So what's the market demand for a curly hair social network? They didn't provide evidence, but the common sense test would suggest that this is a dumb idea. A lmost as worthless as a network for left handed people. I've never thought how cool it would be to have a social network for blue eyed guys with thinning hair. Some ideas are just ridiculous -- no evidence needed -- just experience and common sense.
Natural hair is political in a way your examples aren't. In fact, your reaction is a perfect example of what the original article is talking about: people projecting their own experiences onto the rest of the world and thus making wrong assumptions about what will succeed or fail. In this case, those assumptions are both gendered and racial in nature: this is a profitable start up that most white men would never have thought to create.
How am I being racist? The idea of a black social network isn't 'bad', it's the fact that they're selling it as a network for a specific hair type. If their premise is code for 'a black woman's network' then they should explicitly say it. I'd invest in that, but not a curly hair network. Projecting some idea that I'm being racist in my analysis is ridiculous. They aren't getting 2 million uniques based on a hair style, there's obviously more to the business than hair.
Still, the business as it's presented is destined to fail unless they have a broader-based pivot in the works.
It isn't all "black women"; it is a specific demographic of black women. The same way hacker's news isn't a website for people with computers or Spotify isn't for everyone with ears.
It's not that you are racist, and I didn't say you were. However, the reason you don't understand that "natural hair" is a unique identity within the African-American community speaks to your lack of experience, and that lack of experience probably has something to do with the culture you come from. That doesn't make you racist, that makes you ignorant, which is fine as long as you don't assert that your ignorance is more correct that statistics that contradict you.
This is why it matters that diverse people build businesses: there are people out there who's needs I couldn't predict because I don't have the experience to know what they are. It is incredibly arrogant, however, to assume that because something isn't a part of your personal experience it either doesn't exist, doesn't matter or is doomed to failure.
"Code" to you is "explicit" to the target demographic culture. I'd argue that you are not in that culture--and though I wouldn't say you're being racist (and actually looking back it's _you_ that used the word racist first!), I would say that your criticism is coming from outside the culture.
Instead of answering your question about evidence directly -- the article was very clear in providing evidence that Naturally Curly is investment-worthy -- I think it's important to point out what an arbitrary and arrogant comment this is. (It's a step above mkramlich-level commentary, because at least you acknowledge that you have no evidence.)
What you call "common" sense is a collective set of prejudices you rely on as a sort of defense, or shortcut, against having to constantly question your base assumptions. The strength of common sense is not that it's predictive, but that you can make baseless assertions about the world and expect them to be accepted unquestioningly, so long as you are speaking to an audience whose own core beliefs will be comforted and affirmed by your statements. By forwarding common sense as justification enough for unsubstantiated assertions, you're basically pandering.
But, if we strip away your crutch for a moment and ask another set of questions, the point of this article becomes obvious -- because you have illustrated it with (probably unintentional) hilarity. Instead of asking (rhetorically, because you assume that everyone shares your assumptions) why this wouldn't flop, let's ask:
* Why should anyone believe you know anything about what makes a successful investment and what the predictors of a successful exit are?
* Do you know anything about the curly/wavy-haired segment?
* Have you ever invested $1.4M (or even $14k) to the effect of generating ROI of whole multiples?
* Have you ever sold any beauty or hair-care products?
Or, in short:
Who are you, and what is the evidence that you know anything about what you're talking about?
At the end of the day, columns like this one in NY Mag thrive on people like you, whose reliance on unquestioned assumptions allow them to circulate bullshit like it's truth.
According to the article, they're getting 2 million uniques/month, which suggests that demand exists. And with such blindingly obvious product/advertising tie-ins, it seems like there's the potential for actually making money here.
I'm certainly not in any position to make intelligent comments about this market, but I'd be wary of dismissing it because it's something that's not important to you personally. Fashion is another example of a market that many people here don't care about at all but that generates quite a lot of money.
Did you read the article? Your comment is exactly the perspective the article is addressing. They cited acknowledged experts in the field, whereas you've cited "common sense", a subjective term that means nothing without context.
All that it established, if you read between the lines, is that there is a clear market for hair products for women with curly hair, and that the companies that produce those products are looking at targeting those women to sell those products.
It does not address exactly what a social network would accomplish for the consumer beyond acting as a conduit for advertising. That's where the issue is.
If you go to the site, it's not actually a social network. I mean, it has what looks like an off the shelf forum attached, but basically it's a super targeted eHow with a really good affiliate marketing strategy.
Every website is a social network in its press release. Journalists will repeat those descriptions. Don't fight it, you'll lose your mind.
The article makes no mention of people with curly hair meeting each other as a market. It discusses people having curly hair (and, mostly, taking care of it) as a market.
Right. Which is why I doubt the business model of a social network. Perhaps a group buying thing or an Amazon (or etsy) for curly hair products might work. But a social network? That's a stretch. 2 million uniques doesn't mean much if you're talking about a sustainable business model. Uniques do not equal revenue. There are wastelands of social networks that had many more users than 2 million. Also, how was that 2 million verified? 2 million uniques would generally warrant a higher fundraise, the investors are likely betting on a potential business rather than an actual. What's the bounce rate? What's the time on site? What's the demographic profile of the user -- those important questions matter more than a vanity metric of 2 million uniques. Are people engaged with the site? What's the growth rate? 2 million from what? What's the engagement profile? There are a lot of questions that would need answering before assuming that this network is a 'good' idea. Race has nothing to do with it. I'd invest in anything that could turn a profit. Investing only because it addresses a particular racial group without quantifiable metrics -- now THAT'S racist.
Curly hair isn't limited to one ethnic group. There is a actually numbering system for curls (1A-4C, with some permutations) and it traverses different ethnic groups. The numbers are used to make product recommendations, exchange info, etc.
I only have personal knowledge from black women who don't want to perm their hair anymore. It's a huge statement for them for accepting themselves as they are. They share hair style information, hair care and support each other in cases where employers deem braids, for instance, as unacceptable in the work place.
Exactly. The article correctly outlines why "curly hair" is a large business market. It does nothing to explain why these people need their own dedicated social network, why was the whole point behind the offhand comment in the NY magazine.
Anyway, many social networks attempt meet pain points. Women with naturally curly hair deal with alot of issues. Lack of products, good stylists, societal issues (e.g., "is curly hair professional?"). It's the kind of thing you probably don't think about unless you have curly hair. Lots of bonding among curly-haired women is already occurring online. A central network is a great idea--I'm thinking it will be really popular. It's part of The Long Tail.
These people is a fairly neutral substitute pronoun for "people with curly hair". I don't think why you hear any hostility in the term.
I'm not interested in debating the validity of whether there is market for this group of people. Just that the article in question does little to support the claim. It argues that a lot of people have curly hair and buy curly-hair products. It says nothing about why these people want to congregate online in a specific social network.
In fact, your 2-sentence paragraph said more than the entire article.
Does a good idea promise success? I thought it was PG@YC that was looking for smart people with a clue. Maybe then they would work together to produce a successful venture.
Anyway, ideas are cheap. This is a business and it has been funded and well-positioned to control their exit.
