Looks like there were over 100 submissions for the effort to come up with a moniker for Colorado’s technology scene. Those names are now in a voting mode for about a week. Go here to allocate your ten points across some of the names you like the most and to check out the leader board.
I’ve heard and read a few grumblings that we should get back to doing stuff and building a reputation instead of trying to come up with a name artificially. While there is some merit to that argument and something that resonates with me personally, my view is that having a consistent name for “us” can’t be a bad thing if it happens to be one lots of us love and it happens to stick. So, why not try? It’s not as if a ton of effort is actually being spent doing this. I think the folks who are organizing it know full well that it could fail. So what – it could also work – so why not? Nobody is officially changing anything – this seems to me to just be an effort to try to create a groundswell and some consensus. There is no man behind the curtain.
Clearly, there is some interest in this. Over 100 names have been suggested so far, and most of them are not jokes. Some are, and that’s great. You get to laugh a little too.
I travel around and interact with other startup communities fairly regularly. I interact with investors and entrepreneurs from all over the country. Here are a couple of things that I’ve heard that drive me a little nuts.
1. “I’m in Denver today.” – This happens often when people come to Boulder. After all, they fly into Denver so that’s where they are, right? This isn’t a Boulder vs Denver thing, it’s just a confusion thing. Having a single name for our technology center (which clear spans from Boulder to Denver) would help with this phenomenon. Nobody says I’m going to San Jose when they mean they’re going to Mountain View. They’re just going to the Valley. It widens the geography and amplifies the signal of the region. I’d rather they just say “I’m going to Colorado.” – it’s more accurate and it ties us together nicely. John Ives actually suggested this moniker – not bad. But think about this for a second. When you hear “San Francisco” or “Silicon Valley”, if you’re thinking about technology centers, you interpret them as the same thing if you’re like me. They’re both just names commonly understood names for the same hot spot of innovation and technology.
2. “Oh, Colorado, yeah, you guys have some catching up to do with places like The Research Triangle“. I’m sure it’s great in North Carolina and all, but I really do suspect that people have simply somehow heard of Research Triangle and therefore assign it some automatic additional credit. Everything coming out of that area goes by Research Triangle. It’s consistent, so instead of hearing “This happens in Raleigh” and “That happens in Durham” and “That company is from Chapel Hill”, we instead consistently hear about Research Triangle companies. In fact, Research Triangle is an eight county area. They’ve established a brand for their community. I had even heard of it years ago, but I couldn’t tell you how. I suppose Techstars could just be that unnamed thing that collects a bunch of mentors and funds early stage startups, but it wouldn’t quite have the same brand equity nationally if that were the case. Names help. They matter.
Whatever. Go vote or add your own names and maybe one day we’ll get some consistent branding going for this great community that we’ve all helped to build.
I think the "Technology Corridor" suggestions are somewhat unfortunate. This country is littered with officially named "technology corridors" (google for it!) and the names don't seem to have elevated the recognition of these locales. Also, "Mile High Tech" sounds like a product instead of a place.
I'm throwing a few votes at "Colorado" — it exists, it works, and people already use it. My only worry is that "Colorado" may have radically different connotations for outsiders than it does for us. "Colorado? Isn't that a ski resort?"
Back in the late 90's when every region was trying to come up with a "Silicon Valley" name, ours was supposed to be the "Wired West." I suppose that's a bit quaint in today's wireless world. 🙂
David: Is the goal to find a moniker for tech activity in entire state or a geographical subset?
As someone based in RTP, I can say with certainty that the "Research Triangle Park" moniker is only of use to people in life science related fields. The early stage community here is a mess.
There are some promising startups and a number of individuals who are very willing to provide advice etc, but the funding scene is a disaster. The Angels/Angel Groups are simply not investing (Piedmont Angel Network are but they do a tiny number of deals) and the local VCs are simply not interested in early stage deals. They may say otherwise, but ask any tech entrepreneur in RTP about the local VCs and you'll either get a resigned look or a chuckle followed by an example of how much they _don't_ invest early.
And don't even get me started about CED (Council for Entrepreneurial Development). Very out of touch and rapidly making themselves irrelevant to most early stage companies in the area.
I'd rather be in CO's shoes anyday…
interesting. i know that too, but nationally it's almost as if it doesn't matter. it's an identity that's known nationally.
As someone who moved to and lived in the Silicon Valley for many years, I can tell you that it's brand and reputation proceeded it…and worked. When I first moved there, I'd tell people "I'm moving to San Jose" and some would smile and say "oh…..that's nice, California is beautiful". When I would continue with "it's in the heart of the silicon valley." Their reaction and intention would change dramatically. Now it focused on what they knew, had heard, or even thought they had heard about technology…not about San Jose or California or sunshine or traffic. It's "brand" came into play and captivated their mind. It's what all companies, organizations and business focused communities strive to develop, retain and protect…brand recognition. Just ask, Coke or Hawaii or how about FEMA or GM…we all have visceral reactions to those brands and yet, we may know very little or absolutely nothing about the realities under which the operate. There were people and ranches and orchards before the Silicon Valley grew into what's there today, but the fact that those pieces became "the technology capital of the planet" was not an accident. Companies needed to attract capital, mostly the human kind, to help grow and develop those technologies and their businesses. That's where the brand has it's strongest and most far reaching affect. A brand can carry all over the world and become it's own entity. It was a powerful tool when I needed to recruit someone from Dallas, NY, Germany, India or China. I didn't have to have a long discussion on our proximity between SF and LA, all I had to do was say "we're in the Silicon Valley" and then I could get down to the real business at hand.
Now, I live in NY where we have the "Silicon Alley". The Alley will never have the same global brand power. But the key is….it doesn't need to. It's in NY, a world capital in itself. Colorado may have the same opportunity that the Silicon Valley had when it was growing. Building a brand that grows into it's own and takes on a life of itself. No brand will ever totally and accurately represent all the people, infrastructure and communities that it incorporates. If you dig down a layer you'll find the individual experiences. The idea of a brand is to express those countless idiosyncrasies into a simple, approachable and memorable idea. The questions of whether to do it, what to call it, who names it, where does it start & stop geographically are all topics that will inspire evangelists and detractors. Either way you can't deny the organic nature of a brand that has a power and possibility all its own.