Do it like Facebook
reblogged from: bijan sabet

Exit Strategy

bijan:

When I meet an entrepreneur for the first time I like having a conversation about the idea or see the product (or prototype) in action or even a “chalk talk” for those of us that are more visually inclined.

I’m generally not a fan of slides, especially if it’s an early stage company.

But if the founder wants to use slides then I usually go along. Founders should use whatever tools they feel most comfortable.

The one thing I am allergic to is when a founder includes a slide that says “Exit Strategy” and then has a few bullets that says “IPO or sell company to company a, b or c.”

Oy.

An early stage company should be thinking about how to create something great and how they want to get there. How to build value. Not think about exits.

Now most VCs that I know feel the same way about that dreaded slide. But there is a topic where I’ve seen disagreement amongst successful VCs related to the concept of exits when considering an early stage investment. Some VCs will think about who might be the potential buyers of the company.

They do this analysis upfront because most companies never go public. So they want to know if there could be multiple buyers of a company someday. If there aren’t any potential buyers then they it might impact the VCs decision.

I don’t see the world that way.

If you build a great company then you don’t have to worry about exits because you will have many options (e.g. public, get profitable & stay private, secondary offering, sell the company).

I believe there have been many exits where the actual buyer wouldn’t have been on any list at the time the initial venture investment.

This is just speculation on my part but at the time of the initial investment in the following companies who would have guessed the ultimate buyer:

-Flip Video (Cisco)

-Danger Research (Microsoft)

-Daily Candy (Comcast)

-Sling (Echostar)

The list goes on.

Yes, you can imagine the strategic rationale for those deals. But not on day 1 of the venture investment. The world just moves too fast to try and predict this stuff. And it’s not the most important question anyway.

We would all agree, the real question is whether a particular team & product can make something special.

Rafer sez:
I want to hear about liquidity early, but the median deal size and half-life of the deals I’m involved in is much, much smaller/shorter than yours.

Your list of acquirers is a pleasant surprise for exactly that reason. Great startups of (from your model’s perspective) decent scale jump on large, nascent markets before incumbents can. The incumbents slowly adopt the market perspective of the best startups during the startups’ period of most aggressive growth. When those market perspectives are most convincing and the incumbents have to change their market participation significantly, the incumbents acquire those influential startups.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Facebook's Priorities
"The angel network is asking chapters to waive their presentation fees for “true startups” — companies that have no revenue and less than $500,000 in capital and are trying to raise less than $500,000 from investors, said Randy Williams, Keiretsu’s founder and CEO. Williams said the change is not a response to the recent attacks on the fees launched by investor Jason Calacanis — who has promised to start his own angel network on Monday, November 16, unless Keiretsu and several other angel groups drop their fees — but have been in the works for several months. Keiretsu also has no plans to drop fees for other entrepreneurs."

Sleepy Bulldog at Mahalo HQJasonC’s Dog by cfinke via Flickr

peHUB » Keiretsu Forum To Drop Fees For Early-Stage Startups

Rafer sez:
Gimme a break. Don’t deny that JasonC influenced you about startup pitch fees. ‘We rarely let pre-revenue companies pitch, so we threw the droolin’ loony a bone,’ would have improved your reputation. This silly fable doesn’t achieve that.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Image via CrunchBase
Meekery 2009 Gem #2 of 4Yup, wireless Dumb pipes. Of all the wireline carriers, only Comcast has decent market share and it’s because they work at it. They don’t throw up too much walled garden BS, they have real product management, they acquire real companies like Plaxo, et al. They don’t believe they deserve the traffic; they make sure they earn it. The mobile carriers haven’t done that math yet. They may never.

Image representing Comcast as depicted in Crun...Image via CrunchBase

Meekery 2009 Gem #2 of 4
Yup, wireless Dumb pipes. Of all the wireline carriers, only Comcast has decent market share and it’s because they work at it. They don’t throw up too much walled garden BS, they have real product management, they acquire real companies like Plaxo, et al. They don’t believe they deserve the traffic; they make sure they earn it. The mobile carriers haven’t done that math yet. They may never.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Posted 21 October 2009 at 12h18 Comments
Couldery Shouldery
"

Should the situation be different for digital newspapers and books?

Rupert Murdoch apparently thinks the answer is yes. In a statement that appears tone deaf to the privacy concerns surrounding digital media, the head of News Corp. recently announced that the company might stop allowing its material to be sold on the Kindle because Amazon doesn’t disclose subscriber names. “Kindle treats them as their subscribers, not as ours, and I think that will eventually cause a break with us,” he said this week.

"

Image representing Rupert Murdoch as depicted ...Image via CrunchBase

MediaPost Publications Clueless Murdoch Move: Without Subscriber Names, Might Break With Kindle 08/07/2009

Rafer sez:
MediaPost should stick to ad-specific reporting. Nothing about Murdoch’s position says that the information would be gathered in an underhanded or secret way. What Amazon will eventually need to do is accommodate registration-required publishers with a 1-Click reg routine.

And, Murdoch is right. He knows the only reason to own content assets is to gain market power from their distribution channels. If putting the WSJ on the Kindle makes News Corp as reader-blind as a dead-tree edition, they should exit that channel.

P.S. Charging for casual, non-financial content isn’t the solution.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


"When masses of people who own the means of production work toward a common goal and share their products in common, when they contribute labor without wages and enjoy the fruits free of charge, it’s not unreasonable to call that socialism."

Another Year, Another Creative Commons T-Shirt...Image by cambodia4kidsorg via Flickr

The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online

Rafer sez:
I think we’re best served calling it Commonism. An American Commonist Party post has been sitting in draft for a while. The party’s main economic platform is the demand that governments stop treating bits like atoms. In our information economy, the Tragedy of the Commons ceases to exist (except for the carbon creation of the servers). By pretending that the Tragedy applies to digital information, we’re holding the economy back at a truly tragic time.

The mistreatment of bits as atoms also reinforces a conflicted regulatory situation that leads directly to the destruction of newspapers and other businesses. When the regulatory environment so poorly matches reality, the law-abiding appear harsh, stupid or crazy. Executives at large, old companies (other than Halliburton and Exxon apparently) can’t create business processes that are by-definition outside the law and create tremendous liability. Newspaper execs cannot rationalize playing fast and loose with copyright law the way the rest of us automatically do. And, their content is less well suited to grasping, desperate legal actions of the music and movie businesses who are being buried by the same regulatory mismatch, just more slowly.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  1 of 1 

Based on a theme by Hunson (Designed by Josh) / Powered by Tumblr