TVC Points-of-view

cooliris is cool

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-12-01T15:35:09-08:00

I recently ran into a great new application called cooliris (funded by Kleiner Perkins) from a similar named company in Palo Alto. But much more than just a cool application cooliris is the pre-cursor to a new way of accessing the internet, if the company plays its cards right.

I ran into cooliris when it first launched because of its initial focus on photography, and since then the company continued to dramatically improve its scope and has quickly become an appealing application to get news presented visually.

Stronger put, I predict that in 5 years from now the browser (like Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer) will not be the predominant way we access the internet. But that perhaps is an easy prediction. The majority of applications on an iPhone already use non-browser access (Facebook, Plaxo, eBay etc) and so do a few others on the PC (such as iTunes).

The browser is a very technological way of accessing data on the Internet, with poor navigational attributes. The URL language is certainly not one everyone understands and that relegates the dependency on search, which is still the primary way to navigate the Internet. And as the internet continues to grow in size, search will yield ever diminishing navigational success.

Clearly more companies are looking to improve Internet navigation. AT&T’s new Pogo browser, Google Chrome and enhancements to Firefox are an indication of the awareness of the pain. We will see more examples of improved navigational capabilities, some of which I can’t divulge at this point. But until then - enjoy cooliris.

Trust is the currency of success

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-11-20T12:41:36-08:00

As any economist will tell you, a dollar bill is not worth a dollar. And so the real value of that paper bill is defined by the trust we put in it. The trust that you will receive a certain (yet fluctuating; some days a dollar is worth more than others) amount of goods and services in exchange. Simple right?

So given that, trust is the most important denomination in determining the value of a product or a service. And trust builds from consistent delivery on stated promises, which - in turn - requires the unwavering commitment from people with integrity and honesty....do you feel the slide coming?

So:
1/ Why do many companies make promises they don’t keep?
I evaluate a lot of technology companies (about 60 this year alone, public and private) and most are simply lying about, or overstating (decibel marketing) the benefits of their proposition. Because the majority of potential customers and investors are ill-informed about the pros and cons of this specialized industry, technology companies can often get away with sneaky monetization strategies that take advantage of a lesser informed audience.

In Silicon Valley, “success” is often defined by how skilled you are in fooling customers and sucking up to aristocratic investors (to which few have access), rather than the authenticity of your proposition. A mediocre ecosystem is what still remains after the technology bust from 2001 in which self proclaimed “serial entrepreneurs” and investors have been able to dodge real value creation and sell out short.

Not the VC model is broken, but many of the participants are. That noise is severely eroding the trust in an inherently sound technology industry. We need to enforce more transparency and hold ourselves to higher standards to restore the integrity and trust.

2/ Why do we allow short-selling on public company stock?
First, the performance of public stock says nothing about the actual value or outlook of a company, in the same way the dollar offers no guarantee of what you get for it. Public stocks are already a lousy interpretation of the actual performance of a company, as it merely echos popular opinion (and not the company facts).

So, selling short is really a bet on performance of popular opinion and does nothing but undermine the trust in the longevity of a business and cannibalizes shareholder value. Quarterly earnings reports are an absolute joke as many companies move profits around, claim leadership in a market that is defined by themselves and reduce cost rather than improve their marketplace position in order to make quarterly earnings look good. They also force healthy companies to focus on often unpredictable economic aberrations rather than on their long term and macro-economic leadership position.

The ability to sell short creates unrest and undue fear in a system that requires the opposite. Can you imagine holding the president of the United States accountable on a quarterly basis? That would be bad for our country (in most cases).

We should implement a predetermined holding period for the sale of stock, the expiration determined by the company and regulated by the SEC (which can also prevent some nasty insider trader deals) to build back trust.

3/ Why are some allowed to resell securities?
Reselling securities (which was illegal a few years back) based on finagled credit scores are perhaps the double whammy in the erosion of trust in public companies. Company credit scores that are maintained (and marketed) by commercial companies create profit driven scores and unrealistic prices (up and down) for securities. We simply need to stop the resale of securities and regulate the process of maintaining credit scores (both business and personal) vigorously and immediately.

Regulations do not turn us into a socialistic society, but the reality is that no economy operates without rules to protect trust. Free-markets require a basic set of rules to prevent a few bad apples to create insurmountable fear for the rest of us.

For the technologists amongst us: eBay deploys no less than seven dedicated servers to detect suspicious transactions that could challenge the trust in its free-market model.

In the same way we deploy rigid traffic laws to drive a car, should we deploy rules of engagement to protect our economic serenity. As long as we don’t dictate the destination of our travels or where we place our individual economic bets, we should be just fine in our support of a blossoming capitalistic society.

Trust comes from transparency, integrity and authenticity that builds real value, not from taking advantage of the ill-informed. So, building a successful company does not start with a new product strategy but with a leader who has the drive to win that is larger than his greed. Building disruptive products that truly improve people’s lives will yield personal satisfaction and trust that will keep customers coming back for more.

Trust is the only currency that matters, so stop squandering it.

Educating pictures

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-11-09T17:29:00-08:00

I was flattered last week by a visit from Rick Smolan, the creator of some very creative photo-projects, such as From Alice to Ocean, America 24/7, Blue Planet Run and his latest America At Home. Since the early 90s, From Alice to Ocean stuck with me when it was first introduced and distributed with Apple computers and the clever use of multimedia capabilities built into the Mac early on. But the great thing about these projects is not just the stunning imagery but rather what they evoke. Again, the value of photography is in the eye of the beholder.

Rick approaches photography in the same way I look at business; by simply surfacing the facts. So much in our lives is influenced by mountains of politics and rhetoric that reduce the chance of quick resolution and success. How do you think we can ensure a vibrant global economy and peace if 1.1 Billion people - 1 in every 6 - worldwide have no access to clean water. The book Blue Planet Run displays that with chilling accuracy.

But Rick Smolans projects shed light on reality, good and bad. America at Home is a compelling compilation of how American families live at home, rich and poor, photographed by the families themselves and complemented by photographs from professional photographers. The pictures and their captions are so inspiring that a country decided to buy more than 200,000 books to educate their children on who Americans really are. Transparency works both ways.

I would like to see Rick do a book of “The World at Home”, so I can continue to sit down with my daughter and give her a peek into the living rooms across the world.

Our welfare greatly depends on our ability to become a citizen of this world. To achieve that every school should at least purchase one of Ricks books so our children receive an objective view of the opportunities and problems in our global eco-system and thrive.

Update: For readers of my blog, Rick has graciously offered a discount of $10 off his book America At Home, which you can customize with your own image on the cover. Just enter the code GEORGES at checkout.

Markets don't exist

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-28T14:37:46-07:00

With that title I just pulled the pacifier out of the mouths of many marketers...and many of them will start crying.

But smart business people know better. Compartmentalization is very fundamental human behavior, in our personal life and business. In business the definition of “The Market” is the currency that aims to provide quick answers to everyday questions. The problem with market categorizations is that they are often incorrect, irrelevant, stale and frankly, the antagonist of innovation.

Here is why:

1/ People buy products, markets don’t.
No matter what the scenario, in the end people (not businesses) make purchasing decisions. And since people are unique, so are their complex reasons to buy. A unique mix of psychographics and demographics aided by free-market access to the Internet further emphasizes the power of “You” over the power of “The Market”.

2/ Markets are bad type-castings.
Customer surveys show that the compelling-reasons-to-buy rarely match up with the predetermined definition of “The Market”. And since many purchasing decisions rely on factors unrelated to the product (such as budgets, approvals, personal relationships, operational planning, risk mitigation etc.) a prospect qualification or disqualification within that market means absolutely nothing.

3/ Market definitions are bad currencies.
Since there are no rules for defining markets and everyone gets to dream up their own, the value of that market definition is meaningless. Imagine the value of the dollar if everyone gets to define how much it is worth and print theirs at home. Market segmentation and negotiations on market positions with analysts further deflate the significance and trust in traditional market definitions.

4/ Time changes everything (but markets).
Market definitions (in technology) change slowly yet products that attract new buyers change quickly. That means the definition of “The Market” (to which much decision-making is attached) is always far behind the adoption rate of new products and therefor far behind the identification of a new set of buyers. The minute “The Market” is defined, it has become irrelevant and ripe for disruption.

So, where does that leave marketing? Is marketing dead?

No, but it is time for technology marketers to grow up. The pacifier is being replaced by something else. Something more substantial and meaningful. Food becomes the new pacifier and customers will be feeding it to you.

1/ Listen before you speak.
Literally. Forget about what you as the marketer think of the product, early-adopter purchasing decisions are much more valuable in determining how the product is perceived and received. The credibility of new customers counts, more so than the ability of a marketer to spin a story. Spend time with your VP of Sales, in online forums, setup a Google Alert and figure out how to market customer perception.

2/ Manage the promise.
Crucial to the impact of marketing is the credibility of the company promise. Marketing, and specifically Product Marketing is vital in establishing that the promise is fulfilled to the satisfaction of the customer. A few bad words from customers on the internet can cost the company millions of dollars to repair, if it can recover from it at all. So, it is important that the promise to customers does not consist of blatant lies, leads to frustration or bleeds hundreds of support calls. Manage the critical success factors of your promise.

3/ Enable the dialog.
Orchestrate the interaction between customers and prospects and be sure to listen in. They will give you the marketing messages that truly resonate - on a silver platter.

4/ Manage the conversion rate.
Getting crowds to listen or visit the company website is rather simple, getting them to buy the product is more difficult. The company is only measured on the latter and since marketing is usually the scape goat and the first to be questioned when results are down, implementing a mechanism that detects, manages and reports on conversion rates yields invaluable metrics for improvement.

As long as there is macro-economic benefit to using your product, marketing is a very straightforward process. It requires a new class of people that are not afraid to throw the old-class of market definitions overboard and focus on the extrapolation of existing sales success, by simply listening for and consistently reverberating an honest and effective marketing message.

As Don Draper, the biggest ad man at the Sterling Cooper Advertising Agency of the TV series Mad Men explains; I don’t tell stories - I sell product.

Demise of image Super-Stores continues

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-24T11:35:29-07:00

Jupiter-Images finally sold to Getty-Images after a similar attempt in February of 2007. With estimated revenues of around $79M (when last tracked) and con-jointed debt of $95M with other Jupiter Media properties, Jupiter-Images sold to Getty-Images for only $96M in cash. Sounds like a fire-sale to me.

Imaging super stores make no economic sense, as described in this blog before.

1/ Images are like art. Taking preferences of buyer and seller into account, they preferably sell only once (or as few times as possible). No buyer wants that image to appear in similar publications and so every transaction is unique. Super-stores, however, are modeled to provide one-to-many sales transactions and are therefor NOT suited to support the image exchange marketplace.

2/ Except when images are produced on a commissioned photography basis (for example by Getty-Images staff photographers), the image super store actually does not own the image, it merely has a right to operate as a reseller. Nothing would stop a photographer from trading his images somewhere else, dramatically deflating the value of the super-store.

Fact remains that $22B of images are exchanged every year, most of it (90%) not through online transactions or the sum of all super-stores. This represents a big opportunity not many Venture Capitalists understand, as it is a market-play rather than a pure technology-play. But established companies may be able to build an iTunes of images to feed their ecosystem of products.

In the meantime, Getty-Images (now private again) keeps on puffing itself up like a puffer-fish. The question is: how long will it be able to hold its breath.

Digital Railroad in trouble?

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-20T16:00:31-07:00

Apparently Digital Railroad, another storage provider of the digital photography market is in trouble. No surprise again, because the company never supported a free-market model for photographers and buyers. We blogged about that topic many times, and recently Dan Heller adds to that fundamental thinking (even though I remain in disagreement with the artificial classification of stock photography).

Since its founding, Digital Railroad primarily supported supply-side photographic capabilities, which if not seamlessly connected to the buy-side provides really nothing more than storage space and website make-up for photographers. A nice service, but similar services from Smugmug or Photobucket already exist to do just that. All these technologies fail to solve the most pressing issue for every commercial photographer: sell, sell, sell.

Photographers are not empowered by a storage service or nice looking web pages, they are empowered when they sell. Photography is an expensive job and if it does not yield $70,000 in yearly revenues (based on 2006 PDA numbers), you will not be able to make a living from it. We have yet to find a true marketplace that connects any seller with any buyer, using free-market principles that truly empowers photographers.

Free-markets are more than a fashion statement or a label you suddenly slap on the website. The implications of free-market principles (as listed in this blog) change a company, its execution and its funding strategy to the core. The devil is in the detail.

Digital Railroad’s and Photoshelter’s demise are examples of why investing in technology, without macro-economic impact - no longer works. The 150-year old photography marketplace, with the introduction of digital photography and the internet, has moved from a premium market model (with many walled gardens) to a free-market model.

Akin to Ratatouille (the movie), where a five-star chef, Anton Gusteau, declares that “Anyone Can Cook”, the photography market and its technology providers need to get used to the fact that in this new age, “rats” will take and purchase great photographs ($22B of them).

The irate response to my recent blog about Photoshelter from a Vice President of the American Society of Media Photographers reminded me of the angry cook in Ratatouille that hires Linguini, a clumsy youth hired as a garbage boy, who can still not accept that great taste in food is like the beauty of photography - in the eye of the buyer.

We should embrace all photography that move people to buy, regardless of who shot it and build a real marketplace to facilitate that exchange.

Building efficiencies - continued

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-16T12:34:03-07:00

I received a lot of feedback and questions on my previous blog posting named Building efficiencies in tough times and the embedded presentation posted there. The danger of attaching a presentation is, that as a reader you may miss the rational that built the words.

Because of that I want to explain my sometimes condensed thinking a little further.

It may have appeared that I only care about the product, but nothing is farther from the truth. The diagram on the left of the chart is what I see a lot in technology companies, early and late stage - across the board. The diagram on the right is what I tried to convey with the words in my presentation. Let me clarify:

Many companies develop incremental innovation (to leapfrog their competitors) without a diligent (re-)assessment of the opportunity to change the battle field. Not surprisingly. Real disruptive innovation requires a certain amount of vision, faith and a compass combined with larger commitments and investments, all seemingly based on untested values.

The path of least resistance therefor is to start with an incremental product and throw inordinate amounts of marketing & sales at it, in order to push it beyond its competitors into the marketplace. That is a highly inefficient model (in any economy). But it is a model to which many companies are forced to comply because of risk adverse management and the stale investment criteria deployed by many Venture Capitalists (VCs).

So, it is somewhat ironic that the VCs are now telling their startups to be more efficient, right after they were pushed through the VC wringer of startup-commoditization.

I believe the market for cheap (bootstrap-to-market) technology companies, that yield a large early exit is gone. That model only worked in a bull market of technology (from the 90s that has not dissipated) and the investors that still cling to that model will get punished for it. The new opportunities are for companies that build real macro-economic value.

The starting point of the next wave of innovation, in my view, is to feed a macro-economic need, as depicted in the diagram on the right. That macro-economic need is directly attached to the way we behave as humans (which is relatively predictable). It is our need to express ourselves, live the life we want and be in control (rather than technology controlling us). Think free-market principles, think social, think benefits, think fundamentals.

The fundamental shift in thinking that needs to occur in Silicon Valley, is to develop technology with a fresh mind, looking from the outside in, and serve a larger, less specialized, constituent.

Apple comes to mind as a company that often completely ignores the current state of the technology industry and connects better to basic human needs than any other technology company. But Apple can improve/be beat at the macro level, but I digress.

We simply need to support human behavior with technology.

With “free” distribution of information through the Internet, psychographics - not demographics - matter. Four-hundred year old free-market principles, The Long Tail, and marketplaces like eBay prove that the traditional rules of marketing do no longer apply. In my thirty years in technology I have never met anyone who truly understands markets. And market definitions have changed, they comprise no longer of buyers that fit an artificial model (I cringe when I hear people debate for hours how many users delineates the SMB segment), but because they subscribe to the pain or gain from which subsequently, marketers can extrapolate a larger pool. Bottom-up.

We do not all need to be economists to create the next successful technology company, the material is all around us. All it takes is a healthy interest in the actual behavior of human beings, compare their offline and online behavior and fill in the gaps. So, stop supporting companies that just build nifty technologies, but focus on companies that create larger macro-economic differentiation. More impact to everyday people.

No company will be more efficient by simply cutting cost (as suggested by the recent doom-and-gloom VC messages), it will just take longer to die. The real efficiency comes from a more disruptive value that attaches more people to better technology. On top of that, macro-economic value is very resistant to economic downturns.

Building efficiencies in tough times

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-14T10:13:43-07:00

With the Venture Capital high society dropping doom and gloom economic messages onto the CEOs of their portfolio companies, I wanted to help out and at least do my part to deliver some more operational substance.

Great companies and their resilience is defined by the quality of their products.

Great products make up for an endless amount of sales and marketing deficiencies, but in most cases sales and marketing spend too much time making up for lost product opportunity and becomes an endless money drain. Product definition (from a buyer’s perspective) and quality are the most important drivers for consistent business success, as Larry Ellison and Steve Jobs (both product gurus) have proven time and time again.

But when money is plentiful, yet guarded by aggressive milestones we tend to throw products over the fence early and have sales, marketing and support compensate tirelessly for its in-market deficiencies. Both startups and established companies (trust me, I’ve seen a few) make those same fundamental mistakes. The results are slow sales traction, excessive marketing expenses and runaway support costs. Not things any company can afford these days.

This morning I put together a presentation (in pdf, named TVC_building_efficiencies) that identifies some of the deficiency symptoms, emphasizes the benefits of great products to the cost model, and pulls together new ways to build amazing new products. Thus creating a more resilient company, no matter what the economic conditions.

So, to directly affect company efficiency, keep a close eye on the definition and implementation of the product, its macro-economic impact and how it grows and where it bleeds. Or simply contact us if you need some help.

Update: more on building efficiencies.

Why I don't get green VC

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-08T12:24:42-07:00

I understand the need for a greener environment (and enjoyed the fantastic video presentation from Google CEO Eric Schmidt at Corporate EcoForum), creating more renewable energy and perhaps making us less dependent on foreign countries.

That promise sounds good, albeit I think it will just redefine what we as countries fight about. Today it is oil, tomorrow it is probably about green technology and resources. In the near future, green technology will also find its core competencies and attractive pricing in countries other than just ours. Yet if we don’t learn how to resolve our differences and respect each others cultures, the subject of our debates is irrelevant. New leadership is key, so go out and vote.

But the part I don’t get is why many investors, like Kleiner Perkins, “flee” from information technology at the shimmer of rising oil prices, financial instability and tax incentives and dive head first into a completely new, and may I add completely different line of business. A line of business that often has more similarities to farming (with all of its intrinsic risk factors) than effortlessly moving bits through thin air.

The reason why information technology remains an interesting investment category to me is:
1/ The innovation of information technology is cheap, a few smart people in a room behind a computer and voila, a new star is born.
2/ The distribution of technology is cheap and immediate, there are virtually no borders (except to China perhaps).
3/ The monetization of technology is well understood, and is either direct or indirect but almost always single source.
4/ The enormous left-over possibilities of information technology that has yet to percolate many other industries.

Contrast that with green technology where I see:
1/ The massive costs associated with early foundational development.
2/ The costly implementation and distribution that requires safety, governmental, social approval processes (literally lasting years).
3/ In most cases the requirement of multi-source monetization, involving grants and many regulatory constructs (requiring a longer sales cycle).
4/ A limited time-to-market benefit for early adopters and therefor lack of urgency to buy. The adoption of green technology is generally believed to lengthen the time-to-market, aiming to produce a return on investment spread out over many years.

Again, I do see an enormous need for green technology to save our planet and a justification for investments supporting it. I am just not confident that the current Venture Capital model (born out of the technology era, and driven by information technologists) will lend itself to that segment. I am very curious to see what vintages will produce viable returns for the Limited Partners in the green-tech funds.

I hope I am wrong, as carefully applied Venture Capital has the potential to change industries, countries and the people in them.

In the meantime I’ll stick to my core competency, creating and managing growth of innovative information technology companies.

Photoshop CS4 finally innovates

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-10-03T15:37:55-07:00

I still edit all my photographs (thousands) in LightZone, and have always vehemently made statements against Adobe Photoshop. Not because of the lack of photographic capabilities but primarily because of the proprietary language it forces you to understand before you can use Photoshop effectively.

Photoshop remains the “vi”- editor of photo editing, powerful yet very cumbersome to use. No secretary uses “vi” today, and the future of Photoshop is moving further and further away from the mass market Adobe should be trying to attract. Nothing new there.

But Photoshop CS4, after a long track record of rather meaningless innovation and UI revamps now includes some very nifty innovations worth looking at, as the videos demonstrate. Content aware scaling (from a company Adobe acquired last year), panoramas and the new 3D capabilities are very cool. So, if you’re interested in rudimentary 3D capabilities before you jump into Maya, check out Adobe’s website where the nifty new capabilities of Adobe’s Photoshop Extended are available for roughly $1,000. But, perhaps this time around, the premium price is worth it.

Credit where credit is due.

The odd face of Facebook

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-09-17T11:17:25-07:00

Facebook, one of the fastest growing social network sites has really screwed up User Interface (UI) design with its new look. Take a look at the screen capture above. Now you tell me in 5 seconds the intuitive difference between clicking on: [Facebook] and [home], [home] and [profile], [profile] and [Georges van Hoegaerden], [settings] and [profile], and [settings] and [Georges van Hoegaerden].

But more importantly, Facebook has clearly not read my blog on removing the technology language to appeal to consumers, an issue that prevents many consumer technology companies from maximizing their growth potential. But who’s counting at Facebook these days?

Facebook is a technology company that exposes social networking capabilities in a very technological fashion. The examples are plenty: the workings of the UI described above, the categorization of data optimized to suit their internal data-models and the very complicated way to add applications to the platform, and we can keep going on. But for now, they’ll get away with it. Other consumer technology companies won’t be that lucky.

A great user interface can never be an objective by itself as that just presents a pretty face, try living with a person that only has that. The ultimate user experience (and this is where I politically depart from the previous analogy), is defined by an ecosystem of capabilities, cost and ease-of-use that creates the real and sustainable appeal.

BMW figured out early on that the Ultimate Driving Experience™ is what sells cars albeit their engine capabilities and timing was their initial core strengths. Today they sell the sum of all parts, The Ultimate Driving experience: great engine capabilities, spiffy performance, practical design and excellent comfort - a thrilling way to drive from A to B.

Facebook currently has a horrible “Ultimate Social Experience”: good (but no longer unique) social networking, so-so performance, impractical design and pretty bad comfort. Those are probably the reasons why 90% of my Facebook friends never use any Facebook features but simply create an account.

Many of Facebook’s recent poor decisions (including ad network issues etc) are evidence that user growth is outpacing their ability to grow up. And that could be catastrophic. Facebook is a great social networking platform with a lot of potential that many people rely on.

Facebook better watch out and prevent that too many people will start hating it. Those same users may use Facebooks own social networking capability to turn it off as fast as they initially turned it on.

Photoshelter, another one bites the dust

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-09-13T11:04:11-07:00

Two days ago we got word about the demise of the Photoshelter collection marketplace. Not surprising because Photoshelter was not a marketplace. Technologists have a tendency to slap the marketplace label on anything they build, without understanding what it truly means.

Marketplace models, criteria, funding and execution are fundamentally different from premium market models. Photoshelter was really nothing more than a replica of Getty Images without Getty’s money to buy inorganic growth.

Here is how Photoshelter failed to meet marketplace rules:

Marketplace violation 1: Photoshelter artificially arbitrated supply, through a lengthy subjective signup process in which Photoshelter arbitrators determine whether you get to play.

Marketplace violation 2: Photoshelter artificially arbitrated demand, as it aimed to sell it to “the industry’s top buyers”, not to everyone.

Marketplace violation 3: Photoshelter gave preference to images they liked, rather than simply connecting any supply with any demand.

Marketplace violation 4: Photoshelter deployed a sales-force (from Getty and other photo agencies) that promoted a premium market model, like any sales-force driven by quotas would.

But CEO Allen Murabayashi makes a few damaging statements in his blog on why they failed and tries to blame that on the market as a whole:

“Licensing photography is fraught with clearance issues”
150 Years of photography exchange has resolved the fundamental issues of rights management quite effectively. Getty-Images, Corbis and others have gone through a well defined process in order to clear rights in their move from analog to digital exchange. Photoshelter has relied too much on a model that requires people intervention, while the majority of rights and enforcement can be embedded in and enforced by technology and made the responsibility of the asset owner. In the same way eBay sellers are responsible for the fulfillment of transactions. That enforcement guarded by a true meritocracy will quickly weed out bad behavior (that plagues any marketplace).

“Stock photography is a slow growing market dominated by a single player”
Nonsense, the term stock photography is an artificial classification (made up by its current participants) that bares no value. Today $22B of photography is exchanged of which less than 10% is transacted electronically. Growth through the premium market model of Photoshelter is limited because the photography market requires a free-market.

“Research Requests move too quickly for individuals to react in a timely fashion”
Perhaps they do in the “top buyer” segment, but certainly not in all. Since Photoshelter artificially limited the demand characteristics, any assessment of market traction and behavior should be taken with a grain of salt.

“Buyers desire more diversity, but convenience (aka subscription deals) triumphs this desire”
Absolutely, buyers deserve diversity, and buyers should be presented with the ultimate experience (subscriptions are not the answer). What has fundamentally changed in a 150 year old analog photography market is that demand does not come from a few buyers, but a highly fragmented buyer market that will want to use an image for any purpose (not just for your average advertising purposes).

“A crowd-source model for stock will likely never work”
Absolutely disagree. Photoshelter deployed a premium market model on a market that requires free-market principles. It failed for the same reason Getty Images fails to become a market-leader in the un-arbitrated exchange of digital photography (identified by roughly 30% market ownership). Getty Images grew by inorganic growth and acquiring other photo agencies with staff photographers that create the majority of images it sells (less than 7% come out of third party supply according to a statement by its CEO in 2006).

Photoshelter, as lovers of photography, seemed to have their hearts in the right place but not their execution. And they neglected to respond to our offer for help one year ago, when we saw their demise coming.

The Google argument.

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-08-07T08:25:03-07:00

From time-to-time I hear from investors: what if Google decides to build it?

My replies are as follows:

1/ Google is the king of web-based advertising derived from search, and it does so extremely well and profitably. Yet Google is a pretty monolithic animal. While the company is capable of building virtually any technology outside of its core competency and brings a bright sparkle of innovation to Silicon Valley, it is consistently unsuccessful in turning that innovation into great Billion dollar businesses (which reminds me of Oracle, before Chuck Phillips came on board).

2/ Google is not a true marketplace, nor does it seem to understand free-market principles as witnessed by their actions. Google is a premium market for search-based advertising placements and it will continue to drive premium market DNA to the adoption of technology. Nothing wrong with that, unless they portray a more liberal character. So, you’ve got little to fear if a free-market platform is what you are building.

3/ Google does not understand any software category that doesn’t derive its revenue from advertising. While there may be a great future for software (as a service) that no consumer ever pays for directly, today that is not the reality. Desktop software, proprietary enterprise applications, software-as-a-paid-service are examples of what Google is highly inexperienced and generally unsuccessful with.

4/ It would be a great sign if Google decides to build a similar product or service, as it would produce a rhetorical blessing of the proposition and an impromptu acquisition play by its competitors. Isn’t that what you want as an investor.

Google’s relatively young age, massive growth and company DNA are probably the best reasons why it hasn’t succeeded financially in many areas it operates in. But I greatly admire their drive to invest a large part of the difference between their (Wall-street) valuation and real value in new technology development.

Beyond search, Google is in essence a giant research institute with the limited financial successes that come with that model. But Google lays important development groundwork that has and will continue to do us all good. They also provide valuable incubation of new technology ideas a commoditizing VC market rarely picks up on.

My startups have a different charter; turning great technologies into great businesses, now!

Beware of the platform that is not.

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-08-06T11:12:05-07:00

Let’s look at photography (my hobby), arguably the most important purchasing-driver of computers (after the ability to access the internet) by consumers. Media management (yes, on the desktop) remains more than a Billion dollar market opportunity.

Case in point: new announcements of Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture tout enhanced interoperability with third party plugins to manage and edit your photographs. Don’t you feel good about that warm open-source-like karma of interoperability?

I don’t. Both vendors have deployed their next trick to customer imprisonment. And plenty of uninformed customers will fall for it. Here is why you shouldn’t:

1/ There is no need for an additional platform for photo management.
Photo editing capabilites of both applications are mediocre (no layer based editing, no advanced local editing etc.) and their asset management capabilities are little more than a replica of file system capabilities (even photographic attributes such as exposure, aperture and other attributes are maintained by the file-system metadata today). So, except for making nice photo albums and calendars, why else would you slug thousands of photographs in a proprietary asset management format that is less reliable than the underlying file-system and requires seperate backup and archiving strategies to maintain.

2/ Plugins have worked for years on file-system based photographs.
The announcement of the interoperability with plugins is really old news as those third party applications have been working with file-system based photographs for years. This is a platform on top of a platform, designed to milk more money out of customers and locks them into a proprietary technology stack. A prison with the windows open is still a prison.

3/ The operating system needs-to and will evolve faster.
The pace of meaningful innovation of the Personal Computer OS is deplorable. Microsoft has not made the PC operating system significantly smarter over the last ten years and that has opened the window of opportunity for Apple to surpass Microsoft in usability (rather than functionality). The ability to easily create and manage user-generated content such as, Photography and Video, has now become important adoption drivers to the platform, OS-vendors have yet to respond to. Photographic capabilities should be built-in (not priced-on). These days the unique media experience of the platform is the differentiation that sells the computer (since they all do internet quite well).

As a consumer, buying into seperate photography management siloes will cost you significant time and money (as the former CEO of a photo software company, researching the alternatives, I tried). My advice is to wait until an agile vendor steps up and turns media management into a core competency of the computing experience.

In the words of Ray Lane (partner at KPCB and former COO of Oracle) who once said customers are better off skipping some steps of innovation (in his case to skip client-server for three-tier internet architecture), I have just presented you with my reasoning to skip-over Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture. Not because I don’t like some of its functionality, but because it is strategically a dead-end street.

The next evolution of media management will soon eradicate the old one and deliver lasting differentiation to the vendor that owns it and provides a much, much better media experience to the consumer.

I am planning on having something to do with that.

Cheating platforms; bad for our country

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-07-28T12:02:03-07:00

When Facebook decided to integrate new application capabilities that were first available as a third-party application from a marketplace participant, they broke the cardinal rule of marketplace meritocracy. When Getty Images’ staff-photographers allegedly took new pictures similar to previously top-selling pictures from participants they too broke a fundamental marketplace rule. When Amazon.com optimized sales results based on margins requirements they too broke many of the free-market rules as described in “Look, but don’t touch”.

By calling themselves platforms or marketplaces those companies misled their participants and engaged in what I would characterize as false advertising. Not only did the suppliers expect to be treated equally and become successful based on a true meritocracy, buyers expected to get an untainted view of that meritocracy to make informed purchasing decisions.

Technology platforms need to obey to a simple macro-economic marketplace definition:

A marketplace connects unrestricted supply with unrestricted demand through an un-arbitrated and transparent exchange.

Marketplaces thrive because they support free-market principles, and as a result they level the playing field for all participants. No longer are unfair advantages for participants defined by geographic location, subscriptions, volume or other artificial boundaries, but simply by the value and the price of their products.

Here is what platform vendors, to maintain free-market principles and thrive, should stick to:

1/ Don’t employ sales people that sell marketplace content. Sales people give preference to specific content which violates the integrity of the marketplace. Sell the effectiveness of the marketplace mechanism instead.

2/ Don’t market specific content, but market the effectiveness of the exchange. Unfair advantage is an attribute of a premium market not a free-market.

3/ Don’t arbitrate. Anyone should be able to participate, participation fees (that anone in the target group can afford) are okay.

4/ Don’t hide sales results. Transparency of the effectiveness of the marketplace is crucial to invite new entrants on the supply and buy side.

5/ Don’t participate in the marketplace yourself. Clearly seperate yourself from the participants, platform vendors should just build the platform, not the content.

Technology companies that are building platforms should check out our cardinal marketplace rules and investors should measure their platform companies on the compliance to those rules. Investing in a premium market business is fundamentally different from investing in a free-market platform business. Funding requirements and use-of-proceeds differ dramatically.

I’ll make the point again that investors should understand macro-economics impact before they invest.

Marketplaces are not for-free and still support capitalism, but the money will be made by platform owners from a transparent margin on the exchange (and sometimes carefully applied advertising opportunities). Diligent consumer marketplaces achieve winner-takes-all participation levels and massive exchange volumes and revenues. eBay and the Apple AppStore are great examples of more disciplined marketplaces.

Because of the virtually unlimited global reach of the Internet we have an incredible opportunity and obligation to present the world with free-market platforms that treat all participants fairly and with respect.

Let’s stop whining about the authenticity of our presidents, and instead, as the creators of the technology industry show the world how we turn authenticity, embedded in our technology, into a massively sustainable advantage.

Mobile is dead, for VC that is

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-07-11T17:36:13-07:00

With the proliferation of the new iPhone, Mobile Applications as a viable VC investment category is dead.

Companies like Digital Chocolate (founded by software gaming pioneer Trip Hawkins) are now painfully aware of that. Recenty switching gears, it is debatable whether they can compete with the endless supply of a new free-market.

The future of many companies like Aeroprise, still basking in the glory of a proprietary Blackberry environment and tucked away in the enterprise mobile markets, will be severely threatened by standards-based technlogy running on any internet capable device, very soon.

The premium market of mobile applications protected by walled gardens has been changed to a free-market by Apple’s iPhone and the App Store. Macro-economics, discussed in this blog many times before, at work again.

Rather than single minded companies being able to protect their turf with a collection of proprietary applications (usually aimed at businesses), now individuals will start to create applications for other users. By the people, for the people. N/N :the airplane code for Steve Jobs’ Gulfstream. Get it already?

User-generated-content (one of those awkward Silicon Valley attempts of describing content that resides in a free marketplace) has a brand new companion, it is called: applications.

But these applications are no longer mobile applications, they are internet applications - that happen to run on a great mobile internet device. And they will run on many other internet devices, hard-wired or mobile. Think of them as the big brother of widgets, task oriented applications that remove the need to use a browser to benefit from the Internet. They target regular consumers, not internet savvy technologists and they self-configure, based on location and other user preferences.

So the investment model for mobile has changed dramatically and the recently announced $100M iFund (by top investment firm KPCB) and a similar one by BlackBerry - the vehicle of purportedly investing $1M per application vendor - makes no sense at all. Here is why:

1/ User-generated content does not provide a great foundation for large upside - let alone an acquisition or IPO that is priced to produce interesting VC returns.

2/ The value to the VC is in the “winner-takes-all” platform, not the content (albeit that produces great value and choice to the consumer). Apple, with the App Store platform for distributing applications using free-market principles (although still not perfect, check out our marketplace rules) will again walk away with the same benefits it reaped from the iTunes store, direct and halo.

3/ Application development is a very high cost business, especially in a highly competitive marketplace. The gaming industry wrapped in a slower transition from premium to free-market is finding that out too.

4/ Mobile used to be a proprietary, and protectable, path to the internet. No longer. The intelligence of the backend service, accessed through a mobile of hard-wired computing device is where the value is.

So, i suggest to rename the iFund in Software-As- A-Service fund, agnostic to access paradigm.

Nokia and Blackberry (RIM) will have to follow quickly. But they would need to start hiring people that understand macro-economics, not just technologists that create poor copies of Apple’s implementation.

All phones need to have a real operating system inside, and Roger McNamee’s investment in Palm may make sense in that way, but they better step it up quickly. Nokia is off playing with Symbian, Microsoft has its own concotion. All of them pretty much asleep at the macro-economic wheel.

Yet for individuals, on the supply and buy side, all this disruption leads to new opportunities that are derived from a meritocracy. Fantastic applications are being developed and used in massive numbers. The world is indeed flat after all.

No IPOs in 2Q08, I told you so

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-07-02T09:51:54-07:00

Finally the market is talking, and I knew it would have more impact than my blog:

(from VentureBeat)

Years back we suggested the diminishing value of micro-economic innovation (or technology silos) and a stubborn VC club that still operates under old fashioned principles (see “In Search of the Economist VC” written in 2005, “10 Investment lessons learned” and “Invest different” in 2008) as the main reason for this decline.

Alex Haislip on PEHub agrees:
“The VC industry is laboring under a set of outdated assumptions, a structure optimized for conditions no longer applicable and an unwillingness or inability to embrace the tectonic change it is undergoing. The hand wringing about various short term shocks (such as skittish investors) that sunk the second quarter’s IPOs misses any serious discussion of the long-term systemic shifts that many VCs have failed to act on.”

What needs to change is:

1/ VCs need to start investing in businesses rather than technologies
No one outside of Silicon Valley cares about Web2.0, Mashups, UPnP etc unless it proves to deliver a unique experience, deliver substantial competitive advantage or significant cost savings to customers. Indeed, back to fundamentals.

2/ VCs need to embrace different investment models
We need a long-and-short and high-and-low in technology investments, and everything in-between. With a business centric view of the world comes an investment model that is tailored to that business. Every unique company ecosystem has unique financial requirements. History has shown not all businesses benefit from low-ball investments; the majority of seed stage deals go for less than half the price of a regular house in Palo Alto. The superficial categorization of businesses in technology categories is turning new business opportunities into (forced) commodities.

3/ VCs need to change how they find deals
The problem starts at first encounter. The Ivy League kids fresh out of business school that are the first point of contact for most entrepreneurs are just not capable and experienced enough to spot disruptive technologies that have macro-economic impact. A first time pilot right out of school is not allowed to take the helm of a commercial airliner, neither should an MBA graduate be allowed to veto an investment. False negatives are rampant and deflating overall market value. We need unconventonal companies, not more conventional ones.

But the great thing about the demise of the current VC model is the need to create a new one that, in turn, spawns a new more exciting asset class.

The remarkable resemblance between innovation and photography

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-06-17T08:04:23-07:00

Photography is a fantastic craft to which now, with the introduction of digital photography, many more people have access. Great photography relies on an ecosystem of factors (technical: shutter-speed, exposure, aperture, depth of field, ISO etc. and non-technical) to turn a simple scene into a compelling vision. Just like in business.

The similarities between photography and business are remarkable:

1/ The Art of Seeing
Great photography starts with an ability to see in the same way great innovation starts with an ability to imagine. Spotting a scene and finding extraordinary simplicity in detail is what lays the foundation for a great photograph and business. More so than the ability to master the camera, time is of the essence. Shoot it - now - with whatever camera, as that scene may never come back. So do the great opportunities in business. Carpe diem.

2/ Establish Focus
Every photograph needs a clear focal point, just like a business. One, and not more than one. But focus is not always obvious and in the middle of the viewfinder. Focus in photography and business is achieved through experience of knowing what that focus yields. In business that defines how you are percieved by your customers. As a photographer, you determine where the focus is and set the right angle. As a CEO you establish the focus and direction.

3/ Set a Composition
Composition determines what you see beyond the focal point. Other objects in the viewfinder compete for attention with your focal point, but a great composition takes your eye on a journey to the focal point and strengthens its attraction. Lines, shapes, curves and contrast establish focal point supremacy. In the same way competition in business strengthens (not weakens) the unique appeal of your business.

4/ Evaluate Exposure
Exposure determines how much light you let in. Too much or too little light washes out great detail. Too much or too little exposure undervalues or overvalues the company, either one turns off customers. Use exposure to enhance great value, not to displace it. Use public relations and marketing wisely. So, locate the real business value before you expose it. Exposures can usually be fixed afterwards.

5/ Measure Depth-of-Field
Depth-of-field establishes what is in the foreground and what is not. What is important and what is less important. In business, razorsharp focus is required to establish a solid bottom-line. But a business without “depth-of-field” is a one trick pony. A great bokeh (a photography term for the background pattern established by an f-stop) determines its longevity and - ultimately - sustainability.

6/ Know Technology
Technology is becoming more relevant in photography and similar is the impact in the business world. Technology determines how the end product can be shared and organically find its massive appeal. Now, through the internet, great photographs and great businesses will find a new audience that was previously unreachable. New, more free, markets are opened up and new opportunities arise.

For me personally, photography is a way to relax, but in actuality it is an extension of what I do in business every day. I am always looking for unique moments in time, taking great pictures and building great businesses, that perhaps - others don’t see.

What makes Apple different

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-06-10T07:09:24-07:00

Is the question that was posed to me recently. My short answer is: macro-economics.

1/ Apple technology is proprietary, all the way
Apple is creating a premium computing platform, rather than an open and commoditized one. Premium markets precede open markets and dish up much higher profit margins. Proprietary environments also allows Apple to control the differentiated customer experience.

2/ Apple is focused on lifestyle computing
Apple is focused on creating solutions to support our lifestyle - a massive addressable market - that consists of music, photography, video etc., rather than esoteric office software for people with lots of technology expertise.

3/ Apple is building an ecosystem
Apple is focused on supporting a differentiated ecosystem, rather than building competitive technology silos. The sum of all lifestyle components interacting with each other make it unique. The iPod remains competitive because of the iTunes store that is accessible through a (Mac) computer and vice versa. Their capabilities are tied to each other.

4/ Apple is building an unique customer experience
The experience of purchasing, innovative design, great product quality, and unique (in-store) customer support provides the evidence of a company that wants to please you.

There are many other differences, some of which also lie in a fundamentally different product development strategy. But top-level differentiation drives micro-economics.

Other companies face an uphil battle if they don’t compete with Apple at the macro level first.

Don't listen to customers

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-06-06T08:25:59-07:00

The key to understanding customers is to observe them, rather than to listen to them. As in most life scenarios, what people do and what they say are quite different. And your product strategy better be focused on real purchasing behavior rather than yet another opinion - stated as a fact.

For that reason, the way large technology companies implement usability studies is useless, as these studies attempt to formulate an opinion from people who should be buying - but have not - and use the wrong method to derive their intent, verbal rather than behavioral. Unbridled wishes, promises and demands from prospects are worthless. Yet priceless is the behavior and satisfaction of buyers.

So, without the customer telling you what to do, how do you improve your chances of success:

1/ Focus on greenfield adoption
Many so-called markets have no real market leaders owning more than 30% market share. Technology adoption is still in its infancy and plenty of room exists to tap into greenfield markets. Even in a fast growing market like the mobile phone industry where Apple is resetting the rules of engagement, a large demographic still does not use a mobile phone. So, the trick is to come up with a new strategy for the ever changing greenfield, rather than stealing market share by building a better mouse trap.

2/ Define the macro-economic impact of your technology
Consumer technology should yield immediate personal benefit and become an indisposable asset to the daily tasks we perform. It should save considerable more time than it takes to learn. The iPhone is a portable lifestyle device, rather than just a better version of the old category mobile phone. Redefine the rules from the top.

3/ Build a unique customer experience
Style, performance and capability are important consumer product characteristics and so is the purchasing and support experience. Satisfactory life-cycle support of the product is crucial to secure brand loyalty. Ever noticed how almost half of the Apple Store is dedicated to improving customer experience?

4/ Remove the technology language from the equation
Adoption by a greenfield market demands the development of a user-experience, marketing messages, and support experience that is void of technology language and solely talks about usage benefit - rather than how it is achieved technologically. Notice how the marketing of the iPhone is fundamentally different from the Nokia N95 (same price range), full of references to technology protocols (like UPnP) a greenfield market should not have to know about.

The success of technology innovation is increasingly related to how well companies serve steady customer behavior. That behavior has extensively been studied by so many non-technology companies ahead of us.

That’s why I spend so much time listening to the wisdom of CEOs like A.G. Lafley (CEO of Procter & Gamble), Mickey Drexler (CEO of J. Crew, former CEO of GAP, Apple BoD), Jack Welch (former CEO GE) and many other consumer CEOs who put themselves constantly in the shoes of the customer and define what they would like the purchasing experience to be.

It is not hard to detect the patterns of success, but as a CEO you would need to be committed to keep looking at your company from the outside in (rather than from the inside out), and experience the company from a customer perspective.

Get ahead of change and tune in to Charlie Rose on NPR (KQED in the Bay Area) for some great lessons from the masters.

The sweet taste of success

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-05-18T16:06:09-07:00

Nothing is sweeter than success, real success, hard earned success. That is what my grandfather achieved when he helped create the company (van Melle) that still makes the Mentos candy today and, in the early 1900s turned it into a worldwide company and brand. Every day, I strive to live up to his achievements. Not just to make a buck, but to fundamentally challenge the establishment and contribute to improving the world we live in. Albeit my sweet spot is technology.

Building a business is all about people; entrepreneurs and investors working hard together towards achieving the common goal. Too many times do I see or hear from investors how entrepreneurs finagle their way into the money pot, with damaging consequences.

While I do not consider myself in the league of Donald Trump in terms of inspirational speaking, I do want to emphasize how important the evaluation of personal skills are to support a great company. I learned some valuable lessons from my grandfather early on - not by asking him many questions (I was too young to do so intelligently) - but by watching him operate. My grandfather did not have access to the funds we have at our disposal in Silicon Valley, but the rules of success have not changed.

1/ Have an opinion.
Unless you are ill informed, having an opinion and expressing it is vital. Vital to you personally - in achieving what you want, and vital to the company you work for - to provide the best quality of service. If you can't see the flaws around you (and in yourself from time to time), you won't be able to detect or imagine true innovation.

2/ Have guts.
The world is full of artificial rules to keep us all in check. Throw them out from time to time, just to see what happens. I run a stoplight litmus test with most entrepreneurs, to demonstrate how tucked-in we still are. And you'll be amazed.

3/ Have integrity.
The goal of creating a lasting personal brand should outweigh the short-term obsession of making money. "Nice" people don't make great impressions, what they stand for does. I bet you'll make more money sticking to your personal brand, then you ever will chasing dollars.

4/ Be transparent.
Transparency is the fair assessment of capabilities, good and bad, combined with the ability to expose them. The companies we create together inherit our good and bad, yet no one will suffer if they are exposed properly. Quite the opposite, transparency builds fairness and trust.

5/ Find your passion.
You will not see me go-green anytime soon, even though there is a lot of money to be made there. My passion is technology, specifically consumer technology and has been since I was twelve years old. I was lucky in that way, but it hasn't been easy, extricating myself from common beliefs. Explore your own true passion (not that of someone else), and don't rest until you've found it.

Many times is the path to success cut short, not by the market, but by the entrepreneurs themselves. As a CEO I have left companies where major shareholders lack or infringe on those fundamental principles, and I killed investments for similar reasons.

The real sweet taste of success is being true to yourself. So, next time you knock on your investors' doors, pay a little more attention to yourself - rather than the business plan.

(In memory of my hero and grandfather Simon de Smit, I miss him in more ways than one)

Invest Different

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-05-17T09:26:31-07:00

As an entrepreneur, getting to know your Venture Capitalist is important, especially because their life is not as cushy as you may think.

Just imagine the onslaught of business plans they get, and how much time it takes to find that rewarding investment. Eliminating the false positives and false negatives takes time, lots of it. We personally reviewed about 40 companies over the last 7 months, yielding 3 companies that have huge potential for our investors but they need work. Hard, fun work. But life of the VC doesn't end there. Knowing the goals of your VC (in terms of fund composition and exit requirements) will make you better understand why a VC firm behaves the way it does. Its fund needs to end up in the top quartile, with or without you.

Operating on both sides of the isle and getting to know the investors I work with better, I attended the AAMA-AAAIM session in San Francisco called "Fund Management As A Business" (presentation in pdf used with permission from AAMA), moderated by the skilled and jovial Robert Grady, Managing Director of The Carlyle Group with a fantastic group of fund managers (Hamilton Lane, SFERS) and a surprisingly honest VC (Altos Ventures). I wish everyone in the investment community was as transparent as this group so we can remove some of the stigma around VC.

Here are three reasons why VCs don't have it that easy:

1/ Many more VCs need to compete aggressively on a relative steady amount of fundable deals, hovering around 4,000 equity investments in venture backed companies per year. The number of VC firms has grown from 399 in 1990 with $31B under management, to 798 firms in 2006 driving $236B into the US venture marketplace.

2/ Joe Schoendorf (Partner at Accel Partners and board-member of World Economic Forum) confirms that less than 5% of the VCs deliver the goods that sustains technology as an investible asset class. That means 95% of the investors are probably stressed out. So don't take a lack of response or a no from a VC too personal. VCs deal with complicated and sometimes long drawn investment strategies (it took Altos Ventures 3 years to land their last fund). Investment allocations may be another reason why you don't always get a quick response for your technology venture.

3/ VCs are working hard. The exits of about 400 M&A plus IPO transactions per year account for less than 10% of total venture investments made. And in order to get a successful exit, VCs review more than 20 times (and that's a conservative assessment) the amount of business plans before they invest in one. So, south of 0.5% is where their - and your - statistical probability of producing a successful exit lies.

The same criteria that apply to the return of the collective technology investments made by a VC with a fund, applies to their Limited Partners (LPs) trying to find great collective VC returns for their Investors (Pension Funds, Insurance Companies, Endowments/Foundations etc). The VC is sandwiched smack in the middle between the entrepreneur and LPs breathing down their neck. Their only "luxury" is time: 5 years of investing and 5 years of harvesting.

As an entrepreneur you can't worry too much about the statistics, if you did you wouldn't be an entrepreneur. But that the amount of deals is slightly on the rise again, perhaps indirectly spurred by massive influx from sovereign funds, means access to money - to live out your dream is improving slightly.

But be prepared to talk to more VCs and saddle up for an extensive roadshow. Fact remains: the cost of doing business to entrepreneurs and investors has increased dramatically.

Getting to know your VC (better)

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-05-14T12:42:37-07:00

I just came back from a trip to Europe and let me tell you: Belgian chocolate, raw herring from Holland and ficelle from France - nothing is more authentic and delicious.

But few of these travel well or find a large deserving audience in the United States. Much like technology.

The state of the technology industry and the accompanying investment ecosystem in the US are quite a bit more developed than in Europe, 15 years at least.

In the US, roughly $30B per year is poured into early stage companies by some 300 investors in my backyard in Palo Alto, not including Private Equity deals. In contrast, only a handful European early stage VCs exist and the majority of all european investments are late stage investments done by Private Equity firms.

In Europe, early stage VC valuations hover around $1M, compared to $4-7M in the US. As a result desperate european entrepreneurs often default to Angels that show some flexibility, but those investors are often very inexperienced with the technology sector and early stage investing or the combination. They made their money somewhere else. Because of the young history of technology success in Europe, very few european investors (either VC or Angel) have actually had the personal experience of building an early stage technology company from scratch.

To sum it up, european investors (with a few exceptions) take large early equity stakes, provide limited relevant business insight and push those companies to early profitability (even at 250K euro investment levels). Selling a product or a service too hastily, before it is ready to enter a global marketplace delivers NO validation of the business, good or bad. But it is a sure way to slow down its innovation and differentiation.

So, underdeveloped access to quality early stage money makes life of entrepreneurs in Europe quite difficult.

But, let's assume you passed the bar on all the above and your company is on its way to the United States. No one can stop you in the pursuit of the great early exit opportunities only Silicon Valley can offer.

So here are some things to be aware of:

1/ A cherry, picked by an investor in Europe is not always a cherry in the US. Be sure you understand - or seek advice about the timing differences between continents that attract follow-on investors in the US. Some of that timing has to do with technology, but market timing is even more crucial.

2/ Plan ahead. Allocate a larger fundraising runway than you would in Europe. To US investors foreign companies are yet another risk they need to mitigate. By default you are less attractive than a US company.

3/ Modify your operating plan. Change it from a plan to profitability to a plan to market dominance (which could include profitability but can also have other primary denominations as drivers, such as owning a majority of eye-balls in the consumer space).

4/ Move your headquarters to the US. Without it you'll find very few US investors interested.

5/ Assuming you get this far, be open to a recap. US investors understand the equilibrium of shareholdings will provide the best business value, not exorbitant ownership of the initial investor achieved through a low initial valuation. But since the US valuation should increase significantly, the initial investors should not lose too much net value, if at all.

6/ Hire a local management team that understands how to perform in a petri-dish that is quite different from Europe.

My final recommendation is to be prepared before you come over and not put your head in the sand, I can give you a long (and still growing) list of foreign companies that were forced to move back.

For larger US VC firms there is a fantastic opportunity to scout for technologists in Europe and fold them into their US investment model before they've taken in too much local money. I see technologists in Europe building innovation that is at least as good as the in the US. Remember the most delicious chocolates from Belgium?

But, the worlds largest chocolate factory is Hershey's located in the US. The name of the game remains matching sufficient technological capability to a fast growing market, in the same way Hershey's reaches a much larger audience than Belgian chocolates - with a quality that is good enough for most. Market timing, not technology, is key.

The delicacy of european investments

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-04-24T16:30:32-07:00

We can look at Microsoft and Apple and compare them strategically: Microsoft is the plumbing for a commoditized desktop computing market where Apple delivers a unique computing experience based primarily on its proprietary technology stack. Microsoft as the complacent market leader, Apple as the wannabe - fighting hard to win share. Apple, in tune with today's computing lifestyle as the innovator, Microsoft as the raw execution machine, buying innovation where needed.

But for me, in the shoes of an end-user, all of that is summed up in a simple way:
Type in CNN in Safari (without url etc, just as we wrote it here) and then type in CNN (again without any internet "grammar") in Explorer. Here is what you get:

Microsoft (standard installation Windows XP):

Apple (standard installation OS10.4+):

Bottom line: with Apple you get what you expect, with Microsoft you get spun into their web, literally.

Maybe this is Microsoft's tactic to produce page hits to compete with Google: any user that doesn't know how to type in a URL will be rerouted by default to MSN search. I call that cheating, Microsoft. But even with those tricks, you still need Yahoo!

Getting and keeping customers is about integrity and authenticity, not sneaky monetization techniques to squeeze every cent out of every visitor - leading them down the endless path of search. I am glad Apple is around and here to stay. There is nothing better than getting what you want, quickly.

BTW: talking about Microsoft's complacency, does it still not have anti-aliasing sorted out - or is that the big improvement in Vista?

The (simple) difference between Apple and Microsoft

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-04-21T13:57:59-07:00

We communicate with each other using a common language and we obviously become more effective when we all understand that language. However, technology complicates our lives as each piece of technology we interact with requires us to learn a new (proprietary) language; a set of rules, technology grammar and a unique user-interface experience.

Think about it, when Larry King on national TV stumbles over his own URL (yes, language) and messes up http, semicolon and slash (or was it backslash), I can't help but think about the hell we put users through to use the internet. Only if you understand that language do you get to benefit from its capabilities. That's like forcing anyone that wants to vacation in Mexico to speak Spanish first. The Mexican tourist industry would grind to a halt.

It gets worse, for example, to make photographs look better, Photoshop (and now with Photoshop Express) and many other photo-editing applications deploy a language that requires users to understand the intricacies of color and light and apply that language in the right order.

Here is a synopsis of the skill level my mother-in-law would need to master in order to make her photographs look better: first increase the dynamic range using a histogram, then use curves to change the tonal values to your liking, apply the right white balance and improve saturation and vibrance. Indeed, what I just described is the introduction of yet another language to solve a pretty mundane problem.

To create a web page, we introduce yet another language, a compilation of HTML, Perl, Ajax and Flash usually contained within a desktop product with its own proprietary language. To write a book we wrestle with 90% of Microsoft Word's functionality and language we seldom use, trying to figure out how to create a table of contents. In Excel we use another language consisting of non-intuitive formulas (like sum() ) to derive values from other cells. Should I go on?

So why is it that we seem to get away with it - or are we? For one, lots of people make money understanding a computing language that fewer others do. Web designers don't always create better design, but they understand the language of design, and can implement it. So, web designers don't want you to know there are better ways to do this. Adobe is probably not in a hurry to remove the language and erode its premium market, it could have created much more democratization in the website creation process. Many times have designers, with corporate marketeers in tow, abjected the use of Rapidweaver, a tool that attempts to democratize web design (this site is built with it).

But we are fooling ourselves. The democratization of the internet requires that we make technology more accessible and easier to understand and implement. Only then will it reach real mass adoption.

We could easily build technology that figures out how to make the majority of images look better, or design a web page by drawing it - rather than programming, or have Word make recommendations for a table of contents when it discovers one.

The iPhone is a great example of how packaging existing technologies in a different way, can make people feel that they don't need to learn a new language to communicate with it. My 3 year old daughter uses it. Each of the individual technologies in the iPhone had been around for a while, Apple "just" packaged it so the language became intuitive.

But Apple is not the only vendor that can remove the computing language from the equation, others just need to pay attention to it.

So when you design products, pay attention to the removal of the language, fewer yet intuitive options - rather than more. After all, for thousands of years, we ourselves, have communicated in many other ways than verbal, the majority of our communication remains behavioral.

Innovation has become the art of packaging a flawless user experience, rather than a race to add features. The latter quickly becomes commoditized anyway.

The (technology) language is the problem

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-04-02T12:26:06-07:00

Since a platform is the technology foundation for a marketplace, platforms - to achieve extraordinary growth - need to instill the rules of marketplaces as we laid them out in our previous post.

But not all platforms are created equal and some self-proclaimed platform vendors do not adhere to marketplace principles. That could mean you as a provider think you subscribed to a meritocracy - with equal opportunity exposure - yet other participants (your competitors) get pay-to-play advantages. Potential buyers in that tainted market are actually shopping in a premium market, not the free-market they expect to be most economic and trustworthy.

Other synonyms of the same phenomenon abused in the technology industry include: ecosystems, exchanges, communities and networks which all serve identical needs in connecting disparate supply with disparate demand, something a premium market is unable to do.

Consumer companies understand the freedom of choice customers demand. Enterprise software and services vendors have long basked in the glory of premium markets and have a long way to go in order to truly build winner-takes-all free-markets, which in total size are often larger in size than the total size of premium markets in that category.

In the Enterprise space the majority of customers (roughly 80%) buying products or services deviate from its intended design and want to add on, integrate or correlate those off-the-shelve configurations with other ones. Enterprise customers often spend more money on customization than they spend on licensing fees for say, Oracle products. Hence the requirement for a true marketplace of additional enterprise components (check out Serena, great concept but marketplace execution and marketplace compliance - yet to be developed - will be the tell-tale of their real success). Salesforce.com's Appexchange seems to provide the best proximity to a free-market of applications we've seen, although we have yet to verify its integrity against the marketplace rules.

Developer programs from companies like Oracle (with OTN), Microsoft (MSDN) and others use surrogate models of marketplaces to mimic, but not truly deliver on its powerful benefits. Go visit their websites and you'll notice no mention of third party products. There literally is no marketplace, although Microsoft has a link to "a library", if you can find it.

Apple (with the iPhone Developer Network) is experimenting with its rules but apart from compliance to the free-pricing rule, its overall compliance to a free-market is minimal. And, today, they don't need to. Apple still has time to deploy some premium market tricks as long as Google with Android doesn't deliver on a real marketplace for developers early.

As a software provider you may need to run on and comply to a major vendor's technology, just don't assume a developer network, exchange or community will make you rich - not until the marketplace supports a true meritocracy. And for that, again, real marketplace principles need to be deployed.

How developer platforms (should) drive marketplaces

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-03-24T12:28:42-07:00

If you've read my previous blog on marketplace rules, you would agree. Amazon.com is a Super Store which, by expanding the relationship with other premium suppliers mimics the appearance of a marketplace. And because Jeff Bezos associates Amazon.com with a marketplace frequently, I stand to correct him:

Marketplace rules.
Rule #1: Failed. Amazon limits the supplier participation to their premium strategy.
Rule #2: Failed. Limited suppliers means limited transactions are available
Rule #3: Failed. Amazon regulates the process of how a transaction takes place, conforming to Amazon pricing models
Rule #4: Failed. Once you book an order from a different supplier than Amazon, all bets are off with regards to transparency, shipping, returns etc
Rule #5: Failed. There is no way for new buyers to see who bought what at what price and equally for sellers who sold what.
Rule #6: Failed. User opinions are irrelevant if they are not borne out of a transaction.
Rule #7: Perhaps not relevant here.
Rule #8: Failed. Amazon is "competing" in the "marketplace" with its suppliers

Amazon will have a much harder time to sustain growth and meet Wall Street expectations, as a lot of growth through premium suppliers will become non-organic (or sell through revenues). Amazon has plenty of opportunity to migrate to a real marketplace without losing its footing, but it better hurry. In the meantime, Jeff, please call Amazon what it is: earth's premium selection.

Why Amazon is not a marketplace

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-03-17T12:38:08-07:00

There is a lot of misconception about marketplaces and I wanted to summarize my response to benefit more entrepreneurs.

Real marketplaces are much more powerful than just a collection of stores. Amazon, for example is a Super Store not a marketplace today. EBay, FaceBook and YouTube represent more fundamental marketplace principles - and as a result - fascinating growth.

Marketplaces are a favorite topic these days, perhaps spawned by sky high valuations for social-media platforms such as FaceBook and Bebo. A social-media platform, you know, is nothing more than a marketplace in which personal attributes are traded (through the use of social applications).

Marketplaces are interesting because, if implemented successfully, provide massive user adoption and winner-takes-all leadership positions. Great traits for any investment portfolio. A marketplace is highly disruptive in a market where the premium opportunity, the Super Store model has been exhausted - or simply does not exist. Some markets, because of their highly fragmented nature, cannot be captured by high margin and proprietary access and a marketplace is the only way to leverage its total size.

I have written extensively about marketplace criteria in specific markets and its origination about 600 years back, so I won't cover that specifically here. But so many other markets are ripe for marketplace macro-economics delivered by technology. Virtually any market characterized by unique transactions between large amounts of sellers and buyers is a candidate for free-market principles. The life-cycle of proprietary markets is dramatically shortened by the Internet, a distribution medium that instantly removes artificial boundaries such as geographic location and limited access.

Here are 8 rules that make a marketplace succeed:

1/ Un-arbitrated participation
No seller or buyer should be banned from participating in the marketplace. A key fundamental of a marketplace is that it grows itself and that the quality of the buyer and seller is a reflection of the market, not controlled by the market. After-all, the purpose is to connect The Long Tail of supply with The Long Tail of demand.

2/ Un-arbitrated transactions
Apart from exchanges that are illegal by law, no transactions should be banned. People come to a marketplace to perform a unique transaction, one they could not act on in a premium market.

3/ Free pricing mechanisms
Pricing models and terms are defined either by the seller or buyer or by both. Not by the marketplace. Pricing models can include such transactions as sell, auction, reverse auction or subscription - or even a combination of those. Pricing, including free, is completely and independently determined by or between seller and buyer, predetermined or negotiated. The marketplace takes a simple transaction fee off of the transaction value.

4/ Predictable behavior
Marketplaces need to establish trust in order to survive and thrive. Pricing models and behavior of the marketplace need to be predictable and follow (not dictate) the goals of buyers and sellers. The marketplace should follow the needs of the market not the other way around.

5/ Transparency of transactions
Marketplaces rely on a vast new influx of sellers and buyers to grow to massive size. That means the marketplace must operate with a transparency that shows new buyers or sellers how to become successful as most of its users are greenfield participants.

6/ Meritocracy builds reputation
Trading favors and segmentation can be established but only based on mechanisms that are derived from real transactions, not plainly from user opinions. Opinions are useless if not supported by a proven reputation within the marketplace. Transactions based reputations provides long-lasting stickiness to the marketplace.

7/ Support for intermediaries
For existing markets moving from premium to a free-market, its existing intermediaries need to be able to continue to represent their sellers or buyers. A new technology marketplace should not want to disintermediate or alienate those agents.

8/ Non-compete
The marketplace cannot itself participate in the marketplace by providing its own transactions or even participate in - or act on behalf of - transactions between sellers and buyers. Apart from the fact that the business models don't jive, a marketplace cannot be trusted when it simultaneously participates and facilitates an impartial exchange.

So, a simple method to determine whether a marketplace has massive market potential is to hold it up against the rules provided here. These rules are macro-economic principles that dictate how markets behave and grow, the technology implementation must support those principles to have a chance of making it big. It's a free world after all.

Marketplace rules: look, don't touch

info@venturecompany.com — 2008-03-16T10:54:02-07:00

Over the last 10 years I've also been closely involved with early stage technology funding (advising VC firms and Angels) and have invested personal time and money in early stage ventures. That has given me a unique perspective of the challenges between entrepreneurs and investors.

I've written about my Top 10 fundraising lessons for entrepreneurs, and dare to follow up with my Top 10 investment strategies that may be useful to investors and entrepreneurs, here:

1) Invest in the founders, but be wary if the company consists of technologists only. The ones that come in without an operating plan clearly do not understand what you as an investor are looking for. Get a real operator in early.

2) Invest in the business, don't invest in technology. The statistics prove it: ninety-nine out of a hundred of the most innovative technologies never turn into successful businesses. Especially investors (both VC and Angels) that made their money in the hay-days of technology have a tendency to underfund the business side, providing a weak foundation for any technology to succeed.

3) Don't invest in an early stage company with more than one product or service. Let the company become the King-of-One, rather than the King-of-None. Multiple products or services require more money to support successfully and dramatically dilutes the focus of the company. Multiple products or services also "invite" a larger group of competitors, making it hard for customers to perceive true differentiation and unknowingly, slows down adoption.

4) Don't invest in an early stage company with more than one business model. Keep it simple. Multiple revenue models sound good, but usually don't yield the projected outcome. The company should make all of its money in advertising or in subscriptions, not in both. Dilution of focus is costly and provides yet another reason for failure.

5) Don't invest in companies that rely heavily on partner support early on. This is the typical David and Goliath phenomenon. Partners sell once the company does in overwhelming numbers. The company should always have direct control of its own business model first, before they allow any partner to reduce its margins.

6) Invest money or time, don't do both. I very much relate to Carl Icahn in an interview with Dan Primack (on PEhub) with regards to CEOs responsibility to make the numbers work, and not to rely on investors to "add value". The CEO is in the driver seat, take him out if he doesn't produce.

7) Look for fundamental changes in customer experience. The Ultimate Driving Experience is what sets BMW apart, not just the timing in their engines. Customer experience is much more than a pretty user interface, it is an overall experience that spawns disruptive purchasing.

8) Watch how professional the team operates pre-funding as an indication of their interaction post-funding and with customers. Real professionals do everything with a purpose and I have mastered the art of detecting them. So well that I can tell from a visit to a trade-show floor whether a company is going places.

9) Don't categorize investment allocations based on past investments or trends. Every company is unique and requires an amount of money unique to their assets: people, timing, market and ecosystem. If you don't think you have a unique scenario, you probably don't have a valuable investment opportunity.

10) Invest with passion but don't fall in love with the company. Investing is the ultimate flirting game, but it is usually a bad idea to get really involved. Your asset value is the selection and performance of all the companies in your fund. Stick with what you do best.

From an investment perspective I see many "sub-optimizations" but not a lot of real great innovations these days. I do blame the current investment model for that sometimes. We, in Silicon Valley, have too many technology investors using the same rearview-mirror investment criteria. Although I have a lot of admiration for Apple, it is a bad sign when we need to leave real innovation in the hands of large companies like theirs.

The landscape for investors is about to change dramatically, no longer can they just continue to invest in proprietary technology silos at single digit valuations. They'll soon need to broaden their experience ("in search of the Economist VC") to understand the macro-economic impact of marketplaces, platforms and the impact of technology to other industries.

A wonderful long road for technology innovation and investing still lies ahead.