When launching a product to the public should you try to make a big splash, with as much press as possible? Or is it smarter to slowly roll out access to a small subset of people on your waiting list, and let buzz build organically?

Rolling out to people slowly is great because you get user feedback before the masses come in. But if the feedback isn't great, and people are public about complaints, it can still hurt you a lot. The specifics always matter when I give advice on this. And of course if the product sucks it doesn't matter how you launch it, you aren't going to fool people.

Some of the best launches I've seen are on stage at TechCrunch Disrupt. If the audience and judges like it the press does, too, and you can create a lot of buzz very quickly.

The best is the one-two punch, in my opinion. Get a small(ish) core group of early users who love the product and use it religiously, seeding both initial content and setting usage expectations. The buzz will happen naturally and will set the stage for the press coverage to actually be meaningful (people sticking around and using the product, rather than checking it out and leaving).

Obviously, this is easier said than done. If those early users aren't using it like crazy, do not move on to step two. In my experience, it won't work. The press can push shit, but it won't stick.

Initial surges can be misleading and dangerous for a young startup. It's only a good thing if the product works. If you don't do one before two, you won't know.

MG - re "Get a small(ish) core group of early users who love the product and use it religiously" - that's all about the product IMO. With the right product you let one person know in the whole world and very soon everyone's using it.

"The press can push shit, but it won't stick." - amen

Agree re: product. At the end of the day that's all that really matters, of course. But I wouldn't discount having the right type of users using it early on either. I don't necessarily mean those with the largest audiences (though that helps for obvious reasons), but those who are passionate and knowledgable about the space of the product. A good example off the top of my head is Chris Messina in the early days of Instagram.

no disagreement. My point I think is that launches don't matter if the product sucks. And they only matter somewhat if the product is amazing. I can't think of too many hit products that launched with tons of fanfare though. They tend to creep up on you as a user, through word of mouth.

Yeah, that's really interesting. I was just thinking about that as well. I can't think of a great example of a startup that launched with a huge amount of coverage and then exploded. Foursquare had everyone cover them, but it took a long time to get big growth. And the timing (SXSW '09) was just as important. Most of the big ones I'm thinking of were slow, steady, organic growers.

I can't help but get semantic on this. What does "launch" mean? What does "press" mean? Foursquare had been launched for two months and was getting press before SXSW. I think of it more as "when is your product ready enough that it can withstand press scrutiny". Of course, Foursquare, in it's old iteration, was useful if you had one or two friends on it. Marketplaces like airbnb, etc. are not. Still, though, I think probably the same rule applies: a big press launch around a marketplace helps get users IF the product's good enough to not get panned, and not helpful if it isn't.

I agree with the general sentiment that it depends largely on how polished your product is. On one end of the spectrum, you have companies like Apple, for whom a big initial launch can give a product the escape veolcity it needs to take off. This is a big part of why they're so secretive. The same is true of blockbuster movies, best-selling books, and other highly polished products. On the other end of the spectrum, you have a startup with a minimum-viable product, where the product is released prematurely in order to start gathering feedback. During this phase, even a positive story can be a bad thing, since it may spoil the company's chance to make a good impression among early adopters.

Ultimately, the best way for consumer-facing startups to sustain growth is through some sort of viral mechanism. Press and marketing can be a powerful accelerant to that growth but it's very hard for a startup to grow completely from story to story. At some point, the fuel runs out.

My general advice would be to make sure you have your viral mechanism figured out before you go big. If you have lots of initial press but no organic growth, your product will suffer the fate of Ping.

This really stuck with me:

"I can't think of a great example of a startup that launched with a huge amount of coverage and then exploded."

I'm at a loss as well.

Can you think of any examples of press giving a startup an extra boost?

What about Quora? Do you think the hype around them helped or hurt?

Sorry, I meant examples of press pushing a startup over the tipping point *after* they launched and had a bit of traction... (we still need to build Quick Edit on branch :)

Also, this reminded me of a post that Ev wrote not too long ago...

Quora is a bit different of a situation because the founders were already "proven". That gave them built-in buzz (which I think was and is totally justified, mind you). Also, the product was a natural fit for bloggers/reporters to understand and use.

Ultimately, I don't think buzz/hype/whatever was ever going to make or break Quora. What they're going after is extremely difficult and complicated. It takes time and money, and now thanks to the latter, they seemingly have plenty of the former.

(And now we're off on a tangent that could probably be its own topic.)

Totally agree with many of the points made above. Product has to be worthy of sustained engagement and ideally good enough that people talk about it with others... Value of the right initial user base, which can be priceless and basically free press...

One thing about the startups that have succeeded with being loud in the press, is that they have done so with regularity. Examples like FourSquare, Quora, Path, Uber are continually getting press and a wide variety of it, not just tech press.

In terms of getting Users, a lot of the time mainstream press, or niche/industry press can generate a lot more signups than tech press (which has other advantages).

As a guy that's spent a lot of my life garnering buzz not just for tech companies but for cars and cereal and beer and whatnot, I think there are two levels of press relevant to us. There's the amount of press that gets path and quora to where they are now and where all of us here fo "oh thats a real company." Then there's the amount of press that gets it to the point where my mom says "so I guess I have to sign up for Facebook, huh?". The press that takes it am order of magnitude biggger. That level of press is basically a kingmaker - google, Facebook, twitter, etc.