Dive Into Media: Salar Kamangar
At the D:Dive Into Media conference, YouTube boss Salar Kamangar sat down with AllThingsD’s Peter Kafka to talk about why videos of dogs on skateboards are far more lucrative when they’re part of a dog-lovers channel or a skateboard channel.
Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross |
I’ve listened to this soundtrack endlessly during work last year.
(via nedhepburn)
(Source: moscowstars)
A few weeks back I took a call from a group looking to start a new seed fund. After exchanging backgrounds and niceties I asked why they wanted to start the fund. Their response? To make money. My response? They’d make more money putting their cash into a money market account. That’s not very sexy or exciting but it’s reality. Today’s data from Cambridge Associates backs that up. From the report:
The median net return to VC fund investors has not been positive for any vintage year since 1998. Just think about that for a moment. Despite the past decade’s many hits (Google, YouTube, EqualLogic, etc.), the typical VC fund has lost money for its limited partners. Even the top-quartile benchmarks aren’t very impressive over the past decade, with the best figure coming in at 5.59% for 2001 vintage funds. No wonder how many institutional investors have mostly turned their back on venture capital as an asset class. If things don’t turn around soon, even some of the holdouts might begin to reconsider.
While we were raising our most recent fund, an extremely successful institutional investor shared with us a dirty little secret. Of the all the funds they’d backed since 2000, only 2 of them had returned 2x capital and those returns were driven by 1 company in each of those respective firms’s portfolios. A bleak mashup of data points.
A few thoughts:
- First, I’m terribly grateful for the investors who back OATV. They see this same data too. They believe we can be an outlier who bucks the trend. I feel a strong sense of stewardship for their capital, appreciation for their trust and optimism that we can return it to them many times over.
- I know I jab at big VCs from to time, but a handful of them have been delivering outsized returns for decades now. They don’t call Sequoia, Accel, Benchmark, KP, Matrix, Greylock “top tier” for nothing. They’ve figured out a few things related to building enduring companies and consistently delivering returns for their investors. I respect that.
- If you’re going to start a new fund, be different. Proprietary dealflow, investment stage, operating experience or deep network of industry contacts are meaningless buzzwords that aren’t going to set you apart from the pack. As SuperLP says “to do something outstanding takes audacity. And indeed, private equity should be all about audacity”. Being the 10th seed fund, or 5th “opportunity” fund isn’t going to set you apart from the pack. Be different.
- Building a venture fund, like the start ups we back, is hard. Our chances of success aren’t much better than theirs. Like those start ups, the chips are definitely stacked against us. Despite all that, if you believe you have something different to offer, you fight like hell to bring it to market and you have an disproportionate dose of luck you can build a firm that proves an outlier to this data.
2011 marks my first complete decade as a VC. As these numbers point out, it hasn’t been pretty. But I remain optimistic. I see a strong set of firms in the top tier. I see a new crop of firms thinking differently about the business of building businesses. Most importantly, I see more markets than ever ripe for disruption and a wave of entrepreneurs who have the technologies and know how to do so.
As is usually the case, the chips are stacked against all of us. But, we wouldn’t have it any other way.
What Exactly is a Business Model? - Vivek Wadhwa
Everyone in the tech world talks about business models. But I’ll bet that if you quizzed a random sample of these people, you’d find that they really don’t know what a business model is. I did just that with my students at UC-Berkeley. Most raised their hands, and MBA student Blake Brundidge’s attempt to answer the question was a valiant one—but none of them really had a clue. The only one who got the answer right was Lionel Vital, a Stanford student gatecrashing my iSchool class. The reality is that a business model is like the old saying about teenage sex: everyone talks about it all the time; everyone boasts about how well he or she is doing it; everyone thinks everyone else is doing it; almost no one really is; and the few who are are fumbling their way through it incompetently. (Yes, I know things have changed.) I’ll tell you what a business model is, in case you are quizzed by your investors. Now let’s discuss business models. Sorry, the teenagers reading this will need to get their sex education somewhere else. I teach only entrepreneurship and globalization. Step one in building a successful business is to learn what products or technologies your customers really need and are willing to buy. This is an iterative process that I explained inthis piece. The vast majority of technology startups fail because too few customers buy or use their products. So don’t underestimate the importance of validating and testing your ideas. Developing the right product is hard. But what is harder is building a good business model. Fortunately, there’s nothing magical about a business model. It’s simply the nuts and bolts of how a business plans to generate revenue and profits. It details your long-term strategy and day-to-day operations. Entrepreneurs put together elaborate business plans showing optimistic market-share projections. Even 1% of a billion-dollar market seems lucrative, right? Wishful thinking is great, but when it comes time to create your business model, you need to be realistic. The challenges differ from industry to industry, but here are seven basic components of a business model: 1. Reaching customers. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously said, “Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door.” The reality is that even if you did, no one would find you. Even when you know who your prospects are, it’s usually difficult and costly to reach them. You have to find them via the Internet and e-mail, or the old-fashioned way—through broadcast media, print ads, direct mail, telemarketing, or references or by cold-calling. And these potential customers are not likely to be waiting to hear from you and may not respond to you. So be sure you know how you are going to find and reach them. 2. Differentiating your product. You think you’ve got the very best solution, but so does the other gal (or guy). There’s always competition, whether you realize it or not. Smart marketing executives know how to develop unique product-positioning strategies that highlight a product’s true value. You need to thoroughly understand the competition and effectively communicate the unique advantages of your product. 3. Pricing. One of the most basic decisions you have to make is how much you’re going to charge for your product or service. Giving your stuff away is the way to go on the web, but remember that you still need to figure out how you are eventually going to make money—you can’t make it up on volume. Start by understanding how much customers value what they’re gaining from you. Then you need to estimate your total costs, analyze the competitive landscape, and map out your long-term strategy. For your company to survive, your product’s price must be greater than its overall cost. 4. Selling. Persuading customers to buy a product that they need is one of the most important skills an entrepreneur must learn (read It’s All About Selling for Survival). You’re going to be selling at every juncture. So you have to understand what it takes to close a deal and put together the necessary sales process. And this process has to be perfectly conceived. Be sure you test your selling strategy as you would your product. 5. Delivery/distribution. This is easy on the Internet. But for big-ticket items, you usually require a direct sales force; for mid-range products, distributors or value-added resellers; and, for low-priced items, retail outlets or the Internet. It’s different in every industry and for every type of product, but you have to get this right. Your products need to be designed and packaged for the channel through which they will be distributed to customers. 6. Supporting Customers. In addition to teaching customers how to use your product, you need to ensure that you can deal with defects and returns, answer product questions, and listen to and incorporate valuable suggestions for improvement. You may need to provide consulting services to help customers integrate and implement your products. If your product is a critical component of a business, you may also need to provide 24/7 onsite or web support. 7. Achieving customer satisfaction. The ultimate success or failure of a business depends on how much it helps customers achieve their objectives. Happy customers will become your best sales people and buy more from you. Unhappy customers will become your biggest liability. You can innovate as much in your business model as you do in your products. Be prepared to evolve your innovation strategy as you gain experience and as your market changes. Like your products, it will probably take several versions to get your business model right; you get better with practice.
But first, let me answer the big question that is surely on your mind: what is a Stanford student doing at Berkeley? It may be that our classes at Berkeley are much better than those at Stanford. That is probably why Lionel approached me at the beginning of the semester and begged to be allowed to audit my class. To Lionel’s credit, he scored better than any of the Berkeley students. So perhaps some Stanford kids are a little smarter, but Berkeley students get better education? I know that our students certainly have a lot more fun. You just have to visit the campuses to note the stark difference.
All the pieces have to come together like a jigsaw puzzle in your business model. The good news is that you don’t have to start from scratch when formulating it. You can give yourself a head start by learning from competitors and other markets. It is not only the successes that provide valuable lessons; it is also the failures.
Tanks in the cloud: Computing services are both bigger and smaller than assumed
Dec 29th 2010 | from The Economist PRINT EDITION CLOUDS bear little resemblance to tanks, particularly when the clouds are of the digital kind. But statistical methods used to count tanks in the second world war may help to answer a question that is on the mind of many technology watchers: How big is the computing cloud? This is not just a question for geeks. Computing clouds—essentially digital-service factories—are the first truly global utility, accessible from all corners of the planet. They are among the world’s biggest energy hogs and thus account for a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. More happily, they allow firms in developing countries to leapfrog traditional information technology (IT) and benefit from advanced computing services without having to build expensive infrastructure. The clouds allow computing to be removed from metal boxes under desks and in firms’ basements to remote data centres. Some of these are huge, with several hundred thousand servers (high-powered computers that crunch and dish up data). Users pay for what they use, as with electricity. As with electricity, they can increase their usage quickly and easily.
The “cloud of clouds” has three distinct layers. The outer one, called “software as a service” (SaaS, pronounced sarse), includes web-based applications such as Gmail, Google’s e-mail service, and Salesforce.com, which helps firms keep track of their customers. This layer is by far the easiest to gauge. Many SaaS firms have been around for some time and only offer such services. In a new study Forrester Research, a consultancy, estimates that these services generated sales of $11.7 billion in 2010. Going one level deeper, there is “platform as a service” (PaaS, pronounced parse), which means an operating system living in the cloud. Such services allow developers to write applications for the web and mobile devices. Offered by Google, Salesforce.com and Microsoft, this market is also fairly easy to measure, since there are only a few providers and their offerings have not really taken off yet. Forrester puts revenues at a mere $311m. The most interesting layer—the only one that really deserves to be called “cloud computing”, say purists—is “infrastructure as a service” (IaaS, pronounced eye-arse). IaaS offers basic computing services, from number crunching to data storage, which customers can combine to build highly adaptable computer systems. The market leaders are GoGrid, Rackspace and Amazon Web Services, the computing arm of the online retailer, which made headlines for kicking WikiLeaks off its servers. This layer is the hardest to measure. It is growing rapidly and firms do not report revenue numbers; nor are they very forthcoming with information, arguing unconvincingly that this would help their competitors. Amazon, for instance, only reveals that it now stores more than 200 billion digital “objects” and has to fulfil nearly 200,000 requests for them per second—impressive numbers but not very useful ones (an object can be a small file or an entire movie). Rackspace says it operates nearly 64,000 servers globally, but notes that only some are used for IaaS. This reluctance to share information has inspired analysts and bloggers to find out more, in particular about Amazon. That is where the tanks come in. During the second world war, the allies were worried that a new German tank could keep them from invading Europe. Intelligence reports about the number of tanks were contradictory. So statisticians were called in to help. They assumed that the Germans, a notoriously methodical lot, had numbered their tanks in the order they were produced. Based on this assumption, they used the serial numbers of captured tanks to estimate the total. The number they came up with, 256 a month, was low enough for the allies to go ahead with their plans and turned out to be spot-on. German records showed it to be 255. Using this approach, Guy Rosen, a blogger, and Cloudkick, a San Francisco start-up which was recently acquired by Rackspace, have come up with a detailed estimate of the size of at least part of Amazon’s cloud. Mr Rosen decrypted the serial numbers of Amazon’s “virtual machines”, the unit of measurement for buying computing power from the firm. Alex Polvi, the founder of Cloudkick, then used these serial numbers to calculate the total number of virtual computers plugged in every day. This number is approaching 90,000 for Amazon’s data centres on America’s East Coast alone (see chart). The results suggest that Amazon’s cloud is a bigger business than previously thought. Randy Bias, the boss of Cloudscaling, a IT-engineering firm, did not use these results when he put Amazon’s annual cloud-computing revenues at between $500m and $700m in 2010. And in August UBS, an investment bank, predicted that they will total $500m in 2010 and $750m in 2011. These numbers give at least an estimate of the size of the market for IaaS. Amazon is by far the market leader with a share of between 80% and 90%, according to Mr Bias. Assuming that Cloudkick’s and Mr Bias’ numbers are correct, revenues generated by computing infrastructure as a service in 2010 may exceed $1 billion. So how big is the cloud? And how big will it be in, say, ten years? It depends on the definition. If you count web-based applications and online platforms, it is already huge and will become huger. Forrester predicts that it will grow to nearly $56 billion by 2020. But raw computing services, the core of the cloud, is much smaller—and will not get much bigger. Forrester, reckons it will be worth $4 billion in 2020 (although this has much to do with the fact that even in the cloud, the cost of computer hardware will continue to drop, points out Stefan Ried of Forrester). At any rate, the cloud is not simply “water vapour”, as Larry Ellison, the boss of Oracle, a software giant, has deflatingly suggested. One day the cloud really will be big. Given a little more openness, more people might actually believe that.
My wife doesn’t “get” Foursquare. In fact, she so doesn’t get it that she won’t even let me load it on her phone. The idea of checking in and knowing where her friends are holds no appeal. Despite my most compelling pitches for why she should be on there, she hasn’t budged.
That is, until I showed her the Gap ad above. The “Add to Foursquare” button was something she saw immediate utility in. If she reads a review of a restaurant she wants to try on a blog she follows- Add to Foursquare. If she sees an offer for a store she wants to visit or a product she wants to try- Add to Foursquare. Blending her online habits of discovery with an app that reminds her of of these fleeting interests in the context of real world activites made for a much more compelling use case than any I’d ever offered up
Which is why I think “Add to Foursquare” is important. Its a way to fuse online intent with offline action that is compelling on both sides of the click.
To the merchant, its a compelling, lightweight way of encouraging an action related to their product, service or offer in the moment of authentic discovery and interest. It can be embedded in a company site, a blog post or a banner ad. I’ve not seen much real innovation in online display ads over the years, but the marrying a banner ad with an “Add to Foursquare” button creates an entirely new ad unit that I think will be effective for any advertiser with an offline presence- large and small.
To the end user, it provides real world utility. There’s no flashing “buy now” button or clicking of an ad that takes you out of your workflow. Its more of a bookmark for the real world. Take a look at this list of must try restaurants for 2011 from New York Magazine. With a few clicks I’ve now loaded up 4 I want to try on my next trip to NYC. No bookmarking the article, no emailing myself the link. Now they’re loaded up and actionable.
This is still a very new feature for Foursquare with light distribution at the moment. But, as a user of the service, I’m anxious to see more and more of the “Add to Foursquare” buttons out in the wild. As an investor, I’m encouraged to see the team delivering on their promise to move beyond the check-in and unlock more utility for a broader audience of mainstream consumers. And, as someone deeply interested in the intersection of location and mobility I’m excited to see how this market continues to unfold in new and unexpected ways.
One last point. These are the kinds of innovations you get when you lead from the front. Team Foursquare lives and breaths this stuff. Location is in their DNA. They were exploring the potential of mobile long before it was cool. “Add to Foursquare” is just the latest instantiation of the future they see for a mareket they are creating. This isn’t a move for the sake of parity, this isn’t a little twist on someone else’s feature, this is category defining stuff and that’s why its important too.
