How Hunch's CEO just slapped a "For Sale" sign on his company

We haven’t heard much about Hunch, the once-buzzy recommendations site based in New York — and what we’ve heard hasn’t been good. So it was interesting to read CEO Chris Dixon’s response to an anonymous questioner who asked why Hunch was building a general recommendations platform instead of focusing on solving one specific problem.

Dixon (pictured here, left) wrote an answer that is instructive when read closely:

We’ve talked to probably a hundred large websites about partnering and have found that personalization/recommendations is at the top of the priority list for almost all of them. It has surprised us, for example, how many large sites are either a) building significant internal operations to add personalization/recommendations to their sites or b) have recently hired senior executives to be “head of personalization.” … [P]eople seem to see personalization/recommendations as so important that they want to do it themselves. So our take is that what we are focused on is going to be a central theme in technology over the next few years and we are very well positioned having been working on the problem for almost 3 years.

Meanwhile, in the search space, technology like what we’ve built at Hunch is becoming increasingly important.

Dixon goes on to cite Google CEO Eric Schmidt on how mobile search will increasingly be personalized and anticipate users’ questions — something close to what Hunch does, in other words.

Reading between the lines here, Dixon seems to be saying that Hunch has found it challenging to sign partnerships for its recommendation engine because most companies want to own the technology themselves. He then argues that Hunch has a head start in solving the problem — which his potential partners may only realize after working on it for a while. And recommendations are important to the crucial search market, which currently has only two meaningful players, Google and Microsoft.

Dixon seems to be positioning Hunch for a sale to one of those two. Not likely Google, which is actively thinking about personalization and recently bought Aardvark, a question-answering startup which some have compared to Hunch. Perhaps Microsoft, though, which is Google’s last meaningful competitor in Web search?

On Twitter, I observed that Dixon’s post amounted to slapping a “For Sale” sign on Hunch. At first, Dixon disagreed. Then he observed that the “#2 [player] never builds hard tech themselves.”

Why build when you can buy? And why admit you want to sell when you can play hard to get?

If Dixon is dressing his company up for sale, he’s got the right backers. Hunch raised $12 million in March in a round of funding led by Khosla Ventures. Khosla partner Gideon Yu, a Hunch board member, is known for his role in high-profile Web acquisitions and investments, from Yahoo’s purchase of Flickr (cofounded by Hunch’s chief product officer, Caterina Fake); YouTube’s $1.65 billion sale to Google; and Microsoft’s $240 million investment in Facebook.

  • http://www.timkilroy.com Tim Kilroy

    This makes sense…personalization is a core branding statement, and it is unlikely that any significant player can't find the resources to build something elegant enough….Hunch is a platform looking for a class of users to engage with…Do you think that the Dixons will go to the Balmer's to play canasta?

  • http://www.techcrunch.com Michael Arrington

    I just don't read it the way you do at all. What I see is Chris saying he wants to build a platform and partner with sites that want/need customization.

  • http://shaival.posterous.com/ Shaival Shah

    Owen, I typically love the insights, but as someone that spends all day with Chris Dixon at Hunch and works tirelessly on business strategy, product strategy and channel strategy with him, you have grossly miscalculated your observations and seem to be reaching down a dry well in search of some water to write about. Chris blogs and writes to give back to the community. It's why he started to blog and his real and only motivation to do so. He writes transparently about the good and the bad about hunch, the market, the state of the venture world and a long list of other important topics that entrepreneurs find insightful and meaningful. By wrongfully picking apart the sincerity of responding to a user's question who was genuinely interested in Hunch's future direction, you are only decreasing the motivation for people to share transparently to begin with. People enjoy not only hearing about our “strategy” and “plans”, but the process and thinking that we go through to arrive at it. Hunch is not positioning for a sale, an investment or any other strategic option. We are positioning ourselves for 2011, which is quickly shaping up to be the year of personalization around the market. If you want to write about something that has meaning for entrepreneurs, VCs and others, that may be a intellectual topic that you may want to consider.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3DD4R6DYHWQICUXPLXAAJLNDGY yahoo-3DD4R6DYHWQICUXPLXAAJLNDGY

    This “conclusion” does a real disservice to the Company. What the CEO said was typical CEO-speak about the future of Hunch – diffuse optimism. There is nothing here that implies they have been shopping the Company. To call out a headline like this could well get the CEO fired. This isn't journalism.

  • PeterA650

    I spent 3 years on a failed personalization startup (1999-2002). We found it impossible to break into the big accounts, not because we didn't have the technology but because they didn't want an outside vendor doing this – PERIOD.The funny thing about algorithmic personalization technology (at least in those days) is that many of its targeted users saw it as a threat to their jobs. If software can automatically infer what to display to a visiting user, who needs merchandisers and content managers, right?

  • title819

    RichRelevance has been doing this with much success over the past several years. They have cracked the biggest eCommerce accounts including Walmart, Office Depot, Sears, Flowers.com etc. I don't buy the build vs buy argument. Companies can always build things themselves but are algorithms and personalization really their core competencies? Most likely not. And the the cost of outsourcing to someone like a RR or Hunch will be justified when their ROI is 5x what an in-house platform is and they're able to leverage aggregate learnings across their client network to build a stronger algorithm.What's it's going to take for Hunch is excellent data and a few major brands – then their story will resonate.

  • http://blog.hiremebecauseimsmart.com stat arb

    You might be right. But they could just be thinking out loud, or airing their experiences frankly.Too bad more companies don't have the “open” mindset! I want my Netflix to be informed by my Last.fm.

  • http://technbiz.blogspot.com paramendra

    I second that.

blog comments powered by Disqus