Live from Webster Hall 
  Originally uploaded by ceonyc.

The Faint.  Bright Eyes Plays next.

I know I'm going to have to reset my catagories.  I'm realizing that most of my blogs fit into like eight catagories and then I've also got both a "Friends and Outings" and "Outings and Friends" catagory.  I don't know how that happened.  So I'm at the airport now, shelling out another six bucks for 60 minutes of TMobile wireless.  Actually, I don't mind it, because I use it sparingly, since DTUT covers me pretty well in terms of wireless usage. 

I was reading apophenia and she commented on the nature of the blogger/audience interaction...

"For me, the plausible deniability invoked in blogging is strong. I can convince myself that i write for me and me alone ::wink:: and convince myself to be shocked when i receive feedback. I can check my stats, but those are just numbers - nameless, faceless people. Yet, here i am, speaking to nameless, faceless people, only i'm required by this situation to convince myself that you do really exist, even if i cannot see you. In this situation, i have the expectation that i am a face to you and you're just an assumption to me. It really brings life to the idea that i'm just a talking head."

She's actually studying the socialogy behind blogs and social networking over the web, among other things and she writes some really thoughtful stuff.  Her archives go back to 1997, making her the earliest blogger I know.

This trip was fantastic for me.  I feel reenergized.  Beware my next big project.  I hadn't actually taken a real non-family vacation since.... well, I can't actually remember.  Perhaps it dates all the way back to when Deirg and I went to Jill's wedding.  This vacation thing could be a good thing, even if I am enjoying my life.  Sometimes, its good to get a restart.

So, I'm looking at my fellow passengers waiting to get on.  These are all the cheap people, because there was a $200 difference between the red eye and the afternoon flight.  I'm debating what will make me sleep easier....  light food or a big turkey sandwich.  Either way, even if I don't get good sleep, I'm heading straight to the gym when I get into the city.  That will make me feel better.  I'm looking forward to that post-gym shower.  Ok, boarding soon.   I gotta figure out what zone I am.

Oh, PS...   Good for the Scott Peterson jury.  We all knew he was guilty.  Of course, I still can't figure out how, where, when, or why... but I suppose that doesn't matter.  You know some goofball will marry him while he's in prison, too.

Last night, I found a spot on the right side of the street for today, making it six consecutive days of alternate side parking that I have found a spot.  Four times, I found the spot in the morning on the day of, and twice the night before.  Manhattanites with cars will appreciate this.  Everyone else...  just trust me that this is truely a personal triumph.  :)

So I forgot to post yesterday, mostly because of the holiday, and a lot because I am totally out of sorts because of this move to Brooklyn.  Therefore, I see no more fitting movie about forgetting on my list to post today than Momento--a movie about a guy who has no short term memory.

In Momento, Guy Pierce can remember everything just about until his wife's death, which he thinks he has a clear enough recollection of.  His memories since then, however, are all recorded on Polaroids, tattoos and little notes for himself.  In the meantime, instead of just trying to survive in this less than ideal situation, he's out trying to find his wife's killer.

Oh, did I mention the whole movie is shot backwards, tracing each scene to the scene before it?

And you thought the Polaroids were confusing.

The beauty of it is that you watch each seen as he experiences it--completely without prior context.  He arises in a hotel room.  Is it his room?  Someone elses?  Should he be there?  You don't know until the next scene.   One of the best moments in the movie is when he finds himself running, but he's not sure if he's being chased or doing the chasing, until his pursuer fires a gun at him.  "Is he running after me or am I running after him?  [Boom.]  He's running after me."

The supporting cast has two stars from the Matrix--Carrie Ann Moss and Joe Pantolino.  Both do a great job and you're not sure how much either is manipulating poor Guy and his condition at any point in the movie. 

You probably need to watch this movie twice... with a friend you can have a good argument with, because you'll probably see the movie differently.  Its thought provoking and definitely requires a careful viewing.

Here's my attempt at adding something to the vocabulary of the blogosphere.

I often write posts about things I'd like to see on the web... everyone does.  The number of web services out there has exploded and, in turn, generated a TON of other ideas in the process... hence all these mashups.

But not all of us can code.  (I'm thinking about teaching myself a little php/mysql over the next year...   feel free to tag me books, beginners sites, etc with the for:ceonyc tag on del.icio.us). 

So, instead, why don't we try and match the idea people with the execution people using del.icio.us.  I propose a tag:

Anyone who has an idea for a technology enabled service, or simply an improvement/add-on to one can tag their own blog posts (or anyone elses if they see one) with wibci.

wibci   (pronounced wib-key)

Wouldn't It Be Cool If...

I've gone ahead and tagged my "convert to meatspace" idea to start things off.  I'd love to see what people come up with.  I'm also thinking about doing a wiki where people could just throw all these ideas out there, collaborate on them, and essentially outline whole services together.

Corporations and private equity firms have, over the years, created a number of different types of transactions and resulting structures to meet their strategic needs. We've seen carveouts, spinouts, joint ventures, special purpose vehicles, etc. Each is meant to get the right kind of resourses to the right kind of projects within the context of the larger organizational goals.
Many times, that means pushing assets away from the company for various reasons with the option for a buyback or something. This happens many times in the pharmaceutical industry in the case of "orphan drugs"--compounds that have been developed, but never really marketed or even fully tested. Its more often a result of lack or organizational bandwidth, either in sales channels, or simply strategic attention span than it is for lack of resourses. There are some private equity firms that will buy these compounds, match them with other similar products in a sales channel--other orphan drugs--and try to revive them. Often, the seller retains some right to the deal in the form of equity or some kind of call facility.
Lately, I've been wondering if this could work for web services. There are a lot of "orphan" web properties out there that don't seem to fit in a company's strategic vision anymore that could be significantly improved with some "startup" type focus, ambition, and creativity. VCs approach this situation by seeding a competitive service and climbing uphill to develop a brand and a userbase from scratch.
What if VCs could take stakes in existing services, infuse them with some entreprenuerial talent, and reinvigorate them, giving the owner the chance to buy them out if their operation was successful?
Take Evite, for example. Everyone knows Evite and thinks of it first when planning something. Yet, the service hasn't changed at all in like five years. Clearly that's an orphan property. Perhaps IAC can't seem to fit it somewhere, so they're not focused on it. Yet, there are a lot of entrepreneurs thinking and building around the calendaring and event space. They've got an uphill climb to reach the kind of usage that Evite has--but yet Evite doesn't seem to be taking the best advantage of that usage either. I think it would be interesting to go to IAC with an offer to take a synthetic position in that property, turn it around, and then have IAC buy you out after you've done your job. Its a little bit like when consultants take options as part of their compensation, but in this case the equity would have to be tied to some agreed upon metric beforehand.
The target web services would benefit from some fresh ideas and new perspective... Perhaps even an expertise not present within the company at the moment. Maybe all of the really thoughtful event people have left IAC because Evite has languished as a property. I don't know, but I'm quite sure Evite isn't the only one that fits this profile. Up until recently, Citysearch was in this same boat at AOL, but they found the resources and made it a priority to turn it around on their own.

Being able to work with an existing property would have its pros and cons for an entrepreneurial management team. On one hand, they would benefit from an existing userbase, synergies with other properties within the company, and better resources. On the other hand, culture might be an issue. A culture that is resistant to change might be the reason why the service languished in the first place. There's something to be said for being able to create a culture from scratch.

Working with a small set of trusted VCs. However, might prove very beneficial and have unanticipated benefits. When a company opens the kimono to a vc, the vc becomes better informed about where the current technology leaders are going to try to lead the market. They become better able to fund accordingly, creating the systems that spur innovation. They also become better partners, since they have their ear to the ground and may be able to find properties that fit with the company's strategic vision.

Does anyone else have any ideas about a languishing web property or service that could use some startup style ingenuity better able to take advatage of the platform its on?

Old Homestead, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

Steaknight with Brian

     Last week, I had dinner with Larry from GM and he asked me a question.  Now that I'm on this side of the table, what am I learning about how VCs work that would help an LP better assess the groups they were going into?  Admittedly, I've only been here about a month, but one thing has become very apparent to me.  At GM, we thought a lot about how to diligence a network and it always proved very difficult.  One could extrapolate that some VC who spent a few years building Stratacom obviously had some kind of a network, but a lot of people worked in that organization.  How could you really tell who still had live contacts and what did they mean?  Reference lists?  Well, most LPs ask for reference lists and get back a list of CEOs and other VCs.  Both, to be honest, are pretty poor samples.  Every CEO uses their board differently, and a lot of the CEOs weren't even at the company at the time of the initial investment, so they're not going to give you a lot of insight into the investment process.  Its good to hear that a VC behaves well on a board and adds value, but you also want to understand how investment decisions actually get made as well, and the insight into that is tougher to come by.  As for other VCs, I've never heard of a VC bashing another VC.  At worst, they won't comment.  That's not entirely helpful. 
     Perhaps the most important contact that no LP ever asks for is the "first non-VC call."  No VC can possibly know every single little detail going on in every niche that they play in.  They need to rely on an active network of practitioners and experts that they rely on to get a "first read" on a new technology or a company.  It might involve setting a company up with a potential customer to get feedback on their product or their pitch.  Sometimes, its just a market call from an experienced entrepreneur already in the trenches.  Either way, understanding the quality of the "network in the field" and how a VC uses that network is key to understanding how a VC wades through their opportunity set.
     At USV, if we're looking at a new online advertising technology, I know who we'll probably call not just for market intelligence, but to feel out the team/entrepreneur.  Its also a great test for a company we're interested in to send them to someone that we know that they can pitch their wares to, so that we can get the feedback afterwards. 
    If you're an LP diligencing a fund, you want to know who those first calls are.  Ask a VC what the four or five areas that he or she is most interested in at the moment, or the spaces of the last four or five deals that got past their first screen.  Who were the first non-VC, non-customer diligence calls?  Who did they call for the quick market read?  Did your VC just look at an RFID deal for supply chain?  What manufacturer did he call to see if the technology was applicable?  Is that a contact the VC goes to often?  Is the contact a real decision maker?  Do any other VCs speak with that contact? 
Often times, the quality of a quick read market call is going to depend on the quality of that first non-VC call on a deal that passes the first screen.  That's not someone who shows up on your typical VC/CEO reference list, but they're obviously key to the deal process.

Any minute now, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

I'm sitting in the water like an idiot waiting for everyone to screw around with all their gear. Takes me 10 min to get in the water.

I've been considering the "yoga" post from the other day.  I think I learn towards two paths in terms of what kind of "yoga" I reflect in my day to day life: jnana yoga, or the yoga of knowledge, and karma yoga, the yoga of selfless action.  I suppose this isn't surprising, really, given my Jesuit education.  Pursuit of knowledge and being a person for others are central themes in Jesuit education, and obviously, that's been a major influence on me.  While I may not be building huts for the poor in Botswana, I definately feel closer to my truest self when I help other people.  I really do live to see others succeed, and to help be a part of that success.  Sure, I take great pride in that, but that's not why I do it.  I like seeing other people learn to believe in themselves and its incredibly rewarding for me to help create a rewarding experience for others.  I'll never forget the Emmaus retreat that I led...   during the Mass afterwards, people were coming up one after another talking about how emotionally meaningful it was to them.  Being a part of that, I felt like I was in the right place doing the right thing... but more so than being the "right" thing.. it was MY right thing... what was right for me to be doing.  Thinks like that make me feel closer to doing what I was intended to be doing.

There's also a part of me that is thinking...  ALWAYS thinking and mentally discovering things about the world around me.  When the little mouse on the wheel gets going, I get excited... I feel focused and strong.  When I brainstorm and ponder, I feel full of life--but its not full of extrasensory stimulation, but full of a driving life force from the inside.  That is how I know that knowledge also brings me closer to my truest self.  Too often, people confuse a lot of sound and fury from outside of themselves with a full life experience...  music doesn't inspire the force of life, nor alcohol or drugs or sex or sports...   when I am truthful to myself, I recognize that it comes from inside me, perhaps sparked by these outside events, but definately not eminating from them. 

Breakfast of Champions, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

I always have a Met-Rx shake in the morning.

I'm waiting to meet up with a friend to go see the Moby thing at the Planetarium...   I got hungry, so I tried to find something somewhat healthy.

Me...and my....

**Please read this entire post, think about it, and do something about it.  Either a) seriously consider what I have to say or b) please pass this on to all of the Fordham alumni you know.**

I got this note last week...

"Fordham University would like to thank the 1,166 young alumni (classes of
1995-2004) who have already made a gift this year.  We still need another
834 gifts to reach our young alumni goals of 2,000 donors and 17%
participation.

Every gift moves us closer to achieving our goals."

Here's my question:  What does 2,000 donors mean to me?  Answer: Nothing.

That's Fordham's reason for me to donate, but its not my reason.  No one is going to give back to Fordham so that we can reach some psychologically satisfying, evenly divisible number.  Why 2,000?  Why not 2,106?  Either way, it sucks that our goals are so low. 

What sucks even more is that my class, the Class of 2001, is one of the worst giving classes.  As of today, only 9.81% of my class donates back to the school.  The best class, the Class of 1947, gives at a 29.38% clip.  Overall, the whole school is sitting at 15.19%. 

So, I'm throwing down the gauntlet.  Why can't my class be the top class?  For once, why doesn't Fordham pick a ridiculous goal and go after it.  So I did the math.  To get up to a 30%, our class needs 276 more givers by June 30th.   That's about 6 people a day.  So, screw 9%.  If you read this post, especially if you're in the Class of 2001, and you decide to give back, please comment at the bottom.  How cool would it be to actually get 276 people commenting and changing their mind about making a financial contribution?

How?  Well, you just can't spam people with "Go Fordham!" e-mails and expect people to open their wallets.  Nor does the "reaching 2,000 givers" thing really work either.  People need to want to give back.  They can't be convinced to.  If you didn't enjoy your Fordham experience and don't believe in the school, there's nothing anyone can say or do to make you want to give.  But, I know that at least 30% of the people I went to school with had a really positive experience (obviously more than 30%) so, somewhere there's a disconnect.  So, to help promote the idea of giving back, I'm going to put up a few of my own reasons why to help people rethink the whole giving thing.

1. Other people gave to me so that I could attend Fordham.   My parents were semi-retired when I graduated high school.  We weren't sure what we were going to be able to afford, and had I not gotten the scholarship and financial aid I got from Fordham, I would have gone to a state school.  Nothing against state schools, but the ONLY reason I went to Fordham was because other people that came before me donated enough to provide scholarship and financial aid funds.  Most of the people I knew at Fordham got financial aid--enough that it enabled them to go to Fordham to begin with.  This is my number one reason for giving back.  I am attempting, and I hope I get there, to try and give half of the money I got from Fordham back over the next 20 years.  It just seems only fair to me, because that money came from people who sacrificed to give before me.  Do the math for yourself.  Compare that with a $25 or even a $50 donation.

2.  Don't complain if you don't vote.  I'll say it here: If you just sit around and complain that you don't like something about the school, and you don't try to help the school with ideas and support, you're not helping.  If you decide to give back... Don't give online.  Don't send a check.  Send a handwritten note directly to Fr. McShane with your check enclosed and ramble off a list of things you'd like him to do with your money and everyone else's money.  Tell him if you don't see positive things coming from the school on the things that are important to you, you'll disappear into the woodwork again.  A threat?  Sure.  But why not?  Its your hard earned money.  The school should listen to you and by sending a donation, you remind them that you're out there and that you'll support the school when you see it going in a positive direction.  My friend Brian sent them a check when he read about all the expansion plans at Lincoln Center to show his support.

3. Fordham's ranking sucks because people don't give back.  You've heard it all before, but its really true.  National rankings for colleges weigh the percent of alumni that support the school very heavily.  With a small investment every year, and a little more convincing your friends to do the same, you can actually make your degree worth more by bumping up that number.   Don't let all these special giving levels deter you.  ANY giving amount is enough.  The people who want to give more will do that, but the really valuable giving means raising that number across the board.  Think about it.  Two years from now, if that giving number crosses 25%, its going to be all over the news and it will generate a lot of positive publicity for the school.... and for you and your degree.

4. Because it keeps you interested, like going to the gym because you're paying for it.  Silly reason?  Maybe not.  I guarantee you that if you send Fordham a check every year, you're going to be happier when their incoming SATs go up, and more pissed when things go wrong.  It just like making the decision to get your ass out of bed early each morning to go to the gym, if only because you don't want to waste the money you already paid on it.  Financially contributing keeps you interested and you know what?  You should be interested, active and involved.  You have a lasting relationship with your school because the name of your degree will stay with you for the rest of your life.  You should foster that relationship by staying in the loop on what's going on, offering your feedback, and keeping Fordham in mind when you hire people, recommend schools, etc.

5. And finally...  because you'll blow that $25 on something stupid anyway.  Why not contribute to something bigger than yourself?  What do you spend your most wasted $25 on all year?  You know what $25 is?  Its, once every othera month, buying a girl a drink who is clearly not interested in you.  Its taking, every other month, one wasteful cab-ride that you really should have walked, but you're always in a damned rush.  Walk somewhere for once.  Watch the people's faces as they walk by.  Look up at the buildings.  Think about where your life is going.  That's more Jesuit than a cab ride.  What is $25?  For me, its 25 ill-conceived Fantasy Baseball player pickups.  I will not pickup Mark Grudzielanek.  I will hold on to Kevin Brown if it kills me.  $25 is 5 coffee mocha latte thingys at Starbucks.  Just get a green tea.  Its healthy.  It has anti-oxidents.  Its cheaper.  Save yourself.  Support Fordham.  Two birds.  One stone.  Thanks for your time.

Despite the Mets' losing two of three to the Yanks, I've got baseball on the brain thanks to the Subway Series.  In fact, the way the Mutts tossed the ball around the infield over the weekend, there was only one movie I could possibly pick today to add to my list.

Major League.

Major League is, by far, the most quotable baseball movie out there, and as soon as it came out, whether I was playing baseball or wiffle ball, that's all we did growing up--quote the movie.  It seems like every team has one of the characters on this team.  The bad-kneed veteran catcher.  The old junkballer.  The huge guy who can't hit a breaking ball. 
So maybe Major League didn't win or get nominated for an Oscar.  However, its definitely in the same park as my previous movies.  (Yellowstone.)  When you play baseball, there isn't a moment in the game that can't be summed up perfectly by this comedy classic. 

Booted groundball?

"Come on, Dorn.  Get in front of the damn ball.  Don't give me this OLE bullshit!"

Team not hitting?

"Harry Doyle: That's all?  One goddamn hit.  Assistant: You can't say goddamn on the air. Harry Doyle: Ahh, don't worry, nobody is listening anyway."

Pitcher not going after the hitters?

"Forget the curveball, Ricky.  Give 'em the heater!"

And of course, uncorking one six feet to the left of the plate?

"Juuuust a bit outside."

Link: WSJ.com - America Online Launches AOL 9.0 Security Edition.

First of all, I'm at the Heritage Partners annual meeting, wirelessly connected and using Database 2.0 live, our new monitoring software that Jeff the Intern and I created.  This is truly the bleeding edge of the GM PMI group's technology usage.  There is one bizzare bug that I'm sure Jeff will fix...  for some reason you can't type in apostrophes in any of the comments.  I use a lot of contractions, so its an issue. 

Anyway, I was reading this article on AOL and also MSN's agreement to continue using Yahoo for ad placement.  Yahoo, MSN, and Google are quickly dividing up the net, and its just amazing to me how far AOL has fallen and how many missteps they've made along the way.  They realy need to just blow the whole thing up and start all over again...   pitching this clunky and glitchy software for a fee that doesn't justify its value.  Basically, they failed to call the future.  They failed to catch the broadband wave, and worse, they failed to understand how their users used the net.  Subscribers are fleeing in large numbers and AOLs response is to keep throwing new versions of its software at them.  Now security is the big selling point...   I guess when your software slows end users' computers and crashes all the time, its hard to keep pushing the "making the web easier" pitch. 

One big misstep was failing to capitalize on their stickiest asset...  AOL IM.  AOL still has the most widely used instant messenger by far, but a lot of good its doing them as people drop the service and switch screenames for a free one. 

Guarantee you, though...   my dad will be the last paying dialup customer.

This just speaks for itself.  Classic male. 

"You wanna know what we're thinking?  I'll tell you what we're thinking...   Nothing.  We're not thinking anything.  We're just walkin' around, lookin' around.  Our minds are a complete blank."  -Seinfeld

This is photographic proof that if I went colorblind one day, dressing would not be a problem.  Think I have enough grey t-shirts?  What's that blue one doing in there?  That doesn't belong there.

NOTE:  DOESN'T WORK YET...   DAMN!

For those of you that can bear my awful layout, you might have noticed a new little gray box on the left.  That's a discussion group completely seperate from the posts on my blog.  Anyone can participate, and anything they write will get autoposted to my sidebar.

Here's the discussion group concept:

We've been talking around a lot of things about Web 2.0, but I'd like to get down to the nuts and bolts.  What's missing in the user experience?  Who has it right?  What is "right"?  Lots of people have been talking theory (including us at USV!) and that is important, too, but this group is about where the rubber meets the road.  Who's in?  Add your name and reply.

Here's my opening post:

"First there was mashing.  Lately, there's been bashing.  While a lot of people believe in the promise of Web 2.0 (even if they can't define what it is) there's definitely been a clamoring for more substance and less theory.  This open discussion, being hosted on the side column of my blog is meant to focus on real applications of Web 2.0 theories, including specific companies, real suggestions for improvements, new ideas for applications that would  work, and how to create a differentiated user experience that drives adoption. 

The first topic is whether or not we flipped the wrong model--whether or not user-centric business models have actually changed the value to the end user and their experience.  Has "Web 2.0" actually changed the value proposition of the web or have we spend too much time building businesses differently and not enough time rethinking the way people actually want/need to use the web?  What specific areas have truly improved and what's lacking?"

If there's anyone preferably in Northern NJ (but NYC possible) who listens to podcasts that would be willing to sit for an interview for a couple of hours, please contact Bill Bartlett at: billb@subassoc.com

Thank you all for my geeky 15 minutes of fame.   Please excuse me if I fawn over this whole thing for a moment.

Fred started me off by sending me some link love, but then it was obvious that much more of the traffic was coming from del.icio.us...  from people who were clicking on both the popular list and the "web 2.0" tag.  Here are the results from my (continuing??) stay near the top end of the del.icio.us popular list from my last top ten post:

I normally get about 500-700 pageviews a day.  In the last 24 hours, I've had 6500.

I received 100 new RSS subscribers.  (Now I have the pressure of holding on to all of you folks.)

I normally don't get much in the way of comments and trackbacks.  That post got 15 and 8 respectively.

MOST importantly, it led to discussions with three interesting  people who share my interests and have great blogs of their own.  I only talked to them for a little bit, but I got great insight into what they think because they all blog.  I IMed with Brian, Keshava and Greg.  Brian and Greg are new and had both linked to my post and Keshava dropped me a comment I think.  I'd e-mailed Keshava before a few times, but we'd never IMed before and it was a good excuse for us to try Google Talk.  We're going to do the Shake Shack next week (hmm...  probably should invite Greg, too...   Brian's a bit far for such a trip, regardless of how good the shakes are). 

Blogs and social tags connect people in a way that wasn't being done just a couple of years ago. 

Imagine the analog:

Let's say there are no blogs or tags.  Just conferences.

1) First off, no one would have invited me to speak anywhere.  So, blogs enable me to invent my own "This is going to be BIG" conference.

2) Even if someone did, after I spoke, my connection with the crowd would have been limited.  There wouldn't have been time for the 15 comments.  Perhaps afterwards, I could subject myself to the post panel crush, but I'll bet most of those people would have been more interested in showing us deals than just having a discussion.  Deals are great, of course, intellectual exchanges are nice, too.

3) Statistically, I probably never would have circulated around the room to these three guys, and besides that, even if I had, without the context of their blogs, links to what they were working on, etc. our conversations would have probably went more like, "Yeah... so... um... good conference, huh?   Did you try the cookies?  The rainbow ones are sweet." 

4) Follow up.  How many business cards to you get/give at a conference.  How many times do these lead to great connections?  Its kind of forced b/c then you have to talk on the phone, or meet, and maybe you don't really have anything to meet about, but you're searching for a connection somehow.  I'd rather passively pay attention to someone's blog, then start a conversation if I see our interests align.

So, that post was invaluable from the perspective that now I have a better connection to people around me that are thinking about the same stuff.  The traffic was nice, but people are better.