Venture Realities: Startup financing news from the frontlines

I had a fascinating conversation with an early/seed stage investor yesterday who basically described the market as follows...

He said that, over the course of all of their deals (over 50), they've done a very good job figuring out what a team will need to do to raise venture capital.  Their investments are basically meant to supply a team with about 9 months of capital to go out and build something and "jump 9 feet", because that's the milestone they see for VC--whatever 9 feet is for that particular comapny.

That had been going pretty well up until deals that were done in the first half of last year--right around the time that Path101.com got it's first angel financing.  Now their companies are coming back into the market, as planned, for financing.  They're reporting that instead of the 9 feet they were training for, they're now being asked to jump 15 feet by the VCs.  Somehow, companies are supposed to get straight from product to revenue--without iteration or even traction in between.

If you're an investor and you can get a Series B company--one with revenue traction--for Series A prices, why would you ever do a Series A?  It's not unfair--it's just good business.

Welcome to raising capital in 2009.  Go straight to Series B or do not pass go.

This investor was basically doubling the size of the rounds he was doing--splitting them with a partner fund--in order to give companies longer runways to actually make it to sustainability.  He described your angel/seed funding like a rocket ship.  You need to decide how big of a fuel tank you need to take you into orbit, because, these days, if you run out before you get there, there's no refueling mid-flight. 

We'll be talking to our board tomorrow and the theme of the conversation is more or less "If financing happens, great, but we're not going to wait around for it."  We're still in conversations with investors, but our product plan has prioritized immediately monetizable features.  We're shooting for 45 days, give or take a few bug fixes here and there, to launch both recruiter and candidate services we can sell.  We've cut our burn pretty low and we're working on some in person job search seminars to help extend the runway.  We're not going to disappear tomorrow, that's for sure--but we want to still be here six months from now and beyond.  That takes a solid plan and some rolled up sleeves.

What am I telling startups now?  Forget raising 250-500k.  If you can raise a million, do it--because the chances of you creating a break-even business on 250k-500k is pretty low.  If you can't raise a million, then only focus on building something that a customer is willing to pay for TODAY.  (That should focus your product roadmap just a bit.)  Anything in between will be a bridge to nowhere. 

UPDATE: Fred wrote this post yesterday about becoming the default behavior for your market--ahead of figuring out how to monetize it.  I think the problem with that thinking is that it basically only gives you one shot.  You're playing startup Russion Roulette when your goal is to become the default activity and you have no Plan B.  At least of you monetize in some way, if it takes you two or three tries to become the default, you have the runway to iterate.  We're all aiming to become the default activity for our consumer base and the service we provide--but it's not always clear how to do that.  Lots of people wanted to be the Google of events--it never happened, but not for lack of trying.  In new markets, it's not always clear what model wins out, and often times the last one standing wins.  It's hard to be the last one standing if you're not making money.  The key is to make money in a way that doesn't hinder your growth. 

In hindsight, I wonder if perhaps we at Union Square Ventures did the world a disservice back in 2005 when we started blogging as a fund--opening the kimono on the world of venture capital and making it seem like it was within arms reach.  Maybe the world was better off when businessplans@venturefund.com was the black hole where your ideas went.

We have a new black hole where all the ideas go today--but this time we call it the economy.

Before all the transparancy, those who really wanted to pursue their ideas, out of necessity, went and got paying customers for their business day one.  If you built a great business, the VCs would find you, but short of that, you didn't have all of these conferences, bootcamps, etc. making you feel like you're just an investor away from the next big thing.

People would tell me, "Oh, you're lucky that you used to work for a venture fund, because you understand what they want."  In hindsight, I don't know about that.  I might have been better off not knowing that venture capital existed, aiming for profits from the beginning--and then just being nicely surprised if some dude shows up at my door with a few million in cash asking to buy a minority stake in my business.

Venture capital is like winning the lottery.  Somebody wins, but statistically, it's not you.  Don't wait for an investor to go build the business.  We're not--not anymore, anyway.

Read More
Facebook's latest raise to cash out employees is disgusting

 

"Facebook has almost finished raising $150 million in capital, in an extraordinary move by the company to buy out shares of hundreds of regular employees. Hundreds of the Palo Alto, Calif.s employees have now toiled at the company for more than two years, and many have worked three to five years. Increasingly, some have become restless, and would like to cash in on the huge value they've created."

Facebook raises $150 million more to cash out employees » VentureBeat

 

For more than TWO YEARS?!  TWO YEARS?!  TOILED? 

Restless?

Cry me a fucking river!  

Tell that to some family who ran their local Chevy dealer for the last 20 years who just got news this week that they're getting the ax. 

They're the ones who deserve to be a little restless.

I'm sorry, but this is exactly what's wrong with this country and why we got here in this economic mess--people looking for a handout before actually creating any real value.  Facebook has not made a single penny of actual profit.  It has no exit in sight.  They've capitalized themselves and grown to the point where no one is going to acquire them, and they can't go public without some actual cashflow. 

And yet, after just a few years, their employees need to cash out?  Really?

Did they not notice that not only is no one else hiring, but equity payouts are few and far between?  Sure, a few companies got picked up along the way in the Web 2.0 M&A window, but it's not like everyone else in the Valley got fat payouts and they're the only ones without a Porsche in the drive. 

And PS... Most startups don't even have an exit.  Equity is UPSIDE.  It's a risk you take, because you don't know if, when, and how much--and if you wanna see the payout, you stick around and see the company through to an exit.

This is like tips--where instead of tipping for good service, now you're just expected to lop 20% on top of your bill all the time and it's expected. 

It's not like these people have been working for peanuts this whole time either.  I'm sure Facebook is paying their people market rates, so the idea that they need to see their upside already--in this economy, and after just a few years--is astounding. 

Right now, I'm working hard to make sure our company, Path 101, survives past the summer.  My expectation is that it takes at least five if not seven or eight years to build a company.  If anything good happens before that, it's gravy, but I'm in this for the long haul.  If I can work at something I love doing for the next five or six years, I'd consider myself very lucky. 

Trust me, I won't be looking for a cashout after two, especially if we're not making any profit yet. 

And what does that investment memo look like?   I'd like to hear that partnership discussion at the VC firm...

"We're going to need $150 million more in Facebook?"

"For what?  To grow internationally?  To scale?  For bandwidth costs?"

"No... to keep these twentysomethings working for *two years straight* from whining."

 

And who are these Asian investors and where do I send my Powerpoint?

Read More
Stop Pitching

Recently, Alex and I had one of the best conversations about Path 101 that we've had with an investor so far.  We talked about what we've learned, the space, our approach, etc.  They were extremely thoughtful in terms of where the market is going and how to best take advantage of the opportunity.  We riffed for nearly two hours.

A day or two later, I was talking with a successful startup guy who was going to make a key introduction for us.  I had been nearly tripping over myself in terms of all the potential for value creation we had and the opportunities missed by others.  (I get pretty passionate about this stuff.)  I then asked him about how "pitchy" I should be when talking to this potential new investor.

"The last ten minutes of our conversation--that's what you need to have with him," he said.

That's when I realized how inauthentic and contrived the whole pitch process was.  You'd never find your soulmate, make a friend, or hire someone based on a Powerpoint--so why find someone to invest in your company that way?  Either show your product or just talk to the person--with the latter probably being much more effective in presenting a vision and as a way to get to know you as a person. 

The other thing about a "pitch" is that the tone of the conversation is negative.  Investors are looking for holes--reasons not to invest, because the default is a no.  Conversations don't have a default answer that you have to hurdle over, they're just an exchange.

I don't think enough entrepreneurs get out from behind their desks to talk to the market--to business development partners, to investors, to prospective employees...  to anyone who could give useful product feedback.  I can't tell you how many times I've talked to startups and said, "Oh, you know so and so, right?"  They rarely do... even when it's a no-brainer that they should be talking to a completely obvious partner or investor. 

Read More
My recent tracks on Last.fm

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

YKK by Fluke from the Puppy album. Listen to it now »

Setback by Fluke from the Risotto album. Listen to it now »

Goodnight Lover by Fluke from the Risotto album. Listen to it now »

High Roller by The Crystal Method from the Vegas album. Listen to it now »

Name of the Game by The Crystal Method from the MTV2 Handpicked album. Listen to it now »

Pearls Girl by Underworld from the Second Toughest in the Infants album. Listen to it now »

Reptilia by The Strokes from the Room on Fire album. Listen to it now »

Mayonaise by The Smashing Pumpkins from the Siamese Dream album. Listen to it now »

Firestarter by The Prodigy from the The Fat of the Land album. Listen to it now »

The District Sleeps Alone Tonight by The Postal Service from the Give Up album. Listen to it now »

Earth Versus The World by The Polish Ambassador from the Diplomatic Immunity album. Listen to it now »

Leave Home by The Chemical Brothers from the Exit Planet Dust album. Listen to it now »

Top of the World by The All-American Rejects from the Burnout: Revenge (disc 1) album. Listen to it now »

Triangle by Sounds From the Ground from the Kin album. Listen to it now »

Becoming by Sneaker Pimps from the unknown album. Listen to it now »

Rabbitweed by Sasha from the Xpander EP album. Listen to it now »

Packt Like Sardines in a Crushd Tin Box by Radiohead from the DeLuxe Collection album. Listen to it now »

Take California by Propellerheads from the Decksandrumsandrockandroll album. Listen to it now »

big trouble upstairs by Pitch Black from the unknown album. Listen to it now »

Time to Dance by Panic at the Disco from the A Fever You Can't Sweat Out album. Listen to it now »



Create automatic posts like this one using fubnub.com »
Read More
Brazenly wrong about generations and networking

Penelope Trunk is supposed to be some kind of expert on generations and the workplace, but I don't think she could get the following more wrong:

"Do you know who is using social media? Gen X. The average Twitter user is in their 30s. The median age of LinkedIn is 40. The majority of people who are joining Facebook right now are over 35. This is because Gen X wants to meet new people online and reconnect with all the friends they lost along the way. Gen X is using social media to network. "

Actually, the average age of internet users--and the US population in general, is around the mid 30's.  To say that Gen X is doing more networking, and disproportionately so, is just misleading--it's just flat out wrong.  Social networkers pretty much reflect the makeup of the US internet user audience.  Gen X isn't any more networking savvy than any other group.

"Gen Y doesn’t need to. They never lost their connections because they’ve been online since they were ten. They do not need to meet more people online to expand their network because they are native networkers – they have had the tools and the predisposition to use them since before Gen X even knew what Facebook was."

This is just utterly ridiculous.  Gen Y doesn't need to meet more people online to expand their network because they've been online since they were 10?  I don't know about you, but nobody I know basically made all the career connections they ever needed to make between the ages of 10 and 21.  If anything, Gen Y needs the most networking help because they grew up with "Stranger Danger."  They got taught that people they don't know are likely to try to hurt them, so they tend to connect online to people they already know.  Facebook reflects that and it's the reason why Gen Y is so much less likely to use LinkedIn.  On Facebook you connect to your friends, and on LinkedIn you build your professional network, often reaching out to new people.  Getting Gen Y to use LinkedIn is like pulling teeth.  Perhaps Penelope should teach a class of college students over a full semester like I do to get a better sense of how Gen Y really networks online.

"So while Gen X is busy using Twitter to let people know what they are up to and promote the hell out of whatever they are doing, Gen Y is using Twitter for tweetups – meetups set up via Twitter. Which is a way of making genuine friends offline."

So Gen Y does tweetups more than Gen X?  Most tweetups are tied around some kind of professional group--not likely to be attended by a majority of Gen Yers.  Disagree?  Flip through who is actually Tweeting Up right this minute.  On top of that, most people on Twitter aren't really promoting anything.  Sure, the "gurus" and social media mavens are, but by number, most people on Twitter just follow a handful of people they know and just Tweet about their life.

Sherry Mason from Bowdoin College wrote "College kids I work with need coaching on tone & style" and she's absolutely right.  Just because a Gen Yer may have 1000 Facebook friends doesn't make them an expert at networking any more than following 10,000+ people on Twitter does so they follow you back.  (I always thought networking involved listening... I'm sorry, but you can't listen to 10,000+ people at once, even if you're using Tweetdeck.)

Networking involves the following basics, none of which I've found Gen Y to be particularly good at:

  • Self awareness: How are people perceiving you?  Gen Yers, because of their lack of experience, don't have a great sense of professionalism and professional appearence.
  • Storytelling: How can you package up your experiences, interests, goals into something memorable that others take with them and remember.
  • Listening: I don't think any generation is good at this, Gen Y included.
  • Outreach: Reaching out to the right people to build relationships--this is where Gen Y majorly falls down because those kids aren't any good at going outside the comfort zone of their own network--unless their mom schedules a playdate for them. 

Gen Y sucks at networking.  Don't let their Facebook friend list fool you.

Read More
Be an asskicker

Someone sent a note to the nextNY list about how he was unemployed and looking to work for a startup--how it was really hard to find something.  He sent a link to a piece he wrote on a site about being unemployed.

This was my response:

"So the one link you send us is on a site about being unemployed?

Why on earth would you market yourself as an unemployed guy?  In your first instance of participation in this group, you cast yourself as laid off and desperate.  Who wants to hire an unemployed person?

No one.


If I showed up to a date and the girl introduces herself by saying, "I've just been going on nothing but first dates and they never work out...   I'm so desperate to find someone" I'd be looking for the door in a heartbeat.

We all want to hire someone who kicks ass at something.  If you do not kick ass at anything, you should at least be in the process of learning how to kick ass at something.  Startups, or frankly any company for that matter, cannot afford to hire a non-asskicking generalist.

Think of it this way...  If you know the media, perhaps you could have spent the last five months doing free PR and marketing for a handful of startups.  You weren't working anyway.  The goal would be to be so good at it that one of those companies can't help but hire you--or some other company would hire you because they noticed how good you were at it--or worst case you'd suck at it but you'd really learn something.

Forget pursuing.  Spend 110% of your time honing some kind of value proposition that you'd be a no-brainer hire for.

Forget the "I'm unemployed" shtick and work on the being awesome without advertising the fact that you are awesome to everyone.  If you do not know what awesomeness is, try and figure out who the top 30 most awesome people in the NY tech scene are and interview them.  Publish the interviews on your blog.  Make a list and publish it.  Here are my suggestions:  David Karp, Anthony Volodkin, Chris Hughes...

And God help you if I see your blog and it's yourname.blogspot.com.  To be awesome, you must splurge for the $13 domain name."

Read More