:::: MENU ::::

Weekend project idea: recommend a song based on content

Songs embedded in blog posts are cool.

Ben Horowitz has kickstarted this in the tech scene, Danielle Morrill started doing it too. I think it’s awesome, it helps set the tone and ambiance for the reader.

Finding a song to embed in a blog post is hard.

It’s really hard for someone who doesn’t know the lyrics to all the songs in the world to actually get a good matching song.
I’d love a service that would be fed a piece of content and would spit out a list of songs that relate to it.

It can be applied to anything.

The recommendation platform could also be used for a whole number of different purposes, most notably audio and video advertising.


Core startup functions

I recently wrote about the problems of current VC value adds and my views about what VCs will need to do in order to stay relevant in the future.

In those posts I lay out the arguments for why VCs will have to turn more and more into operators. Today I want to clarify that they do not need to get involved with everything, and there are some parts of the companies they should not touch at all. There is a ton of learning and knowledge that VCs should centralize but there is a lot of learning that can and should only be achieved and leveraged by the early employees of the company.

Customer Development

I, obviously, believe that customer development is a central and vital part in any new startup. There is no situation in which this can effectively be outsourced. The CEO or the head of CD need to get the maximum amount of learning and translating that into product and strategy roadmaps.

Product

The founders and early employees should be the ones who best understand the problem and the potential customers, and so they are the ones who should be making the product decisions. VCs should definitely provide their feedback based on experience, but product should be left 100% in control of the early founding team.

Culture

Every startup needs to develop its own culture. VCs should help with process but obviously don’t need to micromanage everything that goes on in a company nor push the CEO towards creating a specific company culture just because it worked in some other company.

Engineering

I don’t think VCs should venture into engineering help. Early engineers are the ones who’ll shape the company and can’t be temporary. What a firm could do, much like Google Ventures does, is have a team of experts to act as consultants and help out on very specific problems as well as recruiting.

 

Do you think there’s something else which a startup must absolutely not be helped with by its investors?


You are not changing the world

I’ve recently noticed a trend in the startup world: people that say they are changing the world by building a photo sharing application or a social game.

I’m not really sure how we got to this point, but everyday I see a twitter bio mentioning “(We are || I am) changing the world”.

I love that people want to work on stuff that has a massive impact on society and makes the world a better place, and I realize that the “valley state of mind” is beautiful because of this sense of purpose that drives a lot of entrepreneurs, but I feel that we need to realize not everyone of us is doing so if we don’t want to appear completely disillusioned and be mocked by journalists and investors alike.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s a lot of people who work on extremely impactful projects that aim to advance human society, but I don’t think that social gaming and photo sharing are some of those.

We are building cool stuff, having fun, hopefully making money, innovating and maybe even disrupting a market or making it easier for people to do something. That’s already good enough. Let’s keep the “changing the world” phrasing for people that actually do. Working on startups is the best thing in the world, we don’t need to fake ourselves into thinking that we’re curing cancer.

Moreover people that change the world do so not by setting it as a goal for themselves, but by doing something they’re very passionate about, achieving scale and ultimately impacting the whole society.

So try to do something you’re passionate about, solve a problem that really bugs you, and try to achieve massive scale, you’ll then be much closer to having changed the world.

So I’ll set the example and start: I am not changing the world.
But I am having fun, learning a ton and doing what I love.


What startups (will) really need from VCs

In my last post I wrote about the problems of current VC “value-adds“. Today I want to expand on that as well as last week’s posts about how VC will morph in the future and speculate about what VC’s operations could focus on, in order to help startups and increase their odds.

My opinion is that there is a massive wealth of knowledge created while building a company, and unfortunately it is usually never captured in a structured way, but rather lives in the minds of the entrepreneur, the VC partner and the employees.

There are a number of VC firms which are experimenting with operational help. First Round CapitalGoogle VenturesAndreessen Horowitzff Venture Capital, True VenturesGreylock Partners, and a couple more are all experimenting in different ways. Building from David Teten‘s and ffvc’s TOPSCAN framework (Team Building, Operations, Perspective, Skill Building, Customer Development, Analysis, Network) I tried to compile a list of areas where VCs can and should add value in a much more structured and productized way.

I’ll try to expand on every single one of those points with single blog posts on how such a product or service could look like.

User Acquisition

Internet companies live and die by customer acquisition. It’s hard to find a very good UA person and VCs could come in, set up all the UA infrastructure as well as help train the people who’ll be responsible for its execution.

Taking it to a new level, I can really see a “user acquisition as-a-service” proposition work really well for venture firms. I know that HackFwd and 500 Startups both experimented with in-house growth hackers and that is a very tempting proposition for entrepreneurs.

Sales

B2B companies can only succeed if they’re able to create and implement a predictable and scalable sales process. I would love to see a VC firm offering an Elastic-like service to its companies.

Recruiting

This is where most of the new “operating firms” have been experimenting. It’s not a secret that hiring the right people for a company is both the most important thing and one of the hardest, and so recruiting is a great place to start for VCs. It’s still not very scalable nor efficient, but I’m confident many firms will improve in this regard.

Portfolio

Companies should be able to leverage other portfolio companies’ products, connections and lessons learned in a faster way. This is probably what Dashboard.io will try to do and it’s an area where VCs have been putting the most effort with CEO retreats, networking events and so on.

Financing

Goes without saying, and is often where investors already help a lot. Still, I think there’s space for a more structured approach.

Design

Design has become one of the most important aspects of a company and product. Dave McClure has gone as far as saying that “Design is more important than technology in most consumer applications”. Hiring a designer has become incredibly hard nowadays and VC firms could really accelerate portfolio companies by helping out with design challenges.

Google Ventures has been pioneering this and founders seem to be raving about them.

Business Development

Business development could very well be accelerated by a VC by identifying leads, qualifying them and providing the right introduction to the founders or VP of business development. Rumor has it that a lot of Andreessen Horowitz ~70 people staff work on BD and Marketing for their companies.

Press

Getting press mentions is often vital to early-stage companies, but having a full-time PR person on staff is too expensive. External PR firms can run pretty expensive too and will often not have the commitment a company needs. In my opinion, having this function centralized on a VC firm makes a lot of sense.

Operations

The boring stuff. Accounting, payroll, benefits, office space search, lunch catering and so on. If a firm is able to offload all of this stuff from a company, I can guarantee it’ll win deals over someone else.

Process

First time entrepreneurs usually have no idea what they’re doing, particularly if they are engineers. This stuff takes a lot of time to learn and implement. VCs should come in and help companies implement lean but scalable processes to maximize learning, transparency and efficiency.

Structured Network

As I said earlier, investors heavily “sell” their network, but the access mechanisms to this network are usually flawed and not scalable. VCs should productize their networks and make them as self-serve as possible.

Internationalization

Companies need to expand abroad faster than ever and usually have no clue how to approach foreign markets. VC firms should build products and strategies for internationalization, which startups can leverage as soon as they’re ready to scale out.

 

One problem I can see is when a startup raises a round from multiple firms. Why would one VC firm have to do all the work? One solution could be to charge for these services, as they’d be invaluable for a company which in my opinion would be more than glad to pay for them. In this way the firm can improve its odds as well as keeping the operations financially sustainable.

My speculation is that if a firm were to offer some of these services, 90%+ of its portfolio companies would pay for them.

In my next posts I’ll try to speculate on some strategies that VCs can use to capture this knowledge and put it back to work in their future investments, as well as define what VCs should not help startups with.


The problem with VC firms’ “value-adds”

Last week I wrote that in the future VC firms will have to more and more turn themselves into operators.

Most VC firms (and angels) will claim they add a lot of value to the companies they invest in, and that’s often true for the top investors. But this value-add generally comes in the form of guidance and intros. This has been of great help to many entrepreneurs, mostly in Silicon Valley, where the right VC can really give you a really strong competitive advantage, but in my opinion VCs have the potential, and soon the need, to accelerate their companies in a much more structured way.

“Old School” value-add

Let’s take a look at how VCs have traditionally added value to their companies:

  • Brand: A pretty sought-after characteristic in VCs. Brand helps giving a small 5-10 people company the legitimacy it needs to attract customers, press and employees. This is often regarded as more important than it actually is.
  • Industry network: This is what most VCs end up helping their portfolio companies with. It’s extremely vague and often ends up meaning “nothing”, but most good investors are usually past entrepreneurs or top executives and have built and developed a massive and very valuable Rolodex which the startups can now access. Contacts are usually extremely useful for business development, sales, recruiting and acquisitions.
  • Funding network: Investors know other investors more than anyone else, and will help their companies with subsequent funding rounds. If your VC is well-regarded, has a good funding network and your company is doing fine, you can usually expect to raise a follow-on round without too many problems.
  • Expertise: Most VCs will have already started or run a company, hopefully in the same space as yours, and can help you avoid a lot of errors you’d surely make as well as give you insights and tips on strategic decisions for your company.
  • Coaching: Being a CEO is a very hard and lonely job. An experienced VC on your side can help you navigate the downs of the emotional roller coaster.

There are a couple of problems with the “network and expertise” value adds:

    • It’s not self-serve. You don’t know who the VC knows and the VC doesn’t always know who you need to talk to. Intros need to be actively requested and initiated.
    • It’s not scalable. One partner can only handle so many investments and if he starts investing in a high number of companies (eg. multiple seed deals while having 2 A or B rounds a year), he will not have the time nor the energy to pro-actively make intros for all of his portfolio companies. This means that if you’re not a very important company for your VC’s portfolio (eg. a smaller seed bet), it will be very hard for you to get access to the partner’s network.
    • It’s not firm-wide. When you receive an investment from a big-name VC, you are only getting access to the network of the partner who invested in your company. Some other partners might know a game-changing person or acquirer but you might never get introduced.
    • It’s not measurable. There is no way to measure how big or valuable a partner’s network is.

In my next post I’ll try to articulate what VCs should focus on while adding value to their portfolio companies.


Pages:1234567...13