My Photo

Disclaimer

  • This is my personal weblog. The opinions expressed are my own and not those of my employer. My work related blog is at Microsoft StartupZone.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »

Posts from May 2008

Web 2.0 = Bubble 2.0?

At TiECON East, Friday, May 30th Fred Wilson and I will be debating "Web 2.0: Viable Business Model or Bursting Bubble?". David Cancel (Lookery) will be moderating, and we will be joined by Brian Balfour (Viximo) and Nabeel Hyatt (Conduit Labs).

All booms eventually go bust. Web 2.0 will too, but, as I wrote last year, this time it will be different. The boom companies aren't publicly traded stocks like they were in 1999, they are VC backed companies. VCs are very experienced at handling risk and failure. No one is going to lose their college or retirement savings in this bust cycle.

The Financial Times has a story today "Web 2.0 Fails To Produce Cash"

Many members of the Web 2.0 generation of Internet companies have so far produced little in the way of revenue, despite bringing about some significant changes in online behaviour, according to some of the entrepreneurs and financiers behind the movement.

The shortage of revenue among social networks, blogs and other “social media” sites that put user-generated content and communications at their core has persisted despite more than four years of experimentation aimed at turning such sites into money-makers. Together with the US economic downturn and a shortage of initial public offerings, the failure has damped the mood in internet start-up circles.

 

Bubble Cycle - Bubbles go through predictable cycles. Bubbles emerge from the ashes of despair. It takes a while to gain momentum but eventually greed overtakes fear and we are off on another bubble adventure. Stage one of a bubble is when most smart money declares we are NOT in a bubble...it is different this time. Stage Two is more dangerous. Many people agree that we are in a bubble, but it will last another year or two, and there is still money to be made. The third stage is when the bubble has burst but most people are in denial and think it is a temporary set back. The fourth stage is when everyone agrees the bubble has burst and life will never be the same. My guess is that we are now well into Stage Two of the bubble cycle.

Advertising Revenue Math - How much traffic is needed to generate $1M in ad revenue? It all depends on how well you can target your audience and how much you can charge for CPM rates. For social network sites let's assume an average CPM of $0.40. You would need 2.5 Billion page views per month to earn $1M in ad revenues. That is 2,500,000,000 page views...how many sites generate that traffic?

Extrapolating Success - Facebook, MySpace, and a few other social network sites do generate significant traffic where the advertising numbers do work out very well. Some investors make the leap of faith that the next "shiny object" idea will enjoy similar success. In the rush to do a deal, it seems that few of them stop to do the math on what it takes to get there and calculate the odds of success. This is another one of those cases where there will be one or two winners and a hundred broken hearts.

Who do you see as the winners...and losers?

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.

TiECON East 2008 Communication, Collaboration & Convergence

TiECON East 2008 is coming up next week, May 29th and 30th at the Westin Waltham. The agenda is packed with excellent sessions with a great line up of speakers including Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist, and Desh Deshpande, founder of Sycamore Networks.

Fred Wilson and I will be debating "Web 2.0: Viable Business Model or Bursting Bubble?". David Cancel (Lookery) will be moderating, and we will be joined by Brian Balfour (Viximo) and Nabeel Hyatt (Conduit Labs).

The first day of the conference is devoted to entrepreneurs with several workshops, sessions, an evening keynote, and networking reception.

Please stop by and say hello if you are attending.

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.

ClearContext for Outlook announces public beta

clearcontext_logo ClearContext – is an organizer for Microsoft Outlook email that analyzes how you handle email, who you respond to, what gets saved and what gets deleted, etc., then forms rules and priorities for how to deal with future email.

I have been following ClearContext and Xobni for more than a year now. I believe it was Om Malik who pointed me to them. Today they announced public beta for the personal version of ClearContext. Om Malik and TechCrunch have good reviews of ClearContext.

“Email applications are built around the concept of processing messages on a one-by-one basis, an approach that is no longer viable for many people due to the number of emails they receive and all of the different tasks now being done in email,” said Deva Hazarika, co-founder and CEO of ClearContext. “We provide the context to help people go beyond just dealing with individual messages, taking email productivity to a new level.”

clearcontext3 ClearContext helps with project management: sorting and categorizing emails relating to a particular subject or project. The user can also separate emails according to their priority, set them to re-appear later, delegate them to a different user or file them into various project views.

The ClearContext Dashboard offers a consolidated view of e-mails, tasks, and appointments related to a project. Results can be pulled from multiple folders and data stores within and across Outlook and Exchange.

Try it out and let me know what you think.

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.

Top 10 Tech Trends from Churchill Club

Some of the best minds in technology gathered for The Churchill Club's annual dinner. Eric Savitz of Barron's covered the event in detail. VentureBeat also has a nice summary including audience votes on the trends.

The highlights, excerpted from Eric Savitz article, were;

  • The rise of the “implicit” Internet. Today your permanent record exists; you create a trail of data exhaust, digital bread crumbs. Implicit data that exists in silence. Movie rentals, restaurant reservations, books purchased, Web sites visited, etc. All of this data existed in silence. No easy way until now to benefit from the data; but the silos are coming down. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Mozilla collecting data.

I have seen so many companies, literally hundreds, that are building social, fun, aggregators, filters, recommendations, communities, and services that all boil down to one thing...building profiles from implicit data and explicit actions to better target advertising. It is the biggest "head fake" in business history. All these widgets and services appear to be fun consumer toys, but underneath they are advertising driven data collectors. BTW, "head fake" is a basketball sports term for faking with a head movement that you are going one way and then quickly going the other way.

  • Betting on smart phones: The mobile device migration to smart phones from features phones will produce even greater disruption than PC industry moving from character mode to graphical interface.

This prediction was made by Roger McNamee who has a major investment in Palm, so he is definitely putting his money where his mouth is. I totally agree with Roger, in fact I made the same prediction yesterday on a Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council’s talk show hosted by James Geshwiler. In January of 2007 I called it the Triple Play for The Next Big Thing; Local Search, Voice enabled, with Location Based Services, on a Mobile Phone. There are more cell phones than desktop computers in the world today. Cell phones have been called the 'Third Screen", but they are quickly becoming the first screen for the younger generation.

  • Water tech will replace global warming as a global priority. The world is running our of usable water and will kill millions more in our lifetime than global warming.

I agree water already is a big priority in some parts of the world. At the NVCA conference last week one panel member said that 90% of the water we use in the USA is used for agriculture and irrigation. That is an astounding truth. We only drink something like 4% of all the water we produce. The rest is used for washing, flushing toilets, and irrigation. Dean Kamen has done some amazing work in the area of low cost water purification systems.

  • Fossilizing fossil energy. Oil and coal will have trouble competing with biofuels. 99% of discussion on the topic is completely irrelevant to the topic. In 4-5 years will have production proof that can sell biofuel at well below $2 a gallon at today’s tax structure and no subsidy.

Vinod Khosla made this prediction. I hope he is right but I have a hard time believing this. There have been numerous stories written on this subject that suggest it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biofuel than it is worth. Perhaps these articles are part of the "99% of the discussion is irrelevent" that Vinod was talking about. Wind, Solar, and Mini-Hydro are proven sources of clean renewable energy where the technology and economics are viable at current energy prices. Green energy is certainly a hot area for investment and innovation. The question is can startups play a role here or will it be dominated by the big energy companies and utilities.

Read the complete list of top trends at Barron's Tech Trader Daily by Eric Savitz.

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.

Xobni social networking for Outlook users

xobni_logo Xobni - is an organizer for Microsoft Outlook email. The beta is now available to the public. I have been using Xobni for 6 months and love it. Xobni is inbox spelled backwards. Xobni compiles a summary for each email sender, extracts phone numbers, photos, organizes attachments in several different ways, and ranks each sender by how many emails they send to you, and how many you send to them. People connected to the email sender are listed, along with email threads from each of them. See all the attachments associated with these people. Search is an integral part of Xobni and can be done in several different ways.

xobni-sidebar Robert Scoble has a great video interview with Xobni founders Matt Brezina and Adam Smith. I knew the instant I first saw Xobni at the TechCrunch40 Conference that we should be partners. I talked to Adam Smith immediately after his presentation, and had dinner with Adam and his partner Matt Brezina that night. We sketched out how Microsoft could help Xobni, and started executing on the plan the very next day.

Xobni is now a Microsoft Startup Accelerator Program partner. There are lots of benefits to the program like free software, consulting help, press releases, introductions to Microsoft people, partners, and even VCs. But this is one benefit that we didn't anticipate...a demo by Bill Gates at the Microsoft Office Developers Conference. Check out this 2 minute video of Bill talking about Xobni.

Try out Xobni and let me know what you think. What additional features would you like to see? What other email productivity tools do you use?

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.

Can Social Networks generate $1M in ad revenue?

Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Beebo, Plaxo, Orkut, and MSN Spaces are the biggest well known social network spaces. But what about the 800 other sites scrambling for audiences in the social network space? Can they generate $1M in advertising revenue per month? Will they ever be profitable?

USA Today says "Social Network Sites Work To Turn Users Into Profits" and summarizes the problem with this quote;

"Short of striking it rich with online ads or creating a new revenue stream, how can so many sites leverage their vast audiences? In many respects, it is the same query that dogged portal companies in the mid-1990s and search engines in the early '90s. Some were sold. Some went public. Some went belly up.

The ongoing challenge is to concoct a potion — be it through banner ads, premium subscriptions or licensing agreements — that no one has perfected. Facebook, crown jewel of the field, is valued at $15 billion but barely turns a profit."

CPM versus CPC - Big audiences are great but how you monetize them is the key to financial success. Google and the search companies are able to sell Cost Per Click (CPC) ads and command very high rates. Content sites and social networks don't have a search term to key off so they charge Cost Per Thousand (Mil) or CPM rates. In some cases it can take 1,000 page views to generate the same revenue as one click on an ad.

A penny for your thoughts? I talked to a Facebook App developer at the ReMix conference a few weeks ago. 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.

How much traffic is needed to generate $1M in ad revenue? It all depends on how well you can target your audience and how much you can charge for CPM rates. But, based on a survey of social network sites let's assume an average CPM of $0.40. You would need 2.5 Billion page views per month to earn $1M in ad revenues. That is 2,500,000,000 page views...and how many sites can sell out all their page view inventory?

A New Revenue Model? - Google revolutionized the search business by banning display ads sold on a CPM basis, and instead offering text based ads where you only pay when someone clicks on the ad, what we now refer to as CPC.

It will probably take a new revenue approach to make many Social Networks profitable. From the USA Today story;

"Facebook's ambitious plan to reshape advertising — via a new approach to social marketing, called Beacon — was a bust. The idea was to inform friends whenever a Facebook member purchased something from online retailers. When consumers protested its invasion of privacy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged the miscue and promptly apologized.

Even Google, as close to a money mint as anything online, has struggled. Google has a deal with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. to place ads on MySpace, and owns Orkut, which flopped in the USA. Co-founder Sergey Brin recently admitted the "monetization work we were doing there didn't pan out as well as we had hoped."

Which new model will work? No one knows at this point, but there will be billions of dollars for whoever figures it out.

Beacon was innovative, but privacy concerns killed it. We are often influenced by what our friends buy, maybe just a slightly different approach will work.

Social recommendations are very powerful. Back in the early days of the web there were several attempts to consolidate buyers into groups to get better prices. Could social networks do something similar?

Businesses and advertisers are anxious to tap into the power of social networks. The social networks are building huge audiences but can't figure out how to monetize them. When they learn how to connect effectively the benefits will be amazing for everyone involved.

This is a business problem, not a technology problem. The answer will be simple and obvious. In fact, it has probably already been considered and rejected several times. Someone will come along and put a slightly different twist on it and...Eureka!!!  Don't you just love business? How do you think this will play out?

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.

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.

Subscribe