CarsForaGrand.com: Simple idea that's generating big bucks(37signals.com)
37signals.com
CarsForaGrand.com: Simple idea that's generating big bucks
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/1734-carsforagrandcom-simple-idea-thats-generating-big-bucks
8 comments
Winston Churchill said it best:
"All great things are decided not by machines or gadgets, but by willpower. Whoever has it, will finally prevail"
Winston Churchill said "gadgets"? Really? In what speech or book did he do so?
The old boy in his writings showed quite a healthy respect for the machinery of war (eg see atomic bomb). I don't see him saying such a thing in earnest.
The old boy in his writings showed quite a healthy respect for the machinery of war (eg see atomic bomb). I don't see him saying such a thing in earnest.
Yeah that was one of those quotes that someone else had sent to me and I remembered it when I read the OP. I did a search but couldn't come up with any sources.
But the other part of the quote is this: "Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It’s the tenacity and courage to continue that counts." And that seems to come up quite a bit as being attributed to Churchill.
But the other part of the quote is this: "Success is not final, failure is not fatal. It’s the tenacity and courage to continue that counts." And that seems to come up quite a bit as being attributed to Churchill.
All you've stated is a batch of truisms. Perhaps you could rewrite your first paragraph like so:
I think there is a lot of false hope in what [some person or group] are telling their audience. Just because someone out there does [some activity] to make a lot of money doesn't mean that's how the average jane or joe has to do it.
No shit!
I think there is a lot of false hope in what [some person or group] are telling their audience. Just because someone out there does [some activity] to make a lot of money doesn't mean that's how the average jane or joe has to do it.
No shit!
but there were way more prospectors than there were Rockefellers.
But the fact remains that Rockefeller was a prospector. Point being that 37S uses cheerleading as advertising. Their products rely on many "prospectors" taking the plunge; leaping into the world of running a business. The more successful their customers are, they more successful they are.
Hence, many "you can do it too" messages. What's even better about the whole thing is although you can chalk this up to slick marketing, 37S - because of what I said earlier - actually do want their customers to do well.
It's a brilliant piece of positioning that creates a lot of win-wins.
But the fact remains that Rockefeller was a prospector. Point being that 37S uses cheerleading as advertising. Their products rely on many "prospectors" taking the plunge; leaping into the world of running a business. The more successful their customers are, they more successful they are.
Hence, many "you can do it too" messages. What's even better about the whole thing is although you can chalk this up to slick marketing, 37S - because of what I said earlier - actually do want their customers to do well.
It's a brilliant piece of positioning that creates a lot of win-wins.
the medium is the message ... if that case could come from elsewhere maybe pj's reaction would be different.
pj, yes and no...
If somebody thinks they're just going to go to SVN, take a winning idea, and copy it, and make big bucks, well, yes, they're not going to succeed. Just cuz the person ahead of you in line at the lotto bought a ticket and won doesn't mean you will -- in fact, it decreases your chances.
But when a whole town calculates the odds, forms a strategy, and chips in to buy a critical % of all tickets available -- and then hits the jackpot -- you can't just say "well they just bought a lottery ticket." (This has happened before.)
It's not just the act, it's the attitude, the legwork, and the dedication.
I've made lots of "easy money" (and publicity/fame/cred) off things that didn't take me much time at all. But the key is that I am the all-grown-up version of a kid who read business books for fun & spent all night mucking around with Photoshop.
If somebody thinks they're just going to go to SVN, take a winning idea, and copy it, and make big bucks, well, yes, they're not going to succeed. Just cuz the person ahead of you in line at the lotto bought a ticket and won doesn't mean you will -- in fact, it decreases your chances.
But when a whole town calculates the odds, forms a strategy, and chips in to buy a critical % of all tickets available -- and then hits the jackpot -- you can't just say "well they just bought a lottery ticket." (This has happened before.)
It's not just the act, it's the attitude, the legwork, and the dedication.
I've made lots of "easy money" (and publicity/fame/cred) off things that didn't take me much time at all. But the key is that I am the all-grown-up version of a kid who read business books for fun & spent all night mucking around with Photoshop.
If lottery tickets are generated randomly how does the person in front of you winning decrease your chance of winning?
If there are N participants, k winners total, and y'all really do choose tickets randomly (proven false, but let's go with your assumption), your chances of winning are k/N. If you know that one of the winners is not you, your chances of winning are (k-1)/N.
EDIT: above is assuming that you can win more than once if k > 1. If not, the math is more complicated than I can be bothered to try to format in an HN post, but the principle should hold.
EDIT: above is assuming that you can win more than once if k > 1. If not, the math is more complicated than I can be bothered to try to format in an HN post, but the principle should hold.
I don't think there are a fixed number of winners in advance ...
My expected return may go down if the person in front of my wins (I have to split with more people, so each winner gets less) - but my chances of winning don't change.
My expected return may go down if the person in front of my wins (I have to split with more people, so each winner gets less) - but my chances of winning don't change.
That is an interesting form of lottery. Do you have any references to lotteries run in this manner (and proof that the tickets are not randomly generated)?
I think the form of lottery I (and others) are referring to is the one where there are N unique tickets and you have a 1/N chance of matching those N numbers. Therefore, there is no dependence between different tickets and the likelihood of matching the winning numbers.
I think the form of lottery I (and others) are referring to is the one where there are N unique tickets and you have a 1/N chance of matching those N numbers. Therefore, there is no dependence between different tickets and the likelihood of matching the winning numbers.
Well, the tickets where y'all fill in the bubbles with pencil to choose numbers and the form can be read by an optical scanner are surely not randomly generated. People will draw pictures, play birthdays, and attempt to choose layouts that "look random", none of which result in a uniform ticket distribution, which is what most people seem to mean when they say that something is "random".
The takeaway is that "distributed uniformly at random" is not a great assumption at all when inputs are generated by a process. It's one of the relatively few things I did learn in my graduate algorithms class.
The takeaway is that "distributed uniformly at random" is not a great assumption at all when inputs are generated by a process. It's one of the relatively few things I did learn in my graduate algorithms class.
Lets say that the lotter involves guessing the correct 1 digit number (0-9). There is a one in ten chance of winning.
The guy in front of you has a 1/10 chance of hitting the winner. You ALSO have a 1/10 chance of hitting the winner.
The likelihood of you BOTH hitting the winner in a row is 1/10*1/10 = 1/100.
So, yes, the person in front of you winning DOES decrease your chances of winning. You could also think about it like this:
The guy in front of you has a 1/10 chance of hitting the winner. You ALSO have a 1/10 chance of hitting the winner.
The likelihood of you BOTH hitting the winner in a row is 1/10*1/10 = 1/100.
So, yes, the person in front of you winning DOES decrease your chances of winning. You could also think about it like this:
No. You do not understand conditional probability.
You have made a few simplifying assumptions. One, that the pmf of picking an number is uniform, and two, that the two choices are independent.
WLOG the first person is male (ease of pronoun usage)
Neither of these are particularly odd assumptions.
Therefore. You have a 1/10 chance of winning. He has a 1/10 chance of winning.
The probability of you BOTH winning is 1/100.
The probability of you winning GIVEN that he won is 1/10.
This is because P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B) => 1/10 = (1/10 x 1/10)/(1/10), which is in fact a consequence of independence.
To explain: Conditional probability is special. Unlike the intersection, you have to correct for all the stuff that you know wasn't possible (i.e., guy 1 choosing the wrong number). In this case, that exactly compensates for the low probability of the intersection.
EDIT: Asterisks for times and italics don't mix
You have made a few simplifying assumptions. One, that the pmf of picking an number is uniform, and two, that the two choices are independent.
WLOG the first person is male (ease of pronoun usage)
Neither of these are particularly odd assumptions.
Therefore. You have a 1/10 chance of winning. He has a 1/10 chance of winning.
The probability of you BOTH winning is 1/100.
The probability of you winning GIVEN that he won is 1/10.
This is because P(A|B) = P(AB)/P(B) => 1/10 = (1/10 x 1/10)/(1/10), which is in fact a consequence of independence.
To explain: Conditional probability is special. Unlike the intersection, you have to correct for all the stuff that you know wasn't possible (i.e., guy 1 choosing the wrong number). In this case, that exactly compensates for the low probability of the intersection.
EDIT: Asterisks for times and italics don't mix
I'm sorry, I'm sure my lack of a maths degree is showing, but wouldn't the probability of hitting a random digit (0-9) be 1/10, but the probability of the hitting the SAME random digit twice IN A ROW be 1/100?
Yes, that's the prior probability, before you observe the first outcome. This is a common gamblers' fallacy; past events do not affect future events from which they are independent!
I'm assuming that you and/or the GP are assuming that everyone can win and everyone's ticket has a random digit drawn separately. However, if we assume that you know what number you picked, you don't know the result of the lottery, you know that the person in front of you won, and he chose his digit uniformly at random, the probability is still 1/10, because it has already been decided that he and the lottery chose the same digit.
I'm assuming that you and/or the GP are assuming that everyone can win and everyone's ticket has a random digit drawn separately. However, if we assume that you know what number you picked, you don't know the result of the lottery, you know that the person in front of you won, and he chose his digit uniformly at random, the probability is still 1/10, because it has already been decided that he and the lottery chose the same digit.
Uhm, that is not true. Those two events are independent, you should brush up on your probability theory.
Sounds like the whole 3 doors game show problem: Does an additional data point decrease your odds, or does it do nothing to alter the situation?
IMO my answer to your question would be, it doesn't.
IMO my answer to your question would be, it doesn't.
It shouldn't, but since lotto winnings are shared, it would decrease the already low expected payout.
My assumption was operating on the "one big win" model.
But - forest, trees, guys? Seriously?
But - forest, trees, guys? Seriously?
I think the most common model is that tickets are randomly generated and winners share the pot. Two winning tickets do not decrease one's odds from having a winning ticket since they are independent.
Clearly it isn't a forest/trees issue, I just thought it was a bizarre addition since under any reasonable assumptions it is incorrect.
Clearly it isn't a forest/trees issue, I just thought it was a bizarre addition since under any reasonable assumptions it is incorrect.
I like this comment:
Couldn’t $9,999.99 be considered high six figures in the most literal sense?Illustrates that some people don't understand the concept of filtering search results. Here's the same thing from eBay: http://motors.shop.ebay.com/items/Cars-Trucks_?_dmpt=US_Cars...
which in turn illustrates that a "viable" business can be built on making existing data more immediately accessible/refined.
People not understanding things is the reason for 99% of all business. You wouldn't call a plumber if you knew how to fix that leak yourself.
having the cash. lack of time. not wanting to pull apart a toilet.
I can think of a few good reasons to call a plumber even if I kknew how to do it. (I can cook, but that doesn't stop me eating out - or even getting take-away sometimes)
Yes, but plumbers don't make their living from people who are too busy, they make their living from people who are ignorant. (In other words, lack of knowledge is far and away a bigger customer).
I didn't say though that it was the only way, just that it was the main reason most businesses exist.
I didn't say though that it was the only way, just that it was the main reason most businesses exist.
[deleted]
Very Neat. I like the concept of making money through ebay sales leads rather than cramming your site with full of ads.
Not a bad return if $100K is real(could still be a PR stunt to get more coverage). Probably not a recurring thing though, since I don't see anyone coming back to a site that only has eBay listings
37s use specific examples to get across a general point: quickly implement a decent idea and let the market tell you if it's good or not. You don't need millions of dollars or years of effort, you just need a good idea executed quickly and well.
and free publicity from 37 signals blog, isn't too bad for your business either
how does this make money?
eBay affiliate id, someone goes to the site clicks open a car ad, sees its an eBay listing, and closes it. But the cookie remains, so when they come back to eBay a few days later to buy a TV the guy gets the affiliate credit
You get paid between 50 and 75% of your referees winning bid revenue, see: https://ebaypartnernetwork.com/files/hub/en-US/gettingPaid.h...
See also http://belowabuck.com
Is this true?? Why wouldn't ebay fix this to avoid giving away affiliate $$ unnecessarily?
Feh. Only has half the revenue of carsfortwogrand.com.
You can go buy a lottery ticket and win too. The question is, how many people just like this guy and the plentyoffish guy, etc exist compared to those who attempt to find success on the internet?
I'm not saying don't try hard and don't take risks. I'd be a hypocrite if I did, but don't forget to be realistic about how really hard it is to build a company and make money. The traditional rules of business apply to the internet as well. Lots of people got lucky striking oil in the old days, but there were way more prospectors than there were Rockefellers.