Venture capital investors as mentors

Early investors bring more than money to a young business

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has a wonderful post on his blog detailing what he wished he knew when he first pitched his business to investors.

His seven myths of pitching are well worth reading whether you’re seeking capital from Silicon Valley venture capital firms, a sceptical bank manager or your mum and dad.

The first point is the most pertinent — a successful financing process results in a partnership that delivers benefits beyond just money.

Raising investor funds is only a step in the journey of creating a successful business, it is by no means the end point.

Hoffman’s point is something every business founder needs to keep in mind, those early investors are important mentors and their advice could prove to be more valuable than the money they bring to a venture.

Similar posts:

Valuing Twitter

How does Twitter compare to Facebook and Google when they were floated?

Now microblogging service Twitter has released documents ahead of a stock market float, it’s possible to start looking at the viability and stock market valuation of the company.

When Facebook’s float was first mooted in early 2011, we looked at how the social media service stacked up against Google a decade earlier. The question was ‘is Facebook worth $50 billion?’

The stockmarket answer was resounding ‘yes’ despite an initial fall that saw investors face a 50% loss in the early days of Facebook being a public company. Today the stock has a market valuation of $122 billion, with an eye popping price/earnings ratio of 122.

So how does Twitter stack up at the valuations being discussed? Quite well it appears when we put it against Google, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Company Google Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Market Cap 288 123 27 13
P/E 25 288 901 29

For Twitter, the real challenge is making money from the service and their latest idea is marketing the service as an essential companion to watching TV.

The discussion over how Twitter makes money exposes another problem for the service in it has no obvious revenue stream which makes comparing the platform to Facebook or LinkedIn rather problematic.

Facebook has advertising while LinkedIn has premium subscriber services both of which are problematic.

Not having an obvious revenue model may not turn out to be a problem – as LinkedIn’s P/E shows – and Twitter’s founders are probably more likely than anyway to be the digital media industry’s David Sarnoff.

It may be Twitter makes its money from giving advertisers, marketers and others access to the massive stores of data the company is accumulating.

Whatever way it turns out, Twitter’s going to be the hot IPO news for the tech industry for the rest of the year. At current prices, the investors will be lining up to buy the stock.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Big Data needs big databases

Investors are making big bets on the databases that underpin Big Data

While the tech industry’s startup hype this week has been focused on the impending Twitter Initial Public Offering, a much more fascinating company quietly completed a major capital raising.

MongoDB provides an open-source, document database program and last week raised another $150 million from investors that values the company at $1.2 billion dollars.

Databases lie at the heart of Big Data and businesses need better computer programs to manage the overwhelming amount of information that’s pouring in every day.

As every business is unique, larger corporations find they spend huge amounts of money on their databases. The enterprise that buys an Oracle, IBM or SAP system usually spends tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in adapting the system to work for them, often with less than spectacular results.

While implementing MongoDB or any other open source program doesn’t eliminate implementation costs, it is often easier to setup and maintain as most of the information about the system is shared and freely available rather than locked inside the vendor’s proprietary knowledgebases.

Probably most important of all, the data structures themselves are open so customers don’t find themselves locked into a relationship with one vendor because all their information is in a format that can only be read by one system.

Open source is where Big Data, social media and cloud computing intersect – without the data itself being open and accessible, most cloud computing and social media services will almost certainly fail.

So MongoDB and the other open source products are the quiet, back of house technologies that keep the internet as we know it ticking along.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports there’s some very serious investors in MongoDB.

The deal attracted new investors such as EMC Corp. (EMC:US) and Salesforce.com Inc. (CRM:US), along with previous backers Red Hat Inc. (RHT:US), Intel Corp. (INTC:US), New Enterprise Associates and Sequoia Capital, according to MongoDB.

Sequoia Capital are one of the longest lasting Silicon Valley venture capital firms whose greatest success was being one of the first investors in Apple Computers and New Enterprise Ventures have a similar pedigree with companies like 3Com, Juniper Networks and Vonage. Investment by industry leaders like Intel, Red Hat, Salesforce and EMC in the company also shows MongoDB isn’t the standard Silicon Valley Greater Fool play.

When there’s a gold rush, it’s those selling the shovels who make the big money and the investors in MongoDB and similar services are hoping they’ve found some of the modern day shovels.

That may well turn out to be the case and while the smart folk make more money from the technologies that drive social media and cloud computing services, the rest of us are distracted by the latest shiny thing.

Similar posts:

  • No Related Posts

Farewell to the knowledge economy

The promise of the knowledge economy isn’t being delivered as knowledge becomes a commodity worth less than data.

One of the mantras of the 1980s was the future of western nations lay in becoming ‘knowledge economies’, unfortunately things don’t look like they are turning out that way.

As the developed economies moved their manufacturing offshore – first to Japan and Korea, then Mexico and finally China – the promise to displaced Western factory workers was the replacement jobs would be in vaguely knowledge based industries like call centres and backoffice computer work.

From the 1990s on, those jobs also started to go overseas  to lower cost centres in India, the Phillipines and other countries.

When the internet became ubiquitous in the developed world in the late 1990s, the creative industries – musicians, artists and writers – found income dried up as their work became commoditised by digital distribution channels.

Now the professions are being affected by combination of offshoring, artificial intelligence and automated processes. Many of the jobs that were done by highly paid accountants and lawyers can now be done by computers or in places not dissimilar to those that took away the call centre jobs twenty years ago.

So it turns out the knowledge economy isn’t the key to riches after all and the future turns out to be more complex than what we thought in the 1990s.

Similar posts:

Death of a typewriter repairer

The tale of two shops shows how change threatens to overwhelm many small businesses.

Despite owing his longevity to cheap scotch and strong tobacco, the US’ oldest typewriter repairman passed away two weeks ago. The fate of his shop is one that many other small businesses will share.

Manson Whitlock of New Haven, Connecticut had run his typewriter shop from the early 1930s until shortly before his death. Needless to say, he didn’t like computers.

“I don’t even know what a computer is,” Mr. Whitlock told The Yale Daily News, the student paper, in 2010. “I’ve heard about them a lot, but I don’t own one, and I don’t want one to own me.”

While Manson’s shop had six staff at its peak, in recent years he ran the operation on his own and the business died with him.

Many Baby Boomer business owners face the same fate as Manson Whitlock as their businesses decline in the face of changing technology and shifting change.

Some of the boomers will suffer because they are undercapitalised and, as the next generation of entrepreneurs can’t afford to buy these existing business, most of those will work way wall past the date they planned to retireme.

A good example of this is a radio shop near my office which has been run by an old gentleman for many years. When I went into it in 1997 for something – I forget what – the proprietor was almost shocked to see a customer and he couldn’t help me.

It wasn’t surprising as it was rare to see a customer and the none of the stock behind the cluttered counter seemed to date beyond 1980.

The only reason the shop survived was because the proprietor owned the premises as there’s no way the place could have paid the modern rents with the non-existent turnover.

A few weeks ago the shop closed. I don’t know whether the owner retired or passed away, but the business closed with him.

Both the Neutral Bay electrical shop and the New Haven typewriter repairer show how businesses can be left behind by technology.

While both stores had plenty of time to react during the rise of computers during the 1980s and 90s, their proprietors chose not to and by the 2000s it was too late.

Today, technology and business is changing even faster and there’s many more big and small enterprises that risk being left behind by change.

It’s not only the changing market place that risks the future of these business, the failure to invest in things as simple as modern Point of Sale systems or even a basic website will leave many exposed.

The time to invest in new systems and products is now and if you can’t invest in the future, then it’s time to get out.

neutral-bay-radio-shop

Similar posts:

Today marks a moment of reinvention

Regardless of what it means for the wider industry, Microsoft’s deal with Nokia means both companies have entered fundamentally different phases of their businesses.

In announcing the company will acquire Nokia’s mobile and devices business, Microsoft said “Today marks a moment of reinvention”.

This is certainly true, with the retirement of Steve Ballmer, Microsoft officially enters the post Bill Gates era and today’s announcement is an admission from Nokia that their moment as the world’s dominant mobile phone manufacturer is over.

What’s notable about the deal is what Microsoft doesn’t get — particularly Nokia’s maps service. While Microsoft gets a license to use Nokia’s mapping services, it leaves the Finnish company with a valuable asset and possibly leaves it as the only company capable of competing with Google in that market.

For Microsoft, acquiring the expertise of Nokia’s engineers shouldn’t be understated, although integrating 32,000 Nokia employees will test Microsoft’s management as this increases their workforce by a third.

Possibly the most fascinating part of Microsoft’s announcement though is the comment in the second paragraph of their media release.

Microsoft will draw upon its overseas cash resources to fund the transaction.

US technology companies have been struggling to deal with the massive profits they have accumulated offshore as part of their tax minimalisation strategy. What we may now be seeing is a wave of foreign takeovers as American companies start to reduce their offshore cash stashes without incurring domestic tax bills.

If that’s true, Microsoft’s agreement with Nokia may well indicate we’re about to see many more takeovers around the world .

Regardless of what it means for the wider industry, both Microsoft and Nokia have entered fundamentally different phases of their businesses.

Similar posts:

Why do executives see romance in the startup culture?

Many managers think startups are romantic – could it be because of the corporate lives they lead?

One of the fascinating phenomenons of the modern era is how corporate managers have appropriated the startup culture.

At the announcement of the Australian Centre for Broadband Innovation’s Apps For Broadband prizes, Foxtel’s CIO Robyn Elliot described her experience of working in a startup.

“Foxtel was once in the category of startup itself,” said Elliot at the start of her speech.

Apples and Oranges

Comparing Foxtel to a scrabbling startup in the modern sense is bizarre given the company was a well funded joint venture between News Limited and Telstra – the company being a good example of modern Australian crony corporatism rather than a risky undertaking by daring entrepreneurs.

This conceit about startups isn’t unusual among corporate executives, in the early days of Australia’s National Broadband Network it was quite common to hear NBNCo managers talk about their startup ethos – this from a company backed by around 30 billion dollars of government funding.

At one stage I interviewed for a job at NBNCo and I struggled not to start giggling when the “startup ethos of the organisation” was earnestly emphasised to me several times during the meeting.

Not surprisingly the job went to an ex-telco staffer, as did most of the team’s roles. No doubt their corporate experience was far more suited to the company’s ‘startup ethos’  than that of actually having worked in four startups. Giggling in the interview probably didn’t help either.

The romantic dreams of executives

Given most corporate staffers would curl into the fetal position and weep after two weeks of working in a real startup, why do executives indulge in the conceit that their business is ‘just like a startup’?

The answer could lie in “The Consequences to the Banks of the Collapse in Money Values” written by John Maynard Keynes in 1931.

A sound banker, alas, is not one who foresees danger and avoids it, but one who, when he is ruined, is ruined in a conventional and orthodox way along with his fellows, so that no one can really blame him. It is necessarily part of the business of a banker to maintain appearances, and to confess a conventional respectability, which is more than human. Life-long practices of this kind make them the most romantic and the least realistic of men.

So it is for the modern corporate executive who has spent their working lives fighting for the corner office having met their KPIs and spending years cultivating their network of like minded managers.

After two decades spent writing stern memos on the use of paper clips and climbing the corporate ladder, it must be tempting for a middle aged executive to look at those funky youngsters getting billion dollar payouts after a couple of years grabbing three hours sleep a night among the pizza boxes under the desk and get pangs of what might have been…..

A harmless startup fantasy

In some many ways the executive startup fantasy is touching and largely harmless, even if it does attract sniggers and giggles from the unwashed and underpaid who’ve actually been there.

The real risk is when a senior executive tries to shoehorn a Silicon Valley startup culture into an organisation.

While most large companies could do with some of the hunger and flexibility found in smaller businesses, there’s many ways that could go terribly wrong – particularly when driven by a starry eyed romantic manager.

For most executives though, the dreams of being in a startup will remain a fantasy – and that’s probably best for everybody.

Similar posts: