The Crunchies are the Kid's Choice Awards of the startup scene.(blog.styleguidance.com)
blog.styleguidance.com
The Crunchies are the Kid's Choice Awards of the startup scene.
http://blog.styleguidance.com/post/325284204/the-crunchies-are-the-kids-choice-awards-of-the
8 comments
I think you're overstating the case: I wouldn't call the Turing Award or the Fields Medal nonsense, for example. The "test of time" awards for enduring research are also pretty valid, I think (e.g. http://www.sigmod.org/sigmodinfo/awards/#time ) Just because an award might be subject to politics doesn't mean it can't nevertheless be a meaningful recognition of high-calibre work. Obviously, awards aren't the only or the most reliable way to identify good work, but many awards can't fairly be dismissed as "nonsense", either.
(But in the case of the Crunchies, I think they are widely understood to be a meaningless PR stunt.)
(But in the case of the Crunchies, I think they are widely understood to be a meaningless PR stunt.)
Fair point - awards like Turing or SIGMOD are different, where both the nominees and voters are high level experts in their fields. What I wrote applies to mainstream awards & lists.
I agree Erdos really should have won the fields medal. But I think that the accuracy rating of more prestigious awards are much higher than say the Crunchies.
And Gandhi should have gotten the Nobel peace price. He wasn't without flaws --- but he showed how non-violent protest can work.
> I mean how else do you explain that Zynga CEO [Marc Pincus] beat out Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh for CEO of the year?
If you'd been to Startup School in October, this would have been blindingly obvious.
Pincus was the closer for a reason -- the mood in the room was instantly I want to go to there, and the temperature went up ten degrees. Even Zuckerburg was hooting and hollering!
On the other hand, almost none of us young hackers would want to work for Hsieh -- his company's culture is steeped in an entirely different demographic, and he admitted as much in his speech.
If you'd been to Startup School in October, this would have been blindingly obvious.
Pincus was the closer for a reason -- the mood in the room was instantly I want to go to there, and the temperature went up ten degrees. Even Zuckerburg was hooting and hollering!
On the other hand, almost none of us young hackers would want to work for Hsieh -- his company's culture is steeped in an entirely different demographic, and he admitted as much in his speech.
I was there and I have a starkly different reaction. A lot of other people I talked to afterwards share your sentiment but I still can't shake off the slimeballey vibe he gave out. A few weeks later the Farmville scandal blew up.
I found Pincus' talk to be the worst--more so than the annual McAdoo flat-pack speech about funding.
Pincus didn't just meander, he started wandering around a Matrix simulation room and just kept opening doors and slamming them shut. His tone was also bitter, particularly about his thoughts about being "misaligned" at successfully exiting.
Worse was the video at the end. What was that? What was the point of that other than a direct recruitment video? Great entrepreneurs leverage great opportunities but to be so flagrant about it? That MTV quick-cut infomercial had no redeeming factor.
Tony Hsieh didn't speak of a nerd-nirvana perhaps, but what he did speak of was building an organization. He spoke of values and skillsets that the audience in attendance SHOULD think about and work TOWARDS. It's not of now, it's of leadership skillsets that's required in just another 5 years. Maybe less if the precocious attendees have their way.
But you did use the right word: blindingly.
I found Pincus' talk to be the worst--more so than the annual McAdoo flat-pack speech about funding.
Pincus didn't just meander, he started wandering around a Matrix simulation room and just kept opening doors and slamming them shut. His tone was also bitter, particularly about his thoughts about being "misaligned" at successfully exiting.
Worse was the video at the end. What was that? What was the point of that other than a direct recruitment video? Great entrepreneurs leverage great opportunities but to be so flagrant about it? That MTV quick-cut infomercial had no redeeming factor.
Tony Hsieh didn't speak of a nerd-nirvana perhaps, but what he did speak of was building an organization. He spoke of values and skillsets that the audience in attendance SHOULD think about and work TOWARDS. It's not of now, it's of leadership skillsets that's required in just another 5 years. Maybe less if the precocious attendees have their way.
But you did use the right word: blindingly.
still, what does it say about the startup community if we reward that kind of unethical behavior as a CEO?
I mean sure, these guys aren't the only ones who did these rebill offers. But they were the target of the whole Scamville issue.
Turning around, a month later and picking the guy behind this, as one of the 6 for people to vote for, just seems wrong.
If we don't regulate, what we find ethical as a startup community, then 5-10 years down the line Congress will do it for us. And trust me, we won't like it one bit, if they have to step in to protect the consumer.
I mean sure, these guys aren't the only ones who did these rebill offers. But they were the target of the whole Scamville issue.
Turning around, a month later and picking the guy behind this, as one of the 6 for people to vote for, just seems wrong.
If we don't regulate, what we find ethical as a startup community, then 5-10 years down the line Congress will do it for us. And trust me, we won't like it one bit, if they have to step in to protect the consumer.
"what does it say about the startup community if we reward that kind of unethical behavior as a CEO?"
That start ups are about money first. And what they did was technically legal. Unethical moves like this happen in broad day light and in headlines all the time.
Generalizing, the vast majority of the American (other countries, too) population honestly doesn't raise enough of a stink.
Is it because we are uneducated, don't understand the impact, or merely don't care because things won't change for us tomorrow? We do not grasp the gradual net effect of many 'tomorrows' as the cause because it is too far removed from the action.
That start ups are about money first. And what they did was technically legal. Unethical moves like this happen in broad day light and in headlines all the time.
Generalizing, the vast majority of the American (other countries, too) population honestly doesn't raise enough of a stink.
Is it because we are uneducated, don't understand the impact, or merely don't care because things won't change for us tomorrow? We do not grasp the gradual net effect of many 'tomorrows' as the cause because it is too far removed from the action.
Startups are about money first, but they aren't about money above all else.
[Edit] I said something harsh and kind of dumb here before, and have removed it. I'm sorry.
[Edit] I said something harsh and kind of dumb here before, and have removed it. I'm sorry.
Ethics matter.
I was there. I would much prefer to have Hsieh as a leader than Pincus. The fact that Hsieh runs a company that I have no interest in joining is a different matter.
Let's be clear though --
Hsieh wasn't a founder (but was around early on) and got the company to a $1.2 billion sale after a little more than 10 years, and in the top 1000 sites on the web. Which is of course very impressive, but...
Mark Pinkus got the company he founded to a multi-billion valuation and in the top 100 sites on the web in under 2 years and is looking like IPO material in an IPO-less era. Regardless of what you think of his scruples, it's easy to see why he gets counted impressive.
Hsieh wasn't a founder (but was around early on) and got the company to a $1.2 billion sale after a little more than 10 years, and in the top 1000 sites on the web. Which is of course very impressive, but...
Mark Pinkus got the company he founded to a multi-billion valuation and in the top 100 sites on the web in under 2 years and is looking like IPO material in an IPO-less era. Regardless of what you think of his scruples, it's easy to see why he gets counted impressive.
Am I reading this correctly? The only reason you stated is that he was able to make people excited, with no mention of substance? That the other guy seemed _boring_ to you?
When I interview somewhere I don't ask myself "is this CEO the most exciting person in this room". I want to see that he has good business acumen, that he makes smart decisions and recognizes when things are going bad and cuts losses appropriately. I want a business man, not a motivational speaker.
When I interview somewhere I don't ask myself "is this CEO the most exciting person in this room". I want to see that he has good business acumen, that he makes smart decisions and recognizes when things are going bad and cuts losses appropriately. I want a business man, not a motivational speaker.
LOL. Pincus had the absolute worst speech at "Startup School". He didn't prepare anything and just meandered aimlessly from one thought to the next, rambling on about his life story. It was almost intolerable.
Einstein was asked to appear alongside the comic actor Charlie Chaplin during the Hollywood debut of the film City Lights. When they were mobbed by thousands, Chaplin remarked, "The people applaud me because everybody understands me, and they applaud you because no one understands you." Einstein asked Chaplin, "What does it all mean?" Chaplin replied, "Nothing.
Why Balsamiq wasn't elected for bootstrap?
http://www.balsamiq.com/blog/2010/01/03/a-look-back-at-2009/
The numbers here absolutely dominate anything tinychat has going for them at the moment, as far as I know.
http://www.balsamiq.com/blog/2010/01/03/a-look-back-at-2009/
The numbers here absolutely dominate anything tinychat has going for them at the moment, as far as I know.
I can't speak to why Balsamiq wasn't nominated, but I'm pretty sure the only reason TinyChat won was because they spammed their users with requests to vote for them constantly over the past few weeks.
Seriously, every 10 minutes a banner would pop up asking you to vote for them. The vast majority of their users couldn't care less about the awards, but would vote just to make the damn thing go away.
Seriously, every 10 minutes a banner would pop up asking you to vote for them. The vast majority of their users couldn't care less about the awards, but would vote just to make the damn thing go away.
Posting from cell here - Yes we asked users to vote for us via a one time ad after 15 mins of use- we wanted to win and a button in the client was the best spot. But on the same hand we are not just some random startup with no traction- I think we are actually the highest trafficed of all the competitors.
We are seeing amazing growth and should hit 5mm uniques/mo shortly! :) Anyways thanks to those who voted for us and enjoy tinychat
We are seeing amazing growth and should hit 5mm uniques/mo shortly! :) Anyways thanks to those who voted for us and enjoy tinychat
because startup scene knows about Balsamiq, but it doesn't have the mainstream recognition...which are the people who actually voted in the crunchies
And Tinychat does? :/ It was the first time I'd heard of it.
it has more average joe users...since this is based on voting, I bet tiny chat just threw up a "vote for us!" badge on their site.
That's the problem with user voting...the one with the biggest audience, always wins.
That's the problem with user voting...the one with the biggest audience, always wins.
They did. And not just a badge, an obnoxious modal banner that would pop up every 10 minutes until you voted.
Sure but don't we (or at least Techcrunch) play a role in actually picking the nominees?
I like the concept of an oscar style voting model for startup awards a lot.
OT: For a site called Style Guidance, it's pretty hard on the eyes. Maybe softer colors would be better.
yeah most techie guys tend to say this. Fashion people(especially women) love it.
The site was actually designed by the alpha users. I had them give me ideas of what to do, and then I'd show them 3-4 mockups, and they'd vote for the best looking one. Went through 5 major redesigns until we hit the current version(which they all loved).
To tell the truth, I'm not really a huge fan of it either, but it was a quick hack job to get something out ASAP. My philosophy is that the sooner you start, the sooner you grow. Wasting an extra 1-2 months on a perfect design makes no sense when you have no users.
I'm actually already working on a redesign. Should be a little bit more mainstream. Don't get me wrong, it'll still have the fashion feel...but it'll look a lot more refined.
BTW I don't know why you are being downvoted, since I fully agree with you.
The site was actually designed by the alpha users. I had them give me ideas of what to do, and then I'd show them 3-4 mockups, and they'd vote for the best looking one. Went through 5 major redesigns until we hit the current version(which they all loved).
To tell the truth, I'm not really a huge fan of it either, but it was a quick hack job to get something out ASAP. My philosophy is that the sooner you start, the sooner you grow. Wasting an extra 1-2 months on a perfect design makes no sense when you have no users.
I'm actually already working on a redesign. Should be a little bit more mainstream. Don't get me wrong, it'll still have the fashion feel...but it'll look a lot more refined.
BTW I don't know why you are being downvoted, since I fully agree with you.
BTW I don't know why you are being downvoted, since I fully agree with you.
Maybe just because my comment was off topic.
I was pretty sure that the site was yours (the OP), so I thought I'd give you some feedback. Good luck.
Maybe just because my comment was off topic.
I was pretty sure that the site was yours (the OP), so I thought I'd give you some feedback. Good luck.
You are missing the point of the Crunchies. It's the once-a-year party where we all celebrate the web.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
It's true, especially for the people who attended (I was there), the after-party was far more interesting than the awards show itself.
Also the juggling comedians act and the Richter Scales were fun. Listening to who won "best PR firm", not so much.
Also the juggling comedians act and the Richter Scales were fun. Listening to who won "best PR firm", not so much.
You are missing the point of the Crunchies. It's the once-a-year party where we all celebrate the web.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
Yes, the voting is not the best, but that's not critical.
Then call it a party, not an awards show.
And why can't there be two parties? The crunchies(kid's choice awards) and the starties(oscars)
And why can't there be two parties? The crunchies(kid's choice awards) and the starties(oscars)
It's a free country, you are welcome to start your own awards show, with a perfect voting process if possible. Then we can make fun of you too.
My point is that criticizing is easy, but pulling of such an award show is not as easy as it looks. Actually, you'd be very aware of that fact if you attended the first Crunchies 3 years ago. This year, the transitions mostly worked out, they were not 2 hours late, and almost no awkward moments on stage.
My point is that criticizing is easy, but pulling of such an award show is not as easy as it looks. Actually, you'd be very aware of that fact if you attended the first Crunchies 3 years ago. This year, the transitions mostly worked out, they were not 2 hours late, and almost no awkward moments on stage.
An award that is voted by a small group of people is susceptible to internal politics. If it's large group, the nominees that cater to the lowest common denominator win. And then there are the ones compiled by a few journalists with a deadline and a PR-influenced perception. Sometimes awards are well deserved, but it's almost random. Simply don't let awards annoy you or impress you.