an incubator that is funded by a multi-billion dollar company with direct reports to the incumbent in an industry it is trying to "disrupt" is far less compelling for everyone than "we had this idea for this app and it spread like wildfire and now the VCs are coming knocking at our door."
That said, as icky and gross as I find every single person in this entire Tinder saga (to be clear, I think Wolfe was absolutely a victim but that doesn't mean I'd want to hang out with her), the truly notable aspect of the company (to me at least), which was its astonishing growth, was legit. That didn't happen because of IAC or Match (at least, not directly, meaning b/c of those employees or that branding). And that's still laudable. The service might be run by total jerks, but it's growth rate is still laudable and is still an interesting narrative into itself, even if we accept that the whole rags to riches, came out of nowhere aspect, is bullshit (which it is).
[1]: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/2012/01/16/106149626/...