Ok. Negative points for my last comment justified.
Here is my dilemma:
Our company has created an online application we call "Supertrainer."
The reason we named it "Supertrainer" is because we are providing personal trainers with tools that allow them to separate themselves from all other personal trainers out there. There is a tangible and measurable difference between the average personal trainer and the "Supertrainer," and as we continue development, this concept will become even more so apparent.
My question is... what evidence actually supports the claim for "Super Angels" to call themselves "Super". What separates these guys from all the other Angel Investors I've met, and all the other VC's I've met?
It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing and it certainly isn't the number of companies they're investing in. Are they "riskier", and if so, how on Earth could you possibly quantify such a thing?
I challenge the name. If I am provided evidence that truly separates a "Super Angel" from the other kinds of investors out there, I may be able to accept such a claim, but as of now, it seems more like an overly hyped PR move.
I love what groups like YC are doing, but calling them "Super Investors" loses credibility in my mind.
I don't normally downvote or harsh on comments because there are plenty of other people around here doing that, but in this case I'm going to apply the golden rule and give you some brutally honest feedback that I wish someone would give me if I were digging myself into a hole the way you are doing:
> I challenge the name.
If, as you say, you are trying to start a company then you should have twenty thousand more important things to do than to hang out here quibbling over some terminology that doesn't matter anyway. The "super angels" are what they are. What difference does it make if they aren't "super"? Or even "angels"? How is resolving this going to help you make your customers happier?
The reason you're being downvoted isn't that you're "biting the hand that feeds", but rather that you're being both pedantic and inaccurate.
Pedantic because your point on the name certainly didn't deserve the belaboring you gave it.
And inaccurate because, well, you're just wrong. The people being called "Super Angels" today are the same people that invested more money than your average angel, and in more startups than your average angel. For example: Ron Conway, Mike Maples, Aydin, Steve Anderson, Dave McClure, etc.
They were all pretty much considered to be in a different class before, but ever since some started investing others' money, they've now earned a new name.
The article is pretty even handed and you'd do well to respond to the contents of it rather than getting stuck on the term "super angel." pg describes the differences between angels and super angels in concrete detail; see if you have something to say about his assessment there.
It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing
It actually partly is, super angels (as discussed in the essay) are investing more money than angels, but there is another distinction (mentioned in the essay) they are investing other people's money.
Somewhat paraphrased summary from the essay on the definition of super angels: super angels are VC's who invest less but act more like angels.
I think the definition is based on Super Angels investing other people's money (usually alongside their own money).
VCs - investing other people's money (endowments, etc)
Angels - investing their own money
Super Angels - investing their own money and other people's money
Good point. And not that Perez Hilton should by any means be a gauge for all websites' traffic, this is telling:
"The analysts at Hitwise claim that celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton now gets more traffic from Facebook than from Google – more than 7 million pageviews from Facebook alone."
http://www.copyblogger.com/facebook-killing-seo/
Essentially, depending on your (or your clients') business, product, and industry, it may be smarter to optimize for Facebook (or any other site, for that matter) than Google. It all goes back to that big Marketing question: who is the target audience and where do they live?
There are neurons in the brain that are activated when a human is exposed to another human who is suffering. They are commonly referred to as "mirror cells" because they replicate the emotional response that a human feels in pain.
Some believe that these cells weigh heavily on the basis of morality.
However, one argument may conclude that these cells are developed from some sort of spiritual understanding of humanity. I doubt "religion" would show any causality.
brands that are based on social "coolness" can be built with pretty pictures and stories alone... after all, the story is the only difference between the designer dress and the knockoff. But for most of the rest of us, there needs to be something to actually back that up. Some essential quality of the product or service.
For example, for my own brand, not only do I eschew rounded corners and pretty logos, but I also embrace this idea that I'm providing you a commodity product. (most brands try to differentiate, because you can charge more for a differentiated product than a commodity product.) I even say up front that customer service is one of the things I'm skimping on. If you need lots of support, see the other guys. But, if you can handle running it without much help from me, I'll give you the same product for less money.
For me, the brand, and the "story" behind the brand is a way to manage customer expectations, to lower my support costs, and yes, to increase customer satisfaction (by selecting for the sort of customer who will be happy with the sort of service I am able and willing to provide.)
(note, I re-wrote this comment, as the previous version was stupid.)
I would take a cellphone provider with no logo over AT&T where I don't have service in LA apt. and who can charge me anywhere between 15-30% in taxes every month at their leisure.
However, this hypothetical company would in fact be building a brand. It just wouldn't be built on pretty pictures and stories. It would be built on making me happy.
I love your idea and your homepage design! I tried and it seems a little hard to figure out what to do in each page. Maybe add more info, tips, tutorials, etc.
Here is my dilemma:
Our company has created an online application we call "Supertrainer."
The reason we named it "Supertrainer" is because we are providing personal trainers with tools that allow them to separate themselves from all other personal trainers out there. There is a tangible and measurable difference between the average personal trainer and the "Supertrainer," and as we continue development, this concept will become even more so apparent.
My question is... what evidence actually supports the claim for "Super Angels" to call themselves "Super". What separates these guys from all the other Angel Investors I've met, and all the other VC's I've met?
It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing and it certainly isn't the number of companies they're investing in. Are they "riskier", and if so, how on Earth could you possibly quantify such a thing?
I challenge the name. If I am provided evidence that truly separates a "Super Angel" from the other kinds of investors out there, I may be able to accept such a claim, but as of now, it seems more like an overly hyped PR move.
I love what groups like YC are doing, but calling them "Super Investors" loses credibility in my mind.