» tagged pages
» logout
(or Cancel)

(Editing anonymously: to be credited for your changes, login or register a new account)

other page actions:

Tags Applied to this Topic

1 person has tagged this page:

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Be prudent but don't panic!

The alarm bells are ringing in Silicon Valley and start-up land today with Sequoia Capital and Ron Conway telling companies to prepare for the economic meltdown and to raise cash by cutting their burn.  This is not new news as being in New York we started to feel the real economic impact in mid-September as Lehman melted down and as Merrill Lynch was bailed out by Bank of America.  This is all prescient advice and something I have been espousing to my portfolio companies for awhile - see my last post from mid-September on Doing More with Less, a mantra that all startups should live by.  All that being said, it is not time to hit the panic button.  Don't go out and fire everyone wholesale and skinny down just because everyone else is. Do it because it is right for your business and because all of your leading indicators tell you to do so.  Do it the right way by not making a 20% cut across the board but by thoughtfully thinking about your business, your priorities, and where you need to focus your capital and resources to grow your revenue but conserve cash.

The good news is that many companies I have seen have learned their lessons from the last bubble bursting and rather than subscribe to the "if you build it they will come" model have turned towards the "release early and release often" model of gaining customer traction sooner rather than later and at much lower costs than before.  As I look at the current landscape, obvious areas of concern are any companies with high fixed costs and heavily reliant on direct sales whether it be advertising related or enterprise related.  It is clear that for these big ticket sales that many corporations are in the mantra of doing nothing rather than doing something and that startups should adjust their budgets accordingly to reflect this reality.  For those companies that live by the frictionless sales model and that are capital efficient with a low fixed cost base, take another hard look at your organization and priorities and haircut unneccessary expenses.  Once you do all of that and feel that you have 18+months of runway, look on the positive side as there will be many great people on the market.  Yes, cash is king and if you have it and conserve it, there will be some phenomenal opportunities to pick up some great talent.

Wednesday, October 01, 2008

Delivering on Q3 forecasts!

I received some incredible news last night from two portfolio company CEOs updating me on our Q3 numbers.  They not only hit their respective forecasts set early in the year, but they beat them.  Normally I expect our portfolio companies to hit their numbers, but I am ecstatic because we delivered in the midst of the largest financial crisis we have ever seen.  While much news on the technology world is of doom and gloom, and while I too have been advising portfolio companies to conserve cash, it is nice to see that companies are still willing to spend if you deliver a strong value proposition.  More importantly these numbers speak to the commitment of the respective teams to do anything possible to deliver on the Q3 forecasts.  In each company, sales reps and executives flew out to key prospects and knocked off obstacle upon obstacle until they walked away with an order.  Ok, it is not as dramatic as it sounds as there were numerous meetings and technology proof of concepts before getting a sale, but the point remains that the companies that delivered did not wait for the orders but went out and got them.  There were a number of stories of sacrifices that were made including one sales rep who was expecting his third child yesterday but was at a prospect getting the contract inked and another one of a sales rep and sales engineer who camped out at a client's office all day and wouldn't leave until they had a signed contract.  Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, and I hope that stories like these inspire you to keep fighting the good fight and to go out and make things happen.  Startups need to be scrappy and tough to survive!

Monday, September 15, 2008

Doing more with less

Being in New York, it is hard to escape the realities of the ailing financial sector.  When I took the train into the city this morning I could see the somber look in people's eyes knowing what had just happened to Lehman Brothers and the uncertainty of the financial markets and economy.  Given this state of play, it is clear that capital is becoming scarcer by the minute and that we don't know when we may come out of this mess.  The mantra for most businesses is to just wait and see rather than make any real decisions, especially when that requires a commitment of capital.  Then I get an email from Bill Morrison at ThinkEquity today outlining his views that we are in Phase II of a Media Recession:

In our experience, media recessions typically develop in three phases. First, marketers reduce spot market activity and eliminate quarterly budget flushes. Then, marketers begin canceling "up-front" commitments and previously signed advertising contracts. Lastly, marketers begin to rationalize/reduce budgets for future years. Our research suggests that we entered phase two of the current media recession during 3Q. Our recent conversations with online publishers revealed a significant number of advertisers that have cancelled contracts or significantly reduced commitments for the second half of 2008. The majority of industry contacts we spoke with this quarter said fundamentals weakened from 2Q to 3Q.

Trust me, I am not a doom and gloom guy and on the contrary believe that now is a great time to invest and build for the future.  That being said, it is also time to be smart and highly efficient. It is a great time to look internally and think about your priorities, your processes and whether or not you can do things better. 

In this backdrop, I had a couple of board meetings last week and as you might have guessed, one of the recurring themes was needing more resources.  While the companies were quite different, I seemed to be in the same meeting with each department head giving an overview and goal tracking from the previous quarter and each presentation ending with, "I need more resources."  It's not that I am against hiring more people for portfolio companies, since I am all for it.  My only point for all entrepreneurs and managers is that when you put together the hiring plan to make sure you think about the fact that you should always be under resourced and have more things to do than can get done.  What this really means is that you have to do an incredible job of prioritizing your goals. Always ask yourself how you can do more with less and you will find that you and your team will become incredibly resourceful and stretch your dollars a lot farther than anticipated. 

Speaking from experience, I have repeatedly seen situations where managers ask for additional hires, we tell them to wait a quarter, and then they miraculously are able to manage for the quarter. In fact, I was joking at one meeting the other day saying that it was incredible that we had half the staff from a year ago and have more revenue today that we did before.  If we cut in half again, I mused, perhaps we could grow even more.  OK-that is quite extreme, and we did agree to end up hiring a few more resources in various departments.  What really struck me was the fact that when we hit the wall over a year ago everyone thought we weren't going to be able to make it and grow our business.  What changed was that management became maniacally focused in prioritizing opportunities, not chasing every customer, being ruthless about how they spend their time, and consequently reengineering a number of their internal processes.  We are now a much healthier company with a better operational platform that merits more investment.  While I am not advocating that you starve your business and recognize that every company is different, I am suggesting that doing more with less is a mantra that you should subscribe to regardless of the economic environment and that in the long run it will yield tremendous results for you.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

M&A - it ain't over till it's over

The economy is clearly slowing down and the IPO market is nonexistent.  As I have always said, this is the time to hunker down and tweak your business to get your model right.  If you are interested in exiting today, M&A continues to be the only viable path along that front.  Having been through a number of acquisitions and potential acquisitions through the years, one point I must remind you of is that any deal isn't over until its over.  On the surface, this seems so obvious.  And yes, once a term sheet is signed and a price and general terms are agreed to, you are in great shape.  But recently, through discussions with other VCs and entrepreneurs, I am hearing about more situations where strategic buyers may significantly change the deal terms after more serious due diligence or even potentially walk away from a deal.  This can be especially painful if you have spent a number of months meeting with the strategic and going through due diligence in lieu of running your business. Trust me, this happened to one of my portfolio companies last year and reasons cited can include we had a change of strategic priorities and or look at the economy, there is no way we can value you like we did when we started the deal.

While I can offer you no protection from this happening to you, all I can say is to be prepared and skeptical, be willing to walk away, and make sure that you both do enough diligence and meet with the right decision makers before you sign any term sheet and embark on the extended process.  Once the term sheet is signed, run like hell to get the deal closed because the longer a deal lingers the more opportunity there is for it not to happen.  Keep the hammer down and always have next steps and a defined timetable.  In addition, to the extent that the strategic acquirer has made other aquisitions in the past, I would try to leverage your personal network to reach out to some of the VCs or entrepreneurs involved to get a flavor for how the strategic will run their due diligence process and what doozies or surprises the strategic throw at you.  Before you start spending your money from the acquisition, remember there is a lot that can change and that probably will change so keep that in the back of your mind as you go through the process.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Selling to large enterprises costs big dollars no matter how frictionless your sale is

I have written a number of times about frictionless sales and how on-demand companies have a huge opportunity to reduce their sales and marketing costs and subsequently scale their business more efficiently.  Here is an excerpt from a prior post:

Frictionless sales means reducing the pain for customers to adopt and use a service/product and consequently reducing the cost of sales and marketing to get a customer and generate revenue.  As I mention in an earlier post, "The less friction you have in your sales and delivery model, the easier it is to scale. The easier it is to scale the faster and more efficiently you can grow." The lowest friction sale can be a user clicking on a web page and the content owner getting paid for it.  The highest friction sale is spending lots of money on marketing and trade shows and having a large, direct sales force of expensive reps pounding the pavement for months trying to close a large deal with an enterprise customer.  Follow that with a 3 month implementation process to get the customer happy.  There are various grades of friction between these two extreme points like open source business models, software as a service, and reseller/OEM-type models as other forms of packaging and delivering a product/service.  And of course, each of these models requires a different methodology and way of marketing and selling to a customer. Ultimately what you want is sales leverage where every $1 you spend on sales and marketing equals multiples of that in terms of revenue.

The perception that it is much easier to scale definitely holds true if you are selling to consumers, small businesses, and workgroups within large organizations.  However, it seems that many public on-demand vendors are feeling the pressure to deliver growth and ultimately need to feed the revenue machine by going after larger customers.  And what many companies are learning is that no matter how on-demand your software is, if you are selling to huge enterprises you are going to have to spend huge dollars in sales and marketing.  Sales cycles are long no matter how you slice it and even if there is no massive hardware and software installation, many large companies want to have their service customized and integrated, even lightly, with other systems.  in other words, many of these high flying on-demand vendors are starting to look more like the old software companies they are trying to replace.  As per a Wall Street Journal article today, it seems that many of these public on-demand companies are finding out the hard way that no matter how frictionless your sales process is, the bigger the company you sell to, the more it is going to cost you. 

There is nothing to install, so workers can start using online software without the aid of the tech department. That makes it easier for companies that sell online software to get into a business than their on-premises competitors.

Seizing on this, investors bought into online-software companies in a big way. During the first 10 months of 2007, shares of 15 online-software companies tracked by Thomas Weisel Partners increased in value 61%. Since then, however, these companies have lost about a third of their value.

Wall Street has realized that it isn’t enough to simply offer online software—you have to have a sales strategy that can make your offering a corporate standard. It is possible to get individuals, project teams or small businesses to buy online software through word-of-mouth marketing, but it is hard to make money from these groups—at least the kind of money necessary to become a billion-dollar company.

In order to get there, they can’t operate like an Internet start-up, letting their technology spread virally as end users hear about it. They need to sell to the same executives and information-technology professionals who made purchasing decisions before online software was an option. Businesses have a lot riding on the decision to use one product or another. And while having pockets of workers advocate for a particular piece of software is a plus, the execs who sign the big checks still want to see demos, vet the seller and do all the things they have always done when they buy software.

So if you are an on-demand vendor, either stick to your focus of scaling with SMBs and consumers which requires a completely different sales and marketing approach more rooted in traditional online budgets and telesales or be prepared to spend some real dollars if you truly want to go after the big guys. 

Thursday, July 31, 2008

What do I see in venture through 2010???

The Jordan Edmiston Group recently asked me and a few other VCs a few pointed questions about the future for circulation in their July Client Briefing.  As an aside, I worked with JEGI two years ago and they did a fantastic job helping us sell Moreover Technologies to Verisign.  They understand the media and online world, are well connected, and work diligently to get the job done.  Anyway, here are the questions and my response:

Even though there is uncertainty in the credit markets, a stalled IPO market, and few billion-dollar plus M&A transactions, the investment activity level and appetite for quality businesses in the middle-market continues to be vibrant. Venture Capital firms continue to invest in companies that are providing answers to key disruptive market forces and are exiting those investments via M&A. The Jordan, Edmiston Group, Inc. (JEGI) solicited a handful of key VC executives for their responses to the following questions:

1. What are the key market forces you believe will impact your venture activities through 2010?
2. How do you envision capitalizing on or responding to these market forces?
3. How is the environment changing for deal exits (e.g., IPO vs. M&A)?

(My answer is pretty consistent with what I have been blogging about during the last few years.  Here is an excerpt from the briefing and if you are interested in reading more and some of the other VCs responses, you can get it here)

We are continuing to move to a broadband connected world, where everything that we do on a device increasingly lives in the cloud. Our business applications, our music, our videos, pictures, and messaging will be easily accessible from any device, any time, and anywhere. We will continue to see new cloud-based applications and services, and data-driven services will play a larger role in this new world. There will be some great opportunities to invest in companies that take existing data and run algorithms over these streams of data to deliver better and more targeted advertising, personalized recommendations and search, and better overall services for end-users.

One of the next phases of growth and large revenue opportunities will be driven by what is captured every time you click on a page and move from site to site. How companies use this data to improve a user’s online experience is the next game changer. What I love about these kinds of opportunities is that algorithms scale, have high gross margins, and are highly defensible. With our computing world living in the cloud, there will be a whole new generation of mobile applications that leverage the increased computing power and faster broadband speeds that are offered today.

Mobile carrier voice revenue is declining, and data revenue is the next huge growth area for carriers. However, data revenue cannot increase without applications that drive usage. Obviously, there are concerns about carriers’ “walled gardens”, but I see a future where carriers increasingly provide open access to allow innovative apps to drive data growth. In addition, as mobile devices become better, cheaper and faster, we will see an increase in the number of users accessing the web from their wireless devices, as often as they do from their home PCs.

Capitalizing on Disruptive Market Forces
Dawntreader Ventures will capitalize on these disruptions by investing in the entire food chain, from infrastructure layer to the apps and services that touch the end-user. This includes investments in companies like Greenplum, which is powering the back-end data warehousing for a number of high profile Internet companies for targeted advertising; and Peer39, which provides semantic advertising solutions by using natural language processing and machine learning. This technology enables the company to go beyond keywords to understand page meaning and sentiment, to deliver the most effective display and text advertising to end-users.

Exit Strategy

Unfortunately, the market for IPOs is currently “dead”, but it may reopen in 2009. M&A continues to be strong for the right companies that fit a strategic hole in an acquirer’s portfolio. In the end, I continue to tell my portfolio companies that if you focus on what you can control (growing and managing your business), then the external factors (exit strategy) will take care of themselves. However, if you try to force the issue and shop your company, that shows a sign of weakness and more often than not will result in a fire sale. Companies are bought and not sold. For strong, well managed companies, opportunities will always present themselves, as long as you can avoid making desperate decisions.

To read some other VC responses and to get an update on the state of Interactive M&A, I suggest getting the JEGI briefing here.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Data wars heating up - Microsoft buys DATAllegro

As I have written in previous posts, what you do with data will be one of the next battlegrounds on the web.  Knowing that they had some limitations with SQL Server, Microsoft announced its acquisition of DATAllegro (full disclosure: my fund is an investor in competitor Greenplum) to enter the data warehousing market.  Enterprise volumes across the board are ramping up quickly and this clearly gives Microsoft an opportunity to capture that market.  Being an investor in Greenplum, I always like to see healthy exits of competitors as many believe it will trigger further consolidation.  When a competitor is acquired, the first reaction from many is often asking themselves why it wasn't them and fear about competing with a juggernaut, but my perspective is quite different as it usually opens new opportunities.  As I have written before, many acquisitions fail and companies are usually so distracted for the first 6-12 months trying to integrate operationally and technically, that this gives others in the market a nice window to continue executing on their business plan.  So I tip my hat to DATAllegro and look forward to an exciting 12-18 months ahead as the data wars are clearly heating up now. 

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Your reputation matters - how to handle reference calls

The world that we live in trades on reputation.  What that means is that eventually whether you are raising capital or landing new customers, your references will matter.  If you are an entrepreneur, a VC will want to do some deep reference checks on you and also on any major customers or partners.  If you are trying to land that big customer, naturally the sales propsect will ask to speak with other customers to get a better understanding of the technology and your service.  How you handle and manage these reference calls is crucial to moving to the next step in a funding round or to closing a sale.  I have seen some entrepreneurs take the nonchalant approach, feeling quite secure in their relationships, and freely passing on contact information for their personal references and partners/customers.  Many times these calls will turn out just fine but there is still a big chance that they might not turn out as planned.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with reference calls is to carefully manage the process.  First, I would identify the 4 or 5 best references (customers/partners/personal) and have a call with them to make sure they are willing and have the right attitude and to pre-screen them with questions to make sure they convey the right information to the interested party.  Secondly, I would make sure that you don't inundate your references with too many calls as they may tire of helping you after awhile.  Finally, I would also set expectations and be quite clear with the VC or potential customer about what to expect from the call.  For example, I was talking to a CEO yesterday, and he mentioned that our strategic partner would take a call from a VC but that the partner was not the most effusive individual and would clearly state the facts but nothing more.  Well, if that is your only reference for that partner, make sure you convey this to the interested party to set expectations (see my earlier post about that). 

As a side note, a couple of my portfolio companies gave pretty big discounts to their first customers but also made sure that as part of the deal they would serve as lead references for other prospective customers and for VCs.  The discounts got the customers to take the leap of faith to buy the portfolio companies' products and also got them quite excited to freely promote our technology to others.  The point is that you should always think about your reputation, who will be your best reference, and then to cultivate them to really make sure that they can help you grow your business.


Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Raising capital and meeting expectations

What I like to tell portfolio companies is that on average it will take 6 months to raise capital with some cycles being shorter and some being longer. Given that, it is imperative for a company to start thinking about its next round well ahead of time and the milestones it needs to hit to have the right momentum to get potential investors excited. One area that I would like to caution entrepreneurs is being too aggressive on the milestones and revenue forecast, particularly in the near term.

Let me explain. Like any other VC, I love to invest in companies going after big markets with huge revenue potential. That being said, I also like to see plans grounded in reality as well. Rather than get me excited, showing a revenue ramp from $1mm to $17mm to $65mm will actually do the opposite for me, raising more questions and concerns than general excitement. Along those lines, it is also imperative that when you share your plans with investors that you are pretty confident that you will realize your milestones or hit your numbers in the next 6 months as investors like to see if you can deliver on your promises. One cardinal sin is being overly optimistic in the near term and falling flat on your face in the due diligence process. It is much better to position yourself in a way that you can meet and exceed expectations during the due diligence process than the other way around. When this happens the rest of your forecasts become more believable.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The next generation web - scaling and data mining matters (continued)

I had some interesting meetings yesterday and as I reflected on them this morning, one common theme emerged which is that the next generation of the web will be built on data mining and extracting intelligence from the reams of data web services collect on a daily basis.  This reminds me of a post I made in March of 2006 titled "The Next Generation Web - scaling and data mining will matter" where I mention:

I truly believe the next battleground will be based on scaling the back end and more importantly mining all of that clickstream data to offer a better service to users.  Those that can do it cheaply and effectively will win.  The tools are getting more sophisticated, the data sizes are growing exponentially, and companies don't want to break the bank nor wait for Godot to deliver results.

My first meeting was with a well known research analyst covering Internet stocks.  While we discussed the usual topics such as how the Internet was taking share from traditional advertising budgets and how the top brand advertisers have not really embraced the web yet, our most lively discussion centered around next generation advertising technology which all centered around increasingly complex forms of data analysis.  To that end, I mentioned one of the fund's portfolio companies, Peer39, which is using natural language processing and machine learning to create highly precise matching of commercial offers and user generated content.  As you might guess, the secret sauce is the algorithms that the company has created.

Later in the day I had lunch with a friend who we had funded years ago.  What was interesting to hear was how many of the future product lines that we discussed a few years ago were finally starting to emerge as real revenue drivers for the business today.  Years ago the company's first data center cost around $20mm and the latest one which has orders of magniture more customers cost only $3mm.  Clearly, any data-driven opportunities a few years ago were cost prohibitive in the first place and too early for the customer to understand in the second place.  That was the case because many businesses were just worried about not getting Amazoned and today they are all on the web thinking about how to drive better results.  That is why our discussion led to a massive data warehousing project his company was working on to take all of that data across his huge customer base and to help them better monetize their sites.

What I love about these kinds of opportunities is that algorithms scale, have high gross margins, and are proprietary and defensible.  The next generation web is not about what you click and see but what is happening behind the scenes every time you click on a page and move from site to site.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Old school content has value...again

Every day it seems we are reading about the power of social networking to transform the Internet and how we communicate online and also consume and discover new content.  While that is true and clearly changing the consumption habits of online users, today seems like a flashback to the old school Internet days where traditional content was king.  First IAC announced the acquisition of Lexico Corp which owns dictionary.com, thesaurus.com, and reference.com and then CBS announced the acquisition of CNET.  With $400+ million of revenue in 2007, it seems like a good buy for CBS at a little over 4x trailing revenue.  So looking at the fact that people are recognizing that social networks are not as easy to monetize as previously thought and the understanding that old school content can still be monetized, I wonder what other old school content companies may be in play in the future (can anyone say the Knot.com or the thestreet.com - full disclosure, i bought shares of these companies for my own account during the last couple of months).  Given the weakening ad spending environment and the fact that many of these small public Internet companies reported lower guidance for the rest of 2008, it is clear that now is a good time for strategics to buy and expand their uniques and ad inventory.  As I have always said, when it comes to the web, scale matters!  Also see Silicon Alley Insider for some comments from the CBS conference call regarding scale and the value of premium content:

CNET's been very disappointing for past few years. What are your strategy for improving CNET revenue growth, margins?

CFO: We think that they have the asssets to do that, they've revamped a number of the sites. Combining with us is good because there's very little overlap with our advertisers (auto, pharma, etc), but CNET audience demo very attractive to our advertisers. And then they reach advertisers (electronics, etc) that we don't. Other efficiencies: One public co instead of two. Combining some ad platforms, etc.

Given MSFT/YHOO, other consolidation, does this make you big enough on the Web?

Les: We just tripled our digital platform. Are there possibilities to do tuck-ins? But right now, we have taken a major leap forward. We are very happy with the cards we're holding now.

CFO: We're now a top 10 Internet company. Could we be a top 5 over time? Sure. But would be through growth, not acquisition.

Les: Remember! Premium content!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Open vs. closed networks and Facebook chat

As you know, I have always been a believer in open standards (see my post from January 2006).  Being a market leader, it is quite easy for Facebook to create their own standard similar to how every other instant messaging network was started.  And to that end, Facebook started down that path.  But just today, it announced that it was extending its chat and opening up its service by offering XMPP/Jabber support.  Assuming there are no restrictions, this is a huge win for openness.  Maybe one day Skype and MySpace and others will adopt the same strategy and move us to a world where we can IM anyone from any network and have one IM identity rather be forced to live in a world that was similar to the dark ages of email where Prodigy, Compuserve, and AOL users could only communicate with users on the same network.  Once Facebook starts with chat, maybe when and if it ever offers VOIP, it would leverage the open SIP standard as well. Rest assured that the development team at portfolio company Gizmo5 is digging into the details of the Facebook annoucement and in short order can offer seamless connectivity to Facebook chat from your mobile phone.  From the day Gizmo5 was started, it was built to live in a world of open standards leveraging the SIP protocol for VOIP and Jabber/XMPP for IM and Presence.  As you might imagine, the smaller networks who needed users were the ones to adopt open standards first.  Slowly but surely, larger and larger networks have adopted these standard starting with Google Chat in 2006 and now Facebook with its dominant market share in social networking.  It seems as if the floodgates are opening and this is quite exciting.  As I mentioned in my post from 2006:

Whatever happens it will be interesting to see if true open standards will triumph over closed and proprietary and how long that will take. At the end of the day consumers don't care about protocols, they just want it all to work seamlessly and easily, and they do not want to be on their own island for communications.  What I want is one identity or phone number that works on any IM network, VOIP network, or even integrates with my PSTN and cell phone identity?

Friday, May 09, 2008

Nokia-an Internet company???

As I have mentioned before, Nokia is one of the few handset manufacturers to get it (See my post from 2/07 on this).  Nokia understands that hardware margins are eroding and like in many technology businesses the value is in the software and monthly service revenue.  In addition, as time goes by, more and more people will be using their phones and data services to get information and communicate with friends.  Therefore it is no surprise that Nokia announced yesterday that it wants to be more like an Internet company and less like a manufacturing company. 

Our new structure is helping  Nokia to be more integrated as we focus more attention on developing new businesses around Internet services. Over time, it will allow us to be faster and more agile in bringing out new products and services, in serving our operator customers better, and in meeting our customers' needs in different parts of the world.

Our goal is to act less like a traditional manufacturer, and more like an Internet company.

The other piece that Nokia gets is that if they don't start offering services on their devices, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo will.  The delicate dance that Nokia is playing is how to fend off the traditional Internet guys while also adding value to its carrier partners.  Despite the fact that Nokia is one of the few companies that sells a significant number of phones direct to the consumer, carriers still matter.  To that end, it will be interesting to see how VOIP plays into this delicate balance.  For more on this, take a look at Michael Robertson's latest blog post (full disclosure-Dawntreader is an investor in GIzmo5 and I am on the board) on the world's smallest dual mode wifi phone.  6300iwithball_2 Yes, dual mode wifi means the phone can make VOIP calls over wifi networks.  As MIchael says:

"This is not Nokia's first wifi phone, but it is significant for several reasons:         

It has a street price of $200-300 (vs $400-900 for previous phones)

    Power utilization has improved so it can do ~3 hrs VoIP calls and ~4 days WLAN standby (historically wifi phones have had awful battery life)

It's Nokia's first s40 wifi phone (the majority of Nokia's phones are built with s40 parts so it will be very easy to create many more wifi models)

From my perspective, what is great is that the price point is falling quickly for dual-mode handsets, the battery usage/life is getting better, and manufacturers like Nokia are willing to offer innovative services on them through partners like Gizmo5.  2008 will surely shape up to be an interesting year in the wireless industry.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Developing your way to success or failure...

During the last month, I have been in board meetings and thinking to myself about what was going well and what wasn't.  And when the discussion came to revenue, one common theme that always seemed to surface was a focus on the next product.  What I mean is that when discussing why our current product wasn't selling as well as it should have or getting as many users as projected, the answer was always focused on the next product or feature.  Granted, I have always believed that one needs an insanely great product or service to generate sustainable revenue and that constant iteration is key to success.  However, it is also important to understand why a current product or service is or isn't doing as well as you thought.  In addition, entrepreneurs must also think about how they are going to get the product to the market and come up with the right messaging.  I have seen a number of situations where entrepreneurs can get too focused about developing and releasing the next product or feature without spending as much or even more time and resources in getting it out to the market.  Then when management and the board sit down to evaluate what went wrong, the answer seems to be that people clearly didn't care.  That can be a huge failing because the product or service may actually be phenomenal but just may have had no marketing or support in reaching potential customers.

So my advice is that before you place all of your bets on the next product or feature, make sure you put enough effort into crafting the right message and value proposition and that you put just as many resources into getting it out to the market.  In other words, give your product a chance to succeed and don't starve it to death.  Constantly developing new technology without having a well-thought out plan to get it to market can spell doom!  Developing your way to success can work only if you realize that it is only part of the battle.   

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Direct ad sales and startups

I have recently met a number of startups with interesting consumer applications or services.  As expected, many of these startups have a vision to rely on advertising to pay the bills.  And like many startups, a number of these companies have plans to add a direct ad sales staff over time.  That makes a ton of sense, but what I believe is that many entrepreneurs underestimate the direct capital and management costs necessary to build such a team.  In many ways, building a direct ad sales team is similar to building an enterprise sales team.  These thoughts may seem quite basic to you but here they are nevertheless.  First, don't ramp up your sales team too quickly until you have a product to sell.  That means if you don't have scale or enough eyeballs you are better off using Google Adsense.  If you don't heed this advice you may quickly burn yourself out of business.  Secondly, I know that many startups may not know what kind of ad units to sell but be careful of not having a standard product list or rate sheet when you go out to the market.  Yes, I know you have to be creative if you have a new service and listen to your customers, but at the same time don't base your business on selling one-off ad units for each advertiser because this can be a huge drain on your technical resources over time.  Next, make sure you never forget that what is right for your users is right for your business.  Many times I have seen companies that are trying to meet the advertiser's inventory requirement make the ads much too prominent and sacrifice usability in the long run.  While this may drive some initial short-term results, it may come to bite you in the ass in the future. 

The bottom line is that Google Adsense works well for a reason-it has scale-it has tons of eyeballs, it has a huge customer list of advertisers, and is therefore more likely to get you great pricing and ad targeting.  Yes, I don't disagree that over time you want your own sales team and don't want to solely rely on one partner for your revenue, but just go into this with your eyes wide open and don't ramp up before its time.  The direct costs, management costs, and hidden strains on your infrastructure may be more than you can handle if you ramp up too quickly.  Start slowly, figure out what it is that advertisers love about your service or product, figure out what kind of units deliver the best results, and then ramp.  Here is an earlier post on ramping up an enterprise sales team as there are many similarities to direct ad sales and direct enterprise sales.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The economic headwinds are getting stonger

I was waiting for this day to happen.  Each day I go online and also glance at the newspaper, and there is nothing but bad news.  And yes, it is true that some of the best technology companies were built when the economy was at its worst.  And I always like to think that it takes a little longer for some of these negative effects to trickle down to smaller companies and startups.  Just the other day, I got the call from one of my portfolio companies which had won a huge deal last month.  We were waiting for the purchase order and the dreaded call came: "You still have the deal but our CFO needs us to cost justify every dollar we spend on IT - the deal will have to wait until next quarter."  That definitely put a kink in our plans and also caused us to adjust our Q1 forecast.  Fortunately, many of us had been through this before and management had prepared alternative plans based on various growth rates at our last board meeting.  We had a base case model which we were running our expenses on, an upside model which we had hoped we would achieve, and a lower growth scenario which we would have to implement if bookings did not materialize.  I know that this is one data point but all I can say is that if you have not done so already, prepare a few different models to make sure you can make appropriate changes to your business to conserve cash.  I won't say that we are in a recession but if we get more data points on spending freezes, layoffs, and the like, it is only prudent to be prepared.  And yes, as I stated above, while some of the best technology companies were built when the economy was at its worst, they would not be here today if they weren't standing when the markets rebounded.  That means that you have to rationalize your business and put more resources behind what is working and not spread yourself too thin.  That means if you are raising another round of funding try to raise more capital rather than less - focus on having about 18 months of fresh dollars to see through the other side.  Finally, stay strong and keep your head up because if you follow the above advice you will have a much stronger business when the markets rebound.

Monday, February 25, 2008

The "free" business model

Chris Anderson does a nice job of summarizing the rise of the "free" business model starting with the Razor/razor blade to the world of the web where he argues that all services eventually get priced at their marginal cost. And as Chris rightly describes, that price is quickly going to zero in a world of technology where Moore's Law continues to hold and where storage costs are declining rapidly. 

Among the many great examples in Chris' article, the one paragraph that stood out most for me follows:

There is, presumably, a limited supply of reputation and attention in the world at any point in time. These are the new scarcities — and the world of free exists mostly to acquire these valuable assets for the sake of a business model to be identified later. Free shifts the economy from a focus on only that which can be quantified in dollars and cents to a more realistic accounting of all the things we truly value today.

In a world where everything is free, what is the most valuable asset?  I couldn't agree more that "attention" and "time" are two scarcities that every company offering "free" services has to overcome.  There is only so much time in the day for all of us to join another social network, add a new widget, and try out a new web service. And this fight is not only for a consumer's web time but for their overall leisure time - time to spend with their family, time for sports, and time for entertainment.  Given this competition for such a finite resource, you better have something incredible for me to try which will either provide awesome entertainment or provide an awesome utility that gives me a 10x improvement over existing ways of doing things.  Without that, I am sure you will get people to sign up and try your service, but I doubt you will have many active users 6-12 months down the line.

And my final point is that "free" is great and what consumers expect many times, but at some point in time dollars do have to come from somewhere whether it be venture capitalists (who will surely expect a big return on their investment), advertisers who will expect the same, or some other source of capital to sustain the business.  So in concept I agree with the notion that the world is getting cheaper by the second, but on the other hand don't forget Chris' points that free only means that dollars do eventually have to come from somewhere to pay the bills.  Oh yeah, one other point-as we move to this world of free, there will be lots of carnage and the road will be littered with many dead companies, as only a small percentage in a growing pie will be able to make this model work and viably consume your time and attention to deliver the money.

Friday, February 08, 2008

Top tech M&A advisors for 2007

I just got the 451 Group's summary on the top M&A bankers for 2007.  As with 2006, Goldman Sachs was #1 on the list.  Take a look:

Top five overall advisers, 2007

                        
Adviser Deal value Deal volume 2006 ranking
Goldman Sachs $79bn 43 1
Credit Suisse $75bn 29 3
Morgan Stanley $74bn 29 6
Citigroup $61bn 23 5
Lehman Brothers $56bn 21 4

Of course if you break down the numbers, you can see that the average deal size for all of these banks range from $1.75 to 2.75 billion.  Let me translate back for the startup community.  As I have written before, I am a firm believer that companies are bought, and not sold (see an earlier post).  In other words, I am not a fan of hiring a banker to shop a company around but rather find it better when a portfolio company receives an unsolicited offer and you then bring a banker in to leverage that bid to create a more competitive situation.  Assuming you are in this position, every startup I know says, "Let's go get Goldman or Morgan Stanley."  While in theory we would all love to have these guys as advisors, the chances are that you are not going to get them on board.  First, they typically have high minimum thresholds of exit value typically in the $300mm plus range and secondly even if you fit that criteria you may not get all of the attention you need since a $5 or $10 billion dollar will clearly trump yours.  What I would advise is that you find a banker that has the recent experience selling companies in a price range that you are seeking, will give you the PERSONAL attention that you need to make the transaction successful, and has the network to reach out to the right people on a timely basis.  Based on my experience, I have found that some of the firms like Thomas Weisel Partners and Jefferies Broadview who are not bulge bracket but with strong reputations in the technology markets can be a good fit.  I am sure there are many other great firms that I am missing but you get the idea.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Need homework help - try Tutor.com

I got an email from George Cigale, CEO of Tutor.com, yesterday to check out the New York Times article on his company's service (full disclosure-my fund is an investor in Tutor.com and my partner Dan is on the board).  The article, "On Demand, On Time and for a Fee, an Army of Tutors Appears," highlights Michelle Slatalla's experience with Tutor.com's service where her two daughters were able to get instant homework help by going to Tutor.com, logging in, and clicking on their grade level and subject matter to find a qualified instructor.  Thankfully Michelle had a pretty positive experience as we have had time to hone the service and continue to find great tutors as we currently complete thousands of sessions each day.  Anyway, next time your child asks you for help on Algebra, you may want to visit Tutor.com and try another method.  From a thematic point of view, this is another example of how companies can leverage the power of the Internet to offer an on-demand service leveraging a distributed and free agent workforce.  I just love those types of models!

Friday, February 01, 2008

What a Microsoft Yahoo deal would mean for startups (continued)

What a great move by Microsoft! This has been floating around for awhile and the last time I wrote about it was in May of 2007. Anyway, I thought I bought at the bottom for Yahoo months ago in which case it fell another 25% from there. When I saw the news this morning I was quite happy to sell my shares and make a slight profit. As we all know when it comes to the Internet and advertising, scale matters. What this potential deal could mean for startups are two things. One, when Microsoft finally integrates its 3 or more advertising platforms with Aquantive, adcenter, and Panama, they may just be able to offer startups a decent or even better alternative to using Google Adsense to monetize their inventory. Secondly, that huge collective sigh you are hearing is one that is based on the fact that there will be one less independent multi-billion dollar acquirer for the thousands of startups out there. In fact, this integration could take awhile and take Microsoft out of the running in the near term as well. So if you are a startup depending on a quick flip, I would do what you were always supposed to do - focus on your fundamentals and figure out how to build a real business. In addition, given the uncertain economy, I would be very careful on ramping up your business too quickly unless you have the results to justify your growth in fixed costs. Moving on, it will truly be interesting to see how Microsoft integrates Yahoo and what parts of Yahoo it decides to sell like Kelkoo or kill like possibly Zimbra. All I know is that there have been lots of senior Yahoo resumes on the street so it will be interesting to see where they all end up.

Page 1 | Next >>
Username:
Password:
(or Cancel)