Talk:Startup company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most startups fail[edit]

is awfully general and doesn't sound teriibly NPOV. Rephrasing? -- 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of data and nuance, but "most startups fail" is a succint summary. e.g. google startup failure-rate. see, for instance, Ipthief 07:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I bet the Chinese are not relying on start ups to drive their economic future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed Advertising[edit]


from the page - as it was blantant advertising and irrelevant to the majority of users. If this is posted again, it should be removed again. - Anon


Start up companies have lesser investing capital while their projected return of investments are high. The amount of manpower is also typically small for a startup company as they try to decrease expenses and increase profit margins. external link[edit]

This link: Starting a Business The World Bank Group's guide for 175 countries was posted to the article by a single purpose account who also posted the site to several other articles in a way that seemed like spam. The link is potentially useful if a bit "How-to"-ish (which Wikipedia is not). So I thought I'd move it here for regular editors of this article to consider. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

reverted edit[edit]

The edit defined "startup" from the very limited viewpoint of finance, and unjustly (in my view) disparaged common sense/general notions. Why is finance the only viewpoint? What about the IRS? entrepreneurs (who need know nothing about finance to start a company) etc. Ipthief 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're pushing a very strange definition, and not citing sources. There are plenty of startup businesses which don't necessarily scale etc. Startup service business. Say Razorfish. Or a startup laundrymat or restaurant. These do not tend to attract VCs, but they are an important part of the economy. Was Microsoft a "startup" when it when public? No, I say, though it was still scalable and all the rest that you are focusing on. Ipthief 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Response: You are right, I'll find some sources and then we'll straighten this out.

Response: This is a tough argument. Startups are distinct from small businesses, or new businesses in general. Usually the term is used to to pick out a certain kind of company that solves a problem in a novel or disruptive way, usually involving technology, or serves a new market, and has large growth potential. Preekopedia (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)preekopedia

How not to die[edit]

Very intresting document --Lo'oris 13:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag[edit]

Whoever put the coi tag. Please explain yourself before adding the tag back about. Which axe, exactly, do you think the editors of this article are trying to grind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipthief (talkcontribs) 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I added the conflict of interest (COI) tag because this article reads very much like a penny stock promoter may have written parts of it. The article focuses on investing in start-ups and the supposed potentially high reward. The following phrase from the article is just one of many contained therein that would be classic statements made by penny stock promoters in spam and stock message boards:

"Startup companies, particularly those associated with new technology, sometimes produce huge returns to their creators and investors - a recent example of such was Google, whose creators are now billionaires through their share ownership."

The reality that the vast majority of start-ups funded by VCs, angels or penny stock investors fail is not fully addressed, nor is the fact that individual investors rarely have the opportunity to invest in the "Google" type start-ups and that almost non get weathly investing in any the hundreds of profitless start-up companies promoted to the public every year. This article should be rewritten with a comprehensive discussion of start-ups from multiple points of view and with an objective focus. Do DueDiligence 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Why are we allowing this blantant promotion? "To understand the fundementals of the Entrepreneur and Start-Ups, please read the following legendary writing: "Innovation and Entrepreneurship" by Peter F Drucker." Honestly couldn't we have this just say ...please read the following: " Inovationm..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

I've removed the section as it was becoming a linkfarm and distracting editors from actually writing the article. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression (one addtion in last week, me...and a darn good one). Will be surpised if deleting a section will make people work on the article more. (And how can you tell, since you haven't been working on it yourself?) If you realy are worried about it becoming too long a list, couldn't you turn it into one of those "show"/"hidden" tabs? Or make it an article/list of it's own? I thought it was a decent start at a bibliography on this interesting subject and as such helpful to the business books category and even this business subject. TCO (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It looked like a fairly blatant violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given all the WP:SPAM it contained.
Yes, the one you added was probably the best of the lot, being notable with it's own article. --Ronz (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks man. I'm just a content creator (what a geek). Not even making any money. Wonder if there are any other good books on startups. TCO (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There are so many blogs and resources online about startups that having a section for them the in this article would be completely unmanageable.Preekopedia (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

startup financing cycle[edit]

is that actually a "cycle" or just a timeline —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, the problem with that graph is that it shows negative revenue. That is false - there are few instances outside fraud or egregious product defect scenarios where revenues can be negative. I think it's meant to say net income or gross income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnav.guleria (talkcontribs) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A high tech startup company is a startup company specialized in a high tech industry.[edit]

Is this line really necessary? -NeF (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Startup funding?[edit]

This is not my specialism, but I would likr top know how start up funding and SEED FUNDING relate. Also start ups here seem to be only companies. What about the third sector (there is increasingly NGO-businesses) and it woudl be good to put how they startup some how. A good example I came across was a company that put jelly bean dispensers "for charity". They sell the service element, but all profits are for the hoster of the machines. I also wonder if there shoudl be some l,inks with franchises and franchisees as they seem quite related. But I am not so versed in the finances of these, so woudl like more expertise person to write these aspects.

The sentence on factoring doesn't fit with the flow of the paragraph. If factoring is not unique to start-ups, then it shouldn't be included on unique start-up funding options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talkcontribs) 09:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional resources[edit]

Because I write about startups, I didn't feel neutral enough to edit the main article. Still, I think this article could use some help, and wanted to suggest some resources.

First, a more modern definition of a startup would be useful. My own is explained here: and here:

A related attempt to define startup is here:

I'd also recommend two books. One is full of useful facts by an academic researcher named Scott Shane:

The second is by business guru Peter Drucker: --Ericries (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Startup Culture[edit]

I think we're missing a huge chunk of what some people define a startup to be: its culture. Lax attire, games, food perks, "making the office easier as a home" (not a quote, just an idea) with things like dry cleaning or car sharing - this is a huge part of what a startup is to some people. -- (talk) 01:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-founders and promoters[edit]

The following was removed by AndyTheGrump. See User_talk:AndyTheGrump#To_avoid_an_edit_war.2C_perhaps_you_should_read_WP:BLP for additional details and discussion of AndyTheGrump's repeated edits and reverts. I believe the material about co-founders needs to be balanced and provide real-world examples, otherwise the material ends up having a positively-biased tone that fails to include any of the risks or harmful outcomes of being in co-founder relationships. The two examples given are firmly supported by the sources cited and these are noteworthy instances of co-founder disputes that received substantial media coverage and involved lawsuits where status as "co-founder" and the right to use this title were central issues. AndyTheGrump asserted that this material was off-topic and/or that it was not supported by the sources cited and/or that it violated WP:BLP but none of those arguments against this material remaining part of the article appear valid. I believe it should be added back to the co-founders section, with edits if necessary to ensure that it does not contain any misrepresentation of the facts and circumstances of these two example cases of co-founder reputation/rights disputes.

When there is no definitive agreement, disputes about who the co-founders were can arise. One example of such a dispute was a lawsuit against [[Elon Musk]] by a co-founder of [[Tesla Motors]]. [[Martin Eberhard]] alleged that Musk did not have the right to consider himself a co-founder merely because he provided a large amount of capital and was instrumental in saving the company from bankruptcy.<ref>{{Cite news |title= Tesla founders end bitter legal fight |date= September 22, 2009 |author= Ken Bensinger |work= Los Angeles Times |url= |accessdate= August 25, 2013 }}</ref> Another example is the case of [[Tinder_(application)|Tinder]] co-founder [[Whitney Wolfe]] who had her title as co-founder revoked as part of a pattern of mistreatment revealed when she filed a [[sexual harassment]] lawsuit. <ref>{{Cite news |title= Tinder has a date with sexual discrimination suit |date= June 30, 2014 |author= Tom Huddleston, Jr. |work= Fortune |url= |accessdate= July 1, 2014 }}</ref> Wolfe's co-founder "told Ms Wolfe that he was taking away her 'co-founder' title because having a young female co-founder 'makes the company seem like a joke' and 'devalues the company'." <ref>{{Cite news |title= Former Tinder dating boss Whitney Wolfe sues for sexual harassment after 'whore' claims |date= July 1, 2014 |author= Anne-Marie Senior |work= Mirror Online |url= |accessdate= July 1, 2014 }}</ref>

The source concerning Tesla Motors does not state that Eberhard alleged that Musk "did not have the right to consider himself a co-founder merely because he provided a large amount of capital and was instrumental in saving the company from bankruptcy" - instead, it reports that the two had previously been involved in "a feud" and had settled their disagreement out of court - with undisclosed details. It says nothing about 'bankruptcy' at all. As for the Tinder case, you were citing allegations as fact - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. You might also do well to read up on policy regarding reliable sources - the Daily Mirror is a tabloid of questionable repute, and certainly shouldn't be used as a source for such contentious matters. In any case, I see no obvious reason why an article on business startups should concern itself with such matters - fractious bust-ups are a common occurrence amongst those in senior positions in all sorts of companies, and without a source explicitly asserting that there is something special about such disputes in startups, it looks to me to be original research to conclude that there is. It isn't Wikipedia's job to 'warn' potential co-founders of risks - at least not unless we have sources which explicitly do the same thing. And if we do, we certainly shouldn't include cherry-picked and poorly-sourced 'examples' which seem lack any real connection with the article subject beyond fractious name-calling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

A better source for the dispute about "co-founder" title in the Tinder case might be this article from The Register RiskNerd (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How is the topic relevant to this article? Seems too tangential, even if it wasn't a BLP violation to give such an example. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mobile application startup companies[edit]

I propose to add a section about the mobile application startups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal.noun (talkcontribs) 17:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)