Category: startups

Getting crowdfunding right

The success of Flow Hives in raising money for its beehive project is a good case study on getting a hardware startup right.

Crowdfunding is not for every business or project, however the great story on the success of Flow Hives shows how it can be done right.

Flow Hives, based on the North Coast of the Australian state of New South Wales, is a father and son business that has cracked the way for consumers to raise bees and get fresh honey from the hives without having to suit up.

There’s a few notable points in Flow Hives’ story  that challenges a lot of the basic wisdom about starts ups and funding we’re hearing at the moment.

Taking the long path

Flow Hives’ founders,Stu and Cedar Anderson, spent ten years getting the basics right. That’s a long time to get a Minimum Viable Product to the market.

On top of that, they were experienced bee keepers, not keen young outsiders looking to ‘disrupt’ what they saw as a staid industry.

Carefully choosing support

Like all good Australian businesses, the Andersons’ first stop was at the government where they found the support programs were too cumbersome and onerous. Another problem they’d have encountered with that path would have been the funds available are trivial compared to the time spent on compliance.

They found a similar thing with the courting of investors being too much of a distraction and, rightly, saw that VC and seed money is actually quite expensive. This made crowdfunding a viable options.

Selecting production methods

While 3D printing worked for prototypes it didn’t scale for production runs. Knowing they’d need injection moulding for their plastic parts, the Andersons chose a local supplier rather than dealing with the lowest cost operator in China so they would have better control over their supply chain.

Coupled with choosing a local supplier for their plastic components the Andersons’ also chose a US supplier for the wooden enclosures based upon the service they received.

Going with trusted suppliers meant they were able to get a good product to market quickly. When a Chinese company attempted a cheap imitation it failed because of the shoddy quality.

The Flow Hive story is a good reminder that the principles of the today’s tech startup culture are only applicable to small group of the businesses in specific sectors.

In a diverse economy, there’s many different other business principles and models that might apply. Trying to shoehorn one type of business into a different model may well be a mistake.

Building a digital hub – and why governments shouldn’t try.

The experience of the Sydney Digital Hub shows why Australian governments struggle to create industrial centres.

“I’m not sure what to do with this,” frowned the public service executive to a group of blank faced departmental staffers. “I’ll take it,” I said to break the silence.

With that, I was on a journey into exactly what Sydney’s startup and digital media communities looked like and learning why governments struggle to build technology hubs.

I’d been working for the state government for two months after a specularly unsuccessful exit from a business and in the shadow of the 2008 financial crisis getting a public service job seemed like a good idea.

Vague ideas

The project being discussed by Bob, my then director, was a single line in the recommendations from the then Premier’s Jobs Summit which was convened in the panicky dark days of the 2008 global financial crisis – “A digital hub will be setup around the Australian Technology Park.”

Bob, and the management of the New South Wales Department of Trade and Investment had little idea of what a ‘digital hub’ was and my position of ‘Manager, Creative Industries” – with a staff of precisely zero – was vague given the state’s support to the creative industries was, and remains, based on throwing big buckets of money at the Hollywood movie studios.

So the Sydney Digital Hub was born and the quest to find out exactly was was needed, or at least would keep the Premier’s office happy, was on.

It immediately became apparent the Australian Technology Park wasn’t going to be the centre of anything as far as Sydney’s startup community was concerned. The complex was too far away from the city and too expensive for most of the businesses.

Replacing what’s existing

“We already have a digital hub,” was the other response. “It’s Surry Hills.” Which was a far call as a large part of the Sydney startup and digital media communities were based in the suburb on the edge of the city’s centre.

This actually worked well as the exact wording of the committee’s recommendation was “create a digital hub around the Australian Technology Park.” In this case, Surry Hills was ‘around’ the ATP.

Eventually the project became Digital Sydney and by the time it was launched, the state had gone through two Premiers, elected another party into government and I was long gone from the department, having lasted just 19 months.

Before leaving, I had managed to steer through a million dollars in funding for the project from the then Labor minister – since caught up on corruption charges surrounding coal mine leases – which, to their credit, was honoured by the incoming Liberal government that took power shortly after.

Dying a slow, unfunded death

That funding was renewed and the project died a slow death, which didn’t really matter as Sydney’s startup and digital media communities had developed despite of, not because of, any government policies. Indeed, the New South Wales’ government’s economic development policies were, and remain, focused on property development and coal mining.

Which brings us to the present day, where the Sydney startup community is upset at the Sydstart conference being poached by the Victorian government and moving to Melbourne on the promise of a million dollars in support as part of the state’s startup program.

The promoters of the now relocated and renamed conference are adamant it matters, but the truth is it doesn’t. In fact the biggest ticket item of NSW government support to the IT sector is the annual CeBIT conference that in truth has added little to the state’s technology industry and many similar initiatives in Victoria have had a similar lack success.

A lack of long term vision

Part of the reason for that lack of success is a lack of consistency and long term strategies, in fact the Australian Technology Park itself is under threat as the state government looks at selling the site to apartment developers despite the protests of the tech community.

Another aspect is state sponsored conferences, hubs and initiatives are not enough to create an industrial centre. There has to be an organic, or business, reason for a hub to develop.

For industry hubs, be they tech startups or anything else, the core need is a critical mass of investors and skilled workers with easy access to markets. For internet based businesses, the latter isn’t an issue which is why Wellington in New Zealand has done better than either Sydney or Melbourne in recent years.

Providing stable frameworks

The role of governments in this is to provide a stable framework for businesses to work within, something that hasn’t been a feature of state or Federal Australian politics in recent years with leadership instability and the increasing prevalence of policy by thought bubble, a good example being the latest scheme to create a new technology hub even further out of downtown Sydney on the site of disused power station.

While the talk of government sponsored initiatives is nice and keeps my former colleagues at the state government occupied writing ministerial briefings on pink paper, building the tech hubs of the future needs motivated entrepreneurs, investors and skilled workers. The best thing governments can do is make sure they encourage all three groups and leave the community building to the community.

The new one percent

In many ways the backlash against AirBnB and the tech community in San Francisco is of their own making.

Today San Francisco goes to the polls and one of the many questions being put to voters is Proposition F, an initiative to put restrictions on short term rentals.

Also known as the AirBnB initiative, Proposition F is also being seen as part of San Francisco residents’ push against the tech community’s takeover of the city.

In countering the Proposition F supporters, AirBnB hasn’t helped its case with a clumsy public campaign and an aggressive $8 million war chest to support the initiatives opponents, but the real problems for the service lie in the hostility towards the tech and startup community in general.

A notable thing about the new tech community is how their staff are isolated from the community around them. Probably the worst example of this in Southern California where Google has been accused of harassing homeless people on the public footpaths around its Venice Beach complex.

While having onsite facilities may make sense in remote Silicon Valley business parks, in city areas like San Francisco this only creates hostility from those who feel displaced by the new elite.

The remoteness of the new tech elite is also shown in their companies’ attitudes towards customer support. Services like AirBnB, Facebook and Google consistently try to reduce their support overheads by pushing responsibility onto users and contractors by making it difficult, if not impossible for the public to contact them.

Inevitably that remoteness from the general community breeds distrust and hostility. Which is what we’re seeing now being directed towards AirBnB.

Paradoxically, despite the hostility towards the tech community and AirBnB, they are probably not the reason for San Francisco’s soaring property prices as around the world the price of homes is soaring as the effects of cheap money filter through investment markets.

As long as those prices keep soaring beyond the reach of working and middle class residents, AirBnB and the tech community can expect to continue feeling the pressure. Although it’s not hard to think though that a bit of humility might help their case.

Crowdfunding future businesses

The SECs rules on crowdfunding are welcome, but more needs to be done to spark investment in the businesses of the future.

Three years after the Jobs Act was signed into law by President Obama, the US Securities and Investment commission has proposed the rules for crowdfunding business capital.

Behind the Jobs Act was the idea that new ways of funding businesses are needed in an era when banks, thanks to the flawed Basel Accords, have stepped away from what could be argued is one of the key functions of a financial systems – funding the wheels of commerce.

So the new regulations are needed and the idea that funding can be raised quickly from crowds of supporters is one that ties well with the current ideas of crowdfunding products.

Crowdfunding a business, particularly where equity is involved, is a very different matter than asking supporters for a few hundred dollars to manufacture a smartwatch, produce a music album or write a book. Modern securities law is based upon three centuries of charlatans defrauding investors.

The SEC’s caution is clear in the guidelines that restrict crowdfunding to a small group of businesses seeking funding through Federally approved services and drastically limit the amounts that can be raised.

  • A company can raise a total of $1 million through crowdfunding in a 12-month period
  • In any 12-month period, individual cannot stake more than $100,000.
  • Individuals earning less than $100,00o per year can invest either $2,000 or 5% of their annual income.
  • People with greater than $100,0000 can stake 10 percent of the lesser of their annual income or net worth

For companies the eligibility for crowdfunding even tighter with the following prohibited;

  • non-U.S. companies
  • securities trading companies registered under the Exchange Act
  • certain investment companies
  • companies the SEC has disqualified
  • companies that have failed to comply submit annual reporting requirements
  • companies that have no specific business plan
  • Companies that have indicated that their business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an unidentified company or companies.

That latter provision presents a problem for the tech startup based upon the current Silicon Valley ‘greater fool’ business plan however luckily for them, crowdfunding equity won’t be countered for companies worth under $25 million for other securities reporting requirements.

What will be interesting is how savvy startup founders can use these rules – perhaps use this system to create a company structure and then use product specific crowdfunding projects to raise working capital.

Just like project based crowdfunding, it’s likely these schemes will be used as a market test to measure community interest in a business. This may well also be a way to attract investors hungry for hot new startups to invest it.

What is likely though is the current insider driven model of startup funding will remain. While there’ll be many worthy businesses seeking capital through crowdfunding, we can be sure the bulk of startup money will come through the insular world of VCs and tech investors.

The main criticism though of these proposals are the low limits. This will make crowdfunding unworkable for all but the earliest and smallest of new ventures. The money will be handy for those who qualify, but more needs to be done to spark investment in the businesses of the future.

Not following the herd – Investors discover agtech

Agriculture technology is a neglected space, which means opportunities of savvy investors.

One of the most ignored industries when it comes to technology is agriculture, which is odd as farmers and their downstream supply chain are probably on of the most tech intensive industries of all.

That may be changing though, New York analyst firm CB Insights reports Agtech deals jumped three fold last year following Monsanto’s acquisition of Climate Corporation.

A $150 million a year in investments though is still quite small compared to some of the sectors investors are piling money into.

That there is comparatively little attention paid to agricultural technology companies probably tells us much about the herd mentality of investors, it also suggests there’s some great opportunities for savvy business people.

Founder therapy and Smiley curves – the tough world of hardware startups

San Francisco’s Highway One incubator looks to ease the pain for hardware startups

There’s no doubt building a hardware startup is hard, whether it’s sensor networks, smart lights or home automation hubs getting physical products to the market is far tougher than launching an online service or app.

In a light industrial part of San Francisco’s Inner Mission district, the Highway One incubator is one of the initiatives looking at helping entrepreneurs bring their ideas to market.

“Our goal is to help hardware startups scale faster,” says Brady Forrest the director of Highway One. “We turn prototypes into products. People come here with an idea and we make sure they can implement it, we bring a lot of design best practices and engineering best practices and make sure they are being honest with themselves.”

“I also end up conducting a lot of founder therapy.”

The selection process

Getting onto the four-month program is competitive with applicants being subjected to a rigorous vetting process, “they fill out a double page application, send in a video of them telling their story and then a video of them using a prototype.”

“Then we start to talk with some business analysts to check the market sizes, competitors and then we go to an engineering review to check the team has the technical chops and that prototype is what they say it and that it’s achievable.”

Once on the program the course is an intense immersion on building a product with access to a prototyping lab, support services and a 10-day trip to Shenzhen, China, to learn about global manufacturing.

The Shenzhen link is important as Highway One is part of PCH International, an Irish company born out of founder Liam Casey’s case work in sourcing Chinese manufacturers. This Fortune magazine profile of Casey and PCH describes how deeply embedded the company is in global supply chains.

Want investors want

At the end of the incubator process is a pitch day before potential investors. Right now Forrest says, “I think investors want to de-risk as much as possible. Right now hardware is so expensive and it’s higher risk. Yet in a lot of ways it’s easier in a lot of ways for people to know what they’re getting.”

smiling_curve

Part of the challenge in funding hardware startups lies in financing the fabrication phase of the product’s development. Forrest cites the ‘Smiley Curve’, originally described by Acer founder Stan Shih, where the value added is at the beginning and ends of the cycle.

“The VC’s don’t like to fund the build part, one nice thing for startups is that they can get manufacturers will take on the build part so they don’t have to seek funding for working capital”

Hardware’s next wave

For investors, this makes funding hardware startups easier for investors. “It’s still not easy though,” Forrest warns. “It’s become harder for hardware startups to raise new rounds, so they have to watch their burn.”

While at the moment a lot of the focus is on wearables and the IoT, Forrest sees the Federal Drug Administration’s new rules on medical accessories changing the sort of devices being pitched to the program.  “I now think we’re moving into a new field where the devices will have an effect on the body. The FDA’s new rules around making it easier to make things around FDA approved devices will open that.”

He’ll find out soon what the next big thing is in hardware startups as applications for Highway One’s May 2016 round of participants is now open.

Eric Schmidt on managing Google

In an interview with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Google chairman Eric Schmidt describes how he managed the company’s high growth.

“In all my issues at Google, I knew I had no idea what to do, but I knew that I had the best team ever assembled to figure out what to do,” says Google – and now Alphabet – chairman Eric Schmidt in an interview with LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.

Schmidt’s interview is a great insight into managing fast growth companies,”almost all small companies are full of energy and no process”. While he reflects on his early days at stricken companies like Sun (“tumultuous and political”) and Novell (“the books were cooked, and people were frauds”).

Moving to Google he found all of his management skills exercised at a company with a unique culture and rapidly growing headcount.

One notable anecdote is how Larry Page kept a 100k cheque from an early investor in his pocket for a month before cashing it.

Compare and contrast that attitude with the current startup mania where by the end of that day a media release would be issued proclaiming the company to be a new unicorn on that valuation.

Schmidt’s view, like many others, is that the real key to success in the company is the people. This echoes the interview with Meltwater’s CEO earlier this week where Jørn Lyseggen described how the key to starting a venture in a new country was the first five people hired.

One great takeaway Schmidt has from his time at Google is how great companies are created through the Minimal Viable Product method, “the way you build great products is small teams with strong leaders who make tradeoffs and work all night to build a product that just barely works.Look at the iPod. Look at the iPhone. No apps. But now it’s 70% of the revenue of the world’s most valuable company.”

Ultimately though Schmidt’s advice is to make decisions quickly, “do things sooner and make fewer mistakes. The question is, what causes me not to make those decisions quickly.”

“Some people are quicker than others, and it’s not clear which actually need to be answered quickly. Hindsight is always that you make the important decisions more quickly.”

Building the world’s biggest small software company

Blown away by the internet, Meltwater founder Jørn Lyseggen planned to build the world’s smallest software company. Fate had different plans

“The next day I quit my job. I remember walking home that night and thinking I felt incredibly privileged to be living right at this point and I was going to see how the internet would unfold.”

Jørn Lyseggen, the founder and CEO of media monitoring service Meltwater, was describing his first encounter with Netscape 2.0 in 1995 while working on artificial intelligence at the Norwegian Computer Centre.

Today, Meltwater has 1,100 employees in 41 cities across 21 counties and Jørn spoke to Decoding the New Economy in the company’s San Francisco head office last week.

Having quit his job as a researcher, Jørn became what he describes as ‘an Internet evangelist’ in the early days of the Norwegian web and founded a series of online businesses including Norway’s first web mall.

The fourth business Jørn set up was Meltwater which they originally operated out of a shed in a disused shipyard, Shack 15. “We got free office space from one of my former clients,” he recalls. The old customer also gave them 25 old computers which they patched together to become the company’s first server farm.

Building the world’s smallest software company

“Our aspiration originally was to create the world’s smallest software company,” recalls Jørn. “We wanted to be four engineers creating the most sophisticated technology in our industry then we would sign up resellers then sit back and watch our revenue go through the roof.”

At the time media monitoring was largely made up of clipping services that would hire armies of contractor to physically cut and paste newspaper articles.

“What we wanted to do was build software that could keep track of everything that was published online,” Jørn explains. “When news started to come onto the internet then you could start to analysie it automatically. We thought there would be a better way to do this with algorithms and software.”

The best laid plans

It turned out however the plans to have a small software company didn’t work out. “We poured our heart into our technology for the first year and then we got really excited when we signed up two really respected resellers in the Norwegian market.

“They presented to 1500 companies, which is a really big number in Norway, and the results were devastating with 1499 ‘no’s and one maybe.”

For Meltwater’s founders it was a time for re-evaluating the idea. “That was a pivotal point in the company as we had to ask ‘is this a business?’. What we realised was that we were too focused on the technology and what clients are really worried about at the end of the day are the pain points.”

“Once we did that switch we started to get business and then we grew very quickly so instead of being the smallest software company in the world we set out to become the biggest in our industry.”

Going global

From there the spread across Northern Europe and the UK, “every time you start up in a new country it’s like starting a new company.” Jørn ruminates. Strangely it was Germany that proved to be the most difficult to break into. “It’s counterintuitive, you’d think the shared culture would make it easy for a Norwegian company. It wasn’t.”

The big move though was the United States, on the basis that any company with global aspirations has to be in the world’s biggest market. “Norway is a small country, we used to joke there are bus stops in New York with a bigger population than Norway.”

Jørn was surprised to find the US was an easy market to break into than the United Kingdom or Germany, “I love their open mindedness and the welcoming factor of the US culture,” he smiles.

“They are very open minded in the US, it’s a strength in their culture. In the US if you present something interesting to them they’ll accept it. The flip side is if they are open minded to you then they’ll be open minded to your competitors.”

Hiring as a key factor

Choosing the right people is the key to business success Jørn believes, with local hires being essential when expanding into foreign markets, “You need some local credibility.”

More importantly though is the importance of getting the right people early in the life of a startup business, “It’s all about culture.” He states, “make the first five to ten people the base for your platform.”

Having the right people also made it easier for his management team to delegate as executives focused on the international expansion. “We’ve got really smart young people working here, they don’t miss me when I’m not around,” he smiles.

Romanticising startups

“Back in the day it was considered you started a company because you couldn’t get a job,” Jørn laughs. “I’m the first to encourage entrepreneurship but it worries me when it becomes trendy.”

“It’s important that entrepreneurship doesn’t become too romanticised. Because it’s really hard work and most startups fail and most people have to work for years while barely getting by financially and it’s high stress”

“I never saw myself as a business person,” Jørn remembers. “I had a healthy scepticism to the commercial world, that’s why I became a research scientist because I thought it was a better use of my time.”

Becoming an entrepreneur

However the revelation of Netscape 2.0 changed all that, “it really blew my mind,” he grins as he recalls how he decided “the best way to be part of this was to be in my own business.”

Building your own business though is not an easy process and there’s tough decisions to be made. Jørn though believes that the hardest times running your own business are not when cash is tight but when the tough decisions have to be made, “sometimes you have to make calles that are challenging.”

For Jørn, he only sees more exciting times ahead as the internet evolves, “social is still in its early stage. A lot of companies struggle and worry that they haven’t figured it out, but the truth is most people haven’t figured it out.”

Paul travelled to San Francisco as a guest of Oracle

 

 

Nine billion opportunities for fraud

The current wave of billion dollar unicorn tech companies makes a startup investment fraud almost inevitable

Everything is not all it seems at Theranos, the medical testing startup estimated to be worth  nine billion dollars reports the Wall Street Journal.

If true, the allegations Theranos is using conventional technology to run its diagnostic tests mean most of the investment community and tech media have been sucked into an elaborate con.

While it’s too early to say whether the allegations about Theranos are true, with so many multi billion dollar ‘unicorns’ running around it’s inevitable somebody will try such a scam.

Indeed, it’s in the interests of many to promote such a unicorn and for those early into the company it could be immensely profitable.

Even if Theranos turns out to be for real, there will be those that won’t be.

Xero and the US cloud accounting challenge

Xero starts its serious push into the US cloud accounting market

Last month I wrote a piece for Business Spectator on how competition in the Australian cloud accounting market was hotting up with the re-entry of Intuit and Sage.

One of the divides between vendors was whether online accounting services scale globally with one group – including MYOB and Reckon – saying that deploying services in different jurisdictions added complexity while others believed a global product was necessary to achieve scale.

The most obvious member of the global scale camp was Xero, the company that has pioneered the growth of cloud accounting software. Two years ago we interviewed the company’s founder Rod Drury about his ambitions for the company and the direction of the cloud accounting market.

For Xero though, growing globally isn’t easy. While its most successful market has been in Australia, that country has many similarities with Xero’s native New Zealand and the company has found the UK and US markets tougher.

Renewing Xero’s US push

To deal with a much bigger and diverse market, the company appointed Russ Fujioka, a veteran of Dell, Abode and the various venture capital companies, to lead its revamped operations in the United States and Decoding the New Economy caught up with Russ recently at Xero’s San Francisco office.

For Fujioka, the key to growth in the United States market is the small business sector with the US recording nearly half a million new business registrations across the nation each year.

“You see the M in ‘SMB’? We don’t want to be playing to that market,” says Fujioka in emphasising the Xero’s focus on the small business sector.

Fujioka also sees opportunity in what he calls the ‘pre-accounting’ sector, the roughly 18 million self employed contractors and freelancers who don’t need a full fledged accounting service but need access to basic bookkeeping, invoicing and expense tracking.

Dealing with diversity

While the 28 million US small businesses represent a huge opportunity to Xero, the market also presents challenges with, unlike the New Zealand, Australian and UK markets, hundreds of banks and thousands of different state and local tax regimes.

To deal with the complexity of local tax and employment rules, Xero announced a partnership with Avalara to provide the data feeds for calculating sales taxes and payroll obligations, something that is essential to Xero’s business plans, “payroll is fundamental to our offerings.” Fujioka says.

Also fundamental are accountants and book-keepers where co-opting them as sellers of the service has been part of Xero’s success in Australia and New Zealand with Fujioka seeing a fifty-fifty split between those businesses signing up directly and those going through advisers.

The changing accounting industry

Like the rest of the world, the accounting profession is going through major changes as much of the transactional work becomes automated, Fujioka sees this as an opportunity for companies like Xero to add value to the industry and help individual firms become more akin to system integrators and technology advisers to their clients.

The ultimate aim for Fujioka is to make Xero the site, or app, that every small business starts and ends their day with, “we really want to be that single pane of glass for small business – you start your day with us, you end your day with us and during the day you check your status on your Apple Watch.”

For Xero, the key to global success is cracking the US market. The challenge for them is to capture a new generation of business owners and accountants.

Paul travelled to San Francisco as a guest of Salesforce and Splunk

Marc Benioff’s five key business questions

There are five key questions every business leader has to answer for their venture to be successful says Salesforce founder Marc Benioff

Probably the best regular session of the annual Dreamforce conference is the final session where Salesforce founders Marc Benioff and Parker Harris answer questions from the attendees.

As with any open microphone session, some of the questions are silly but many highlight frustrations Salesforce’s customers have and some give the opportunity for an insight into Parker and Benioff’s thoughts away from the scripted glitz of the main keynotes.

One questioner asked Benioff and Parker what their advice would be to someone in their position of 16 years ago with a new business.

Forget the tech

“Don’t think about the tools or the technology,” said Harris. “Thing about the problems you can solve. Stay focused and work hard and build a great company.”

While Parker also emphasised a great team is another important element, Benioff flagged an element of luck in building a successful business, “we got the timing right.”

Ultimately though it came down to making the jump from a comfortable, if frustrating, corporate job to a risky startup.

“I remember I was working in a big company for a long time, very unhappy.” Benioff recalled and noted the decision to strike out on your own is very much a personal decision, that can only be done when you are convinced it is time.

The five questions of business

Knowing when that time has arrived comes down to five questions, Benioff believes.

“It all starts with you, you have to get clear about what is it that you really want, what is really important to you, how are you going to get it, how will you know when you’ve got it and what is preventing you from having it.”

“When you can answer all those five questions you’ll have clarity in your direction. The problem with most small businesses – and big businesses – is they can’t answer those questions.”

“If you can answer those questions then you can break out.”

Ultimately Benioff and Parker flag focus as the key individual attribute and being able to focus on answering those five questions is a very good first step to having a successful business.

Slaying the internet’s goliaths

A big competitor entering your market doesn’t mean your business is doomed

Techmeme has long been one of the most useful sites for technology news and this week it celebrates its tenth year.

For those, like me, who write every day on tech issues the site has been a godsend. Many a time with the end of the day approaching Techmeme has pointed me an article that has got the creative juices flowing.

Gabe Rivera, the site’s founder and CEO, tells of the lessons learned over the past decade with a repeated theme of ‘Techmeme killers’ regularly coming along.

Prominent among them was Google’s relaunch of its Blogsearch product which was billed as a ‘Techmeme killer’. Like so many of Google’s products, Blogsearch was quietly retired two years ago while Techmeme is still around.

Techmeme’s success in the face of an attempt by Google to take over their market isn’t surprising, marketing guru Seth Godin described how his startup, Knol, survived an onslaught from the giant company in 2013.

Despite Google’s cash and market strength, execution matters and often larger companies lack the committed evangelists that give the smaller businesses their energy.

Both Techmeme and Knol show that no company is guaranteed success, despite its resources or power.