The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

Albert Wenger and I will be moderating a three hour startup workshop at NYC Web 2.0 Expo in September. There is a lot we could talk about from getting started to hiring to fundraising. But rather than just pick the topics ourselves based on what we think might be interesting, we figured we should find out ahead of time what folks really want to hear about. So please use the comments to suggest questions, topics and even guest speakers (three hours is a long time and we will vary the format including break out sessions).

Growing a startup isn't easy, but at least once you're up and running, you're more likely to get outside feedback and suggestions. When all you have is an idea, it's often hard to figure out where to begin. Here are five things I tell napkin stage entrepreneurs all the time:

1) Have great relationships with the people who know you already.  If the people who have either worked for you or that you've worked for won't vouch for you, who will?  Investors, employees, and partners are all going to look for this.  So, before you spend the next 6 months trying to pound the pavement trying to drum up new relationships, how about spending half that time with the successful people who know you already?

2) Join the conversations already going on in your space--read blogs, start a blog, join groups, listservs, attend meetups. There are a bunch of reasons for this. First off, unless you're actively engaging with thoughtful people in your industry on a daily basis, it's going to be extremely difficult to be as current as possible on the trends that affect your idea. Plus, engagement in conversation, both online and offline, will attract likeminded thinkers, which you're going to need when you get your idea off the ground.

3) Use every single even mildly related service you possibly can--and not just once. You need to have a really thorough knowledge of what else is out there--not to defend your idea and explain why it's different, but to learn from (copy, improve upon) the best ideas the market already has, and understand what isn't working about the ones that fail. I can't tell you how many times I mention a related company to a startup and they've never even heard of it. I shouldn't know more about the startups and existing services in your space than you do.

4) Identify the 30 most knowledgeable people in your space--analysts, investors, executives, even competitors--and try to meet with them about your idea. Look, all you have is an idea. Chances are, all of these people have thought about or heard of your idea before, and they have existing day jobs, so they're not likely to just jump in and steal what you're doing. When anyone can copy your idea in a matter of weeks, it's a matter of execution anyway--and that requires all the best thinking you can muster. Plus, chances are that some of these people will put you in touch with people who could help build your idea, through collaboration, investment, or even literally code it up.

5) Be a leader of startups in your space. All startups need some basic help with the nuts and bolts of running a business. Gathering a critical mass of other startups doing similar things allows you all to learn from each other and focus on the parts of your business that creates value, not stumble on the basics. Also, putting together events for new companies in your space can attract potential clients, who may want to checkout a bunch of startups all at once. A good example of a group of new startups in a single industry coming together to help each other and learn is the new Fashion 2.0 Meetup group here in NYC. They're sure to attract more industry speakers, investors, etc. as a group than any one of them would have been able to individually. Competition? Sure, some of them may be competitive with each other, but better to know and have a dialogue with the enemy than not.

Oh...  I mean... Chatter.

In my old apartment, I had a huge desk up against a wall that, I admit, I never really moved.  When I finally went back there to sweep, I found some fuzz and bones that, at one time, was a mouse who chewed right into an extension cord and zapped himself.  Had I never swept up back there, I never would have noticed him.

In the same way, I'd never notice Donna Bogatin's blog, "Startup Chatter" either, except that she constantly links to TechMeme stories, making her one really angry pilot fish who never generates her own insights.  That's the only way I know that she's still blogging, and still, for some bizzare reason, hating on Fred Wilson and every Union Square Ventures portfolio company.

Her latest target is Daniel Ha and Disqus, which just launched at the end of last October.  She rips on both the company and Fred, who backed it, because of a "spoon-fed puff piece" that appeared about the company on Louis Gray's blog.  She attacks Fred for being "consistently, disingenuously mum regarding meaningful insights about achieving what really matters to the investors in all of his portfolio companies: A BIG PROFIT ON THEIR INVESTMENTS".

This is what bothers me.  The Brooklyn boy in me gets pretty pissed of when she calls Fred Wilson "disingenuous."  Fred's been a mentor, friend, teacher, and supportive angel investor, and it just irks me to see her talk trash about a really great guy--and a great investor.  After taking her to lunch a while back to try to open up a dialogue, and then promptly getting ripped on again the next day, Fred doesn't bother with her, but I can't let this go. 

Why?   

Because Fred Wilson and Union Square Ventures (along with David Hornick's VentureBlog) opened up the world of venture capital investing to entrepreneurs in a way that no one had ever done before--not with PR speak, but with an honest and sincere day to day account of the behind the scenes thinking that goes into running a venture fund.  Plus, he's consistantly one of the most insightful bloggers out there and, unlike Donna, full of original and useful ideas. 

Donna's big gripe about Union Square Ventures is that she thinks they're not focused enough on building real companies with real revenues.   Has she even looked at their portfolio?  Of the 19 investments that they've made, at least 6 of them (FeedBurner, Etsy, Indeed, Oddcast, Tacoda, and Instant Information) were generating multiple millions of dollars in annual revenues.   Of the other 13, del.icio.us was sold 9 months after USV invested, which was the choice of the founder and majority owner, but could have been built up into a people powered search engine (which, last I checked, is a real revenue model), 4 are recent investments, and the rest are in various stages of building up scale--a necessary requirement for significant revenue generation for some of the plans of these companies.  (Google had to get to signficant scale before they had enough search traffic to monetize against.)

And the silliest thing about her comments is how she speaks on behalf of the USV investors about what really matters to them.  Nearly all of the USV investors reupped in the firm's next fund.  With exits in Tacoda, Feedburner, del.icio.us, and nearly guaranteed (b/c of significant revenue traction) big exits in Indeed and Etsy, not to mention the potential of their other portfolio companise, USV's doing just fine in terms of creating revenue generating businesses and ones with successful exits.

So, basically, she has no idea what she's talking about. 

Actually, that's not the silliest thing about her comments.  The silliest thing about her comments is that she's now trying to make a business helping NYC startups as an advisor.  How wise do you think it is for someone advising startups and offering to make introductions to VCs here in NYC to constantly rip on the #1 VC firm in the city?  If that's the kind of advising she gives herself, I'd hate to hear what she has to tell startup companies. 

That's part of the reason why I feel the need to respond to her comments as well.  Ever since I started nextNY, I feel very protective of the NYC startup community and I've been really wary of self-proclaimed experts looking to profit off of newbie startups--especially when you can get these services for free.

If you're a NYC startup and you want feedback on your pitch, biz plan... anything...  You can join the nextNY list and just ask for a small group of folks to meet up with you about it.  What you'll get is an experienced group of current entrepreneurs, investors, developers, etc. who are part of the over 1700 folks involved in nextNY.  They'll be happy to sit around a table with you and give you excellent feedback on your idea--better feedback than I'm sure you'll get from the crazy cat lady of the NYC tech blogging community. 

I can't wait until she rips on Path 101--that will surely generate tons of unintentional humor. 

Right now, I have 2653 RSS subscribers and 890 Twitter followers.

Assuming not every one of my Twitter followers follow my blog via RSS, I'm going to say that puts Twitter penetration in my blog audience at about 25%. 

If you're not on it, check it out, particularly if you just don't get it.

What's the point of it?  It's a short form conversation that's going on between blog posts.  Think if it this way:  It's the "hallway track" at a conference--when the best conversations are the ones had spontaneously over on the side, away from the main exhibit room.

So before you think about whether you want to publish when you brush your teeth to the world, think about it from the listening perspective.  You spend the time to read my blog, where the posts are often entirely too long--why not find out about what I'm thinking and who I'm talking to when I'm not blogging?

It's time to listen in on the hallway track.  I'm here on Twitter:  http://www.twitter.com/ceonyc

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

Shack Shack Meetup, originally uploaded by ceonyc.

All of the people in this pic are either in startups or have funded them.

Give me your torrid, your pure, your totally smokin' foreign babes.

Feast your eyes on the latest immigration push by Rep. Anthony Weiner, a likely 2009 mayoral contender who has introduced a bill in Congress to make it easier for foreign fashion models to get visas to work in the U.S.

From the Daily News...

• Bootstrapping a Niche Social Network - Bokardo
  (tags: socialnetworking)
• LearnHub & The Mullet Strategy » Married Inc.
  This is a good answer to a question I've been thinking about for a while.
  (tags: mullets frontpage editorial community web2.0)

Back in October, Alex and I were two guys and a Powerpoint. 

We raised $350k partially based on that Powerpoint, but *I think* it was more based on the strength of our relationships and the fact that we were working in a big, lucrative space begging for disruption.  The investment was meant to recruit additional developers, carry us to a product, and give us some running room after to iterate.

We're on the verge of accomplishing the first half of that goal.  We hired two great developers and we're literally a couple of days from rolling out some of our product in an early Alpha version.  (No, no, it's not a "launch".  It will probably suck and break on day one, but you've got to start somewhere, right?)

Some entrepreneur friends were surprised and maybe even thought it was unfair that we were able to raise before having at least a demo or something up.  Certainly this is the kind of thing that VCs look for, but angels can be a different story. 

Thinking about risk and value creation in relation to fundraising is interesting to me, because its on the forefront of my mind right now. Since we're about to roll some product out, we have a very clear idea of what the product will look like and where it's going.  Of course, it needs to iterate based on user response/uptake, but that goes without saying.  What's very clear to me, though, is that the iteration and eventual inflection point for the service really depends on additional resources--a kick-ass user experience person and an operational/biz dev person.  These would clearly be our first hires after any kind of a financing, because the product not only depends on seamlessly integrating several complimentary career applications, but also on syndicating our services out to other communities and groups.

So the big question is, why wait?  (Especially if we've identified prospects for these roles, which we have.)

Right now, there's two scenarios:   

1) Launch, iterate with existing team, catch lots of falling knives and try and power our way forward to some arbitrary milestone that brings the term sheets pouring in, not that we or the VC's are even 100% sure what that is.  Then, spend time trying to fill out team.

2) Try and raise a couple million sooner rather than later, since we can very definitely say "This is the product and the near future of the product you are investing in."  We make our hires and hit the ground running, and make a much bigger impact in shorter order.

Option #1 plus a nice hockey stick might bring a higher valuation... but is that really what we should be optimizing for?  Outside of raising ridiculous amounts of money at ridiculous valuations, have you ever heard an entrepreneur attribute their ultimate success to a million or so here and there on interim valuations?  On the VC side, have you ever heard a VC say, "The success of our fund has really depended on waiting another month or so to see more traction on deals and teams we liked"? 

The worst thing that could happen is that we come out, inspire potential partners and employees, and we're unable to take advantage of them because we don't have the resources.  Raising money takes time, focus...   Raising at the moment your product gets really good and people finally get it is probably the worst thing you can do, because then you won't have your ducks in a row for when opportunities knock.  The trick is finding support from folks who see where you are going with something and believe that you have the passion and ability to get it there, even before its a sure thing. 

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

• Ride the City: safe bike routes made easy
  (tags: bikes maps nyc biking)

Fred's post on the USV blog...

And Then There Were Five | Union Square Ventures: A New York Venture Capital Fund Focused on Early Stage & Startup Investing

And Eric's response on his own blog...

Changing jobs, not focus

There’s no WalMart in my neighborhood, but there is a Limewire, so that’s where I’ll be shopping.

Idiots.

I talked to quite a few folks about the events of Internet Week and a couple of people brought up the fact that they really weren’t sure who they should be out there meeting. 

I’m not particularly plotting about how I network.  I just try to meet cool, interesting folks and get to know them well.  If I have one good thought provoking conversation with someone passionate about what they do at an event, I consider the whole thing a success.

But if you’re focused on “who to know”, then I think it’s easy to mistake buzz for influence or knowledge.  I think too many up and coming people in the tech scene worry about the “in” crowd or folks that appear on the outside to generate a lot of buzz in the community.  Focusing on them, however, is an easy way to take your eye off the ball and not focus on the things you need to do for your career or your business that make a real impact.

Influence is not measured by blog links or twitter replies, but on size of deals done, decision making, P&L responsibilities. 

For example, when you go to a tech event, who are you more focused on? The doe-eyed videoblogging distraction or the product manager who runs a successful web service for a major media company.  One of them can share some widsom about how their latest user experience redux boosted conversion and traffic.  The other one… well.. not so much.

TechCrunch is the ultimate example of this.  The LA Times called Mike Arrington a “Kingmaker” and certainly everyone treats him like he is—but can anyone actually point to a single instance where a TechCrunch mention was singlehandedly responsible for anyone getting funded or getting a business deal?  I’m talking about a situation where, if TechCrunch had not annointed a company as worthwhile, the company couldn’t have gotten it on your own.  Who has he made King?

I don’t think any VC or angel worth their salt really cares about what Mike’s opinion about a company is—they do their own work and have too much at stake to blindly outsource judgement.  Good writeup, bad writeup, no writeup…  I think companies are realizing that it still takes a great product and a lot of footwork to acheive success—not just one make or break article.  Much of that is because, for most companies, the TechCrunch audience isn’t even really the target crowd the company should be going after.  If you’re building a B2B service, you’d rather get writen up in an industry mag.  Location based marijuana ratings system?  A High Times mention will go a lot further than a TC review. 

The most knowledgeable and influential people that are relevent to your company are often under the radar.  There are tons of really helpful angel investors out there that never blog, never show up at Meetups, Tweetups, MashMeshing, or what have you.  They need to be sought after.  Ambitious startups need to turn over every rock.  They need to go to the successful people in their space and ask them who’s been the most helpful, whose opinion they respect.  Find out who’s in a VC firm’s friend of the family network—who are the individuals invested in VC firms.  Too many people rely on blog traffic and Twitter buzz to figure out who to contact versus their actual potential clients. 

If you’re a publisher tool and the only thing you have in your biz dev queue is a big tech blog, then you need to get out there and perch yourself at CondeNast, Martha Stewart, Meredith Corp., Scripps, etc.  People from these places should be your on your board—to help you understand the landscape and to get you in front of potential clients, and you’re not going to find them at gatherings of the young digital “elite”—nor can most of the people considered the “elite” make any intros to these folks.  Contrary to popular belief, the Director of Business Development for the company you think should by you isn’t trolling the blogs for deals—they’re taking inbound phonecalls and setting up real life meetings with companies more aggressive and ambitious than you.

So before you worry about whether you’re in with the right talking head, take a step back and reexamine who you really need to be out there talking to.  Chances are, it’s not the same people everyone else thinks they need to be talking to.

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm:

• Pork Mango Picadillo Recipe | Simply Recipes
  (tags: food recipies)

I don’t mean to offend anyone with this post.  I read it over several times.  I don’t think it’s so bad, but, you never know. 

That’s the existence of the white guy.  You go along thinking that everything you do is pretty much acceptable, because most of the time you’re surrounded by other equally insensitive white guys, until everything blows up in your face and you realize you’ve offended everyone and you’re just privileged scum.

Sensitivity training for you! 

You no blog, one year!

I’ll just say ahead of time that I’m sorry…  or not sorry… whatever I’m supposed to be as someone who is well intentioned, but ill-advised.

I don't think I'm any more racially biased than I am about any other natural bias that I'm probably not conscious of. I may be biased against lefties...I'm not aware of it, but its certainly possible.

Then again, I don't really have any black friends. Is that bad? Am I supposed to? If so, how many?

You know, I mentored an Indian finance student and 99% of her friends were Indian.

I said she could just call me “Token”.

Oh, wait...

Indians are white, too...or...I mean.. Caucasian. Is that the same thing?

In the UK, they're called Asian. 

Huh?

How's that one group? So Ghandi and Yao Ming are both Asian?

Really?

At that point, what's the point of doing any grouping whatsoever? Might as well just call all of them "people".

Or am I supposed to be color blind and not notice? We have a black guy on our dodgeball team, but he never shows. Maybe he doesn't like us because we're white. Are we unconsciously making him feel uncomfortable because he's black... or is it more because he's just slowfooted? Perhaps it's the latter. Are we allowed to be biased against the slow footed?

He was born that way probably--slow footed, I mean. 

I don’t know if he was born black.  That might have been a lifestyle choice.  I didn’t want to pry.

We don't have any Asians. They're not white, either, I guess—even though I’m darker than just about all of them.

I was always confused how they got counted as a "minority" anyway.  I mean, sure, there’s less of them around, but there are less of everyone when compared to some other group, if you think about it—except “people”.  There’s never more people than in the “people” group.

There's a program for getting finance students from minority groups into banks and they included Asians. Given all the cultural stereotypes that exist in the world, does the Asian guy who went to NYU Stern need an extra boost over the Italian from Bensonhurst?  Who’s more likely to convince Goldman Sachs they'd be the harder working quantitative investment banking analyst? Hey, I don't mean to offend anyone or perpetuate any stereotypes further, I'm just saying...

Besides, is "hardworking and really smart" the worst stereotype to have in the world? I don't think that's so bad.

I'll trade you the "privileged and lazy" white American stereotype for smart and hardworking any day.

I've never dated an Asian or Black girl either..not for lack of trying, though. Perhaps bald white guys don't have cross cultural curb appeal. I don't know. I tried really hard to date this Asian girl that looked like Tia Carrere in high school, but her parents wouldn't allow her to date. 

Well, that was what she told me anyway.  I guess sometimes cultural stereotypes are sometimes convenient date excuses as well.

Asian women sometimes get offended if one of the reasons that you want to date them is the fact that they’re Asian—no Asian fetishes, please!  Well, what if you actually like their culture and happen to find their look attractive?  Is that bad?  Some people love tall blondes, but you’ll never hear a Swede say, “No Scandinavian fetishes!”

No Italian fetishes, please!  I’m not interested in any girl that wants me because of my darker complexion, fuzziness, ability to cook, or thickheadedness.  Hmm… what’s left, then?

Barack Obama's impending presidency has caused a lot of white people...and frankly a lot of people in general to think about the nature of race in this country.

Frankly, us dumb white guys are a little confused about what we're supposed to be thinking about it.

We don't want to offend anyone, get sued, or get our asses kicked...so just tell us what're supposed to think and do.

Are we supposed to acknowledge the fact that he's Black (or partly) and celebrate the breaking of historical barriers?  Or, are we in a new era where we're past all that grouping and we are, in fact, all just people?

Like I said...I don't care either way. I just don't want to get in trouble or lose my radio advertisers.

That’s just cool…  

When asked for a comment on the fist bump, 71 year old John McCain said, “I don’t condone domestic violence…  and when did we start allowing women to expoxe their arms in public?” 

The most recent tracks I've been listening to on last.fm: