Recently in Management Issues Category
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.
RecruitingI 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.
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.
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.
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.
As one of the leading analysts and Web Strategists in the social computing space, Jeremiah Owyang meets with a lot of companies. He has the luxury of talking with big companies and small companies, public companies and private companies, venture-backed startups and bootstrapped companies. He is constantly looking at what makes one company successful and another one less so. Not only is Jeremiah a really smart guy, but he has a ton of data to support the conclusions he draws both in his day job with Forrester and in his role as confidant and advisor to numerous startups.
Given all that, I was thrilled to read Jeremiah's post "Beyond the Money: Some VCs Provide Startups With A Competitive Edge." In his post, Jeremiah asserts that VCs (at least the better VCs) are good for more than just money. What are we good for? Jeremiah lists a number of categories: Thought Leadership, Strategic Guidance, Being Part of the Family (e.g., Keiretsu), Ancillary Services (marketing, recruiting, etc.), Umbrella Branding (e.g., "an August Capital company"), and Networking. I would probably add to this high level list Recruiting and Capital Raising, both of which VCs can be very helpful with. Jeremiah concludes that "What [VCs] do beyond the investment makes a different - I can see it."
Thank you, Jeremiah! While I recognize that my job as a Venture Capitalist is to invest other people's money and, if all goes well, turn it into more money, I have a hard time thinking of Venture Capital as a "financial services" job. It is certainly the case that the financial services aspect of the job isn't what gets VCs up in the morning. What gets us up in the morning is the prospect of working with really smart people to build new and exciting businesses. And Jeremiah does a great job of listing the fun parts of our job -- advising, connecting, recruiting, etc.
All too often I fear that VCs are thought of as fungible -- one VC's as good as the next. It is certainly true that our money is fungible -- a dollar from any other VC will buy as much as a dollar from August Capital. But the aggregate value of taking money from another VC will be vastly different from taking money from an August Capital. My partners and I work hard to deliver value to our entrepreneurs on all the fronts Jeremiah describes. And those efforts can have a big impact for a company. VCs don't build companies, entrepreneurs do. But good VCs can do a whole lot more than simply write a check.
For almost a decade I've been enjoying the TED conference. For those of you who haven't heard of it, the TED conference is a mind-blowing gathering of deep thinkers from the worlds of Technology, Entertainment and Design (plus any number of fields in and around Technology, Entertainment and Design). Over the years, the audience has become almost as star studded as the speaker lineup -- folks like Matt Groening, Paul Simon, Al Gore, who once graced the stage now show up to listen and be a part of the broader TED community. The result is 4+ days of mental over-stimulation, followed by exhaustion and then a countdown until next year's TED.
This year marked the 25th anniversary of TED. The conference started as a small gathering back in 1984 and has grown over the years in both scale and notoriety. Up until a few years ago, TED grew by virtue of word of mouth. Folks like myself who had the good fortune of finding our way to TED would inevitably return signing its praises and bring a few friends with us the next year and the next year and the next year. That all changed when the TED organization decided to release videos of the TED talks into the World Wide Web. Since that time, TED talks have been viewed over 100 Million times and awareness of the TED conference has skyrocketed, as has demand for the conference.
In response to rising demand and the logistical challenges associated with TED's old venue in Monterey, California, the TED organization moved the conference this year to the Long Beach Convention Center. In many ways, Long Beach could not be further from the quaint, upscale TED tradition in Monterey. For one thing, the old Monterey theater held a mere 500 people, whereas the new Long Beach venue accommodates 1,700 in the orchestra alone. Long Beach is a city. Monterey, a town. For those of us making the transition from the TED of old to the TED of new, the contrasts were great and comparisons near impossible to avoid.
Given all that, it is not surprising that many of the TED old guard expressed deep concern about TED in Long Beach. They felt that it was too large, too impersonal, too lacking in community. They objected to the new, bigger theater. They complained about the impersonal character of the city of Long Beach. And they weren't too fond of the food either.
So why am I not surprised by these complaints? And why do I think that the TED organization should not be too concerned? Those of us in the startup world have seen this play before. When companies succeed, prosper and grow, there inevitably comes a time when they need to move out of their quaint, nostalgic offices and into new, bigger, often less-personal digs. The employees who have been with the company since its inception bemoan the change, pointing to it as evidence that the company has lost its bearing. They are certain that the company will not survive the transition intact. And while some of those early employees may not make the transition themselves, the growing and prospering company usually does.
Those companies that manage to transition best from small, gutsy startups to large, established companies are the ones with the strongest corporate cultures. While growing companies inevitably have to make certain adjustments to their traditions to accommodate their increased scale and trajectory, the heart of their corporate cultures remains vibrant and continues to support the companies' expansion.
So too with TED. The TED culture is a powerful one. Indeed, the culture of TED has continued to grow over the two and a half decades it has been in existence. That powerful culture has been reinforced by the philanthropic bent of Chris Anderson, who has been TED's "curator" for almost a decade now. People attend TED, not only to have their minds expanded, but with high hopes for helping build a better planet. And with that overarching goal, the TED culture remains vibrant.
I suspect that some long-time TEDsters will drift away as a result of the move to Long Beach. But there will be plenty of eager participants ready to take their place. And those of us who remain will continue to be treated to a dizzying mental carnival, surrounded by an eclictic community of friends, old and new alike.
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.
By the end of 2008, Venture Capital had been officially declared dead. Startups were laying people off so fast that even TechCrunch couldn't manage to keep up. University Endowments and Foundations, the source of the "capital" in Venture Capital, were hemorrhaging so badly from their public company investments that many long-time believers in "alternative assets" declared a moratorium on Venture Capital. And the IPO market was a distant memory. Good times!
Welcome 2009. The public markets remain closed. Venture investors and the investors in venture investors remain "challenged." Follow on financings have become increasingly difficult, in some instances impossible. And, while there may well be light at the end of the tunnel, it would appear that we haven't gotten far enough down the tunnel yet to see that light.
So why am I optimistic about investing in 2009? Because entrepreneurship is an addiction, it isn't a choice. Great entrepreneurs aren't driven to create companies because it is easy, or because capital is plentiful, or because the public markets are swallowing anything the venture community will throw at them. Great entrepreneurs start companies because they can't help themselves. They see a problem or a solution or white space or an opportunity and they have to do something about it.
Innovation doesn't take a vacation during an economic downturn. Innovation is a constant. While the resources an entrepreneur may be able to bring to bear on a problem may vary with the economic climate, the desire -- the need -- to innovate never goes away. And Venture Capital is the fuel of that innovation. [1]
So I remain excited about the companies that will be started in 2009. There will be great companies started during this economic crisis. Some of them will be born out of the crisis itself. Others will simply be born during the crisis. But, rest assured, there will be important tech companies hatched in the next year or two. And I am certainly hoping to fund them.
[1] Some of you reading this will say to yourselves "starting companies today is so inexpensive that we don't need no stinkin' VCs." More power to you. I don't mean to suggest that innovation will die without Venture Capital. There are many great ideas that can come to fruition without a meaningfully-large capital infusion. My hat is off to the 37 Signals and Smugmugs of this world. But for those ideas that require investment ahead of revenue to reach their full potential, Venture Capital remains an important resource for company building.
I have just finished reading Seth Godin's latest book, "Tribes." The book tells many a tale of how out-of-the box thinkers, undaunted by conventional wisdom or fear of failing (or falling, for that matter), have changed the world in big ways and small alike. But it is not a tale of super heros who stand alone against the forces of evil. It is a tale of countless leaders who manufactured outcomes by inspiring others to lock arms with them in the quest for results -- fewer euthanized pets, a collective encyclopedia, deeper understanding of wine, etc. [1] The message is a simple one: you too can inspire a tribe to collective action, so get on it.
So what does it take to create a tribe? What does it take to inspire a team, or a club, or a movement? The question is certainly of interest to anyone building a startup. As Seth points out, there is a big difference between employees and followers. Employees do what they are told because it is their job. Followers do what they can because they believe. Great companies bear out this distinction. Look at the faithful at Apple or Google or Amazon. They are true believers. These companies don't recruit, they inspire. And the influence of great companies reaches far beyond the ranks of their employees. Bloggers become evangelists. End users become customer support agents. These companies become tribes, growing their influence and mindshare by leaps and bounds.
According to Seth, tribes are started by heretics of sorts. They are not blinded by the status quo. They are not afraid of failure. They are true believers in what they are doing. And they barrel forward without concern for the potential consequences of the decisions they are making. They lead by example. And they are unendingly generous to their communities -- giving of their time, their ideas, their selves. In short, these heretics are great entrepreneurs!
One need look no further than Seth's seven elements of leadership to appreciate that he is talking about entrepreneurs.
- Leaders challenge the status quo.
- Leaders create a culture around their goal and involve others in that culture.
- Leaders have an extraordinary amount of curiosity about the world they're trying to change.
- Leaders use charisma (in a variety of forms) to attract and motivate followers.
- Leaders communicate their vision of the future.
- Leaders commit to a vision and make decisions based on that commitment.
- Leaders connect their followers to one another.
I am often asked what it is I look for in an entrepreneur and this list isn't a bad starting point. Great entrepreneurs care deeply about what they are doing and are able to convince others to join their cause (i.e. their tribe). Their followers include employees, customers, journalists, partners and, on occasion, VCs.
For those of you starting companies out there (or trying to strengthen your corporate culture), "Tribes" is worth a read. It is certainly not prescriptive. But it has many nuggets of wisdom that will help you inspire and lead.
[1] While I was in college I ran a speakers bureau that brought a eclectic group of brilliant individuals to campus. One of my speakers was Chuck Jones, the creator of the Road Runner, Pepe LePew and Wile E. Coyote. I remember vividly listening to Chuck Jones' rail against the cartoons of the time, which he said gave kids the wrongheaded message that no one could do anything on his own -- everything required a team or a group or a tribe (his favorite example were the Smurfs, which he viewed as a tiny blue scourge on the cartoon world). I wonder if Chuck Jones would have taken issue with "Tribes" and its call to collective action.
