Don’t forget that vision thing

I recently sat in a presentation which a portfolio company CEO gave for a potential strategic partner.  He first started out with a two minute explanation of the business and then insisted on diving into the demo.  I wasn’t sure if that prospective partner really got it and before we knew it, the CEO said it was much easier to just dive into the demo to explain.  I kind of cringed but did not want to stop him from giving the demo as I was hoping he would get to the big picture.  While everyone was impressed with the demo, it lasted too long and got us focused in the weeds and not the forest.  From that meeting, I was left with a deep understanding of the features and functionality but what was clearly lacking was the vision for the business.  If you can’t explain what you do, its context, and the opportunity in a few sentences and have to give a demo for someone to get it, I would suggest going back to the drawing board and thinking long and hard about how you make sense of what you do verbally.  It would have been great if the CEO started the presentation with a clear and compelling message of the company (not the product) on where the world would be 5 years from now and how his product or service today would grow to meet this vision of the future. 

As one of our marketing consultants, Richard Currier, has always told our portfolio companies, "you market the vision, and sell the product." If you get too locked into talking about a product, then your partner or customer gets stuck into thinking about who else does this and why are you different.  Getting into a feature/fucntion battle in the first meeting is not a great way to start.  Sure enough, our prospective partner started naming several companies asking us how we differed from them.  If you start with a vision first and clearly talk about your view of the market in the future and how your product evolves from where it is today to a roadmap of the future, then it is easier to differentiate your company and bring the discussion to a higher level. 

Trust me, the word vision became almost a dirty word during the market crash as no investor wanted to have another entrepreneur or CEO long on vision and short on execution.  The problem is that the very skills that got us to the market hype (lots of vision, big thinking) were not the skills that enabled many of us to survive the downturn (tactical focus on generating revenue, conservative business plan, and execution).  If I look at the world on a spectrum from focus on all revenue and profits on the one hand and all technology and vision on the other hand, I would like a mix tilted much towards the technology spectrum in the early stages of a company’s growth.  Pre-2000, I would argue that the mix was all tech and vision with no focus on building a business.  Post-2000, many companies were much more on the business spectrum and less on the tech side.  Today, I am asking that entrepreneurs bring back that vision thing and show us the big picture because showing me a point product doesn’t cut it.  In addition, in today’s world it is much harder to get public and many of the acquisitions today are not based on how many customers you have or revenue but based on your technology today and product vision in the future.  I have a number of companies being looked at right now and having a 2 year advantage on a product can mean alot for a strategic partner or acquirer. I am by no means advocating that you build a company to flip, but I am just stressing that vision is not a dirty word, that you need one, and that as long as you carefully balance that with building a real business you will be in great shape.

Kinnernet 2006 – geek camp

I just got back from a week in Israel having spent some time in Jerusalem for an Answers board meeting and then making my way to the Ohalo Resort on the Sea of Galilee for Kinnernet 2006.  Kinnernet is a techie geek camp organized and run by Yossi Vardi (cofounder of ICQ).  At Kinnernet, I had the privilege to spend time with some great people from Israel, Europe, and the US.  I suggest checking out Jeff Pulver’s blog and going to Flickr and searching for Kinnernet2006 for pictures and more thoughts on Kinnernet.  There were lots of robots, aerial shows with model planes and helicopters, great discussions on current technology trends, and of course, plenty of beer and laughs. 

One of the discussion groups that I led with Simon Levene (heads up Corp Dev in Europe for Yahoo and Yair Goldfinger (founder and CTO of ICQ and Dotomi) was titled "Are Internet VCs Dead."  You know the backdrop – it costs less to get a company started and to generate users and Google and Yahoo are agressively snapping up companies before VC rounds.  Google’s expertise seems to be buying engineers, many times before a product is even launched.  Yahoo, on the other hand, prefers to buy companies that have some nice user base, maybe no revenue model yet, but also before a VC round.  The last point is that companies are now more capital efficient (see an earlier blog post) where $10-15mm can get a company to cash flow breakeven vs. $30mm.  So what do VCs that invest in Internet companies do? Before I go there, I would flip the question and ask what do entrepreneurs do?  From my perspective, I wouldn’t take in more than $1-2mm to get my company started with a developed product and an idea of what usage will look like.  At that point, as Yair suggests, it is decision time.  Some of the questions to ask include:

1. Do I have a product or feature or can I build a real company (i.e., a growing cash flow sustaining business)? 
2. What is the risk I face in building a company for the long term vs. selling today. 
3. And finally, do the math – if I take in VC money I will clearly have to sell for alot more tomorrow than what I sell for today in order to generate the same or greater value.
4. Do I want to do it?

As a VC, I truly would not want to invest in a company that has not thought about all of the above with a founding team that is fully behind building out the company for a longer term play. All that being said, the numbers are still against the entrepreneur.  While there have been a number of acquisitions in the past year, it is still a fraction of the number of companies started.  Since it is so cheap to start a business, you can have anywhere from 5-10 companies out there in each category.  In addition, it is not clear that many of the acqusitions during the past year could have built real businesses rather than being a feature of a much larger entity.  While the math worked for a number of enterpreneurs that sold, one of the decisions you need to make is the likelihood and timing of being crushed by a larger player if you decide to go alone and raise VC funding.  Whatever you start, I would suggest thinking about what your potential revenue model is from day 1 and thinking through the economics.  Hell, it may change a couple of times, but building a company with the sole purpose of flipping is the wrong idea as your odds of success are very low.

Despite this, the opportunity for entrepeneurs and VCs could not be greater.  There are clearly more users globally, broadband is everywhere, users are more educated, companies can target more, capital efficiency has increased, and there are real business models out there generating tons of profits.  I do not think that Internet VCs are dead, but rather, need to reinvent themselves.   It is also clear that the VC model is broken and needs to change.  As you can see this is slowly starting to happen as smaller funds ($200mm vs $750mm) are being raised, VCs are doing less new deals per year and sitting on less boards, and many are trying to get in earlier.  Having a smaller, more focused fund allows a VC to make some investments during the Angel round ($500k-$1mm), watch the company closely, and give VCs the opportunity to lead the first real institutional round.  If the company has the chance to flip, then great, everyone wins.  If the company want to take the next step, then we can be there to lead or co-lead the next funding round.  It is imperative for VCs to get in early and structure their funds around this because in the Internet space companies can build momentum quite quickly which also means that valuations tend to move quickly as well.  That is also why the Googles and Yahoos of the world are trying to identify the emerging opportunities before the VCs get involved. 

All in all, it was a wonderful time, and I feel honored to have been one of Yossi’s guests and for having had the opportunity to network and participate with Israel’s tech elite.  Unfortunately, I had to head home on a redye Saturday night, but many of the attendees ventured to the Marker Tech Conference where 3500 people were expected to attend and hear panel discussions led by many of the participants at Yossi’s Kinnernet.  Kinnernet was great and I had a blast, made many new friends, and came away clearly impressed with Israel’s thriving and talented startup community.

Eat when dinner is served

There is an article in the Wall Street Journal (sorry-requires subscription) today on pre-emptive financings or financings that happen when a company is not actually looking for capital.  It is common wisdom amongst the investment community for entrepreneurs to "eat when dinner is being served."  In other words, companies should take cash even if they don’t really need it because you never know when the next meal will be served.  This can be great for a company because it can provide a nice cash cushion for the operations, allow a company to spend real time with a potential investor, and help them avoid spending too many cycles on financing down the road. The article also points out that this is a new trend not unlike one that happened during the bubble period.  To be honest with you, I don’t see this as a new trend and a negative thing for VCs to do.  It is a VC’s job to find the best investment opportunities which means being proactive about generating deal flow and not sitting back waiting for new deals to come to us.  Being proactive about new deals means spending time with entrepreneurs before they need money, staying in dialogue with them as they grow their business, and helping lead discussions on the next round of financing.

Being an early stage investor, I have played on both sides of the fence.  I have been on boards where we have been approached preemptively by other investors.  In those cases, it is helpful to think about two points:

1. Valuation isn’t everything – sure, you want to take cash at a good price but if you take too much cash at too high a price too early, it builds unrealistic expectations for you, your company, your existing investor, and your new investors.  You may end up chasing too many different opportunities, losing focus, and having a fractured board because of these lofty expectations.
2. Having too much cash can be a curse and not a blessing – speaks for itself (see my last post)

On the other side of the fence, it is important for us proactive VCs to maintain our discipline, value the opportunity fairly, and really understand and work with the company to determine how the money will be used.  In addition, we need to be careful about helping our companies use their bullets on the right opportunities and not every opportunity.  Let’s not forget the lessons learned during the bubble where companies with too much cash just crashed, burned, and died faster and more spectacularly than ones with less cash.  In general, pre-emptive financings can be a great thing for both VCs and entrepreneurs, but we must be careful about managing expectations and staying focused.

Advisory Boards

I can’t tell you how many companies come in and present and inevitably, somewhere in the deck, is a list of advisors.  Of course, as I dig in to understand what these advisors actually do for the company, 9 times out of 10 they are just high profile names that are thrown on a list to give a company a stamp of approval.  Trust me, I am all for advisory boards.  In fact, many of my portfolio companies have them.  Many entrepreneurs or management team put together advisory boards to get real expertise on product direction, the market, and to expand their network to reach new customers and partners.  Advisory boards can be especially great because the typical relationship is usually noncash and compensation is based on options which vest over a period of time.  So the cash-hungry startup can add talent and help without breaking the bank. However, like any business relationship, it is important to figure out what you want from each advisor, what their time commitment and interest level really is, and then structure the appropriate role and responsibilities. I, like most VCs, am more impressed with companies that have advisory boards that are structured and actually do real work for the company versus seeing just another list of names.

Having too much money can be a curse, not a blessing

Trust me, I love having well capitalized companies.  However, having too much money can be a curse, not a blessing.  More often than not, I see management lose financial discipline and avoid making hard decisions when capital is abundant and not scarce.  To many executives, money does solve all problems.  And yes, having money allows an entrepreneur to do many things with his business like hire more talent, scale the back-end infrastructure, and ramp up sales and marketing.  On the other hand, when an entrepreneur has too much money, the tendency is to throw more money to fix a problem.  Sales are not ramping up quickly enough so let’s hire more sales people.  Marketing is not generating enough leads so let’s spend more money on lead generation.  Engineering keeps missing its product release date so let’s hire more engineers.  And what happens is that more money gets poured in and that only exacerbates the problem as management never really spends the time to dig deep to understand what the underlying issue is and to fix it at the source rather than layer on more resources.  In other words, an entrepreneur only hastens his downward spiral by spending more money on an inefficient business strategy. 

On the flip side, I have seen many an entrepreneur create successful businesses who some could argue were slightly cash-starved.  I am not arguing for entrepreneurs to starve their companies of the resources they need, but what I am suggesting is that having too much money can make one lose their creativity in terms of allocating scarce resources to grow a business.  This is especially quite important during the early stages of company development.  An entrepreneur needs to experiment with various ways to reach his target market, generate revenue, and develop product.  An entrepreneur also needs to stay focused, disciplined, and make hard decisions in terms of where to focus company resources.  Too much capital can kill this need.  Throwing too much money at the wrong strategy or too many different areas only adds fuel to the fire.  While money can really help an entrepreneur scale a business, having too much can be a curse.

What are the key drivers of your business?

Scott Maxwell has another excellent post on his blog.  This time it is on a company’s need to measure and monitor their business.  In an early stage business, I typically see two types of companies.  There are those companies that do not measure and monitor much and instead drive their business by a "seat of the pants" decision making process.  Other companies manage and monitor everything.  The key is not to get stuck in the weeds and get paralyzed by analyzing too much data. For all of my portfolio companies, I like to know what the 4-5 key drivers of the business are.  I like to know what leading indicators are most likely to show an increase or decrease in sales 1-2 quarters ahead and what the company is doing to improve those measures. 

For example, when I was reviewing a financial model with a portfolio company which generated revenue through advertising it was clear that while traffic was a huge ingredient in revenue generation, RPM was an even stronger metric as each change in RPM significantly drove sales.  Over the next month, we experimented with a number of changes (of course we measured and monitored each change against the benchmark) to determine how to finetune RPM.  Why spend more dollars on getting more traffic to our site when we were not effectively monetizing in the first place?  Finetuning our RPM is an ongoing process but now for each dollar we spend on generating traffic, I am confident that it will return much more than a dollar in revenue to the company.  Metrics matter and understanding what inputs have significant leverage on your operating model is the key.

Yes, I know it is hard for early stage companies to accurately predict their revenue.  But from my perspective, the financial model is not as important for accurate revenue prediction as it is for understanding how the economics of your business works.  Does each new customer make money or lose money for you?  In any financial model there are usually a handful of inputs that drive the overall sales and cost equation.  Make sure you know what they are, how sensitive your revenue and costs are to that input (in the earlier example, traffic was a key input but RPM had a more direct impact on sales), and measure, monitor, and finetune your company based on these important pieces of data.

I was at a board meeting the other day and while we were pleased with the results for the quarter, we were struggling to understand why we were not getting more customers if we were winning a majority of our proof of concepts (POCs).  As we dug through the data we discovered that while we did convert a majority of our POCs, 50% of POCs ended up in no decision.  In other words, we wasted half of our sales engineering resources on sales that would never happen.  The key was to go after the low hanging fruit first – only do POCs that can convert into a sale.  So what have we done to correct this?  We now require a more detailed checklist before a sales rep can request a POC for a customer.  Even if we are able to reduce the no decision rate from 50% to 35% this means more sales.  Clearly this does not mean we need to hire more sales engineering bodies as we can better utilize who we already have.

It doesn’t matter if you are an enterprise, web 2.0, or old economy company because everyone must understand the key drivers of their business, measure them, and finetune their operations to run as efficiently as possible!

Successful offshore practices – let them work on your crown jewels!

The buzz around offshoring has certainly died down over the last year.  For a period of time, you could not pick up a magazine or read a newspaper without a lead article on the dangers of offshoring.  I had dinner tonight with a portfolio company CEO who has managed to shift most of his resources to India.  Today the company has almost 100 employees in India, over 30 of whom have been with the company for 5+ years.  Even more impressive is that the employee churn has been pretty low.  When I asked him about the secret of success, he said it was quite easy.

"Let them work on your crown jewels."

In other words, most software development opportunities are with consulting firms where employees work on a project basis.  So these jobs are usually fleeting and never last very long.  Other software jobs are body-for-hire which, once again, is not that interesting and does not provide real upside for the developer.  Many of the better opportunities have developers maintaining existing code, fixing bugs, and doing low-level programming.  By making a strategic decision early to let the developers in India work on the core technology this company has been able to thrive and prosper and turn its offshore team into a real strength.  All of the main architecture and design is still done in the US, but all of the development is done offshore.  The other reason why this has worked so well is because the company also made a conscious decision to send over our existing VP Engineering and a few other key developers to seed and build the team in India.  It is a wholly owned subsidiary and the employees all work for the company.  The startup costs are obviously higher to do this but if you are looking to do offshore development and do it successfully I seriously urge you to consider building your own team if you can find the right lead project/eng. development manager.  I have seen way too many companies fail in offshore development trying to just work with consulting firms as inevitably the churn and training costs end up being quite high.  In addition, to make it really work, let your team build real product, work on new technology, and not just maintain old code.

Favorite Quotes

Today is Wayne Gretzky’s birthday, the greatest hockey player of all time.  Anyway, as I was looking at Today’s Highlights from Answers.com, I was reminded of a couple of my favorite quotes from him:

"You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take."

"A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be."

If you have read my blog in the past, I am sure you can understand why I love them so much.  They are apropos for not only sports but business and life in general.  Read them one more time, think about them, and figure out how it might apply to what you have not done or what you want to do!

Where’s your plan to manage your most important asset, your team?

I remember when I first got into this business over 10 years ago and one of my partners told me that the secret to success is about the people, not about the technology.  All too often we are enamored with how cool or sexy a technology is, invest lots of dollars to create that killer product, and sometimes forget that it is all about the people.  We spend lots of time on product development plans, sales plans, and financial models and not enough time preparing and thinking about how to continue to motivate and inspire your team.  When your assets go up and down the elevator everyday you must constantly remind yourself that you need to care for that asset if you ever want to have that killer product.  The end of the year is always a great time to reassess and plan for the next one.  As I spent the week before the holidays on a few compensation committee calls, I thought I would share with you some of my philosophy on compensation and how to take care of that ever precious asset, your employees.

From a philosophical point of view, I view compensation as the combination of salary, bonus (if any), and equity.  For cash starved startups, having management and employees believing in the opportunity and team and being motivated by equity is key to success.  From a cash perspective, you have to pay market to slightly above market rates to attract good people, but I prefer to see the employees with above market equity compensation packages to align interests.  You never want anyone worrying about paying their mortgage but at the same time, given similar backgrounds, I prefer the employee who will take less cash and a higher equity package. 

The next question you may have is what is the definition of market.  On a public company board, for example, I look at other companies that we compete with and other businesses that are in a similar stage of revenue growth and financial numbers.  On a private company board, there are surveys out there that you can get a hold of that outline compensation for different positions based on venture capital raised, geography, stage of company, and revenue.  None of these numbers are scientific but they certainly help you ballpark market compensation.  Of course, any active venture capitalist can look into their existing portfolio of companies to determine what market really is.  Taken together, you must decide if you want to pay market, below market, or above market compensation.  As I mention above, I like to pay above market on equity and at market or slightly above market on cash compensation.  Of course, there are certain cases where you have to be flexible and pay up for the right person.

In terms of bonuses, I am not a huge fan of cash bonuses for companies losing money, especially in the early stages of development.  As a company matures and hires additional executive talent cash bonuses become more important to retain top level executives.  With respect to bonuses, there are no guaranteed bonuses, only performance-based ones.  In addition, I prefer a performance-based bonus over just paying an executive more salary.  As far as bonuses are concerned, it is really important to have clearly defined goals and metrics to measure performance and subsequently pay out cash.  For most of the key management, I like to tie much of the bonus number 70-100% (depending on which function) to overall company numbers like revenue goals, number of new customers signed, and cash balance related numbers.  These metrics should be simple Yes/No metrics – it should be quite clear if someone realized their goal or not.  Of course, these metrics depend on the stage of company and predictability of the future, but overall it is good to see all of management working together as a team, succeeding or failing together on overall company goals versus measuring performance against individual MBOs.  Of course, this means having a clearly defined budget that is put together and agreed to by all stakeholders including management and the board.  This must be put in place by the end of the prior year so you are ready to measure and manage performance for the new year. 

As I look to the new year, it is important to have an option forecast just like any financial forecast.  In order to do so, you should have a general range of options that you will give to each employee based on their level such as staff, manager, director, VP, etc. so that each employee at each level is relatively the same.  The range is to obviously give a little more or less to a certain level employee based on performance and other factors.  From a company perspective, you then look at your hiring needs for the year, put in the number of estimated options for each employee, and you have just created your option forecast for the year.  These compensation bands are important as your employees talk to each other, and whether you like it or not, employees end up knowing how much each person makes and what their equity package is.  In fact, I have seen several instances of VPs asking for salaries and bonuses similar to their peers out of respect.  This is obviously how I do not want to compensate employees as each function adds a different level of value and each VP starts out at a different time in a company’s life.  That being said, it usually becomes an issue at some point in time so it is imperative to have a total compensation range for each level of employee and to avoid paying someone total compensation that is completely out of range and non-market.

This is just a general framework, and there will always be one-off adjustments to be made.  For example, throughout the year I like management to let us know of any "at-risk" employees that may need some adjustment to their overall compensation numbers.  In addition, we also need to know about which employees we should be proactive about and move their compensation to the higher end of a salary range to further incent them.  Finally, I like to know about any key performers or herculean efforts that should be rewarded with some additional performance-based options.  If you can take care of all of these issues in one fell swoop at the end of the year that is best from a governance perspective.  However, depending on the situation, you may have to act swiftly as circumstances can force you to do otherwise.

Finally, and most importantly, there is more to making your people happy beyond the monetary compensation.  As I wrote in an earlier post, A Players like to work with other A Players.  To the extent that you have a strong team and every hire is better than the next, I can guarantee that you will attract some great talent.  A Players like to learn from other A Players and like to know that when their backs are against the wall, they have other team members with the experience and know-how to persevere.  In an employee’s mind, the more A Players means the more likely that the company will succeed and create some real equity value.  In addition, people like to work on exciting projects in a dynamic, lively atmosphere.  There is a big difference working in an environment with team members who are passionate about the product and success of the company versus employees who are happy to go through the motions.

The bottom line is that you have to take care of your number one asset, your team, and start preparing early in the year to make sure that you have the right plan in place to keep your team motivated and excited to work at your company.  This includes managing compensation proactively but also making sure you hire the right people and create a winning, passionate atmosphere in which your team can thrive.

Thoughts from a recent CIO dinner

One of our advisors for our fund hosted a New York CIO dinner last night.  It was a gathering of 30-40 of some of New York’s leading technology buyers, mostly from the financial services industry.  As a VC, it was quite interesting to hear about the state of technology spending and what is top of mind for many of these players.  Repeatedly I heard about grid computing, security, and service oriented architectures.  It seems to me that all of the Gartner hype put into these technologies years ago are slowly becoming a reality.  As for startups, not many were mentioned, and most of the technology buyers said your best bet was coming in through a larger partner whether it be a Sun, Cisco, HP, or IBM.  In addition, it was quite clear that this was a small community, and like any small community, they all talk with each other and want to know what technologies their peers are using.  So lesson #1 is while it is always hard to land your first financial services customer, remember not to screw it up because if you do everyone will know.  On the other hand if you deliver on your promises and have a great base of early reference customers, it will pay huge dividends. 

During dinner, one of the CIOs reminded me of the difficulty of startups selling into his organization.  First, when you think of IT budgets, you have to remember that about 60% is spent on people, 20% on hardware, and 20% on software.  In the software bucket, much of this money is spent on software maintenance and relationships with existing vendors.  While the remaining small % of spend leaves room for new license spending, only a fraction of that will be even available for early stage companies.  Lesson #2 is that it is important to understand the culture of each financial institution with respect to their reputation of being an early adopter, fast follower, or mainstream player.  For example, someone from Citi told me that if he were a startup he wouldn’t even bother selling into Citi as it takes an incredibly long time and you could die trying.  Ditto on Bank of New York as their business is about settling the trillions of dollars of cash transactions daily.  Nothing innovative they really need to do here except scale and reliability.  BONY gets no points for taking on sexy technology or more risk.  On the other hand, investment banking and trading heavy financial services companies will take a look at new technology to get a leg up on the competition.

Lesson #3, if you sell into a large financial services player, either be well networked, come in through a partner, enter from the bottom up, or go to revenue generating groups with money and buying power.  On the top down approach it is all about having credibility.  No one wants to be the first, especially if your technology doesn’t work.  On the well networked side, get a reputable CIO to believe in you and your service, get them your board or advisory board, and have them make a few calls their technology friends to open up some doors. With respect to working with partners this can be many times more difficult than landing a large customer.  I would not waste your time with a partner unless you have a number of solid customers and can show the partner how they are going to make money and lots of it.  Finally, entering from the bottom up means staying away from the CIO’s office, offering free downloads, for example, where the actual workers can bring software into the enterprise from the worker-bee level.  This takes time but can be doable.  Finally, if you have the right product and reach the right person in the revenue generating departments, not IT, and show them how they are going to differentiate themselves from the competition and make more money with your product and service, you can avoid being put in the IT bucket all together.  What does this mean for me?  I wouldn’t bet the farm on selling to these guys unless you have a team that knows the space cold, is well networked with peers who have budget authority to get the early customers and traction, and unless you are well prepared for long sales cycles.  It is damn hard to break into the clique, but if you do it can be quite rewarding.