It's misleading to focus only on the direct benefits. The benefits of PR are always mostly indirect.
For example, Y Combinator makes zero direct revenue from hosting HN. But I would feel pretty dishonest if I were to claim on that account that it has no effect on our bottom line.
Exactly , his post is not objective. Front page of hackers news is essentially word of mouth marketing, which the author(Noah) says matters. Based on the data provided Noah does not know if the HN readers who signed up for the free accounts are recommending the paid services to others. So the value is at the very least $300 a month, it could be significantly more than that. Moreover what effect does the HN traffic have on their advertising, their job board, book sales ? He does not measure, so I doubt the accuracy of his conclusion.
I'm trying to quantify some of the second-order effects with a poll here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3680400 (FWIW, as I write this, the number of 37signals customers claimed by the respondents to the poll already exceeds the number of signups the SvN post states came from HN).
Front page of hackers news is essentially word of mouth marketing, which the author(Noah) says matters.
Not every kind of word of mouth matters. HN is not that big of community, and is comprised mostly of certain types of users that either don't care about 37's products, or know about them already anyway.
Based on the data provided Noah does not know if the HN readers who signed up for the free accounts are recommending the paid services to others.
Why, can't he check for affiliate links?
So the value is at the very least $300 a month, it could be significantly more than that.
I think you've misunderstood what PG was saying. In this analogy, Y Combinator and Basecamp are the products for sale and HN is a promotional channel. PG's point is that Y Combinator benefits from Hacker News in ways other than the direct "I clicked on the link from Hacker News and then immediately took an action that made money for Y Combinator."
Personally I like their posts, and it certainly doesn't bother me when they reach the front page of HN. The only thing I'm tired of is all the predictable hate that goes their way. In fact, I find it a little petty and embarrassing for HN.
I think in this case it's simply a mirror of their tactics. If you're deliberately controversial, you'll divide the world into fans and anti-fans, as e.g. politicians do.
I personally don't like their posts on HN, I don't even bother reading them anymore. The first few I read where totally devoid of any kind of useful information for me and for most people that are a little bit technical. For the non-technical posts they are merely interesting like "Look at our desks", I found them to be the equivalent of feminine magazine articles for geeks.
However this is only my opinion, and this is not a popular opinion. If you criticize them, invariably you are going to get downvoted. And if there's hate here, how come there's systematically sitting on the top 5 position every time one of their article shows up?
I have found that the criticisms found here are very polite and constructive. This show nothing but good things about HN if people can civilly disagree on a subject.
There's disagree-ing, and then there's talking in circles. As you point out - if they're being voted up, then surely they have a place. I'm just tired of seeing the "is this relevant" discussion on every single one. I find it no different than having someone go "by a Windows PC" on every Apple post, and vice versa.
I agree hate is a strong word, and I used it only a short-hand description of what I meant. I'm not overly sure which other words would be more accurate.
I get you. But here's the catch, and that's also valid for HN: Is crowd validation always the best measurement of the quality of an article? I agree there are a lot of running in circle conversations on HN. Like "Apache is slow, use Node.js", or its contrary "Node.js is bad, use {insert something else}". On HN there's a great deal of know-it-all attitude and most of the posts could be summarized by "Your choices of X is stupid, I chose Y and it's better, therefore, ' Why X is bad and you should use Y' blog posts ".
Anyway, 37signals could be the Kim Kardashian of Software Engineering, very popular and very successful, lots of people following the Gossip. Popularity does not imply quality, that's why civil disagree-ing is useful, we need safe guardians of the quality, even if they seem obnoxious when they criticize what we like.
PS: 37signals is NOT, in my opinion, the Kim Kardashian of Software Engineering.
I think the "Look at our desks" post is more than interesting. It is very useful to visualize how a XXI century company looks like.
In fact, I am using it next week in a seminar about business models and will compare it to the office in Billy Wilder's "The Apartment".
So maybe not technical, but definitely not "merely interesting"
The amount of exposure they get is extremely out of proportion to what they are and do. They do have it down to a fine art. Even this blog post is designed to get people talking about them - which it's succeeded in doing.
They created ruby on rails, which a few people use, and they make a few webapps. They're not a startup. They give (IMHO) fairly poor startup advice, most of which would only work if you're them.
The 37 signals fanboyism all just gets a little bit too much sometimes. Best to ignore and move on though...
Jumping from "a few" to comparing against C and Java is quite a leap. The simple fact is that Heroku alone had over 60,000 apps 2 years ago, and based on other statistics I think it's safe to say that Rails is a tool used by millions of programmers.
The amount of exposure HNers give them by submitting and upvoting their posts, and then the endless hours HNers spend debating them…
37S doesn't ask to be on the front page of HN. They don't even appear to submit their own posts. Certainly they don't have a secret vote-sharing group, because HN now has features to discount those.
So personally, I find it pretty hilarious that there's so much sturm und drang about what 37s "gets". Everything they "get" from HN, HNers give them, all on their own initiative.
I like their posts too. I really admire the company as well. But can we really say every last one is truly great? I dolled out my fair share of criticism (see a couple of those links in the post) but it wasn't 37Signals I cared about, it was quality control. If you land on the front page then more power to you but when just about every one of your posts lands on that front page in rapid succession it starts to look like quality control has gone out the window. We're they all really just that good or was there some fanboy ism involved for lack of a better word?
I think you misunderstand them. They're poking HN with a stick, just to get a rise out of you. As in: "these guys think they matter, but they really don't, not to us." It's a little petty and mean, but I have a similar pettiness and meanness in me, so I kind of get it.
As to the response to their response, well, nobody likes being ignored or perceived as insignificant, especially those with large egos, and there are a lot of large egos here on HN.
Actually I believe what he is saying is that he doesn't necessarily care that opinions are varied, but rather that the essence of the community and HN's meritocracy is preserved. SvN/37signals shouldn't ever ask anyone to up/downvote anything, that's for you decide.
I think the tone of the post was a bit combative (which is unnecessary), however, the posts clearly fit the guidelines of HN and were on a whole relatively interesting. There's nothing wrong with their posting habits.
They quoted the number of posts they made on their blog but they didn't address whether: 1) they submitted more of their own blog posts to HN or 2) changed the content of their blog posts to appeal to HN readers more. I think they probably did (which is fine with me).
I agree, they will inevitably get posted. And people should be able to post whatever they like to their own sites, without being accused of manipulating other sites.
I think your first paragraph nails it: the posts fit the guidelines and were on the whole relatively interesting and a sufficient amount of people thought so for the posts to reach the front page.
Skimming their archives, they were't posting frequently towards the back end of 2011 but if they were pushing to finish Basecamp it's understandable.
In relation to the content of the articles, I think they were more attractive to the HN community - behind the scenes look at development; interesting technical articles on development.
> During that period, there were 24,826 first time visitors to any of our sites who we could identify as having first gotten to us via Hacker News (in all, we received more like 105,000 unique visitors from Hacker News, but many of those were repeat visitors). 97 of those visitors signed up, with more than 85% of them electing the free plan.
Left unsaid: how many of the 105,000 unique HN visitors are customers?
Also left unsaid (but harder to quantify): how many of those 105,000 HN visitors are influencers who have referred 37 Signal products to others? (FWIW, I know of at least half a dozen teams who've signed up for BaseCamp paid accounts as a result of my recommendation.)
Also consider: I personally don't use BaseCamp. I am not a big fan of it, and I feel that me needs are better met in different ways. However, I recognize it as a good tool for people whose workflow matches BaseCamp use (or could easily do so), and thus suggest it to people. I'm sure I am not alone in this on HN. The only reason I even know about BaseCamp is HN frontpage posts. I wonder how a general awareness of the product's existence amongst influential geeks has driven their sales.
At any given moment there's probably a vanishingly small number of HN news readers who are unfamiliar with who 37Signals are. So I suspect that for them, gaining the front page on HN is less profitable than gaining traction in nearly any other community. As such, writing interesting stuff that is appealing to a broad base of communities is more profitable for them than tailoring their posts to get on the HN front page.
My supposition; but really, what ethical difference does it make? If the HN community likes to read the 37Signals viral marketing material then I suppose we all gain, right?
Very true statement! I've been a customer for a long time now and I also have recommended it to many clients. As I am sure a lot more have. I am curious what the answer would be in a poll.
This is the first time a post on 37signals has me a little put off. It seems unnecessary and slightly childish. It wasn't meant to show how posts on HN can contribute to their business but to shove it in people's faces. You would hope that smart people like them can figure out that a few people do not speak for an entire community.
How is it "shoving" anything into "people's faces"? It says "We're not getting revenue value out of it." Are you offended to find out that being on the front page is nearly economically valueless?
37s is attacked all the time by a tiny, but very loud minority. I'm sure that they wrote this not because they personally care, but because if nobody demonstrates that this loud, tiny minority is wrong, that loud, tiny minority has the only voice that people will hear.
It's valuable for the quiet majority to understand that A) traffic may be nice, but B) that doesn't mean being on the front page of HN is a good plan for revenue growth.
I would have no problem with the post if it was informational and demonstrated exactly what you said above. I felt it was a little flamatory toward the HN community as a whole when in fact it is just a small minority that was complaining. Just an opinion.
Noah, take me off from the "some people aren't happy about this" list please. I think you're smart enough to read my post and understand what I pointed out back then.
It wasn't about whether I dislike the post or not. I was merely pointing out the marketing aspect 37signals did via the blog post (i.e.: the message for the audience), not the whole 37signals posts are everywhere.
mmm... I think the long-term benefits of being so popular on HN are harder to pin down than simply putting a dollar amount on visits based on referrer. When a bunch of developers are constantly reading your blog they don't have to signup to effect your bottom line. I can't imagine how many people I've recommended the service to over the years, and the number of them who I know to have signed up for paid plans is many times greater than one. It's important not to underestimate the influence of silent, non-converting traffic.
I've enjoyed reading and even learned a fair bit from the blog posts on 37signals. Much more than you're average X is considered harmful post or the top 10 Y tips.
If the best of their posts weren't on HN I'd add their blog to my RSS. To me, that certainly indicates that their posts belong here.
So it's a post on the front page of HN about how much it doesn't matter about being on the front page of HN? I love meta and recursion, but that's a little too meta even for me.
I don't have anything against the guys at 37Signals. Seems like they are doing some cool stuff. They have set themselves up as being awesome as part of their marketing strategy. While sales from HN hits probably don't amount to anything, I can't help but think that being on here is a big part of their portraying themselves as thought leaders.
I've been on the front page of HN a lot -- and I know a lot of other HNers here have also. I enjoy the feedback from the community, which to me is more valuable than anything else. So while being here is not some kind of master plan for business world domination, it's not like it's worthless either.
I agree. But what if they made 300K/month off HN, would they be asking HN to upvote posts regardless of merit? The post seems to be a little sour grapey to me but I don't think it's a big deal anyway. Just one more story to ignore on HN's front page.
But I personally find their posts(and many others on HN) lacking in objectiveness and follow the below trend:
1) Find something (eg. sharpening pencils), that most companies/people do.
2) Write an article about how a policy of not doing that immensely helped their company. (save time not sharpening pencils and make a million bucks). "Sharpening Pencils Considered Harmful"
3) Make it sound absolute and generalize it(no company should do this and if they do, they're bureaucratic fools). This may not be explicitly stated, but it's implied.
4) Rake in page views
Then it hits front page of HN(surprising how their posts get immediately on FP, but I don't think it's foul play, maybe it's their Twitter followers?).
Then the inevitable follow up HN comments/blog posts come along "Why 37 Signals is wrong about Pencil Sharpening and how it can work/worked for me/us and we made millions Sharpening Pencils". Full of noise, flamebait comments, back and forth opinionated arguments and even personal attacks that are sometimes totally worthless since the whole argument is very subjective to individual circumstances.
Navigating through this morass for finding the 1% of posts that are actually insightful is an exercise in frustration and usually a waste of time. The big risk is that you'll find a comment which you vehemently disagree with and fall prey to spending ten precious minutes composing a reply ("Look Mom! Somebody is wrong on the internet!") which will lead to a comment tree of arguments.
For reference, look at this very discussion, it will be very similar to what I just stated.
This is repeated ad nauseum on here, not just by 37 Signals but by many other posts. I've slowly learned to ignore the noise generated by this but not always successfully. It's like chewing gum for your brain except you can easily get sucked into a wasteful time sink.
I've slowly learned to ignore the noise generated by this but not always successfully.
Yeah, the problem is that we're always dropping into the middle of this continuous rehash-posting cycle. When you spot a topic that may be new to you, that could still just be a reaction post.
>Navigating through this morass for finding the 1% of posts that are actually insightful is an exercise in frustration and usually a waste of time. The big risk is that you'll find a comment which you vehemently disagree with and fall prey to spending ten precious minutes composing a reply ("Look Mom! Somebody is wrong on the internet!") which will lead to a comment tree of arguments.
>For reference, look at this very discussion, it will be very similar to what I just stated.
How many of their customers buy on someone else's recommendation? Sure they only get $300 a month directly from the readers of HN.
But I get asked several times a month to recommend solutions and though I've personally never used more than the free version of Basecamp I've probably sold a dozen subscriptions for them. By targetting the readers of HN they're really just going after the influencers.
To be fair, 37 Signals doesn't quite have the kind of product where I go "Wow what a great blog post, hey i've been needing such and such". When i'm choosing software to manage my project I evaluate all choices. Only after i've made an informed decision do I choose to sign up.
However, I can confirm with at least myself that the blog posts have given me confidence about their product that competitors don't have. In effect their posts have pushed me closer to using their product.
What i'm trying to get at, is that their posts are probably more effective at sales than they're giving themselves credit for. However it's hard to measure.
They are a high-profile shop that has just gone through major architectural re-thinks and decided to spend some time to share their findings and give a glimpse into their creative process. Because they are who they are, they got some extra attention. Since they had a lot to say, they split it into many posts. How is this bad?
Personally, I found quite a few of the posts to be a very interesting read (especially the stuff about caching).
Please, HN-ers, let's be friendly unless there really is a pressing reason not to be.
I wonder if it's helpful for hiring new developers and designers though? I also suspect that they're able to sell more of their books that target entrepreneurs.
Maybe they're recognizing that HN isn't their target market. Perhaps this audience is more interested in technical implementation, user interface and gorilla marketing strategies behind a successful SaaS and not in signing up for a CRM?
They should have just smiled at the naysayers and went on with their day. To post an entire article on the negativity of one community seems unfocused. My only question is: why?
Disclosure: I'm a big fan of 37signals. This is kind of a surprise.
It isn't even the negative of one community, but rather the negativity of a small group of people within that overarching community.
People need to realize that sources of content almost always come in waves here on HN -- when someone makes an erudite post that makes it to the front page, there are a lot of people who will watch that source looking to repeat that success. And then you'll get the voters who'll vote it up just because it's familiar, until it becomes too familiar when they'll vote it down for the same reason.
We've seen these come in waves over the years (I've used HN far longer than this account). Coding Horror, Daring Fireball, Marco.org, Scott Adams, Dustin Curtis, etc. A small amount of very good content, and then lots and lots and lots of turgid waste that makes the front page simply because the author once did.
Personally I wouldn't include Coding Horror on that list and I am curious why you would. Almost all the content seems very objective and insightful compared to others on your list who sometimes can come across as Fox/MSNBC political show hosts.
1) how many people buy, due to HN, that they can't directly attribute to a HN follow-through click?
2) what has the exposure been worth, for literally everything they do (from pushing books to all their services)? Particularly given the rather high value group that they reach through HN.
Try putting a price on the massive branding and credibility they've acquired through reaching the HN audience, and then the follow-on value. I'd argue that their exposure on HN is worth radically more than advertising; for the same reason your friend sharing a link directly with you is worth a zillion times more than a block ad on facebook.
Spanning several years, I'd peg the value into the millions of dollars given the size of their business and how hard it actually is to get traction and exposure in their market.
For example, Y Combinator makes zero direct revenue from hosting HN. But I would feel pretty dishonest if I were to claim on that account that it has no effect on our bottom line.