Continue Reading]]> Wow, I’ve felt bad about neglecting my blog. Not guilty-bad (though there’s a bit of that too), but bad because I feel like I have a LOT of stuff I want to write about. I literally have 15 or so blog posts that are pretty much just titles and topic sentences that I’m eager to write.

This isn’t one of ‘em.

John Cook just wrote that I was leaving RescueTime, and I feel like it makes sense that I should talk about this a bit to clarify what’s going through my head. Though I have to admit that it’s tempting as hell to do what Alex Payne did– which is pretty much leave it at “I just quit Twitter and I’m doing something new“.

Leaving any job is a personal choice with a lot of factors. Leaving a company that you’ve founded and nurtured from idea to prototype to product to business can be downright agonizing. The product is your baby and the team and investors you built it with are your brothers-in-arms. You think about it so long and so constantly that it gets to be an addiction. Not in a BAD way, mind you. The years I’ve spent on RescueTime have been some of the best of my life.

So Why Leave a Good Thing?

This is the most common question I’m getting right now– “If things are going so well at RescueTime, why leave?”. I’ve asked myself that question a TON over the last few months as I’ve been considering this move. RescueTime is enjoying some pretty awesome growth (51% quarterly revenue growth on average over the last 4 quarters– solid!). Not to say that there aren’t daunting challenges ahead for RescueTime, but all of the graphs are moving up and to the right. So, why the heck would I leave on the cusp of profitability? My reasons are largely internal… I know, I know. “Seriously, Tony? The ‘it’s not you, it’s me’ breakup line?’”. Seriously. Leaving RescueTime is like breaking up with an awesome women who you know you could be happy with, but no longer believe is the right woman for you. I have a mess of specific thoughts, but they all boil down to the fact that I’m more excited about what could be next– and I’ve always been driven by the “Regret Minimization Framework”. Watch this short video below:

Jeff’s boss’s response? “This sounds like a good idea. But it sounds like a BETTER idea for someone who already doesn’t have a good job!” I clearly have a great job at a great/growing company. But there are new things that are happening in technology/business that I find too darn exciting to not dive in. I want to get uncomfortable again, and trade reliable growth for blue sky. Given the stage that RescueTime is in, I think this is a reasonable time to make that leap. We’ve got a growing company that’s providing a livelihood for a great team and that (eventually, I hope) will provide a great return for the investors who made their bet on RescueTime (including myself!).

What’s next for RescueTime?

RescueTime’s focus right now is to scale, get new customers, and grow. We’re pretty convinced the entire team could answer support requests and play checkers and we’d grow every month (a testement to the fact that we focused on scalable marketing). But the team is going to continue to rock on A/B testing, outreach to our growing collection of Fortune 500 customers, back-end scaling so the servers don’t melt (processing hundreds of thousands of man hours of attention data per day isn’t easy, folks!), and (of course) making the product a little bit better every day.

I’m going to keep working with RescueTime on a few initiatives, and I’ll always be a founder (and advisor for as long as the team thinks I’m useful). Don’t be surprised if I answer a support request from time to time or do some writing on the RescueTime blog.

What’s next for Me?

(second most popular question, behind the “Why?”) Short answer, I don’t know– and that’s exciting. Longer answer, I’m looking for early stage opportunities in a few markets that I find particularly interesting. I want an opportunity where I can be strategically involved (hacking on business models) and tactically involved (managing UX, doing PR/outreach, A/B testing, writing copy, slinging pixels and CSS). Upside is a must for me– I’m eager to have skin in the game as opposed to a steady paycheck (though some combination of both could be interesting). I’ve written a bit about how I think stock options for most employees are a bit of a sucker’s bet unless you’re getting in VERY early (it turns out the only way to get meaningful reward is to buy it with risk). But at the end of the day, I’m only partially motivated by upside. I’m more motivated by the opportunity to make a BIG impact, the autonomy to do stuff that I think is important, being in a “fast” environment, and being surrounded by people I respect and like. This seems theoretically possible at a larger company, but seems likelier the earlier stage you go on the spectrum. It might ultimately mean that I have to start something new.

High Five, RescueTeam

The team of hackers that work at RescueTime are breathtakingly good. With a small team, we’ve built and maintained a windows app, a mac app, a web app, and a monster data warehouse that processes hundreds of thousands of man hours of attention data per day, all with a hosting bill that any startup would envy. We’re adding 600-1000 new users and 15-30 new paying customers per day without a single marketing dollar and without any marketing effort. We’ve built a machine that we’re really damn proud of.

I read the other day that 85% of venture-backed companies are dead inside 3 years– I’m damn proud of the fact that our business and team are going to be in the 15% minority. High-five guys, and godspeed!

Continue Reading]]> My startup (RescueTime) has enjoyed some pretty ridiculously good PR (online, print, and video). It’s not a surprise that the most common questions that we get from other founders are about PR. How do you get press and the blogosphere talking about your product?

When you research this topic, you’ll see lots of technical and how-to articles that talk about how to build relationships with writers, how to use services like PRweb, how to format a press release, and more. In a lot of ways, this reminds me of SEO (search engine optimization). Research SEO and you’ll find a bunch of articles about page markup, link sculpting, meta descriptions, and all sorts of other mechanical processes. But what you won’t find much of is information that teaches you how to write great content and how to build your startup and features (from the ground up) with “linkworthiness” in mind.

Just like fabulous content solves 75% of your SEO problems, fabulous storytelling solves 75% of your PR problems.

I think there’s a lot of built-in contempt for PR and marketing among entrepreneurs (especially hacker-flavored entrepreneurs). We’ve all been in companies with fat communications budgets wasted by blow-hard marketeers, so many of us have dismissed the profession altogether. We’re so entranced by the concept that just building something people want will win the day. I remember cheering the first time I read the quote, “marketing is a tax you pay for being unremarkable“. I remember reading a statement on Hacker News that said, “my code speaks for itself“. Two years ago, I would’ve said, “Right on, brother! Preach it!”

But my mindset has shifted about 180 degrees over the past few years. I now believe that how you say something is at least as important as what you’ve built. The A/B testing and design/copywriting iteration that we’ve done over the past year (which has, over time, resulted in a 400% increase in conversion rate on our site) really has driven home this belief. What’s A/B testing if not a bunch of microscopic marketing/PR tests?

What you need to send to reporters and bloggers

If you’re reaching out to reporters and bloggers, you put yourself in the shoes of that person. They are looking to write a headline that causes readers to buy a magazine/paper or click on a link. They are looking to write a story to support that headline that causes readers to consume that content and (ideally) find the content so provocative (note that “provocative” can be VERY different from “valuable”) that they send the link to their friends and relatives, post it to Twitter, and write a supportive (or critical) write-up on their blog.

If you can truly empathize with a writer, you fairly quickly realize why your new social bookmarking app, web annotation service, or small business accounting app isn’t particularly newsworthy. You aren’t click-bait. You aren’t link bait. You aren’t going to sell a paper.

Which is why your most important problem from a PR point of view is this: How can you make your uninteresting (to a broad audience) company interesting?

The good news is that it’s quite do-able. If at all possible, read Made to Stick by the Brothers’ Heath. If you can’t read it, read this summary. If you can’t do that, just try to craft a story that succeeds in as many of these areas as possible:

• Surprising
• Funny
• Personal
• Has a story arc
• Useful

(notice how low “useful” is on the list? That’s not an accident. You have to be REALLY useful to be worth talking about.)

A boring company with good storytelling skills can do some amazing things on this front. Off hand, I can name a company that sells shoes online that did pretty well on the PR front, a personal finance app that a lot of people talked about, and a creator of small-business project management software that people can’t stop linking to. If you want to see smaller/earlier successes, check out Balsamiq or UntitledStartup (both are doing some clever things out of the gates).

So if you tell your product’s story at a party (which you should, over and over!), watch the listeners eyes. Do they glaze over? Or do they light up? Do they laugh? Do they argue with you? Do they ask questions? If a you’ve never had a listener at a party say, “wait a minute– John over there would LOVE to hear about this… Let me grab him!”, then you probably aren’t ready to work on the mechanics of outbound PR. If at the end of your story, the listener doesn’t often say, “Can you tell me that URL one more time?” as they reach for their smartphone, then you need to keep working on your story. Because charging forward on outbound PR with a shitty story is pretty much the equivelant of working on your SEO mechanics when you know you have crappy content. Your’e ignoring the most important part in favor of the least.

Post Scriptum – On the Value of PR

Having enjoyed pretty great PR success, I wanted to throw out a final thought. Like a lot of accelerants (marketing and funding being two other examples), PR can be like throwing gasoline onto a fire. Or it can be like throwing gasoline on a pile of wet wood. It can be especially exciting if your business is enjoying growth already. But PR (and, more broadly, your startup) is a marathon, not a sprint. The first couple times you get a PR hit, you’ll quite likely be flummoxed by the fact that your traffic and usage doesn’t really change that much as a result. TechCrunch might get you 5-10k uniques. Being in the print version of the New York Times might get you a few thousand uniques. PR is not going to result in a viral/word-of-mouth explosion, but it’ll speed things up nicely if you’ve already got one happening.

As Andrew Chen says in one of his many fabulous posts (why bloggers and press don’t matter for user acquisition), if you’re going to spent time on marketing and PR, spend it on things that will pay ongoing dividends rather than 1-time dividends. Andrew was talking about stuff like viral loops and SEO, but in my opinion he missed the most important marketing “gift that keeps on giving” – crafting and tweaking a story that makes you worth talking about.

Continue Reading]]> I went to an informal Seattle startup CEO dinner a while back and it was an awesome opportunity to talk candidly about the problems that early stage products face. Someone remarked to me afterwards that a lot of people in that room had already “made it” (financially speaking). That’s one of the cool things about being a startup founder. There were plenty of folks in the room who put on their pants one leg at a time. There were some other folks who sip Pinot Noir while they have two pant-assistants dress them. But (with a few runaway exceptions) many of them were facing the same challenges.

I had a lot of takeaways from the dinner, but the biggest came from two comments by CEOs in two unrelated conversations (these are paraphrased with a bit of hyperbole tossed in).

Comment #1: “My biggest concern is that we’re on a long road. And it’s going to be a tough slog. We’re going to be dragging our asses uphill for years with a still uncertain future. With that to look forward to, how can I hold on to my best-and-brightest stars when they could take an offer from [insert megacorp] and double their salary overnight? Or they could hop onto another startup that isn’t at the ‘slog’ stage yet?”

Comment #2: “Sure, the downturn has effected our startup. But we’re all working together on stuff that we want to work on and we’re working with people that we really want to work with. If we end up making less money, it really doesn’t matter much.”

The huge challenge is that we are constantly telling ourselves, our teams, and our customers that great stuff is in on the horizon. But the reality is, bad shit is coming. There are going to be huge and gutwrenching bumps in the road and times where the company feels like it’s going to auger in. The thing that can pull a team through these rough spots is belief in SOMETHING.

Something amazing happens, I think, if you can cross the chasm from people getting paid to work for you company and people getting paid SO THEY CAN work at your company (I think that concept came from Tandy way back when– can anyone confirm?). As founders, I think it’s easy to dismiss this possibility. “That might work for people who ooze charisma,” we say, “but it won’t work for me.” Or: “You can only pull off that kind of passion if you have a world-changing product with a runaway growth rate– not for something so mundane as what we’re working on.” Bullshit. Look at companies that actually inspire the founders, employees, and customers– there’s WAY more variety than you might suspect.

So here’s a stab at how startup founders can get creative and (hopefully) inspire.

• a dragonslaying startup (killing inefficient incumbants, like Redfin is trying to do)
• “business religion” startup (like Zappos, FogCreek software or 37signals– where the products isn’t something the team gets THAT excited about building, but the “business religion” and/or lifestyle of working there is magical)
• The “we’re going to change the world” startup. Steve Jobs once said to John Scully (then CEO of PepsiCo), “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?”
• “we’re going to get filthy rich” startup (this feels scary to me– seems like people will jump once there’s a bump in the road… and there is almost always a bump in the road).
• A “family” startup. My first company had this– just about everyone in the company was really close to everyone else. We had regular gaming night, fun social events (that everyone WANTED to come to), etc. Loyalty can definitely help folks through the aforementioned “bad shit”. This is the biggest reason why solo founders quit more often. It’s always easier to quit when the only person you’re letting down is yourself.
• Succeed, loudly and publicly. Nothing inspires more than setting tangible business goals (that everyone buys into) and actually knocking them out of the park. Want to see a role model here? Check out Balsamiq’s Blog.

The math of working at a startup rarely works out– people get paid less to do more. You have merely adequate benefits and lousy job security. With VERY few exceptions, the journey to liquidity is long and is by no means a sure thing. So you have to offer piles of intangibles that make your best people say, “Yeah, I could get paid another $50k across the street– but it wouldn’t be worth it.”

Did I miss any motivations? Why do you work at a startup when you could be making way more money elsewhere? Or, if you work at BigCo, what would it take for you to take a 30% pay cut?

Continue Reading]]> On Friday I spoke at a “Business Bootcamp” in Corvallis, Oregon. The event was fabulous (big thanks to John Sechrest) and I was pretty impressed to see that kind of passion for startups in Corvallis.

I wanted to follow up with that community with a few thoughts (that might be interesting to a broader audience, so I’ll post it here).

Thought #1: The Valley is a Unique Animal

After the Y Combinator experience, we dove into fundraising in the Valley as well as Seattle (where we ended up settling). It didn’t take long to give focus our efforts largely on Silicon Valley. Don’t get me wrong– there are some great Seattle investors. But there just aren’t many of them, and as Paul Graham points out, investors outside of the Valley just aren’t very bold. At the Business Bootcamp, a local angel investor spoke for a bit after I did about what he looks for in a company and he seemed even less “Valley-like” than Seattle investors. The big differences that stuck out to me were:

• A strong emphasis on patents/IP (in 20+ meetings with VCs and angels before we were funded, not a single one asked us for our thoughts on this).
• A strong emphasis on written business plans and financial forecasting (we never were asked for anything beyond an executive summary and never were asked for any financial projections except by a single angel group in Seattle).
• A desire for a big equity stake. The Corvallis angel had a an equity floor that was a third more than the premium “household name” angels in the Valley. Presumably, this is because the Corvallis angels aren’t too plentiful and have a captive audience.
• A desire for a more fully formed team. He wanted a 4-7 person team before he invested.

For the record, I don’t think ANY of this is bad. I just think it’s SAFE. I imagine a methodology likes this results in far fewer failures, but also results in fewer hits and disqualifies all sorts of non-traditional teams. I think many of the startup home-runs in the last decade or two would’ve been shown the door rather quickly in Corvallis. Boldness might not be a virtue from an investor’s perspective (the landscape is littered with the financial corpses of bold early stage investors, I’m sure), but it certainly is from an entrepreneur’s perspective.

Thought #2: Audience Questions

The third presenter gave a fabulous presentation called “Do you have what it takes to be a Startup CEO?”. It was chock full of info and I certainly learned a lot. Unfortunately, there were two questions from the audience that I felt weren’t answered very well, so I’m going to take a shot at ‘em.

“I’m hearing that we need a team of 5-7 people, paying customers, provision patent applications, and mess of other things before we can even begin to ask for money. That seems inherently contradictory with the idea of angel investment.”

It does, doesn’t it? Smart angels seek to mitigate/minimize risk and most angels are pretty smart. There’s nothing more wonderful than a startup with 5-7 great team members, growing revenue numbers, a pile of great patent apps, etc. Unfortunately, angels who are looking for this kind of company are really “later stage” angel investors. Unless you, as an entrepreneur, have a million bucks to get to that point, you have two options. One, find a bolder seed-stage investor (in Corvallis or move the the Valley where bolder investors are more plentiful). Two, get some freakin’ traction. Seriously, dial back your idea to the most basic offering you can manage that people will use/buy and build it with a co-founder or two (in your off-hours if you have to). If you can launch SOMETHING that people really love (and if the TAM is big enough), investors will listen. You’ve reduced two of the main risks that they are worried about; That you are a screw-up who can’t launch a product and that what you build ends up not being particularly interesting to your target audience. The better your traction and the steeper your growth curve (in terms of usage or dollars), the easier fundraising is.

If you don’t have a gold-plated team (read: previously made an investor lots of money), a pre-existing relationship with an investor, or TRACTION, I seriously advise not trying to raise money from anyone but friends and family. Given that most entrepreneurs aren’t gold-plated (I sure as hell wasn’t) and building relationships with investors is a hard to do from scratch, your only option is launching and building traction.

“I’m a college student here. What advice would you give to an aspiring entrepreneur with a notebook full of ideas?”

The speaker quite literally responded with a long answer that amounted to, “Not everyone is CEO material. You should consider that you likely aren’t CEO material.” Really? Is that what we want to tell aspiring entrepreneurs?

The right answer (IMO) is this.

First, pick the idea that you’re going to attack. I’d say, focus on tractability with a strong bias to the ideas you are most passionate about as well as the ideas that have some built in marketing (SEO or viral– relying on word-of-mouth and salespeople is difficult and expensive).

Second, figure out what you’re good at that a startup needs. Hopefully, you can code things, design things, or sell things because the vast majority of the first months of a startup is comprised of that kind of work and precious little else.

Third, read everything here: http://ycombinator.com/lib.html

Fourth, save money or borrow a few bucks from family/friends so you can work on it full-time for 3 months. If you can’t do that, do it half-assed (it can be done!).

And finally, don’t listen to people who tell you that you might not be CEO/startup material until you’ve taken a stab at it. The world is full of unlikely CEOs from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Mark Zuckerberg. Roll the dice and dive in– when you’re on your deathbed, I’m betting you won’t be saying, “Gosh, I wish I could go back and take fewer risks.”

Continue Reading]]> This will be a small post, but I stumbled onto some interesting data that I thought I’d share. As a background, we’re currently searching for a great C++ dev to work at our startup here in Seattle. I decided to do a bit of research to see other job postings, compensation packages, etc.

I was startled to find that (in Seattle) C#, C++, and Java jobs are hotter than everything. Period. By a monstrous margin. Take a look (numbers in parentheses are the results counts as I write this):

Jobs with C# in the title (759)
Jobs with C++ in the title (537)
Jobs with Java in the title (307)
Jobs with ASP in the title (209)
Jobs with Ruby in the title (85)
Jobs with PERL in the title (50)
Jobs with PHP in the title (46)
Jobs with Python in the title (26)

Wow. C++ jobs almost end up being more plentiful than all of the major scripting languages combined. C# jobs are even more plentiful. Toss the word “startup” into your search query and it reduces all of the results, but the big-iron languages still win by a wide margin. Really interesting to contrast these numbers with San Francisco, where you see fewer C++ and C# jobs (predictably as you move away from Microsoft-country), more Java jobs as well as a few more Rails and PHP jobs (but Java wins in SF by a landslide).

So if you could snap your fingers in Seattle and be a rockstar/ninja programmer in one of these languages, which would you pick (from a career perspective)?

(nota bene: recruiters who use the word “rockstar” or “ninja” in a job posting deserve to be flogged. While we’re at it, anyone using the phrase “FAIL” or “EPIC FAIL” deserves a healthy thrashing as well.)

Continue Reading]]> My first experience with stock options was at the ripe age of 34 years old, when I was selling Jobby (retired) to Jobster (Gah, make the Web 2.0 names STOP!). Before that, I’d been running my own business for close to a decade– with good success, but there really wasn’t any sense in setting up an options plan.

So when selling our company and getting presented with a cash/stock options package, I was damn excited about the options. I dutifully did a bit of research to try to understand how they worked, asked some smart questions, and was a proud new owner of startup equity. 365 days later, I left Jobster– on good terms, but I chose not to exercise my options.

Now, as RescueTime is expanding its team, I’m on the other side of the equation– putting together stock option plans for new hires. So I figured it might be useful for folks we’re talking to for me to put together so thoughts and resources about startup compensation, particularly in the area of stock options. A big part of my motivation here is that I think most startups are QUITE content to let employees think that options are this magical ticket to wealth and prosperity… It feels dishonest.

3 Harsh Realities of Startup Options

1. Employees with decent salaries and options will almost NEVER get rich in a liquidity event. The people who might get rich with startup equity are the founders and the investors (not coincidentally, the people who took significant risks). There are obviously exceptions here– I read that Google minted 900 new millionaires when they IPO’d. Good for them. But when you do the math on probably exits for most startups, it’s good– but it’s not quite so rosy. VentureHacks has a breakdown of what startup employees might expect in terms of equity. Assuming you don’t get diluted with further investment down the road, a lead dev or director might expect 1% ownership (vesting over 4 years). So in the event of a $50,000,000 exit, they’d walk away with a cool $500k, IF they’d been there for 4 years or longer.

2. Options vest over 4 years. Everyone loves the idea of the overnight success with a quick-flip to Google. It’s vanishingly rare, but it does happen. When it does, the founders generally do okay, but what happens to the late-comers with unvested options is a question mark. Those unvested shares COULD accelerate (meaning they could all vest when the buy happens). Or they could convert to options in the purchasing companies stock (par value). That’s all part of the negotiation and it all depends on the leverage you have with the buyer.

3. How the options are set up very much effect how attractive the company is to a buyer. We’d LOVE to offer 100% acceleration upon change of control to our hires– that’d mean that all options would immedietely vest and our whole team would be rich and happy– but not particularly incentivized to stay and work for the buyer.

So are Options a Crappy Deal?

The best way to look at options are as a high-risk investment– it’s important to look at the cost of the investment, the chance that the investment will “hit”, the likely magnitude of the return on investment, and the percentage you’ll likely have in your pocket at the time of a liquidity event. Here’s the best way to look at the math.

• The COST of the investment is the difference between what you could be making (your market value) minus the salary that you are offered. So if you’re worth $85k/yr and the offer is $75k/yr, you’re investing $10k per year in this high-risk opportunity. If you’re getting paid market value, then… Well, there’s no risk– and you shouldn’t be expecting much reward.
• The CHANCE the investment will hit is a huge question mark. Think hard about the market for such a company. Who would buy it? Can you imagine Google and Microsoft fighting over the company?
• The MAGNITUDE of the return is another question mark. If it’s a web startup, there’s lots of data out there about sale prices. The question is: how big is the opportunity? What are companies in your space getting bought for? It’s easy to test a few scenarios.
• The PERCENTAGE of ownership is a bit of a moving target, but you can at least know where you start. Again, take a look at VentureHacks for a reality check.

So to boil it down in an example, let’s say we have an engineer who is getting .5% of the company vested over 4 years. He’s making $80k, but probably could make $90k at a company with limited equity opportunity. Let’s assume a target exit price of $50,000,000 (oh, happy day!).

Our engineer is spending $10k per year to have a shot at a $62,500 per year. If he spends the full four years there, he’s “invested” $40k for a shot at $250k (a 6x+ return– not bad). When you run the same scenario with a billion dollar exit, it’s starting to look a lot prettier. When you run it at a Flickr-sized exit ($20m), it’s not looking like that great of a bet. If you want to get into the finer points, you should probably consider the benefits as well as the cost of the options.

The only way to buy more reward is with more risk. Some founders will be willing to give up lots more equity if you’ll work for less, but it’s honestly fairly rare if they’ve reached the point where they have enough cash to hire people for them to be terribly eager to part with lots of equity. There’s obviously a small army of “idea guys” out there who would happily give you huge piles of equity if you’ll work for free. And, of course, the best way to get rich with equity is to start your own company.

If you don’t fancy rolling the financial dice by “investing” in a startup, most startups are probably happy to pay you market rate and dial down your options… But either way, there are lots of career perks that you’re buying by working in a startup. Which brings me to…

You’re Buying More than Just a High Risk Investment

Needless to say, most options aren’t a very good investment. A chance at a 5x return is great, but most startups are facing longer odds than 5 to 1– so you should be damn sure that you believe in the company, the team, and (most importantly) your ability to influence the outcome.

I think it’s important to note that our engineer in the above example is buying a heckuva lot more with his $10k… Though they are things with a very subjective value.

• He’s buying startup experience. If you plan on spinning up your own thing someday, there is no substitute for working in a startup to learn what works and what doesn’t. You don’t have to sign on with a experienced startup founder… It’s good enough to get paid to watch them make mistakes that you can avoid when it’s your turn.
• He’s buying a “clean slate”. If you get to a startup early enough, there is lots of blue sky. The early days of product development (for many people) are the most rewarding.
• He’s buying startup cred. When it comes time to spinning up his own thing or getting his next gig, it’s a big plus to have that background. It’s obviously a HUGE plus to be part of a winning team (if an exit happens).
• He’s buying relationships. One of our investors says that 99% of his deal flow comes from people he’s previously invested in or people on their teams. Working at an early stage startup is an opportunity to meet investors and other important startup folks– good leads for future endeavors.
• He’s buying a work environment that is comparatively bullshit-free. Little bureaucracy, few meetings, flexible work schedule/environment, etc. If you’ve ever had an environment like this, you know how addictive it is and how elusive it is in larger companies.
• He’s (hopefully) buying a chance to work on a product he likes/wants to use.

Obviously, all of these perks are really only perks for people who see themselves working on/in startups in the future… For people like this, the $10k price tag (when you roll in the high-risk investment op) is a great investment. For folks who are just chasing the idea that they are going to get rich taking decent-paying jobs with post-funding startups, they are in for a long series of disappointments.

(note: if other folks have insights on startup compensation/options, please chime in. Despite writing a Newbie’s guide, I am, admittedly, a bit of a newbie! )

Continue Reading]]> Last night I spoke at Seattle Tech Startups. Given that lots of people who go to these meetings tend to be wantrepreneurs (aspiring startup folks), I focused on early decisions that need to be be made. Do you shoot for a great lifestyle business or do you aim for a grandslam? Services biz or product biz? Bootstrap it, find angels, or court VCs? And when you answer all that, how do you settle on an idea when you have lots of them bounding around in your head (for this part, I liberally borrowed from Ev Williams’ great post on evaluating startup ideas, which I posted a riff on a while back).

After my short presentation, there were some really fabulous questions. Two of ‘em kept me thinking and I wanted to expand on the answers a bit. Here they are.

Question (paraphrased): “Given that takinghuge piles of VC money both has the dangers you describe and and firmly closes the door on most early acquisition opportunities, why are people still going after big VC?”

My response was two-fold at the time. First, there are some ideas that require a lot of money– as an example, I mentioned a local northwest guy who is working on a really cool electric motorcycle… It’d be hard to imagine getting that business off the ground with $500k of angel money. I also mentioned that some entrepreneurs look at their valuation as a score. Taking $4m on $12m post-money is essentially saying that, on paper, your company is worth $12m. Feels pretty cool, I suppose.

Two more things to add here.

First, I think people chase VC because it’s available. Angels are purposefully elusive– they don’t exactly hang out a shingle saying, “I’ve got $50k burning a hole in my pocket”. VCs, on the other hand, have a web site, and processes to handle/process deal flow. They almost always want to lead the investment by negotiating terms and putting in a big chunk of the money, while angels sometimes shy away from leading/negotiating, but are happy to pile on with other investors.

I think there is a big hole to be filled here by institutional investors who aim at a larger number of smaller deals (something that most VCs can’t handle because they have too much money under management, take too long to do the deals, and have too few people to sit on boards). There are smaller funds out there that are starting to fill the “early/small” niche (with $250k-$1m investments) but they are rare and (from an outsider’s point of view) are buried in interesting startups to invest in. The good news is that they’re seeing great success, so more are popping up every day. If you want to see a good list of folks who are really looking at early-stage/lower-dollar deals, here’s a great article profiling a few. You’ll notice a decided lack of ‘em in the Northwest. Madrona is mentioned but I think they very rarely do a deal less than $1m.

Second, B2B. Despite Web 2.0 hype, there is tremendous money to be made with B2B software. Going the B2B route requires a sales engine or some clever distribution innovation. If you’re spinning up a sales team, that requires LOTS of money flowing out of your business (salary, commissions) before you recognize revenue for their efforts.

Question #2: “Can you talk about how to decide whether a business/idea should fall into the “lifestyle” category or the “get funding a go big” category?

My answer last night centered around overall magnitude of the idea. Could you imagine it being the next Google/Facebook/Salesforce.com? Is it that ambitious? Can you set out milestones where you end up selling for $100 million? I also mentioned that how much you NEED is important. If you can “run the experiment” for $500k to see if your market/team/idea are as good as you think, raising $10m is silly. If you can roll those same dice taking no funding and working on weekends, raising ANY money might be silly.

What I want to add: Think about how you fit into recent investment trends. Investors closely follow trends. Most seem to focus on trends and recent acquisitions that you’re already reading about– the top tier ones often try to anticipate what’s going to be the next trend. Imagine yourself pitching your idea to someone who religiously follows and tries to anticipate trends. Will their eyes light up? To my amateur eye trends that are important out there right now are: Ad networks, widgets, casual gaming, video advertising, iPhone/mobile apps, Facebook/MySpace apps, social aggregation, and (of course) anything that could credibly take a shot at killing Google. Am I missing any? There are a few tired trends that probably still have legs with some investors like niche social networks, social news sites, photosharing, etc.

If you’re outside these trends, that’s okay (we certainly are, though we think that productivity/information overload is a meme that is growing like gangbusters). It just means that you’re going to have a harder time raising money and you’ll need a bit more traction to pique VC interest. We’re just about ready to close our angel round with a fairly platinum-plated group of investors, so it’s certainly do-able. I’m just glad our founders all had hefty personal bank accounts to allow us to grow the business over the 3 months of fundraising. I know plenty of people who’ve needed 6-10 months to raise a round, so be prepared for that if you’re bucking trends.

Remember, Google came to a market that had well-funded mature players at a time when a lot of really smart people were saying that search was a dead business where you couldn’t make any money.

Another thing to consider on this front is this: Do you have some unique aspect of your business that allows you to acquire new users/customers for zero or near-zero cost? SEO, viral marketing, user-generated content are all fabulous ways to get an organic flow of visitors to your product. VCs love clever distribution wrinkles, and most successful startups have a fabulous (if sometimes accidental) story to tell here.

And finally– the best way to decide whether it’s a small biz opportunity or a huge business opportunity is to launch. If you’ve got something big, the market will start dragging you down the growth path. If it’s a big opportunity and you’re growing like gangbusters out in the wild, funding isn’t hard.

Anyhoo– hope folks enjoyed the talk– I’ll post the video if STS puts it up.

Continue Reading]]> Christian Anderson (a former colleague at Jobster) had an interesting (and well-researched) post on his blog called “How to Pitch Robert Scoble — HINT: No Direct Tweets“… , which led to a discussion on FriendFeed (with Robert himself weighing in) that was pretty interesting.

I had a contribution bouncing around in my head but held off responding until I read an absolutely fabulous quote from one of my favorite books on marketing:

““No one ever got anywhere by lavishing calls on Oprah. The only time I’ve succeeded in my career with Oprah was [when] Oprah called us.”

— Barry Krause, in Made to Stick

This advice can be generalized to getting PR, blog coverage, angel and VC interest, and more… And can be summed up in one tight little phrase: “Be worth talking about.”

So how do you get to be worth talking about? Redirect every bit of outgoing energy you’re spending on getting noticed to being worthy of notice. Near as I can tell, this isn’t just a matter of building something great… It seems to be some arcane combination of:

1. Building something people want.
2. Find a parade that’s forming and start walking in front of it. We’ve (by pure luck) done well from PR perspective by diving headfirst into the “information overload” meme that seems to have growing interest and press coverage. Whether you’re building a comfortable lifestyle business or shooting for the moon, it’s great thing to be topical. A great contempory example of this is FriendFeed– they’ve (perhaps accidentally) inserted themselves into the Twitter conversation. If Twitter had never existed, would FriendFeed have gotten a tenth of the organic PR?
3. Figure out the best way to deliver your message– find a way to make it sticky (“Made to Stick” espouses being simple, unexpected, concrete, credible, emotional, a story). Entrepreneurs (especially if they are web geeks) notoriously marginalize this step, but there’s all sorts of great stories about simple messaging shifts making a huge difference. I don’t think we’ve nailed the perfect message for RescueTime, but I’m in a fairly constant state of brainstorming and experimentation… I’ll tell our story with a new permutation just about every day to see if I can find something that resonates just a little better (this is one of the many reasons that “stealth” companies are so often ridiculous).
4. For God’s sake, get some freakin’ traction. Bloggers and reporters are in the business of reporting on the metaphorical parades that I just talked about. The best way to prove that you’re at the front of a parade is to have an army of enthusiastic users who are already using assorted channels (word of mouth, blogs, twitter, etc) to tell the world how important you are to THEM. It doesn’t take MUCH traction– two or three vocal users is often enough to convince a blogger than you’re worth a second look.

I’ll finish with a great quote from Seth Godin on “grand openings“:

“The best time to promote something is after it has raving fans, after you’ve discovered that it works, after it has a groundswell of support, [ed: and after you've figured out how to effectively talk about it]. And more important, the best way to promote something is consistently and persistently and for a long time. Save the bunting for Flag Day.”

Continue Reading]]> A lot of people are damn religious about bootrapping businesses. Especially nowadays when it’s so easy to start a software business– you just need a few hackers, Ruby on Rails, a cheap virtual server and you’re ready to roll, right?

Sure.

But just because it’s cheaper to start a software company, doesn’t mean that it’s that much cheaper to make it from when you launch a product to the point where you’re sitting back, drinking a margarita, and marveling at the recurring revenue machine you’ve created.

The way I look at it, there are three bars that matter to me.

1) Making enough money that the business brings in enough money to pay the overhead. Rent, servers, lawyers, whatever. Hopefully you keep this really lean.
2) Making enough money that the founders get an insultingly low (but still existent) salary.
3) Making enough money that the founders can take home roughly what they’d make if they went and got a real job.

Bootstrappers are woefully bad at guessing how long it’ll take to get over these bars.

Let’s look at everyone’s favorite example of bootstrapping: 37signals (whose products and philosophies I love, by the way). According to a recent post, it took them about 6 months to build Basecamp, with DHH spending 10 hours a week (they don’t mention how much time other folks invested, but let’s assume it’s 2 other people at 10 hours a week). It turns out that with a really popular blog, a very successful consulting firm, and all of the attention that they got with Ruby on Rails, it took them about a year to get to the point where they could give up consulting and work on it full-time. I assume that they were somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd bar (mentioned above) before they made the leap, though they might’ve taken a pay cut as a leap of faith in the growth that Basecamp was experiencing. DHH sez:

“It didn’t turn into a smash hit overnight either. We ran Basecamp for a year alongside our other obligations before it was doing well enough to pay all the bills and afford our full-time attention. Most good businesses didn’t become great ones within the 12-18 months that the poster boys of the startup lottery did.”

Amen!

I’ll give you an example closer to home. RescueTime (my baby) was on TechCrunch 3 times, LifeHacker twice, and add in a few thousand other blogs (of varying flavors and colors). We are a Y Combinator company, which gives us plenty of geek cred. We’ve been [edit for clarity] mentioned in an article on the cover of the New York Times, and have gotten mentions in PC World, US News and World Report, BusinessWeek, and more. More important than that, we’ve got happy users who seem to like telling their friends (the old fashioned kind of viral marketing!). I think most SaaS startups would feel very lucky to get this kind of attention– we certainly do. But for all of this attention, I really don’t expect to clear that second bar for many many months (we’re only a month or two into having an offering that people can pay money for, so give us time!).

Let me be clear about the type of startups I’m talking about– I’m talking about low-cost (or free) product companies with price points low enough that having a human being actually SELL the damn software would be inane. Whether it’s a payout of $.83 for an ad click or $24 bucks a month for BaseCamp– having a human being wandering around selling this stuff doesn’t scale, and chances are your founding team doesn’t consist of anyone who is a motivated (and skilled) software/ad salesperson anyways.

On the other hand, if your price point is high (generally requiring a more complex or premium offering) or if you have a services component (web development consulting, managed hosting, etc)– you’re golden… Or at least you have great potential to ramp up revenue fast (as you can justify a sales effort and fairly easily convert time into money). Of course, there are the obvious downsides– for enterprise software you have to build… enterprise software (capital intensive and damn ugly). And then you should expect to spend 60-70% of your cash on sales and marketing. If you go the services-heavy route, you’re simply selling time for money… You can make a nice business out of this (I ran a consultancy for 7 years which I eventually sold out of) but there’s virtually no equity to be built– no one wants to buy a consulting business.

In my opinion, if you aren’t prepared for 18-24 months before you actually get your first paycheck (either through savings, doing it part-time / half-assed, or seed funding) you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.

Continue Reading]]> I can’t help but think that the startup world is a bit drunk on the concept of viral distribution. Distribution is a huge problem for startups, so I suppose that I can’t blame them.

First of all, I want to point out that I think viral distribution freakin’ rocks. It’s amazing. It’s awe-inspiring. If you can build virality into your app, do it– and do it early. What I’m focusing on in this post is when a startup is presented with a choice of “viral or value”. Either in the very earliest days when deciding what idea/problem/space to pursue (“We really love this idea, but this OTHER idea has soooo much inherent virality!”), or when making choices about features and initiatives in your startup (“THIS would make our users happy, but THIS would really bring in the new eyeballs!”). While we all like to go on about all of the hats we wear as entrepreneurs, it’s damn hard to be maniacal about making your users happy AND be investing time and energy in distribution.

So, as I watch myself continue to back-burner features at RescueTime that have viral/SEO potential, it occurs to me that it’s probably worth running through my thoughts on WHY. Thus this blog post. You can run through my thoughts with me.

“It’s easier to build a great business on top of an existing viral engine than it is to build virality into an existing business”

This was said to me by a hacker who was working with a team on a “stealth viral business”. At the time, I found myself nodding. You can’t throw a rock in Silicon Valley (or Seattle) without hitting a startup that has tried to staple on a viral loop to their application or service. “I know!” Manager X says. “Let’s add a tell-a-friend bucket to our app. And we need to widgetize it. Oh, and we should probably make a funny video about it! Then we’ll explode!” It turns out that viral loops are HARD.

But, as I think about it, I can name something that’s a LOT harder, and that’s building a product that people really want. In fact, I can fairly readily name off a long list of Facebook Apps and widget companies that have, with fairly minimal effort, built apps that are viral. I can’t as easily name off companies that have created great products that people love over a long weekend of coding. Products are HARD. Virality is, comparatively, much easier.

Another point to illustrate this– Top Facebook Apps are hemmoraging active users (some have lost 30-40% from peak). Presumably, these app creators are alarmed. I can imagine small teams huddled over a table frantically running through how they can make their apps more fun, more useful, more real. Here is an army of smart and well-financed people who are trying to add a great product onto an existing viral loop. I don’t think many of them are having a lot of success.

Virality Isn’t New

It’s important to note that virality isn’t new, especially if you argue that word-of-mouth is the same thing. For the purposes of this post, I’m talking about the type of virality that Andrew Chen (who is one of my absolute favorite bloggers) defines as:

“I tend to think of Viral Marketing that include both systematic and unsystematic ways that your current customers acquire new customers… In some of these cases, the virality has been “built-in” to the system – for example, but chain letters explicitly promise you something in return for sending on a letter, as do Multi-Level Marketing systems like Tupperware. These incentives and systematic design are originated with the intent to propagate a viral process.”

In the standard word-of-mouth model, you have:

1. User tries product.
2. User loves product.
3. User evangelizes product to everyone they know.
4. Some subset of those preached to (greater than 1) tries the product.
5. Rinse, repeat.

Think Google, Apple, Microsoft (in the early days), etc.

In the viral-focused model you have:

1. User tries the product.
2. As part of trying the product, they (sometimes unwittingly) tell everyone they know about the product.
3. Some subset of those victims tries the product.
4. Rinse, repeat.

Think Facebook Apps, chain letters, tupperware parties, Geocities, and Hotmail. Or, let’s roll back to another web investment mini-craze– the SEO/Vertical Search business. Any SEO/user-generated content business is inherently viral. User creates account. Some subset of new users create a page of content. Content gets indexed by search engines. The new page brings in some traffic. Eventually, that user-created page converts a visitors to a content creator. Rinse, repeat.

Paul Graham (“ah, yes– the obligatory PG quote”) talks about the concept of getting upwind of revenue:

“In Patrick O’Brian’s novels, his captains always try to get upwind of their opponents. If you’re upwind, you decide when and if to engage the other ship. Craigslist is effectively upwind of enormous revenues. They’d face some challenges if they wanted to make more, but not the sort you face when you’re tacking upwind, trying to force a crappy product on ambivalent users by spending ten times as much on sales as on development.”

What I THINK he’s also advocating for is the concept of getting “upwind of distribution”.

It seems to me that when you remove the “user loves the product” step, you’re failing to solve the CORE problem that needs to be solved to build a great company. If you can’t create and maintain unique value with your widget or Facebook app, you’re doomed to experience the same fate as chain letters, mood rings, and GeoCities. You might well be able to get in and get out (with millions of dollars in your pocket) before you “jump the shark“. If your startup has a user-generated-content component, you might be able to amass enough SEO-fodder to make a healthy living on advertising, but that has its own challenges.

Hopefully you’ve got some grand capital-efficient plans to get it in front of your target market (WE do– we haven’t even gotten started at this front). But if your wondering why users aren’t coming to your web site, chances are you have a product problem– not a marketing problem.