mjs00

Several thoughts: - Just add your company name ahead of 'Server Tools' as the formal name (ie "SCL Server Tools") - Take a key attribute/benefit and do a play off your company theme (ie Monitor + Scenic City >> CityScape >> "ServScape","ServerScape") - What is unique about your tools when compared to what is available? Do a play on that unique differentiator.

"Crossing the Chasm" is definitely a good book to understand one perspective about how technology is adopted. Basically find any way to get early adopters who are known by their peers to visibly use your product/service, then reference those folks in your marketing to start the bandwagon to get a larger user base who start self referencing and recommending. This played out at several startups I was with.

Look at roughly similar established products or services where you think the company is really getting things right in your opinion on the marketing side, and see if there is someone doing that work who might be open to talking about moving to a startup. Or just advising at this point. By roughly similar, I mean market approach similar (B2B, B2C, ...) and some similar technology/use case so that you can leverage their experience and not a steep ramp to what is different about your technology.

Most startups will not have a 'copywriter'. I've typically seen product or marketing copy from the following functions with the following related issues:

1) Developers: accurate description of product | too verbose/features rather than benefits 2) Non-technical marketing: grammatically correct | disconnected features/benefits/lack of story/too much 'sell' 3) Contract writers: Good story | expensive and time consuming to get writer to point of understanding

The best sites I feel do a good job of understanding what the company's 'secret sauce' is (often what is missing - the sustainable/differentiable/competitive advantage). They have a simple/compelling narrative connecting potential users with the benefits and key features of the solution. And it's usually a very healthy amount of back/forth between 1-2 or 1-3 to get there.

If you don't get any bites on your request, you might consider expanding on what you feel the 'thorn' is. Are you technical, and need help crafting a compelling story? Or do you enjoy writing but are having a hard time extracting benefits and a story from a list of features?

This may be too new for any 'industry analyst' to have defined or sized well... How about taking the vertical market(s) you are targeting (ie. hotels) then showing your logic and assumptions for what percentage of that market over time will be addressed by collaborative consumption. Also maybe comment on if collaborative opens up or expands the market (so part of your number is conversion from existing market, part creation of new market).

If you are not targeting a single vertical, but instead are a platform targeting any vertical, pick the top three verticals that have or will adopt first as the basis of your next few years.

Your % adoption against verticals market size will get your working forecast to show investors - and debating the (small) percentage of each vertical I think easier than defending an absolute market size number.

You might also consider making an analogy to adoption of online commerce against traditional commerce, and what that meant for supporting tools/platforms/etc, if that helps your case..

Ultimately it is the product you market, not the company. But consumer services can be OK with a common name if that helps a startup cut through the clutter. (and it will just be the product name anyway after you are acquired ...)

Relatedly, you can use the company name as part of product name for products (Company ProductA, Company productB), this can help you with trademarks and avoiding problems with others when you want your product name to be descriptive but it would be otherwise generic w/o your company name as part it.

" " (blank) also can match your plan of using no title. Make the design focus on company name and perhaps a line of memorable text about what the company or you provide.

It's very possible but initially a bit time consuming to get a relationship to the point where you can just give work to someone and get results. What I've done to get there:

Post a smallish job with a key element or two you will need (as a test). Require that you only want to hear from folks who have delivered very similar work and can provide links to it, and ask a pertinent question they should be able to answer in their response.

Ignore the folks that are not responsive to your request as dozens of individuals and outsource groups will respond yes to everything and reply only with a generic reply of work done.

Award the simple project to multiple folks who look like they've tackled things similar to what you want, done in a style you like. Set very specific milestones and structured release of payments for work against that and pay promptly. After completion, pick from them who to work with going forward on your project

BTW, I disagree with 'run-off' method. I think results of test are biased if they feel know are trying to win bigger job. Much better I think to assess completed small project, then offer a larger job only to those that you feel you would want to continue to work with on a larger or more extended basis.

Craigslist a used Humanscale Freedom chair - not as well known/desired as Aeron to keep used prices up, so folks closing out an office will often sell cheaply to unload (I've picked up several in great shape @ $100-200). BTW, I personally prefer the Freedom over Aeron, but am very happy with either.

MealTrac(.com), MealMix(.com)

I like it. Maybe even beyond or in addition something like "Code Concierge" -- for a variety of reasons it might be nice to have an ongoing relationship with individual/team/org for problems, advice, etc, that is not a typical consulting agreement, but is more than ad hoc posts to HN or Stack Exchange.

Looks great, but agree with most points made around how folks might be perceived using this (unless in a group of finance/accountant types).

Maybe a slight repositioning as something 'practical' that considers responsible folks consume at different rates - have it know who is in the group, who is 'in' for each round (as folks consume at different rates), then when final bill comes in, it will do a proportional split of final tab based on who is in each round, (also potentially relative drink pricing if different costs beer/mixed/wine), and tipping suggestion for each based on a value you set (18% / 20% / ??). Then app is more friendly to the group, and benefit is you don't overpay/overtip individually or as a group when maybe not thinking clearly when you settle.

You could even add a game element on who's paying the round, or based on random, ongoing bets, ??

> there is another group using the .fm of our name to make a somewhat similar product

There is something called 'common law' trademark where just by use a company creates a trademark. You didn't mention if they claim (TM) which anyone can around a mark w/o registration. Odds are if they started to use first, you wouldn't be able to get them to stop, but if you are second to a category with the same name, they might have the option to stop you. But if they don't claim (TM), you could take the stance that the name is generically descriptive, and something no-one can trademark, and move forward under that basis. But then you leave open potential for others to use name as well.