Question of the Day...
Le Web 2008 in Paris held a start-up competition over the course of the event for European companies.
The overall winner was Viewdle, an intriguing site from the Ukraine which uses old military technology for online video facial recognition. Sounds cool huh!
Anyway, Webnode won the silver medal and user review site Zoover picked up the bronze.
Zoover is an interesting case. It's a classic travel UGC offering and is clearly trying to position itself as an alternative to Tripadvisor.
The About Us says:
"Zoover is the largest independent travel website in Europe which has free access for all visitors and is a orientated website with reviews and opinions of hotels, destinations for travellers by travellers."
Now, of course, not only would Tripadvisor disagree with the opening statement but the likes of Trivago - another start-up, backed by David Soskin and Hugo Burge's Howzat Media investment vehicle - might have something to say, too.
The question, however, is this:
Given that Zoover launched in 2004 in the Netherlands, can it really claim to be a "start-up"? Or, more importantly, when does a start-up cease to be?
When it has secured X number of funding rounds? Number of employees reaches point X?
Le Web 2008 in Paris held a start-up competition over the course of the event for European companies.
The overall winner was Viewdle, an intriguing site from the Ukraine which uses old military technology for online video facial recognition. Sounds cool huh!
Anyway, Webnode won the silver medal and user review site Zoover picked up the bronze.
Zoover is an interesting case. It's a classic travel UGC offering and is clearly trying to position itself as an alternative to Tripadvisor.
The About Us says:
"Zoover is the largest independent travel website in Europe which has free access for all visitors and is a orientated website with reviews and opinions of hotels, destinations for travellers by travellers."
Now, of course, not only would Tripadvisor disagree with the opening statement but the likes of Trivago - another start-up, backed by David Soskin and Hugo Burge's Howzat Media investment vehicle - might have something to say, too.
The question, however, is this:
Given that Zoover launched in 2004 in the Netherlands, can it really claim to be a "start-up"? Or, more importantly, when does a start-up cease to be?
When it has secured X number of funding rounds? Number of employees reaches point X?
Is it perhaps a state of mind?
A state of mind is something completely woolly though, surely?
Someone has just twittered the following on our page:
Keithmswatson @travolution you dont mention profit. perhaps a number of factors with positive ebitda being one?
the problem with this analysis is that it took some of the big OTAs six years to turn a profit - opodo for example.
but we would hardly call opodo a start-up in January this year, would we?
For me it was definitely a state of mind change. When we got our first 'serious' round of funding and I suddenly didn't personally have a controlling share of the company any more!
I agree with Keith whatisname. Sites will always claim to be start-ups while they are still losing money, though the spin starts to look a bit tired after 2 or 3 years - then they become 'struggling' or perhaps 'wind-downs'. Maybe it's time for Travolution to set the standard - I vote two years or when they start making money, whichever comes sooner...
PS I'm not revealing whether we are still a start up on not!
James, i am in agreement with you but was thinking of companies that have a slow first year or two before they move from hobby business, to 'proper' business status. Maybe that period doesn't count. Obviously some well funded start ups try to conquer the world from day one.
Start up mentality, can be found in the largest of companies and i think refers to an 'entrepreneurial' approach to things. But we shouldn't let Bainbridge woolliness cloud a solid definition... ;-) (you know i dont mean it alex...). so, perhaps 4 yrs from point of 'serious' funding.
Most important to me is whether it is profitable before marketing spending; e.g. does it have a business case. After three years I wouldn't call a company a start up anymore even though its not profitable.
In my opinion, a start-up is most of the time related to technology or Internet/Digital sectors. It hasn't reached yet profitability. And it is still growing and developping their products thanks to angels funds or backed up by Venture Capitalists. It also employs a limited number of people (like SME and micro SME).
Now about Zoover...
It is still in the "start up" category for 3 reasons:
1/ Even tough Zoover is profitable in Germany, it is not profitable in other countries. And Zoover aims at being an international venture after all.
2/ Zoover still has a limited number of employees. Zoover France has 2 persons for examples.
3/ Zoover is still privately funded mainly by their founders/directors.
And finally, a start up is usually somewhat unknown or had little exposure to the mass audience. It starts to be a "grown up" when it reaches critical mass. But I agree it is debatable for some ventures.
Guillaume
PS: by the way, I will publish an interview with Zoover and the presentation they made to the audience during Le Web proabably tonight
Microsoft within it's BizSpark program (http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/Default.aspx) identifies a startup as:
- a company that has been in business for less than 3 years;
- a company that has less than US $1 million in annual revenue.
Cant say it's true for all startups but it is definitely a benchmark.
You get a year, max 2, after launching publicly (which is any kind of accessible website online) in my book. Based on absolutely nothing but my gut feeling and the fact that it's right.
This actually also annoyed me at Phocuswright. What the heck was tripit doing there in the startup camp? They already were launched way back in March 07 in grand fashion at Techcrunch 40 (or was it 50?).
Zoover is definitely not a startup. The fact that they didn't get mainstream exposure is their own fault.
The issue of the tag 'start-up' has naturally been under intense scrutiny of late, with now more of an emphasis on having a viable business/company with a great useful product or service and with actual/potential revenues, the issue of profit being a core focus or its realisable evidence, although profit is not always viewed solely on monetary grounds, although naturally a welcome bonus, and i guess it depends who’s on the receiving end and who hopes to be! But, in the case of this actual conversation thread the issue seems to be who, when and what's the story morning glory...or is it afternoon?? ;-)
I think we are missing the obvious easy way to tell the difference between a startup and a conventional company
Startups have company blogs. Non-startups have online media centres (or just an email address)
Foolproof canary :)
Start up - too loose overall. It needs to have a time frame round it, i.e. business started in the last 12 months. This really puts the meaning into the competition and whether it is profitable or funded just adds to the reasons why it could be chosen as a winner.
It was very interesting process (which I have never been in in before) when I presented Travelbeen at the PhoCusWright Innovation conference in Hollywood last month, we (a small outfit) were up against some giants in the "New Company" category, however the concept was on Innovation only (well supposed to be :-) The other categories were "emerging business" and "established business".
@Sam - Maybe Zoover didn't want to expose themselves in the media until now. It's good to keep a low profile until you are confident with your offering and your website. I don't see that as a problem here (whether it takes 1, 2 or 5 years...)
@Alex - some start ups don't even have a proper "about us" web page
You stop being a start-up when you can afford to pay the registration fee and travel expenses of sending your team to Le Web :-)
Actually, I like the idea of linking the definition of start-up to time: first 18 months.
18 months? The facebook was worth $B as a startup
Losing Money - GM a startup?
Low revenue? - twitter a start-up?
Simple answer - when the founders are taking out more than they are putting in.