HackerTube

South Park Underpants Gnomes Profit Plan

Ryan HolotaCited 8× on HN, 2013–2021
YouTube
comedy · general · evergreen · 2013–2021 on HN

The South Park clip in which underpants gnomes explain their three-phase business plan: collect underpants, then a question mark, then profit.

HN uses it as a joke shorthand for startups or plans with a missing middle step and no real business model.

8 comments from Hacker News

@cs7022021-06 · in “MoviePass settles FTC allegations that they limited usage, exposed user data”

It appears the MoviePass master plan for world domination was inspired by the underpants gnomes of South Park[a]: Step 1. Charge customers $10/month for unlimited passes to movie theaters Step 2. Change passwords to prevent customers from getting their passes Step 3. ??? -- [a] ▶ this video

@cmroanirgo2018-09 · in “Posts on Google”

I think it's the underpants gnomes profit model[0]: Step 1. Collect underpants Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit [0] ▶ this video

@jackgavigan2015-08 · in “Source of the famous “Now you have two problems” quote (2006)”

The South Park underwear gnomes joke was a parody of dot-com startups (i.e. around 1999/2000) who didn't have a clear business model. ▶ this video

@wiradikusuma2014-03 · in “Wanelo: The First Million Users”

Call me skeptical, but it reminds me of ▶ this video Like other commenters have said, how did she, being a non-technical founder with no team, could set up the (what appears to be custom-made) website? It's like going to a hackathon and claim that you build an app within 24 hours, but actually have implemented majority of it beforehand and making it a "library". Anyway, looking at the positive side, had the slides contain more detail, I believe it can be inspiring for many people and not received with skepticisms.

Critical View on HN
@unclebucknasty2013-09 · in “What did the tech CEO say to the worker he wanted to automate?”

> I think the argument about "hobbies" is a long term one, not one that applies to people who just got laid off. I think that's the reality, but I am not sure that people like White from the article really acknowledge this. That is, he trivializes it by kind of offhandedly suggesting that it is good for people to have these new options open up as a result of losing their jobs. But, in fact, what is required is a radical restructuring of our economy and society at large (including our ideas about work) in order to arrive at what he suggests. This is not a point that can simply be glossed over or assumed if he is being earnest or even remotely serious about addressing the automation issue. Reminds me of this: ▶ this video . Step one is the automation of workers. Step three is this perfect utopian society, wherein we all just pursue our "hobbies".