So I'd call Google a startup because they were radically reinventing the search model.
Everyone seems to think they are radically reinventing something. The rest of the world agrees only if they grow big enough.
I worked at Aflac for over five years. They really are a very big insurance company with a genuinely different business model. But, part of why they grew so big is because of the daring Aflac duck marketing campaign. Having worked there, I am abundantly familiar with what a shocking choice that was.
I also know that, for example, the name Aflac is really an acronym for American Family Life Assurance Company. They originally were called American Family Life Insurance Company. Another company in another state had the same name. The two companies had to decide who got to keep it and who had to go to the enormous legal hassle of changing their name. Aflac lost "a gentleman's coin toss" and changed their name.
Then when they wanted to change their overly long name for marketing reasons, they ended up going with the acronym, because that did not require them to legally change their name in all fifty states. It is sort of like someone going by Bill instead of William.
The acronym would have been Aflic instead of Aflac had the company not lost a gentleman's coin toss years earlier. Aflac sounds like a duck quacking and inspired a marketing company to suggest the duck commercials. Aflic does not.
So, Aflac is as big as it is in part because of the company losing a gentleman's coin toss -- i.e. a twist of fate, beyond their control, not remotely planned -- not simply because their insurance plans are distinct and unusual. Most people don't even understand how their policies are radically different from most insurance policies.
I think the distinction you are trying to make is pretty arbitrary. Some companies manage to grow like they are sucking down ent draught and some don't. That mostly isn't because of setting a goal to be radically different or setting a goal to grow rapidly. Many companies would very much like to do both, but even YC does not know how to guarantee that outcome and even they sometimes pass on companies that turn out to be successful anyway.
If creating the next unicorn weren't akin to mysterious voodoo magic, there likely would not be nearly so much ink spilled on the subject.
I gave you 5 examples of growing companies that are not radically reinventing anything. I could give you a hundred more. Everybody here thinks they are radically reinventing something, because they have to say that. The great majority of new companies don't.
You might think the distinction is arbitrary, but that is because you are not doing the work. I have started both kinds of companies, and had reasonable success at both kind of companies. I have mentored people in both categories. The techniques involved are different.
You might think the distinction is arbitrary, but that is because you are not doing the work
Or perhaps you are just not explaining yourself well. Telling me why I think something is a lousy argument tactic, especially when the framing looks so personally dismissive.
Sorry. Let me rephrase it as a question. Have you started companies of both types? Having read the stuff you post here and elsewhere, I believe that not to be the case, but I'd be happy to be wrong.
Also, I don't get the feeling you're engaging with much of my argument or have much familiarity with the literature I'm referring to. So you're not the only person feeling dismissed here.
Framing it as a question doesn't really change the problem with it.
But, let's try to avoid getting bogged down here. Because there isn't any intent on my part to be dismissive of you.
Your last (previous) remark makes something clear to me that your earlier remarks did not. The personal put down of me was not related to that epiphany. Your remark would have been stronger without it.
As someone kindly said to me elsewhere on HN tonight: Communication is hard.
I was reacting to something in your framing of your first comment. I can't at the moment figure out how to put my finger on it. And it perhaps doesn't actually matter.
Everyone seems to think they are radically reinventing something. The rest of the world agrees only if they grow big enough.
I worked at Aflac for over five years. They really are a very big insurance company with a genuinely different business model. But, part of why they grew so big is because of the daring Aflac duck marketing campaign. Having worked there, I am abundantly familiar with what a shocking choice that was.
I also know that, for example, the name Aflac is really an acronym for American Family Life Assurance Company. They originally were called American Family Life Insurance Company. Another company in another state had the same name. The two companies had to decide who got to keep it and who had to go to the enormous legal hassle of changing their name. Aflac lost "a gentleman's coin toss" and changed their name.
Then when they wanted to change their overly long name for marketing reasons, they ended up going with the acronym, because that did not require them to legally change their name in all fifty states. It is sort of like someone going by Bill instead of William.
The acronym would have been Aflic instead of Aflac had the company not lost a gentleman's coin toss years earlier. Aflac sounds like a duck quacking and inspired a marketing company to suggest the duck commercials. Aflic does not.
So, Aflac is as big as it is in part because of the company losing a gentleman's coin toss -- i.e. a twist of fate, beyond their control, not remotely planned -- not simply because their insurance plans are distinct and unusual. Most people don't even understand how their policies are radically different from most insurance policies.
I think the distinction you are trying to make is pretty arbitrary. Some companies manage to grow like they are sucking down ent draught and some don't. That mostly isn't because of setting a goal to be radically different or setting a goal to grow rapidly. Many companies would very much like to do both, but even YC does not know how to guarantee that outcome and even they sometimes pass on companies that turn out to be successful anyway.
If creating the next unicorn weren't akin to mysterious voodoo magic, there likely would not be nearly so much ink spilled on the subject.