DONNA BOGATIN ANNOUNCES STARTUPALPHA.COM TO FOSTER THE TECHNOLOGY STARTUP CULTURE IN SILICON ALLEY AND BEYOND.
READ ALL ABOUT THE NEW, ONLINE-OFFLINE VENTURE PITCH COMMUNITY AT STARTUP CHATTER, DONNA BOGATIN’S NEW COLLABORATIVE TECHNOLOGY MAGAZINE.
NOTE to Insider Chatter fans: Please read Donna Bogatin going forward at Startup Chatter (no more posts here!)
FriendFeed co-founders Paul Buchheit and Sanjeev Singh: With ex-Googler “friends” like these, who needs Venture Capitalists!
Last week, Buchheit penned an unconvincing mini-treatise purporting to reveal “the most important thing to understand about new products and startups.” I rebutted Buchheit’s “advice” to startup entrepreneurs by underscoring “ Business Plans & Revenue Models: TWO Startup Must Haves“.
My sales rule thesis was reinforced the following day when Like.com CEO Munjal Shah made a heartfelt public plea for startups to focus on growing income, not necessarily (generally non-paying) users. SEE: Like.com to Entrepreneurs: It’s the Revenues, Stupid!
Here at Insider Chatter, I steadfastly evaluate every startup’s potential by its built-in potential for (and interest in) earning revenues and also point out the dangers of believing public “advice” that business plans and revenue targets don’t matter anymore, favored rhetoric of new fangled VCs and monied entrepreneurs.
In similar fashion, Like.com’s Shah lambasted VentureBeat and TechCrunch for dramatizing ventures’ Web traffic numbers:
As a 2nd time entrepreneurs, we at Like.com had decided to not focus on eyeballs or users, but rather revenue and eventually profits. If you remember we first took this approach back in May of 2006 after we launched Riya (and while we had usage) and didn’t know how we were going to make money. We retooled and launched Like.com, which we knew would make money.
How will FriendFeed make money? The Web 2.0 “cool app” built by a trio of ex-Googlers got money today, $5 million from its Googley rich founders Buchheit and Singh, plus some bonus cash from co-founder Bret Taylor’s sponosr, Benchmark Capital.
FriendFeed is now cash rich, but still business and revenue model poor! The FriendFeed mission:
The goal of FriendFeed is to make content on the Web more useful and discoverable by leveraging users’ existing social connections. FriendFeed users get a customized feed of content—from news articles to family photos to interesting links and videos—shared by people they know.
Buchheit on the FriendFeed value proposition:
The beauty of FriendFeed is that it’s so easy to use. It takes only a couple of clicks to share a link or start a discussion with friends. It makes everything you’re already doing on the Web a little more social.
VentureBeat and TechCrunch are on board! Eric Eldon is 100% certain Buchheit has developed “the best software for conversations.” Erick Schonfeld waxes: “There is something pure about FriendFeed.”
There is indeed, FriendFeed is purely another free-to-the-consumer “social sharing” tool thrown into the Web wild for non-revenue generating consumption, come what may. The self-funded startup is carefree about its own money, as well as money (not) coming into the venture.
The famous ex-Googlers have succeeded in spurring a “sharing” of early adopter love for the coming out party of their FriendFeed. Good old dependable geek adulation is an ever burgeoning Web commodity, however, and so is the consumer ability to “share,” and “comment on” and “vote for” videos, photos, blog posts…
Buchhelt may still be “doing NO evil,” but he is apparently NOT doing anything extraordinary either.
WHAT IS THE WORLD UP TO? FriendFeed asks (in a manner eerily similar to Twitter’s (not so) inspiring “question”) and answers:
Chris posted a blog post, Albert posted two links, Rob bookmarked 12 artists, Denao favorited a video…
What an “interesting” way to characterize “the world”? The FriendFeed team assures it will not cease “innovating” untill it has accomplished its “big” mission:
Our goal is to make content on the Web more relevant and discoverable using a combination of social mechanisms and innovative technology. This is a big problem, and we’re just getting started.
Will Paul Buchheit’s self-proclaimed knowledge of ”the most important thing to understand about new products and startups” propel his Googley FriendFeed startup to big Google like glory? UNLIKELY.
SEE: Google Killer Cuill? Ex-Googler Startups Pose NO Threat: FriendFeed, Howcast, Zillow and Facebook Meltdown: Is Twitter Next? and Silicon Alley Web 2.0 Startups: Bootstrap For Success
MORE: Antisocial Google: Googler Bradley Horowitz Mum and Google Knol: The End of Google.com, NOT Wikipedia and Why Google Sites Is BAD Business: ‘Til Death Do Us Part’?
PLUS: Silicon Alley: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Entrepreneurs and How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and Business Plans Help the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid Go Down and DayJet CEO: Business Models Drive Disruption, NOT Technology and CED Tech 2007: 30 Cool Startups, But NO Facebook Apps
Michael Arrington is outraged over what he (now) characterizes as a “hypocritical, wrong and conflicted” Union Square Venture’s celebrity blogging VC: Fred Wilson.
ODD? After all, I subjected an extremely flawed Fred Wilson post last week to a similar style of analytical analysis as Arrington does today (without indulging in similar style emotional, personal vindictives as Arrington does though), citing Jason Calacanis on Wilson’s propensity to over “share” publicly, at his blog: SEE: Why Silicon Alley VCs Should Do Blogging Due Diligence, Too
Arrington wasn’t outraged then, however. In fact, Arrington threw his personal support to blogger Wilson in the comments:
Arrington to Wilson, one week ago: “Fred, Great post. You are such a good blogger, especially for someone outside of Silicon Valley.”
What a difference a week makes? Not really, what a difference a Wilson crtiique of TechCrunch’s co-editor makes! BUT, Arrington’s condoning of Wilson’s “hypocricy 101″ style last week helped fuel the blogging VCs ongoing propensity for doublespeak, a typical Wiilson approach that Arrington notes, NOW:
Also, in a comment to his original post, he says “Erick didn’t get it wrong…but i think he missed the opportunity to get it right.”
How can you be both wrong and right at the same time?
GOOD QUESTION, and “how can” a VC recommend that his portfolio companies sell out to the likes of Yahoo, AOL, Google, while at the same time decrying that such profitable Union Square Ventures business decisions are “not good” for the Internet, as I analyze and critique in Is Union Square Ventures Changing Exit Strategies?
“Web services don’t get better under the ownership of big companies. They get worse,” the Union Square Ventures’ managing partner declared.
REALLY? Poor Union Square Ventures portfolio companies Twitter, Wesabe, Zynga….then? After all, how can Wilson advise “exits” to “big companies” Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft… if such “big” sell outs will stifle Web innovation, according to Wilson.
“We don’t need or want consolidation of services on the Internet,” Wilson warned.
There is no apparent change in Wilson’s VC modus operandi which spurs such “consolidation,” however, if it is to the financial advantage of his Union Square Ventures’ financial returns.
While Arrington defends his writer and Wilson defends his portfolio company, however, there is one entrepreneur’s story that is not being heard: The plea of Munjal Shah, CEO of Riya (developer of the Like.com Visual shopping service), to focus on startups’ revenues:
I would ask every reporter to get a new metric for evaluating how startups are doing. Why can’t Michael, Matt, Om, and others start asking for this info before writting positive pieces about companies.
EXCELLENT SUBJECT MATTER, and one that I continuously report on and analyze here at Insider Chatter. In fact, I headlined yesterday–Business Plans & Revenue Models: TWO Startup Must Haves–a critique of ex-Googler Paul Buchheit’s advice to startups that was devoid of a financial performance metrics discussion.
Michael, Matt, Om, and others may continue to perpetuate the myth that a startup’s traffic is the best indicator of success, but I steadfastly spur entrepreneurs to focus on the bottom line and welcome every opportunity to speak with founders and CEOs about their sales and profitability milestones, and happily share their inspirational accomplishments here at Insider Chatter.
Insider Chatter also respects timed company embargoes, another “glitch” in Venture Beat’s report on Like.com that was lamented by Like.com’s Shah. I have similarily experienced Venture Beat’s “misunderstanding” of clearly stated timing restricitions on news releases. Venture Beat’s self-serving propensity to “hit publish” before mutually agreed upon times risks hurting not only Venture Beat’s Web publishing competitors but the very startups being covered, Shah’s Like.com big case in point.
Remember, though, “It’s the revenues, stupid!” Entrepreneurs ought to heed Shah’s real-world call to financial arms:
As a 2nd time entrepreneurs, we at Like.com had decided to not focus on eyeballs or users, but rather revenue and eventually profits. If you remember we first took this approach back in May of 2006 after we launched Riya (and while we had usage) and didn’t know how we were going to make money. We retooled and launched Like.com, which we knew would make money.
Like.com likes revenues!
MORE: Silicon Alley Web 2.0 Startups: Bootstrap For Success and Silicon Alley: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Entrepreneurs and How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and Business Plans Help the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid Go Down
PLUS: Facebook Meltdown: Is Twitter Next? and FriendFeed: Got Google Millions? Who Needs Revenues!
Determined competition is essential for a democratic United States political system, and for a vibrant tech economy, NO MATTER WHERE THE COMPETITORS HAIL FROM.
A native New Yorker myself, I called my fellow Silicon Alley startups to (who needs Silicon Valley) action yesterday– Silicon Alley Web 2.0 Startups: Bootstrap For Success – pointing out the hazards of relying on Michael Rambo Arrington’s “obsessive” Web 2.0 chronicling and personal startup investment stance for transferable winning entrepreneurial insights.
As Arrington and Loic LeMeur made clear their intention to seek to “change the world” together, along with a dozen of their closest, powerful, monied Silicon Valley “friends,” I underscored: If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere: New York, NY! Sing it loud, sing it proud fellow Silicon Alley Web entrepreneurs and keep focused: A blinding coterie of Internet star-powered “angel” investor friends is optional, very.
Arrington hails the competitive advantage of Silicon Valley is its competitive spirit: The non-stop drive to “compete to the death”! Hey Michael, Greed IS Good, as you well know, and New York City has long been the capital on that capitalistic front!
Arrington’s ode to the Silicon Valley where he made his big mark suggests his turf enjoys some sort of inalienable claim to success with the American Dream: ”If you are willing to do absolutly anything to achieve your dreams, there is no better placed to be than here.”
REALLY? Good thing Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Michael Bloomberg…got lost on their way to California!
What is really ironic about Arrington’s dissing of Seattle tech, though, is that he lambasts the outdoor nature of Seattle’s nature: “If staring at lakes and skiing after work are important to you, don’t be surprised when your startup doesn’t cut it.” HAH! The legions of New Yorkers that toil 24/7 in windowless, steel skyscrapers scoff in the same fashion at those in the valley sitting at sidewalk cafes and golfing after work.
The current Silicon Valley tech gold rush benefits from a happy, temporal confluence of human and financial resources, NOT from inexorable innate “winning” characteristics. The California gold rush fever that WAS based on native west coast assets depleted itself. Silicon Valley may very well burst its own bubble too, for good.
Silicon Alley? Manhattan was the unfortunate 9/11 victim because terrorists were determined to destroy the money making capital of the world.
I was attending a Silicon Alley conference on Internet business models at the time of the attacks at a downtown tech hub. I fled from the falling World Trade Towers and made the pilgrimage to safety uptown by foot with thousands of my fellow New Yorkers.
Silicon Alley is now in flux, as I analysed earlier in the week. SEE How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry
Arrington cockily disses ”mini tech hubs” at his competitive peril, though. I hear people are “Sleepless In Seattle,” but I KNOW, if you can make it HERE, you can make it ANYWHERE!
Stay tuned for New York, New York’s SILICON ALLEY: CROUCHING TIGER AND HIDDEN ENTREPRENEURS! Disruption is in the (smog filled New York City) air!
PLUS: Business Plans Help the Web 2.0 Kool-Aid Go Down and Yahoo Refugees? Hillary Clinton To Save American Dream for Silicon Valley and NYT Accepts Google Muzzle: Bombs YouTube NYC Story
If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere: New York, NY! Sing it loud, sing it proud fellow Silicon Alley Web entrepreneurs and keep focused: A blinding coterie of Internet star-powered “angel” investor friends is optional, very.
While Silicon Valley’s latest French import–Loic LeMeur-hails an increasingly cliched open Web “conversation,’ his thick as honey ode to his own Web insider friends testifies to a not so open, entrenched, self-perpetuating Web 2.0 power clique. BEWARE the dazzle, though: Incestuous back-slapping, mutal promoing and “A-list” money-passing is not all it is hyped to be.
Michael TechCrunch Arrington, for big example. LeMeur offers a Valentine’s Day testimonial to “angel” Arrington for his media and financial embrace: “Michael sees hundreds of startups a week so coming from him it was a important for me of course”( excuse LeMeur’s English!).
Those very same startups that Michael “sees,” however, often bemoan the lack of a net positive “TechCrunch effect.” Just ask Mr. Web 2.0 himself, Tim O’Reilly, as I recount in Web 2.0 Startups: Will Geek Chumby ‘Fade Away’ in 2008?
O’Reilly dismissed out of hand the “obsessive” work of Arrington’s TechCrunch on the very eve of his own beloved Web 2.0 Summit in October:
TechCrunch is the #1 site on the Techmeme leaderboard, yet most of what it covers will be forgotten not merely in years but in months, and have proven to be completely unimportant: the froth of me-too company creation around ideas and trends that as yet are quite immature and poorly understood. (Michael Arrington himself told me that most of the companies he’s covered since starting Techcrunch “have just faded away”.)
BUT, Monsieur LeMeur will protest that OUI, MAIS Michael LIKES my Seesmic! Alas, if Arrington puts his money where his mouth is, that may be the biggest Web 2.0 red flag of all, as I analyze in Edgeio Web 2.0 Bomb: Michael TechCrunch Arrington Cheers $5 million Startup Loss and Edgeio $5 million Failure: The Myth of Disposable Startups.
Beware copain LeMeur’s startup advice as well, I analyse in Loic Le Meur Seesmic Formula? NO (Big) Idea, NO (Marketing) Plan, NO (Revenue) Model.
Voulez gagner dans le monde entrepreneurial? N’ecoutez pas Monsieur Loic Le Meur, n’importe qu’il parle en Anglais, ou en Francais!
Loic Le Meur is an alum of France’s take on Harvard Business School, and so am I: Hautes Etudes Commerciales, HEC. Nevertheless, Le Meur giddily, and Web 2.0 fashionably, disses all notions of solid business theory.
I do not, though. In the world of startup advice, my money would be on a different French-born entrepreneur that ventured to the United States long before Le Meur was on the French-American scene: Georges Doriot, Harvard Business School Professor and considered the creator of the modern practice of venture capitalism, a theoretically sound practice.
LeMeur proudly scoffs at the need for research, planning, marketing…What has he planned to do with all the new found money his star spangled friends are handing over then? The irony of the LeMeur Web 2.0 startup “theory” is that he ought to be able to bootstrap his way to viral success!
Fellow Silicon Alley entrepreneurs, YOU CAN TOO!
Who needs marketing? Don’t focus on getting rich? Who even needs a big idea? as per LeMeur! Just do it, he says.
I say just do it as well, but with a solid, low-cost business plan providing the fuel, NOT big name, you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours angel dust, as LeMeur hails for his own “precious” and “amazing” immigrant startup story.
Here is a bit of the “conversation” that LeMeur’s deliberate money and power fueled startup “friending” has inspired, at Le Meur’s blog:
MON DIEU WRITES TO LOIC: Congrats Loic. Having such a group of rich friends surely must have taken time to cultivate but clearly all that arse kissing has proved worthwhile and with your garlic flair and charm that was easy.
Although I think your hard work starts now because you have taken money from “friends” and they trust you to return it with a successful sale of seesmic. So no pressure then, just your reputation.
In launching seesmic and raising the money you proved two things.
1. It is more about who you know and not what you know. Seesmic is an ok solution technically in search of a mass market but somehow people have given you $6m to show it can return $600m. There are better ideas out there that will not get this level of funding.
2. It is where you live that matters. The names you drop in the post above show that you have to be in the “in-crowd”.
I do wish you well and now wonder who will buy you. Perhaps Microsoft now they have $45bn spare.
MORE: Digg: TechCrunch Bails on Arrington Web 2.0 Fave and Google Joins Blogosphere in Mocking Wikia Search: Jimmy Wales Defiant and Mahalo: Will Calacanis Win the Billion Dollar Startup Lottery in 2008?
PLUS: Why Silicon Alley VCs Should Do Blogging Due Diligence, Too and Is Union Square Ventures Changing Exit Strategies? and How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and LinkedIn Preps Spy Network: Is YOUR Company Safe? and Yahoo Refugees? Hillary Clinton To Save American Dream for Silicon Valley and NYT Accepts Google Muzzle: Bombs YouTube NYC Story
Beware data greedy Facebook? LinkedIn is flexing ITS user data muscle.
What can the online professional network seeking a hefty IPO pay day do to prop up its perceived value? How about trying to milk its vast user base for valuable, non-public information on their employers?
Reid Hoffman believes he is sitting on a LinkedIn gold mine and aims to mine for the gold. LinkedIn boasts an 18 million strong data base of high-level, professional CVs and continues to garner thousands of resumes on a daily basis. In LinkedIn To Mine User Data For Corporate Espionage I analyze how the impending “LinkedIn Research Network” is a new fangled attempt at waging an age-old battle: Industrial spying.
LinkedIn’s Mike Gamson unveiled the new “primary research services” initiative at an event in New York City last week produced by O’Reilly Media.
Tim O’Reilly helped spur along his conference presenter’s promotional case with a personal post at “O’Reilly Radar,” positioning the new LinkedIn service as a new fangled verison of the “Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG),” which O’Reilly assures has “made a splash” and “charges hefty subscription fees.”
O’Reilly undoubetdly is alluding to GLG’s recent venture funding, perhaps unaware (or uninterested) that GLG’s turn in the limelight has also included investigation by the New York attorney general regarding potentialy improper public company insider information transfers from its “experts” to hedge funds.
Gerson Lehrman was coincidentally a “Platinum” sponsor of O’Reilly’s conference!
O’Reilly full steam ahead on the “competitive advantage” he deems O’Reilly presenter LinkedIn will have over sponsor GLG, with hedge funds:
The big difference is that GLG has crafted a stable of hand-picked experts, while LinkedIn will be data mining its database of millions of users to find potential experts. This is significant because hedge funds and other financial firms get little advantage if they are all taking to the same people, even if those people are the top experts in the field. Competitive advantage, referred to in financial markets as alpha, only comes when you have information that others do not.
O’Reilly ought to know? After all, he claims an “uncanny predictive sense,” which he cannily bolsters by “making noise” on behalf of favored companies. SEE: Web 2.0 Startups: Will Geek Chumby ‘Fade Away’ in 2008?
O’Reilly hails the interest of interested financial parties in obtaining “information that others do not” have, thanks to LinkedIn and its data mined “insiders,” soon.
Insider knowledge, insider trading…?
LinkedIn’s Mike Gamson (as per eWeek):
The service will help hedge fund managers and investment banks find people who used to work at a company they’re interested in, or even who is working for a customer of a company they are interested in. ”Let’s say I’m thinking about making an investment in a producer of product X. I might want to speak to people that sell that product, people that buy that product, or that used to work at that company as part of my research process to have a better understanding of how valuable that product is.”
BUT, “let’s say” the “producer of product X” does NOT want current or past employees talking to hedge funds and investment banks about its proprietary, confidential, insider goings on.
Corporations have instituted policies to safeguard against their employees serving as Gerson Lehrman “experts.”
BEWARE LINKEDIN? Reid Hoffman’s user data mine poses greater net potential risks to society than Mark Zuckerberg’s does. IS YOUR COMPANY SAFE, FROM LINKEDIN?
MORE: AP On LinkedIn: Social Networking Gold Mine at $5 per User? and Reid Hoffman: LinkedIn About Face (book)
ALSO:The REAL Google (and Facebook) Nightmares: Eternal Data Traps and How Web 2.0 Meetups Displaced the New York Software Industry and MySpace to Facebook: Where is Your ‘Reach, Relevancy, Results’? OMMA Report and Henry Blodget Tech Ticker Puts Yahoo Finance at SEC Risk
Powered by WordPress | Copyright Donna Bogatin | Contact Donna
