> A good chunk of countries, counties and cities on the planet have mythical beasts in their official signage. So do the militaries and companies dealing with them.
Yes they do and that isn't a problem. There is a difference between using symbols and names and then branding your entire website with said things.
> From the other end, entrepreneurial scene is full of discussions about a particular mythical beast, the unicorn (as 'DoreenMichele pointed out upthread).
The link 'DoreenMichele sent is not the point. I don't care about signage I care about branding. Starbucks isn't using the Mermaid mythology in how it describes its company, it uses it as signage. That's fine no issues there.
Side note: I think the "unicorn" obsession in the tech sector is stupid and overrated. If a company advertises that it's looking for its next "unicorn-x" then I pretty much write them off.
> Really, it doesn't seem to me that you're uncomfortable with mythical beasts per se. It's just this creature isn't part of the old, baseline culture. It isn't Greek/Roman/Chinese mythology. It's a part of the nerd subculture. That's what I think you're uncomfortable with.
I think that's a pretty big leap to make. I have no issues with a company calling itself "Cthulu". I have an issue with how it is plastered all over the site and has even formed its mission statement around it.
Pretty sure this is on-point branding and differentiation.
Some people want to work with your faceless pristine professional top-heavy VC firm oozing with pedigree (McK,GS,Ivy galore) and some people want to roll the dice with people who aren't afraid to distinguish themselves from the culture of their herd and go hard (maybe too hard?) on something niche. So their branding is probably serving some use in self-selection and mindshare - I'm sure plenty of people will remember Cthulhu Ventures, for instance.
I'm ambivalent either way, I wouldn't judge too about this book based on its cover per se other than they've clearly thought about how they want the cover to be received which is a data point in and of itself. I suppose better that than not thinking about the cover whatsoever.
If that's what they're going for then fine. I expressed my opinion that I wouldn't take them seriously. Underneath the ridiculous branding they may very well be a great VC firm but the website doesn't sell that to me.
Yes they do and that isn't a problem. There is a difference between using symbols and names and then branding your entire website with said things.
> From the other end, entrepreneurial scene is full of discussions about a particular mythical beast, the unicorn (as 'DoreenMichele pointed out upthread).
The link 'DoreenMichele sent is not the point. I don't care about signage I care about branding. Starbucks isn't using the Mermaid mythology in how it describes its company, it uses it as signage. That's fine no issues there.
Side note: I think the "unicorn" obsession in the tech sector is stupid and overrated. If a company advertises that it's looking for its next "unicorn-x" then I pretty much write them off.
> Really, it doesn't seem to me that you're uncomfortable with mythical beasts per se. It's just this creature isn't part of the old, baseline culture. It isn't Greek/Roman/Chinese mythology. It's a part of the nerd subculture. That's what I think you're uncomfortable with.
I think that's a pretty big leap to make. I have no issues with a company calling itself "Cthulu". I have an issue with how it is plastered all over the site and has even formed its mission statement around it.