University of Chicago Graduate Students Vote to Unionize - <AUTHOR> https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2017/10/19/graduate-student-unionization-uchicago-nlrb/ <comment><USER2> In higher ED this seems like a long time coming.

Grad students essentially work as slaves for the Uni's & professors with triple-duty in lab time for professor + teaching + self-research.

Their reward comes in notoriety & bi-lines on research that helps them become professors in their own right in higher ed.

The cost is minimized rights to IP they've been crucial in inventing, outrageously low wages, and an average of $100k (1) in debt.

The brutality is sold as a right of passage, but the reality is the incentives are completely out of whack - uni's have an inverse incentive to admit Phd / grad students to benefit from the wage-slave / revenue generating aspect.

And it shows in the data - there are now a "glut" of PhD's that are far outpacing the very limited # of academic positions.

The system needs fixing and if unionization exerts some pressure on correcting the macro problem I am all for it.

(1) [https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/25/how-much- out...](https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/25/how-much-outstanding- loan-debt-is-from-grad-students-more-than-you-think)

(2) [https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/academic-job- market-...](https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2016/10/academic-job-market- tottering-nobodys-telling-graduate-students/)

<comment><USER3> It's baffling to me that academia, which is predominantly progressive, would treat its workers so poorly.

<comment><USER4> Camouflage. I well remember a real Chinese Marxist dropped into a supposedly Marxist-dominated academic department here a few decades ago who was astounded. How they could reconcile all being wine collectors and snobs with their trumpeted socialist views he asked me? The answer is that their progressive views masked very regressive and antisocial behavior in general, and that was quite purposeful.

<comment><USER5> Marxism as an analysis technique and as a political philosophy are totally different. This is not surprising.

<comment><USER6> Please cite something or elaborate. This is a fair statement, but it's hardly an excuse in this context. I think you are stretching the meaning here. Marxism is not an ambiguous term.

<comment><USER7> Marx was first and foremost an analyst of class in history, and capitalism. That's Marxist analysis, which can be largely divorced from specific communist implications.

<comment><USER6> That makes sense. I question assuming that self-identified "marxists" are merely analysts of class and capitalism.

These things are necessarily correlated and I'm not sure the necessity of drawing the line. Why not just use another term?

It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?

<comment><USER8> > It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?

??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ...

A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern literature.

Marxism is a political _philosophy_ \- one that has a lot of negative connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk philosophy.

See this comment for a better explanation [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846)

<comment><USER6> I think you're explaining yourself clearly, and of I know this is a common way of treating marxism in academia. I know you were taught it this way, as was I. But, I think it is suspicious nonetheless. Reading Marx makes me wonder why we arrived at objectifying and extermalizing his work like this. If we are thinking of Marx's work and his 'philosophy', we are critiquing class and capitalism. If we are critiquing class and capitalism, we are foolish to think our critiques are only worthy when applied to _others_. Of course, this point could hardly be more apparent than in the faculty's current predicaments. Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they the wits to apply the thought to their own situation. I don't feel very sorry for them myself. I've got my student loans to pay off and my university faculty members could never seem to care much less. When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.'

<comment><USER8> > Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they > the wits to apply the thought to their own situation.

Faculty members are not in control of their own situation. I'm sorry to sound a bit rude here, but you're being a bit oblivious. Faculty are under the rule of law of the administration. That is who their boss is and that is whose rules they follow. They don't get to choose the class hierarchy and power dynamics of their job same as you or I. If it were that easy to disrupt a power imbalance, then Marxism would be a lot more than just a theoretical framework. More importantly, academics are the very definition of the type of people who "get their head stuck in the clouds". They care about their work at the expense of every other aspect of their lives, expecting them to apply the same critical lens to their lives (which they are likely somewhat comfortable in) is very naive. Even Marx goes out of his way to emphasize that the means of production must be "seized" \- there has to be great motivation to change the power dynamic. For professors, it can be hard to get them to care about anything that doesn't directly affect their research.

> When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down > on as 'showing my class.'

The faculty have no control over your student loans. They are not the ones who charge you. And in my own experience, my professors were very enthusiastic about me talking about my issues with student loan debt. Are you sure it wasn't just in the wrong class / awkward timing? I brought this stuff up in a course on class dynamics and got plenty of positive feedback - where you say something is just as important as what you say after all.

You should redirect some of your frustration at the University's administration. Professors and faculty are getting screwed in a lot of the same ways as you, so why do you choose to get upset at them and their talk about "Marxism". They're academics whose heads are up in the clouds, what do you expect?

<comment><USER6> _> Faculty members are not in control of their own situation._

Yes, they are. They are in so much as a police officer. They too, can leave their positions any time they please. They can discuss and protest, by all means. Teaching and research can and might should be done elsewhere.

The growth of administration is dispicable but not authoritarian. I will argue the administration bloat is of the same sensibilities as the oversocialized culture of academic careerism. I say with much disappointment 'Flush them both!'

We would be insulting to conclude hypocrisy excusable because of a little "head in the clouds." I will defend with you the value of submersion, of passion and obsessiveness to inspire study and discovery. Anecdotally, I find this freedom abounds more outside of academia than within.

Nonetheless, I understand your reasoning; more generously in some disciplines than others. Political theorists may visit "the clouds" but if they hang out too long, they would be oblivious to the very specimin of their research!

I am young and cannot claim to have known these mythical "genuine marxists" who amandoned Academia some decades back, but conceptually they are relatable. I would have liked a shot at an academic career but lacked the quite obvious requirements: monetary entry fee, cultural decoration, marketing/social skills.

My work has involved many ties with Academia and I've even been published in some academic journals. I want to believe, but I just find Academia and its' self-obsessive traditions, processes, and increasingly oversocialized culture to be terribly distracting. The necessity of these things is a worthwhile debate, but with so many bright minds enmeshed, anything less than greatness would be near impossible. But, my observations and personal experiences suggest that the "clouds" in which the academics' tend to place their heads are so rarely a result of curiosity and exploration as you imply. They often more resemble a narrow path down which they will chase the next carrot.

I understand you to be defending those few who place their research practice above all else. I implore you to question what might be if they were not constrained by this path. Admittedly, I'm not offering any more a solution to this than I am to the problem of pay: Leave the path or speak up/protest. These rhetorical frameworks for distancing sake is a losing proposition, and has become commonplace. These practice of prioritizing the carrot path favors a survival of the shmooziest. This is bad for research, bad for education, bad for faculty, bad for business. We can probably agree the administration does not represent bygone Academia, but I assert instead it is a bureaucratic creep that will feed on academic careerism like a virus. I suggest it is a symptom, not a cause.

Sorry for the length. My battery is soon to die or I would try to edit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > An e-mail from Executive Vice Provost David Nirenberg on Sunday cautioned > that unionization would introduce a "third party" that could interfere with > graduate students' relationships with the University.

That, of course, being the point.

<comment><USER10> It's funny that the liberal ivory tower academics in charge don't want unions...... Oh the... I'd say irony but it is really hypocrisy.

<comment><USER11> The students and professors tend to be in favor, but they aren't the _university_. It's the administration that tends to hate the idea.

EDIT: speaking from my limited experience with the unionization effort at Brown. My main point is that faculty are not the university.

<comment><USER12> Why would professors be in favor of a move that would likely make it harder to get the cheap labor needed to churn out publications?

<comment><USER13> The university pays for the graduate student salary, not the faculty.

Edit: My knowledge of funding comes from a sample size of 1 (wife's cousin doing genetic engineering out of St Louis) so it's possible I've made a mistake extrapolating too widely.

<comment><USER12> I'm a grad student myself, so I'm speaking from experience.

As far as I know, in virtually all US public universities, faculty members have to pay for research assistants from their own grant money. The university I am at helps the faculty by charging less for the student's tuition (out-of- state to in-state).

Maybe you are confusing RA funding with TA funding?

<comment><USER14> It depends on the universities. Yeah for most public universities, the grad students are directly funded by the professor's research. In many other universities, grad students are funded through the department, as in they are guaranteed a salary; the salary would come from the professor (or other fellowships the student got themselves) if they a research assistant, and it would come from the university if they are a teaching assistant. They are guaranteed funding because if the student doesn't get research funding, then the department sticks them in a TA position so that they get a salary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm excited about this. I had the advantage of working full-time while in grad school, and my company paid for most of it, but I missed out on being a TA and getting classroom experience.

I watched a lot of fellow grad students struggle, constantly worrying about grants and funding. Some just took loans, others rushing so they could get through before their fellowships ended.

Meanwhile you watch new buildings, dorms and student centers go up as undergrad tuition goes up. Most professors I know who are my age are all adjunct or part time, but it's their full time gig.

Adjuncts positions were meant for professionals in the field who wanted to teach a class or two. The position is really being abused to keep from paying hard working professors a full-time wage and keeping them from a tenure track.

So where the hell is all the money going. Yes there are cuts, but we still see new buildings and programs. I realize these are different budgets a lot of times, but it's still getting really ridiculous.

If universities want to do something real, they need to stop worrying about unions and start tackling the student debt situation. They draw students deeper into debt than they've ever been in history to fund their institutions. You can no longer work a part time job and pay for many state schools. And what if those kids graduate and decide they really hate engineering or business or whatever they got. Now they feel like slaves, working jobs they hate to pay off that debt.

We desperately need student debt forgiveness. It has to happen. The bubble needs to burst, the system needs to collapse and schools need to scrap and rebuild programs that are affordable, that work and that are significantly better and different than their shitty for profit counterparts, which they're becoming more like everyday.

<comment><USER10> Administration is like a giant vacuum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A PhD student at UChicago whom I know well told me that they significantly limited who was allowed to vote to make this happen.

Not allowed to vote if:

* Not currently onsite (field work or pre-grad research elsewhere for a year)

* If you were not onsite in the previous year (anyone who did field work last year)

* Anyone who took a year break from teaching was not allowed to vote even if returning to teaching this year

* Anyone in 1st or 2nd year not allowed to vote (despite most years left to live under this union)

<comment><USER17> This seems to contradict the criteria in a child post, citing. [1]

Is there any citation for your claims?

From the cited list, it seems that anyone who got paid on a regular basis by the university over the past two years could vote.

[1] [http://knowthefacts.uchicago.edu/](http://knowthefacts.uchicago.edu/)

<comment><USER18> _Know the Facts is provided by the University of Chicago._

Ah. Good to know. No further questions, your honour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The graduate students at Penn have been trying to unionize for a while ([http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/update-grad-students- un...](http://www.thedp.com/article/2017/08/update-grad-students-union-upenn- philly)). For the most part, the divide is between engineering students (who are well-funded) and the rest (who are not).

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder how many of the responses here are from folks who went through CS/STEM graduate programs and who have no idea what their current/former colleagues in the humanities go through. One person alluded to how privileged a grad student is to have their tuition paid while being afforded the opportunity to become a "domain expert" in their field. Tell that to the average history Ph.D. in the US who takes 7-9 years to complete her degree, spending the prime of her youth to end up working 4/4 course loads as an adjunct in some godforsaken community college with no health insurance. And yet that individual carries with her the collective knowledge of thousands of years of human intellectual endeavor.

As for the news from UChicago, I congratulate my former colleagues, and yet I also know that it's not enough. I started a Ph.D. in the humanities at Illinois and left after 2.5 years. Our union was great, but no union is enough. We were fighting to prevent the administration from docking our meager $17k/year pay for frivolous BS reasons, and while I'm grateful for what the union did for us, in another way it was so shortsighted. Why were the stewards of civilization making $17k/year in the first place? Why couldn't we make far, far more, worthy of the years of specialized knowledge that we had developed at great cost?

The union could never answer these questions. Actually, most people thought I was crazy for even asking them. We spent all day denouncing capitalism, and yet we were enthralled to the myth of the Protestant work ethic, that compensation is somehow tied to our self-worth. And that misguided albeit well-meaning hypocrisy why I left academia and joined Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER21> I responded to another comment along this line of thought. I took a relatively common "STEM" view until I joined a fellowship cohort with some students in humanities. Their teaching loads were completely ridiculous as grad students and they seemed to have a nearly abusive relationships with their departments because of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I got my PhD a while ago, but I think unionizing is a terrible idea. First, while the hours are long, tuition is usually paid for / waived and we got a small stipend and OK health insurance for 2-4 hours of teaching a week. I graduated with no debt.

Much more important though is that most unions make work _predictable_. Hours, duties, etc. However, most PhD research is highly unpredictable. If I want to set up the test while the conditions are good, I may want to work NOW; hearing that I'm out of hours and need to do it tomorrow is the last thing I need. If I got my test set up (in shared lab) and going great I may want to go as long as I can stand it -- it may be broken tomorrow.

At least last 2 years of grad school my #1 desire was to finish and go use my new PhD in real world for real money. If union imposed policies add 1-2 years to the process I would not want them.

<comment><USER21> I am at a university (Michigan) where the union is primarily for graduate students that teach. I could not tell from the writeup, but it sounds like this is for _all_ graduate students at UChicago.

Being in an engineering department, I never had an issue with having to teach a heavy load of classes. But, some of my friends in humanities departments had a teaching load of - 6+ hours of classroom time + discussions + grading long papers - for classes of 50+ students. Being part of the union allowed them to put pressure on their departments that they needed to hire other TAs so that they could focus on their research and not spend additional years writing their dissertation.

I don't think being part of a union is going to stop any motivated student from doing their own research. And part of joining the union is to ensure that their members do receive a good stipend and have their health insurance paid for while maintaining a reasonable teaching load.

<comment><USER22> It is definitely possible that my worries are overblown. However I did see a lab where researchers would close doors before moving a desk to a new location because they are not supposed to as moving furniture was a union job (and requesting this via official channels takes days instead of minutes).

When I saw it first I thought it was a joke and laughed, but the folks working there were serious and asked me to shut up lest I get them in trouble. Maybe this is an edge case, but this still worries me when I hear about unionizing -- formalization of duties is extremely inefficient in most research environments and is often a flip side of unionization.

Again, I admit that my fears might be overblown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why do a group of people need permission to start a union? Can a group of people unionize without permission of their employer? Does the employer need to sign a form or something?

I thought unions were just groups of people who bargained with collective power. Why don't all researchers at these universities just use their abilities as leverage? Most people in universities are hired because they're one of a few thousand people in the world who are up to speed on a specific topic. That makes them very difficult to replace, one would think.

<comment><USER24> Under US law, the only way to gain recognition as the bargaining representative of a unit of employees—and the only way an employer is legally allowed to recognize you as the sole bargaining agent—is by demonstrating that you have the support of a majority of the bargaining unit, usually through a union certification election.

I don't think there's anything legally preventing a subset of employees from banding together and withholding work until just that subset gets what they want, if that's what you're asking. It's just not a terribly effective tactic, and obviously doesn't leave the benefits in place for future employees the way that a NLRB-sanctioned collective bargaining agreement does.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if this will spark student athletes in major football and basketball programs to follow suit.

<comment><USER26> Do they get to take advantage of labor laws protecting organizing since they're not actually, like, employed? Obviously the minimum wage doesn't apply to them...

If they don't have the protection, doing that could jeopardize any chance they have of going to the NFL (not that most of them make it anyways).

<comment><USER24> Student athletes' biggest protection from retaliation is probably their incredible power over the institution and high level of visibility, as demonstrated by the actions of the Mizzou players during #concernedstudent1950.

Football players, at least in D1, have also been determined to at least have some of the rights to concerted action protected under the NLRA:

[https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb- general-...](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/02/02/nlrb-general- counsel-says-private-college-football-players-are-employees)

Of course, while that does protect them from their current employer (the school), I don't think it can protect them against the reluctance of a potential future employer (like the NFL).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The sad thing that they will learn which my wife's school learnt was that, as a union employee, you are no longer a student. That is, all the tax breaks, ability to not pay SS, etc. all those fees come right back. In the end, they raised student wages but the take home pay was cut. Then they paid union dues...

<comment><USER28> This is either hyperbole or an example of the university punishing unionization, because I know of at least a half dozen unionized universities where grad students do get those benefits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> ~1600 students participated in the vote, but on wikipedia the school has 10k postgrads. How does this work?

<comment><USER16> They limited who could vote to mostly those who support the idea (source: a PhD there). I posted details a comment above

<comment><USER29> Thanks for the reply - I appreciate the information. I read your other comment and it shed some light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is very interesting. Having been a graduate student who threw off the reins to do basically the same work in industry at 6-7x the compensation with better benefits I support them.

</comment><comment><USER31> The comments here are giving me more questions than answers...

I genuinely don't know what it's about. At my university, the work to do (5 years in my case) existed out of studying for exams, sometimes group projects to build something (not something usable outside of a presentation for points), and in the last year a thesis (not at all as publish-worthy as a phd paper). This spanned "bachelor" and "master" but those names were actually retrofitted to an older system.

The article and comments talk about labor by students in university.

My university was in Europe. Please enlighten me, do students do actual labor in US universities? I'd love to understand what this is about. Thanks!

<comment><USER32> In the US graduate students typically do "grunt work" as part of their program. For example, you might be a research assistant, where you help out with your professor's research. Or a teaching assistant, where you help a professor teach a low-level/intro class (things like grading or preparation of class materials). For this you receive a small stipend.

The original idea was that a professor takes you under his or her wing to teach you and help you with your research and in exchange you help out the professor with what they are doing. Nowadays graduate students feel like they're just being treated as cheap labor without the professor/university holding up their end of the bargain.

<comment><USER31> As far as I understand the terminology, "bachelor" matches "undergrad student" and "master" matches "grad student". Is that right?

So this bachelor and master was just combined in one single 5-year program in my case.

Research, being teaching assistant, and writing papers was done by those who went for a PhD at my university, that is, after those 5 years, those who chose to do a PhD after receiving your master diploma.

Do you think it says something about the quality of the university, when master students were not teaching/writing papers/doing research, but simply doing exams as usual...? (Ok there was the thesis in the last year, but that was really more like a larger final project)

Most _top_ universities in the world are indeed not in Europe, but in my country at least is was considered a good one.

<comment><USER33> See my sibling comment. But, yes, undergraduate = bachleors, graduate = masters or professional, post-graduate = PhD.

Typically, these labor issues revolve around post-graduate students who expect to be at school for many years. And not students who are just pursuing a Masters program, which only lasts a year or two.

<comment><USER14> No...undergrad = bachelors. But graduate means both master's and phd. No one says graduate to mean solely master's. And post-graduate might be a vague term (no one uses it) but generally it means the same as just graduate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Of the 2,457 students in the bargaining unit, 1,103 students voted in favor, 479 students voted against, two ballots could not be counted and 873 did not vote.

</comment><comment><USER34> University of Chicago is private, right? So this falls under Federal purview (unionization issues at state schools are under state jurisdiction). With the NLRB in the current administration, I can't imagine a friendly ruling towards the graduate students when the university administration's inevitable appeal boils up.

</comment><comment><USER35> Several things to note in this issue.

1\. Regarding huge number of grads and few people voting - wiki and other aggregate sources of info will only tell you the total number of students listed as "enrolled" at the school. Not all of them taught in the previous five quarters. That actually reduces the number of grads eligible to vote drastically.

2\. Regarding the comments linking union to money. It is by no means guaranteed that a union can increase the salaries paid to grad students. And in fact most grad students (at least at the PhD level) survive off the stipend not the TA/RA salary. As far as I understand the union has no bearing in the stipend amount. There is also the thing that UChicago is cash strapped. It doesn't have the liquid assets to increase anyone's salaries. (Look up the aggressive campaign to sell UChicago owned buildings in HP if you are curios).

3\. A union, as an organization of people, by definition caters to the average contributor. In a factory where the workers provide similar enough service that 'an average' is still a meaningful concept, a union can do some good. In my opinion, in a union of all grad students across all departments, 'average demand' is meaningless. Each department can't even agree internally on what their students need, so I'm not sure how a union will find common ground among all the departments. On the one hand limiting the number of hours in a work day sounds good, no? But ask a science grad - they will likely complain that they no longer have time to finish their experiment in time. Giving students a choice in which class they want to TA sounds good, no? But ask a student in humanities - they will tell you that seventeen of them apply for the same spot that only one person can have so they would prefer assigned positions not chosen ones. Etc, etc, etc.

<comment><USER36> I'm not sure the uchicago sell off is because they are cash strapped. probably because uchicago feels like it no longer has to ensure that hyde park experiences urban decay (aka why they bought the buildings) and to shift those funds it into something with a better rate of return.

<comment><USER36> -no longer has to ensure hyde park DOESNT experience urban decay

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Grad students aren't grad students forever, right? So it must be darn hard to have union membership turn over.

Grads today in the union will leave in a few years and not stay decades.

Unions i know work when lives in the same job are represented. And contracts last 4-6 yrs.

Not sure i see a chance for long term benefit.

</comment><comment><USER38> Awesome news! I hope this rapidly growing network of graduate unions somehow jumps over to infect the tech world. Strong unions in tech could really make big changes in US politics.

</comment><comment><USER39> ucla grad student anecdote: we have a union. but a few students are not part of it. they do accept benefits for being quiet about work issues or outright siding with the faculty.

just to set a level of the workers issue I am talking about, recently they cut in half the salary of a category, to double the number of people. from 3 to 6. while each teaches a class in full, to 20+ undergrads each. pay is now tuition plus enough to be 2 grand a year above CA poverty line.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is a fantastic idea. Graduate students have to compete for so little funding (or even just unfunded slots) that the wage and conditions are at a bare minimum. Just a shot at those sweet professor jobs (whether or not they exist) or just adding to the world's knowledge send to be so desirable that people will work ridiculous hours with no benefits for pitiful pay. But why should the grads compete with each other?

What's next should be academia uniting to distribute funding internally, rather than stock with the farcical lotteries that are grant proposals.

<comment> aaron-lebo Not every project is deserving of funding. Grants provide at least one filter, and at least in my experience have some correlation to merit. There's just not enough money, spreading it out doesn't help.

Attaching funding to academic politics sounds like the death of innovation, but that may be an exaggeration.

<comment><USER40> Knowing what projects "deserve" funding before they're funded is a harder problem than any funding body would like to admit. I'm not proposing all available money is divided up equally, in saying that the application should be done in an efficient way by a union of academics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A significant change in how graduate studies may occur.

</comment><comment><USER41> Princeton did this last year as well.

</comment><comment><USER42> This will end well...

<comment><USER43> I went to grad school at a unionized school (UC Berkeley), and was generally fine with the union. I never directly took advantage of the union protections, but it's nice knowing that you won't just be at the mercy of your advisor should something go wrong (though having an advisor you can trust in the first place is obviously preferable). I know people who took advantage of maternity leave, and I felt that the benefits we were provided were a cut above those at Stanford (who only recently got dental/vision coverage).

<comment><USER44> Curious: did unionization reduce the # of graduate students UC Berkeley was able to allow in?

This has been a common criticism I've heard, and would have potential ramifications on the long-term research pipeline if it were true + spread nationally.

<comment><USER43> Not obviously, though most people I knew were in reasonably well funded departments/programs, and at any rate they were unionized well before I got there, so I wasn't around to observe any changes.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that the research pipeline isn't already overfull. The tenure track shouldn't be the goal of all incoming graduate students, but I think the increasing length of postdoc positions, the massive oversupply of adjunct professors, and historically low rates of grant funding are hints that there's something wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Abolish tenure. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER46> Seems unlikely to drive the cost of education lower.

The value of a degree will continue to lose ground against the cost. This is not good.

<comment><USER47> This is a direct consequence of rising enrollment rates in college. A degree is a largely a positional good - it only helps your employment prospects by making the limited number of open positions more likely to be filled by you rather than someone without a degree. In other words, the marginal extra law degree results in nearer to zero additional employed lawyers, rather than one.</comment></comment>


Why I Never Hire Brilliant Men (1924) - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_I_Never_Hire_Brilliant_Men <comment><USER2> "You are a quick starter, but a poor finisher"

I worked with soooo much people that are like this.

I start working at a company and those people stick out. They know stuff about everything, write thousands lines of code a week and start new projects like nobodies business.

First I admired them, because they seem to be the better developer, the 10x engineer everyone talks about.

But somehow these people were never reliable. Probably a intrinsic feature of their characters.

It takes time to learn new things and it also takes time to start new projects, this just doesn't scale if you start projects faster than you finish them.

First they blow you away with new things and later they can't keep up.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some of the values are quite dated (eg criticising someone for having no savings because they spent all their money caring for their sick family, because they "never made a profit for themselves"). I'd also challenge his assumption that somehow common people just intrinsically know what most people want: that may have been a fine assumption for a 1920s grocer, but doesn't translate so well to the technology and global markets of 2016. Still, overall a good read.

Perhaps it's the culture of " brilliance" that ought to be criticised. I come across plenty of tech-startup junkies, who love the lingo and talk a big game about the latest libary/product/other person's startup that just got funded, but produce very little themselves. I hired one such fellow recently, and he completely dropped the ball both in the actual work, and mangled the relationships with every client he was in the same room with. Worse still, he put phenominal effort in to explaining to me why my feedback (as somone who has spent most of his career managing clients, and built these relationships over years) was actually wrong, and he in fact was not doing shoddy work or frustrating the people who cut our cheques.

</comment><comment><USER4> The reference fails me. What does "the greatest organization in human history was twelve humble men, picked up along the shores of an inland lake." mean?

<comment><USER5> Christianity, jesus and disciples.

<comment><USER4> I see.</comment></comment></comment>


The default state of a startup is failure - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2012/05/18/the-default-state-of-a-startup-is-failure/ <comment><USER3> "A friend of mine got a job at a big company and was shocked to see his colleagues worked just a few productive hours a day."

Depending on what you do, I would say this is natural. I don't care what Henry Ford says (8 hours a day is different for some types of work than it is for others.) I can't go into "super focus" mode for much more than 4 hours per day. I can do my half day of being "wired in" and then take care of lighter tasks for another couple of hours.

There are days when working on an exciting project that I can code for 12+ hours for a few days, but not all of those hours are productive. Typically on these sorts of days I can run into a problem which I bang my head on for a couple of hours and then fix it within 5 minutes the next day after a refreshing sleep.

Maybe part of the problem is that that these places should shorten the work day (but keep payment the same.)

<comment><USER4> John Carmack has written something about being super-productive in a fixed chunk of time.

But I can see where your coming from. After certain set (~5) of being super- productive, you burn out. And you just can't take it any more.

At these times it _is_ best to take a break and do something different. I've found that these breaks (~1 to 2 hours) tend to make you more productive in your next chunk. (Rather than being burn out and weary.) It gives you time to think and churn ideas for what you will do next.

Lastly I want to add; knowing what you want to do next makes a difference. When you know exactly what you want to do (the spec), you naturally are about implementing it - when not knowing the spec, you're figuring things our as you go and that slows you down. In addition it's always better to sit down and gives additional exclusive time to thinking of your program rather than figuring things out as you go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Startup life expectancy is determined by its financial income (investment not included). This is only loosely linked to the smartness of its members or the energy and effort they put into developping and running the business.

The equation is all about maximizing user interest so that the startup acquires new one, and lowering the barrier to income. Google's business model is a reference example on this.

Regarding the difficulty to induce adoption of a new product, there is a known energy barrier for people to change their habit, even if they know their current habit is not good or optimal. This means the startup needs a strategy to overcome this initial bump. There are many. Once overcome, things get much easier.

One of the strategy is to exploit people's natural tendency to be helpful and the positive perception of generosity (kickstarter). This strategy is used in called calls. Ask for advice or help (beta user program), once in a welcomed helpful and generous mood, they'll more easily open their purse or help spread the word (dropbox).

</comment><comment><USER6> Another way to put it is that, if you move from full-time job to startup, you are going to have to actually create real value (at least value for some large number of people).

At a regular 9-5 job, especially if you havent worked anywhere else before, you can fool yourself into believing that you create value by doing 1-2 hours of work a day (I know lots of people like this).

This is also the reason why people such a huge (harsh) change going from job to startup. You realize you werent really doing that much in your job!

<comment><USER7> You can create value working 1 to 2 hours at a regular job. After all, if you can create value in eight hours then surely you'll create _some_ in two.

Value isn't just the magnitude of the work you do. It's that multiplied by the importance of the direction you're going in. Companies are good at pointing your work in a direction that's already known to create value. One of the hard parts of a start up is figuring out a new such direction.

<comment><USER6> I guess I worded it incorrectly.

In a big company the machine to create value is already present and the company will create value whether you input value or not. If you quit your job, your company will carry on fine.

So essentially your value is small and by definition limited and replaceable (unless your in a small company).

In a startup the magnitude and expanse of value that you create is just so much bigger. You need to create value in different unrelated spaces - <USER2> sales, writing code, hiring etc.

Its like comparing a rocket to a firework or better an engine to one of the cogs in its engine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the authors main point is the degree of indifference involved in making something happen. There's a quote I heard Robert Greene give where he said "I'm a firm believer that most people simply prefer to do nothing". The bad side of this is you might have a great idea but are not able to amass the traction due to the lack of anyone else caring or seeing how your vision benefits them, or the world, or whatever. The good part is if you ever get a project set in motion that is successful the same rules of indifference apply, only now they're in your favor. That's why scrambling to just get something out the door and experiment is so important.

</comment><comment><USER9> He brings up some good points, but what does this have to do with anything? Obviously the default state of a startup is failure... what do his preceding two paragraphs have to do with anything? I guess I just don't quite understand the point of this article.

If it's just a PSA about the fact that startups are hard work, I'm not sure what new information it is we're getting here or why this post is being upvoted to be honest.

<comment><USER10> "I'm not sure what new information it is we're getting here or why this post is being upvoted to be honest."

What makes something insightful isn't whether it has new information, but whether that information is connected in a new way. This qualifies because he's done a good job expressing the connection between a couple different ideas that are very important in their own right but that one wouldn't necessarily think of as being connected. (Think Euler's identity.) Granted other people have made this connection before, but what makes this a great post is that he's done it in a very simple and easy to remember way, one that provides a solid foundation for slotting other ideas into also.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Paul Graham has a similar premise in this essay: <http://paulgraham.com/hubs.html>, where he mentions that the default mode for startups is Death. Dixon argues for surrounding yourself with extraordinary people, Graham makes the case for being in a startup hub.

</comment><comment><USER12> Though it's not said, I get the impression that they were technical co- workers... so I need to point out you need "technical skills for technical success; business skills for business success".

I've seen developers work hard on cool features that no one needs, or are too hard to use, or meet a need better met elsewhere. These mistakes are due to not seeing from the user's perspective - and yes, I'd classify doing so as a business skill.

They won't communicate why it's worth using, see how it fits in with what people want to do, allow it to be difficult to try out (download, install, get started, learn). An easy way to address all these is ensure you yourself are a user (and representive of a sufficiently large segment of users).

I believe that if you really know what you're doing, you don't need to work very hard, placing focussed leverage on just the right point to make everything happen (caveats: 1. if you want _enormous_ success, there'll be competition and you'll have to work hard; 2. the big problem is that we _don't_ know what we're doing - in a sense, finding out the actual work of a start-up).

</comment><comment><USER13> I would go so far as to say the default state of a human is mediocrity and general failure. It takes discipline to achieve even moderate success

</comment><comment><USER14> de·fault [dih-fawlt]

noun

1\. failure to act; inaction or neglect: _They lost their best client by sheer default._

2\. failure to meet financial obligations.

3\. _Law_. failure to perform an act or obligation legally required, especially to appear in court or to plead at a time assigned.

4\. _Sports_. failure to arrive in time for, participate in, or complete a scheduled match.

5\. lack; want; absence.

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/default>

<comment><USER15> 6\. _Computers._ a value that a program or operating system assumes, or a course of action that a program or operating system will take, when the user or programmer specifies no overriding value or action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The part about the colleagues only putting in a few productive hours each day is spot on. They are riding on the company's coattails. It is a sort of corporate-sponsored welfare that no one notices until the company stops performing. Then the dead weight is cut loose. Look at Yahoo.

Maybe some people don't find sitting in meetings all day to be all that satisifying. But they are stuck in it due to family expenses. Maybe they would prefer something more stimulating, if they could have the chance.

The default state of the startup should be: _fun_.

More fun than you would have by being required to show up and remain for eight or more hours each day at a corporate campus where you can clearly see people are not getting much done, but are relying on their position as a source of corporate-sponsored welfare.

To work on a startup should be a privilege for anyone who has worked in a corporate setting for any length of time.

Riding on the success of a large corporation is easy. In many cases all you need to do is show up. But that doesn't always mean you were "a success" or a part of the reason for the company's success. You may have come along after they had already succeeded, looking for an easy payout. Some people make a career out of this. They never join early stage companies. Again, there are family expenses and these motivate people's decisions.

Working on a startup is a way to be able to take full credit for whatever happens. It might be credit for failure. It might be for success. But at least you know you were responsible, and not riding on someone else's coattails.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wouldn't go quite a far as the poster. I do agree that the default state of an idea is "not being done", but once it IS done, does offer something, and has any paying users at all, the default if they are happy is for them to return and keep spending (if you remain competitive and fill a void with great customer satisfaction) and moreover to tell their friends. People worry about scalable business models for a good reason: if there is a bottleneck (e.g. you have to personally meet the client before they pay you in the business you chose) then you will meet that bottleneck very soon! I would say the default state of a startup that is shipping and has cusomers is "more work (demand) and ideas than we're able to roll out/handle". not a bad place to be, but if you do your job you can count on being there. If you follow PG's philosophy, then when you're at this point you have lots of revenue (instead of lots of users overpowering your resources, with you trying to 'grow some more' before 'eventually' figuring out a monetization model)

</comment><comment><USER18> One of the best and most concise things Chris has ever written. Three paragraphs packed full of wisdom.</comment>


Why Americans Don't Buy Electric Cars (The Tesla Model 3 Isn't That Popular) - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2019/09/22/why-americans-dont-buy-electric-cars-hey-the-tesla-model-3-isnt-that-popular/ <comment><USER2> > I won't cite a bunch of statistics (that may seem encouraging but actually > are not). Just look around you.

Weird article. The author is basically saying I am gonna ignore statistics and gonna talk about my personal perception.

Statistics linked in the article are actually pretty cool: [https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electrictransportation/D...](https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electrictransportation/Documents/FINAL_EV_Sales_Update_April2019.pdf)

<comment><USER3> > Ford's Cannis cites an interesting statistic: "Forty-two percent of > Americans think electric vehicles still require gas to run." That shows how > little many Americans know about EVs. Or they think all EVs are basically a > Toyota Prius (which is even worse).

The statistics in your link support this. The Prius shows up as an EV.

I think the term EV is becoming ambiguous, sometimes unintentionally sometimes intentionally.

Some people want to state sales are higher, so they include BEV + hybrids in EV numbers.

Some people want to be accurate and describe any car with a battery as an EV.

Some people don't think a car that uses gas is really an EV, or want to report lower numbers so use BEV numbers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > It's a PR game. "Look, we're going all-electric by [insert year]!" Meanwhile > they keep pushing gas cars.

I suspect this is PR directed mostly at shareholders, not consumers. If a car company appears to be missing the boat on electric, they're going to look like a risky investment for the long term.

</comment><comment><USER5> Until recharging times (around 5 minutes) and range (around 500miles/800km) can match those of chemical-fueled cars, there will be buyer resistance.

There is a reason that the battery car of the early 1900s and the Stanley Steamer disappeared. They just couldn't match the day-in day-out utility and convenience of the petroleum-energy vehicles.</comment>


Gifshot: JS library to create animated GIFs from media streams, videos, images - <AUTHOR> http://yahoo.github.io/gifshot/ <comment><USER2> I wish we could move away from the awful format that is animated gif and use something much better in terms of compression, color support and frame rate. Like webm.[1][2]

[1][http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support- on-4chan](http://blog.4chan.org/post/81896300203/webm-support-on-4chan)

[2][http://blog.smartbear.com/devops/gif-is-dead-long-live- webm/](http://blog.smartbear.com/devops/gif-is-dead-long-live-webm/)

[3][http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-webm-and-can-it- det...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-is-webm-and-can-it-dethrone-the- gif)

<comment><USER3> At least we have [http://gfycat.com/](http://gfycat.com/) now. WebM for those who can, original gif for those who can't.

<comment><USER4> I personally think [http://mediacru.sh](http://mediacru.sh) is a better choice. Free and open source. I'm not sure if it display a .gif if the user doesn't have HTML5 video compatibility.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks really awesome - nice work Greg and team. It's depressing when someone releases an open source library that does something novel using interesting technologies, has a lot of potential real-world use cases, and clearly took a TON of work, and the responses range from 'I don't like GIFs' to 'There's already a library that has GIF in the name so I'm going to assume this is redundant and leave a passive-aggressive comment'. What's wrong with you people?!

<comment><AUTHOR> Rich, you are the best

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Related, and pre-existing.

[http://jnordberg.github.io/gif.js/](http://jnordberg.github.io/gif.js/)

[http://hdragomir.github.io/facetogif/](http://hdragomir.github.io/facetogif/)

[http://gifmebro.com/](http://gifmebro.com/)

etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Gifshot also includes getUserMedia (webcam) functionality, is a full client- side solution, and has a simple API (easier to use than gif.js)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was really hoping this would work on the server-side, too. It didn't. :-( Or maybe I configured something wrong?

Here's what I found:

        $ git clone https://github.com/yahoo/gifshot.git
        $ cd gifshot
        $ npm install
        $ node

        > var gifshot = require('./build/gifshot')

        > gifshot.createGIF(
        ...   {'images':['random-image.png'],
        .....    'text': 'Test'},
        ...    function(obj) {
        .....      console.log('Done!');
        .....      console.log(obj);
        ..... })
        Done!
        { errorCode: 'canvas',
          errorMsg: 'Canvas elements are not supported in your browser',
          error: true }

<comment><AUTHOR> Obviously, the getUserMedia aspect of the project can't be done server-side, but we can look into supporting the existing video->GIF and images->GIF logic.

<comment><USER7> Right, I don't care so much about the getUserMedia part at the moment. But what you've done is totally awesome, by the way! With that said, I was looking for "take an array of images, spit out a gif file, and, oh yeah, put this text along the bottom."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't this kind of backwards when we have tools like [http://gfycat.com/](http://gfycat.com/) that can make MP4/WebM?

Animated GIFs are HORRIBLE in terms of file size and quality compared to actual MP4/WebM video files, which are supported by all modern browsers.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is client-side JS solution. Completely different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very cool project! Is there any word on getUserMedia for IOS Safari?

<comment><USER10> Currently there's no word on support for IOS8 Safari that I've seen...here's to hoping that it'll come along soon though :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Too cool.

</comment><comment><USER12> i love this! laptop camera to gif? yes please

</comment><comment><USER12> so nice</comment>


How To: Making a great screencast - <AUTHOR> http://wistia.com/blog/how-to-5-steps-to-making-a-great-screencast/

<comment><USER3> Thumbs up on Screenflow. It does quite a bit for $99. I especially like how easy it is to swap in alternate takes of things.

I've been using it to develop live presentations with slides, and was very helpful in working out a talk for Ignite Phoenix, where timing is extra crucial.

I tend to write down some notes, then do a recording more or less ad lib, see how much I screwed up and flubbed things, and gradual get a feel for what phrasing feels most natural, what steps are needed, what I have to explain.

The end result is a sort of pre-recording of your talk, which you can watch as an aid to practising and getting the whole thing into our head.

Also, good point on keeping screencasts short. I hate having to jump around in some 20-minute recording trying to find where one or another item was explained. Better to break things down to a set of tighter presentations.

</comment><comment><USER4> The tip about recording the audio first is a gem

<comment><USER5> That said, people I've discussed screencasting with (nearly all in the Ruby community) have typically recommended video first _then_ a voiceover - <USER2> includes Geoffrey Grosenbach of Peepcode (he also shares this technique in his screencast about screencasting).

I tend to do everything in one take then edit out the mistakes so I haven't got an informed preference, though doing the audio first does seem to make sense from a pacing and "maintaining interest" perspective.. you can always edit down/speed up the video parts, after all.

I suspect that merely being detailed enough to _think_ about these processes and how they work (or not) for you is enough to put you above average in the screencasting stakes.

<comment><USER6> The Rails Tutorial screencasts (<http://zfer.us/EKm97>) always combine audio and video from the same take (using ScreenFlow, natch). I can't imagine achieving a good teaching cadence any other way. I also love the verisimilitude of hearing mouse clicks and keyboard clacks synchronized with the action on the screen.</comment></comment></comment>


Bank systems creak under weight of digital transactions - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/466102dc-d856-11e4-ba53-00144feab7de.html <comment><USER2> Summary: _Pressure is mounting on the archaic technology systems that underpin some of the largest banks as they roll out online and mobile services to compete in the digital age. High street lenders are spending more on 'digitising' services, from renovating branches with new cash machines and iPads, to launching mobile applications and digital payments._

The article is soft paywalled. To read it, Google the title, if ft.com still won't show you the article, try a different browser or incognito/private mode</comment>


President Obama Fires McChrystal, Kills Innovation - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/06/president_obama_makes_a_major.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-WEEKLY_HOTLIST-_-JUN_2010-_-HOTLIST0628&referral=00202

<comment><USER2> Looks like McChrystal was willing to get fired for what he believed in.

</comment><comment><USER3> On the whole, I'm willing to risk hindering innovation to preserve the principle of presidential control of the military.

<comment><USER4> How was that ever even vaguely under threat?</comment></comment>


The Rip-Off Express - <AUTHOR> http://panic.com/extras/ripoff/

<comment><USER2> It really does need to become a meme, working that truck into otherwise original web designs. Like that scream you hear on every movie soundtrack.

<comment><USER3> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Panic produce some amazing content, The True Story of Audion is my favorite: <http://panic.com/extras/audionstory>

</comment><comment><USER5> It's nice that they're so good-natured about it. That gallery of photos, and the commentary, is hilarious.

And how did the Transmit icon get on a German... adult store?

<comment><USER6> via FTP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> That jolly roger truck looks like the perfect icon for a BitTorrent client.

</comment><comment><USER8> This needs a Fark.com photoshop contest: Where else has this little truck been?

</comment><comment><USER9> Have you ever seen the BeOS people icon?

[http://www.softicons.com/free-icons/system-icons/beos- icons-...](http://www.softicons.com/free-icons/system-icons/beos-icons-by- studiotwentyeight/beos-people-icon)

It has been ripped MANY MANY times

</comment><comment><USER10> I confess, using that truck on a new site has been on my to do list!

</comment><comment><USER11> Shocking.

</comment><comment><USER12> Maybe Carmen Sandiego is driving.

Perhaps with Waldo as navigator?</comment>


Ask HN: How to implement "1% of nothing?" - <AUTHOR>

http://1percentof.org/ seems to be down/defunct; but the basic idea was/is that giving 1% equity to charity for a founding company has minimal impact on founders while having a lot of potential for 'good'.
My co founder and I are doing a 2-1 equity split, and in talking about how to 'round'; I suggested, and he agreed, that we do this 1% of nothing deal.  Now, we are forming as an LLC so we can't directly give equity (as far as I understand) to a non profit; nor do we have the capital/mental space to found a non-profit to give equity to.
My initial idea is to note in equity split part of the founders agreement have a clause that gives the 1% to a non profit upon transfer of ownership or conversion to c-corp.
I am wondering if anyone has experience with how to implement this, generally, or specific to our situation (forming as an LLC) <comment><USER2> I'm curious why you are not using a corporation as your entity. You have just met with the first of a number of difficulties of an LLC as a business and startup entity.

</comment><comment><USER3> This may be helpful: [http://www.salesforcefoundation.org/sharethemodel](http://www.salesforcefoundation.org/sharethemodel)</comment>


Tesla (TSLA) announces Q4 and 2016 results: Model 3 on track for July - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2017/02/22/tesla-tsla-q4-financial-results/ <comment><USER2> Is this weird corporatist worship site actually a legitimate source?

<comment><USER3> If every big corporation would be like Tesla, the world would be different. So yeah, just the fact that somebody loves it doesn't make it bad in itself.</comment></comment>


Our Kids Drive Us Crazy Because We Treat Parenting Like a Job - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/s/story/our-kids-drive-us-crazy-because-we-treat-parenting-like-a-job-fe9472b1ed7b <comment><USER2> Kids are funny creatures.

Having two I hVe the moral right to call my two creatures.

I wonder if instead of comparing parenting to our profession, perhaps we should perhaps compare it to Game of Thrones.

Instead of "Mother of Dragons", call all Mums/Dads by the title "Parents of Children" when they arrive at a public venue with appropriate pomp and circumstance.

Because raising kids is like a combination of herding cats and raising dragons without a user manual.

At times, especially between the age of 2-4, my kids responded as if every word out of my mouth was "Drakarys".

Looking back at my now teenagers, I've been able to teach them heaps.

And they've been able to teach me chaos, complexity, embarrassment, exhaustion, humility, and unpredictability.

The only legit piece of advice I can offer that actually relates to the subject article is:

It's easy to lose your cool on your kids and partner, especially after being overly diplomatic to the rest of the outside world all day/week.

Don't.</comment>


Getting Press for Your Startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.themacro.com/articles/2016/09/getting-press-for-your-startup/ <comment><USER2> Here's the process that works (with some persistence) even if you don't have a revolutionary product:

1\. Go to Google, toggle to news and enter the name of similar startups

2\. Go through each recent article and add the journalist to a spreadsheet

3\. Go on Email Hunter or Email Format to find how the publication formats their email addresses to guess the journalist's. Journalists also tend to use firstname.lastname@example.com for their personal emails.

4\. Email your pitch in 3-5 sentences max. Don't just describe what your startup you does, use an interesting angle or story to show its impact.

Instead of: "We do delivery logistic optimization."

Story: "Why the heck is your technician always 5hrs late? Cause it took forever to fix the issues of the guy before you.

We're helping our customers like Comcast and Oracle smart schedule all their appointments based on data like a) how long issue x typically takes to fix and b) real-time traffic conditions.

In high school, I worked taxi dispatcher, seeing firsthand the inefficiencies in coordinating drivers."

Journalists don't want to advertise your startup for free, they care about writing a story that entertains and educates their readers. Feed one to them.

Good roundup of pitch templates using different angles: [http://www.artofemails.com/pitch-press](http://www.artofemails.com/pitch- press)

</comment><comment><USER3> Small tips i learned when doing interviews (as journalist and as tech founder):

Ask the journalist what kind of story s/he wants to do and what role you play in this story.

It doesnt matter if it's about you or a general topic - understand what kind of basic arc/message/pov s/he wants to do. In 99% of the cases their job is not to be "investigators" but tell entertaining stories and they are usually happy to share their idea of the article.

\- Help getting to the content s/he needs. Share the right infos, the right contacts, industry insights. Essentially help as much as you can creating the ideal article.

\- Also make sure to create soundbites that work as quotes. Quotes tend to be highlighted in articles.

\- Make sure to connect the journalist with more useful contacts and help finding new ideas for articles.

\- Last but too often forgotten. Have good press images ready of you and your product. Some that work portrait, some that work in landscape. Some that show a business look, some that show a more personal look (depending on the story the journalist goes for)

hth - good luck!

<comment><USER4> This is one of the best roundups of PR advice I've seen. (andreasklinger's points are also spot on.)

Couple things to add:

1) Remember that embargoes need a journalist's opt in. You can't give them the news and order them not to publish until a given day and time. If you give them information without their agreement on an embargo, they can publish any time they want. So you need to keep some major details back when you ask for the embargo: e.g. "Our startup has some funding news to announce -- would you be interested in the embargoed press release?"

2) Just like with BD, building a relationship means helping reporters out even when you don't need them for a pending announcement. 5-minute favors, intros, explanations about the tech in your sector. That's how you can help...

3) Quotes: Many reporters have to adopt a relatively neutral voice in their writing. They face constraints on what they can say. They use quotes to spice up their stories. So try to make your soundbites _more_ exciting than the surrounding newsprint, not less. They'll have a better chance of getting published.

4) Aunt Agatha: Journalists are professional explainers. If they write for a general readership, they're really writing for intelligent outsiders who do not have great familiarity with what you do. So avoid jargon. You words that a normal, intelligent person would understand. Reporters sometimes call that reader Aunt Agatha.

5) Exclusives. I disagree with Michael in some situations. If you have big news, and you give a reporter an exclusive, you cannot give it to any one else. Which is a huge missed opportunity. Instead of blowing your chance for coverage every else, try to find ways to tailor stories to specific outlets; i.e. "We can't give you an exclusive, but we can work on this angle exclusively and I'll only put you in touch with certain members of the team for interviews..."

I was a journalist for 10 years, full time PR for 2, and now I devote my 5%, like Michael, to maintaining relationships. I used to give talks on PR. Some of this material might be useful:

Talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAWZBdLVj24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAWZBdLVj24)

Slides [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzcEIIxKcYncOHd4VTBrU29ObFE...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzcEIIxKcYncOHd4VTBrU29ObFE/view?usp=sharing)

PR Handbook (2013) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzcEIIxKcYncbUk2ZjRHS1hmQUk...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzcEIIxKcYncbUk2ZjRHS1hmQUk/view?usp=sharing)

<comment><USER5> One more thing I will add (journalist here) to these excellent tips is this:

Find your niche reporter. There is some reporter out there at some publication you've never heard of, and they are likely your perfect target for all of your news. You just have to find them and cultivate them. If you are a photo app, get to know an old world photography journalist, someone who writes for camera magazines. If you're a real estate application, find the regional real estate publications. A home shopping app, find local magazines, like (some local Bay Area examples) Oakland Magazine, Alameda Magazine, Diablo, 7X7 (or whatever fashionable SF and decorating focused mag still exists there.)

Stop pitching Tech Crunch, start pitching the Austin American Statesman or the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Your original hometown newspapers are great places to get "local boy makes good" type stories, and the Valley is super duper myopic about offline, regional media.

<comment><USER6> I'm curious, what value do you gain from something like the Austin American Statesman? I assume the main goal here of the PR is really to get links back to your site, so a higher value site like Tech Crunch would get you a higher value link back. Or, am I wrong, and the real point here is that something just needs to come up when someone Google's your startup.

<comment><USER7> Larger publications watch smaller publications -- newspapers, local blogs etc -- for story ideas.

<comment><USER5> Indeed, but also, hitting a newspaper read by 1 million people who are semi- technical is far better for a consumer product company than hitting an online audience of 10 million super tech users. The 1 million might just be hearing about you for the first time, while the 10 million online may already know you, seen other articles, moved on to the new hotness.... Those newspaper readers, though, they're wild, fresh and unmolested. Virgin ground for new customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is a lot of great advice here. I started as Larry Ellison's handler almost 20 years ago, wrote a book on publicity (Barbara Corcoran endorsed) and teach an online PR class.

Media has changed a lot in the last 5 years. It is important to familiarize yourself with the outlet and how the journalist writes. (ie) is the outlet known for listicles? (article to start and then '7 ways to crush it on a start-up budget.' Or, do they prefer pitches based on their editorial calendar?

Identify your target customer and find out what they read, listen to and watch.

If you have a tech product, focus on where a more technical audience might be like podcasts. You'd be surprised but it's not always the most well known outlet like Mashable that will drive sales or users. While that is great credibility and exciting, there are many opportunities out there.

RESOURCE: HARO www.helpareporterout.com is a good resource to sign up for - free opportunities 3x a day that journalists are posting. Since you will have the "lead" already, keep your response short and to the point.

NEWSWORTHY: To make something newsworthy, look at what is trending in the media. (ie) Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt getting divorced and then think about all the relevant angles.

Angles could include being a divorce attorney and contacting your local news to talk about the issues they each face or if you have created a divorce app that helps with custody sharing, etc... you could discuss how that would work.

We are in an era of high content consumption online and outlets like Forbes, Entrepreneur and Huffington Post rely on contributors. Forbes, for example, turns out 300 articles a day ... a DAY! There are more opportunities for your company to be featured now than in the past so that is good news for you.

Try not to get discouraged. It can take time to figure out what works and come back to the journalist with different angles. I've found consistent follow up works.

I know that I was rambling a bit but hope that helps.

I have some free info on my site www.rachelaolsen.com if you're interested including audio interviews with a Forbes contributor and a writer for US Weekly, Men's Health and Rolling Stone.

</comment><comment><USER9> Man - I wish I could be in here answering questions about the post but I'm on the YC World Tour and currently meeting startups in Lagos - I'm glad you all liked the post

</comment><comment><USER10> Any advice on how to get some traction when entering a foreign market?

In my experience the media mostly write about startups that already have significant traction, or about new products released by the big boys (Facebook, Google etc).

Acquiring users through Facebook/Twitter advertising might be an option for some, but could also easily mean you'll be spending tens of dollars per active user.

So what's left? I think it basically boils down to Hacker news & Product Hunt to get the ball rolling.

<comment><USER11> The first thing is that "marketing" vs "PR" is a choice about where you think investment will be most successful. They're complementary rather than in conflict. PR is top of funnel, marketing is lower down.

It depends on the size of your start-up, but here's a method I've used with success for PR and new markets.

My first bit of advice goes against the article. It depends on how 'distant' the new market is from your existing market(s) but I think you should hire a PR agency. The press is different from the east coast to the west coast USA, the British press (more snarky generally) are different to the USA press and those all share the same language - if you're trying to break into an Asian market as a North American startup it's tough (and vice versa) as you don't understand the culture, the process and don't know the people.

Like any professional hiring, PR agencies vary so finding one with the skills and the fit is key. Find a couple that work in your area (e.g tech and b2b or b2c), you can do this by looking at stories from your target market from tech firms and seeing who the PR agency is plus going to some industry events and personal contacts. Select three agencies and ask them to pitch a six month plan - then select the one you think will work. It's generally best to work with an agency where you are important to them, and where you have a consistent team that gets to know you. Work closely with the agency so they understand you and you them - they are representing you after all!

Second bit of advice is understand the news/PR situation in that market. Essentially, the articles advice is to find the right sources and journalists for your start-up - that totally makes sense. The agency should be able to tell you about each news location, what they focus on, who the journalists are and what they focus on. Then look for news and ways you can relate to their objectives. One advantage that you have is that you're _new_ and an _outsider_ which brings a different perspective: ultimately this is what journalists and news sources need, something original and different. A good way to do this is each month pick a theme/idea and pitch that to a _section_ of your news contacts - if you have a PR firm that should be the main way in which they help.

Ultimately, this is the key you have to have something new (so pick an angle) that journalist can use to get published (so make it easy for them) that the news source thinks its' readers will care about (so target subjects their readers care about).

Consistent cadence is important, someone else made the point that it's a "marathon not a sprint" (one of my favourite phrases). Developing a reputation with a publication for being interesting and 'giving good copy' helps. For a new market it could take six months to get any sort of interest and really up to a year before you'll be well-known enough to get consistent coverage. The team has to invest in the market, CEO has to physically go there to meet journalists (as a normal part of opening up that market). PR should just be one element in the general plan for opening the new market (e.g. events, sales, analysts, marketing, pr, hiring etc).

My last comment would be know when to withdraw. It's possible that there just isn't a good PR approach in a market, because it's focused in a particular area - for example, I personally found doing PR in Taiwan difficult because we were software and the entire market is focused on the hardware space so the only coverage we could get was our commentary on the hardware space which didn't achieve anything from my perspective. Try a few different cycles with the PR agency, network with other companies to see their approach and if it doesn't work put your investment into a different approach or market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Good read! I also found the following post useful and practical for getting press for startups: [http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2015/07/21/An-intro-PR- guide-f...](http://www.craigkerstiens.com/2015/07/21/An-intro-PR-guide-for- startups/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Warm intro's work better, but I'd also wager that good cold emails work as good. For example; if you can connect with the writer about one his articles, and transition into your startup..this is a good 25% chance to get covered (assuming your story is good).

Don't just submit a "tip" or go to the contact page, actually find the person who has written similar stuff and find his email

</comment><comment><USER14> I just participated in a panel on this very topic. The takeaways were to know who you're pitching, build a relationship, and be honest and succinct. If you have a good product relevant to that publication's readers, a good news editor or writer will pick up on that.

</comment><comment><USER15> I have often wondered if it would just better to get straight to the point and outright bribe journalists. Most are making a pittance and a few thousand dollars in cash handed under the table should make any startup story come out like it is the new Uber.

</comment><comment><USER16> > i.e. wait until you're 25% past the milestone to announce - so that you're > that much closer to announcing the next milestone.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear this violates a securities law.

<comment><USER4> If we're talking startups, then the securities law you're thinking about doesn't apply. These are private companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Does it really work?

<comment><USER18> Unfortunately, yes. If you don't know the journalist, you can forget about your news item or press release being published.

It's sad really, that news items get picked on who you know, instead of what the news is about. If you live in Europe, you're basically fucked. Unless they can't ignore you anymore, like Minecraft.

That's why I don't do PR anymore, because I'm not based in US and don't have any journalist contacts in my social network.

<comment><USER11> Using PR to generate top-level interest is just one approach to marketing, there are others that might be more suited to your situation. But, I do think you can develop good PR in North America even if you're based in Europe. In my experience much of the English speaking readers and PR outlets take the lead from North America, so if you have profile in their outlets then it's easier to build profile elsewhere. Perhaps the key if you're not the size of Minecraft is to build profile with particular niche journalists/locations - perhaps starting with online blogs/news sites and then working upwards from there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lol b/c other YCers say don't waste time getting press.

<comment><USER20> This is a wild oversimplification. Getting press is a good thing. Wasting time trying to get press without a plan that works is a bad thing. It's easy to fall into the trap of the latter, which is the entire point of this piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Flybrix is having a very successful launch today driven by a PR strategy that goes against Steps 2 and 3 of this advice. We hired a great PR firm to manage contacts and we got blanket coverage everywhere because of a press embargo.

I don't think I could have managed this on my own and on the timeline we did it.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's common knowledge around here that PR is wasted effort for startups. So why do this?

For startups and for any company, brand makes things nebulously easier. Sales require one fewer call, hiring pipelines are slightly more full, fundraising intros are easier. The point about creating News is really at the core: if you can make News one of the consistent outputs of your company, and you can see the results of News on your actual work, then you should do it.

Like everything else at a startup, brand is one tool. Don't use that tool unless the founders are strong with it and there's a well-defined path between that brand and traction.

<comment><USER23> PG once said "PR is the news equivalent of search engine optimization; instead of buying ads, which readers ignore, you get yourself inserted directly into the stories." And it's a way for startups to compete because they can't outspend the big guys on advertising.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)</comment></comment>