YesGraph (YC W15) Raises $1M to Build a Better Referral System for Mobile Apps(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
YesGraph (YC W15) Raises $1M to Build a Better Referral System for Mobile Apps
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/27/yc-backed-yesgraph-raises-a-million-to-build-a-better-referral-system-for-mobile-apps/
24 comments
Actually what most apps do without YesGraph is try to get users to send-all to every contact. Ugh. We want to fight that.
No one wants spam. It is a bad experience and has horrible conversion rates. No one wins. I literally pushed for removing send-all while running growth at Dropbox. We saw an 80% decrease in emails sent and only a 3% decrease in signups.
We want to make apps smarter using the data users have already shared with them. It's a better user experience that drives deeper engagement. Everyone wins.
No one wants spam. It is a bad experience and has horrible conversion rates. No one wins. I literally pushed for removing send-all while running growth at Dropbox. We saw an 80% decrease in emails sent and only a 3% decrease in signups.
We want to make apps smarter using the data users have already shared with them. It's a better user experience that drives deeper engagement. Everyone wins.
[deleted](1)
Love it. Early stage, hard to justify optimizing send-all into 'suggest 5 people to invite'.
Total no-brainer to use a drop-in like this. Make onboarding a way better experience, captures exactly the same, if not more, value on referrals.
Total no-brainer to use a drop-in like this. Make onboarding a way better experience, captures exactly the same, if not more, value on referrals.
Check out this post on viral metrics: http://blog.yesgraph.com/top-3-metrics/
In short, look at # sending, # invites, and % accept. We know we can do a lot better than the status quo.
Invite all: very small # sending, large # invites, very small % accept. By the way, getting marked as spam hurts all your invites, lowering your overall acceptance rates even for direct invites that weren't spamming the whole list.
YesGraph: larger # sending, more # invites, larger % accept.
This by the way is how to tell the difference between buzzword bullshit "viral" and real products: Math.
In short, look at # sending, # invites, and % accept. We know we can do a lot better than the status quo.
Invite all: very small # sending, large # invites, very small % accept. By the way, getting marked as spam hurts all your invites, lowering your overall acceptance rates even for direct invites that weren't spamming the whole list.
YesGraph: larger # sending, more # invites, larger % accept.
This by the way is how to tell the difference between buzzword bullshit "viral" and real products: Math.
I love that last line.
I can understand how YesGraph gets a larger % accept, and probably larger # sending because you are so much better than the terrible "solutions" built into most apps, but I don't see how larger # invites directly follow from what you have. Isn't the point fewer, better invites?
I can understand how YesGraph gets a larger % accept, and probably larger # sending because you are so much better than the terrible "solutions" built into most apps, but I don't see how larger # invites directly follow from what you have. Isn't the point fewer, better invites?
When comparing to reply all it will be fewer. Most people sending invites send one or two. Making that two or three, on average, is huge.
It's hard to generalize about performance like this because apps are so different. Even within Dropbox for example, there are multiple invite channels, and their performance stats aren't similar.
It's hard to generalize about performance like this because apps are so different. Even within Dropbox for example, there are multiple invite channels, and their performance stats aren't similar.
I help make YesGraph.
This is actually my second time through YC. I was in W08 with Tipjoy. AMA
This is actually my second time through YC. I was in W08 with Tipjoy. AMA
Firstly - congratulations on your company's success and fundraising round.
As for the AMA, I'm curious of the differences you see in YC between now and 7 years ago.
There are some obvious ones, like larger class sizes, more partners, different funding amounts.
But YC is way more popular now, some of its earlier companies have had tremendous success, and I'm sure YC partners have learned a lot in 7 years of what works well and what doesn't. So I'm quite interested in how their strategy has changed in 7 years from the point of view of a startup founder. Eg, is there a different relative focus on building customer base vs product development, or a different view on accepting VC funding, etc? Are the office hours more intense, and does YC expect more progress faster throughout the program?
Cheers and thanks for offering the AMA!
As for the AMA, I'm curious of the differences you see in YC between now and 7 years ago.
There are some obvious ones, like larger class sizes, more partners, different funding amounts.
But YC is way more popular now, some of its earlier companies have had tremendous success, and I'm sure YC partners have learned a lot in 7 years of what works well and what doesn't. So I'm quite interested in how their strategy has changed in 7 years from the point of view of a startup founder. Eg, is there a different relative focus on building customer base vs product development, or a different view on accepting VC funding, etc? Are the office hours more intense, and does YC expect more progress faster throughout the program?
Cheers and thanks for offering the AMA!
The other day they had a YC Alumni party and Jessica Livingston, my wife (+Tipjoy Cofounder), and I were chatting. The general sentiment is "OMG 7 Years!"
Yes, the obvious things are obvious: much bigger and more advanced. The reputation has improved. The process is more solidified.
Much of the advice is part of my DNA now when it comes to how to build companies. So when I hear it, the ideas are reinforcing rather than new. I can easily predict how a VC might answer a question, for example, about their process, what they look for, etc.
So the big difference is what I'm looking for out of YC. I want more anecdotes and operational details to enrich my understanding of how to build a great company.
Beyond that, one difference is how they need to treat the batchmates. They have warnings about what not to do that sound like they are talking to children. I think "why would anyone do that?!" when hearing the warning of what not to do. It turns out that at scale you see a lot, so they warn against things they've seen. Surprising, but true.
Another difference is that a lot of the speakers are YC alumni. I think they can commiserate and tell more interesting stories than people that have been very established and rich for a very long time.
Another difference, related to size, is that I don't know everyone. This is a pretty big difference but I end up talking to a few people repeatedly, making a closer connection.
I could go on, but I think this should probably be a blog post :)
Yes, the obvious things are obvious: much bigger and more advanced. The reputation has improved. The process is more solidified.
Much of the advice is part of my DNA now when it comes to how to build companies. So when I hear it, the ideas are reinforcing rather than new. I can easily predict how a VC might answer a question, for example, about their process, what they look for, etc.
So the big difference is what I'm looking for out of YC. I want more anecdotes and operational details to enrich my understanding of how to build a great company.
Beyond that, one difference is how they need to treat the batchmates. They have warnings about what not to do that sound like they are talking to children. I think "why would anyone do that?!" when hearing the warning of what not to do. It turns out that at scale you see a lot, so they warn against things they've seen. Surprising, but true.
Another difference is that a lot of the speakers are YC alumni. I think they can commiserate and tell more interesting stories than people that have been very established and rich for a very long time.
Another difference, related to size, is that I don't know everyone. This is a pretty big difference but I end up talking to a few people repeatedly, making a closer connection.
I could go on, but I think this should probably be a blog post :)
Interesting, thanks for that!
I for one would be interested in reading a more detailed blog post if you are able to get to it.
Cheers!
I for one would be interested in reading a more detailed blog post if you are able to get to it.
Cheers!
[Disclosure - I work at YesGraph]
What are some lessons learned from Tipjoy (YC W08) that you're applying here or doing differently with running YesGraph?
I got into growth because my first startup didn't grow. I became obsessed. So there is that.
Overall the core advice is the same. I just listen to it and apply it better. This post gets it right: http://blog.samaltman.com/startup-advice-briefly
I also find myself giving this advice to others, including YC batchmates. The hard part is being diligent in applying it.
The first TechCrunch launch for Tipjoy was when we turned the product on. And were were traveling, so we were fixing bugs in the airport. Don't couple your press launch with your product launch, kids
So, yeah, not making that mistake this time :)
Overall the core advice is the same. I just listen to it and apply it better. This post gets it right: http://blog.samaltman.com/startup-advice-briefly
I also find myself giving this advice to others, including YC batchmates. The hard part is being diligent in applying it.
The first TechCrunch launch for Tipjoy was when we turned the product on. And were were traveling, so we were fixing bugs in the airport. Don't couple your press launch with your product launch, kids
So, yeah, not making that mistake this time :)
What other applications do you see your user referral recommendations applying to?
I think of YesGraph applying whenever a user takes an operation over their contacts. Invites, sharing, referrals etc.
For B2B that can be a collaborative software for companies like Slack, Yammer, or a tool a team uses like CRM. For consumer, invite flows to add friends on an app have a lot of room for optimization.
The idea is based on what pioneering social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn have done with tools like People You May Know (PYMK). They drove an incredibly amount of performance improvements.
We want to bring that kind of insight everywhere.
For B2B that can be a collaborative software for companies like Slack, Yammer, or a tool a team uses like CRM. For consumer, invite flows to add friends on an app have a lot of room for optimization.
The idea is based on what pioneering social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn have done with tools like People You May Know (PYMK). They drove an incredibly amount of performance improvements.
We want to bring that kind of insight everywhere.
Why did you guys pivot away from employee referral amplification? The original idea seemed incredibly powerful - we all know hiring is broken, and amplifying the referral graph seemed like a great way to add a lot of value to growing orgs.
There are a few reasons.
#1 This new idea is better. It's a bigger opportunity with larger barriers to entry that we're especially well positioned to take advantage of.
#2 Deployment of the recruiting app was challenging. The old app worked like this: you connect to Facebook, LinkedIn, and email, and we parse and rank your contacts to find matches for a job rec. But that means employees go through multiple auth flows -- and recruiting teams need to push their team to do it. Recruiters are pitched new products weekly, and have a barrier to getting their team involved. As a result, most recruiting teams are incredibly inefficient and make poor use of technology. It is hard to change that.
#3 We saw better traction with pilot customers for the new idea. That is how I decided to change directions: sell the idea before making the product. I highly recommend people focus on customer development when thinking about a new product -- rather than just on what is technically possible.
#1 This new idea is better. It's a bigger opportunity with larger barriers to entry that we're especially well positioned to take advantage of.
#2 Deployment of the recruiting app was challenging. The old app worked like this: you connect to Facebook, LinkedIn, and email, and we parse and rank your contacts to find matches for a job rec. But that means employees go through multiple auth flows -- and recruiting teams need to push their team to do it. Recruiters are pitched new products weekly, and have a barrier to getting their team involved. As a result, most recruiting teams are incredibly inefficient and make poor use of technology. It is hard to change that.
#3 We saw better traction with pilot customers for the new idea. That is how I decided to change directions: sell the idea before making the product. I highly recommend people focus on customer development when thinking about a new product -- rather than just on what is technically possible.
Congrats on the launch and the financing! New products is awesome!
Good luck Ivan!
As for others, I built this concept in 2011, unfortunately Facebook shut us down after we hit about 1.5 million queries per month. Never got access to LinkedIn.
As for others, I built this concept in 2011, unfortunately Facebook shut us down after we hit about 1.5 million queries per month. Never got access to LinkedIn.
Facebook is certainly concerned about passing around user tokens, so we won't do that.
Facebook doesn't control the email or phone number graphs though. And users don't connect directly to Facebook via a YesGraph Facebook app, so there is nothing to shut down.
There is more to say about platform risk here. I've built apps on every major platform. Email me: [email protected]
Facebook doesn't control the email or phone number graphs though. And users don't connect directly to Facebook via a YesGraph Facebook app, so there is nothing to shut down.
There is more to say about platform risk here. I've built apps on every major platform. Email me: [email protected]
Interesting optics. I first see $1m as a "small raise" but maybe you're just running really lean and don't need as much money?
Good luck
Good luck
LOL at $1M being small. Imagine explaining that to your grandparents.
But you're right! This is just a seed. Demo day is coming up, so we're thinking about the strategy there with a larger seed. I guess I'm not allowed to say I'll be fundraising because of SEC rules? [edit: for those confused, there is a rule that you can't fundraise in public. I think that means I can't say "we're fundraising" but I'm not sure about future tense. IANAL]
We have a team of 4 and I'd like that to be 6 or 7 soon. Payroll makes up most of our costs.
But you're right! This is just a seed. Demo day is coming up, so we're thinking about the strategy there with a larger seed. I guess I'm not allowed to say I'll be fundraising because of SEC rules? [edit: for those confused, there is a rule that you can't fundraise in public. I think that means I can't say "we're fundraising" but I'm not sure about future tense. IANAL]
We have a team of 4 and I'd like that to be 6 or 7 soon. Payroll makes up most of our costs.
it's perceived as a small raise because we're in a bubble
So they want to mine your contacts list, identify likely suckers, and spam them.
This is why most apps shouldn't have access to your contacts list.