Recently in Consumer Internet & Media Category
Today TechCrunch posted a list of the "Top VC Blogs (According to Google Reader)." I was very pleased to find out that I came in at number three, sandwiched between Fred Wilson and Brad Feld. But I have to admit, the ranking makes me feel a little guilty. Not because I don't think there's good content on VentureBlog (after six years of blogging, there must be some good stuff in there somewhere). But because I really don't blog enough. Every couple of weeks or so, something jumps out at me that demands a blog post. In stark contrast, Fred and Brad post all the time. I have huge respect for them for that. And not just because of the quantity, but because they post great quality stuff day in and day out. So my hat is off Fred and Brad, who are the rightful owners of the top two VC blog spots without any questions.
The challenges posed by trying to maintain an active blog are only further exacerbated by the incredible proliferation of "media channels" these days. I don't mean professional media channels. I mean user-controlled media channels. Blogs. Podcasts. Twitter updates. Facebook and LinkedIn status messages. YouTube channels. Etc. The list is daunting. Yet anyone who takes seriously the idea of communicating directly with his or her "customers" really can't ignore the opportunities posed by each and every one of these channels.
What's more, each of these media channels serves a different purpose. Podcasting can not replace blogging, which can not replace tweeting. A jogger isn't going to read my blog while taking a morning run, but may well listen to VentureCast. An entrepreneur trying to quickly get up to speed on the state of Venture Capital is not likely to listen through 30 hours of VentureCast, but could easily browse through VentureBlog for relevant content. And anyone foolish enough to care what I'm doing on a day to day basis will not likely find that out on VentureBlog or VentureCast, but could certainly subscribe to my Twitter feed and get the latest and "greatest."
The more I think about the relevance of each of these media channels, the more I realize that it is important for me to engage on each and every one of them. To that end, I have recently revived VentureCast -- now with my partner Howard Hartenbaum. We intend to record a new show about twice a month. The first two we've recorded are already available on iTunes, so check it out. It also means that I need to share more thoughts on entrepreneurship and Venture Capital on Twitter, which I will surely continue to do. And, of course, it means that I need to blog about the world of Venture Capital more frequently. If nothing else, this post is a good start.
Just yesterday I had breakfast with Rene Lacerte, the founder of PayCycle, and we discussed the power of great customer service. When Rene first pitched me on the idea of PayCycle, the service was not yet built. Nonetheless, he was already discussing how he would integrate the customer support experience into the overall service offering. He rightfully pointed out that every change you make to an online service will have implications for the customer support team -- whether it is training, navigation, speed to resolution, etc. So from its inception, PayCycle's product management and customer support went hand in hand. Rene is now building his second customer-focused service called Bill.com and it too has been built from the bottom up with customer support in mind.
As we ate breakfast yesterday, Rene and I had a long discussion about the fact that despite being called Software as a Service, very few SaaS organizations put any emphasis on the "service" piece. Sure, you could argue that the "service" in SaaS is all about delivery and not about customer support. But that would be a mistake. Service businesses live and die based upon the satisfaction of their customers. While it is conceivable that your software could be sufficiently foolproof that customer support is limited to receiving "thank you"s from your happy customers, so far no one has quite found that Holy Grail. Customer support remains a significant piece of all SaaS organizations and the more a company recognizes that going into building their service, the more likely they will succeed.
So what does that have to do with the Rosewood Hotel? I was reminded of the importance of customer service this morning as I experienced the Rosewood Hotel's stunning disregard for their customers. For those of you who have not yet been to the Rosewood Hotel (and I would not recommend that you go), it is the new "high-end" hotel that was just built on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park. For those of us parked in VC-land here on Sand Hill Road, it was a welcomed new place for breakfasts and lunches and, in fact, I have eaten breakfast there 12 times in the little over a month that it has been open. But never again. (Warning: herein begins a rant -- a well-deserved rant, but a rant nonetheless.)
Three weeks ago, when parking for breakfast, I was surprised to see broken glass in one of the parking spaces. As I left breakfast, I pointed the glass out to a maintenance person driving his golf cart by. I assumed it would be cleaned up. Two weeks later, the glass had still not been picked up, so when the manager of the Madera restaurant came by to say hello to me (after all, I was there every other day), I pointed out to him that there was broken glass in the parking lot that had not been picked up despite the fact that I had pointed it out two weeks earlier. The restaurant manager apologized and assured me that it would be picked up. To my shock, it was not. Undaunted, I figured I'd give it a third try. Two days ago, on my way to an event in a conference room in the hotel, I asked to speak to the hotel manager. A nice young man named Daniel came to talk with me and I recounted my tale of woes. I explained to him that while the glass hadn't particularly inconvenience me, that I thought it didn't reflect well on his hotel and that he might want to take care of it. He assured me that it would be cleaned up by the next time I visited, which I told him would be two days later.
I must say I was surprised to see the glass still there two hours later when I got out of my meeting, but I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assumed that it would be picked up by my breakfast on Friday (today). I was wrong. To my horror, as I drove up to breakfast this morning, the glass was still there. Was I cut by the glass? No. Did I get a flat tire from the glass? No. So why do I care? Because I think that customer service matters. I think that if you care about your customers, you should do more than pretend to listen to them. So rather than park, I drove up to the front of the hotel and explained to them (amidst a fair amount of swearing) why it was that I would not be eating breakfast there any more. The same manager, Daniel, was there and fell on his sword, taking full responsibility for the incident. But as far as I am concerned, it is too little too late. Such blatant disregard for your customers maybe deserves a second chance. And, if you are feeing extremely generous, a third change (particularly when the restaurant is so convenient). But not a fourth chance. So I guess I'm heading back to Il Fornaio for breakfast.
Customer service matters. And it matters more than ever in this age of blogs, and Facebook and Twitter. If you search for PayCycle, you'll find a whole lot of happy customers. And if you search for Rosewood Hotel, I'm guessing you'll see a whole lot of dissatisfied customers. You'll certainly find me there.
Update: Shortly after I posted this rant about the Rosewood Hotel, I got a call from Managing Director of the hotel. Through the power of blogging, twitter and facebook, the Rosewood's MD had read my complaint moments after I had posted it and promptly called a staff meeting to address the situation. He then came over to my office to offer up his apologies for what had happened and his commitment to make customer service a priority of the hotel. While I wish it had not escalated to the point of needing such attention, I certainly appreciate that the hotel's MD took it seriously enough to come to my office and have the discussion.
A short time ago I wrote about my investment in Aardvark. As I said in that post, I believe that in many ways search is broken and getting worse. Not only are there voracious efforts at Search Engine Optimization (SEO) throughout the Web, but the scale of the Internet is monumental today and getting larger by leaps and bounds virtually every minute.
The massive scale of the Web not only creates huge challenges for search, it also cripples discovery. Gone are the good old days in which fortuity would lead to the unearthing of interesting new Websites. Remember when Web directors would lead you to great sites on the topic of your choice (you may not recall but, in the early days, "Yahoo" stood for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle" and Srinija Srinivasan, Yahoo's chief of ontology, was one of the most powerful people on the Web). Better yet, remember the good old days of browsing libraries -- the Dewey Decimal System created the propensity for discovering new and interesting books as a result of their being shelved next to related categories -- while looking at one book, other books in its general vicinity would likely pique your interest.
That sort of accidental discovery was driven out of the Web a long time ago. The only sorts of chance Internet encounters most of us have these days are a result of mistyped URLs -- not exactly a recipe for exciting new discoveries. Thankfully, one company has made it their mission to bring back discovery to the Web. StumbleUpon delivers nearly half a billion recommendations per month. Those recommendations can be across broad categories (e.g., photography, video, etc.) or in very focused niches (e.g., electric violins, VC blogs, Alice in Wonderland, etc.). The StumbleUpon experience brings the unforeseen and unexpected back to your browser. I like to think of StumbleUpon as a discovery engine bringing fortuity back to the Web.
Enthralled by what StumbleUpon was doing, a couple years ago I began chatting with the founders about their business. The more I learned, the more excited I got about the prospects for assisted discovery at StumbleUpon. But before I had an opportunity to propose financing the company, it was purchased by Ebay.
Nonetheless, I've stayed in touch with Garrett and Geoff and continued to talk with them about the power of StumbleUpon. So when they began discussing the possibility of spinning StumbleUpon out of Ebay, I was grateful to have the conversation. The need for discovery on the web has not gone away since Ebay bought StumbleUpon. To the contrary, the problem has continued to grow more acute. And StumbleUpon continues to be the best solution to the problem. Over 7.5 Million registered members discover, categorize and review Web pages, making StumbleUpon the Internet's most powerful recommendation engine.
I am thrilled to join the original StumbleUpon team in spinning the company out of Ebay. Along with Garrett and Geoff, Ram Shriram is reinvesting in the company and going back on the board. The primary financial backers of the spinout will be August Capital and Accel Partners and Sameer Gandhi and I will go on the board as well. I look forward to working with Garrett, Geoff, Ram and Sameer to continuing to build StumbleUpon into a large and important piece of the Web's infrastructure.
When Google was out pitching their business to VCs, the reaction of many was "search? isn't that problem already solved?" And, in many ways, it was. Yahoo was well established. AltaVista and HotBot had all the geek cred. And there were plenty of other search options out there. So why in the world would you fund another search engine? (answer: to get really really rich.)
Today, more than a decade after Google got started, one once again could reasonably make the assumption that search is a solved problem. Why would a VC invest in search when Google has virtually cornered the market? The short answer is that many VCs are deeply afraid of missing the next Google (and who can blame them -- Google was the best venture investment EVER). But that's a crappy reason to invest in search. (In fact, it is a crappy reason to invest in anything.) There are plenty of other reasons to look for yet another paradigm shift in search.
I believe that the best reason to continue to invest in search is that search engines are getting worse by the day. Why is that? For one, the amount of content on the Web continues to grow at a staggering rate. While there may once have been a mere handful of definitive sources for any given search, there are now thousands of relevant results for virtually any topic. That problem is exacerbated by the explosion of user generated content.
Far more problematic for search, however, are the economic incentives around the whole search eco-system. There is huge money to be made in search and all savvy online businesses are acutely aware of that fact. Because so much money is at stake, herculean efforts are put into gaming the system. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) has become an economic imperative for all businesses. And the object of SEO is not to get people the most relevant search results to their queries. The object of SEO is to drive the greatest amount of traffic possible to the optimized websites. In other words, the economic incentives of the search business assure that huge efforts are put into making search results less relevant, not more so.
Given those realities, it has been clear to me for some time that important new search technologies would have to emerge to help solve the "decreasing quality of search results" problem. Enter Aardvark. The Aardvark founders -- a group of entrepreneurs hailing largely from none other than the Google mother ship -- pitched me on the power of injecting human knowledge and relationships into the search process. By drawing upon the knowledge of your friends and their friends, the Aardvark founders surmised that you would be able to get more accurate, more relevant, better tailored answers to a huge range of subjective questions (e.g., "Where's the best place to eat sushi in Palo Alto?" "How can I best convert my VHS tapes to a digital format?" "I love The Decemberists -- any other bands out there that I should be listening to?" etc. etc.) Thus, the Aardvark team went about building the necessary technology to solve that problem, and I had the good fortune to fund them in that quest.
This week the Aardvark team is launching the fruits of that labor at South By Southwest (SXSW). They have built a "social search engine" that lives inside your IM and email. It allows you to ask questions of Aardvark, which then goes about determining who among your friends and friends of friends is most qualified to answer those questions. As the Aardvark team point out in their blog, Social Search is particularly well suited to answer subjective questions where "context" is important. Aardvark allows you to gather that context, both implicitly through the relationships you have with the answerers, and explicitly through the conversations between questioners and answerers. The resulting answers prove stunningly well-tailored to the person asking the question. And they avoid the pitfalls of the current search engines -- they are not subject to the vagaries of the proliferating user generated content, nor of the economic manipulation of search results.
I'm certain that there will be ongoing innovation in and around search. Getting the best possible answer to any question -- objective or subjective -- that can be arbitrarily posed, is a monumentally challenging problem. Aardvark goes a long way to addressing the shortcomings of search today and I am excited to see it roll out to a larger group of people.
A huge number of web startups were funded over the last five years. Anyone who reads TechCrunch has seen them chronicled; the Web 2.0 menagarie was dizzying. And, like in the late '90s before, the hopes (if not expectation) for each and every company were high. So why do I believe that we will see a big number of web businesses shuttered in 2009? Because the change in economic climate has made it more difficult for Venture Capitalists to suspend disbelief.
Early stage venture investors have relatively little information upon which to based our investments. We certainly have the most important clue as to the likely success of a company -- we know who the founders are. But otherwise we are necessarily making predictions about user growth, market expansion, monetization, etc. And in order to invest, we need to suspend disbelief about all of these metrics and assume growth, adoption, monetization....
At each stage of investment, VCs need to suspend disbelief about some criteria or other. Initially it may be the ability to build a product with universal appeal. The next investor may see a product with universal appeal but need to suspend disbelief about the company's ability to monetize that audience. The next investor may see a product with a big audience that is in the early stages of monetization but need to suspend disbelief about the ability to scale the scope of the business and the economics. Even expansion stage investors ultimately have to suspend disbelief that even with a working product and monetization that a company will be able to maintain growth and ultimately reach liquidity. So the investment lifecycle of a startup necessarily requires a fair amount of faith.
What happens in a down economy? Investors become less willing to suspend disbelief. Entrepreneurs need to make more progress between financing events before they are able to find investors willing to bet on their ultimate success. And while some startups will be able to manage that transition, others will not be able to reach this heightened bar. I suspect the end result will be a large number of web startups funded in the mid-2000's will run out of money and, unable to find investors who are willing to suspend disbelief, will have to close their doors.
I don't think that this is necessarily an indictment of those startups or the venture process. It is just a byproduct of a system that necessarily involves a huge amount of risk. In up economies, the system is more forgiving. In down economies, less so. But, in the end, the strongest startups survive and thrive.
So, will I continue to suspend disbelief? You bet. Early stage venture investors have no choice but to believe and build. Otherwise, we will invest in nothing. I realize it is a challenging environment out there for company building. But the best antidote to disbelief is real progress. The startup world is always a meritocracy but never more so than in a tough economy. Those companies that show results will continue to get funded. Those that don't, won't. My hope is to continue to invest in those that do. And then work hard to bridge the disbelief gap.
If you have not yet experienced "Digital Natives" in their natural habitat, come on over to my house on any weekend. When I wander down stairs on a Saturday or Sunday morning, the scene is always pretty much the same. The TV is on and yammering away. But my kids are far more engaged in their respective laptops than they are in the TV making noise in the foreground. My 6 year old is likely buying a new go kart for his Webkinz monkey. My 8 year old is busy shooting balloons on Addicting Games. My 11 year old is blogging about some great new Japanese rock band video he found on YouTube. My 13 year old is reading the latest news about his favorite performers on Broadway.com. And, amazingly, while "watching" TV and voraciously consuming the Web, my children are more than capable of fighting with each at the same time -- digital multitasking at its finest.
Digital Natives today may be a small group of non-voting, non-credit card holding kids. But soon Digital Natives will be the predominant consumers of media, goods, services. And as such, they will expect their experiences to be inherently digital. Analog experiences will be viewed as quaint -- perhaps they'll trigger nostalgia for the good old days of board games and books -- but, in the end, the expectations will be one hundred percent digital. Companies will need to think differently about how they market to Digital Natives. Governments will need to think differently about how they engage Digital Citizens. Doctors will need to think diffeerently about how they treat Digital Patients. It won't be an evolution -- it will need to be a revolution.
I already see this revolution when I'm pitched on businesses whose customers are kids. Businesses focused on children or Millennials (the next big group of consumers being chased by the advertising world) have no interest in the historically analog world. Their products are naturally digital. They acquire customers digitally. They interact digitally. Indeed, any analog byproduct of the digital experience (you know, like meet real humans in person) is just that, a byproduct. Kids want their media consumption, their shopping, their communications to be digital. Webkinz is a great example of this phenomenon -- who would have thought that stuffed animals could prove to be the gateway drug to a digital experience? Yet that is precisely what they have become.
In light of all that, it was great to read the timely new book by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser called "Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives." John and Urs look into the opportunities and challenges posed by this digital revolution. Those of us with kids are living in and among the Digital Natives and certainly can use all the help we can get to navigate this brave new world both for ourselves and for our kids.
I am a huge fan of John Palfrey's. John has spent the better part of the last decade running Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society. On the side, he has been thrilling students in the classroom at Harvard Law School, doing interesting research, charming would be donors to the Center, and moonlighting as a Venture Capitalist at Highland Capital. He is truly a renaissance man. I have the great fortune of co-teaching a class on entrepreneurship and Venture Capital with John and he is a wonderfully understated speaker and thinker.
For those of you in the Bay Area next Monday, September 15th, I am co-sponsoring an event in the city to celebrate the release of John's "Born Digital" book. The reception is for friends of the Berkman Center and will include a talk by John about his book. It should be a great group of people and an interesting conversation. There is no need to RSVP to the event, just come on by. Here are the details:
Book Talk and Reception for Born Digital: Understanding The First Generation of Digital Natives by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser Monday, September 15th, 2008 6:00PM, to be followed by a cocktail reception.Hotel Vitale
8 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 278-3700
Directions and map: http://www.hotelvitale.com/location/directions&map.htmlMore about the Event: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4575
More about Born Digital and the Authors: http://www.borndigitalbook.com/
Born Digital in Seattle 9/17/08: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/4576
About the Berkman Center: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/about
Over the course of the many weeks of on-again, off-again MicroHoo madness, I did a fair bit of pontificating and speculating of my own about the would-be deal. After all, it was THE Bay Area topic of conversation (for one brief moment we all put our Facebook speculation on hold -- I am so pleased that we can get back to speculating about Facebook now and, better yet, speculating about MicroBook, or is it FaceSoft?).
Many of the MicroHoo conversations I had centered around the combined assets of Microsoft and Yahoo. What could the two companies, in combination, bring to bear upon the Internet landscape? And while the press largely liked to discuss the impact a Microsoft/Yahoo merger would have on the search market, to my mind that was not the biggest advantage of the combination. From where I sit, the greatest combined asset of Microsoft and Yahoo would be their vast social graph data. Farmed properly, MicroHoo could have enabled a stunningly powerful social network using nothing more than the fumes of their existing services.
To see the power of Microsoft's and Yahoo's social data, one need look no further than the first visit to virtually every social service. The first thing you are asked to do in the registration process is to give your login data for Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, etc. Why? Because each new social experience on the Web needs to recreate your social graph and the best way to jump start that process is to use the social graph data you already have stored in your existing communications services.
What if MicroHoo were to simply farm the social data contained in all of its current social services? Step one, implement a unified login across all MicroHoo services. I must say that this is one thing that Yahoo has gotten right from the very beginning (and Google has been a fast follower). Since its inception, Yahoo has viewed the customer experience as a unified one across all of its properties. And with each of its acquisitions, job number one has been to unify the login experience. Thus, Yahoo knows that "davidhornik" on Yahoo Mail is the same as "davidhornik" on Flickr is the same as "davidhornik" on MyYahoo. What if MicroHoo also knew that it was the same as "davidhornik" on Microsoft Messenger and as "davidhornik" on Hotmail? In fact, MicroHoo could know that I am the same "davidhornik" on:
Yahoo Mail Yahoo Messenger Flickr Delicious Upcoming Hotmail Windows Live Messenger Xbox Live etc.
Every one of these services contains data from which MicroHoo could have created a social graph an order of magnitude larger than MySpace or Facebook. Add on top of that social data compelling personalized experiences drawn from the likes of MyYahoo, Yahoo Finance, Zune.net, etc. and you've got the makings of a pretty powerful social experience.
So why haven't Yahoo and Microsoft done this on their own, let alone in combination? That's a great question. If I were in charge, it is where I would start. As all experiences on the Web increasingly are informed by social relationships, the long term winners will be the players who can bring the most social data to bear on their services. What's more, as can be seen in the recent announcements by MySpace, Facebook and Google, the ability to own that social graph and make it available for use by third-party services will prove invaluable. While Google has relatively little to offer in terms of existing social data, both Yahoo and Microsoft sit on treasure troves of data (as does AOL for that matter) that would allow them to legitimately compete with MySpace and Facebook as the Social Graph of Record for the rest of the Web.
Not that it would be easy for Microsoft or Yahoo to create a social network from whole cloth. I know it wouldn't. (Just look at Yahoo 360.) But the prize is well worth the effort. Consider the millions of people who have yet to join any social network. While Yahoo and Microsoft may not be the likely starting point for Millennials, it strikes me as a very natural place for the rest of the Web to discover and embrace social networking. Similarly, Microsoft and/or Yahoo seem the natural repositories of the social graph of record for the rest of the Web. If MicroHoo is ever reborn, the big opportunity for the combined companies is to create the social network for everyone else (and the social graph for everything else). In the mean time, Jerry and Steve, if you are listening, you probably should get working on it independently. My guess is that your future in the Web depends upon it.
I spent this week in Hawaii at a conference I hosted called The Lobby. The idea behind The Lobby was to gather together a fantastic group of people with a shared interest in the future of media and facilitate a conversation among the participants. There were no speakers on stages, no panels addressing broad themes, no big name mucky-mucks invited to draw crowds, just a fantastically engaged and engaging group of subject-matter experts eager to connect and talk. Everyone who attended would have been those speakers, those panelists, those mucky-mucks at other conferences, but this conference wasn't about being the center of attention -- it was about participating. And man did everyone participate. From dawn to well-past dusk, the folks at The Lobby devoured the conversations. The energy was frenetic, a veritable Type A Power Plant. By the time I got on a plane to head home this morning I was literally spent. I suspect it will be weeks before I'm fully recharged. And I will take the next 12 months to follow up on everything I've learned, connect with everyone I've met, and prepare for next year's Lobby conference.
The Lobby would never have happened had it not been for the encouragement, expertise and friendship of the incredible Lia Lorenzano-Kennett. Lia is the high priestess of conference production. She was one of the first Producers of the Apple Developers Conference, ran Demo and Agenda, was the President of IDG Executive Forums, and worked with Walt and Kara to create the phenomenal All This Digital conference, of which she still is the Producer. When I first met with Lia to talk about my idea for The Lobby, she told me that she had always wondered what made a great conference -- was it the speakers or the audience? And she had always wondered what was the answer to the age old conference chicken and egg problem. Was a conference made great by the people who attended? Or did great people only attend great conferences? As The Lobby wound to a close this week, Lia turned to me and said "so now we know -- it's the chicken." And man were there some great chickens in attendance at The Lobby.
I would love to tell you more about The Lobby, but that's about all that I can say without breaching my own terms of the conference. The Lobby was from the very outset touted as an off the record conversation about the future of media. When attendees registered for the conference, they confirmed that they would not report on anything said by the other attendees. My theory was that if everyone felt comfortable that their discussions and conversations would not be reported beyond the confines of the event, people would speak more freely and we would all get a lot more out of it. I still believe that is true, although I am not certain how realistic it is to assume that in this day and age there is such a thing as off the record. It is too easy for information to be disseminated, either with attribution or anonymously. And what constitutes "off the record"? Is it still off the record if you report what was said at the event but don't attribute it to anyone in particular? Is it still off the record when you Twitter "having great conversations at The Lobby" or "Will sell bead clue for $100"? Is it still off the record when you post a public photo of the event to Flickr or Photobucket? What if that photo paints another attendee in a less than flattering light? Is it off the record if you simply report that you are attending The Lobby, even if you never mention more than the meals you had at the event? For what it is worth, my goal was to keep the content of the conversations off the record (attributed or otherwise, during sessions or at the bar, to a few or to thousands). My slogan for The Lobby was "the content is the conversation" -- off the record was about promoting open discussion, not creating a secret society. But it is a tough line to draw and I will continue to ponder these questions in anticipation of The Lobby 2. Until that time, I look forward to continuing to participate in the rapid evolution of digital media and hope that The Lobby has played some small role in that evolution.
One of the good things about being home sick is that you have time to blog. So let me catch up on a couple of quick things.
Graphing Social Patterns Conference: The first one is that my friend Dave McClure has organized an interesting conference that is coming up called "Graphing Social Patterns: The Business and Technology of Facebook" The event is all about Facebook as a platform for other businesses and will have some great speakers like Tim O'Reilly and Reid Hoffman. The Facebook phenomenon is sweeping Silicon Valley and this is the first event to try to put it in some perspective. The conference is in San Jose from October 7th through 9th and you can REGISTER HERE to get a 25% discount on the conference (because VentureBlog isn't just about information, it is also all about value). Also, don't miss the VideoEgg conference called App Camp on how to build a real business on Facebook. VideoEgg have become The experts on rich media advertising and monetization of social media. Given that, App Camp will be a very interesting discussion of how to actually make money on Facebook. I have been saying for a long time that I believed social networking (or, the "social graph" in today's parlance) would become a core piece of infrastructure in all sorts of applications and the Facebook platform is the perfect extension of that observation -- now application providers can outsource the entire social networking infrastructure to Facebook and focus on the overlying application. It will be interesting to see how these applications and monetization continue to evolve.
DonorsChoose Blogger Challenge: The second random snippet of this fine sick day is Kara Swisher's quest for lunch with Jerry Yang. According to Kara, the Yahoo PR machine won't give her direct access to Jerry, so she is working on an end run to the problem. In support of the DonorsChoose blogger challenge, Yahoo has offered a lunch with Jerry for the blogger who gets the most donors to give money to schools through DonorChoose.org. Kara is hoping to earn that honor so that she can dine with Jerry and, no doubt, put it on video tape. The DonorsChoose blogger challenge is a fantastic way to help out worthy school projects. But since I'm late to the challenge, I may as well lend my support to Kara, who has chosen some great projects to fund. So if you are interested in contributing to some worthy causes, click HERE to get to Kara's DonorChoose page.
Hope you all are healthy. I strongly recommend getting flu shots. Trust me. Get the shots.
Hello VentureBlog readers. Are there still any of you out there? My hat is off to folks like Fred Wilson who blog religiously on a daily basis. While I post a thing or two daily to my personal Vox blog, that's usually a picture, a quote, a video. Fully formed sentences are a bonus on my Vox blog. But what it lacks in structure and depth, it makes up in cute pictures and video of my kids. Sure, my mom is willing to read VentureBlog and pretend she gives a crap about liquidation preference because I'm her son, but when it comes to cute pictures of her grandchildren, she'll check that blog with OCD consistency. My mom's desire for more info on her grandchildren, however, is no excuse for neglecting VentureBlog. And so I return to the hallowed pages of VentureBlog (I hope it is more hallowed than hollow).
Do you ever read a newspaper column and get annoyed when it is just a bunch of little snippets without any overriding theme or structure. Lazy, lazy, lazy. Well, for the sake of easing back into VentureBlog, this post is going to smack of those lazy columns. Sorry about that. I'll try to do better next time.
First things first, welcome to the New and Improved VentureBlog. Do not be confused by its near identical appearance to the old and not yet improved VentureBlog (particularly if you are reading this via my RSS feed :)). VentureBlog is now running on MT4. There's been a ton said out there about MT4 -- lots and lots of praise for its depth, simplicity and beautiful new UI. I second all of that (and not just because I'm an investor). It is a pleasure to use and the MT team deserves a pile of credit for continuing to raise the bar for blogging software.
Not surprising to most of you, I'm sure, I spent the beginning part of this week at the TechCrunch40 conference. While folks like Walt Mossberg, Kara Swisher, Chris Anderson, John Battelle, make it look easy, the conference business is anything but. It takes a pile of planning, a huge amount of leg work, some real personality and a fair bit of luck to make a new conference work. But Mike, Jason and Heather pulled it off in a big way. The TechCrunch40 had the necessary mix of startup energy, investors trolling the halls, journalists chasing down stories, and ice cream bars. So congratulations to them for a great conference. If you couldn't make it to the TechCrunch40 and want to get a feel for the energy in the halls, Craig and I recorded a VentureCast show there that I am sure Craig will be posting shortly.
While I was at the TC40 event, I bumped into Michael Copeland. Michael is a great guy and an equally great journalist. It saddened me to see "Fortune" on his name tag. I don't have any problem with Fortune. I like the magazine and I'm thrilled that Michael is writing for them now. But it was just a reminder of the terrible decision by Time Inc. to shut down Business 2.0. The crew at Business 2.0 worked hard to understand and articulate the underlying trends that continue to power this round of Internet innovation. They weren't content to simply write about the fads after they had been outed by the blogosphere. They dug in. I was lucky enough to attend a couple of the Business 2.0 gatherings of their "Next Net" companies. They were lively debates orchestrated by Erick Schonfeld and the rest of the Business 2.0 editorial team. It is a shame that there won't be any more of those gatherings. Maybe Michael can carry the tradition over to Fortune. [I wrote this post on a plane this morning and then read this evening that Erick Schonfeld has joined TechCrunch as Co-Editor with Arrington. That is fantastic news for TechCrunch -- Congratulations to Erick, Mike and Heather.]
As is par for the course, I didn't actually spend much time in the conference hall during the TechCrunch40. But during one interesting session in which Marc Andreessen and Dave Filo were explaining to Chad Hurley how they invented the Internet, I peaked in and saw Eric Savitz in the front row blogging away madly. Have I ever mentioned on VentureBlog how incredibly great Eric Savitz is? He really is. Unfortunately, because he writes for Barrons he blogs mostly about the public markets. Somehow he managed to even make posts about earnings calls entertaining. And when he is blogging at things like TechCrunch40, his stuff is just awesome. If you haven't read Eric's blog, go check it out now. It has been really impressive how quickly his blog has become one of the standard bearing tech blogs.
As a bookend to Shameless Self Promotion Month, I should mention that over the summer I funded a great company called Jaxtr. Jaxtr is what I like to think of as "social telephony." You can put a Jaxtr widget on your blog, social network, eBay listing, etc. and enable click to call. Jaxtr then establishes a virtual phone number for you that is local for the person calling -- if someone is calling you from India, they get a local India number, same in Europe or China or Iowa. And because the number is virtual and lives on top of a voip platform, you can then control the destination of those incoming calls. It can come to your cell phone, your home phone, Jaxtr voicemail, whatever you prefer. Better yet, you can determine the path of the call by individual. These features are just the beginning for Jaxtr, which will increasingly take advantage of voip and the social graph (oh crap, I swore I wouldn't use that term) to create more control, leverage, cost efficiency and fun for users. I'm thrilled to be involved with the company (along side many of the earliest Skype investors). Incidentally, I did get a fair number of comments and emails telling me that Shameless Self Promotion Month sucked and that I should cut it out. Fair enough. We now return to our ordinarily scheduled program of pontification and sarcasm.
I guess that's enough for now. Sorry for the rambling. It is good to be back.
