Linuxworld Boston

Last year at this time, I was at Demo in Arizona watching a couple of my portfolio companies launch new products and networking with other VCs and entrepreneurs.  Given my travel schedule of late, I decided to go to Linuxworld in Boston for a day and follow Demo from many of the bloggers like Jeff Nolan.  It seems that the consensus view from Demo was that there were lots of interesting products but nothing that blew the audience away.  I, too, can say the same about Linuxworld.  After a few meetings in the morning, I decided to walk the expo hall to see the various offerings.  I saw my fair share of companies that sold into the high performance computing (HPC) market with various clustered file servers, data replication, and workflow application software.  I also saw a number of companies offering tools to better manage deployment and performance of Linux boxes.  Then there were a few companies selling enterprise applications like document management platforms and antivirus and antispam software on Linux-not terribly exciting.  Finally, there were various companies going after the desktop Linux market with operating systems and applications-while I found some of them intriguing, it is still quite early. 

One area I did like was the market for software compliance.  As we move to a componentized world where developers increasingly build in pieces of software from a variety of sources, how does a company know what they are using and from whom and more importantly what the licensing rights are for those components.  2 early stage companies going after this space are Palamida and Black Duck software.  I had a chance to speak with one of the founders of Palamida, Theresa Bui Friday, and came away quite impressed.  The Palamida software works like an antivirus scanner looking into code and checking against its compliance database to catalog your code base, identify whose components you are using, and then providing the user with the associated license and contact information.  Increasingly IP compliance is becoming a big deal, especially when you talk to CIOs, and incorporating this type of automated scanner early in the development process can save customers a ton of headaches and potential dollars from law suits.  I view this market as part and parcel with the source code scanning market.  Increasingly, secure coding is being built into the QA process and companies are coming out with automated scanners to check for vulnerabilities before products go to GA.  According to Reflective and NIST (full disclosure I am an advisory board member) it costs less than $0.10 to scan code early in the development process and up to $1,000 per line of code once a product is in GA. 

HBS Compensation Survey

Professor Noam Wasserman of HBS along with individuals from J. Robert Scott, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Ernst & Young LLP put together an annual compensation report for venture-backed companies.  If you are venture-backed and interested in participating and receiving a free copy of the report to baseline compensation for your employees, I suggest going to CompStudy to get started.  I cannot tell you how many times executives at my portfolio companies ask me for comp numbers for certain roles in their geographic area.  While there are biases in any report, it is helpful to get a few of these different surveys to make sure your new hire’s compensation requirements are in the ballpark.  One final note-if you want to be included in the survey, please fill out by February 28.

Who owns the relationship?

I was talking with a friend of mine yesterday about doing business development deals, and he was quite frustrated by the process that he was experiencing with one potential partner.  He was calling on the highest levels at the company and knew that the ultimate decision rested with an executive committee.  He met with 4 of the 6 members of the committee and each meeting seemed to be better than the previous one.  In his last meeting, one of the executive committee members told him to go to yet another person to get the deal done.  My friend was caught in a classic case of pass the hat.  Everyone was excited about doing a deal, yet no one was willing to step up and take ownership of it.  Before assuming any deal will happen, you need to ask yourself a few questions such as:

1. Who owns the relationship?  In the example above, everybody was excited about a potential partnership, yet no one stood up to champion the deal and own it.
2. Who will get fired for not doing a deal?  Every person has annual and quarterly objectives they need to hit.  If doing a deal with your company creates more work, then why should they do it.  However, if doing a deal with your company fits in the parameters of their overall goals, then you are probably in the right spot.
3. Who will implement the deal?  In many cases, VCs and entrepreneurs can do a great job calling on a high level with executives at a company.  However, the executives at a company do not usually implement the deal.  Once a deal is signed, you need to understand who the day-to-day interface will be and how you and your company can make that person look like a hero.

In conclusion, I told my friend to stop wasting his time with that company and to focus on other deals.  As a startup your resources are limited and some of the major decisions you make at a company are what you are not going to do rather than what you are going to do.  In other words, you need to know when to say no.  If you can do that earlier in a business development or sales process, the better off you will be.

Highlights from a recent VC panel

On Thursday, I had the opportunity today to speak on a panel at the SAEC Global Venture Congress.  Other panelists included the moderator, Scott Maxwell from Insight Venture Partners, Bob Gold of Ridgewood Capital, Robert Dennen of Enhanced Capital Partners, Todd Pietri of Milestone Venture Partners, and Roger Hurwitz of Apax Partners.  Our panel was focused on helping entrepreneurs build a winning technology company.  While there were a number of interesting thoughts presented by my fellow panelists, a few important highlights were the following:

1. Release early and often – It is better to release an imperfect product, get feedback, and continue evolving than trying to release the perfect product because you may never get there and run out of cash before doing so.

2. Filling the product management/marketing role early is key.  Having a person who can shape the product and prioritize features by gathering the data in terms of what customers need near-term and what the market may need longer term is imperative.  More often than not I find early stage companies that are engineer-driven that spend too much time on features that the market may not need.  Avoid this problem early on and focus your limited resources on the right priorities.

3. Sales ramp – Do more with less and be careful of ramping up sales until you have a repeatable selling model.  In other words do not hire too many sales people and send them on a wild goose chase until you have built the right product, honed the value proposition, identified a few target markets with pain, and can easily replicate the sales process and model from some of your customer wins.

While our panel was focused on helping entrepreneurs build a winning technology company, we also did have the opportunity to digress briefly and dive into business models that we liked.  When Scott made all of us pick what type of company we preferred in terms of its target market from a list of enterprise, SMB, or consumer, it was interesting to hear the responses.  I selected enterprise with the caveat that the company have a scalable business model (capital efficient, channel friendly, OEMable, possibly hosted, etc.) while a number of others voted consumer, SMB, and hosted software.  If you asked the same question a few years ago, I am sure that enterprise would have been the overwhelming choice.  While there was no consensus on SMB vs. consumer, it was quite clear that all of us had a limited appetite for investments in traditional enterprise companies predicated on large direct license sales.   

Search innovation

There is obviously lots of innovation happening in the search space.  Luckily, I have 2 portfolio companies that I respectively invested in during 1999 and 2000 which survived the nuclear winter and are having an opportunity to contribute to this innovation by helping make search better and easier for users.  One is Gurunet which delivers a better search by giving users answers instead of links via desktop tools or through its website at Answers.com.  See Fred Wilson’s post for more information on Gurunet and Answers, as this week was a big one for the company.  First, Walt Mossberg wrote a nice review on Thursday and yesterday Search Engine Watch announced that Google is using Answers.com as its definition link at the top of every results page. 

Another portfolio company, Moreover Technologies, has a real time information management platform that delivers breaking news from the web and blogs.  As an early pioneer in RSS, Morever did a great job repositioning its business during the downturn and selling its information feeds into the enterprise and powering other search engines with news feeds.  Recently, Microsoft announced that it was going to allow users to add RSS feeds to its MyMSN service powered by Moreover.  You can read more about it here.  You can also get Moreover’s feeds through a number of RSS readers like Pluck, Feeddemon, and Newsgator.  As it relates to 3 RSS readers just mentioned, Moreover plans to monetize this distribution by delivering ads through RSS.  As a blogger, I have definitely looked at a variety of business models in the space and am a believer that RSS ads is one way to go.  There has been lots of conversation about how much more valuable a subscriber is vs. a visitor in terms of relationship building, and I hope that the ads will not turn away end users from valuable content.  Either way, it is great to see Moreover helping bring news and RSS to the masses via these deals. 

To both companies, I want to say congratulations for sticking though the tough times.  Your hard work is beginning to pay off now. 

Full disclosure – I am an investor and on the boards of both companies.

You only have one chance to make a first impression

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to spend time with the CTO of a major financial services company with a $1 billion IT budget.  In these meetings I like to learn about the major priorities and where the open opportunities for early stage companies exist.  The good news was that the company was very open to working with entrepeneurial ventures.  Priority number 1 for the organization was to standardize on a common architecture and infrastructure.  When the company deploys a new app, the developers should only have to worry about coding the business rules and not about what infrastructure to deploy and how to manage the application.  At the end of the day, like most large institutions, this company was focused on increasing capacity utilization and moving to an on-demand model where new applications can tap into a pool of resources, where these resources are monitored closely for performance, and where these applications can have real service-level agreements and chargebacks tied to them.  The company said it was still early in the process and that alot of the big vendors still do not address the needs.

The other major initiative was security.  We spent a fair amount of time talking about best-of-breed versus the single vendor approach.  While the company had a bias towards single vendor for most infrastructure buys, it certainly was an advocate of best-of-breed for security.  We talked about how a monoculture was not as immune to disease and attacks as a heterogenous environment.  What this means is not only layering security but also deploying 2 different security products at each layer to avoid company or product-specific attacks.  This is a big deal at lots of companies which is why, despite the intense roll-up activity in the security space, that new vendors will constantly have the opportunity to sell.

As always, I had the opportunity to find out where a few of my companies were in the sales process.  The big takeaway for me was that "you only have one chance to make a first impression."  What does that mean?  Well, in today’s environment, enterprises have the upper hand.  This means that most enterprise sales end up in a proof of concept (POC) or bake-off against other competitors.  So the first impression you make in the POC is the installation.  If it is hard to install, forget about it.  The logical conclusion your sales prospect will draw is that it is a hard to use product.  So while you spend time building some great features and making your product more scalable, do not forget to spend time, lots of it, in the areas that customers touch and see.  This means making the install process as easy as possible (this is where appliances can help in many cases) and making your GUI intuitive and easy to use.  If you can’t get this right, you will lose most deals or at least be fighting an uphill battle in a competitive bakeoff no matter how scalable or feature-rich your product is. I tried to get my company a second chance, but the impression was already made.

Developers matter in enterprise sales-just reach them economically

Jonathan Schwartz from Sun has a good post about the nature of developers, and why building a relationship with them is key to creating opportunities.

One of the smartest software execs I’ve worked with had a saying, Developers don’t buy things, they join things."  That’s been a pretty focusing statement for us over the years, and as we enter the new year, you should expect 2005 to be one in which we place an ever heightening focus on our dialog with the community, and the developer community in particular.  And not simply maintaining the dialog we have today, but finding new constituencies, and expanding our reach.  Establishing a relationship with a developer is all about starting a conversation – one that always flowers.  And often into opportunity.

I totally agree with Jonathan on this.  The key, however, for any small company is to do this economically and efficiently.  Let me give you an example.  Let’s face it-many companies selling into enterprises end up going through some "pilot" or "beta" period where a sales prospect’s developers and technologists get to use the software and deploy it on a trial basis.  When I look at a sales pipeline, I always want to know who in the organization the company is selling into and why.  You see, I have more often than not seen a number of early stage companies selling into enterprises but not selling high enough to the people with budget.  In other words, the vendor ends up getting excited about the number of pilots in the market, many of which are with technologists who by nature like to try things and rarely end up buying.  The vendor spends an inordinate amount of time reaching out to the developer or technologist to set up a pilot and then leaves with no defined criteria on when the pilot ends and how it automatically converts into a sale.  The developer uses the product, sucks up lots of our resources, and moves on to the next new technology.  While it is imporant to court developers and technologists in the sales process since they typically have to give the technical buy-off and can just as easily squash an opportunity, it is not a great and economical use of time to have your most expensive direct sales resources and sales engineers doing this. 

Enter the web and the open source movement.  Sure, "try before you buy" works if your users can download the software for free either on a trial basis, say 90 days, or if you open source a version of your product and build a real community.  One of my portfolio companies is laying the foundation and groundwork to open source some of its software to help build a community and buzz around its product.  We know that developers and technologists are key to the sales process. We want developers and techies to download and use the product and bang on it.  However, we just want to reach them in an easier, more efficient way.  Why have our most expensive sales resources do this when we can leverage the web?  We want to build community around the product, gather great feedback, and land and expand our relationship with the developer.  We hope this open source strategy will work as we build a relationship with the developers who ultimately will drive decision making from the bottom-up while our expensive sales reps can reach the execs with budget from the top-down.  Hopefully, the two ends will meet in a selling process with less friction.  We shall see.  I will keep you posted as this experiment evolves.

CES

Just the other day, I took a redeye back from Israel and bumped into a couple of Israeli VCs and entrepreneurs making their annual journey to CES.  I have to admit that I am a bit jealous but since I have a number of trips scheduled in the upcoming weeks, I decided to pass on the conference.  That being said, I have been lamenting with fellow VC blogger Jeff Nolan on how hard it is to get our entertainment gear to work.  I have been waiting to get my home theater system with HDTV for a few years and made the leap this past holiday season.  I have to admit that I am pretty proficient with computers and technology but even I got stumped with the process of installing and making it all work correctly and SIMPLY.  It is no wonder why so many high-tech vendors are focused on opportunities in the digital home because the dollars are huge (I spent way more money on my entertainment systems in one purchase than I did through accumulation of lots of computer gear over the years) and the complexity is high to make it work right. 

While in Israel, I also had the opportunity to discuss home networking and automation with a few bright individuals.  In order to get a fully automated home (like a Crestron) where you can control your audio visual, home network, computers, lighting, heating, air conditioning, etc., from any other room or even remotely, one can expect to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to make it happen.  These vendors typically sell proprietary and closed-end systems that require custom coding to make them work right.  Besides the cost and complexity, the other thing that bothers me about the digital home is that there are too many competing standards and not everyone’s product works together.  For example, Sony pretty much only works with Sony and so on and so forth.  DirecTV provides Tivos that do not network with other boxes while existing Tivo boxes can be networked.  This drives me nuts. As the value is clearly in the software that drives many of these boxes, electronics, and HVAC equipment, the battleground and control will be driven by who can help the consumer cheaply and simply integrate and manage all of their systems.  If there is an industry begging to be open sourced, standardized and commoditized, this is it. While it is in all the vendors’ interest to bring the economics down to reach a wider market, I just don’t expect to see enough cooperation from them to drop their proprietary standards to make this happen soon enough.

Skype and a headset for every CEO!

As I prepare for my trip to Israel this weekend for a board meeting, one piece of equipment I am sure to bring is my Plantronics DSP 400 headset so I can Skype with the CEOs in my portfolio companies. I have been using Skype for the last 6 months and can honestly say that it not only saves a ton of money but more importantly allows me to end the phone-tag game with my porfolio company CEOs and easily communicate with them.  Sure VOIP is great from a cost-saving perspective, but having presence is even more important in my mind.  I know when someone is available to speak and when they are not-no more wasted time with voicemails or I’ll call you back later.  As you know, as an active board member and investor much of the value add happens outside of the board meetings in ad-hoc in-person meetings and calls.  Prior to Skype I had all of the CEOs that I worked with logged into IM, and we would frequently have long, off-the-cuff exchanges throughout the week.  Well, with Skype, we can not only IM but through an extra click turn that into a high, value-add phone call.  Just like in customer service, not every exchange needs to escalate to a live phone call, but having the ability to easily point and click to make it happen is a huge benefit. Wait till Skype adds live video to its platform and the value of that conversation goes up higher.  Of course, the beauty of Skype is that as long as my laptop in logged into a network, I can easily make calls from anywhere in the world.  Since it is the holiday season and a time of giving, one of the gifts that I sent to a new CEO hire (will be announced in New Year) was the the Plantronics DSP headset.  I am now just waiting for him to get registered so we can start Skyping.

It takes time to build value

During the boom, many VCs funded companies and created great exits within 12-24 months of funding.  Before that time, the standard rule of thumb was that it took about 5-6 years for a company to reach maturity, profitability, and potentially become an IPO candidate.  We did our own analysis of venture-backed software IPOs a couple of years ago (based on SEC filings, etc.) using pre-bubble data and this is what we found.  Companies pre-1998 that went public received on average about $20mm of venture funding, were 6 years old, were EBITDA postive, and had a pre-IPO value of around $170mm (includes companies such as Peoplesoft, Intuit, Mercury, Documentum, Checkpoint, and Veritas).  An interesting side note is that Veritas and Peoplesoft both went public in 1993 and were both acquired last week.  This reminds me of a conversation I had this summer with a Veritas executive who said how difficult it was to scale beyond $1-2 billion in revenue and that size matters.  There were a number of companies in that revenue band but very few above it like Microsoft, SAP, and Oracle.  Getting back to the data on software IPOs, during 1998-1999, the companies that went public received around $30.0mm of VC funding, were 5 years old, were not EBITDA positive, and had an average IPO value around $375mm (includes comps like ISS, Micromuse, Art, Interwoven, Vignette, Informatica).  The rule of thumb these days is that companies need to have around $50-60mm of revenue and be profitable for 1-2 quarters before going public.  That is certainly a high bar and many companies will not get there.

Another way of looking at company maturity is to look at M&A data.  This week’s Plugged In column from Barrons has some great data on M&A in 2004 and how many of the companies that went public or were acquired were the very ones left for dead over the past few years.  Of the 247 venture-backed companies which were acquired this year, 222 or 89.9% received its first venture funding prior to 2000 and 159 or 64.4% received its first round of funding between 1999 and 2000.  Anyway, as I look at the data from Thomson Venture Economics and the NVCA, it is further proof that we are returning to normalcy in terms of the time it takes to build value.

Vc_ma_copy_5As you can see from the chart at the left, average valuations of M&A deals while trending upwards in 2004 to $91mm, is still way below the $231mm and $338mm numbers in 1999 and 2000.  As we return to a state of normalcy, the point is that it takes time to build value and nothing happens overnight.  In addition, I also see the definition of what makes a great exit changing.  If we are returning to a pre-boom normalized valuation level where you need to make good money at exits of $50-100mm and a home run deal is around $250mm, it behooves us to make sure that we invest in capital-efficient business models to generate the same 8-10x that we once could with an average deal size of $300-400mm (see an earlier post for more on this topic).