While I was the Web 2.0 Expo last week I attended a session titled, “Cashing Out: When, How and How Much?” It was one that I had been anticipating based on the all-star panel and it did not disappoint! Mike Lazerow, Kevin P. Ryan and Lorien Gabel shared some great insight and personal anecdotes on their approaches to selling businesses.

The session started off with the moderator, Henry Blodget, cracking a joke about the topic in light of the financial crisis headlines pouring in.

The audience was light on laughter.

Leading off, Mike Lazerow pointed out that he’s never met an entrepreneur who regretted selling — and yet, he knows many, many who regret not selling. Mike’s point came to be the underlying theme of the discussion: if you have the chance to sell (and you and your shareholders stand to gain) you better have a good reason not to do it. Typically entrepreneurs overvalue the potential of their ideas by 4x, still in the heat-of-the-moment it can be difficult to rationalize giving away your baby.

Kevin, Michael and Lorien all agreed that of it’s your first company selling needs to be looked at as an opportunity to build a track record. Selling or at least taking some money off the table is nothing to be ashamed of. When the stress of fundraising and personal finances is behind you, it’s much easier to be focused on moving business forward.

I appreciated that Mike stated running his company is the “third most important thing in his life” – with his family and himself being one and two respectively.

Kevin Ryan shared some funny and poignant stories about the Double Click sale. While skiing in Aspen Kevin said he heard that DoubleClick’s market cap had increased nearly 100% for no apparent reason. At that point Kevin told himself one of two things was at play: either DoubleClick was severely undervalued (maybe it was worth $10-$15B?) or it was overvalued and selling or raising money should happen immediately. They raised $700M.

Situations like the infamous Zuckerberg turning down a $1M offer for Facebook are the rare exception. Much more likely is the current situation of Jerry Yang, reflecting on what could have been with Microsoft. When offered a 60% market premium on any company at any point, it’s tough to turn down. This Yahoo/Microsoft conversation likely fueled a follow-up article by Henry reflecting on the failure of Yang’s decision on Alley Insider.

Finally, the panelists agreed that angel investment will not be deterred by the recent financial unnerving. Said someone, is it really that risky when you consider what’s happening on Wall Street?

{ }

{ }

My Take on the Financial Crisis

by Sam on September 17, 2008

This is my analysis of the financial crisis and it’s relatively simple: The more removed you are, the less control you ultimately have.

The further you are removed you are from a situation or an object, the more difficult it is to monitor and control. Time is not your friend and things can spiral out of control quickly and without your knowledge.

Think about Americans and food. As we have become so removed from our food (we collectively eat more and more processed, fast, fake food) that we have lost respect for real food. We’ve forgotten what it takes to actually have and cook real food. As we become increasingly comfortable with this disassociation we loose our ability to make good judgment calls. We end up doing what’s easiest. We go for the quick fix. We go for what tastes good without actually considering whether it’s good for us.

The same thing has happened in finance. The main conduits controlling the money have been increasingly removed from money. To some extent they’ve forgotten what it takes to earn and make an honest dollar through sweat. Money is meant to honor an exchange. Over the past 10-15 years we’ve come to see computers manipulating huge sums of capital online and financiers using ambiguous instruments like derivatives. It’s okay for hedge funds to use bizarre arbitrage and unsafe leveraged positions because they are ‘smarter’ than we are.

Our disconnection has come back to haunt us again.

Nothing is too big to fail and from what I’ve personally seen, scale is not always better.

Here are some other posts of mine on the state of the economy:

Time to be Worried? (January 2008)

When to Cash Out

Frustrations with Media Coverage of the Financial Crisis

{ }

wall-street-crisis-aig-lehman-obama-mccain-palin

In my opinion, we are currently witnessing some of the most significant news events in the last decade — right now — and amazingly it would seem the television media is oblivious.

Tonight’s television programming was so frustrating and perhaps revealing into some of what has landed us all in this precarious mess.

Flipping on the TV around 8pm, I wanted to hear analysis on the AIG bridge loan. CNBC was airing a program on innovation involving Timberland. The major networks kept regularly scheduled programming – Seinfeld and Friends. Larry King brought on Suzy Orman as a guest. Suzy Orman is a personal finance expert, not the person who should be talking to macro economic issues. Then Larry follows up with Dr. Phil. Seriously? Anderson Cooper had a group of females who simply took their respective political sides and then yelled at each other over irrelevant information not at all germane to the issues. Who cares about these trivial Obama/Palin details? Oh wait, McCain is running for President, not Palin! Damn.

Why can’t someone informed and NEUTRAL speak to what’s going on? Is having analysts fight and bicker really considered issue analysis? As Paul Kedrosky keeps pointing out, the only person really doing quality television journalism right now is Charlie Rose.

Charlie – thank you.

It’s so frustrating to be an educated, progressive American right now.

{ }

Hmm. The Future of Product Placement

by Sam on September 10, 2008

 

ad-placement-blogs-buy-advertisement-space-ashton-kutcher-movies1Initially I was very annoyed that Ashton Kutcher’s company was selected as one of the 50 most innovative startups at TechCrunch50 and I largely still am. However, after I learned that the primary monetization for the site’s video content was via product placement, it really got me thinking.

If the future of media is video and content creation on the web, and if said distribution necessitates use of many different sites (i.e. not walled gardens), than the future of advertising could really be product placements.

What does this mean? I think it means opportunity.

One of the great things about product placements is that there is almost unlimited potential for availability; a movie script could literally have hundreds of placements if folks were willing to invest the time to tweak sets and wardrobes. Alternatively, an entrepreneur could just automate the process and help to set market rates.

As an example, take a look at the image up top. It’s a blueprint showing areas where advertisements could be served on a blog. Why couldn’t this same blueprint idea be applied to scripts, or even spontaneous daily web shows? It would sweet if I could go to a marketplace and buy spots for product placements; maybe actors wearing LeveragingIdeas T-Shirts? As a buyer, I could look at stats for demographics, traffic, etc for syndicated shows, or I could be more risky and take a chance on a one-off event or viral video. Maybe it gets huge traffic, maybe it doesn’t. Of course product placements can’t be as precise as web ads where you only pay when someone clicks. Still the opportunity could be huge for targeting, engagement and the long tail.

Seems to me like there is big opportunity here for someone, if such things don’t already exist.

{ }

Mark Cuban on Entrepreneurship

by Sam on September 10, 2008

Mark Cuban on lessons learned:

…before you have kids and get a mortgage, that’s the time to go after it [entrepreneurship]. I cant tell you how many girlfriends I’ve had that said “me or the business?”, and I said “what’s your name?”

-From an interview at TechCrunch50 in San Francisco. Full text here.

{ }

SuiteMatch appears to have launched a marketplace for shared office space in New York City. NYC startups could surely use just such a service! Currently, users can list spaces for free as well as search the listings for free. There are 22 listings with prices from the $500’s-$5,000 per month. SuiteMatch is a great service, but the trick will be whether or not they can spread awareness of their brand and website to the point that folks outside of other startups will create listings. Also — this is New York City. Unless there is some barter going on, even a low price per month is likely too high for most cash-poor startups. While there isn’t much info available on the company via Google, it appears that one of the founders is Barry Mazza of Always Water, a NYC-based design studio.

From the website:

When an individual or company with extra offices, unused workspace or empty cubicles rents or subleases to another individual or company, we call it shared workspace. Think of it as an office within an office.

{ }

Harry and Louise Return, Single Out Startups

by Sam on September 5, 2008

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGvkZszS21Y[/youtube]

Louise: You know…Lisa’s husband just found out he has cancer

Harry: But, he’s covered, right?

Louise: No! He just joined a startup and he can’t afford a plan

-Commercial from HarryandLouisereturn.com (see video above). Part of a campaign to increase healthcare awareness

{ }

Obama on the High Tech Jobs of Tomorrow

by Sam on August 28, 2008

“We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great _ a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight….I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the startups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.”

-From Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech at the DNC. Full text of speech available here.

Good stuff.

{ }

How to Respond to a Rejection

by Sam on August 27, 2008

rejection-letter

People say you can tell a lot about someone’s character based on how they handle defeat. I have been faced with a number of rejections lately and figured I’d post on some of the types of responses available. Since the majority of the rejections I’ve received have taken place over email, the focus of this post is in responding via email. Ultimately I think some response is better than no response.

Say Nothing:

  • Sometimes you think this an impressive response indicating that things are going so well, you’re too busy to even bother.
  • Sometimes you mean for the other person to go f*** off. Make sure you realize that this is the most likely interpretation.

Say Something (Positive):

  • A curt, but gracious reply. Leave the door open to some future relationship potential
  • Some people will use the opportunity for a last minute grab: pointing out a miscalculation, a likely oversight or otherwise providing new information. You’re indirectly asking for re-consideration

Say Something (Negative):

  • Passive aggressive sarcasm is something I have had used on me often. The goal here is an indirect insult making sure that persons gets the last word in. Ugh
  • Directly insult or otherwise harshly criticize the person, or the process. This never benefits you down the road

Say A Lot:

  • Write a mini-essay on why you believe that a poor decision was ultimately arrived but make clear you are accepting the decision
  • Write a mini essay essentially begging for reconsideration. Rehash the process, provide clear evidence and ask for some specific next action

Which do you do? Which do you prefer if you’re a frequent rejecter?

{ }