I'm really sad to see this, because I saw myself that DrawQuest was gaining traction.
That said, I really appreciate what Everpix did, and I'm glad that moot seems to value that transparency as well.
Failure is a really important part of the startup process - it happens over 90% of the time - and yet it accounts for less than 10% of the dialogue.
When startups and founders share post-mortem data like Everpix did, it's an incredible gift to the community. A startup may failed, but let it not have died in vain.
I know moot reads HN, so hopefully he sees this. Thanks for giving back to the community.
>One thing I’ll be doing more of is writing about my experience. Partially because it’s therapeutic, but also because if there’s a silver lining in all of this (and there is), it’s that I can help educate others about a path fraught with hardship, but rewarding nonetheless.
I look forward to read more from moot. I find his down to earth style really engaging and I have great respect for how he's carried himself managing the (in)famous 4chan sites.
Let me laugh. If they'd be successful, how open would they have been about the way they make it a success ? Call me cynic, but saying "it's do educate" seem quite pretentious to me. Show me how to win, not how not to loose.
I always thought Moot (as the founder of 4chan) was equipped to build a product far different than something tame like Canvas. It's never good when something fails, but I hope he gets in touch with his weird side and relishes the fact he created one of the most bizarre places on the internet.
Moot needs to start exploiting his strength (heading the most unruly demographic on the internet). His name really does mean something to the users of 4chan, and that's a pretty big demographic.
That demographic could make his next project infamous. infamous is still famous.
That's his strength, but in terms of monetizing, it could also be a weakness. That demographic isn't really known for its willingness to pay for things, or to be led around by the nose by anyone.
> isn't really known for its willingness .. to be led around by the nose by anyone
This part is definitely true. 4chan users will block your advertisements and can smell shilling and astroturfing from a mile away.
"Unwilling to pay for things" I'm not sure is 100% accurate. 4chan may be home to pirates, cheapskates, and free software advocates, but it's also home to some of the most dedicated hobbyists, collectors, and consumers in the world. See /g/'s "battlestation" threads (incredibly decked-out computer rooms), the girls of the cosplay board who spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on costumes and obscure fashion, the people who travel to Japan twice a year to buy pornographic comic books at Comiket, and so on.
I think there are opportunities to be found here, but you have to be an active member of some board to know what its needs are, and even then it would involve a lot more elbow grease than achieving success among a less savvy userbase might. Just making an app and buying some ads isn't going to get you anywhere. There is precedent here, however, in indie game development, where it's fairly common at this point for new devs to be 4chan users who get most of their early attention and users from threads on /v/ or the amateur game development generals.
EDIT: Some random ideas for small businesses or small startups that could be marketed to 4chan effectively:
Retro console repair and modding services would be popular on the retro games board.
The fan translation scenes for anime, manga, and video games are mostly controlled by 4chan users at this point. Many of these groups could go legit with some funding (see Crunchyroll, which was basically an anime fansubbing group that got the funding to acquire broadcast rights for simulcasted subtitled anime and grew very quickly, or Carpe Fulgur, two goons that translate Japanese indie games).
Import services are an obvious choice. Indeed, jlist has been advertising with 4chan almost since its inception, and there's no reason there couldn't be more competition in this space.
I always find that thought fascinating "demographic X doesn't spend money". It seems to me that most people I have met in my life spend all their money - just on different things.
So the 4chan fans probably spend their money on SOMETHING, the question is really how much? and on what?
Even if you assume that they are all teenagers with no income, in the US they would be spending thousands of their parents dollars per year on some sort of stuff.
4chan spends its money on male toys, anime paraphernalia, and (sometimes) videogames, all 3 of which are already advertised on the site. The avg. age outside /b/ is probably around 20-24, so it's not like they're jobless.
actually it is around 14~24... and while the demographics would never spend money online (they do on the things you say because there is no other place to get that) they do consume lots of electronics.
i bet half of the gamers and people that influence game machine builds are on that site and would be exposed to nvidia or amd banners, were they ever convinced to build brand there...
see the conundrum? they are the tech savvy, so they will never generate CTR via banner impulse buys. and no brand would build its image on that site.
eh, I don't know. I remember when he first announced Canvas and most of 4chan simply responded "so what?" moot does mean something to most 4chan users but mostly just because they get to post in a moot thread I'm not sure you can really capitalize on that userbase, at least not in a monetizable way.
Canvas was targeted at a separate demographic. I remember reading the introduction screens for canvas and cringing.
"Take this image and remix it with your creativity!" (to paraphrase) That line alone could of caused the mass rejection of canvas from the denizens of 4chan. Canvas was not targeted at 4chan's users.
Is that a strength? It didn't end up meaning much for Rose and Digg which was perhaps even bigger at its peak, or ThePirateBay who unsuccessfully tried to build a legitimate offshoot many times.
It seems like when you have a fairly quirky and empowered community (including thepiratebay, millions of users & larger ecosystem they spearhead) the users don't readily transfer over to anything at all.
Digg lead to Pownce which was poorly received and TPB made a whole network of sites nobody cares about. I think it's because the users lose their communal identity.
>DrawQuest got some traction, but found that selling paint brushes in a drawing app is a lot harder than selling extra lives in Candy Crush.
Selling brushes in a drawing app makes it seem like you aren't taking your customers seriously. I know it worked for Paper, but they aren't going to get any of my money any time soon. I've purchased several IOS and Android drawing programs, and several significantly more expensive programs for PC. I wont, however, purchase a productivity program with in-app purchases. Just tell me how much money you want for your program and I'll buy it. Companies should quit coming up with idiotic monetization strategies designed for the sole purpose of tricking customers out of larger amounts of money.
That discounts the fact that in-app purchases works phenomenally for many, many companies. You may personally not like it, but the fact that IAP drives billions of dollars a year in revenue probably makes it non-idiotic for companies deciding how to monetize.
No one cares about getting your money. They care about the rate at which new users convert. Some segment of any new group of users will be violently and religiously against IAP. That's fine.
Some segment of users will also be violently and religiously against a credit card form, because they think software should be form. That's also fine. That segment just isn't going to have very much overlap with the segment of people that pay you money for services.
From moot's blog post, "Building any business is hard".
This statement could not be more true. I've had the fortune of founding a successful company. And yet, I still find that building new revenue streams is a royal pain. Building a business requires a herculean effort, and even then most fail.
First time founders often make the mistake of iterating various potential revenue streams. But the reality is you'll be lucky to create one substantial revenue stream.
"but you also fail your investors"
Not that this should make moot feel any better, but failing when it's your own money is no better. You'll spend time thinking about all of the stuff you could have bought that would have been a better use of that cash.
The MAU for DrawQuest in relation to their total registered users is pretty good, as long as all those users were not acquired in the last month.
Their DAU/MAU (how many monthly actives come back daily) falls short of a highly engaging application. It is at ~6%. If that number were much higher, I think they would be singing a different tune.
What if you had 100 uniques / month with a DAU/MAU of 50%? Insanely successful retention, right? Except it's only 100 uniques! The more important number is the "top of the funnel," which is the ultimate driver of sustainability.
DAU/MAU measures engagement (i.e. how sticky/habit forming an app is). Retention is similar, but different.
If your point is that you can't draw conclusions from statistically insignificant data, then yes I agree with you. DAU/MAU does not work well when you have only a few visitors. Either way, it looks like the app in question had enough data to draw some conclusions.
Agree completely, all aspects of the funnel need to be optimized, I was explaining that despite really good DAU/MAU numbers, it wasn't a metric that indicates sustainability in this instance.
Chris is a really smart guy, and while this hasn't worked out as well as hoped I look forward to seeing whatever he does in the future which I feel certain will be bright.
If you're seeing this Chris, and need anything at all (aside from a few Mil of investment, which I just don't personally have), hit me up and let me know.
It helps to think that a person is not their ideas. An idea might be very successful and innovative. It might catch on and do very well. It means little to the person who realized the idea, except that they were the one to have it and make something happen with it.
It is kind of encouraging. It lets you remember that it's not that these people are magical forces that the best ideas come to. It's more that there are some people who, when the right idea comes to them, can make the most of it. That anyone might have a great idea, they just have to be able to work with it.
DrawQuest wasn't a great idea. He did it anyways. You don't always know what is going to be the best idea until you try it. If someone were to propose 4chan, without foreknowledge of how it would turn out I would expect it to be a flop. If Chris thought the same way, he might have never bothered writing it. Taking those risks means you don't lose $3.6 million making DrawQuest, but it also means you don't make 4chan.
4chan was based off Futaba Channel (2chan.net), which was in turn a based off 2channel (2ch.net).
So it's not like there wasn't a precedent.
If you check the footer on 4chan, you'll see it links back to Futaba Channel. I seem to remember Futaba linking back to 2channel as well at some point, but it doesn't look like it does now.
> ”People trivialize pivoting but it’s truly a hail mary, and it’s rare that people can pull this off.”
That's not what pivoting is..I think the real reason nobody really respects "lean" in this community is that all the concepts have been completely misinterpreted.
Seems like his main mistake was raising $3.6M before getting any traction. Remember Color? Really, it shouldn't cost 3.6M to build a relatively simple ipad app.
0.5M MAU is a pretty decent user base, and would bring in a few thousand bucks a month in advertising. The problem is that once you've raised $3.6M you really need to have a plan for earning big bucks, and that never seemed likely with this app.
The other mistake is making it ipad-only. It would make more sense to have an html5 version.
Just out of curiosity: how much are the AWS server costs? You should be able to run this site for $50/month, but my gut tells me they might be paying a lot more.
For those not familiar with American football, an audible is when the team with the ball changes the play at the last second based on what they see the defenders doing.
I think building an app around a demographic that does not have a credit card or spending money might have been challenging from the start, it looks like a very fun app but at the end of the day, people put down their money because they think you are going to make money off the userbase. This is why I feel valuations centered around future profits is bound for major market correction.
I think the app attracts the same target demographic as games that have a casual drawing component to them so I don't know if I would say the demographic doesn't have spending power.
If Drawquest was focused on in-app purchases and didn't find enough traction, I think they should have considered sponsored contests and sell those sponsorships to agencies representing larger brands. Imagine if Nike had a post "Design our new shoe" and gave out a prize for the most upvoted variation or "How would you change the Honda Civic?" and used it as a market research tool.
These are the types of branded opportunities that get some marketers salivating and knowing how to engage their agencies and participate in the RFP process is critical. I hope they explored these options.
I'm really sad to see this, because I saw myself that DrawQuest was gaining traction.
That said, I really appreciate what Everpix did, and I'm glad that moot seems to value that transparency as well.
Failure is a really important part of the startup process - it happens over 90% of the time - and yet it accounts for less than 10% of the dialogue.
When startups and founders share post-mortem data like Everpix did, it's an incredible gift to the community. A startup may failed, but let it not have died in vain.
I know moot reads HN, so hopefully he sees this. Thanks for giving back to the community.