Over the last few weeks I've started to suffer from Four Square fatigue. After all, Four Square is a lot of work. To get the benefits of Four Square, you need to proactively check in wherever you go. And, while each checkin requires a relatively small amount of work, in the aggregate, it takes real effort to make the most of the Four Square experience. Would it be better if Four Square just checked you in automatically any time you lingered at a location for more than 15 or 20 minutes? Or does that cross the privacy line for most of us?

The challenges of Four Square have gotten me thinking more broadly about privacy on the web. On the one hand, the less proactive input a service requires, the less friction there is in maintaining its usefulness. Automatic Four Square naturally will produce more data, on average, than does a Four Square that requires proactive behavior. And, for many, the Four Square experience would be greatly enhanced. On the other hand, when data is being passively collected by a service, there are natural privacy concerns that come with that data collection. How many of us want our every daily stop published to the Web? So perhaps automatic Four Square would turn away more users than it would attract.

This privacy vs. utility debate is not a new conversation. You may recall the uproar in the early days of the Web around personalization. There were those (perhaps there still are) who were deeply concerned about the collection and retention of data for the purpose of personalizing the online experience. Yet few of us today find it concerning to receive Amazon's product recommendations or Ticketmaster's concert reminders. In fact, if you are like me, you are more than willing to provide scads of personal data to enhance your online experience.

Personalization has evolved over time. In the early days of the Web, you had to explicitly state a set of preferences. The Internet only thought you liked the things you said you liked. Now services like Amazon and Netflix quietly collect preference data from the things you buy and watch. And, of course, ad networks collect tons of data by watching where you go on the Web, what you click on, where you linger on a page. Using this data, advertisers are increasingly sophisticated about the advertisements they choose to present to you as you wander the Web.

While there are still those who find ad targeting intrusive, if you are like me, you are happy to have ads for things you actually care about (if only spammers were as sophisticated -- or do they know something I don't about my coming erectile disfunction). As with personalization, consumer acceptance of ad targeting has been an evolution. Targeting has grown more precise, more granular and, as a result, more valuable to consumers. [1] As consumers have seen the value of that targeting, they have grown increasingly accepting of the things they had previously feared.

We have all seen that consumers are willing -- often times happy -- to trade privacy for utility. I know that I am. And, while Mark Zuckerburg's statement that privacy is a generational concern was controversial, I think he is absolutely right about that. The coming generations of consumers may not abandon the idea of privacy in its entirety, but they will certainly have very different views of the appropriate balance between privacy and utility. That balance has already clearly shifted in the direction of utility and I believe the trend will continue.

To some this will be viewed as a warning -- a cry of the coming privacy apocalypse. I don't see it that way. As technologies and standards evolve, doors open to new products and services. We are on the verge of an explosion of new ideas.
Automatic Four Square and its progeny are coming. And I, for one, am excited about that.

[1] Obviously there are extremes of everything. It is perhaps too "granular" to start seeing ads for Prozac after buying a book on depression, or ads for funerary services after sending an email about the passing of a family member. But, to my mind, businesses are ill served by crossing those lines. The marketplace will vote loud and clear -- one need look no further than Facebook's beacon program -- and keep non-market behavior in check. The advantage of markets, of course, is that they correct for evolving standards. Perhaps there will come a time when consumers consider it perfectly appropriate to receive advertisements for funerary services upon the passing of a loved one. When that time comes, there will be real utility in the coffin banner ads and consumers will be happy to see them. Why should current standards of appropriateness impede such "progress."

I'm always amazed to hear VCs describe themselves as "value added investors." Not because I am skeptical about their ability to add value. More because I think all investors need to be "value added." If the only thing you do as an investor is hand out money, you are in big trouble. There's a lot of money out there. And it isn't that hard to hand it out. If all you are as a venture investor is a money dispensary, you are as fungible as the money that you are handing out.

I know that in some entrepreneurial circles there is a reasonable amount of skepticism about the idea that investors can add value. While that may be a fair criticism in some circumstances (there are investors out there who have been known to add a little bit too much value, if you know what I mean), after attending the tail end of First Round Capital's CEO Summit last night, I was reminded that Great investors can add significant value to their portfolio companies (Congratulations to the FRC team).

In light of that, I thought it would be worth sharing some thoughts on the sorts of things that venture investors can do to help their portfolio companies be successful. Few investors are able to provide value on all these fronts. But great VCs will help where they can be helpful and staying out of the way the rest of the time.

So, in no particular order, here are some ways in which VCs can be helpful? I'm hopeful that this is not a comprehensive list -- but it is a good starting point.

Recruiting

I think this is one of the most important ways in which VCs can be helpful to their portfolio companies. Companies are only as good as the collection of entrepreneurs that populate them. So it really matters who you're able to recruit. VCs should be able to help in that process. We can explain why it is that of the hundreds of companies we see every year, we funded this particular company. We should also be able to help put our portfolio companies in the context of the larger marketplace, which is helpful when trying to convince a fantastic engineer or sales person to join your company over some other opportunity.

Frankly, companies under-utilize their investors when it comes to recruiting. We are occasionally called in to have dinner with a hot prospect for VP of something-or-other. But we are rarely asked to put in a quick call to a young engineer or hotshot SEO magician. We should be. In an industry where nothing matters more than the people, helping bring in the very best people should be a top priority for all VCs. And we can often really be of help here.

Raising Equity

If an early stage VC can't be helpful to you in raising future rounds of capital, don't take his money. The vast majority of companies will need to raise more than one round of capital over their lifetime. So having a VC who can assist in the fundraising process will be of real value. I recently spent time with a very smart young guy who's done a ton of research over the last year looking into what makes a successful venture firm. He concluded that you could measure the likely success of VC firms by the folks with whom they co-invested. It is really not that surprising that good venture firms tend to invest along side other good venture firms. It is also not surprising that the best venture investors tend to have a broad set of relationships that make the fundraising process easier for their portfolio companies. In fact, the very best VCs tend to have later stage firms that are willing to follow them into practically any deal they've done. As you can imagine, that's pretty valuable to a startup (few things are as distracting and unpleasant for an entrepreneur as fundraising).

Raising Debt

After completing an equity financing, entrepreneurs often decide to raise debt to further support their company (be it equipment financing or venture debt). While debt providers certainly will assess a company on its own merits, the company's backers will play a big role in that assessment. A lender's capacity to get repaid will rest largely on that company's ability to raise future rounds of funding (debt is rarely paid off before a company needs to raise additional capital). Given that, the company will be assessed in the context of its backers and their ability to 1) assist in future fundraising and 2) continue to support the company. It is very rare that a debt financing gets done without the lender spending a chunk of time on the phone with the company's backers. So a VCs enthusiasm for his portfolio companies can translate into additional dollars in the bank. And like later stage financings, there are lenders who are willing to follow certain VCs into nearly any deal about which that VC is excited.

Introductions, Introductions, Introductions

If there is one thing that VCs should be good at, it is helping companies build relationships. VCs are connectors. It is what we do for a living. I don't know how many emails a year I send that go something like this: "X meet Y. Y is awesome. Y meet X. X is awesome. Talk amongst yourselves." While it is a relatively simple thing, don't underestimate its power. Great VCs can help facilitate partnerships. Great VCs can help you engage the best analysts. Great VCs can help sell your product. And, as I said above, Great VCs can help you recruiting. Those introductions can prove invaluable.

Strategic Advice

VCs sit in a very interesting position when it comes to technology and markets. All day, every day, we meet with a host of entrepreneurs pursuing new ideas, chasing new market segments, building new products or services. Those entrepreneurs are the experts on the markets they are pursuing and they work hard to educate even the densest of VCs on those markets. As a result, any VC who spends time with a sufficiently large number of emerging companies -- as a matter of simple osmosis -- will have a pretty well-informed view of the technology landscape. In light of that, great VCs are able to give well-informed strategic advice to their portfolio companies.

Save Time

This one is a little thing, but probably worth noting. Good VCs can help companies avoid reinventing the wheel. There are a ton of things that every startup goes through. They all have to figure out payroll and insurance and office leasing and hosting providers and salary levels and . . . . Now, there's no question that entrepreneurs can get help on these kinds of things from all sorts of people. But good VCs should be a resource to entrepreneurs when they are sifting through all these mundane issues.

Create a Keiretsu

A lot has been made of the idea of venture keiretsus. And in most instances I think that the value of the keirestsu is overstated. I don't think that good VCs will force one portfolio company to assist another in any way that isn't beneficial to both companies. But I do think that there are opportunities for portfolio companies to assist each other -- partnering, recruiting, introductions, etc. As Josh Kopelman describes in his post about the FRC CEO Summit, a bunch of value is generated by portfolio executives when they are in the same room "exchanging ideas and sharing experiences." We've had a similar experiences at August Capital when we've had events for our CEOs, CFOs, Heads of Marketing. Good things happen when you connect smart people to each other with a sense of shared purpose.

PR

To paraphrase Glengarry Glen Ross, great investors should always be selling (ok, it's "always be closing" but you get the point). But, unlike some VCs out there, I don't think that venture investors should always be selling themselves -- they should always be selling the greatness of their portfolio companies. VCs spend lots of time with journalists and have the opportunity to spread the gospel of their portfolio companies and they should. We're on panels and in classrooms and on TV, and we should always be selling our portfolio companies. It is amazing how valuable a well placed reference to a portfolio company in the New York Times can be.

Making Exits Happen

And, of course, the culmination of all these other activities is that Great VCs can help make exits happen. Sometimes that means selling the company -- venture investors can make intros to potential acquirers, help position the company, create competition. Sometimes that means helping taking a company public -- venture investors can get the right investment bankers involved, brief the right analyst, encourage the right coverage. While VCs can't manufacture exits out of thin air, good VCs can definitely help to create a climate that will maximize the possible outcomes.

I can already hear the outcry about this blog post -- "value added investor my ass! That's an oxymoron." None of this is intended to suggest that venture investors are company builders. We aren't. That isn't our job. Entrepreneurs build companies, hire great executives, raise money, make strategic decisions and ultimately effect exits. But I think that good VCs can help a huge amount along the way, even if sometimes that means getting out of the way and letting great entrepreneurs do their jobs.

This afternoon I attended an event sponsored by Proctor & Gamble called the "Innovation Outreach Venturing Day." The event was an effort by executives at P&G to connect with the investment community in the Bay Area to discuss how P&G might work more closely with the emerging technology companies we all touch every day. The pre-amble to the event was a run down of the scale of Proctor & Gamble's business and the massive amount of technology they already leverage. The scale of P&G is pretty stunning -- P&G has 32 separate brands that do more than half a billion in revenue annually (and more than half of those do more than a billion). The company has 135,000 full time employees and did nearly $80 billion in revenue last year. In other words, Proctor & Gamble is freakin' huge.

And because of their scale, P&G already leverages massive amounts of technology. When talking about social media platforms, they mentioned that they already have more than a dozen in trial within the enterprise at the moment, and they continue to assess more. They have looked at every knowledge management system you can imagine, and continue to assess more. They have worked with every digital agency on the planet, and continue to assess more. What is interesting, however, is that one thing they aren't trying are cloud services. It was made clear that P&G runs everything behind their own firewall. And they have no intention of moving any part of their infrastructure into the cloud. P&G's view of the enterprise is pretty old school.

But when it comes to advertising, they clearly understand that they need to be more forward thinking. They aren't discounting television by any stretch. The continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in television advertising. But, as they say, P&G needs to "bring the experience to where she already is" (the folks at P&G always talk about "she" and "her" when discussing their customer) and they know that these days that is online. So they are working hard to have a big presence in digital media.

That said, Proctor & Gamble's online bets tend to be around huge aggregations of traffic, like Yahoo and Google. It was particularly interesting to see how bullish they are on Facebook. In a small group discussion about social media, one of P&G's technology leaders talked about Facebook's growth trajectory and how they are on a path to serve 5 billion people. Accordingly, P&G feels that it needs to have a significant presence on Facebook. If you are wondering if Facebook is making any money, you need look no further than P&G. It is clear that Proctor & Gamble is working with Facebook in a big way -- as an advertising platform and a brand destination. P&G's explicit goal for 2010 is to assure that each of its brands has a meaningful presence on Facebook and they are willing to pay dearly for that. And while P&G's thought leaders expressed some skepticism about the efficacy of Facebook's "engagement ads," they certainly view Facebook as a must-have for digital advertising and brand building. They didn't quantify what they are paying for that exposure, but it is quite clear that the numbers are very big.

Perhaps as interesting as P&G's love of Facebook, was its skepticism about Twitter. They described Twitter as "much more like television than one might think." To P&G, Twitter is a great broadcast medium -- it is best for one to many communications that are short bursts of timely information -- but as good as it is for timely information, the P&G folks do not view it as particularly relevant to what they are doing on the brand building and advertising side. For those things that Proctor & Gamble thinks are most interesting and important, they do not believe that Twitter will ever approach the value they can get out of a Google or Facebook. But they are open to looking at other alternatives that will have more of the engagement and brand building attributes that they hope to exploit in Facebook.

It was fascinating to get a bit of a view inside such a huge and influential company as Proctor & Gamble. And it is encouraging to see them reaching out to the greater tech community. In fact, P&G is opening an innovation office in the Bay Area and they've committed to have their senior execs make more frequent trips out to what they view as the "most important innovation ecosystem globally." It will be great to continue the conversation. There's no question that it will benefit P&G and Bay Area startups alike.

UPDATE: As you can see in the comments below, a representative from Proctor & Gamble wants to clarify that P&G does not now claim that they project Facebook's growth to 5 billion users. Rather, they are projecting the reach of their own products to 5 billion users. Since the growth projection that I heard at the P&G event wasn't attached to any time frame, I took it simply as a statement of how huge Facebook could become over time. And I agree. Facebook will be increasingly huge, and increasingly important, over time. So it didn't strike me as such a controversial statement. That said, Proctor & Gamble would like me to correct the misunderstanding, so please let it be known that if Facebook, in fact, reaches 5 billion users some day in the future, P&G did not project that that would happen :)

When I first started blogging, I wrote a lot. Everything I saw in my day-to-day VC world called out for a blog entry. Great competitive landscape slide -- blog about it. Exciting presentation at the TED conference -- blog about it. Liquidation preference distribution -- blog about it. I viewed my world through blog-colored glasses. Part time VC. Part time journalist.

For years, my every thought became a VentureBlog post. But I have to admit, over time, my focus turned elsewhere. I spoke at events, podcast, taught, started The Lobby conference, and worked hard to help my portfolio companies thrive. And, along the way, my blog suffered. Fewer things in my daily life called out for commentary. And VentureBlog began to languish.

Well, last week the repercussions of that inactivity came home to roost. Larry Cheng has been tracking VC bloggers over the last couple years. Each year he pulls together a list of the "top" VC bloggers. His past lists have been based upon RSS subscribers. And by that measure I have always fared very well. Last year VentureBlog ranked as high as 3rd on the list. After all, as long as you occasionally write something of interest, there's little reason to unsubscribe from an RSS feed. So my relative inactivity had minimal impact on the number of people who followed me.

This year, however, Larry used a new methodology. This year he ranked VC blogs by unique visitors to their blogs (as measured by Compete.com). As you can imagine, the number of unique visitors to one's blog is much more driven by the frequency of your blogging. The more you blog, the more likely visitors will find their way to your blog. And so, in this year's rankings, I fell precipitously.

This year VentureBlog ranked 28th among VC blogs. Ouch. From 3rd to 28th. That's a free fall. But it serves me right. The last time I blogged was November 17th, 2009. That's a long time ago. What is interesting is that despite my temporary retirement from the blogging world, I still receive thousands of daily visitors to VentureBlog courtesy of search engines and historical links. Apparently the long tail of Venture Capital topics are my wheelhouse. Search for "VCitis" or "venture loans" or "David Hornik" and you are bound to come upon a link to VentureBlog. Same is true of "VC Bloggers" or "The Lobby" or "Howard Hartenbaum."

The set of search terms that lead to VentureBlog on a daily basis are wildly varied and surprisingly large. And VentureBlog is not unique in this respect. There's little question that a huge amount of Fred Wilson's and Brad Feld's traffic comes from the long tail of search terms. They've been at this as long as I have. And they've managed to maintain the intensity of their blogging over the years. It is quite clear that the longer you blog, the greater your blogging frequency, and the more that others point to your blog, the more likely that a plethora of search term will lead to traffic to your blog. So despite my recent lack of blogging, VentureBlog has been able to continue to be useful to thousands of visitors a month.

Don't get me wrong. I take little comfort in the fact that VentureBlog remains the 28th "best" VC blog without posting. If there is one lesson that I have learned over the years of blogging, it is that there are no shortcuts. I should have remembered that. If you want people to care what you have to say, you better write well, think clearly, and make a habit of posting a lot. Larry's list was an excellent reminder of that -- a wakeup call. Time to show VentureBlog a little love. And hopefully by the time Larry creates his next ranking, I will have reentered the panoply of VC Blog Heros. Because, frankly, being #28 sucks. So, as they say, no rest for the wicked -- get on with the writing, already. I guess this blog post is a step in the right direction.

In his book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell talks about the power of circumstance. He explains that Bill Gates and Bill Joy had unprecedented access to the earliest computers and, as a result, they built a couple of the most important computer companies in the history of computation. A quick look at the folks who graduated from law school with me at the dawn of the Internet age (it sounds so long ago when you put it that way) and you can see the power of circumstance at work again. In my law school class were four of the most well-respected Internet scholars: Professors Jonathan Zittrain, Yochai Benkler, Kevin Werbach and the Obama administration's deputy CTO, Andrew McLaughlin. It is an impressive group of very thoughtful men and I consider myself lucky to have been in school with them and to continue to trade ideas with them from time to time.

For those of you who are interested in hearing what one of these experts is thinking about internet law, there is a great event taking place on Wednesday night (November 18th) at the Computer History Museum. Jonathan Zittrain will be giving a talk on "Minds for Sale," followed by a reception. The event is being put on by the Berkman Center -- Harvard's center for the study of the Internet. I am a huge fan of the Berkman Center and occassionally am lucky enough to spend some time back east in their hallowed halls. There will be a fantastic group of folks at the event and it is open to the public. So if you are interested in meeting up with the friends of Berkman and hearing a great talk by Professor Zittrain, please come on by.

True, no one asked me. But here's my two cents anyway. Twitter should open up its platform to advertising. That's right, advertising. Forget all this hoo-ha over selling data or paid business accounts or dashboards . . . Twitter has everything it needs to build a wildly-successful ad driven business model. It should get on with it.

The two hallmarks of successful advertising-driven businesses are 1) massive scale and 2) abundant context. How has MySpace built such strong advertising revenue atop their social media platform? Huge scale and a ton of context. Same is true of Facebook and Yahoo and Six Apart. And, of course, the mother of all ad supported businesses -- Google -- is all about scale and context.

Twitter's scale has been well documented. Huge and growing. Does the fact that much of the Twitter traffic exists on third party clients make in-stream advertising less practicable? I don't think so. I think it actually solves the problem of how Twitter will be able to monetize its off-platform traffic. Third party apps can choose to present ads along with the rest of the stream or pay a fee to receive advertisement-free data.

As with each of the social media platforms listed above, Twitter's unique experience will require a unique ad format. In this instance, I think the format is pretty easy to envision. Twitter should constrain advertisements on its system to 140 characters or fewer. By doing so, Twitter ads will be pretty spartan. But if Google ads have taught us anything, it is clear that a relatively small number of characters and a link are more that sufficient to engage a consumer. Moreover, by matching the ad format to that of a tweet, the ads will not only fit well with the consumption behavior on Twitter.com, it will also work well with the many third party experiences enabled by Twitter's API. Twitter need only create some visual distinction between tweets and ads and it can very simply insert the ads in the tween stream, as can Tweet Deck and Siesmic and Tweety and StockTweets . . . .

What about context on Twitter? Huge and growing. The very data others have suggested Twitter should sell to third parties is invaluable to create the necessary context for a successful advertising model. Not only will Twitter know the things about which any given user is tweeting, it will also know who that user is following and the things about which they are tweeting. That's a huge amount of context for advertisers. I'm guessing Toyota would love to advertise to an individual who tweets about shopping for a new Honda Hybrid. And they are likely just as eager to advertise to an individual who follows numerous eco-tweeters. It is easy enough to envision a self-serve platform that allows a huge range of advertisers to bid for context and get great results.

The best thing about context-driven advertisements is that, when well-executed, they can be viewed by consumers as content, not just advertising. Look at Google's ads as case in point. It has been a long time since I've heard even a hint of objection to advertisements on Google. Why? Because the ads are often more compelling than the organic search results they appear beside. True, Twitter ads won't be a response to a query like in Google. But there should be more than enough signal for businesses to get great results advertising on the platform.

Finally, I think that users would embrace Twitter ads. We all recognize that Twitter needs a business model and we all want a long-term sustainable platform. If executed well (watch out for those lurking privacy trolls!), Twitter ads would become a natural part of the Twitter experience and add value, not take away from it. Better yet, we could all stop speculating about Twitter's business model and move on to more interesting discussions about things like the transformative impact of the real time web. So do us a favor Twitter and start serving ads already. I, for one, look forward to it.

First came the announcement earlier in the year that Marc Andreessen was joining the ranks of "capital" -- a welcomed defection from "labor." And now my friend Reid Hoffman has jumped into the fray as well, joining Greylock Partners in their new fund (although he is not quite abandoning "labor" -- for the time being he will continue on as Executive Chairman of LinkedIn). Having two superstars like Marc and Reid join the venture business is excellent news at a time when the press is gleefully touting the demise of our profession. While the venture business is, no doubt, under serious pressure these days, Marc and Reid have rightfully determined that there will always be room for brilliant, thoughtful, long-term investors who see the immense value of innovation. There is no question that Marc and Reid both fit that profile and will have long, successful venture careers.

I have known Reid Hoffman for a long time and have greatly enjoyed the time I have spent with him. Reid has fantastic instincts, is a generous soul and is an intellectual powerhouse. But the thing that I think separates Reid from most of those around him is his thoughtfulness. Reid does not shoot from the hip. Ask him a question and he doesn't immediately launch into an answer. He cocks his head, thinks, and -- only when he feels he has an answer worth delivering -- shares his thoughts on the matter. His thoughtfulness as an entrepreneur, an investor, a board member (I have the pleasure of serving on the Six Apart board with him), harken back to his roots as an Oxford-trained philosopher. Reid's opinions are rooted in history and reason. Things need to "make sense" in the broadest sense of the term for Reid to embrace them. And as a result, he shares smart thoughts, builds smart businesses and makes smart investments.

When word of Reid joining the venture business was first announced, a friend of mine lamented the fact that Reid was now the "competition," but I have to say I really don't see it that way. I can't think of a single wildly-successful, venture-backed company that only had one venture firm as an investor (I guess with the exception of Microsoft, in which my partner Dave was the only professional investor). Company building is a team sport and now, more than ever, who's on your team really matters. That obviously includes the team of entrepreneurs who are building the company. But it also includes the team of investors who are supporting that team of entrepreneurs. So I don't view the arrival of Reid and Marc as greater competition in the venture business. I view it as the arrival of fantastic new collaborators with whom I look forward to working. The more smart people around the table, the better. Welcome, Reid and Marc! We're thrilled to have you on our side of the table.

In the past three weeks, I have attended 2 memorial services and 2 brises. The brises celebrated the births of two future superstars -- the sons of four of the smartest entrepreneurs and venture investors in the Bay Area. The memorial services celebrated the lives of two recently deceased superstars -- both entrepreneurs and venture investors in their own right. As I listened to the stories of the lives these great men had lived, and listened to the toasts and prayers for these great men-to-be, it struck me that there were lessons to be learned for entrepreneurs and venture investors alike.

Just over two weeks ago, I sat in Stanford's Memorial Church, listening to the friends and colleagues of Rajeev Motwani share stories of Rajeev's incredible life and legacy. The outpouring of love and respect for Rajeev was overwhelming. He had touched so many people as a professor, investor, advisor, father, friend. I left the memorial feeling grateful to have been Rajeev's friend and colleague and awed by all that he had accomplished.

Sadly, today I attended another memorial service -- this time for Craig Johnson, the founder of Venture Law Group. Again, the memorial service was filled with stories of a life well-lived. Craig was an incredible builder and connector. After helping hundreds of up and coming entrepreneurs get their businesses off the ground, Craig couldn't help but innovate himself. He launched Venture Law Group in a time when others were complacent to practice law as it had always been practiced before. And recently jumped into the fray again, innovating on the model once more, this time founding Virtual Law Partners. Craig was an unendingly positive man. I was lucky to have started my professional career in the Bay Area in the house that Craig built (VLG) and am deeply saddened to see Craig go.

As I sat in today's service, it struck me that there were certain common themes that flowed through both Rajeev's and Craig's memorials. And it struck me that those themes were perhaps at the heart of what it takes to be successful in Silicon Valley.

Both Rajeev and Craig were deeply intellectually curious people. They loved to learn new things. They loved to explore new ideas. And when they became enthralled with a new idea, both Rajeev and Craig couldn't help but explore that idea with a rigor that one might say bordered on obsessive. They dug in and looked at the idea from all angles. They examined and cross-examined the idea. And those ideas that survived their scrutiny inevitably proved interesting and valuable and worthy of investment (be it in time or energy or dollars).

Both Rajeev and Craig were incredible connectors. So many of us at their memorial services had been introduced to one another by none other than the men we were there to honor. And the scale of both memorial services was a testimony to the vast reach of their respective (and overlapping) networks. But networking wasn't a cynical endeavor for Rajeev or Craig. It was a natural outcropping of their intellectual curiosity. They were as curious about people as they were about ideas. They took a genuine interest in the people with whom they surrounded themselves, and therefore were able to make real, valuable connections among their friends and colleagues.

Most importantly, both Rajeev and Craig were unendingly generous with their time. They were wonderful people to have as friends. They were superb mentors. They were patient advisors. But they weren't just generous to those people they already knew. Rajeev and Craig made time for everyone. And they managed to do it in a way that made everyone feel special. Rejeev's graduate students all felt that they were getting a disproportionate amount of his time. Craig's clients all felt that they were his priority. Rajeev's portfolio companies all felt they had instant access to his advice. Craig's colleagues all felt that he was their personal confidant. And they were all right. Rajeev and Craig were there for everyone. They always made time for those of us around them. And, in return, we all would do anything for them. All they had to do was ask (which, not surprisingly, they didn't do very often).

I will miss both Rajeev and Craig. They were amazing men. And they were amazing role models for all of us in SIlicon Valley.

Relatively recently I hosted a meeting of the advisors to one of my portfolio companies. It was an impressive group of tech veterans. Each of them had been involved in the building of multi-million dollar high tech companies. Yet, what struck me about this summit was how many of these computer gurus carried with him a good, old fashioned notebook. Two varieties seemed to dominate the gathering -- the classic, leather-bound Moleskin and the pocket-sized graph paper Rhodia. I was surprised to see so much scribbling and so little typing. Since that meeting, I have kept my eyes out for this notebook phenomenon and have been amazed by how many startup CEOs, Venture Capitalists, attorneys, etc. have forsaken the digital world for the analog.

Why is it that this all-star crowd of tech moguls had pushed aside the very digital domain about which they were so madly taking notes with pen and paper? I think the answer is data overload. The digital world is a land of plenty. Plenty of emails. Plenty of social networks. Plenty of corporate wikis and portals and knowledge management systems. The typical executive these days needs to deal with hundreds, if not thousands, of data points across dozens of services each day. While we all necessarily find ways to consume this huge amount of information, segregating the truly important stuff remains a big challenge. And this is where the notebook comes in.

Notebooks have certain enviable characteristics. They are instant on -- even faster than a laptop with a solid state drive. They have virtually unlimited storage -- just boot a new notebook when the pages are filled. And they perform better than tape for archival storage. Direct sunlight is no problem for a bright white piece of paper. And power management is rarely a problem (although your pen may run out of ink). Notebooks don't require any connectivity. They aren't susceptible to viruses. And they are highly portable. [1]

Given all the analog goodness of notebooks, it is no surprise that there has been a resurgence of paper. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Luddite by any means. I'm a firm believer in a laptop in every room and a smart phone in every pocket. But, when it comes to keeping track of priority information, it would appear that notebooks are becoming the tool of choice for technology's elite. Perhaps I should hedge my bet and buy some stock in Apple and in Mead.

[1] I realize Notebooks aren't perfect. They perform about as well as laptops when exposed to the elements. They are a terrible collaboration tool. And I have yet to see an effective way to backup your notebooks.

This weekend I was reading a blog post written by Chris Douvos. Chris is an investor in a number of well-known venture firms and writes a blog called Super LP. His commentary always cracks me up, even when he's writing about the finer points of risk curves, financial models and the like.

In his post entitled "Keeping the Window Open," Chris cautions the investor community to not be too overzealous in taking companies public during this time when the gently re-emerging market is so fragile. As he rightfully points out, those companies that go public and then promptly miss their numbers, not only tank their own valuations but also spoil the markets for everyone else. If investors can't trust newly minted public companies to do what they said they were going to do, the markets will simply reject future public offerings as more of the same old head fake.

The conversation reminded me of the good old days when I was an attorney. One of my final acts as a lawyer came at the board meeting of a rapidly-growing but somewhat erratic startup. The venture investors in that startup sat at a board meeting reveling in their growing user-base and began discussing the idea of taking the company public. The VCs were in rousing agreement that we should promptly commence work on the company's S-1.

Lacking a certain self-preservation gene, I pointed out to the VCs that should the company miss its numbers after going on file, it would have to pull the filing and be in a much worse position than when it started. Thus, I strongly recommended that the company wait until it had greater predictability of revenue before filing to go public. Not only were the VCs not wowed by my erudite advice, they promptly fired me and hired another attorney to draft the S-1. Of course, I would not be telling this story if the startup did not ultimately miss its numbers and have to pull the filing. More importantly, this was precisely the sort of company Chris cautions us VCs against taking public this time around -- and I am with him one hundred percent.

There are too many great companies lined up and ready to get public for us to jeopardize the IPO window trying to get middling companies out. As Chris rightfully notes, if we can take solid companies public, "[t]heir success should lead to more opportunity for other companies." If, however, we take marginal companies public, their lack of success will spoil the market for even the most solid of performers.

I realize that the lure of liquidity may be too much temptation for some in the venture community, but I would urge patience in the face of uncertainty. The venture business is a long-term business and the more we can do to grow the overall pie by being circumspect about those companies we bring to market, the better off we all will be in the long run.