Recently in VCs Around The Web Category

I received an email today from ExecSense Webinars advertising a course on "How to Create a Personal Brand as a Venture Capitalist." That's right, for $250, I can learn "specific ways to use speaking engagements, published articles and social media web sites as a way to establish [myself] as a thought leader." Who knew it was so easy?

VCs don't often talk about brand. Brand is a dirty word in the venture business. Yet just today I had two different conversations about VC marketing. The first conversation was with Jennifer Jones. Jennifer has been working with VCs on marketing for two decades now. And she's really good at it. I suspect that in a VC marketing death match, Jennifer would pretty handily crush ExecSense Webinars. She wouldn't talk about generic speaking engagements and social media websites. She would talk about finding "your people" (my phrase) and how to reach them in genuine, engaging and unique ways. She would know that anything you can learn in a VC marketing webinar is insufficiently differentiated to have a real impact. She would know that Venture Capital is a people business and VC marketing is about connecting with people, not giving some soulless speech at an industry event.

The second conversation I had was at lunch with a couple of friends in the VC business. We were chatting about early stage investors and got to talking about Josh Kopelman. I made the assertion that Josh was the best marketer in all of venture capital, to which one of my lunch companions replied "he's a marketing savant." Trust me, it was pure admiration. If you want to appreciate what "people marketing" is all about, ask a few entrepreneurs what they think of Josh Kopelman and First Round Capital. Josh understands how to connect with "his people" and make a splash. Remember, this is the very same guy who convinced a little town in Oregon to change its name to "Half.com" and to feel good about it.

If you want to see what successful VC marketing looks like, take a few minutes and watch the First Round Capital holiday videos. You'll see a group of entrepreneurs who like their investors so much that they are willing to do embarrassing things on their behalf (including dancing and singing). In a three minute video, you see the slew of great companies that First Round has backed, as well as the powerful relationship that the First Round team has with their entrepreneurs.

None of this is to suggest that you VCs out there should go make a dance video with your portfolio companies. Nor will I be convincing a small town in the Pacific Northwest to change its name to "August Capital, Oregon" any time soon. But it is worth thinking about how we as VCs are perceived by the entrepreneurial community and how we might better connect with those folks. The Venture business is a people business and VC marketing is all about the people. So there is no more powerful way to build a brand than to garner a well-earned reputation as a supportive, thoughtful, helpful participant in the company-building ecosystem. No number of clever videos or slogans, or even speeches on the rubber chicken circuit, can replace the power of entrepreneurs singing your praises. So forget the webinar and focus on what matters -- bringing real value to the people around you. That's what Venture Capital brand building is all about.

What we think of as Venture Capital today is a pretty young profession. "Modern" VC firms first came into existence in the 1960s, started by the likes of Bill Draper, Pitch Johnson and Reid Dennis. These visionaries shaped the technology industry, and lay the groundwork for everything that we VCs do today.

My friend Paul Holland and the folks at Foundation Capital have produced a new documentary that tells the story of the early days of the venture business. The film is called "More than Money: The Untold Tale of Risk, Reward and the Original Venture Capitalists." Those original VCs chronicled in the documentary are Tom Perkins, Don Valentine, Arthur Rock, Bill Draper, Dick Kramlich, Reid Dennis, Pitch Johnson, Bill Edwards and Bill Bowes. They were the guys behind Apple, Intel, Cisco, Genetech, Atari, Tandem, and many others.

The film is a great history lesson -- not just on the venture business, but also on the tech industry and Silicon Valley. If anyone is interested in getting an early peek at the film, WAVC (the Western Association of Venture Capitalists) is holding an advanced screening of the documentary at 6pm on March 25th at the Computer History Museum. A number of the amazing men profiled in the movie will also be at the screening and reception. So if you'd like to learn more about the birth of the venture business, click here and buy tickets to this great event.

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.

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.

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.

When I first became a Venture Capitalist, I had been a practicing attorney and my partner Dave passed on the somber news that he believed there was a good chance that I would fail at the venture business. He explained to me that lawyers were "agents" and Venture Capitalists were "principals" and that being good at one was no indicator of being good at the other -- in fact, Dave felt that being a good agent suggested you would not likely make the leap to being a good principal (but, hey, he liked me so we'd give it a go). Dave's assessment wasn't without historical support. If you look at the venture business, service providers (lawyers, accountants, etc.) don't have a great track record of making the transition from agent to investor. But, despite that fact, I think that being a service provider was excellent training for the venture business.

I got to thinking about this question earlier in the week when I was asked by a friend to discuss "brand" and "brand building" with his team of service professionals. He suggested that it might be interesting for me to talk about how I approached building brand as a lawyer vs. building brand as a VC. And as I pondered that question, I realized that I thought about it exactly the same way.

I should start with my definition of brand. In the venture business (or legal business, for that matter), I don't think of brand as some abstract piece of intellectual property acquired through countless millions of dollars in advertising, sponsorships and the like. Rather, for individuals and firms of individuals, brand is acquired through countless interactions with your customers and the relationships you build from those interactions. In other words, brand is a reflection of how you are perceived on a personal level by your customers.

So who are my customers? One might argue that my customers as a VC are the Limited Partners who invest in my fund. And, to a certain extent, that is true. Without my LPs, I would have no money to invest. But, to my mind, the best way that I can serve my LPs is to appropriately view entrepreneurs as my primary customers. Without entrepreneurs, I will have nowhere to invest my LP's money. And without great entrepreneurs, I will have no economic returns to distribute to my Limited Partners. In fact, without entrepreneurs, the VC business would be a bit like "Waiting for Godot."

Given all that, the conclusion that I have come to is that the best way to be a successful VC -- and maintain a positive brand in a business so fraught with detractors -- is to act like a service provider. The executives of my portfolio companies are my clients. But all entrepreneurs are potential clients. And I need to behave accordingly.

When I was a service provider, I built a reputation on sound advice, responsiveness, attention to detail, ethical behavior, loyalty, tenacity . . . all of which, I believe, are valuable traits for a Venture Capitalist. In the past, I have been asked by entrepreneurs "what will you do for us if you are our investor?" My answer is always the same -- "what do you want?" It is my job as a VC to serve my entrepreneurs (and, in so doing, serve my Limited Partners). Whatever I can do, I will. And I believe that is the right way of thinking of it. Entrepreneurs are not here to serve VCs. VCs are here to serve entrepreneurs. What can I do for you?

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz to the Venture Capital fold. In a time when venture investors are often criticized by the entrepreneurial community, it is a pleasure to have two of the greatest entrepreneurs of our day join the VC business. I am often asked by my business school and law school students what the best path is to becoming a Venture Capitalist. My answer has been pretty consistent over the last decade -- start or join a wildly successful startup and add a lot of value. It is hard to argue that Marc and Ben haven't done that in spades. They have touched some of the most important technology companies of the last decade and continue to play an influential role in Silicon Valley. As such, they have seen all sides of startup creation and financing. They bring perspective, intellect, integrity and energy to Venture investing and I couldn't be happier to have them join the industry.

As I understand it, the Andreessen Horowitz firm and August Capital share a number of the same Limited Partners. That doesn't surprise me. As I read Marc's blog post this morning about his new firm, I was struck by the similarity of our focus. He lays out a vision that is nearly identical to ours at August Capital. When we were out raising our current fund at the beginning of this year we articulated to our limited partners our continued belief in great technical founders who are building game changing technology and we made clear that we remain bullish on the future of technology and the ongoing capacity to make a lot of money investing in information technology startups.

I would urge you to read Marc's blog post about his new fund. As I said when Marc first started blogging, he is one of the most articulate voices in the technology industry. And he is now one of the most articulate voices in the Venture Capital industry. Just to hit on a few of the highlights of the Andreessen Horowitz philosophy:

• Technology and its advancement is absolutely central to human progress. Entrepreneurs who create new technologies and technology companies are improving the standard of living of people worldwide and unlocking amazing new levels of human potential.
• A technology startup is all about the entrepreneurial team and their vision. Our job as venture capitalists is primarily to support entrepreneurs by helping them build great companies around their ideas.
• And, while there are many extremely bright and capable entrepreneurs all over the world, there continues to be a special magic to Silicon Valley -- which is where we will focus.
• Above all else, we are looking for the brilliant and motivated entrepreneur or entrepreneurial team with a clear vision of what they want to build and how they will create or attack a big market. We cannot substitute for entrepreneurial vision and drive, but we can help such entrepreneurs build great companies around their ideas.
• We are hugely in favor of the founder who intends to be CEO. Not all founders can become great CEOs, but most of the great companies in our industry were run by a founder for a long period of time, often decades, and we believe that pattern will continue. We cannot guarantee that a founder can be a great CEO, but we can help that founder develop the skills necessary to reach his or her full CEO potential.

I have spent the better part of this afternoon and evening trying to do anything other than think about the passing of my good friend Rajeev Motwani. But I have failed. The thought that Rajeev has left us is hard to fathom. Rajeev was part of the fabric of Silicon Valley. He was part of the fabric of Stanford. And he was part of the fabric of August Capital.

For a number of years now, Rajeev has attended our partners meetings every Monday afternoon. As a tenured professor, Rajeev could not join us as a partner of August Capital. But he enjoyed participating in the back and forth of the partnership discussions. He enjoyed debating the merits of every new innovation. And he was quick to share his point of view on each technology or company or entrepreneur. But he particularly enjoyed that when partner meeting talk turned to the mundane or administrative, he could give us a sly smile and quietly slip out the door.

Rajeev didn't have time for the mundane. He was too busy talking with everyone about everything. You would be hard pressed to find a more connected or more informed professor, technologist or investor than Rajeev Motwani. He worked tirelessly, meeting anyone and everyone who requested an audience with him. Students sought his advice on grad school. Entrepreneurs sought his advice on financing strategy. Investors sought his advice on technology trends. We all just wanted a little bit of Rajeev's time. And he always seemed to have that little more to give us.

For those of you who didn't know Rajeev, you might get the impression that he was your typical Silicon Valley insider -- loud, brash, full of bravado. He was anything but. Rajeev was soft spoken and gentle. He was self-confident but didn't feel the need to prove anything. He didn't speak to hear his own voice. And he didn't need to be the center of attention. Rajeev just wanted to be helpful. And he was. To so many of us.

Perhaps that is why so many of us thought of Rajeev as a friend. It is one thing to be friendly with someone in the business world. It is another thing altogether to consider them a friend. Rajeev genuinely liked people and people genuinely liked him. So it is no surprise to me that testimonials about people's friendships with Rajeev Motwani are popping up all over the Web (here are the words of friendship and admiration from Sergey Brin, Om Malik and Dave Morin, to point to just a few). I am sure that the testimonials will keep on coming in for days and weeks to come.

While I could certainly go on about Rajeev's intellect, his curiosity, his business acumen, let me just say one more thing about him and his character. Rajeev was a wonderful family man. I say that as the very highest form of praise. Rajeev loved his wife Asha (as do all of us who know her) and he adored his children. Rajeev's face lit up when he talked about his family. And he prioritized them above all else. No one will miss Rajeev more than his wife and kids and, while I can only feel some small piece of their pain, my love and support goes out to them during this tough time.

Rajeev Motwani, you are missed already. And you will be missed for years and years to come. You have left us far too soon.

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.

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.