All posts by Mukund Mohan

My discipline will beat your intellect
Entrepreneurship

The reason why #startups fail in India is different from why they fail in #silicon valley

32 Comments

I read the interview with Steve Hogan yesterday about the reason for failed startups. Take a look at the #1 reason why startups fail according to him.

Hogan says, is that they’re sole founders without a partner. “That is the single biggest indicator of why they got in trouble,” he says, adding that it’s especially common for sole first-time founders to fail.

Sole founders.

#2 was lack of customer validation and #3 was “company ran out of time” – or money.

From our India data, I can tell you that among technology startups, solo founders make up less than 35% of the companies. We track now in our database about 15,000+ entities.

If you look at the reported closure rate, they are not significantly different from entities with multiple founders.

In fact in my own personal experience with 33 startups that I have closely observed in the last 12 months at the accelerator, the #1 reason for startups to close in India has been mis-alignment of founders.

Let me give you some examples that I am not sure are uniquely Indian, but occur in India a lot more than in the valley.

First was a team of founders working on a B2B marketplace.

Two founders we interviewed and accepted were related, but chose not to let us know about it. In the first 2 weeks at the accelerator, in multiple meetings they would often contradict each other’s views of their target customer’s pain point. One founder was a self-appointed “domain expert” and another was the “technical founder”.

The domain expert was an expert primarily because of the fact that she was not technical. She did not really have a background in the field, and neither was she all that experienced dealing with the potential customers. They had both stumbled into the problem while they were working in their previous jobs that were not related to their startup. After the first few weeks of multiple disagreements on the direction of the product, they chose to “keep their relationship intact” than to work on their startup.

Second is a team of strong technical founders.

Both these founders were among the smartest hackers I have met in India. Pound for pound they would be among the best developer teams you have ever worked with. They had worked with each other for over 5 years at a large MNC and came highly recommended. Their pedigree was excellent as well.

The problem they were addressing was real and fairly technical, and you were compelled to go with the team just given their background and the problem they were solving. The trouble was their answer to every customer problem was build more code. They were loathe to talk to real customers and after multiple fits and starts decided to split a few months ago. They still remain friends, but chose not to work on their startup.

Third was a strong team of founders, who had worked together for a year at another project.

They were also folks with excellent backgrounds, great Ivy league college degrees and were solving a real problem that many consumers had in India.

After a year of working together, building what I considered a good team of 5-10 folks and an alpha, then beta product, they chose to go separate ways. In discussions with both founders after the split, each blamed the other for not “delivering”. One person was the designated CTO and the other was CEO and chief sales guy. They did close a round of funding, but the product went through multiple fits and starts. The problem they were solving was real and even I was an early user of the product.

In all three cases, I found that having the co-founder was the big part of the problem.

Lack of communication, inability to stick through tough times and different visions for the company / product were the biggest causes for failure.

I’d like to understand from you what about our culture, our maturity as a startup republic and our progress with technology makes these problems more prominent in India.

 

Other

Top 8 Things That Make #Entrepreneurs Cringe – @lilibalfour, #startups

7 Comments

Lili, I took the liberty of taking your piece and turning it on its head, but from an entrepreneur’s perspective. In good humor, of course.

Have you ever left a pitch and wondered what entrepreneurs really thought about you? I decided to roll up my sleeves and conduct a planet-wide, sector and stage agnostic survey of entrepreneurs. I ensured that I included entrepreneurs that represented all stages, sectors and continents.

Naah, I just made this sh*t up, because I have been an entrepreneur before and feel the pain.

The survey includes input from entrepreneurs in San Jose, Big data entrepreneurs in Singapore, clean teach entrepreneurs in Mumbai, enterprise software entrepreneurs in Berlin, and entrepreneurs who focus on mobile gaming startups.

Without further ado, I offer you the top eight things that make entrepreneurs cringe:

#8: Liars. Hey, who knew? Investors lie as well. Actually a lot more than entrepreneurs do. “We are really interested in big data”, when all their investments have been in retail. “Our partners really like your company”, when they have never even visited our website.

Tip: Honesty is the best policy. It is best to brag about the fact that you can invest, only if you truly can, else pass. If you are a associate or principal, its okay to say you are not the decision maker.

#7. Monkey time: 100% of entrepreneurs said that they hated investors who were late to their meetings. Really Lili, I don’t need to do any survey to get this result. Why do investors think their time is  more important than an entrepreneurs? Making us wait at your reception area for 15 minutes past the time to meet is not cool.

Tip: Be on time. If you are running late, come by and let us know. Provide something of value for the 15 minutes (or more normal 30 minutes)  of our time you wasted. And no, a coke does not cut it.

#6 Drama Queens: 100% of entrepreneurs are turned off by investors who came across as “higher than thou”. Dont give us the “I have 3 back to back board meetings, 3 deals to close and I have not eaten lunch in 10 days spiel”. You chose to do that, its your job.

Tip: Check the drama at the partner meeting in the morning, and keep it real.

#5: Know-it-alls: 150% of entrepreneurs (this % includes those that are not entrepreneurs and not also from Ivy league schools) stated that investors who claim to know every industry, every segment and market just because they went to Harvard or Yale were lame.

Tip: Listen with an open mind, be willing to learn.

#4. Ramblers: 99.9% of entrepreneurs I surveyed stated that investors who went on and on about the one company they had invested in, which made the returns on their previous fund, turned them off.

Tip: Stop. Listen. Think. Question. Pay attention.

#3: Clueless: 100% of the entrepreneurs I spoke to were p*ssed off that the investors did not bother to visit their website or try the product before their meeting. That’s why you have associates and principals. Make them do some work for the ridiculous amounts you pay them.

Tip: If you expect us to do homework, do yours as well. Spend a few minutes looking at our website, product and offer us a tip or two on what you saw, what you liked and what you did not.

#2: Distracted: 50% of entrepreneurs I surveyed, responded that they hated investors who constantly checked their phones, emails, responded to twitter messages and facebook pokes, when we were pitching. The remaining 50% of entrepreneurs will never talk to investors again.

Tip: We came there because we want to work with you. If you’d rather check your email, do it after we leave.

#1: Unethical: 90% of entrepreneurs felt it was unethical to share our pitch with competitors or your portfolio companies. Really, guys it is not ethical, lacks judgment and really gets us bothered. The remaining 10% of entrepreneurs did not know that some of you did this.

Tip: Respect the confidentiality of our information and the intellectual property we have created.

Did I miss anything? Leave a comment and let me know what makes you cringe.

Humor, Personal

Off topic: Totally useless observation on Angelo Mathews

1 Comment

For those folks that dont follow cricket, this wont matter at all.

Angelo Mathews the captain of the Sri Lankan cricket team seems to have a case of “What he said”.

In the last 3 matches he has lost as captain, his post-match comments, have been a “replay” of what the previous captains said after matches they lost a day or two before. Bizarre. Its almost as if he prepares for the post match press interview by reading the newspaper in the morning of what the loser from the previous match said and repeats that.

After losing the semi-final match against India in the Champions trophy preliminary game he said Sri Lanka “Choked” – identical to what Gary Kirsten and South African captain said of their semi final loss to England a day before.

After losing the earlier match against New Zealand he said it was “a bad toss to lose“, an identical statement to what Misbah ul Haq, captain of Pakistan said after that team’s loss to West Indies a mere 2 days earlier.

Again at the Celkon trophy final, his team lost to India. He chose to focus on the fact that his team “showed character“, which were the exact same words said by Virat Kohli the stand-in captain for India a mere 2 days ago.

Now, I dont know Angelo too well, but seems to me he’s got a case of photocopy-itis for post match conferences.

eCommerce, India

My thoughts on the Flipkart fund raising

23 Comments

I got 4-5 calls from journalists and reporters wanting my feedback on the Flipkart funding news yesterday. I am biased, and I like the folks in the company a lot.

That said the main questions I got were: (NB: these were actual verbatim questions from reporters).

1. Does this mean game over for other “ecommerce players”?

2. Does this news mean that the “keep inventory model” will work? Is the snapdeal model better? Which one will “win”?

3. Why does this business need so much money?

4. Will eCommerce ever be profitable? Will flipkart ever be profitable?

5. If Amazon decides to come to India, will Flipkart’s first mover advantage still remain?

Rather than answer the questions one by one, I think I will set some context first and address the questions as I see the macro picture emerge.

Indian retail market is a ~$500 Billion market. It is large. Most of this ($350 Billion) is grocery. Unorganized retail (Kirana stores, small shops, etc.) make up 92%-95% of this market.

Besides grocery, the largest number of stores are called “fancy stores” – selling everything from pencils and books to tupperware and brooms. Jewelry stores are next (in terms of revenue they might be larger than fancy stores).

Of the organized offline retailers (totaling about 1500) , fewer than 5 (changed to 5% based on IBG data) are turning profit. Everyone else loses money. Why? High real estate costs and high payroll costs, compared to unorganized retail.

When Amazon started in the US (circa 1994), they were going after a 90% organized retail market. Fewer than 5% of US retail companies were unprofitable.

Amazon was going after big box organized retail in America.

Organized retail in India is a small part of the puzzle.

Flipkart is going after the 90+%, which we know as unorganized retail.

3 major trends that drive retail in India, for the next 10 years will be increasing urbanization, worsening traffic and higher commercial and retail real estate rentals. The fourth (if it ever passes, will be FDI). I am not holding my breath for that one.

The flipkart model will do well is my perspective, given their dense logistics coverage in urban areas and minimal rentals thanks to warehousing.

Amazon surprisingly will do well as well if and when they go direct in India. The market is very large.

I dont think its game over for other eCommerce players, just like many years after Amazon, came Etsy, Zaapos and others. In India, though those markets are currently small and will grow over time, so in a few years or a decade, things will change again.

The inventory model that is flipkart’s strategy seems to be working for them. That’s the reason to raise $200 Million.

The no inventory model for snapdeal seems to be working for them as well. Snapdeal will try to help many of the unorganized retail players compete with the organized players and flipkart.

I am not sure about whether the online players will actually get profitable over the next 5 years since the offline retailers have still not gotten there in 10+ years, but the online players have a better shot at becoming profitable.

Angel investing

Why more non-technology investors will form the bigger pool of angels by 2020

5 Comments

It is only 7 years to 2020, and I’d like to speculate a bit and make a fool of myself by taking a stab at the future of tech angel investing. To do a good enough job of predicting the future (or a hopeless job of it) you have to know the current state well enough.

In the US there are about 250,000 angel investors across all sectors and about 25% of them are in the technology sector alone. The number of active technology angel investors is claimed to be about 40,000 – active being defined as someone who does at least 1 investment in a calendar year.

Of the 40K angel investors, fewer than 5,000 are classified as “lead investors”. These are folks that will take the pole position in funding a startup and get other investors to rally around them. In India, those corresponding numbers are 500 angel investors in technology and about 25 lead angel investors.

Currently word of mouth networks rule and tend to be the large part of deal flow for investors. Most lead investors get pitched by people they know first or have worked with, then via referrals and finally from random others. This means that typically angel investors tend to put money in things they (mostly) understand or people they know well. That makes logical sense, since they tend to want to add value, learn from and coach entrepreneurs instead of just providing the money and checking in once in a while.

The increasing need for speed to make decisions, means that most angel investors are forming affiliations with others who complement their skills and are beginning to pursue “expertise” in certain areas.

I am noticing another trend that’s starting to make waves in the angel investor ecosystem.

Non-technology angel investors are increasingly becoming due diligence experts in deals.

I spoke with 5 of the top investors in the US a few weeks ago in the technology space and their preferred co-investors were ALL non-tech. That’s amazing and bodes well for startups.

The example I was given is the work being done in agri-tech (intersection of Agriculture and technology). Most of the technology portions are relatively easy to understand for a technology expert, but the non-technology parts of soil testing, crop selection and cold-chain storage were all alien to most technology founders. So they enlisted the help of local (Seattle) farmers and food supply chain experts. In this case it was cheese processing.

In places such as India, where technology founders are a small part of the ultra-rich, this is a dramatic change and a great way to expand the angel investor ecosystem.

I can see how we can enlist more non-technology high-net-worth individual to form teams of investors to help get deals done faster. Since they have good working knowledge of the space and sectors, they are more likely to provide insights and connections that matter.

Entrepreneurship, Funding, Learning, Personal, Research

The age of “speed gauging”: how entrepreneurs are changing cognitive decision making

4 Comments

I have been on a long road trip to meet investors and entrepreneurs abroad including, Sri Lanka, the US and Switzerland (besides many in India) over the last month. The schedule does not get any better for the next few weeks, so I am very disappointed that I am not able to write as much as I would like, but nonetheless, this is an important point that’s been brewing in my mind for the last few weeks.

Entrepreneurs the world over are changing one very important aspect of decision making – the pace and speed of it.

I spoke to over 135 investors in 15 min to 1 hour conversations (some in a group of 5-8 over dinner) over the last month to figure out that investors the world over are now under immense pressure to make decisions quickly. That was not the case a few years ago.

(P.S. I did read the PG piece on startup trends, so if he’s asking investors to move even more quickly than they are, he’s asking for a LOT, which I suspect most individuals are not ready to sign up for).

A few years ago a typical angel investor (individual, investing their own money) took 1-3 meetings and a month to make a decision to invest in a company. A venture capital investor (professional, investing other people’s money) would take longer, 3-5 meetings and at least 2 months. Then the legal paperwork and negotiations began post the “verbal commitment”.

Now it is not unusual to hear investors in the US taking 1 meeting and 60 minutes to give a verbal commitment and 15 days to funding. In India, that number is changing to 3 meetings and 45 days to funding.

Most investors have 3-5 top criteria and a subset of 5-7 sub criteria for every opportunity they evaluate. The criteria is usually entrepreneur, market, product, traction, exit potential etc. The sub criteria for market, as an example might be a) Size b) Speed of adoption c) Competitive landscape d) Pace of change in that market etc.

I am very intrigued by the sub criteria for entrepreneurs. Since I operate at the very earliest of early stages, putting money or resources when there’s just an idea, with very little or no traction, it becomes absolutely important to make sure you back the right folks.

Since I am on the plane a lot and have a new kindle I get to read a lot as well. I have been reading these books and research pieces to understand how to be a better judge of people when time is limited and the stakes are high.

a. How to read a person like a book

b. Cognitive decision making – a mathematical model

c. Thinking fast and slow

I have built a 21 criteria list for evaluating people quickly (well, quickly compared to the fact that I was not doing it at all before) and I am trying to figure out over the next year, which criteria matter and which ones dont.

Before you think this is too many criteria, let me tell you that most sophisticated investors have mentioned to me that they use between 35 and 50 verifiable and “soft” criteria” and keep tweaking their top 5. Some of these criteria can be a simple yes or no and others require you to ask specific questions. The most cultured investors, who bet lots of money have a cognitive sense of evaluating every word spoken by the entrepreneur and putting them into buckets while evaluating if the criteria they are looking for are met or not.

I am not ready to reveal the criteria since people will game the system, but I am now able to process those better. My evaluation takes now about 20-30 minutes to process each individual after I have a chance to meet them for 30 minutes. Usually I do this when I have some downtime – during commute, running, etc.

The most amazing revelation to me personally has been that nearly 30-40% of my “gut instinct” on people dont match my criteria. I used to pride my people selection based on gut feel a lot more before. Let me give you an example.

I met a really smart entrepreneur in Sri Lanka. who had thoughtful answers to nearly 7-8 very difficult questions that I had, and was articulate, concise and honest. When I went back to my evaluation checklist (which I have documented on my phone), I found that I had overlooked a few important questions and decided to talk to him the next day to ask him more questions. He stumbled on them all. Then I realized he had been asked by many folks the same 7-8 questions that I asked before, so he answered them with aplomb, but questions which he had not encountered before flustered him immensely. I dont have a problem with people not having answers to questions, but he seemed genuinely confused.

I think this field of rapid cognitive evaluation is going to see a lot more research and work being done.

Community, Mentors

What criteria should you use to judge a hackathon?

3 Comments

I was on the jury panel at the Angel Hack event over the weekend with others.  Over 150 attendees were at the event, and 50+ hacks were presented on the final day (Sunday). They ranged from the sublime to the trivial. The best part was there were attendees from over 10 different cities including a few that came from over 1000 kms away. Each team was given 2 minutes to present their hack and 1 min to answer questions.

The first  thing that struck me was most of the attendees were awake to present their hacks. In previous hackathons most of the presenters have been rather tired or sleepy so they tended to gloss over their work.

This is the 5th hackathon I have judged and I dont think I have a clear idea on what the criteria should be to judge a hackathon.

This time the winner was a product that’s been in the works for a few months, and the developers made some changes / modifications to their product over the weekend. So, really it was not a “new” hack over the weekend, but something they have been working on for a while.  The runners up (not announced) was a company that’s been in the works for a while. They were well thought-out ideas, fleshed-out products and good implementations.

That obviously ticked off a few developers who had built a new hack from scratch over the weekend (and it showed that their idea was a one weekend project), and I got 3-4 angry emails on why we chose to declare the mature product as a winner.

Did we know that the winners were “mature” and not “weekend hacks”? – we did and did not. Did, because we could make out that the products were well thought out, which is hard to do in one weekend. Did not, because we were not told that we had to only look at weekend hacks.

So what does a weekend hackathon really accomplish?

I think it provides an ability for developers to learn something new, try an idea and experiment. That’s it. Globally, according to Startup Weekend, fewer than 2% of these weekend hacks actually turn into a company, but many (dont know the %) of the developers get hired because of these events, many ideas are added to an existing product and many products are enhanced post the hackathon.

There will always be folks that keep working on their idea over several hackathons so their ideas will mature quite a bit and so will their products. The good part of this hackathon was I did not see a single team that had presented the product / idea before at any of the other hackathons. There were many rehashed ideas, but largely new teams.

I think the top 3 criteria for judging hackathons should be a) how unique & interesting is the idea given the constraints of the hackathon, b) how close to “product” has the hack been over the weekend and c) how creative have the developers been in their implementation

I think the key thing that hackathon organizers should do is to form a jury of 3 hackers / developers and maybe 1-2 other folks from the startup world (VC’s or generalists like me).

Our panel on Sunday was comprised of 1 designer and 1 developer. The rest were generalists (3). So it was obvious that we were going to be biased and look for how “big” the idea was, how well thought out the implementation was etc. If the goal of the hackathon was to look to turn weekend ideas into startups, then an even mix of generalists and hackers as jury members would make sense, else they should be weighted towards developers as jury panelists.

Do you think we should even have generalists as jury members? I think that 1 might be sufficient for most parts, but if they are not developers, what’s the point of having them on the  jury?

Personal

How to punch above your weight class

20 Comments

I have been mostly an under performer. There’s a big difference between an under performer and an under achiever – the later does not give 100%, but the former gives “his best” and is still middling.

I have had several teachers and relatives (especially those overachieving uncles) who would always tell me “You can do more”. They did not tell me I could do better. They would say I could do more. It was as if they almost knew I was peaking and still in the middle of the pack.

Whether it was grades, swimming or violin, I was always the “middle of the pack or lower”. I remember many parent-teacher (PTA) meetings, where my mom would be asked “What does Mukund’s dad do?” and after my mom mentioned, that he was a superstar, the teacher would be largely incredulous, shake her head and say “Then why is he just not doing well in <fill in the blanks>”? Back in the ’80s it was okay to be politically incorrect I guess.

It did not help that I came from a family that had very high achievers. I wont call myself the black sheep, its just that I was a pig in a family of sheep.

Graduating from high school, I was at the “top” of the middle of the pack. Not for the lack of trying.

I realized I was not as smart as most other people in my class. Neither was I really willing to work way too hard to make up for the lack of smarts. Well, actually I thought I was working harder than most, but I was not able to get much better. I was just wanted to flow with the tide and go along for the ride.

Things at college did not change much. Sam Lomonaco, who taught us algorithms, once asked me if I really was from India, since most of the folks he knew from there were “super smart” and he wanted to know why I was not so.

My confidence, was not at a super high when I started working at Cisco. My hiring manager, Mark really liked me because I knew the one thing that most of the other folks in his team did not. They were largely “business analysts” and I was the only “developer”.

That’s when I started to hit my stride.

They usually say “In a pack of ducks a swan looks ugly“.

In business though it always helps to be the “one with a different perspective”. I was the only one in Mark’s team asking technical implementation questions when they wanted to build anything.

My questions were deemed “smart” or really “different” since none of the others had thought of those. I, on the other hand could not think of any other questions but those.

The first rule of punching above your weight class is to surround yourself with people who you complement.

Later you can surround yourself with people who complement you. Early on though, you have to complement them. That way you achieve two things – you avoid “group think” and you really give them a perspective that’s different.

In late 2001, I had a meeting where David Reichman, (who managed me for a few years) during which it was clear to him that I was “making sh*t up” to answer his questions. After 30 minutes of grilling he said “If you don’t know, then say you don’t know or just ask more questions, don’t give dumb answers”.

Boom! That was it. All I did after that was start asking questions, since I was neither smart enough to have answers or disciplined enough to work hard to get those answers. Better to have smart people give me the answers.

I learnt the second rule of punching above my weight class – Put yourself in a position where your biggest weakness becomes your largest strength.

A few years later, I started to be a little more disciplined. I actually learned to “think” much later in life. I guess I was a “late bloomer” in the field of “thinking”. My initial years were relegated to doing with the sense of “I have to do this because <fill in the blanks> – pass exams, get admission, whatever.

In 2006, I had a chance to make new friends at an event called Community 2.0. Francois was the chairperson of the event. I had dinner with him and others including Chris Carfi, Aaron Strout, Nate Ritter, Chris Heuer and Lee Lefever. I am not sure who said it but when asked them what the best part of their life was, even though they were not the super success they’d like to be, they said “That’s because I do things for myself”.

I then understood the rule three of punching above your weight class – do things for yourself instead of living to other’s expectations. 

Steve Jobs has also said this in his famous commencement speech at Stanford.

I now blog so I can go back and read my posts, I play tennis so I can enjoy the outdoors, I meet entrepreneurs so I can learn. That’s possibly selfish, but I figured out that if I am happy that’s all that matters to my mind.

Those who know me well are surprised that it took me so long to “figure this out”. I guess they thought that coming from a smart family with a super achieving dad, social butterfly for a mom, an insanely talented sister and an naturally smart wife, I have it all and I had been blessed, so I should have figured these things out much earlier.

I seek consolation from the fact that every person takes their own time. Every person is really different and hits their stride at their own pace. They measure up to others expectations and perceptions much later in their life, if at all.

Now when I meet entrepreneurs who are from an excellent pedigree and background, I am more cognizant of the pressures and internal daemons they face. When I meet entrepreneurs who have on the flip side, not had the breaks and chance, I try to give them time.

Mostly though, I apply this learning to the expectations I have of my kids. They will find their groove at some point. During the journey though, I realize the sense of disappointment I have with them not punching even at their weight class. Those expectations are the ones that I have to work on the most.

They too, will find their formula at a time that’s right for them. Until then they are doing just fine – for themselves. Which is what matters the most.

Other

The 0.001%, not the 1% of dreamers, thinkers and doers

7 Comments

I had a chance to meet entrepreneurs in the wonderful city of Pune yesterday and met some really amazing folks. One of them, Roby John, impressed me much, but more about him in another post. He gave me a book to read called “How Children Succeed“.

For anyone that has very young kids, is thinking of kids or works with kids (teachers, care providers, etc.) this is a must read book.

In the book Paul Tough talks about the things that dont matter early on – cognitive abilities and those that do – grit, curiosity, optimism etc.

There’s one part in the book that struck me as odd after I have had a chance to read it and understand its key points.

Tough mentions one person “James Heckman” from who he claims he got most of his information and connections from.

That’s it. One person.

Heckman is a Nobel laureate and a leading thinker in the field of cognitive sciences.

Heckman is quite possibly in the 1% of Americans given his background and work.

I found it fascinating that over $5 Billion was being invested on changing early childhood programs and parenting based on his work alone.

One person – making a dramatic change in the world.

1% of the world’s population is a fairly large number – 70 Million.

0.001% is a mighty small number. 70,000

I think the number of influential thinkers, taste makers and people that determine and shape the course of our world is even smaller. Its possibly 7000 people or less.

These are the folks that are not necessarily rich, but are the most powerful and those that change the world for all the other 7 Billion.

Imagine that.

Fewer than 10,000 people (which I think is also a very high number) that make decisions and think and do for the rest of us. The rest are largely living in the world created by the 0.001%.

They are certainly not the richest, or always the most powerful.

Now imagine the same for smaller “worlds”.

Like clothing. Imagine fewer than 100 people that decide the things we should wear.

Or eating.

Or movies, music and dance.

Unfortunately that’s a lot more real than even I thought was happening.

The chosen few are making the decisions that the rest of us live with.

Personal, Research, Tips

Startup idea: Product attribute database

5 Comments

There are over a million online retailers in the US alone and over 2.5 Million worldwide. Many are in categories that are large and well defined (apparel, electronics, books, etc). If you are a online buyer one of the many things you want to do is to research a product well – understand the features, options and compare it to other similar products.

These are defined by what I call product attributes.

Comparisons & reviews are largely subjective and prone to long tirades and endless sentences without getting to the point. Here’s an example. Notice that current attributes that are already stored by Yelp include time the restaurant is open, expected attire, etc.

Those are some of the things I’d like to know.

A large number of things I’d like to know are not really comparable.

They are mentioned in the 88 reviews provided by end users. Taste of the food, visual appeal of the food, softness of the bread.

Reviews that are unstructured are a pain – to sort, filter, compare and review.

There are many who claim that the product attributes for products such as cameras and mobile phones are fairly complete and those are problems already solved.

I think that’s broken thinking.

If you look at how people search for cameras, many (not all) “lay people” dont search for HD pixel density, dual core Snapdragon processors etc.

They search for “how to take good pictures in the dark with your <favorite phone>” or “how to record a live band in <favorite phone> without the background noise”.

The attributes that customers want are those they use the product for. Unlike the specifications and features that manufacturers (or producers / service providers) build them with.

I think if you build a product to classify the attributes that matter for every product (start small and build by category) with a combination of technology and crowd sourcing (or any other mechanism), you will build a valuable company. 

Not to mention that its highly likely that Google, Yelp, Microsoft or others will buy you.