Archive for category VC

10 best Business for 2009

 In their list of top 10 business opportunities in a down economy, John Assaraf and Murray Smith, founders of OneCoach, a provider of small-business coaching services, recommend the following:

  1. Business coaching: As employees get downsized, upsized or just plain sick of their jobs, more of them are starting their own businesses. You can be there to provide the coaching and mentorship they need to succeed.
  2. Social networking for business: Take advantage of the interactivity of social networking to connect with prospects and help other businesses do the same.
  3. Alternative fuels: Help consumers cut their energy costs with alternative fuels and products that boost fuel efficiency.
  4. Environmental services: It’s the greening of America, and it’s only just begun.
  5. Health care: People are living longer and need health-care products and services to help them maintain a good quality of life.
  6. Nail salons/beauty products: Think fewer facelifts and more facials. People will always tend to their appearance, even in a down economy.
  7. Discount retailers: Give people what they want at deep discounts, just as Wal-Mart and 99 Cents Only Stores do.
  8. Luxury products: Interestingly, yacht sales are up, as are sales of Prada skirts. There are still consumers with money who are willing to spend it.
  9. IT and technology services: Help business travelers cut the cost of flying with virtual meetings.
  10. Credit and debt management: Show consumers how to tighten their purse strings even further.

Raising money, VC or Angels?

Everybody know that if you wat to raise money for a startup you should ask them to Ventur Captalist Fund or to Angels. But what’s the real difference? When to aks to the first ones, and when to second ones? This article form entrepreneur.com should help you. The article has been written by Bred Feld an early stage investor.

As a venture capitalist, I get approached several times a day by entrepreneurs looking to raise money. One of my typical responses is, “You shouldn’t be talking to me; you should be targeting angel investors.”

The source of this confusion varies: Sometimes it’s a misunderstanding of the different roles and expectations of a venture capitalist vs. an angel investor. Other times it’s a lack of clarity on the part of the entrepreneur regarding what he or she wants to accomplish with both the business and the financing. Regardless of the source of the confusion, here are a few guidelines for determining whether you should be approaching venture capitalists or angels for your financing.

 

  • The amount of money you’re raising in this round: If you’re raising less than $1 million, you’re likely wasting your time targeting venture capitalists, with two exceptions: 1) you specifically target funds that do seed rounds, or 2) you have a preexisting relationship with a VC firm and want to put together a seed round to get going quickly.
  • The total amount of money you’re looking to raise over the life of your company: If you think you can get your company to a point where it’s cash-flow positive on less than $3 million, stick with angels.
  • The type of company you’re building: Venture capitalists love to fund businesses with the potential to be enormous. Angels love this, too, but they’re much more willing to fund smaller companies that will presumably require less capital. In addition, most venture capitalists want to fund businesses that have clearly defined economies of scale (such as software companies) vs. ones that scale linearly with some factor (such as service companies).
  • Your experience: Successful serial entrepreneurs always find it easier to raise money from venture capitalists. If you’re a first-time entrepreneur, that doesn’t mean you can’t raise VC money, but you’re going to find it more difficult than an experienced entrepreneur will.
  • Your network: If you’ve never met a venture capitalist before and none of your colleagues have built companies with VC funds, you’re at a disadvantage by having to start from scratch. In contrast, if your best friend’s father is the CEO of a Fortune 1000 company, you have a good shot at quickly getting plugged into a powerful set of angels.

As with all guidelines, there are plenty of exceptions. One seems to hold in most angel financings: the rule of thirds. A third of your financing will come from one investor, the second third will come from a set of people following that investor and the last third will be random. So make sure you go hunting for your lead investor.

Ringtone apps

Interesting article from furbo.org [link]

 

Dear Steve,

As an iPhone developer who’s been in the App Store since its launch, I’m starting to see a trend that concerns me: developers are lowering prices to the lowest possible level in order to get favorable placement in iTunes. This proliferation of 99¢ “ringtone apps” is affecting our product development.

Unlike a lot of other developers, I’m not going to give you suggestions on what to do about this: you and your team are perfectly capable of dealing with it on your own terms. Rather, I’d like to give you some insight into how these ringtone apps are affecting my business.

Both of our products, Frenzic and Twitterrific, have been quite successful in the App Store. Frenzic is currently in What’s Hot and Twitterrific appears in both the Top Free and Top Paid Apps for 2008. We also won an ADA at this year’s WWDC. It hasn’t been easy, but we’ve learned what it takes to make a kick ass product for the iPhone.

The problem now is funding those products.

We have a lot of great ideas for iPhone applications. Unfortunately, we’re not working on the cooler (and more complex) ideas. Instead, we’re working on 99¢ titles that have a limited lifespan and broad appeal. Market conditions make ringtone apps most appealing.

Before commencing any new iPhone development, we look at the numbers and evaluate the risk of recouping our investment on a new project. Both developers and designers cost somewhere between $150-200 per hour. For a three man month project, let’s say that’s about $80K in development costs. To break even, we have to sell over 115K units. Not impossible with a good concept and few of weeks of prominent placement in iTunes.

But what happens when we start talking about bigger projects: something that takes 6 or even 9 man months? That’s either $150K or $225K in development costs with a break even at 215K or 322K units. Unless you have a white hot title, selling 10-15K units a day for a few weeks isn’t going to happen. There’s too much risk.

Raising your price to help cover these costs makes it hard to get to the top of the charts. (You’re competing against a lot of other titles in the lower price tier.) You also have to come to terms with the fact that you’re only going to be featured for a short time, so you have to make the bulk of your revenue during this period.

This is why we’re going for simple and cheap instead of complex and expensive. Not our preferred choice, but the one that’s fiscally responsible.

I’m also concerned that this “making it up in volume” approach won’t last too much longer. With 10,000 apps in the App Store, it’s already a fricken’ cat fight to get into one of the top 100 spots. What’s it going to be like when there are 20,000 apps? Or 100,000 apps? Volume is going to get split amongst a lot of players, hopefully the number of devices/customers will increase at the same rate.

We’re not afraid of competition. In fact, we welcome it as a way to improve our products and business. The thing we’re hoping for is a way to rise above the competition when we do our job well, not just when we have the lowest price.

I’ve been thinking about what’s causing this rush to the 99¢ price point. From what I can tell, it’s because people are buying our products sight unseen. I see customers complaining about how “expensive” a $4.99 app is and that it should cost less. (Do they do the same thing when they walk into Starbucks?) The only justification I can find for these attitudes is that you only have a screenshot to evaluate the quality of a product. A buck is easy to waste on an app that looks great in iTunes but works poorly once you install it.

Our products are a joy to use: as you well know, customers are willing to pay a premium for a quality products. This quality comes at a cost—which we’re willing to incur. The issue is then getting people to see that our $2.99 product really is worth three times the price of a 99¢ piece of crapware.

I also worry that this low price point for applications is going to limit innovation on the platform. Sure, apps like Ocarina and Koi Pond are very cool and very cheap. But when are we going to see the utility of the platform taken to another level, like when spreadsheets appeared on the Apple ][ and desktop publishing appeared on the Mac? (It could be argued that Safari has already accomplished this, but I still think there is a third party idea that will be just as transformative.)

It would be great if the killer app for the iPhone cost 99¢, but given the numbers above I can’t see it being very likely.

Thanks for your time and attention. I hope this information has been helpful.

Best regards,

Craig Hockenberry

 

Facebook loves twitter but twitter don’t!

They say that twitter has refused 500M$ for being acquired by Fb. Everybody knows that Fb and overall the founder are in love with twitter but i’m wondering, what we’ll be the competitive advantage by this acquisition? Should i underline that until today both company are unable to do (enough) money?

It’s probably easier to raise $5 million in funding than it is $500,000.

That’s not what you’d expect. I would have guessed difficulty in raising funds would be linear, but it isn’t.

The primary reason is that there are two typical investors: angels and VCs. Angels are just wealthy people who typically sums of between $10 and $100k, with $50k probably being a good average.

VCs are institutional investors who raise funds often totaling in the hundreds of millions, and are paid in such a way that they are incentivized to deploy the entire amount into investments. So, VCs like to make bigger investments because then they can make fewer. That means less due diligence, fewer board meetings, etc.

Not many VCs make it their business to invest amounts of money that small. It happens, but it’s often just something they do to lock up right of first refusal on future rounds. A lot of companies would much rather raise $500k than $5m, so they’ll do it if they like you enough, but it’s relatively uncommon.

Raising $500k from angels means convincing somewhere between 5 and 20 different people, all with their own habits and goals, to invest in you at the same valuation and terms. That happens too actually, even outside of the few syndicates that exist, but again, it’s hard to pull off.

Full Article

Why to start a startup in a bad economy

This is a Paul graham Article:
 
The economic situation is apparently so grim that some experts fear we may be in for a stretch as bad as the mid seventies.

When Microsoft and Apple were founded.

As those examples suggest, a recession may not be such a bad time to start a startup. I’m not claiming it’s a particularly good time either. The truth is more boring: the state of the economy doesn’t matter much either way.

If we’ve learned one thing from funding so many startups, it’s that they succeed or fail based on the qualities of the founders. The economy has some effect, certainly, but as a predictor of success it’s rounding error compared to the founders.

Which means that what matters is who you are, not when you do it. If you’re the right sort of person, you’ll win even in a bad economy. And if you’re not, a good economy won’t save you. Someone who thinks “I better not start a startup now, because the economy is so bad” is making the same mistake as the people who thought during the Bubble “all I have to do is start a startup, and I’ll be rich.”

So if you want to improve your chances, you should think far more about who you can recruit as a cofounder than the state of the economy. And if you’re worried about threats to the survival of your company, don’t look for them in the news. Look in the mirror.

But for any given team of founders, would it not pay to wait till the economy is better before taking the leap? If you’re starting a restaurant, maybe, but not if you’re working on technology. Technology progresses more or less independently of the stock market. So for any given idea, the payoff for acting fast in a bad economy will be higher than for waiting. Microsoft’s first product was a Basic interpreter for the Altair. That was exactly what the world needed in 1975, but if Gates and Allen had decided to wait a few years, it would have been too late.

Of course, the idea you have now won’t be the last you have. There are always new ideas. But if you have a specific idea you want to act on, act now.

That doesn’t mean you can ignore the economy. Both customers and investors will be feeling pinched. It’s not necessarily a problem if customers feel pinched: you may even be able to benefit from it, by making things that save money. Startups often make things cheaper, so in that respect they’re better positioned to prosper in a recession than big companies.

Investors are more of a problem. Startups generally need to raise some amount of external funding, and investors tend to be less willing to invest in bad times. They shouldn’t be. Everyone knows you’re supposed to buy when times are bad and sell when times are good. But of course what makes investing so counterintuitive is that in equity markets, good times are defined as everyone thinking it’s time to buy. You have to be a contrarian to be correct, and by definition only a minority of investors can be.

So just as investors in 1999 were tripping over one another trying to buy into lousy startups, investors in 2009 will presumably be reluctant to invest even in good ones.

You’ll have to adapt to this. But that’s nothing new: startups always have to adapt to the whims of investors. Ask any founder in any economy if they’d describe investors as fickle, and watch the face they make. Last year you had to be prepared to explain how your startup was viral. Next year you’ll have to explain how it’s recession-proof.

(Those are both good things to be. The mistake investors make is not the criteria they use but that they always tend to focus on one to the exclusion of the rest.)

Fortunately the way to make a startup recession-proof is to do exactly what you should do anyway: run it as cheaply as possible. For years I’ve been telling founders that the surest route to success is to be the cockroaches of the corporate world. The immediate cause of death in a startup is always running out of money. The cheaper your company is to operate, the harder it is to kill. Fortunately it has gotten very cheap to run a startup, and a recession will if anything make it cheaper still.

If nuclear winter really is here, it may be safer to be a cockroach even than to keep your job. Customers may drop off individually if they can no longer afford you, but you’re not going to lose them all at once; markets don’t “reduce headcount.”

What if you quit your job to start a startup that fails, and you can’t find another? That could be a problem if you work in sales or marketing. In those fields it can take months to find a new job in a bad economy. But hackers seem to be more liquid. Good hackers can always get some kind of job. It might not be your dream job, but you’re not going to starve.

Another advantage of bad times is that there’s less competition. Technology trains leave the station at regular intervals. If everyone else is cowering in a corner, you may have a whole car to yourself.

You’re an investor too. As a founder, you’re buying stock with work: the reason Larry and Sergey are so rich is not so much that they’ve done work worth tens of billions of dollars, but that they were the first investors in Google. And like any investor you should buy when times are bad.

Were you nodding in agreement, thinking “stupid investors” a few paragraphs ago when I was talking about how investors are reluctant to put money into startups in bad markets, even though that’s the time they should rationally be most willing to buy? Well, founders aren’t much better. When times get bad, hackers go to grad school. And no doubt that will happen this time too. In fact, what makes the preceding paragraph true is that most readers won’t believe it—at least to the extent of acting on it.

So maybe a recession is a good time to start a startup. It’s hard to say whether advantages like lack of competition outweigh disadvantages like reluctant investors. But it doesn’t matter much either way. It’s the people that matter. And for a given set of people working on a given technology, the time to act is always now.

Y Combinator: Startup Ideas We’d Like to Fund

Y Combinator says to us what are the main interesting idea fields to invest for them. Here’s the link.

I found very interisting:

  • Simplified Browsing
  • Enterprise software 2.0
  • Online Learning
  • Finance software for individuals and small businesses
  • Tools for measurement
  • Web Office apps

but overall the “bestselling”:

Something your company needs that doesn’t exist

Startup, learning from fails

Interesting “post mortem” article written by the investor of Monitor110:


http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2008/07/monitor110-a-po.html?cid=122921406

How To Get A Job In Venture Capital

Interesting article from “FELD THOUGHTS”:

I just posted the great VC blog of the day over on Ask the VC but I think that it is so useful I’m reposting about it here.

One of my favorite VC posts of all times was my partner Seth Levine’s post titled How to become a venture capitalist. I regularly get emails from folks looking for a job in the VC industry and I almost always point them at this post.

Seth has followed up with a new post titled How to get a job in venture capital (revisited).  It’s updated with some additional information for those that respond to the first post by saying “I get it that it’s hard, but what should I do over the next five years to position myself for a VC job.”

While the bullet points (go to business school, work for a start-up, start a company of your own, work for a bank or consulting firm, and put yourself out there) may seem obvious, Seth’s commentary is really helpful.

I strongly encourage anyone interested in pursuing a VC career to read both of these posts.

Read More.