Friday, July 10, 2009

Redfin Turns Profitable, Real Estate Industry Shudders

About time

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via TechCrunch by Michael Arrington on 7/10/09

An interesting tidbit from today's Naked Truth event in Seattle: Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman said his company just turned profitable. Since I was sitting next to him on the panel, I asked him off microphone what revenues were. He said the run rate is around $15 million. 2007 revenues were $5 million, 2006 revenues were $1 million.

That's great news for everyone except the real estate industry. The Seattle-based startup represents buyers and sellers in home real estate transactions for far less than the entrenched industry rates that take 5%-6% of the sale price of a home and split it between buy and sell brokers. On the buy side they reimburse 50% of the fee they receive back to the buyer. On the sell side they charge a $5,000 - $7,000 flat fee. The normal broker fees on a million dollar house are up to $60,000, so the savings are obvious.

The company was profiled favorably by 60 Minutes in 2007, but real estate agents and brokers have known about the company for far longer. Even as far back as 2006, Kelman told me, they've had to deal with "threats, stalkings and other disturbing behavior towards their employees and some customers from, apparently, angry real estate professionals." Now that Redfin has shown that their model works profitably those threats will likely become worse.

Disruption is never fun for those being disrupted. The DOJ is hitting the real estate industry from one side, and Redfin is hitting them from the other. The result? A better deal for the rest of us.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Ron Conway’s 10 Ways To Monetize Real-Time Data

Time to pay attention

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via TechCrunch by MG Siegler on 7/10/09

cbs_letterman_feb06_2008_top_ten_mccainAngel investor Ron Conway in on stage at or Real-Time Stream Crunchup even. He has the top 10 monetization opportunities in real-time data — like David Letterman's lists.

Counting down:

10. Lead generation

9. Coupons

8. Analytics

7. CRM

6. Payments - If I was at PayPal, I would be looking at this.

5. Commerce

4. User authentication - Corporate accounts want to pay.

3. Syndication of new ads - Twitter itself could just syndicate. Multi-billion.

2. Content advertising and advertising context and display

1. Acquiring followers

There's at least $5 billion of monetization right there — at least, Conway says.

3706880641_6d1d14a020

[photo: CC Brian Solis]

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Twitter Client Tweetdeck Raises Around $3.2 Million In Funding

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via TechCrunch by Leena Rao on 7/10/09

picture-143

Tweetdeck, one of the most popular Twitter clients, has raised $3.2 million (2 million British pounds) in a previously undisclosed round of funding, according to angel investor John Borthwick. He revealed the funding at TechCrunch's Real-Time Stream CrunchUp, during a panel discussion bewteen Michael Arrington, and investor Ron Conway.

Tweetdeck, which recently launched a TechCrunch-branded version, raised a small round of angel funding in January, estimated at $300,000. TweetDeck is available for Mac, Windows and Linux, it just requires Adobe AIR. The company has been working on getting more services integrated into its client. Last week, it launched an iPhone app that has been gaining popularity quickly.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Thursday, July 09, 2009

10 years of entrepreneurship

Very honest, insightful, and introspective view of entrepreneurship from Eric Ries

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Lessons Learned by Eric on 7/9/09

I recently passed my ten-year anniversary of becoming an entrepreneur. I almost didn't realize it, but there's no escaping the math. In the summer of 1999, I started working on a startup from my college dorm. I'd eventually take a leave of absence from school and pursue it full-time, making just enough progress to catch the tail end of the dot-com bubble - and all of the dot-bomb crash. As we say, it was a "good learning experience."

Since then, entrepreneurship has occupied me in one form or another pretty much full-time. Much of what I've learned over the years has been invested in this blog, and that makes creating a sweeping summation challenging. I'm honored to be advancing the work of putting entrepreneurship on a more rigorous footing. But that's still in the future. Looking back, what strikes me the most is not how much I've learned - it's how much time I wasted on stuff that turned out to be utterly unimportant.

I pretty much missed all the trends. I'd been on the internet since I was playing MUDs as a kid, but by 1999 I felt I'd already missed the boat. All the good domain names were taken, all the good ideas were being implemented. If I'd bought just a handful of the "best of the rest" domain names that were available at the time (for a whopping $70 each), I probably could have just retired right then. And the great ideas that became today's successful tech startups dwarf anything that had been done to that point. I just couldn't imagine what the next ten years of innovation would look like. Yet my feeling of having missed out prevented me from experimenting with ideas that might have worked.

Nonetheless, my first startup was a tool for college students from elite colleges to create resumes and help them find jobs. Getting students to create their online profile was easy, but getting employers to pay for access proved difficult. Unfortunately, we were fixated on "building a real business" and never noticed that maybe students would want to share their profiles with each other. Could we have built the first college-based social network five years before Facebook? Maybe, but the thought never even entered our minds. (You can even see the humiliating evidence of my smug incompetence in this absurd article from 1999.) We were focused on revenue, but we didn't understand that revenue is not important for its own sake in an early stage company. Instead, we should have thought of it as an indication of validated learning.

And speaking of Facebook, I definitely didn't think it was a good idea when I first heard about it. Heck, I'd already seen Friendster flame out. What was different this time? And Google? No business model, either. I turned down two opportunities to interview at Google in its pre-AdWords days. It seemed like just a bunch of research-oriented PhD's. Oops. And then, at my first Silicon Valley startup, I watched friends get laid off in successive waves as it started to fail. Almost all of them got scooped up by pre-IPO Google this time. I was "lucky" to not be laid off, or so I thought. Yet, as it turns out, the earlier you got laid off, the earlier you got your Google options. That year, right before the IPO, those months mattered a great deal in terms of financial outcomes.

And while I'm confessing, let me add that I knew Matt Cohler way before he was famous. When he left his consulting job to join LinkedIn (whatever that was), I didn't think twice about it. In fact, I remember sending him and his obscure-to-me co-founder (aka Reid Hoffman) a bug report early-on, instead of taking them up on their offer of an in-person meeting. Doh! And when Matt left LinkedIn to take the reins at Facebook; once again, it didn't register. I was much more focused on other transient success stories of the day. I managed to be envious of dozens of other companies, founders, and colleagues who seemed to be having tremendous success but later turned out to be a mirage. If you'd asked me to rank the top most important people I'd met that year, I doubt it would look very impressive in retrospect.

I'm confident of that last statement, because I made the same mistake again a few years later, when I won an award in 2007. BusinessWeek named me one of the top young entrepreneurs in tech, based on my work at IMVU. Being called a techno-wonderboy in front of everyone I knew was pretty strange, and it felt stranger still to be taking credit for the hard work of the many people who really made IMVU a success. But they were very supportive, and the experience was a good one. Trying to take full advantage of the opportunity, I even reached out and met a few of the other award winners. But, looking back, was it obvious which of the other winners were destined to create world-changing companies? Nope. I completely missed Twitter, for example, which was just one more company to me. Oops.

And yet, missing out on these trends wasn't the end of the world. If I had joined Google early, I'd never have had the opportunity to be part of the founding of IMVU. Then I wouldn't have the chance to work with the incredible employees and mentors from whom I learned so much. And, as I've said many times on this blog, if it weren't for those colossal failures and embarrassing missteps, I'd never have learned anything of significance. So, looking back, I'm grateful for the failures and missed opportunities, embarrassing though they are.

One thing really stands out to me today. I wasted a lot of energy, time, and passion on trend-spotting and trying to compare my success with others. Is it really worthwhile spending time and money trying to impress each other with our supposed successes, especially in a business where real feedback can take five or ten years? We go to mixers, buy fancy offices, focus on PR, and try to one-up each other. I think it's wasteful. Instead, let's focus on building companies that matter, on creating real value for customers, and learning. In time, success will come. And if it doesn't, at least you'll have spent your time doing something intrinsically worthwhile.

In the meantime, don't worry if you can't spot the trends. Neither can the rest of us (well, except for Matt Cohler).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

U.S. VC fund-raising plunges 63 percent, hitting six-year low

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by Camille Ricketts on 7/8/09

Venture capital fund-raising in the United States has dropped 63 percent at the six-month mark — the lowest it has been since 2003, according to a new report from Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst.

1hvcfunds

So far this year, 51 venture capital funds have raised $5.1 billion. Last year at this time, 115 funds had raised $13.6 billion. The report attributes the slide to declining liquidity, bottomed-out deal activity and the fact that more firms are focused on supporting current portfolio companies than raising new funds. The last reason is a function of the economic downturn, which has left many companies anticipating lucrative exits on venture life support for the forseeable future.

Every fund has taken a hit, regardless of the size or type of their portfolio companies. Of the 51 funds, 32 were early-stage, raising $2.2 billion between them. Last year, 43 funds brought in $5.2 billion by this time. Thirteen multi-stage firms raised $2.3 billion so far this year, down from 21 firms and $5.7 billion last year. And seven late-stage funds raised only $561.1 million this year, versus $1.2 billion raised by eight funds last year.

Funds focused on technology and life science investing have felt the burn equally, the report states. New Enterprise Associates, an early-stage firm that straddles the information technology and and medical sectors, led the flock with $907 million for its eighth fund. This still falls far short of its $2.5 billion target.

"The often-repeated argument that the best companies are founded during recessions didn't seem to hold much water with limited partners in the first half of the year," says Jennifer Rossa, managing editor of Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst.

1hvcfundbreakout

The publication's report also examined private equity fund-raising, which is down 64 percent to $54.9 billion. With 173 funds raising equity, this is the worst they have performed since 2005. Not only have buyout firms petered out in the first half of the year (with fund-raising down 72 percent from 2008), but secondary funds are luring more and more investors looking for good deals — successfully raising $13.9 billion over the same period, the highest sum yet.

But the report also says private equity is poised to make a comeback once the stock market stabilizes — suggesting that secondary funds need to get while the gettings good, because the tables will turn.

"It is clear that secondary fund managers are getting ready for some record deal-making," Rossa says. "Once private equity firms start doing deals again, cash-conscious LPs are going to find it difficult to meet capital calls and will likely look to sell some of their private equity fund stakes to secondary buyers."


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

How to Hard Reset Your Financial Life

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Bargaineering by Jim on 7/8/09

We have twelve bank accounts.

You read that correctly, we have twelve accounts.

Ally Bank, FNBO Direct, ING Direct, HSBC Direct, Bank of America, M&T Bank, … the list goes on.

We also have a dozen credit cards. Citi, Discover, Capital One, … again, the list goes on.

We have so many accounts because we've slowly acquired them over the course of the last ten years. Our financial network map is an intricated mess despite our best efforts to simplify our personal finances.

That's why we need to hit the reset button on our financial life.

How do you hit the hard reset? You wipe it all away and start over.

Drawing Your Ideal Map

You start by drawing your ideal financial network map. Imagine a world in which you have one or two credit cards, one bank account (checking and savings), and one broker (retirement or taxable account). How would that look?

Probably like this:
Hard Reset Financial Map

What is this simple system missing? Perhaps an online savings account with a higher interest rate? Add that in.
Hard Reset Financial Map with OSA

Anything else? Repeat this process until you have the simplest network you possible can, being as specific as possible (use bank names, use card names)

Now, how do you get your current financial network map to look like your utopian financial network map?

Create An Action Plan

Create an action plan to get from your current map to your ideal map. This will be a simple list of steps you'll need complete to consolidate everything down to the absolute basics. It'll look something like this:

  1. Transfer all funds from Emigrant Direct to Bank of America,
  2. Close Emigrant Direct account,
  3. Call Citi and consolidate Citi Platinum Select card limit into Citi mtvU card,

Then do each step on the map until you're done!

Some Helpful Tips

  1. Closing bank accounts will not affect your credit score, so feel free to close without any negative impact.
  2. In closing bank accounts where you have both a savings and checking, transfer all the funds into your checking before requesting closure. I ran into this problem with Washington Mutual when I closed my account there, I had to close the savings first, then the checking. Confirm with your bank first.
  3. With an online bank, electronically transfer all your funds out, leaving only the minimum balance. When you close an account, they will want to mail you a check. By transferring it out first, you limit how much is stuck in limbo.
  4. I recommend having two online bank accounts to diversify, in the event one is inaccessible for technical reasons.
  5. Closing credit cards will likely reduce your score, so consolidate credit limits where you can. If you favor simplicity over a high score, close away. If nothing else, stick the card in your desk drawer (though the issuer may close it for inactivity). If you opt to "box" a card, keep it on your map but annotate it.
  6. Rolling over broker accounts can be a great way to reduce your costs as well, as higher balances typically get more favorable treatment from the broker. I advise making transfers over holidays so that the time your investments are out of the market is limited.
  7. If you are transfering and closing from one broker to another, take advantage of transfer promotions brokers may be offering. For example, TradeKing will refund up to $150 in fees if you transfer from another broker. Many brokers are offering this type of promotion.

I call this a hard reset because you're starting from scratch. With this approach, you can build a system that is both simple and works for you. This afternoon, I'll show another approach that is similar. I call it a "soft reset" because you don't start from scratch, you simplify your network until you reach that ideal map.

How to Hard Reset Your Financial Life


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Google prepares to launch a PC operating system

Not surprising but it will be interesting to see where they enter (early adopter segment, etc.)

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by Dean Takahashi and Anthony Ha on 7/7/09

google-robotGoogle and Microsoft have tap danced around the boxing ring for years, but Google  is finally throwing a gigantic punch. The search giant has announced it is developing an operating system for the PC, a direct challenge to Microsoft's Windows empire.

The new Google operating system, called Chrome OS — which The New York Times reported on before Google's announcement — is based on its Chrome web browser, released nine months ago. It will give Google the foundation to challenge Microsoft from top to bottom, in almost every kind of major consumer and enterprise software. As such, it could unleash a fierce competitive battle and result in much bigger choices for consumers. You can already download Chrome and use it as your main browser, and replace whatever browser you're using now, whether it be Internet Explorer or Firefox. Chrome even lets you interact with applications — built by Google itself or by other software makers — while offline too.

In its announcement post, Google executives Sundar Pichai and Linus Upson say that more than 30 million people are using Chrome. They take a swipe at existing operating systems, saying they were designed for use when there was no web. They said it's time to re-think operating systems, and that Chrome OS is Google's answer. And it sounds pretty good: It's an open source, fast and lightweight operating system, the company said. It will initially be targeted at netbooks, which are smaller and cheaper than laptops. Google will share the code later this year and netbooks running the Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Google says it is talking to partners now about the project.

The company's focus for the Linux-based browser OS is speed, simplicity and security. In other words, don't expect to play something extremely taxing such as a high-quality game on the system — at least not at first. The user interface is minimal and the web itself becomes the "user experience."

Google continues: "We are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don't have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work."

The Google software will work with both x86 (Intel)-based chips as well as ARM-based chips. In other words, there goes Intel's lock on PC microprocessors. Multiple computer makers are working with Google already. (Microsoft's upcoming Windows 7, on the other hand, which is also designed to run on the lower cost netbooks, won't work on ARM-based devices.)

And since the Chrome OS is more web-oriented (compared to Microsoft Windows, which relies on the desktop), developers won't have to limit themselves to building applications for just Chrome OS platform. Google doesn't have to convince developers of applications for Windows to switch to Chrome, it just has to convince them to build web apps, which will work on Windows, Mac, Linux — and Chrome.

"All web-based applications will automatically work and new applications can be written using your favorite web technologies," the Google post says. "And of course, these apps will run not only on Google Chrome OS, but on any standards-based browser  on Windows, Mac and Linux thereby giving developers the largest user base of any platform."

The post also says that Chrome OS is a new project, separate from Android, which "was designed from the beginning to work across a variety of devices  from phones to set-top boxes to netbooks. Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems." At the same time, Google acknowledges, there may be some competition between Chrome and Android on netbooks, but it says, "Choice will drive innovation."

The obvious goal here is to end Microsoft's monopoly, but Google says it wants to make computers better, so that people can access their email instantly without waiting for browsers to start or computers to boot. People should not have to worry about backing up their files or losing a computer. Nor should they need to configure software and worry about constant software updates. Of course, if Google can make computers more web-oriented rather than desktop software-oriented, that could be a boon for all of its web services, from Gmail to Google Docs. This approach also matches Google Vice President of Engineering Vic Gundotra's public skepticism about client-based software.

[By the way, next week Gundotra will be speaking on the first panel at MobileBeat2009, our mobile conference, moderated by VentureBeat editor Matt Marshall, and we're certain Chrome OS will be a theme. We'll also be discussing netbook trends at the conference.]

We're reached out to Google for comment. Google already has productivity software — Gmail  for email, Google Docs for word processing and spreadsheets software — all of which goes head to head with Microsoft's Office suite. Coincidentally (or perhaps not!) Google's softwar officially emerged from"beta" testing today. In each category, Google is trying to one-up Microsoft by making better use of the Internet and modern software design that arrived with the web. Google and Microsoft are also battling in mobile phones, as Google's Android operating system is taking on Windows Mobile.

(Aside from Gondtra and Android's Peter Chu, we'll also have Microsoft representatives Jason Lim, from Microsoft's mobile division, speaking at at the MobileBeat2009 conference).

But the battle is also going to have some interesting sideshows, as Google's move could also bring it squarely into opposition with its sometime ally, Apple (which has dismissed rumors that it is working on a netbook, though that hasn't stopped speculation that it's developing a tablet computer). Intel is also developing a Moblin operating system for netbooks.)

The New York Times wrote that Marc Andreessen, who developed the first commercial browser and co-founded Netscape, said in a recent interview, "Chrome is basically a modern operating system." Soon, the competition is going to be a three-way war, with Apple launching the Snow Leopard version of its Mac operating system, Microsoft launching its Windows 7 OS as a successor to Windows Vista, and now Google launching this Chrome-based OS. It's about time competition returned to this market.

[image:photobucket/IgnoranceIsntbliss]


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Backlash Against Facebook by Gen Yers?

Not sure I buy this view until there's enough data to rationally sustain it over time ...

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via NussbaumOnDesign - BusinessWeek by Bruce Nussbaum on 7/8/09

News that there are more 55 plus boomers on Facebook than high school students shows the dynamism of change within social media. It also shows the clash of cultures. My students at Parsons are very sensitive to invasions of their social media space by "others," including potential employers, parents, teachers, other "older" figures of authority.

The question is--where are the young going in the social media space as they leave Facebook?


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Facebook Payments System Facing Uncertain Demand

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Javelin Strategy and Research by Javelin on 7/7/09

American Banker- Offering more payments services through Facebook could be popular with users, "but the recipient would have to see value in Facebook credits," said Bruce Cundiff, a director of payments research and consulting for Javelin Strategy and Research of Pleasanton, Calif. "That's the big issue: are they valuable when they're no longer dollars?"

People can use credit cards now to purchase 10 credits for a dollar through the site's virtual gift shop, and can spend the credits on inexpensive digital novelties such as playful icons sent to one another's Facebook pages, including images of birthday cakes, balloons and sock monkeys — the electronic equivalent of a greeting card.

In recent months the Palo Alto, Calif., company has also opened up its payments system to eight software developers that offer games, calendar tools and other simple applications; (fluff)Friends, for example, lets people buy gifts for digital pets.

Facebook did not respond to numerous attempts to contact the company, and it has said little to date about its payments strategy.

However, Gareth Davis, a Facebook platform manager in charge of games, told the Los Angeles Times at a conference in March that the company was developing a system that would promote microtransactions by allowing people to buy its virtual currency in large chunks and then spend it in smaller amounts within games and other applications.

Inside Facebook, a news Web site for software developers, has written about tests of such a system as far back as 2007, and reported that the system went live with a handful of companies in May. Read Full Article


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Pandora (And Other Internet Radio) Has Officially Been Saved

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via TechCrunch by MG Siegler on 7/7/09

pandoraAfter two years of uncertainty, Pandora's future has finally been secured.

For those not familiar with what was going on, basically the streaming rates for Internet radio were in danger of being raised to levels that would have made it very hard for companies like Pandora to stay afloat. But a resolution has been reached between webcasters, artists, and record labels, Pandora CTO Tom Conrad tells us.

"Pandora is finally on safe ground with a long-term agreement for survivable royalty rates," Conrad says.

The key part of the resolution involves SoundExchange agreeing to a 40-50% reduction in the per-song-per-listener rates. In exchange, Pandora is giving up a 25% share of its U.S. revenue. This agreement runs through 2015.

But Pandora also had to give up a little more. Because the rates agreed upon are still quite a bit higher than other forms of radio, the service is going to have to put limits in place for users of its free version. Apparently, this will only affect 10% of the user base, as it's basically just anyone who uses Pandora over 40 hours per month. If a user hits that wall, it will only cost them $0.99 to go unlimited for the remainder of the month. Seems fair.

Users of Pandora One, the pay version of the service, will continue to have unlimited listening.

I asked Conrad if this 25% kickback will effect Pandora's stated goal to be profitable by next year. "It's a great outcome. Expensive, but I think we can still be profitable next year. These are workable rates," he says.

Find the rest of the details in the email below.

Many people played a role in getting here. Pandora listeners provided support in extraordinary numbers in Congress, and a group of reasonable and constructive voices on the label and artist side of the table at SoundExchange helped forge a middle ground that, while perhaps not meeting all of our aspirations, still represents a thoughtful and reasoned outcome under the circumstances.

The deal we've crafted is an industry-wide solution for all "pure play" Internet webcasters. The core of the compromise is that SoundExchange has granted a 40-50% reduction in the per-song-per-listener minimum rates in exchange for us giving them a 25% share of our US revenue. The deal extends through 2015 and has special carve outs for the so-called "Small Webcasters."

While we feel this is a substantive victory, the revised royalties are quite high – still much higher than any other form of radio. As a consequence, we will have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the free version of Pandora. In any given month, a listener who hits this limit can then opt for unlimited listening for the remainder of that month for just $0.99. In essence, we're asking our heaviest users to put a dollar (well, almost a dollar) in the tip jar in any month in which they listen over 40 hours. We hope this is relatively painless and affordable–the same price as a single song download. Alternatively, they can upgrade to
"Pandora One", our premium version which offers unlimited monthly listening in addition to its other benefits.

Q2 was our best quarter to date and dramatically exceeded our plan both in terms of user growth and revenue. Mobile adoption continues to be very strong with uptake on the BlackBerry looking like it will meet or exceed iPhone levels. Still, the unresolved licensing issues have hung over us like a dark cloud for two years. It's a great feeling to have the road cleared of that obstacle.

Information provided by CrunchBase

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Monday, July 06, 2009

Marc Andreessen on Why He Passed on Facebook, Twitter vs. Bing and the Compa...

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via PE Hub Blog by Connie Loizos on 7/5/09

Marc Andreessen stopped by our offices last week to discuss his new fund, and I took the opportunity to throw out some off-topic questions about Twitter (he's an angel investor), LinkedIn (ditto) and Facebook (he's on the board):

How does Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg remind you of your younger self and how is he different?

The big difference is he really wants to be the CEO and has tremendously applied himself to doing that. I actually think he's not that similar to me from that standpoint. He's doing a really good job of running company and really wants to. That's a big difference. Similarities? I don't know. Young? [Laughs]. Young and hard working. He's the real deal. He wants to buckle down. He wants to build a great company. He doesn't want to sell it.

You seem to be a firm believer in the "if-we-can-scale-this-thing, the money will come" model. You've said as much about Facebook and Ning and Qik. But that doesn't always work. It costs startups like Pandora a lot of money every time they attract a new user. As an investor, how do you know when going big — at all costs — is the right approach?

Numer one, the details really, really matter. The cost structure really matters. When people get in trouble with this sort of thing, it's usually for one of two reasons: Either the market wasn't going to be that large—in which case deferring revenue to get to the market wasn't worthwhile—or the costs are just too high.

Here's how I think about the economics of Twitter, for example. The economics of Twitter are that they've spent about $15 million [of the $40 million they've raised]. They have created already a global brand name. Ben [Horowitz] likes to point out that the Bing ad campaign [by Microsoft] is $300 million of advertising. Would you rather own the Bing brand or the Twitter brand?

Two, they have a user base of about 30 million users now, growing very fast. And, three, they have that growth rate, so they have all the future acquisition.

But even just looking at the current user base, they've spent maybe 50 cents per acquired user. Total. For everything. All development, all marketing, everything. And so on the revenue side, you say: 'Suppose they want to monetize that? Can they get 50 cents per user per year in terms of ads?' Yeah, probably they could do that. So to go get that $15 million back seems really easy, and it seems like there's a lot more upside beyond that.

That's a case where you say, 'OK, having done that, what do we now know?' It seems to be mainstreaming. It seems like the total addressable market is somewhere between 100 million users and a billion users, or maybe more. It seems like the right thing to do, with those economics, to raise some more money, which they've done, and go get the rest of those users. Once they have the users, then monetization obviously becomes very easy. If you have any monetization mechanism, then it's just a large scale, so you just turn it on.

Earlier this year, you said on Charlie Rose that if you can get 50 to 100 or 150 million users, then everyone is going to end up using it. How did you decide that was the tipping point?

I made it up. [Laughs.] I pulled it out of my butt. However, there's a point at which it's not just nerds, speaking as a nerd. Whatever it is. It's not just Silicon Valley people, it's not just people in urban areas, it's not just people in California. There comes a point where you can go to Topeka [Kansas] or Poughkeepsie [New York] or Lubbock [Texas] and you can run into people—and they're normal people—and they use something. And when that happens, that's a really big deal. That's something that has clearly traveled culturally and societally very broadly. And it's clearly something important. You get the occasional fad, but actual products that propagate like that don't happen very often, so when they do, it's a sign that you're really onto something and if you keeping pushing it you can probably make it much larger.

I'm sure this is the least of any investor's concerns, but is there point of over-saturation and a way to mitigate that danger? MySpace seems to be tipping in the other direction.

MySpace has a different issue in my view. Their issue is that they fell behind on product innovation, specifically versus Facebook. They had their network effect. It was growing. It was getting very large. [But] Facebook has, I think, out-executed them on product. Facebook is increasingly taking the network effect away from them. I think they're aware of this, which is one of the reasons why they hired Owen [Van Natta as CEO]. They're going to try to come back at it and counter it.

You look at the two companies. MySpace does a lot of things really well. But, that said, they're owned by a major media company, they have focused tremendously on monetization for the past two years, and they just don't have the product innovation engine that Facebook does. Facebook is completely focused on product innovation. I think it's a case study of how that happens. You could argue that MySpace focused too quickly on monetization. You could argue that you just saw the consequence of switching focus like that before you've taken the whole market.

Were you an angel investor in Facebook?

No, I wasn't.

Did you have an opportunity invest in Facebook as an angel?

Damn, she asked the question. [Laughs.] Let's put it this way, I've known them from the beginning. I probably could have if I had tried hard, but I didn't.

Because?

Because I didn't. [Smiles.]

Because of your investment in LinkedIn?

No. It's always an affirmative decision. You have to actually step forward and actually go after it. And things just really happen fast, and Facebook was happening at a super high rate of speed and things just didn't click.

But you have shares as a director.

Yes, as a director.

Is there another company that you now think, 'Damn it, I wish I had invested in that?'

The one that I tried to invest in but couldn't get into was [social network aggregator] FriendFeed. They're too rich. They're former Google guys. They basically did it themselves. They have too much money.

FriendFeed is viewed by some as a competitor to Twitter. Did you invest in the idea of Twitter or did you invest in Odeo? [Reader background: Twitter cofounder Evan Williams first cofounded Odeo in 2004, a company that let PC users find and subscribe to podcasts; in early 2006, Williams also began testing a new company, Twitter, out of an effort to make Odeo accessible over cell phones. Once Twitter evolved into what it's become, the two concepts had little to do with each other.]

Twitter, not Odeo. I knew of Odeo, but I didn't actually know Evan back then. When Twitter first got started, I emailed him and that's how we first met. I saw Twitter when the product first launched, back when they were in the middle of the transition, so they hadn't yet shut down Odeo and they hadn't yet raised money for Twitter.

Because [Odeo backer] Charles River Ventures had accepted its money back, for which I'm sure they're kicking themselves now.

Was it Mayfield? Or CRV? That's one of the great stories, because Evan made up the difference. My understanding is he made up the difference out of his own pocket and gave it back to [investors] whole. That's a great guy. That's a classic story and I think that's representative of a pattern you're seeing these days.

You can read the full transcript of the Andreessen Q&A at Venture Capital Journal.

And here's what Andreessen has to say on his blog.

(Photos by Lawrence Aragon)

ShareThis


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Welcome Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz to the Wonderful World of Venture C...

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBlog by David Hornik on 7/6/09

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz to the Venture Capital fold. In a time when venture investors are often criticized by the entrepreneurial community, it is a pleasure to have two of the greatest entrepreneurs of our day join to the VC business. I am often asked by my business school and law school students what the best path is to becoming a Venture Capitalist. My answer has been pretty consistent over the last decade -- start or join a wildly successful startup and add a lot of value. It is hard to argue that Marc and Ben haven't done that in spades. They have touched some of the most important technology companies of the last decade and continue to play an influential role in Silicon Valley. As such, they have seen all sides of startup creation and financing. They bring perspective, intellect, integrity and energy to Venture investing and I couldn't be happier to have them join the industry.

As I understand it, the Andreessen Horowitz firm and August Capital share a number of the same Limited Partners. That doesn't surprise me. As I read Marc's blog post this morning about his new firm, I was struck by the similarity of our focus. He lays out a vision that is nearly identical to ours at August Capital. When we were out raising our current fund at the beginning of this year we articulated to our limited partners our continued belief in great technical founders who are building game changing technology and we made clear that we remain bullish on the future of technology and the ongoing capacity to make a lot of money investing in information technology startups.

I would urge you to read Marc's blog post about his new fund. As I said when Marc first started blogging, he is one of the most articulate voices in the technology industry. And he is now one of the most articulate voices in the Venture Capital industry. Just to hit on a few of the highlights of the Andreessen Horowitz philosophy:

  • Technology and its advancement is absolutely central to human progress. Entrepreneurs who create new technologies and technology companies are improving the standard of living of people worldwide and unlocking amazing new levels of human potential.
  • A technology startup is all about the entrepreneurial team and their vision. Our job as venture capitalists is primarily to support entrepreneurs by helping them build great companies around their ideas.
  • And, while there are many extremely bright and capable entrepreneurs all over the world, there continues to be a special magic to Silicon Valley -- which is where we will focus.
  • Above all else, we are looking for the brilliant and motivated entrepreneur or entrepreneurial team with a clear vision of what they want to build and how they will create or attack a big market. We cannot substitute for entrepreneurial vision and drive, but we can help such entrepreneurs build great companies around their ideas.
  • We are hugely in favor of the founder who intends to be CEO. Not all founders can become great CEOs, but most of the great companies in our industry were run by a founder for a long period of time, often decades, and we believe that pattern will continue. We cannot guarantee that a founder can be a great CEO, but we can help that founder develop the skills necessary to reach his or her full CEO potential.
As I said at the outside, I don't know that I could articulate it better myself. I welcome Marc and Ben to the Venture industry and look forward to working with them.

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Paypal Looks to Crush Amazon’s Fledgling Payment Service With A New, Secret API

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via TechCrunch by Leena Rao on 7/6/09

It looks like PayPal is rolling out a more flexible payments API called Adaptive Payments. We've obtained a confidential document, which is embedded below, explaining the details of the new system.  Basically the API is designed to give developers full access to PayPal's features, allowing them a lot more freedom in building applications which include the ability to accept and distribute payments.

Very similar to Amazon's Flexible Payments Service (FPS), the Adaptive Payments API handles payments between a sender of a payment and one or more receivers of the payment.   Adaptive Payments allows almost the same functionality as FPS. The new API lets developers become a payment aggregator, which we are told is something against PayPal's current Terms of Service. Amazon's FPS also lets developers aggregate payments. Moreover, Paypal's Adaptive Payments has built in micropayments support, another feature of FPS.

Some of the offerings of Adaptive Payments are sure to be attractive to developers. In what PayPal calls "Chained Payments," developers can create applications that enable a sender to send a single payment to a primary receiver who may keep part of the payment and pay other, secondary receivers with the remainder of the funds. For example, an application might be an online travel agency that handles bookings for airfare, hotel reservations, and car rentals. The sender sees only the travel site as the primary receiver. But that site could allocate the payment for its commission and the actual cost of services provided by other merchants. PayPal would deduct the money from the sender's account and deposit it in both the primary travel site's account and the secondary receivers' accounts.

Adaptive Payments will also offer "Parallel Payments," which would let a sender send a single payment to multiple receivers. An example of this type of application might be a shopping cart that lets a buyer pay for items from several merchants with one payment. The shopping cart would allocate the payment to the merchants who actually provided the items. PayPal would then deduct money from the sender's account and deposits it in the receivers' accounts.

It's unclear what PayPal's pricing plan will be for Adaptive Payments and if it will be competitive with Amazon's FPS pricing. Amazon has slowly been rolling out its competition to PayPal over the past few years, launching Amazon Payments and unveiling the beta of FPS. It isn't easy for Amazon to replace PayPal, but it is going after developers to become the preferred payment mechanism on the Web. Perhaps PayPal is starting to feel the heat from FPS, which allows much more flexibility than PayPal's Direct Payments API. Now, with its Adaptive Payments API in the works, PayPal is about to strike back.


Adaptive Payments -

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

The Fall and Rise of Personal Savings

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Get Rich Slowly by J.D. on 7/6/09

Americans are beginning to save again, or so the media is reporting. The personal saving rate has jumped from 0.4% in 2007 to a whopping 6.9% in May. But what does that mean? Is it a good thing? And how long will it last?

The personal saving rate
"Personal saving rate" is an economic term for income that is not used immediately to buy goods and services. It's money that consumers save for the future. (According to Wikipedia, it's "personal disposable income minus personal consumption expenditure".)

For decades, the personal saving rate hovered at about seven or eight percent. It would spike into the teens during times of economic turmoil, but then settle at seven or eight percent when things returned to normal. During the early 1990s, the personal saving rate began to drop. For the past ten years, it's mostly been two percent. Or one percent. Or close to zero.

But, as resident GRS economist JerichoHill has noted in the past:

The personal saving rate is a very poor metric. Most folks save via IRA and 401K. So we should look at that savings rate, which is the national saving rate. The NSR shows the same disturbing downward trend, but is the more proper metric to use, in my opinion.

In other words, the personal saving rate doesn't tell the whole story. One reason for the drop is the increase in retirement savings via other methods.

Still, the personal saving rate can be a useful barometer. It may not account for retirement savings, but it does account for things like emergency funds, etc. Plus, it's the number that the mainstream media reports. For these reasons, it makes sense to use the personal saving rate as a gauge.

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis provides historical data about the personal saving rate, as well as charts that graph the data:

The Bureau of Economic Analysis also provides a monthly press release summarizing the current state of income and saving in the United States.

The stimulus effect
As you can see from the BEA graph, the current recession has had a huge impact on the personal saving rate. We were saving at close to zero percent throughout 2007 and into 2008, but when the economy began to teeter, people started to save. Here's the personal saving rate for the past twelve months:

When things went to hell in October, Americans boosted their savings. But look at that spike in May. 6.9%?!? Can that be right? It turns out the data is misleading. Reporting for the L.A. Times, Tom Petruno explains:

…[A] single month's data can be skewed by unusual items.

That's what happened in May: One-time federal stimulus payments of $250 each to retirees and others receiving government aid — so-called transfer income — drove total personal income up 1.4% from April, while spending rose a modest 0.3%.

That boosted what the government calculates was left in people's pockets. Savings as a percentage of total disposable income jumped to 6.9% from 5.6% in April.

This same effect can be seen each time the government has issued stimulus checks in the past decade. (You can actually see the tail-end of the effect in the year of data I posted above. The personal saving rate for May 2008 was 4.8%, then 2.5% in June, and 1.7% in July. This is a result of last year's stimulus checks.)

So it seems that many people really do save their stimulus checks when they receive them. I think that's a Good Thing. And it also looks like the personal saving rate in the U.S. has increased to levels last seen during the mid-1990s. But will this change last? Or is saving just a passing fancy?

Saving for the future?
When people ask me about the state of the economy and its effect on consumer habits, I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm pleased that the average person has begun to consider saving a priority. But I'm also skeptical that any real change has taken place. I think people are scared and so they're saving, but I'm worried that as soon as things settle, they'll resume their old habits. I'm not the only one who believes this.

Suzanne S. recently sent me a Mediaweek article featuring comments from Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt — who obviously is not a financial expert — believes the economy will begin growing again later this year. And when it does, he expects consumers to resume spending.

"It's shocked me that Americans started to save," Mediaweek quotes Schmidt as saying. "My guess is that's a temporary phenomenon." More from the article:

But Schmidt does not believe the economic crisis has shaken U.S. consumers' proclivity to spend money by going into debt. "Americans love their credit cards," he said. "If people are concerned Americans will stop spending, you do not understand the American psyche."

I worry that Schmidt is correct. I worry that this recession will not be a generation-defining event, as some have predicted. I want for this crisis to have changed things, but I'm not sure it has.

But maybe some Americans have learned something from all of this. And maybe my own efforts have been enough to make a difference in a few lives. I want people to understand that nobody cares more about their money than they do. The best defense against an unknown future is to take action now, to build a buffer of personal savings, to reduce the burden of debt, and to develop skills that will make you valuable to yourself and others.

Just because the average personal saving rate across the nation is low, there's no reason that your own personal saving rate can't be 10%. Or 12%. Or 15%. Or more.

---
Related Articles at Get Rich Slowly:



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Do You Dread Mondays?

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Free Money Finance by NA on 7/6/09

I remember the feeling all too well. Sunday around 6 pm or so the dread would start creeping in -- only a few hours left before I went to bed and another work week started the next morning. It was a feeling of impending doom, that I'd be forced into five days (at least) of battles, pressures, fights, political maneuvers, and so on working at a place I didn't like in a job I disliked with people who didn't care. Ugh.

Ok, so maybe that's the appropriate description for the worst job I ever had, but I dreaded Mondays for many, many years of my career. Only a couple of jobs in my career have afforded me the luxury of enjoying Sunday nights (and Monday mornings as well). Thankfully, one of them is the job I currently hold.

Do you know the feeling -- hating Mondays because you're in a job/company that you dislike? Or are you as happy as a lark, enjoying what you do for a living?

I thought this would be an interesting question for an early Monday-morning after a holiday weekend post. :-)


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

US Bank failure tracker | 1934 – 2009

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via The Bankwatch by Colin Henderson on 7/4/09


Interesting graph.  Look at 1980/82 and compare to 2009.  [ht Calculated Risk]

BankFailuresperYear

Posted in US

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

palm pre is a talent mash-up between apple and helio

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Influx Insights Weblog by Influx Insights on 6/7/09

The Palm Pre is the product Palm needed to save itself. Instead of years of in-house R&D or re-badgeing a new product from the Far East, Palm went out a wrote checks for talent. At the core of the Pre team are 8 people who come from both Apple and Helio. This is a multi-disciplinary bunch who's skills range from product development to PR. 


Posted by Ed Cotton

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

10 things consumers are doing this recession

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Influx Insights Weblog by Influx Insights on 6/7/09

The recent NYT article on sales trends at Home Depot and Wal Mart has some great clues into how consumers are changing habits in the light of economic downturn.

1. Food stays on the list, clothes and furniture don't
2. People are trading down to private label
3. People trading down the protein ladder from steak to ground beef, others moving from beef to chicken and others moving from protein to carbs
4. The home is the focal point- cheap take out pizza and movies is the new form of entertainment- people aren't going out and they are not cutting back on their entertainment tech. Sales of the more affordable flat screen are holding up
5. Vegetable gardens are booming
6. People are trying to stay healthy on their own with out resorting to experts- this means increased sales of vitamins and OTC medicines.
7. They need relief for these troubled times so they are buying more sleep aids, pain relievers and antacids
8. Home repair is on the increase
9. People are not buying new cars, they are repairing and maintaining the ones they have
10. Parents are not transitioning their kids between diapers and underwear with pull ups, instead they are going straight to underwear


Posted by Ed Cotton

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Seth's Blog: Graduate school for unemployed college students


Especially - Teach yourself Java, HTML, Flash, PHP and SQL. Not a little, but mastery. [Clarification: I know you can't become a master programmer of all these in a year. I used the word mastery to distinguish it from 'familiarity' which is what you get from one of those Dummies type books. I would hope you could write code that solves problems, works and is reasonably clear, not that you can program well enough to work for Joel Spolsky. Sorry if I ruffled feathers.]

What Drives Consumer Adoption Of New Technologies?

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 


I'm participating in a panel discussion this morning during the offsite of a major media company. They sent me a list of questions in preparation of the event. One of the questions was the title of this post; "What drives consumer adoption of new technologies?".

It's an interesting question and one I've never tried to answer directly in writing. But it's also a question we attempt to answer every day in our firm as we evaluate thousands of new startups every year.

Let's take ten of the most popular new consumer technology products in recent years (with a couple of our portfolio companies in the mix): iPhone, Facebook, Wii, Hulu, FlipCam, Rock Band, Mafia Wars, Blogger, Pandora, and Twitter and let's try to describe in one sentence or less why they broke out (feel free to debate the reasons they broke out in the comments):

iPhone - mobile browser with a killer touch screen interface
Facebook - a social net with real utility
Wii - gesture based user interface for gaming
Hulu - your favorite TV shows in a fantastic web UI
FlipCam - a video cam that fits in your pocket comfortably
Rock Band - everyone can be a rock star for a few minutes
Mafia Wars - a natively social game built for social nets
Blogger - a printing press for everyone
Pandora - drop dead simple personalized radio
Twitter - blogging everyone can do in less than a minute

In most of these cases, the breakthrough product or service delivered a new experience to consumers that they had never had before. Sure there were social nets before Facebook, but none allowed you to run your life the way Facebook does for my kids. Sure there were browsers on phones before the iPhone, but there hadn't been one that you could actually use like you use a browser on a computer. Sure there had been personalized internet radio services before Pandora but not one that was drop dead simple and delivered a great experience.

So it seems to me that consumers are driven to new experiences that are simple and useful and/or entertaining. It is not enough to be the first to market with a new technology. You have to be the first to market with a version of the technology that is simple and easy to use.

I'm curious to hear everyone else's thoughts on this. The sooner the better since the panel starts at 10am today.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Monday, June 08, 2009

A.G. Lafley To Leave P&G. President Obama, Please Make Lafley Chief Innovati...

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via NussbaumOnDesign - BusinessWeek by Bruce Nussbaum on 6/8/09

A giant in innovation is stepping down--A.G. Lafley is leaving Procter & Gamble. No other CEO outside of the tech industry has done as much as Lafley to adopt the principles of design thinking and innovation to remake an icon of American industry. He helped break down the silos inside the company and replace them with global networks of R&D; he opened the once-closed company to integrating new products from outside it's culture; he created advisory panels of top innovation consultants to add fresh voices and criticism to proposed new products: and he made major progress in transforming a top-down, not-invented here corporate culture into a looser, more networked, innovative culture.

Read Lafley's book, The Game Changer, is one of best ever written about the difficulties and rewards of building an innovation culture inside big companies.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Default Behavior and the Internet Operating System

Other defaults? Evite for social events, LinkedIn for business networking, etc. etc.

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 


When you want to search for something on the Internet, most people go to Google without even thinking about it. 

When I want to buy something on the Internet, my default behavior is to go to Amazon and search for it. 

When my kids want to get tix for a concert, they go right to Craigslist and post a ticket wanted listing and search for a seller.

These are 'default behaviors'. We do these things by second nature without even thinking about it. 

Tim O'Reilly talks about the Internet as an operating system. The web services are functions in the operating system. And some of the most valuable businesses on the web are default functions as if they came pre-installed in the Internet operating system. 

Only they didn't. Somehow they got to be the default. Most often by being sufficiently superior to the other services of their kind. Or in some cases, by simply being first and building up a network effect or a data asset that was unassailable by newcomers. 

But however a web service attains default status, it is a hugely valuable position to secure. Default positions can be lost but not easily. Most often they are eroded by new web services that cleave off parts of their functionality. Less frequently are they just replaced by a newcomer. 

If Google's power over the web wanes, and I think it will in time, it will not likely be the result of Microsoft or someone else replacing it as the default search service. It will be because new default functions emerge that lessen the number of times we want to use the search function. 

So what does this mean for entrepreneurs and VCs? Well for one, don't make a frontal assault on a default service. Build or finance a service that can become a new default function in the Internet operating system. And if you have a shot at becoming one of these default functions, invest all of your time and energy attaining and solidifying that default position before working on monetizing it. Because its a very tough position to secure and once you get there it's pretty hard to knock you out.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Start-up Cost Projections For First Time Entrepreneurs

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Ask The VC by brad@feld.com on 5/25/09

Q: At a pub in Los Gatos, CA a casual conversation with some young, first time entrepreneurs lead to an interesting comment:
"...the business plan outlines our estimated (operational) expenses but how do I know an investor is not going to look at these numbers and say...'are you f'ing kidding me' and  right then and there we can loose this guy (his interest)..."How can an entrepreneur build these projections most accurately and in a way that will maintain credibility with potential investors?  What could be defined as the "best practice" for entrepreneurs dealing with this subject?

A: (Brad) As I've said in the past, I've never met a financial plan for an early stage company where the revenue side was correct.  However, I've met plenty where the cost side was correct (or – at least – appropriate).  The key here is simple – you want to have a cost structure that makes sense, covers all the bases, but doesn't assume a big revenue ramp to be supportable.

If you are in the very early stages (e.g. a few people and an idea), recognize that your investor is likely going to be funding you for about 12 months to see how things play out.  The biggest mistake first time entrepreneurs make is that they fall prey to the idea that they need to put together a five year P&L forecast and cash flow projection.  I can guarantee – with 100% certainty – that this model will be wrong.  As an investor, I don't really care about this; rather I want to see how you are thinking about getting to "the next stage" of your business.  You get to define the next stage, what it'll cost you to get there, and what things will look like when you get there.

If you are a first time entrepreneur, go find an experienced entrepreneur to act as a mentor.  She can be a first line of feedback your cost model and likely will know a few "financial people" that can help you put together a simple, yet credible model.  In addition, when you spend time with potential investors, don't try to bluff.  Tell them it's your first time building a model like this and that – while you had help – you know you lack experience and are looking for feedback.  Try to engage the investor in the process. Listen the potential investors feedback and iterate on your model.

Simple message – don't be afraid to ask for help.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Indifference is Your Real Competitor

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 


Your Competitors are Clueless (initially)

If you are creating a new market (as is often the case for tech startups) your best chance of success is taking the time to figure out how to become relevant to the right people.   Most startups spend way too much time obsessing over their clueless competition. If the competition is going for a land grab, they feel compelled to do the same.  The likely result is mutually assured destruction. 

Take the Time to Understand Early Users

It's OK to passively monitor your competition (in case they figure something out), but spend the majority of your time getting to know your early users.   They hold all the answers for reaching your full market potential.  If you don't have any users, get some.  Acquiring several hundred users is relatively easy for a funded company.  Don't worry too much about the acquisition cost on these initial users (but don't go too crazy either). 

Once you have around 1000 users, shift all your energy to engaging/understanding them.  Who is most/least satisfied with your product and why?  What is the primary benefit they are getting from your product?  Why did they decide to try your product?  Did they have a problem that they thought you might be able to solve?  Or are they early adopters that often try interesting new software even if it isn't likely to have a real practical application?

Context Creates Relevance

The key to effectively scaling customer acquisition is applying this understanding through the entire customer acquisition process.  And remember, a person isn't actually acquired until they have a gratifying experience with your product. Start by trying to reach prospects when they'll be most receptive to your message.  Obviously the most receptive users are the ones that are actually searching for a solution like yours.  Of course if your solution is truly creating a new market, don't expect much relevant search volume. 

Next, look for other contextually relevant ways to reach prospects.  Getting their attention through the clutter is much easier if you reach them at a time they are likely to be experiencing the problem you are solving.

Be sure to have the relevant messages through the entire acquisition process (from landing page to actually using the product).   This post gives more insight on getting the full user acquisition flow right.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Solving the problems of early stage me-too product startups



 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by David Shen on 5/13/09

[Editor's note: A lot of web startups we talk to these days seem very similar to a lot of other web startups we talk to -- from social networks to Firefox plugins to micro-messaging services to a long list of others. We want to cover companies that are clearly doing something unique and interesting. So here's a great post that we're republishing with permission from investor David Shen, with his pointers on how to take a me-too product and make it a winner.]

I believe the universe of internet businesses has become extremely crowded in the last few years. In the early days, you could easily come out with something new because there weren't that many competitors out there. Now, it's hard to find somebody who isn't working on something similar to what you're thinking about. So competition is fierce and many times you'll find entrenched competitors with a lot of product inertia and a great head start.

The other huge problem is on the consumer side. Consumers are deluged by new products and services all the time. They have overload and just keep to the products they know best, and need to have a really good reason to change and move from another service to a new entrant. We saw this first in the past with email addresses; Yahoo Mail users were hesitant to move because the cost of changing your email address was super high and thus user retention was very high. Now add what makes up our digital lives on services like flickr (all our pictures that we've uploaded for half a decade now), or facebook (our friends are all here, plus their interconnections), or linkedin (our business connections are all here, plus all their historical connections). The cost of moving has become so high because we've invested so much time and effort into those services and we don't want to redo that, let alone adding the cost of learning a new service.

As an early stage investor, I've found that this makes picking companies exponentially harder and it's a shame. I meet a lot of smart entrepreneurs with some really great ideas, but then I do some research online and find that there are others who are working on something similar or in a close enough space to be competitive. Then I start to get worried about their prospects.

You can find tons of books on the subject of competition and winning despite having entrenched competitors. In general, I have found that entrepreneurs are doing what they should be doing to attack a crowded market. These are things like (my thanks to Andrew Chen for helping me with this list):

1. Innovate on the product experience (ie. Posterous vs. Wordpress).

2. Business model changes, where you are going free (or freemium) for a product that's usually subscription (or fixed charge).

3. Changing the market where you're going long tail instead of hitting the larger market (ie. casual games versus hardcore games).

4. Change in distribution model, where you are delivering something as a service rather than a download, or bundled into an existing thing (ie. Facebook app) instead of a standalone thing.

5. Change in branding. An example is where you cater to an upscale prestige market or niche market instead of a mass brand, or vice versa like taking a niche product and making it available to the masses.

6. Create a business that is better, out of a larger part of another business (ie. Lefora created a message board hosting product for those who don't want all the bells and whistles of a full social networking product).

7. Innovate on design, which appeals to those who want a similar product but one that looks/feels better.

8. Offering more features on a product, or customization on product.

And the big, traditional way of taking a new entrant into a crowded market:

9. Mass advertising to gain broad awareness and induce trial and adoption of new product in face of existing competitors.

So I am not saying it's not possible to win against a crowded marketplace. My issue is with early stage startups: in order to win in a crowded marketplace, early stage startups often don't have enough resources to last long enough to compete effectively and win. While a lot of the above can be implemented, growth time is limited by whether or not you have enough capital and revenue to survive until you run out.

To me, if you're developing a me-too product, it's ultimately going to boil down to a marketing game more than in any other situation. You can develop the best product or service, but if nobody knows about it because they're busy using something else, then you're still dead.

So distribution for a me-too product is critical. In the past and present, large corporations could do this because they had lots of money to launch large advertising campaigns. They knew distribution channels and could insert their new product there. They had contacts in their market and it was straightforward to get word out that they had a new product even if it was similar to existing products.

As a new startup, you may not have those channels and contacts established, and certainly you don't have money to spend on advertising plastered on the Superbowl, magazines, online, and elsewhere.

However, once you finish your product using one or more of the strategies above, you need to jump to strategy number 9 as soon as possible and get it out to consumers. You don't have time to wait until people notice you; you need to get noticed.

Some possible ways of doing this:

1. Buy advertising. As an early stage startup, this is the least viable unless you somehow have enough money to do this. Lead gen advertising can be better than CPM based advertising as you'll be able to pay only on a referral, but still this costs money. Let's move onto cheaper alternatives.

2. Marketing that involves barter space. You trade something of value for advertising space on their side. Something of value can be advertising space on your site, or donation to their cause for charities.

3. Word of Mouth Marketing. Contact bloggers, magazines, users and get them to try and talk about your product. Getting in the NYTimes is a big traffic driver, as well as many other national circulation magazines. Online publications like C|Net and The Huffington Post can also be great. Twitter is also a great up and coming means for getting your word out.

4. Get distribution partners. Existing companies can add your product on their sites and can help you promote it. This is usually in deeper partnership such that it goes beyond just buying ad space. You look for exclusivity in contracts and features that your product has that enhance an existing company's product and prestige.

5. Viral marketing. This is a very hard avenue to execute, which is to start with a few users and then it blossoms outward to many. Determining how your product can be viral can be an elusive game and if you don't hit on it early, you could waste a lot of time tweaking and hoping that something you create will be virally popular and spread.

In working with a few startups, I am disheartened by the fact that the importance of distribution is still not well understood. The leading thought is that "if I build something great, then everyone will come find me." Unfortunately, that is rarely the case in this crowded marketplace, and most early stage companies don't have enough time to let people just wander around until they find out about the product.

They did not do enough work to go out and contact bloggers. They didn't go out and try to woo corporate partners to see if they would help them get their message out. They just waited for users to come and they didn't come in great enough quantity to support their business by the time their money ran out.

So don't let your product fail simply because you can't induce trial. Remember, you have developed a me-too product, one that users already have a solution for and switching costs and barriers may be too high for them to take action to look for a better solution. You need to get them to know that your solution exists, and attract them to try it out - and since you're an early stage startup, you need to do this ASAP to give yourself enough time to let consumer adoption grab hold and ultimately take off, all before your money runs out.

David Shen is the President of David Shen Ventures, LLC. He advises and invests in early stage internet startups, helping them in the areas of user experience, product development and strategy, and online advertising. An early employee of Yahoo, he was its Vice President of the User Experience and Design Team for almost 8 years, eventually becoming its Vice President of International Products. David is also Venture Advisor at betaworks, a new business acceleration platform based in New York City. You can read more about him and his work here.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Californian grids are about to get a whole lot smarter



 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by Camille Ricketts on 5/14/09

California's biggest utilities all have major smart grid strategies in the works — vying for a chunk of the federal stimulus bill's $4.5 billion earmarked for revamping the country's electrical grids. And these plans surpass the roll-out of residential smart meters that most people think of when they think smart grid.

Companies like Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric are all working on lower-profile grid projects like storage-minded microgrids that could deliver power even during blackouts. They are refining demand response systems designed to offset grid-destabilizing loads, and some projects are meant to monitor how electricity is traveling through suburban power lines. All of these factors are vital to a system that reduces overall power use, and one that charges consumers more accurate and fair amounts for the energy they actually use.

The Department of Energy has been pretty tight lipped when it comes to how the stimulus funds will be divided and distributed — though some preliminary guidelines have said that grants will be limited to $20 million per smart grid project. While this may be enough for some of the less sexy projects mentioned above, its probably too small an amount for ambitious smart meter deployments. California's three top utilities plan to install 11.2 million smart meters across the state in the next several years, an effort that will cost a very pricey $11 billion to pull off. This means public attention — and venture funding for that matter — will probably, and somewhat surprisingly, shift away from metering to demand and monitoring-oriented technologies.

San Diego Gas & Electric is taking the lead in many of these areas, with chief engineers highlighting microgrids, demand response mechanisms and consumer-end price monitoring as top priorities in addition to metering. If alerted in real time to how much electricity is costing, especially during peak periods, consumers stand to shave up to 15 percent off their current electricity bills. And they're not the only ones benefiting. All of these developments could save utilities a bundle by reducing grid disruptions, maintenance costs and personnel demands.

Improving grid communication systems and flexibility also opens doors to appliance-based opportunities. Small investor-backed companies like Trilliant and SmartSynch are working to hook regular household appliances into smart grids. The upshot of these projects is that major power sucks like dryers, thermostats and refrigerators could one day be programmed to adjust their energy use based on necessity and peak periods. Taking it a step further, it could soon be possible for even layman consumers to turn off their pool pumps or turn down the temperature in their homes remotely from their phones based on how much electricity is costing them at that particular point in time. This is the goal of companies like Tendril, which already has its own iPhone application capale of monitoring consumption.

Another area for development that has received little fanfare is the the integration of wind and sun power into electric grids. Southern California Edison may be spending more than 80 percent of its $1.5 billion smart grid funds on metering systems, but a good portion of what's left over will be used for renewable energy projects. Storage poses the most pressing challenge when it comes to alternative sources, with researchers and engineers alike rushing to devise systems that retain the most power possible when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. With more emphasis being placed on smart grid, solar and wind, this is one area where technology may progress by leaps and bounds by 2011.

But in order to make any of this a reality, utilities will need to work together — and with the smaller enterprises looking to piggypack on their efforts — to adopt consistent standards. That means that technology developed by various utilities will need to be able to speak the same language going forward. There are no government regulations enforcing this need, but some states — California among them — have moved to provide significant financial incentives for utilities to comply with interoperability requirements. Then again, incentives could be synonymous with threats, as one of the ideas on the table is to withhold federal funding from companies and smart grid developers who don't agree to adopt universal protocols.

In the meantime, it seems like all parties involved are holding their breath, waiting for the federal funding to rain from the sky and change their fates. But not a dime has dropped, nor has the DOE or the administration clarified the whos and hows and whens and whys surrounding the money. It will be interesting to see if the $4.5 billion really is the game changer everyone expects it to be once it becomes a reality, and if so, what strings will be attached.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Your hidden footprint — energy per Google search?



 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by Camille Ricketts on 5/11/09

The Official Google Blog just published a revealing post breaking down the environmental impact of every search made on the site. The verdict? About 1 kilojoule of energy is used and 0.2 grams of carbon dioxide emitted every time someone enters a query. The company provides a nifty little chart putting these figures in context:


Some of these numbers are surprising — especially considering that 200 million searches pass through the system a day. That means that the company's data centers release about 45 tons of carbon dioxide a day, the equivalent of a gas-powered car driving 100,000 miles or about 13,000 cheeseburgers.

Then again, it's not that much relative to how many people depend on Google and use it multiple times a day without giving it a second thought. If everyone who used Google every day even once got in their cars, far more than 100,000 miles would be driven between them. As for energy use, the company says its searches use about 21,000 kilowatt hours every year, about the same amount of energy used by a town of 2,700 people. This also sounds pretty conservative.

These figures are also much lower than estimates made earlier this year by the Times Online that every query emits 7 grams of carbon dioxide. A clarification has been appended to the original article stating that the 7-gram figure is only true of searches that take several minutes and servers to process, and that 0.2 grams is the accepted average. Still, several alarmist blog posts picked up the higher amount, claiming that Google accounts for 289 tons of carbon dioxide every day — an amount that would merit some concern.

While the search engine won't disclose the locations or precise energy requirements of its data centers, it does say that its facilities are 50 percent more efficient than the industry standard. And it says it's working to become even more efficient as more people connect to the site via laptops and mobile devices. As part of this effort, it co-founded the Climate Savers Computing Initiative with Intel to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by computer processes by 54 million tons a year. Other members include Dell, Microsoft and Lenovo.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Facebook to test payments system with developers “in a few weeks”



 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via VentureBeat by Eric Eldon on 5/11/09

Developers may be making tens of millions of dollars through games and virtual goods on Facebook's platform, but the social network itself hasn't had a way to get a share of that money. This may be about to change, as it plans to begin testing a payments system with developers in several weeks, according to industry sources. This product has been described to me as involving some sort of system that can use real money. A source close to Facebook confirms the timeline for the test, saying that it will be a "small, alpha test" and adding that details of what the test product will include are still being worked out.

It could end up being pretty big. Facebook could potentially offer a universal currency for Facebook applications, as well as other sites on the web that use Facebook data, making a single trusted payment method that users and developers would feel comfortable using for anything from virtual goods purchases to actual products. This could benefit developers, as Facebook users would only have to enter payment information a single time (when they give it to Facebook), making a purchase a matter of just a single click (like how buying a song on iTunes works, for example). Facebook, in turn, could take a cut of every transaction.

Getting even a fraction the revenue of the virtual goods market on the platform could make a significant impact on the company's financial numbers. A number of leading companies on the platform have previously estimated that developers could gross up to $500 million revenue, mostly from virtual goods built into a wide range of games. These games range from virtual poker applications like Texas Hold 'Em to quizzes like Who Has a Bigger Brain and mafia role-playing games like Mob Wars. Of course, Facebook itself could be making up to that amount this year, based on a revenue run-rate that it disclosed in April — but that's mostly from advertising.

Facebook hasn't seemed focused on offering anything like a payments systems, beyond a virtual gifts store that it launched in February of 2007. It did say that it was looking at offering a payments system for developers, when it launched its developer platform that May. And, at the end of that year, it began asking for input from developers. In 2008, the company hasn't done much on this front, or so it has seemed — one source tells me that the project has never died, based on conversations with Facebook engineers. Meanwhile, beginning early last year, developers began to see their virtual goods revenues rise. This year, sources say, third-party virtual currency providers including Jambool and Twofish have talked to Facebook about working with it on its current effort.

Those old plans are coming to life

Jambool could be a potential partner, as it has put off a planned funding round while it finalizes a deal with a "major social network," according to one source.

And, intriguingly, Facebook put an experimental form of virtual currency into testing last month. Called "credits," the product let users give these virtual points to each other for things such as shared items that they particularly enjoyed. Credits were also tied into the gift store: You use credits to buy virtual gifts, and you could buy more credits (if your friends weren't already giving you many).

What's not clear is how credits might fit into the test rolling out to developers in a few weeks. I've also been hearing rumors that the credits test is going to be killed — Facebook denied this when I asked — so perhaps credits will become something more than it is now.

Meanwhile, other social networks have been getting into the action. Hi5 rolled out its own currency last December. MySpace has also been looking at a sort of payments system for virtual goods, but hasn't come out with anything yet. However, I've recently heard that it also has something big planned on that front for the near future. What's also not clear is how whatever Facebook offers for developers will compete with the range of the range of payment options that are already in use on the platform, including those from PayPal, Zong, Mobillcash and others.

Still, a single virtual currency has been a top feature request of developers ever since the platform launched. Facebook, like its rivals, appears to be making the right move.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Monday, May 11, 2009

A Backward Glance at Emerging Payments While Looking Forward



 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Payments News - from Glenbrook Partners by Payments News Editor on 5/9/09

Terri Bradford, Payments System Research Specialist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, has published a paper titled "A Backward Glance While Looking Forward" looking at some of the new payments products and technologies introduced over the last 10 years: check conversion, person-to-person payments, account aggregation, and electronic bill presentment and payment,

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

WSJ To Try Micropayments ...

 
 

Sent to you by Harsh via Google Reader:

 
 

via Techdirt by Michael Masnick on 5/11/09
There are all sorts of bad ideas around trying to get people to pay for news, but perhaps the worst is the idea of micropayments. Micropayments are trotted out every other year or so as the "savior" to paid content by people with little understanding of economics. The problem is that micropayments never work in a competitive market. First, the "cost" is much bigger than the nominal sum, because of the mental transaction costs ("is this worth buying?") that add friction to the process. Second, and more importantly, it's a self-defeating move. In adding micropayments, you automatically decrease the value of the content. This may sound paradoxical, but what matter is why and how people value content. These days, many people value content for the ability to engage with it, comment on it and share it with others. Micropayments take away that ability, and thus decrease the value of the content. In some sense, adding a micropayment option gives people fewer reasons to pay! Micropayments have been tried over the years, and every time someone announces them the press goes all nuts about how they're the business model of the future for content. And then the projects go nowhere for a few years, whither and die. And the press never seems to notice.

So, it should probably come as little surprise that it's the press itself that's going to try such a plan. The Wall Street Journals' managing editor, Robert Thomson says that the WSJ is going to start offering a micropayment offering for individual articles. Of course, it sounds like it's not always micropyaments either:
"It's a payments system -- once we have your details we will be able to charge you according to what you read, in particular, a high price for specialist material."
A "high price," by definition, isn't a micropayment of course. And it's just as likely to fail miserably. Putting a paywall in the way of people, and they'll find the content elsewhere. Put a paywall in front of good content, and it just opens up the opportunity for other, smarter, publications, to provide the news for free and run away with all the advertising money.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

 
 

Things you can do from here: