Duck Duck Go pitch
I reviewed a pitch from 2008 for the search engine Duck Duck Go. Aside from looking at the pitch, it was interesting to be able to see how the company/tool has fared since then.
The pros
The description of how it works is really clear – “it’s like Google,” but with “human-powered” results at the top that are “hand-picked to be relevant.” The presenter promises that it will save people “time and effort while searching.” He clearly identifies the main competition – Google – but then describes how Duck Duck Go is different and better. He doesn’t specifically identify a particular pain point by suggesting that the Google results aren’t good, he just promises that Duck Duck Go’s results will be an improvement.
The cons
Founder & CEO Gabriel Weinberg delivers the pitch, and he seems kind of awkward, but his speaking is clear and concise. He doesn’t provide any of his credentials, such as his previous successful (?) venture ‘The Names Database’ which sold for $10 in 2006 (see Wikipedia). He doesn’t address the value, or describe how it will make money, but I think it’s a somewhat enticing pitch for the end user.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMZ7DI1GjM0
Posted in: Week 03: Analyst Bootcamp
jenaca 3:12 am on September 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hey Andrea,
I really like the way your formed your analysis and sectioned it off through pros and cons. After watching the pitch you chose, I too agree with how you decided to group it. It is so much like google and does seem like it will save people time and effort.
Thanks for sharing this pitch!!
Jenaca
David William Price 12:20 pm on September 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
But how does he make money?
And do hand-picked results mean we have to wait longer for valuable results?
He claims hand-picked results are better than Google but why? I find the Google database is so large that I can often enter a natural language question and find forums and blogs where someone asked the very same question, and I get the answers they received.
When it comes to publishing, I think there is value in gatekeeping (see my comment on weBook for instance) but for search results, I think gatekeeping holds us back. Consider how easy it is to do research with gated databases of journals vs. using Google… which is faster? Which allows more intuitive personal searches without learning a system to do it?
andrea 4:30 pm on September 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hello David,
I can definitely see how gatekeeping could hold us back. My understanding of Duck Duck Go was that just a few of the results at the very top are “hand-picked” and then the rest of the results are presented the same way Google does.
Andrea
Angela Novoa 1:46 pm on September 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Andrea, I liked your analysis as it is concise and clear. Your idea about presenting CEO’s professional background and linkages to the product is necessary. It also is important knowing how revenues will be captured.
andrea 4:33 pm on September 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Angela, I wondered if perhaps (like other search engines) there would be revenue from advertising, but he doesn’t explain that exactly. And if this pitch is also for end-users, suggesting there will be advertising is usually a turn-off.
Andrea
Kristopher 8:50 pm on September 20, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi all,
I agree with Andrea that the presenter was awkward in his delivery, but I would also add unprofessional– it is weird to have the cat cleaning itself in the background, clearly creating the sense that this company is not a major player.
Also, he chose an unfortunate description with ‘google-plus’ as there is now an actual product called Google+ that is supposed to (I haven’t managed to get on as they have been back logged for months now) blow social media and search out of the water.
I also had a similar sense to David– gatekeeping can be appreciated, but how do I know that I value the same things as the gatekeeper? What if what is relevant to the GK is not relevant to me?
Thanks for the thoughts!
Kristopher
andrea 4:31 pm on September 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Kristopher – I agree the cat thing was strange! Yes, his Google + description would have been okay when it was recorded in 2008, but wouldn’t work anymore.
Andrea
Juliana 1:56 pm on September 21, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi Andrea,
This has been mentioned previously, but not having any information of profits or how much money would be required for the venture is central for the pitch. And I agree with you that the awkwardness of the pitch and not knowing his creditentials don’t help. People need to feel that they can depend on the person to deliver what they are pitching.
Juliana.