My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blogging has gone commercial - where are the individual voices?

The blogosphere has changed a lot in the two years that I have been posting here. Blogs used to be like online diaries for individual people to share their thoughts and observations. They still are, but the popularity and reach of blogging has not gone unnoticed. The big media guys and corporate PR machines are using blogs in a big way.

The StatBot blog, which is written by a smart high school kid, just published a list of the top 100 blogs on TechMeme. I was surprised to find my blog on the list at number 95.

Individuals in the top 100? - In reviewing the list of the All-Time Top 100 Blogs on Techmeme I found just 7 blogs written by individuals. They are; Robert Scoble, Mathew Ingram, Steve Rubel, Fred Wilson, Allen Stern, Jason Calacanis, and me, Don Dodge. That's it.

The other 93 blogs are all associated with big media firms or corporations. Of course even the 7 of us individuals have day jobs at technology companies. But, we don't get paid to blog, in fact it is hard to find time before or after work to get a blog post in. Nights and weekends are my best times for blogging.

I can't argue with the Top 100 Blogs. They are all good. But, it points out how hard it is for readers to find you in a world of 50 million blogs.

How to get your blog noticed? Read this post for tips.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Three reasons to use IntenseDebate

Fred Wilson has a post today "Three reasons to use Disqus" which prompted this post "Three reasons to use IntenseDebate". For the uninitiated, Disqus and IntenseDebate are blog commenting widgets that manage comments in interesting ways.

This week my  friend Brad Feld asked me to try IntenseDebate. A while ago another friend, Paul Graham of YCombinator fame, asked me to try Disqus. Hmm...what to do?

Funny coincidence - Earlier this week I sent a note to Tom Keller, CEO of IntenseDebate, and asked him for reasons why I should use IntenseDebate. The three reasons he gave me were almost the same three reasons that Fred Wilson cites in his post; 1) Threading comments makes them easier to read, 2) Better user interaction and community, 2) More comments, maybe 5X more comments.

So, the best solution is to test both of them. Starting with this post IntenseDebate will be my commenting engine. Lets run the test for a few weeks, maybe a month and see how it goes.

What are the issues? - I am concerned about several issues.

  1. SPAM - TypePad does an excellent job of filtering out spam. There are over 3,000 comments in my spam comment bucket that I never had to deal with. How will Disqus and IntenseDebate deal with spam?
  2. Performance - Anything that slows down the performance or page rendering is bad. I checked out the comments on Brad Feld's blog and quite honestly it took too long for the comments to appear on the screen. I thought my Internet connection had failed. Hopefully that was just an anomaly.
  3. Usability - Comments are the life blood of a blog. Anything that adversely affects usability is unacceptable. I tested both systems on Fred's blog and Brad's blog. They seemed OK, but the proof is in the test. Let's see what you all think.

So, three reasons to try them, and three reasons to be concerned. Let the comments begin.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and Mike Moritz of Sequoia investment rules

John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins and Mike Moritz of Sequoia are giants in the VC world. They interviewed each other at the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) annual meeting this week. It was a humorous, nostalgic, and insightful discussion. I had the pleasure of sitting next to Pat McGovern, founder of IDG, and a VC legend in his own right.

John Doerr started his career at Intel in 1974 as a salesman and later moved into marketing. He moved into the VC business in  1980 joining Kleiner Perkins.

Mike Moritz was a writer for Time magazine before joining Sequoia in 1986.

History of success - Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia have invested together in 50 companies, and separately in hundreds more. Some of the notable successes include; Google, Yahoo, Amazon, AOL, Apple, Citrix, Netscape, Intel, Intuit, Palm, PayPal, Plaxo, Sybase, Sun, Lotus, Electronic Arts, 3COM, Cisco, Oracle, YouTube, and many more.

Pattern recognition - John Doerr reflected back on the many successful investments in his career and noted a pattern that is perhaps not politically correct, but a pattern none the less. The most successful investments were in founders that were white, male, under 30, nerdy geeks, with no social life. He rattled off a list of founders that included; Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Jeff Bezos, Steve Case, Marc Andreessen, Scott Cook, and Mitch Kapor. He could have gone on...but he made his point. So, he said when Larry Page and Sergy Brin came along the decision was simple. Hmm...I'm sure there was more to it than that, but there is no doubt it worked out well for Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia.

Kleiner Perkins 7 rules - Doerr and Moritz didn't reveal a lot about their investment philosophy so I dug back in my archives for more insight. I was on a "Future Of Software" panel at TiECon East two years ago with Ajit Nazre, a partner at Kleiner Perkins. Ajit said KPCB has 7 rules for startups they invest in. They are;

  • Instant Value to customers - solve a problem or create value with the first use
  • Viral adoption - Pull, not push. No direct sales force required
  • Minimum IT footprint, preferably none. Hosted SaaS is best.
  • Simple, intuitive user experience - no training required.
  • Personalized user experience - customizable
  • Easy configuration based on application or usage templates
  • Context aware - adjust to location, groups, preferences, devices, etc.

John Doerr and Mike Moritz show no signs of slowing down. They both enjoy the challenge and love helping entrepreneurs build great companies.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal also has a story on John Doerr and Mike Moritz talk at NVCA. The WSJ mentioned one exchange between them that points to something new Sequoia has going that is still very secret.

But then Doerr asked Moritz, clad in a conservative dark suit, about a sensitive issue that was certainly on the minds of many in the audience, referring to press reports that Sequoia has hired two managers from Stanford University's endowment to prepare for an investment fund that would invest in multiple asset classes.

"We're keeping our lips very tightly sealed on these things," Moritz said. "The stuff in The Wall Street Journal about the hires is true. But it's far too early for us to elaborate."

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

The Entrepreneurs Dilemma - Sell now for $Millions or holdout for $Billions?

If you had to choose between selling your company now for $100M or continuing on for another 5 years or more and maybe selling for $ Billions, what would you do? Every entrepreneur hopes to have this dilemma, but when it happens it is a difficult decision with many different factors.

This week I had the opportunity to talk with several entrepreneurs who faced this decision. The results were different in each case, but the major factors in the decision were the same.

Competitive environment - Are you in a leadership position? If you have already carved out a dominant position in one market and could move into other market segments or geographies, that would argue for staying private and going for the big exit. On the other hand, what if the big billion dollar players are  entering the market? What if the market is consolidating, and your competitors are being acquired by big players?

Financial structure - Is your company well capitalized and profitable? If so you could probably grow organically, without raising more money or taking dilution. However, even in this case you may not be able to grow fast enough to keep up with the competitors and market movement. If you need to raise more cash, or are not yet near cash flow break even, the decision is more complicated.

Economic environment - Is there a recession looming or is the market booming? If the market is booming and you have a good competitive position, you may want to raise more money and holdout for the big exit.

Age of company - Startups are full of enthusiasm, vision, and hope. After 7 years or more is the fire and passion still there? Most employees are fully vested by then. Are they still totally engaged or are they leaving? A startup can't stay a startup forever. The dynamics change. You need to keep a finger on the pulse of the whole company.

Founders - Are the founders still at the company and still passionate? Are the founders financially secure, or are the looking for an exit? Can the management team take it to the next level? These are the toughest questions to face and answer honestly.

Investors - Venture Capital investors need to answer to their Limited Partners each year. If the fund has already generated a nice return for investors they may be more inclined to holdout for a bigger exit. If the fund is not doing well they may push for an early exit.  You may have several VCs on your board who have opposing views and motivations.

Employees - After 5 to 7 years many employees are fully vested. They may want to buy a house or put away money for the kids college education. Engineers and creative people may be looking for a new challenge. Keeping key employees is always a factor to consider.

Alternatives to selling out now

Raise more money - You may be able to raise more money but the valuation is likely to be less than a buyout offer. Investors may demand onerous liquidation preferences that put prior investors and employees at a disadvantage. Raising more money also means your eventual exit valuation must be much higher to satisfy all investors. This is actually something to consider at every stage of raising money.

Take some money off the table - Many times the founders have not made any money previously. They want to cash in a few million dollars so they have some financial security for their family. Then they can push ahead another five years and hope for the big payoff. Most VCs don't like this idea. They don't want the founders taking "their" money out of the company. The VCs want the founders to be "hungry" and push for the long haul. Founders Fund, and a few others, think their interests are better aligned in they allow the founders to take some money off the table. As you might imagine there are some very strong opinions on each side of this question.

Give the founder a break - Sometimes the founders are tired after 7 years of pushing hard 7 days a week. Sometimes it is a good idea to rotate the management team and give them new challenges. There are cases where the founder / CEO moves to chairman or CTO, or even leaves the company but stays on the board.

New management to take it to the next level - Many times founders are great at starting a company but not so good at managing growth, hundreds or thousands of employees, international complexities, and all the other challenges of big companies. The skills required to go from zero to $10M are very different than those required to go from $50M to $500M. So the question becomes do we sell out now for millions, or do we reorganize the company to prepare for the billion dollar trajectory?

What would you do?

One CEO I talked to evaluated the situation and decided to sell now for about $150M. The VC investors agreed that it was the right decision. Employees are happy. The merger just made sense.

The company was not profitable. He said he could have raised another $30M, but at a valuation that was 20% to 30% below the buyout offer. Raising the additional money would have raised the acquisition envelope to $300M to $500M in order for the new investors to get the multiples they were looking for. He asked "How many companies sell for $500M?" Very few. So, the investor multiples worked at $150M, but they would need to be much higher if they took on new money. He also mentioned the competitive environment with new big players entering the market and consolidation happening all around him.

Another CEO I talked to decided to take the plunge and go public now rather than wait for a better market and higher valuation. This company is a leader in their market. Going public was important for several reasons. First it gave them increased credibility with their customer base. Second, being public also gave them stock currency to make acquisitions. Third, it gave them access to raising more cash on the public markets with much lower dilution than they would get from VCs.

Another CEO said they decided to sell out in the $150M to $200M range. They had been at it for over 12 years and decided the acquisition made sense for many reasons. However, he did say the integration issues with the big company were a hassle, and that the culture of the startup company was changing.

The conversations with these founder/CEOs were fascinating. It was interesting that each of them, almost without recognizing it, had to deal with many of the factors mentioned above. I suspect that every company faces these issues when contemplating a buyout offer whether it is $10M, $100M, or $1B. No matter how many zeros you add to the number the basic issues remain the same.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Guitar Hero a 10 year overnight success

guitarhero Eran Egozy, co-founder and CTO of Harmonix Music Systems was on a panel at the Nantucket Conference entitled "Tipping Point: The keys to getting new ideas to take off". Harmonix is the maker of Guitar Hero, the wildly successful video game.

Guitar Hero was an instant...overnight success, 10 years in the making, selling over $1Billion to date. Harmonix was founded in 1995 but Guitar Hero didn't come along until 10 years later in 2005.

What did Harmonix do in the first 10 years? Harmonix founders met at the MIT Media Lab and their first idea was to create new ways for non-musicians to experience the joy of making music. Similar to another MIT Media Lab company called HarmonyLine, this idea never really took off.

Eran joked "For the first four years we couldn't sell anything but stock. We knew that wasn't a business model, but at least we had money coming in to keep us going."

Around 2000 they decided to try applying their music technology to video games. But it was 5 more years until they tasted success. They released eight video games over that period, with modest results. Eran said "The trick in the video game business is to make enough money from your game to keep you going until you can release your next game."

Most new video games don't make a profit. The game business is very much like the music business, or even the venture capital business, in that it is a "hits" driven business. One big hit pays for lots of losers.

Guitar Hero was the 9th video game produced by Harmonix, 10 years after founding the company, and it put them on the map with more than $1 Billion in sales. They recently sold the company to MTV Networks, a division of Viacom for $175M.

iRobot a 12 year overnight success. Colin Angle, founder and CEO of iRobot told a similar story. iRobot was founded in 1990 with the idea of creating robots to do interesting stuff. For 12 years they did projects and built products but never really achieved financial success. Colin said they paid employees once a month at the end of the month. They never had enough cash at the beginning of the month to meet the payroll at the end of the month. But they persisted in their dream.

September 11th 2001 changed everything. They decided to apply their robot experience to help the military in dangerous situations. DARPA, the research arm of the U.S. Defense Department paid out grants to lots of companies to develop proposals for new defense technologies. iRobot won a $200K grant to write a proposal for a battlefield robot.

Colin Angle said the company had never had $200K in the bank...ever. So, rather than use the money to write a proposal they just built the robot. What a concept!! DARPA had a big meeting to review all the proposals from various defense contractors. iRobot showed up with their robot and a tiny written proposal. They won the business and DARPA awarded them a $4M contract to build robots for use in Afghanistan. They have since sold over $150M of robots to the military.

Colin said that iRobot entered and exited 18 different businesses over their 12 year existence before finally landing on the military robot idea. They have since entered the consumer market with robot vacuum cleaners and swimming pool cleaners.

Persistence and tenacity are hallmark qualities of successful entrepreneurs. Harmonix and iRobot are excellent examples of that never die attitude. There is a fine line between success and failure. There is no secret formula or obvious path to success. Just one common trait...an indomitable desire to succeed against all adversity and doubt. Very few people have this drive and the leadership ability to attract great people to their cause. This drive is indefinable but we know it when we see it. It is sometimes misdiagnosed as being delusional and fanatical. The difference in diagnosis is success or failure. Succeed and you are a brilliant visionary. Fail and you are a delusional loser. The line between them is very fine.

Sim Simeonov of Polaris Ventures is also at the Nantucket Conference and has a great blog post about "Top 5 suggestions for startups from IDEO". Lots of great speakers and content here at the Nantucket Conference.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Dave DeWitt opens Microsoft's Jim Gray Systems Lab

Database pioneer Dave DeWitt has joined Microsoft as a Technical Fellow, and will head a new research lab called the Jim Gray Systems Lab. Jim Gray was a legend in the database world, and was tragically lost at sea in January of 2007.

jimgrayTed Kummert, Corp VP at Microsoft said "It’s a great honor to be able to name this lab after Jim Gray.  Jim’s impact on the database and computer systems industry is immeasurable – not just in terms of the ideas and works he created, but as importantly on the people in this industry. Jim was very interested and supportive of education throughout his career.  Having his name on the lab is a way of honoring both his technical contributions to the field as a Turing award winner and his support of education and research."

I knew Jim Gray for more than 20 years. We worked together for many years at Digital Equipment Corp in the Database Systems Group, and again at Microsoft, although in different groups. Jim is the smartest guy I have ever worked with, and also the most friendly and humble. Jim received the Turing Award in 1999, the equivalent of Nobel Prize for computer science. I stopped by to meet with Jim in his San Francisco office 6 months after he won the award. He had a plaque and a picture from the award ceremony sitting on the floor behind a bunch of computer science journals. I asked him about it and he just shrugged and said "Well, my daughter is very proud of me...that is all that matters". The smartest guy I ever met also understood the simple things in life.

The Jim Gray Systems Lab will be in Madison Wisconsin, where Dave DeWitt was a long time professor. DeWitt recently retired as an active professor, and is now Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  His technical contributions have been recognized with election to the National Academy of Engineering and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. DeWitt’s research program produced numerous technical contributions to the database field as well as educating many students who went on to make major contributions to the database system field. Microsoft’s own Technical Fellows Peter Spiro and Rakesh Agrawal both were students under DeWitt. His PhD graduates are a veritable who’s-who of the database industry – many of those graduates here at Microsoft both in the SQL group and in the database group in Microsoft Research.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

The Future Of Social Networking - Consolidation or Mass Customization?

The Future Of Social Networking was the topic of a panel at Microsoft's ReMIX Silicon Valley. Will social networks consolidate into a few big players like Facebook and MySpace, or will it splinter into thousands of special interest social networks? The opinion of the panel and audience was split.

What about the financial success of social networks? FastCompany published a timely article about Ning raising $60M at a $500M valuation. Beebo recently sold to AOL for $850M. Facebook recently raised more money at a $15 Billion valuation. Valuations are one thing...profits are another. Sometimes the correlation between the two requires creative math.

The future of social networks is an interesting, and potentially very lucrative, question to ponder. Will there be a few giant networks or thousands, even millions, of special interest social networks? It is interesting to note that Facebook started out as just a network for Harvard students and alumni. Mark Zuckerberg quickly discovered that other schools wanted a Facebook too. Schools were added slowly and you had to have an email address with the school domain name in order to join that Facebook network. It was a cozy social network for college students and alums to stay in contact...and express themselves. You know the rest of the story. Facebook allowed a few companies to have social networks, then opened the floodgates and let anybody in.

Ning, and others, believe there will be millions of smaller social networks based on special interests. Ning reportedly has 230,000 social networks on its service. Other social network players include Microsoft Spaces, Beebo, MySpace, iMeem, and even services like Flickr, Seesmic, Twitter, and various blog networks.

Do page views equal profits? It seems clear that both big social networks and small special interest networks will continue to grow. The distinction may be that only the big social networks will gain the "critical mass" and "audience demographics" to be financially successful. Not all page views have the same financial value for advertisers.

A penny for your thoughts? I talked to a Facebook App developer at the ReMix conference. He told me his app is generating 300 million page views per month. Wow! Then I asked what kind of CPM (Cost Per Thousand) ad rates he was getting. He shrugged and said somewhere between $0.02 and $0.05 per thousand. That pencils out to between $6K and $15K of advertising revenue per month for those 300 million page views. Pretty good for a couple of young hacker/coders with very low overhead, but not the kind of business that  commands million/billion dollar valuations.

Other industry insiders at the conference said they see CPM rates of between 10 cents and 50 cents per thousand for social networks, but it can go much higher ($2.00 to $5.00) for highly targeted demographics.

Is Web 2.0 financially viable? A small moderately successful software company can generate $12M in annual revenues by focusing on a narrow niche market. What would it take for an advertising based Web 2.0 company to generate the same revenues? Lets assume a $2.50 CPM rate. To generate $1M in monthly ad revenue you would need 400,000,000 monthly page views. Hmmm...how many web sites or services generate that kind of traffic?

So, what does the future hold? Social networks are clearly a hot area. We are in the early stages of evolution. Facebook is here to stay, but other approaches and models may emerge and be even more successful. The monetization of social networks is also in the early stages. Will the current valuations prove out? Remember a few years ago when some people thought paying $580M for MySpace was insane? It looks like a pretty good deal now. Friendster is an example of an early leader that went in the other direction.

What do you think? What are your favorite social networks and Web 2.0 services? Who do you think will be the winners? Leave a comment and join the discussion.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

The Capital Gap or Where are the $Billion Startups?

Paul Graham wrote an interesting essay "Why There Aren't More Googles" where he basically places the blame on reluctant VCs who won't invest small amounts on tiny startups.

So what's the real reason there aren't more Googles? Curiously enough, it's the same reason Google and Facebook have remained independent: money guys undervalue the most innovative startups.
The reason there aren't more Googles is not that investors encourage innovative startups to sell out, but that they won't even fund them.

There is a Capital Gap between the $50K from Friends and Family, and the $3M to $5M from VCs. But, that gap is being filled by Angel Investors who invested $26B in over 57,000 companies in 2007.

How many Billion dollar ideas are there? Angels in vested $26 Billion in 57,000 companies last year, while VCs invested another $29.4B in 3,813 companies in 2007. The problem isn't a lack of capital, or even a lack of entrepreneurs. It is a lack of disruptive big ideas that can generate a Billion dollars.

Most startups are acquired before they reach $1B. Look at the M&A numbers over the past few years. Last year there were $25.4B in M&A transactions compared to just $10.3B in IPOs.

Paul Graham and Y Combinator are hatching some really cool companies. Is there a Billion dollar company in there? Certainly there are some $50M ideas, but a Billion? Possibly, but unlikely.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Venture Capital returns in 2007 best since 1999

Venture Capitalists have been in a very good mood lately. That is because 2007 was the best year for VC returns since 1999. I have been following the investments and returns (IPO and M&A) for a long time. See the chart below, all figures in $Billions;

  Investments    Returns  
Year                VCs         M&A           IPO
2001 $32.1 $16.8 $3.5
2002 $22.1 $7.9 $2.1
2003 $19.6 $7.7 $2.0
2004 $22.4 $15.4 $11.0
2005 $23.7 $16.0 $4.5
2006 $25.5 $17.1 $5.1
2007 $29.4 $25.4 $10.3
       
Totals $174.8 $106.3 $38.5

A couple of trends are clear from these numbers;

  • VC investment has been growing steadily since 2003
  • M&A has been the best exit every year...by far
  • Exits have exceeded investments just twice in 7 years

VC investments usually take 5 to 7 years to get to an exit. So, you would expect, on average, that the 2001 investments would exit in 2006 or 2007. However, over the long term, any snapshot in time should show exits exceeding investments. Not so recently.

By any measure 2007 was a great year for VC returns. Both the M&A and IPO markets were very strong. Investments were also at the highest level since 2001.The break down for 2007 by investment stage shows the clear trend towards bigger deals at later stages.

  • Seed Stage -  $1.2B
  • Early Stage - $5.2B
  • Expansion - $10.8B
  • Late Stage - $12.2B

Angel Investors are filling the void at the Seed/Early Stage investing $10.2B in 2007.

There is a popular refrain heard around Silicon Valley "Party like its 1999". From an investment return perspective it is a lot like 1999. The difference, I hope, is that the stock market is not in a similar bubble condition.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

MatchMine leaps ahead

I first saw MatchMine at DEMO Fall 2007, just over 6 months ago. MatchMine, based in Massachusetts, is a media discovery service that delivers personalized recommendations for movies, music and other online content on the Web. I saw the potential in the service then, but they had some kinks to work out.

Today MatchMine announced new media partners, and improvements in the service. More on that later. First let me summarize what I think are the major leaps forward for MatchMine;

  1. No more client download required. You can start using MatchMine with just one click on a partner web site.
  2. Content partner sites can easily integrate MatchMine with a plug-in widget or by using their APIs.
  3. The business model is a win/win. Free to consumers, and a revenue share from partners based on incremental revenue.
  4. MatchMine preferences follow you to any new partner site. No more need to start from scratch building up your preferences for each new site.

Why is that important? MatchMine has lowered the barriers to adoption for both users and partners, and instantly increased the effectiveness of recommendations.

Users can sign up for a MatchKey as part of the registration process at a content site. Or, if you were already a registered member of a content site, with just one click you can add a MatchKey and automatically import all your preferences and ratings.

Partners can integrate MatchMine into their site in minutes by adding a pre-built widget or adding APIs to their site. This allows their users to get better recommendations, and potentially increase ad revenues or product sales. MatchMine shares in the incremental revenue. This makes it a no pain, no risk, proposition for the partner content sites.matchkey

OK, so how does MatchMine help me? We are all deluged with information and media. We want just the good stuff. MatchMine matches your preferences, both explicit and implicit, and delivers relevant media content to you.

How does MatchMine do it? Once you have signed up for a MatchKey they keep track of all your explicit ratings, votes, favorites, and import your previous preferences from sites like Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, LastFM, and the new partners announced today. They also track your implicit preferences like what you save or delete, if you watch a video to the end, or quit, if you click away from content, etc. These actions build a constantly evolving profile of your likes and dislikes, allowing MatchMine to deliver just the content you want.

The new media partners are;

Go to any of these sites, get registered, and see MatchMine in action.

Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.

Subscribe

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Recent Comments