6 ms·

Ok. Negative points for my last comment justified. Here is my dilemma: Our company has created an online application we call "Supertrainer." The reason we na

Ok. Negative points for my last comment justified. Here is my dilemma: Our company has created an online application we call "Supertrainer." The reason we named it "Supertrainer" is because we are providing personal trainers with tools that allow them to separate themselves from all other personal trainers out there. There is a tangible and measurable difference between the average personal trainer and the "Supertrainer," and as we continue development, this concept will become even more so apparent. My question is... what evidence actually supports the claim for "Super Angels" to call themselves "Super". What separates these guys from all the other Angel Investors I've met, and all the other VC's I've met? It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing and it certainly isn't the number of companies they're investing in. Are they "riskier", and if so, how on Earth could you possibly quantify such a thing? I challenge the name. If I am provided evidence that truly separates a "Super Angel" from the other kinds of investors out there, I may be able to accept such a claim, but as of now, it seems more like an overly hyped PR move. I love what groups like YC are doing, but calling them "Super Investors" loses credibility in my mind.

lisper 16y ago
I don't normally downvote or harsh on comments because there are plenty of other people around here doing that, but in this case I'm going to apply the golden rule and give you some brutally honest feedback that I wish someone would give me if I were digging myself into a hole the way you are doing: > I challenge the name. If, as you say, you are trying to start a company then you should have twenty thousand more important things to do than to hang out here quibbling over some terminology that doesn't matter anyway. The "super angels" are what they are. What difference does it make if they aren't "super"? Or even "angels"? How is resolving this going to help you make your customers happier? Those are rhetorical questions by the way.
- nlavezzo 16y ago
  >> Or even "angels"? ...Wait a minute, they're NOT supernatural beings? That awesome observation made me laugh out loud :)
  - notAdvertising 16y ago
    It's not all about the literal translation. I wonder how much of a subconscious effect the name "Super Angel Investor" might have on a young entrepreneur looking for funding resources. I'm not saying that the influence is necessarily a bad thing because I believe that what these investors stand for is good in principle. These people are taking huge risks with their hard-earned money in ideas that fail 99% of the time... but doesn't anyone find the title "Super Angel Investor" just a little bit over-the-top? I didn't think that this comment would offend so many people, but I have to say... I'm flattered that everyone cares enough to respond! I'm getting a ton of points! ...but what is that little dash doing on the left side of them? It's great that people are proactive in enforcing the caliber of intellectual conversation that occurs here... but seriously though, a response with a link to a 6 tier article on "How to Disagree?" Hahaha! Come on guys, lighten up.
mustpax 16y ago
The article is pretty even handed and you'd do well to respond to the contents of it rather than getting stuck on the term "super angel." pg describes the differences between angels and super angels in concrete detail; see if you have something to say about his assessment there.
wwortiz 16y ago
It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing It actually partly is, super angels (as discussed in the essay) are investing more money than angels, but there is another distinction (mentioned in the essay) they are investing other people's money. Somewhat paraphrased summary from the essay on the definition of super angels: super angels are VC's who invest less but act more like angels.
- jaxn 16y ago
  I think the definition is based on Super Angels investing other people's money (usually alongside their own money). VCs - investing other people's money (endowments, etc) Angels - investing their own money Super Angels - investing their own money and other people's money
cli 16y ago
I think you should read this: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
notAdvertising 16y ago
"Perception" is very important in communication and communication is very important in who I am. I think the perception is that I am completely refuting the idea of a super-angel, which I am not. I am merely commenting on the perception created when attaching the word "super" to the word "angel" in the process of appealing towards people who are looking for money. There are no doubt differences between angels, super-angels and venture capitalists; the question was the use of the word "super" in its communication and if it is really justified in illustrating the advantages that the word "super" suggests. Obviously, discussion in this aspect of the "Super Angel" is not something that is welcomed here. Anyways, what I have learned about this forum from this is: "Don't bite the hand that feeds."
drusenko 16y ago
The reason you're being downvoted isn't that you're "biting the hand that feeds", but rather that you're being both pedantic and inaccurate. Pedantic because your point on the name certainly didn't deserve the belaboring you gave it. And inaccurate because, well, you're just wrong. The people being called "Super Angels" today are the same people that invested more money than your average angel, and in more startups than your average angel. For example: Ron Conway, Mike Maples, Aydin, Steve Anderson, Dave McClure, etc. They were all pretty much considered to be in a different class before, but ever since some started investing others' money, they've now earned a new name.
- notAdvertising 16y ago
  Touché

lisper 16y ago

I don't normally downvote or harsh on comments because there are plenty of other people around here doing that, but in this case I'm going to apply the golden rule and give you some brutally honest feedback that I wish someone would give me if I were digging myself into a hole the way you are doing: > I challenge the name. If, as you say, you are trying to start a company then you should have twenty thousand more important things to do than to hang out here quibbling over some terminology that doesn't matter anyway. The "super angels" are what they are. What difference does it make if they aren't "super"? Or even "angels"? How is resolving this going to help you make your customers happier? Those are rhetorical questions by the way.

nlavezzo 16y ago
>> Or even "angels"? ...Wait a minute, they're NOT supernatural beings? That awesome observation made me laugh out loud :)
- notAdvertising 16y ago
  It's not all about the literal translation. I wonder how much of a subconscious effect the name "Super Angel Investor" might have on a young entrepreneur looking for funding resources. I'm not saying that the influence is necessarily a bad thing because I believe that what these investors stand for is good in principle. These people are taking huge risks with their hard-earned money in ideas that fail 99% of the time... but doesn't anyone find the title "Super Angel Investor" just a little bit over-the-top? I didn't think that this comment would offend so many people, but I have to say... I'm flattered that everyone cares enough to respond! I'm getting a ton of points! ...but what is that little dash doing on the left side of them? It's great that people are proactive in enforcing the caliber of intellectual conversation that occurs here... but seriously though, a response with a link to a 6 tier article on "How to Disagree?" Hahaha! Come on guys, lighten up.

mustpax 16y ago

The article is pretty even handed and you'd do well to respond to the contents of it rather than getting stuck on the term "super angel." pg describes the differences between angels and super angels in concrete detail; see if you have something to say about his assessment there.

wwortiz 16y ago

It certainly isn't the amount of money they're investing It actually partly is, super angels (as discussed in the essay) are investing more money than angels, but there is another distinction (mentioned in the essay) they are investing other people's money. Somewhat paraphrased summary from the essay on the definition of super angels: super angels are VC's who invest less but act more like angels.

jaxn 16y ago
I think the definition is based on Super Angels investing other people's money (usually alongside their own money). VCs - investing other people's money (endowments, etc) Angels - investing their own money Super Angels - investing their own money and other people's money

cli 16y ago

I think you should read this: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

notAdvertising 16y ago

"Perception" is very important in communication and communication is very important in who I am. I think the perception is that I am completely refuting the idea of a super-angel, which I am not. I am merely commenting on the perception created when attaching the word "super" to the word "angel" in the process of appealing towards people who are looking for money. There are no doubt differences between angels, super-angels and venture capitalists; the question was the use of the word "super" in its communication and if it is really justified in illustrating the advantages that the word "super" suggests. Obviously, discussion in this aspect of the "Super Angel" is not something that is welcomed here. Anyways, what I have learned about this forum from this is: "Don't bite the hand that feeds."

drusenko 16y ago

The reason you're being downvoted isn't that you're "biting the hand that feeds", but rather that you're being both pedantic and inaccurate. Pedantic because your point on the name certainly didn't deserve the belaboring you gave it. And inaccurate because, well, you're just wrong. The people being called "Super Angels" today are the same people that invested more money than your average angel, and in more startups than your average angel. For example: Ron Conway, Mike Maples, Aydin, Steve Anderson, Dave McClure, etc. They were all pretty much considered to be in a different class before, but ever since some started investing others' money, they've now earned a new name.

notAdvertising 16y ago
Touché