venture capital
Seed Investor’s Guide to Finding the Next Twitter
I had breakfast this morning with my friend Ben Lerer. He, and his dad Ken Lerer, have recently put together a seed fund to make angel investments in early stage consumer companies. He asked me a question, which two years ago, I would have been able to answer in a heartbeat, but today caused me a moment of pause. He asked me what companies are on Twitteresque growth trajectories that would be worth investing in regardless of price. The reason I paused was because working at a venture capital firm for a few years, you get to a point where your thinking is probably 6-12 months ahead of the curve. But lacking thousands of data points on blazing markets and the companies within them, I have probably lost that 6-12 month advantage. I still read a ton, and spend time with smart folks from the entrepreneurial and VC communities, but the fire hose of information isn’t quite as fat.
Part of the job of an Associate at a venture capital firm is to identify new and emerging spaces that are worth investing ahead of, and exposing those opportunities to the partnership. Microblogging in 2007 was one of those spaces. To this day, Joel Cutler (who happens to be absolutely brilliant) at General Catalyst will tell you he owes me “a good drink of wine” for passing when I insisted we should fight to bet on Twitter, despite what seemed like a hefty price tag in the first venture round that Union Square Ventures ended up leading (the round got done at a $20M valuation, and two years later Twitter was just valued at $1 Billion).
That’s sort of the nature of being a junior guy at a venture firm. Because you have less responsibility with the existing portfolio, you are able to spend more time than the old guys taking in new data and expanding the firm’s thinking into untouched markets. You develop theses around that data, and when you find something you truly believe in, you need to pound the table so that the Partners who have not spent the last 3 months learning this new space with you will listen and understand the opportunity. Even still, there is a very good chance that nobody will be willing to use one of their bullets on your idea. Each partner at a venture firm gets to make 3 or 4 bets a year (might vary a bit from firm to firm depending on size of fund and number of partners), and a firm probably looks at 2,000-5,000 deals a year. Passing on winners is part of the business. Bessemer actually has a great page on their site where they display the firm’s Antiportfolio. The Antiportfolio is a list of all the massively successful companies they could have invested in, but didn’t. A star studded list of billion dollar logos is accompanied by hubristic quotes from the “passing partners,” explaining why they would never invest in the likes of Ebay, Apple, Google, Intel, Paypal, etc…
So in the absence of an immediate answer to Ben’s question, I can perhaps supply a recipe for any early stage investor who is trying to get ahead of the curve. This is my process for finding the next Twitter:
1) Read: Macro (i.e. Economist) and micro (vertical blogs) content ingestion (30%)
2) Try: Personally experience as many products and services as possible in markets of interest, identify game changers (15%)
3) Experts: Develop and test theses with thought leaders from industry and academia (15%)
4) Entrepreneurs: Speak/meet with every entrepreneur attacking a given market, identify current state of the market and who is best positioned to capitalize on sea changes and future direction (40%)
5) Repeat steps 1-3 over time and across markets
Oh, and if you’re the next Twitter, and investors haven’t found you…you can email me, I’ll try to put you in touch with the right folks…
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )“Open Sourced” Job Spec
On November 5th, almost exactly 3 weeks ago, 253 people read my first blog post. On November 25, 2 days ago, 4,730 people showed up. While I am excited by the growth, I am still searching for better ways to harness the collective knowledge within this new community. Despite more than 5,000 people reading the last post, only 8 decided to comment and continue the line of thinking. Less than 2/10 of a percent participation is not very good.
Today, I want to experiment with a new concept. I’d like to take a page from the open source software movement, and apply that spirit to the creation of a VP of Marketing Job Spec. For those not familiar, the theory behind open source software development is that much of the coding effort required to carry out development of a project overlaps with the effort required to build other similar (or not so similar) products. By openly sharing a body of code with everyone in a given community, all members within it are able to leverage what has already been accomplished/created, instead of reinventing the wheel from scratch. So if I’m building an e-commerce site and I want to include a shopping cart function, I could spend hours developing my own from scratch, or I could just plug in an open source module that another developer wrote, knowing that his code will do the trick. With the time I saved, maybe I will figure out how to build a feature on top of his code that reduces drop off, and then, if I’m cool, I’ll publish the code behind my enhancement back to the community (open source developers, if I butchered this, please chime in).
So now that I have all of you smart people reading this blog, I figured we could draw on some of your collective knowledge in an effort to create the ideal Job Spec. Whatever we create here, will hopefully be the result of years of experience and lessons learned by those who have hired well (and not so well). My hope is that the document we create will enhance our hiring at JumpPost, but also that it will serve as a template from which any startup recruiting a VP of Marketing can build.
I will start with a brief description of what JumpPost is, and then work into what I think we need:
JumpPost is somewhere between an online classifieds site and a low cost online real estate broker. So, if Craigslist and Redfin had a baby, it might look something like JumpPost. From a customer acquisition perspective, we are focused on general population consumers who are psyched about saving/making money during a change of residence. We’re not interested in reaching home owners (at least for now), and folks who live in cities are more exciting than suburbanites and rural dwellers. It’s a pretty wide net we can cast, and some of our value propositions are unique (read: won’t be competitive to acquire certain types of users), while others are highly competitive. In a VP of Marketing, we are looking for someone who has a play book for building a liquid online community through a series of paid and non-paid customer acquisition strategies.
I’d like to collect contributions to three lenses through which we can identify a star VP of Marketing:
1) General Personality traits: What type of person makes a great online/consumer marketer? ideas that might be right or wrong include:
– data driven thinker
– addiction to analytics
– detail oriented
– quantitative bent
– understanding of relationship between product development and marketing efforts
– what else? What personality traits do the best marketers you know exhibit? Any surprising ones? Any huge red flags that your bad marketing hires displayed?
2) Specific marketing skills and experience requirements:
A) What unique skills should this person possess? ideas include:
– fluency in Google Analytics
– proficiency with SEM keyword tools/models (i.e. Clickable)
– what else? (I actually don’t know what are best in class skills here)
B) What experiences and backgrounds best prepare someone for this type of gig? Ideas include:
– comes from an analogous market acquiring similar demo of user (in our case: online travel, online classifieds, online real estate, online jobs, marketplaces, etc…)
– managed SEM campaign of $XX million budget with XX level of success (what are the metrics to judge success here? What’s a good baseline to measure outperformance vs. underperformance?)
– designed and executed successful referral program alla Gilt.com, Jetsetter.com, etc…(again, what’s a good baseline for measuring outperformance vs. underperformance?)
– fluency acquiring customers from within larger platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc…
– took an online consumer facing site from xx users to yy users in xx months (what’s best in class here, and how do we separate out the candidate’s contribution to that growth from all other efforts that played a hand?)
3) General traits and skills necessary for an early stage startup team member: What are the must haves and red flags when determining if a hire for any early role will be able to hack it in the beginning stages of a company’s development? Ideas include:
– previous experience growing a company from alpha product to exit
– effusive and clear communicator
– “roll up your sleeves” attitude, no job is too small (not going to try to hire service providers to do all the work)
– comfort with a lack of structure and ability to create and execute own initiatives
– what else? what are the best predictors that an early hire will be a star team member?
So, my suggestions are in no way exhaustive. Please, those who have successfully and unsuccessfully hired an online VP of Marketing, rip this apart and share your experience in the comments of this post. Where am I right on? What is way off? Let’s try to fill these three buckets and I’ll publish a composite spec for all to build off of going forward.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )Founders Need Rock Hard Abs
There are two primary reasons why a founder needs rock hard abs:
1) working out of cafes and apartments, hunched over 12″ screens in shitty chairs with improper lumbar
support is NOT good for your posture. A strong core will help…
2) in the early stages of building a company, it is absolutely essential that you learn how to take a punch to the gut.
I have two close friends from Dartmouth who got flown out to the Valley this past weekend for final round interviews with Y Combinator. Y Combinator is basically a hybrid venture capital firm/startup boot camp. A couple of times a year, they “admit” a class of very early stage startups, give them small dollars and a ton of advice and resources, and essentially groom them into venture-financable companies. It is a spectacular head start for first time entrepreneurs, who give up less than 10% of their companies, and graduate with an embedded network and a sharper set of skills to go make it happen.
I just got the news that said friends didn’t make it in. I thought for a few minutes about the implications of this data on the trajectory of their company, and realized that the actual value lost in that opportunity is minimal (a near commodity), but only if they replace that opportunity with something comparable, or even more valuable. Is Y Combinator a great head start? Sure. But so is the participation of some professional angels, or an early stage seed fund, or one of the 6 other clones of Y Combinator that have popped up in the last two years (Techstars, Dreamit, etc..).
BUT, it is not this value lost that poses the greatest threat to their business. The real danger lies in the impact that bad news has on a company’s culture, founders’ state of mind, rate of progress, and general confidence. After two months of product development, business planning, and strong forward momentum, my friends just got their first real “punch to the stomach.” And that, by the way, is exactly what bad news feels like when you are starting out. So much of your effort. time, and identity is wrapped up in this creation, that bad news can actually have a physical impact on founders. Much like getting dumped by a woman you love, entrepreneurs will speak of a pain in their stomach or chest that they just can’t shake.
So much of early success comes from founders evangelizing their efforts, and sharing their company with anyone who will listen. Momentum plays a huge role in a founder’s ability to do so, insofar as it is a lot easier to sell a vision that you passionately believe is going to come true, than it is to sell that same vision in a time of personal doubt. Customers, partners, investors, friends, and family can smell that doubt in a founder’s mind. This reality provides a positive feedback loop which furthers the doubt, and so on and so forth.
The same is 100% true for positive data…and therein lies one of the most important lessons I have learned about starting a company: No matter how bad the news, it is essential that you absorb that blow, deal with the immediate implications, and then do anything you can to generate some good news. The faster you can cut off that positive feedback loop, and shift the momentum of your company back in the right direction, the better chance you have of replacing that “lost value” with something of comparable or greater value. It is your responsibility as a founder, to turn this corner faster than everyone else in your company, and let them draft off of your forward momentum.
None of this is an argument for denial of the facts, and believe me, hindsight is 20/20 (there were days in Untitled Partners where I was not able to do this fast enough), but I think this skill, of taking a punch, and getting back up fast, is one of the most important to develop in a founder’s tool kit. And there is no “faking it.” You can’t just throw a smile on top of negative energy and sell everyone on “the positives.” It is about actually addressing bad news, developing methods to accelerate your personal recovery time, and then quickly taking steps to right the ship.
Think about how many times Rocky gets pummeled in that fight with the giant Russian dude who killed Apollo. Every time he gets knocked down to the mat, he gets back up faster…and at some point…the dude that’s throwing all the blows get’s tired, a window of opportunity emerges, and that’s when Rocky is able to start landing his jabs. Momentum shifts, the crowd rises to their feet, the right kind of positive feedback loop commences, and he achieves the impossible. Next time you watch that movie, take a look at Sly’s abs…rock hard, baby. Team Data Owl…start doing crunches. how fast can you flip this switch?
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 12 so far )Consumer Liquidity, Fingerhut, and Good vs. Evil
I remember the first time I truly understood the power of credit. I was 22 years old, working in leveraged finance, and I came across a company called Fingerhut (backed by Bain Capital Ventures and Battery Ventures). Fingerhut may be one of the most elegant and evil business models I have ever seen. Essentially, they are a catalog retailer, much like LL Bean or The Sharper Image, selling consumer electronics, jewlery and other semi-luxurious indulgences. Based on that description, who would you think is their target customer? Probably middle to upper middle class professionals with large amounts of disposable income, right? Wrong. Just the opposite. Fingerhut’s mission is to get their catalog into the hands of sub-prime (low income) consumers, under the tagline “Now You Can.” Basically, they have an embedded sub-prime credit vehicle which extends loans to their customers, who otherwise can’t afford the items in their catalog, so that these luxuries become attainable. That practice, in and of itself is not so offensive, but here is where it gets fucked up. The same Sharp 37″ Aquos LCD HDTV selling on Fingerhut right now for $999, is widely available on Google for $859 or less if I actually felt like sifting through all the results. So Fingerhut charges sub-prime consumers a 15% plus premium for goods they shouldn’t really be buying, and their customers don’t blink. Why? Because Fingerhut extends a semi-usury line of credit to their shoppers who don’t have the cash (or credit) to buy the cheaper good elsewhere. Now, insert all the nightmares you have already heard about sub-prime lending into the model, and you have a pretty good sense of how these consumers are getting raked.
So, here’s what’s interesting. When a sub-prime consumer is going to default on some outstanding debt, they typically have more than one creditor chasing them for money. So how do they choose who to pay and who not to pay? With company debt, there is a very clear capital structure where senior lenders (low interest rate lenders) have a liquidation preference (right to collect 1st) over junior lenders (higher interest rate lenders), and both types of lenders get their money before equity holders (owners) ever see a dime. But consumer debt doesn’t work like that. If I have $100 in the bank to pay my creditors, but I owe $75 to HSBC, $75 to my landlord, $75 to AT&T, and $75 to American Express, it is up to me to decided who I pay and who I don’t. Now, a rational consumer will pay the debt that carries the highest interest first, but it’s almost a coin flip if they are going to completely default on HSBC or Amex. In fact, they will probably pay AT&T before they pay either credit card company, because the immediate impact of losing their cell phone is more “real” than the thousands of dollars they are going to rack up in debt by not paying HSBC (even though if you said, turn your phone off for a month and I’ll pay you thousands of dollars, they probably would do it). Anyway, the point is: where do you think Fingerhut’s debt fits into this decision making process of who to pay? Let’s just say the landlords of Fingerhut customers are not happy campers. And there is where I first understood what it meant to make a consumer more liquid. There will always be demand for a credit product that makes a consumer more liquid, especially if that liquidity is not available anywhere else.
Now obviously, whenever a lender is able to create a credit product that no other lender is offering, they are exposing themselves to a higher default risk, but in Fingerhut’s case, they have subsidized this higher risk of default (or rather they can tolerate a higher default rate) through the increased margins they are able to realize on the retail catalog sales.
When the economy tanked, and before I started to work on JumpPost, I spent about 2 months (with the help of a west coast venture capital firm), trying to figure out how I could make a now cash-strapped American population more liquid. My energy turned to consumer finance and credit products, as that seemed to be the best way to put a little extra cash in people’s pockets, but amongst other very serious business risks, I learned that businesses in this space tend to dip their toes in murky waters. I think most people, at one point or another in their career, are faced with an inflection point where they need to decide “Am I on the side of good, or the side of evil?” It’s not necessarily quite so binary, and everybody’s definition of good and evil is different, but I think you need to be able to wake up in the morning and like the guy who you see in the mirror. So, I found another way to put cash in consumers pockets: JumpPost. We’re heads down getting an alpha product up and running, but as early as January, we’re going to start helping consumers earn a little extra spending money…And that feels pretty good. Dudes at Fingerhut, probably not feeling quite so good.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )Next Entries »
Jordan Cooper's Blog: startups, venture capital, etc... 