When I lived on the Upper East Side about five years ago, I used to frequent DTUT, a cool coffee shop that was supposedly the model for Central Perk on Friends.  It was a favorite spot for laptop users because they gave away their wifi. 

It started with some signs that said you had to buy one item per hour.  Then, they started shutting the wifi off if they thought that people hadn't bought anything.  Eventually, they shut it off altogether, driving some of their most frequent customers out.

And yes, we were actually customers.  Not only did we get hungry and thirsty, ever so often ordering something--but we often came back with friends when we weren't working.  You see, more and more, DTUT became the go to spot.  I went there so often when I was just working on my laptop only drinking a cheap green tea, that when my friends wanted to place to go, that was my default recommendation.  So, while it might have been true that my laptop sessions weren't well monetized, the staff there wasn't realizing that I was coming back for food and drink at other times without my laptop.  When they chased me out for being a "laptop moocher", they were also chasing me out as a better paying customer other times.

So when I read today's piece in the WSJ about the end of free WIFI and power at coffee shops, I feel like it's a serious strategy failure on behalf of retail shops.  If you have something that is pulling regular customers into your shop, and you can't monetize them better, kicking them out is not the answer--especially when this is the uber connected social network influencer crowd that often affects your overall recommendation more than you'd like.

Reporter complaining about all the work he did for a story that Gawker reblogged:

"Gawker's version of my story, headlined " 'Generational Consultant' Holds America's Fakest Job," begins by telling its readers to "Meet Anne Loehr" -- with a link to my story but no direct mention of The Post. It then condenses her biography: "Loehr is 44. She spent the entire decade of the 90s running hotel and safari operations in Kenya." That's information I got after an hour-plus phone call with Loehr and typing out 3,000 words of notes."

Funny, because I got that same information in like 10 seconds, off Anne's website:

"I spent five years as owner and operator of an East African eco-adventure safari company. Despite 9/11, SARS and other international crises, Eco-resorts was a successful tour operator. Part of this adventure included writing Kenya’s national eco-rating policies and an eco-rating manual for Kenya’s hoteliers."

At Alley Insider Startup 2009, there was a panel called "How to raise a boatload of money at a huge valuation".  The implication was that, every startup should go for that if they can.  I actually think that's one of the worst things you could ever do as a startup--and it proves over and over to be a trap for many hot startups or people raising money from unsophisticated investors.

Let's start with the basics.  Very few startups that last over the long term ever raise just one round of money if they choose to take outside financing at all.  Therefore, you need to think of your first financing as groundwork for future ones--each at nice, incremental step ups in price at an appropriate size given business or product milestones and goals.  You want to avoid down rounds and getting your earliest and most supportive backers wiped out.  While you might be able to negotiate a sweet deal now, you have to ask where that leave you the next time.

Take the example of someone trying to raise just 600k.  Let's say they're offered a pre of 1.8 million--meaning that cash buys a quarter of the company.  You might not think that's such a great deal.  Someone else comes along and offers 1.2 million on a pre of 3.6--double the money at twice the price for giving up the same amount of the company.  What's not to like?  No-brainer to take the bigger deal at the better price right?

Maybe not. 

Take a look at where each round gets you and what story you're telling at each raise.  Maybe the first 600k gets you to a nice growing userbase and some promising biz dev possibilities--but most importantly a short history of meeting milestones and a promising chance at hitting your future ones.  Sometimes, getting a round of financing is just a matter of timing and being able to say you did what you said you'd do and you're in position to take the next reasonable step.  Given those metrics, your next round could be at a significant stepup and your overall dilution across two rounds could be pretty low.

What if that next reasonable milestone realistically requires another 1.5 million on top of the 600k?  It's not a ton of money, but had you taken that second "sweet" deal, it would have left you with a bridge to nowhere--halfway to a milestone.  That looks worse than if you had accomplished nothing at all--because you will have burned cash and maybe not grown as much as your next product milestone will help you do.  It's like that saying goes, "Nothing like numbers to ruin a perfectly good story."  At that bridge to nowhere point, you might have to raise a flat or even a down round, giving up more between the two rounds than you would have if you just took the "worse" deal early on.

On top of that, a lot of people forget about what more cash and a higher price signals to the market in terms of your post-money (the valuation someone bought in at plus the cash that came in).    If you took that second deal, you'd be signaling to the market that, at the end of this cash, you will not only be a nearly $5 million company, but you believe you'll be even more than that because you should be looking for a stepup.  When I see early stage deals where someone takes $4 million, assuming the VC didn't buy a controlling take, I'm thinking about how that company will be able to get a next round valuation in the mid teens--because that's what they'll have to do the next time around.  If you took 4 million from a VC, even at a pre of 5, you're looking at trying shop yourself around at a mid-teens pre the next time around--so you sure as hell better have some significant revenue traction or you're going to hit a wall and your current investors will be wiped out. 

On top of that, I have to wonder about investors who get deals just by tossing in ridiculous term sheets.  If that's the way they get deals, and their portfolio is just full of people who just go after short term pops for big "on paper" money, is that really the kind of group you want to be in?   They shouldn't need to win deals like that--and you should immediately raise an eyebrow for someone who tries to win you over on price.  That's a little bit like choosing a husband or wife purely on looks.  That may pay off the wedding night, but over the long term, I doubt that's a ticket to happiness and a successful marriage.  If you wouldn't pick an investor over another one if they were all at the same price, you shouldn't ever pick them.   Make no mistake that if you are taking outside money, this is a marriage and you need to pick partners based on quality, not on price. 

If you're worried you're not taking in enough money, instead of trying to raise more, how about just trying to do less?   Better to have hit the only milestone you were attempting than to get halfway on three.  When you're more focused, you tend to spend money more wisely.  How many companies do you see that raise a bunch of money and then start playing business model roulette?  You might say that gives them room to experiment, but I wonder if maybe it gave them the ability to hire too many scientists and allow too much experimentation. 

So instead of going for big money at a big price, perhaps you should be thinking about smaller, incremental steps, at lower prices, so that your next round seems much more palatable to investors.

This Sunday morning, I'll be competing in my firt triathlon--the Nautica New York City Triathlon.  It's very exciting, but honestly, I'll just be happy to finish.  I basically learned to swim this year, and the only stroke I could really figure out how to last a mile at is the breaststroke.  So don't count on me breaking any records in the swim.

I told my college roommate that I think it will take me 40-45 minutes to do the swim and he replied, "In that current, a bag of Doritos could finish in 45 minutes."

So, expect me to finish right behind the bag.

Anyway, if you want to see me, here's an estimation of where I'll be and when.  If you see me, please tweet out or post a Twitpic and mention my Twitter screename @ceonyc.

I'm looking at the times from last year and eyeballing it makes me think that 40 minutes would be bottom decile--but I am really slow, so let's say 38 minutes is my swim target.  Tack on another 6 minutes for transition, since this is my first.  I'm getting in the water at 7:33AM, so that means get out of the water at 8:11 and start biking at 8:17AM.

Actually, if you wanted to catch me a few times, you could come by the swim exit/bike start at 8AM on 79th Street, hangout there for a little while, and then head towards Central Park after you see me.

I don't have the best bike in the world, but I'm pretty sure I'll be able to do the bike in about 1:25.  That means I have to average about 17.6MPH and I'm pretty sure I can do that.  The route is north to the Mosh parkway in the Bronx, back down to 59th street and then back up to the transition area.

That means I'll be back in the bike transition area at around 9:42.  Since I'm just hoping off the bike, ditching it, and running, this should be a quick transition.  Let's say 2 minutes.  Ok, so I start running at 9:44, and I think I'll be on about an 8:30/mile pace.  I definitely want to finish the 10k  in less than an hour and it looks like about half of the people did that.  I'm a good runner when tired--can run on next to no energy, so I'm cautiously optimistic about being in the top half of the runners.  That means I should finish at 10:40 for a total time of 3 hours and 7 minutes.  If I were running last year, that would put me just below the median.  I'd be very happy with that. 

Here's a rough estimate on a map:

From Searchme CEO Randy Adams' letter to Mike Arrington:

"You are correct, we haven’t closed the financing. We knew when we started the company that to compete with the likes of Microsoft, Google and Yahoo,it was going to take at least $100 million, half to build the back end across thousands of servers and half to get distribution (maybe more with Microsoft spending $100 million on Bing advertising alone). What we didn’t plan on was the terrible downturn in the economy which made it impossible to raise another $50 million to get distribution (mainly through toolbar deals). In this economy nobody wants to invest that kind of money in a company that is pre-revenue, even if the net result is potentially a multi-billion dollar company."

So wait a sec...  this company raised $46 million to compete with Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo!, knowing full well it would take at least $100, they still have no revenue, and it's actually news that they're going offline.

Can I see what your investor pitch looked like? 

High burn...check. 

Big, successful competitors...check. 

No revs after $46 million in... check.

And here I am trying to go up against big dumb job boards that everyone thinks should die, trying to raise $2 million, and on the verge of generating some revs after $550k in...   

Today, Hilary and Alex went to lunch with a programmer they knew from the local startup community.  They brought him back to Path101's office and asked if I wanted to see the new side project he was working on.  He came in and what he has is pretty interesting.  We suggested a rollout strategy, a few lawyers to talk to, and some possible alternative sources of funding.

This kind of thing happens all the time.  In fact, after I was done with this meeting, I found someone in my inbox asking me about entrepreneur mentors.  He also added, "I am an aspiring entrepreneur myself and would like to bounce some ideas off of you as I am moving into the execution phase of my venture and will be located in NYC."

Add this to the phonecall I took over the weekend with a fellow entrepreneur who just got a termsheet and was trying to figure out his gameplan.

Meanwhile, in Louisville, Todd Earwood and Rob May were meeting a local entrepreneur giving feedback and talking shop.  It's something I know they do on a regular basis in their neck of the woods, too.

So, while it's exciting to see new entrepreneurship mentoring initiatives like The Founder Institute, First Growth Venture Network, or the upcoming NYCMedia2020 program, there's really no substitute for a strong community of peer mentoring.  Not everyone is going to hear about or even make these programs--but knowing that there's someone experienced, knowledgeable, and well networked within arm's reach in your local area is where the rubber meets the road in an innovation community.  For every YCombinator, there's some dude who owns a warehouse in Bushwick giving cheap rent to a bunch of hackers and lending him his lawyer for contracts. 

Rob and Todd, or people like myself, and Jimmy Gardner down in DC...   we're probably talking to nearly as many startups as some actual investors are, often way before investment pitches.  In fact, I'm surprised at how often I'm in touch with a startup and the junior person at a venture firm who is supposed to be the "feet on the ground" isn't talking with them at all--and they're getting paid to do this! 

We don't make money doing it.  We don't charge for the intros we make.  And these are just some of the people I know about.  This goes on all over the place.  If you're a local city government, venture capital firm, or entrepreneur, figuring out who in the community has a reputation for being able to help startups is integral to understanding the startup ecology. 

Innovation in today's world is a ground war--house to house, relationship to relationship, one conversation and introduction at a time.  Programs with names, logos, and money are great, but when you get down to that incremental college kid with an idea sitting with a PHP for Dummies book, he needs to be able to find someone that he or a friend trusts to share his idea with and get advice from or it's never going to happen--and that could have been your town's Google.

Whether you realize it or not, as a jobseeker you are participating in a marketplace.   Even when you're not a jobseeker, you're part of the equation.  Employers are the demand and workers (or resumes) are the supply.  In this economy, demand is low and supply is high.  Employers have more workers in their ranks than they need, so layoffs and cuts continue to pile up.  They also have stacks and stacks of resumes from people wanting work--even willing to work for free.  Right now, most HR departments could probably recruit from their own inboxes without ever spending a dime on job postings or resume databases.

Actually, I'm not kidding.  That's probably closer to reality than many big job boards are willing to admit.  Revenues at Monster, Careerbuilder, and Hotjobs have taken a nosedive recently.  Because these companies have totally inflexible business models, jobseekers who post to those boards are feeling the hit, too, but they might not realize it. 

Many people aren't getting any bites on their resume  and assume that's because companies aren't hiring.  That's partly the case, but it's also because those job boards are charging fees to look at your resume and contact you.  In today's market, this is a bad deal for companies who already have plenty of resumes in their inbox.  The market had decided that the incremental value of *another* resume in their inbox is near zero, if not zero already--so why pay for something you already have?  More and more people are uploading their resumes to Monster and the big job boards when fewer and fewer companies are willing to pay Monster to see them.  That's right--receiving your resume is essentially worthless to an employer right now... and the big job boards are making it even harder for you by trying to charge companies to see them.

It's the same with job postings.  Why pay to post a job when you can just email your network and ask "Does anyone know anyone good who needs a job?"  You know what the answer to that is these days.

In any transaction, one or both parties needs to pick up the tab for the cost of the exchange.  If companies are less and less willing to pick up that cost in a tough economy when it comes to jobs, it's really going to have to fall on the consumer.  Lots of people recognize that cost will mean additional time and effort on their part, but how many people are actually investing real money into their job search?

On the higher end of the market, users of TheLadders are paying to see only the best jobs and many are paying getting their resumes edited as well.  Is that helping them get in front of employers or getting them a better shot at a job?  Jobs on TheLadders aren't necessarily exclusive, but one would imagine that it does indicate some level of seriousness if you're paying in to see a job. 

What else is out there?   There are lots of conferences and career coaches--essentially content, but the thing with content is that you don't really know if it's worth it until you consume it.  Career content can't be advertising backed in this economy, because as we said before, companies aren't paying to reach you and see more of you now. 

If I were job seeking now, I'd be paying for a Google and Facebook AdWords campaign--putting money behind my efforts at getting in front of the right employers.  Apparently, I'm not alone in that.  In a recent survey that we took at Path101.com, 55% of job seekers would pay to promote themselves online.  Even more interesting was that 23% of people would pay to promote themselves even if they weren't job seeking.  

What do we mean by that?  How about making sure you're ranked first in all the places people might go to look for you?  Take WeFollow.com for example--the Twitter user directory.  If you were an athlete trying to generate a bigger fan following, paying up to be the "Featured User" on a list of top Twitter users tagged "sports" would be worth it.  I think this is where MyBlogLog could have gone, too.  How many people would have paid a little extra to be a profile that lingers longer on Fred Wilson's blog, for example, perhaps with a direct link to their blog.  What about Disqus?  Featured comments?  You could argue that would lower the quality of these lists, but on the other hand, wouldn't you make sure you had a quality/relevent listing if you were paying to make sure it ranked high?

I think there's an untapped market here--to bring the power of sponsored search to the job seeker and individuals to help them promote themselves in the right places--similar to what Indeed.com does on the job side.  I wrote about this about a year ago in relation to people putting cash behind their best blog posts to gain exposure.  Enabling people to get more active about their own self promotion is something we're working on now at Path 101.  Uploading your resume to a big job board is like sending it into a black hole--and candidates can't do anything to actively get noticed as part of that process, even though they want to.  

When I first heard of Foursquare, I'll admit that I didn't jump on it right away.  I knew the founders, Dennis and Naveen (see photo below), but I'm not really much of a gamer, nor am I much of a bar hopper, so the idea of turning my nightlife into a competition didn't seem so appealing to me (especially when working on Path 101 sucks up so much of my nightlife).  Plus, I don't have an iPhone, so that seemed like it should be the third strike for me.

However, I discovered my own reason for using it.  I was talking with a friend about how I stumbled into a great restaurant (August) walking around Greenwich Village, but couldn't remember the name of it.  I was saying how I wished there was an app that pulled my credit card data to track where I had been.  I was always forgetting the places I had gone.

"Why don't you use Foursquare?"

Aaaaaah.  That made so much sense.  Forget the game.  Forget the bar hopping.  Foursquare would be a dirt simple way to just record the places I had been--and that's all I wanted to do with it.  I signed up and started using it through the mobile site on my Sprint Mogul.  I'll admit, I quickly got hooked.

I definitely started getting sucked into the game, too.  Getting badges and seeing where my friends were was fun.  The other night, I realized that I was about to go to a place that Mike Galpert had been to about an hour or so before me, so I called him to ask what he had.  Indeed, the spinach gnocci at Supper was excellent.

That's when I realized how valuable Foursquare really is from a business perspective.  Mike made a recommendation to me, but Foursquare was the service that actually knew that I went, because I checked in.  Being able to connect web advertising, recommendations, and social media buzz to an actual person walking into your store has long been the holy grail of the advertising world.  We spent lots of money and effort online to drum up our brand, but does it actually drive food traffic?  Foursquare knows.

Think about it from Yelp's perspective.  Yelp helps you figure out where to eat, and gives you recommendations, but it only knows about the people who write reviews.  That represents only a small percentage of the overall Yelp traffic--so while Yelp tries to make the business case for advertising and using it's retail services, it doesn't really know how much real live foot traffic it drives.  Foursquare is the missing link, enabling you to come full circle from a review or recommendation to an in person visit from a real customer.  Best of all, it has figured out a compelling reason to get you to submit that data--in the form of a fun game you play with your friends. 

Additionally valuable is that the game syncs up with Twitter and Facebook, so Foursquare users are telling the world where they are and the places they've visited at any given moment.

What Foursquare does is even more valuable than the Yelp mobile app itself.  It not only records where you've been, but it also encourages others to visit the same place and join you.  If I was a business, and I had the choice of getting all my customers on Yelp or on Foursquare, Foursquare seems much more compelling.  It's not about reviews so much, so I have less downside of a bad rating or review killing my business.  Plus, it encourages others who aren't even on the app to come join their friends and check out my business.  More Foursquare users will check in and promote my store than the number of Yelpers who will rate my store and then publish that rating.  On top of that, Foursquare helps me identify who my best customers are, putting a name to a face.

So if I'm Yelp, Foursquare has valuable data that I need--whether or not my recommendations are actually driving anyone to visit the store--and has a much more compelling social media network effect.  Yelp's current social network isn't well tied to their site.  I can have friends on Yelp, but it's not totally clear how having friends improves my navigation of the site or my ability to get ratings--as opposed to Foursquare which is all about tight networks of friends. 

But Yelp also has stuff that Foursquare really needs--distribution and content.  A deal or some funding from Yelp could put Foursquare on the map as the default "Where am I now?" app and make Yelp's social media offering to a business complete and compelling.  They'd finally be able to figure out exactly how much traffic their site drives in the door.  They'd know which reviewers were the most influential--not just to other reviewers but to actual paying customers.

I think Yelp needs to act fast on this, because if I'm Foursquare, I'd start going straight to retail establishments and striking deals.  I'd get every single Starbucks to start encouraging their customers to use Foursquare and check-in to their favorite Starbucks.  I'd know whether or not that was driving feet in the door from other check-ins and who my best customers were.  Foursquare should built a neat little self serve portal that allows retailers to claim their establishments, and track who's coming in and when. 

Yelp has an "Elite" badge for the best users of Yelp, but how long before Foursquare allows retailers to create their own Elite badges for their best customers--rewarding people who support the store, not just the ratings site.   If I'm Shake Shack, I want to know who the Shake Shack Elite is, not the Yelp Elite--the latter doesn't really directly help me as a business.  The more a site enables me to have a direct relationship with my customers, the more valuable it's going to be for me and overall.  Starbucks, Jamba Juice, NYSC, Dunkin Donuts, etc. should be all over FourSquare right now trying to figure out how to get their customers on it. 

If Yelp doesn't strike up a distribution deal with Foursquare soon, I think they're going to regret it.  The deal is simple.  We'll invest a couple hundred grand in you and promote you to our users.  You give us the data (through a sync to Yelp accounts) of who goes to an establishment based on a Yelp review.  That will help Yelp sell it's service to retailers and restaurants.  Yelp should provide reviews in Foursquare in exchange for promoting Foursquare's "Tips" and "ToDo's" as well. 

Google proved that you needed to be able to tell a retailer exactly how advertising helps their business and help them track ROI.  Foursquare is well positioned to capture that all important retail visit--the hardest piece of data to get short of diving into your credit card statement.  That makes them a serious player in the local ad space--and one that will undoubtedly pass on an early Google exit based on Crowley's past experience. 

I was talking with one of my investors the other day about the job search and recruiting space--and how I was surprised that there wasn't more innovation here, given how monetizable the space was.  After all, what's the value of the right hire to a company--and what's the value of the right job to a candidate?

Then I realized that innovative ideas alone don't really spark VC interest.  They need to be in areas that a venture capital firm has already decided that they want to be in.  So, if you're doing something innovative in cleantech, mobile apps, hyperlocal, or some kind of social media monetization tool, an innovative vision can get funded.  VCs are willing to make bets on visions of how certain markets will develop, even if they don't know all the details of how the business works out. 

If you're not in an area that VCs are excited about, you basically have two options.

The first, and probably best choice, is to go make some money.  VCs, especially towards the second half of their funds, will invest in baked in ROI.  Once you prove out your ability to make money, then it becomes the simple matter of an associate's spreadsheet.  How much do you make now and what valuation can we get it at?  What will you make with some product improvements and a new head of sales, maybe some international expansion and what can we sell it at and when?  Dollars in, dollars out, pure and simple.

The next choice, which isn't really a choice, is to have done it before.  This is betting on the jockey, not the horse.  Dave Morgan recently got $4 million for the Simulmedia powerpoint presentation.  Actually, that's a guess.  I'm not even sure there was a presentation.  Basically, if Dave Morgan does something in the ad space, given his track record, you back it.  That's it.  No questions asked. 

So, you better be in a hot space, be making money or have an exit under your belt, because if you don't have at least one of the above, it's an uphill climb. 

Recently, there was a big fluff up over Twitter replies--messages that users direct at each other in public using the @ symbol.  Now, you only see public @ messages if you follow the person being spoken to.

It used to be that you had a choice as to whether or not you saw replies that were directed at you or people you followed. The default had most recently been set to off--meaning that you didn't see many of the public messages that your friends sent. Most users didn't even know this was a setting, so few changed it.

How can we know that most users hadn't known about it versus liking the way it was? We can't know for sure, but the fact that *most* users have trouble catching on to using Twitter in the first place and that *most* users will just leave the default up on any feature in any web service is a good indication that this was not a conscious vote for the setting.

In fact, many were unaware that they weren't seeing all of the Tweets from their friends--I certainly didn't.  These were people they had signed up to follow the conversations of.  It would be an odd assumption to think you weren't seeing all public messages.

The effect?

Discovery of new people to follow has gone way down. One rarely encounters the usernames of new people they don't follow anymore.  It goes both ways as well.  Not only is my own discovery of new people way down, but since the change, the number of relevent, interesting people who have found me has gone way down.   No offense to recent followers, but now I hardly look at who follows me, because it's often people I have no connection to who never chime in on conversations--because they can't see conversations.

Instead of a more organic discovery mechanism based on overheard conversations in your close proximity, most new followers come from recommendation services, PR lists, and WeFollow.  For whatever reason, the quality and relevence of these followers seems to be much lower.

I'd be willing to bet that, across the board, the follow back ratio of new followers of popular people has gone way down.  The lack of discovery is making relevent connection difficult and unlikely.

Fred Wilson argues that hiding public replies increases signal to noise--a big problem for him given the number of people he follows on Twitter. That's true--tweets not directed at Fred or people he knows are less likely to be relevent to him.

So who does this affect?  What is their preference and what are the alternatives?  Also, how does it change Twitter usage?   Also, how does this relate to the overall core value proposition of Twitter?

In Fred's case, not seeing replies increases his signal to noise, but is that really why? What makes something noise? The average Twittter user sends about a quarter of his messages as replies. Chances are, most of those are going to people they know.  While Twitter networks can often have a fair bit of overlap, let's say that 2/3 of my replies are directed at people he doesn't know. That means that 2/3 of 25% of my tweets--or 17% of them--are his issue.

But, even then, is it really true that every tweet I send as a reply outside of Fred's network isn't relevent to Fred? What if I'm writing "@frozen2late I don't think Carlos Delgado is going to come back this season"? Fred's a big Met fan, too. It's hard to believe he wouldn't want to weigh in with a "@ceonyc Josh thinks if we don't get Delgado back, we're screwed."

Here's an example, albeit on Facebook, of how someone else got value from a conversation that wasn't intended for them:

Some of these replies are very relevent to Fred, judged on content alone. There's no reason why anything I write in a reply would be any different from a relevency perspective than any other Tweet.  Sure, I might occasionally tweet out "@zoedisco Funny!" and that's a meaningless tweet to Fred--but is it any more meaningless than when I tweet out that I'm going to bed or that I ate some ice cream--not directed at anyone in particular.

What's also important is what is good for Twitter as a service and a community.  There have been stories about Twitter's engagement issues--that most people join and don't Tweet at all, or stop soon after they start.  This isn't any different from any other site.  One thing we do know is that on any site where there are network effects--the benefit to finding more people that you know or feel are worth following is clear. 

It's no different than walking into a party late.  If no one shows you around, you need to be able to insert yourself in other people's conversations otherwise you're just going to feel left out and leave early.

So while someone following 400 people might feel like replies are overwhelming, those following 3 people really need those public replies to discover new people.  People need to remember that there are many more people *not* using your service than users.

So what's the solution?  I think we should default back to public replies and let people like Fred who follow 100's of people opt out of them--because he represents the minority.  Not only that, but I'm sure he has a few people who are the worst offenders and maybe he just needs to unfollow them altogether.

Or, you could perhaps do give people the choice to opt out at the app level--which would also solve Fred's problem because he's reading these tweets on his phone half the time--and that's probably when it's most annoying.

In the meantime, I've circumvented the hiding of my tweet replies by throwing a period in front of them--the .@ convention for public replies. This way, the person sees the reply and so does everyone else.  I'd like to see more of this, because I want to see who my friends are talking to and discover more people that way.  I think it's also important to the growth an engagement of the service overall.

Twitter trending topics had become a good way to play celebrity deadpool--only now every legitimate celebrity death is followed up by a fake one.  After Michael Jackson died, we had fake rumors of Jeff Goldblum, Rick Astley, and Billy Mays. 

(Wait...  Billy Mays is actually dead?  Jeez.  How's anyone supposed to confirm anything these days?  Does Twitter need Verified Death tweets?)

Now, almost every day, I see trends starting from people who are clearly gaming the system or that just aren't interesting at all to most people.

Aircraft Loadmaster anyone?   WTF is this?

If you're going to make Twitter trends relevant again, you need to start focusing on who's creating the tweet (influencer versus some job posting bot vs a bot that just picks out trend names to get in the flow) and what their reputation is.  

Trends have become a mess--inviting spam, gaming, marketing and combinations of the three.  Kill it for now and come back when it's fixed and it's not so easy to glom onto it.

Reid Hoffman believes the classified job-posting model to be “a little absurd.” Around the industry it is known as “post and pray”.

Here's the problem:

What are the chances that the right candidate with the right talent, right expertise, right demeanor, at the right time for the candidate, will happen to come along and see this job post while the company has an opening?

Answer: Not likely.

Plus, by definition, if they're looking at job ads, are they unemployed, or stuck in dead end jobs--potentially not the upwardly mobile rising stars you really want applying.

Even if you did get the right person, they'll come in a flood of resume spam, so you're likely to miss them.

It's the same thing for most broadcast advertising--which is why advertisers are abandoning broadcast messages for search in droves.  Instead of mass messaging a potentially irrelevant audience, companies would rather target people that they know are more relevant. 

At the same time, more and more people--particularly the most innovative candidates--are exposing data about themselves on the web via their social network profiles, Twitter, blogging, del.icio.us, etc.  The best candidates are abandoning job boards and instead saying, "Come to you?  Why?  How about you come to my place?" 

It makes a lot more sense to imagine a world where everyone is searchable and open to hearing a relevant opportunity and that there are tools to find them--tools that understand the nuances of each network and application.

So when I can ask a search service to find me the top salesperson with 5 years experience that is into sustainability, and I triangulate on the combo of a public LinkedIn profile, an blog on sales that has a high level of authority, and "greentech" and "sustainability" as some of their top tags in del.icio.us, then why would I ever pay to post a job?

Certainly, we're already seeing companies bolt at the idea of paying hundreds of dollars for a job posting when you can just pay Craigslist $25.  Even then, Craigslist really just charges to keep the site spam-free.  I'd bet that if you could somehow prove your reputation as a legitimate employer, Craigslist would lower the cost.  That's why they started charging in real estate--because a free rental board attracts the worst of apartment scammers. 

Indeed.com will aggregate, for free, your company's job board if you submit it--assuming they haven't found it already. 

So what are you actually paying for?  Volume?  Is it impossible to fill 200 nursing positions anywhere else?  How long does that last?  Seems to me that being "big" isn't a really sustainable competitive advantage on the web unless you have some kind of network effect--something that Monster and the big job boards definitely do not have.

Sponsorship is different.  Sponsorship means you're getting to the top, getting front and center in front of the right candidates, but also paying on a per click basis.  It's a web model with a clear ROI and it charges for what you really want, traffic, not the commodity, publishing.  The incremental publishing/hosting cost on the web for a job should be near zero, so it seems silly that it's being charged for.

Is there anyone that you can't find via search that will come to you via a job post that is any good?  Does that remain the case in five years?

Recently, there have been some predictions that printed newspapers will die in the next ten years.

Anyone want to make a bet that the paid job post dies before that?  If not, when is the last paid post?

Consider this theoretical exercise...

I met a company the other day with a live social networking product that could be easily whitelabeled for brands and publishers.  They were also looking to raise between 500k and 1m. 

My suggestion to them was to go out and charge some brands to whitelabel their product at 50k a pop--generate revenue instead of raising capital. 

Here's the thinking:

If you're telling me that gathering your audience or doing whatever it is that you do solves someone's problem, than selling it is really the only proof.  What happens when a big company has a problem that costs them 200k a year?  They budget out 50k of either internal or contract resources to fix it if there's no good solution on the market.  In other words, they pay money to a team of people who haven't built product yet to fix their problem. 

On top of that, interactive advertising shops get paid tens of thousands of dollars all the time to build microsites and apps for brands and publishers.

Therefore, the idea that you can't get *somebody* to pay for a future solution to be delivered in a few months seems like a flimsy argument, given the right terms.  Sure, they won't pay a fifty dollar a month subscription for a product that doesn't exist, but they routinely pay 50k for custom built solutions.

Here's the problem with that, and what you need to convince companies out of.  Custom solutions are always a nightmare to maintain.  Domain expertise on what companies build internally is nearly non-existent, so you'll always be overpaying to retain employees to maintain it.  There's no direct incentive and certainly no budget to continually improve and iterate on the product, so it's bound to get stale and become obsolete.  The problem is so bad that you have to imagine that companies might be better off seeding lots of little ISVs to build efficient, flexible software that other companies could use rather than attempt to homegrow anything.

And that's your pitch:  Pay us to do this--we'll be focused on it, iterate on it, incorporate the good feedback from other customers, and in the long run, we'll be cheaper to maintain.  Perhaps with that comes some warrants, options, or even some equity. 

If you scour the market and one out of the top 100 companies isn't willing to pay you for your solution or to attach their brand to you, then I have to wonder one of the following things:

Is this just not enough of a pain point for these customers or their audience? 

Does this other company not see your tool as a compelling enough way to monetize their audience--which is also your audience--one that they know, conceivably just as well if not better than you?  If it was, you'd have to believe that some kind of revenue share or equity agreement would make sense to them.  If you're doing something amazing for the auto market, and Car & Driver doesn't want to be a part of it, you have to wonder how amazing what you're doing is.

In this or any economy, you need champions--and your best champions are your paying customers.  Angels and VCs don't mind being second in line behind someone actually paying to use the product that will ultimately drive your success.

Are there exceptions to this?  Sure.  There are certainly pain in the ass situations where you're doing so much custom development all day for other people that you're no longer actually selling you're product--you're a development shop.  Still, the exercise of talking to customers and seeing what they would pay for is sure to be an informative one.

Has anyone noticed the increased interest that Boston VCs are taking in NYC these days?   It's not just Bijan from Spark anymore--Beantown investors are flocking to NYC in a big way, and being very public about it.

In addition to deals like .406's investment in EnergyHub, Boston firms have recently shown a penchant for participating in NYC community events and support--perhaps even more than NY firms have.

General Catalyst sponsored Alley Insider's Startup 2009.  More recently, a bunch of investors and entrepreneurs have gotten together to great a venture education and mentoring program called First Growth Venture Network right here in NYC, not Boston. 

Check out the Sawx-lovin' VC firms on the executive committee:

Flybridge Capital Partners

Polaris Venture Partners

North Bridge Venture Partners

Charles River Ventures

Battery Ventures

Highland Capital Partners

On top of that, there are a number of firms putting feet on the ground here.  Mo Koyfman of Spark is based out of NYC.  General Catalyst give Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes the nod to hangout in NYC and drum up some deals.  MIT MBA candidate Amanda Peyton is in NYC for the summer on behalf of New Atlantic Ventures--a recent backer of Brooklyn-based Pontiflex to go with their investment in NY's ContextWeb.

Claire Cain Miller asked whether or not Boston was dying as a VC hotbed, but positioned that it was being abandoned in favor of the valley after Greylock went out west.  It seems more logical to me that any Boston exodus would naturally lead down I-95 first before it jumped across the country.

Unfortunately, and typically, the continuing buzz (which is what... three years old now?) around NYC's surging startup economy seems to have escaped the WSJ's Scott Denne, who covered the First Growth story by leading with the following: 

"...start-up founders in New York City are a relatively solitary lot. With fewer firms and no particular geographic nexus, entrepreneurs rarely have the kinds of chance encounters that can jump-start a start-up."

Dear anyone who can't find the NYC tech scene or still doesn't know it exists...   You are cordially invited to join nextNY, the NY Tech Meetup, show up at a Digital Dumbo, the Entrepreneurs Roundtable, or follow @shakeshack.

You've spent lots of time and effort cultivating a fanbase of thousands--on Twitter, Facebook, even on your own applications.  Yet, when you need new employees, how much of your efforts are directed towards people across the web that don't know you or who aren't nearly as passionate as your existing employees are.  You might even need to pay a recruiter to help make your salespitch.

Meanwhile, among your biggest fans and most passionate users are developers, marketers, accountants, public relations professionals--people from every industry imaginable who would probably jump at the chance to come work for you.  The only thing is, you don't know who these people are, short of their tiny little Twitter profiles which you can't search at scale anyway. 

You could try tweeting all youropenings, but not all of them are going to be relevent to your whole audience, which will degrad the quality of your livestream.

Christa Foley from Zappos agrees, “It wouldn’t fit within our culture to be salesy/pushy... we’re not blasting on Twitter every job opening... To me, that feels like spamming, which I think goes against what Twitter was meant to be used for.”

Just publishing your openings in social networks is a very 1.0 broadcast way of approaching a very 2.0 environment.  The problem is that all of the recruiting tools and social spaces are silos.  You can't search the resumes of your Twitter followers, and you can't search LinkedIn and filter by who follows who on Twitter. 

Having people put links to their resume in their Twitter account might be a start, but that wouldn't be easily searchable by structured search--plus it might look a little odd to their bosses. 

Coming at it from the other way, from Reid Hoffman's keynote at the Social Recruiting Summit, it seems pretty certain that LinkedIn is more worried about keeping the "noise" from other networks out than the free flow of data.  He didn't seem too pleased about Plaxo's attempts at syncing and he's always referred to behavior on Facebook with some disdain--associating it with zombie bites and electronic hamburgers.  This misses the opportunity to capture a lot of useful data on candidates, like their interests, affinities, and what companies they follow.

Path 101 is working on this problem now, and in about a month or so, will give you the tap for the keg of human capital that use your social media fanbase.

If you're interested in recruiting your followers, comment below or reach me at charlie@path101.com.

The fingers around this subway pole have chipped purple nail polish--seemingly quite a few days old.  I wonder if you could plot that out consistantly.  Like, 35% coverage means six days.   It matches her yellow eye shadow--that is, if she were a Lakers fan.  I doubt it.  She's reading a comic book--graphic novel rather.  Mice with sunglasses are in the one flopped over panel that I can see.  The man next to her is trying to man a call as we cross the Manhattan bridge.  It doesn't seem to be working.  He is reading an article in the paper about some kid hit with a stray bullet that just got out of the hospital.  I wish someone would adopt all these stray bullets--or at least spay or neuter them to help control the bullet population.  Airwalks.  That's what she's wearing.  Bronx mother admits to fatally bashing tot.  Poor tot.  Never had a chance.  Canal St.  Asians get off, hipsters get on.  Sudden turn...  I nearly fell over but I grabbed he pole just in time.  It was good aim because there were five hands on the pole already.  Comic girl is sleeping standing up.  For some reason I think everyone knows I'm writing about this subway car.  I'll stop now.  The jig is up.

I got a note this morning (complete with its own press release attached) from Stephanie Agresta telling me that she had moved to a fulltime gig at Porter Novelli.

She writes, "My move to Porter Novelli is symbolic of the fact that the agency gets it: PR has changed forever."

It reminds me of Tara Hunt's announcement that she was moving to Intuit.  She was super excited about getting "a little schoolin’ on corporate America".

PR has changed?  Corporate America exciting?  What kind of social media bizarro world did we enter?

I think if you read between the lines, you'll realize that when two such prominent personalities in the social media world jump to the corporate side, it's a market signal: 

There just isn't enough money in social media to be a fulltime consultant. 

This is also what I heard recently from a very prominent social media expert who told me that actual dollars paid to her for her expertise were tough to come by.  Sure, there are going to be a few exceptions, but when some of the top folks are moving to big firms, if you don't believe this is a market top, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

And hey, I don't blame them.  They landed great jobs!  It's a tough economy and seeking shelter in the stability of a big firm is a smart move--just don't expect me to believe how psyched you are to leave independence for the joys and challenges of the Cube World.  

More people should get out while they can, because, in this economy, if you're not showing companies how all this stuff can directly contribute to the bottom line in real dollars, you're seriously screwed. 

Advertising and PR is becoming much more integrated.  Messaging is going cross medium.  You can't really survive at the strategy level if you don't understand all of the aspects of both traditional and interactive advertising--direct marketing, SEO/SEM, sponsorships, event marketing, etc.  That raises the bar for what it takes to be an advertising expert of any kind--let alone just in social media.  And thank God for that... seriously.  There are too many people going around with social media on their business cards where you say, "I don't get what that person does for a living--what do they actually do again?" 

So if you're smart and you see people like Tara and Steph--successful consultants who had real clients and a track record of success--going corporate, maybe it's time to hangup your "Social Media Expert" hat.

I've clearly been blogging less these days...but when I do, the overall quality (or at least effonrt) is up at a pretty high level.  I'm a writer--I still love writing essay length posts and always will. 

But since I started using Twitter and more recently since I started using Tumblr for real, not only has my publishing splintered across mediums, but I realize engagement with my community of readers is up.   Before Twitter, I would write the occasional micropost, but I'd feel like it went into a void.  It would be a quick passing thought and it would take too long for my daily RSS reading blog audience to receive it for the kind of quick response it might garner.

At the same time, I'd occasionally post ridiculous things--things few people found as funny as I did.  It seemed a little out of place to blog a College Humor video after a serious piece about entrepreneurship.  I didn't really want to use Tumblr, though.  Mainly, I was actually being  somewhat hypocritical because I was focused on having my blog as the central place to find and consume the published me on the web but I constantly criticize Friendfeed for killing the context and nouance that comes with each individual platform.  Additionally, I firmly believed that different people wanted different slices of me--and to force them to all consume the same sausagelike feed was borderline abusive.   That's why I don't usually friend my professional contacts.  I may find your professional presence in my life worthwhile, but please don't make me look at your kids photos.

I started using Tumblr for real a few weeks ago.  I say for real because I used to just publish a feed from my blog to it.  It got very few clickthroughs and hardly any followers--no reblogs.  Certainly no one was going to pass along around my content if it wasn't tailored towards the audience.  Like a dying marriage, it's as if that audience knew I wasn't putting in the effort so why should they? 

Now, I pass the music I listen to through Tumblr as well as the occasional drunk Kung Fu Panda.  I clip the quotes from my blog I think will appeal to that audience.  Now, I not only get more followers, but I get more engagement as well. 

Media outlets need to realize that.  If you're CNN, you can't just blast a link to the CNN homepage everywhere.  You need to maintain a unique, curated presence everywhere your audience is and engage them in a unique way. 

When I worked in private equity, I learned about the buyout of Gaylan's sports.  The concept there was to build a big box retail space for sports, but to make sure that each individual section of the store was as good or better than the speciality store equivilent.  Therefore, the golf section of Gaylan's had to be as good as your local golf shop.    This was very different from places like Modell's, which are decent options if you want to buy a generic set of golf balls, but you're not going to find any premium items or anyone who knows anyone at golf.

If you're a big media outlet and you're going to be publishing into social spaces, then your Twitter account needs to be as engaging as the alternative individual that I would subscribe to.  There's no sense being @ComedyCentral if you're not going to be as funny as @dickc.  If you're going to have a CNN Tumblr, then you need to be as good at curating content as Soup.  Esquire, if you're going to be on Tumblr, you need to be as smart, sexy, and funny as Meaghano. 

Don't throw this "social media stuff" off to your youngest social media intern.  Go to these communities.  Go meet with Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, MySpace, all of 'em and ask, "Who gets it?  Bring us to them so we can learn."