So I have been very vocal in the past, with the Crowdfund and beyond, that I am not a fan of copycat sites. I feel that if you are going to spend the time and energy on doing a startup, then you should do something that is going to wow the world and be memorable. Not much memorable about a copycat site.

(Btw, by “copycat” I mean a site that is based on another site, more than likely US based, that you are thinking of launching here in South Africa.)

So at our last Crowdfund board meeting, I brought up the fact that I really wouldn’t be interested in funding any sites like this, even if only because I believe we should focus more on the global space than the South African space. And I was knocked down flat by every board member present.

Everyone pointed out that copycat sites usually bring improvements with them, that are geared towards the local market. Also, South Africa shouldn’t be left out in the cold just because there is an excellent regional model elsewhere that hasn’t made it to our land yet. Etc, etc. So, as I have stated before, we are in fact going to look at investing in a) local sites and b) maybe even copycat sites. But for me the first option will always be innovative, and global.

Anyway, all this talk made me realise that there is indeed logic in the madness….if a good model exists elsewhere, is it really so bad to replicate it here?

I am going to give it a shot, just for the hell of it.

I have been thinking long and hard for a while now about the best way to use the web to score a good deal. Nothing original there, of course. I was simply trying to come up with the optimal way. I even registered a cool domain name (www.dealcatcher.co.za) back in October last year while I was thinking about it.

In the meantime, I have been spending a lot of time researching “what’s big online”, in the US. And the one thing that jumped right out is Groupon.com. It’s gotten a lot of funding, it is cash positive, it has a lot of media attention. It also has a hell of a competition (at least 65 other similar sites) and not that many members, relatively speaking (3.6 million, after abt 3 yrs of operation). Still, I like the model, or at least half of it.

Here is how it works: Groupon finds an awesome deal (a massage at half price) and offers it to its members, conditional on the fact that a minimum of x people accept the deal (say, 75). Once 75 members sign up and pay, the deal is ON. More people can sign up while the deal is live, which is usually for the one day.

(Actually, it’s a bit like the Crowdfund. Without a R million in pledges, the deal would be OFF).

So, guess what? Yep. I’m launching a local Groupon-like site. Will use the www.dealcatcher.co.za domain, and will tweak the model (substantially) to suit our local market.

Of course, now I want it up ASAP. I have put a super team in place to make it happen, so I am giving myself (and them) a tough deadline. Three weeks to beta. I think it’s possible, although there is nothing set in stone.

Here is the kicker though: this is going to be a fun, side project. It certainly won’t use any Crowdfund money (obviously), but it also won’t use much of my own money (there is a team in place to run with this, so it’s not a solo project for me). Let’s see how I can bootstrap this to profitability. I am going to try to be as transparent about the process as makes sense strategically, and I will use this site to blog the process. Ultimately, I am going to put my thesis to the test that it is possible to harness the social cohesiveness of the South African online population to launch a good site cheaply, but well. And it will go one step further to apply the Geekretreat credo of “Making the South African Internet Better”

Most times, it is the ideas that are so simple, so obvious that are the best of all.

Chris Dixon points out in a post that if you are relying on advertisers for revenue, you actually need your website visitors to leave your site. So you shouldn’t be too sticky.

He cites Google vs Facebook as an example. Google is obviously designed to get you as fast away from it as possible….they want you clicking on those advertisers, the more often the better. They know you’ll come back of your own free will. Facebook, on the other hand, is very different. It wants you to stay there, and therefore does not offer much hope for advertisers who are waiting for you to click, click click.

Which goes a long way to explain why Google’s revenue is 30x that of Facebook’s.

As Chris says:

Facebook is like a Starbucks where everyone hangs out for hours but almost never buys anything.

This only applies to ads that want to be clicked. Maybe ads should simply want to be viewed? For brand building, for instance. (Chris refers to this as “intent generating advertising” as opposed to “harvest generating advertising). He suggest the big brands will have to rethink their approach.

They would be smart to look at our local Daily Maverick, which has done the thinking for them. The advertising model there is clearly built for brand awareness, rather than a “click now!” mentality. Which is great for the Daily Maverick, because it can then be as sticky as it wants to be.