Altos Ventures Musings

Another Perspective on Yahoo!

Paul Graham published an essay about "the problems that hosed Yahoo" which got shared by many people via Twitter and Hacker News. Many people called it "customarily brilliant." 

I really enjoy Paul's writings but this one didn't sit well with me. I disagreed with key points and came away concerned that young entrepreneurs would learn the wrong lessons from history.

In the essay, Paul suggests that Yahoo failed due to two problems - 1) easy money and 2) ambivalence about being a technology company.

Money

Paul takes us back to 1998, when Yahoo was riding high, making money from big brand advertisers as well as over-funded, "fat startups" (a term popularized recently by Ben Horowitz). In Paul's words, Yahoo was "a de facto beneficiary of a pyramid scheme."

I agree that too much easy money, especially over-funding, can harm companies. Too much money can mask problems. That said, I don't think it had much to do with Yahoo's demise.

We can second guess how Yahoo could have re-invested profits but I would not fault them for pursuing it. They built a very successful company which beat every competitor of their era. 

Everyone benefited from the bubble. If Yahoo had not taken the money it may have been diverted to others and weakened its competitive position. You have to be in the game to even have a chance at riding the next wave. 

Maybe what Paul meant to say was that Yahoo management should have recognized that they were lucky or that their business model was not sustainable?

In hindsight, it's clear that Yahoo did not appreciate the potential for search and perhaps over-estimated the quality of their revenues. But, as Paul acknowledged, no one else, including Larry and Sergei, knew how big search was going to be, in 1998.

It's hard to predict the future and deceptively easy to come up with simplistic explanations in hindsight. Yahoo beat its competitors hands down and built a very profitable, growing business. I would not diss them for it.

Paul's second point was about culture and leadership.

Hackers 

Paul suggests that Yahoo was a technology company but either didn't know it or were ambivalent about it. He also seems to imply that if hackers had run the place Yahoo would have been fine (or at least would not have been hosed).

I disagree with both points.

Yahoo was never a technology company. They were a media company (albeit a "new media" company) from the day that Dave and Jerry started serving up pages from their trailer at Stanford.

When Mike Moritz invested in Yahoo, it was the emerging brand and traffic that impressed, not the technology. Unlike Google, there was no core technology from day one. Later on, Yahoo did develop many technologies - they had to in order to scale (Hadoop is one example).

Bill Gates would have also said that Yahoo was never a technology company. When Gates saw Google, he saw a company that reminded him of Microsoft. It was probably the only company that ever scared him. He never had that reaction to Yahoo.

The important thing is not to be like a Google or Facebook (or the early Microsoft). The important thing is to be yourself. Be authentic. Be genuine.

So maybe Paul's point is that Yahoo didn't know who they were. Perhaps, but I disagree that Yahoo had to be like a Google or Facebook because that is not who they were.

Pixar is a great media company. The fact that they were founded by technologists doesn't confuse them. They even sell rendering software to other companies, including competitors. It doesn't diminish their identity as a media company. 

Disney is another example. Walt Disney Imagineering has been inventing cool new technologies for decades. They were the "new media" company of their generation. You don't have to fit someone else's mold. Be yourself. Be unique.

Another key point Paul seems to make is that "adult supervision" is bad. Implication seems to be that if hackers had run the place Yahoo may not have lost. Again, I disagree. 

There is good adult supervision and bad adult supervision.

Amazon is an interesting case study that, on the surface, defies hacker conventional wisdom. Even as they delve deeper into technology, Amazon's management is stacked with MBAs.

Even their most technical businesses, Amazon Web Services and Digital Media (including Kindle), are led by a Harvard MBA and a Stanford MBA, respectively. Even so, Amazon continues to attract and retain plenty of good hackers. In fact, momentum seems to be increasing in the hacker community. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with adult supervision or non-technical management per se.

That said, I do think people can get seduced by the belief that there is a mythical "world class" management team that can fix your company. On this front, I think Paul and I probably agree. Don't count on someone coming in from the outside to fix your company (or, in the case of Yahoo, your stock price). 

When the bubble crashed, Yahoo looked for a savior. In contrast, Amazon stuck with Jeff Bezos even though their stock took a similarly huge beating. Bezos likes to remind everyone how the pundits called them "Amazon dot toast."

Terry Semel knew little about Yahoo or the Internet when he took over in April, 2001. It quickly led to the mass exodus of the future leaders of Yahoo. The fallout we are witnessing now may still be the after shocks. 

To conclude, I'd like to share a great story about how Nike is still shaking up the shoe industry. When Phil Knight retired after almost 40 years as CEO, he decided to bring in fresh blood and passed over the leading internal candidate for CEO. 

Luckily, Nike had such a strong culture that it quickly rejected the outsider. The new CEO, from S.C. Johnson (the makers of Pledge, Windex and other cleaning products) lasted only 18 months. The new CEO is a home grown prodigy - a former shoe designer who was the internal CEO candidate in 2003. 

With 33,000 employees, there is plenty of "adult supervision." It just happens to be the right kind. 

25 Heat Seeking Missiles (and 10 Key Lessons)

First Round Capital's Josh Kopelman recently wrote a great post talking about entrepreneurs as heat seeking missles. Here is an excerpt:

I've lately started to realize that our most successful companies are led by entrepreneurs who have a unique talent -- they are heat seeking missiles.  It doesn't matter where the missile is aimed pre-launch.  Successful entrepreneurs are constantly collecting data -- and constantly looking for bigger and better targets, adjusting course if necessary.  And when they find their target, they're able to lock-onto it -- regardless of how crowded the space becomes. 

At the end he says

You can't predict success based on where a missile is pointed pre-launch.  Instead you have to assess the quality of the targeting system (the team) and the density/size of targets (the market).

He makes a great point. If you want to read about many more "heat seeking missiles," I’d recommend a book called “Retail Superstars” by George Whalin (http://www.retailsuperstars.com/) which talks about 25 great entrepreneurial success stories.  

I LOVE observing and studying great retail entrepreneurs because there is nothing quite like the retail business. There is no other business which puts entrepreneurs in front of customers so close, so personal and so often. I grew up in a retail environment. My mother owned franchised Hallmark Card and Gift shops and I remember chipping in, working every Christmas season, helping customers and gift wrapping thousands of presents over the years. Depending on the person and who the gift was for, I often made small, last minute adjustments on the type of wrapping paper, ribbon or knot (also, I did it to keep it more creative and interesting).  

The book essentially describes 25 great entrepreneurs (and their families, since most are family-run) and the story of how they built fantastic businesses which have not only survived but thrived in this most recent era of retailing dominated by Wal-Mart and big box retailing. 

The assault on independent store operators (most of which are run by entrepreneurs) didn’t just happen with Wal-Mart (which got started in the mid 1960s). There is a book called “Chain-Store Retailing 1859-1950” which chronicles how chains such as Sears, Montgomery Ward and JC Penny began spreading across America putting local merchants out of business along the way. The chains were becoming so powerful that in the 1920s and 30s, some communities and even states enacted laws to limit the number of new stores by chains.

The "retail superstars" defy conventional wisdom and epitomize the “think different” approach that all great entrepreneurs take. They provide proof that great entrepreneurs can succeed, against all odds, in ANY market against even the toughest competition.  The book is truly inspirational (if you love and admire entrepreneurs).

The top 10 lessons and common traits across the 25 retail superstars are:

1. There was no up-front plan or even long term vision. “When asked whether their companies had been built based on a business plan or set of guidelines, they invariably answered no, their growth was guided by what customers wanted and expected from their stores, what the marketplace dictated, and how they could best serve their customers.”
2. They got started with no outside funding - and ALWAYS with very modest stores, or sometimes no store at all - like selling fruit out of a cart. They all became hugely successful, one modest step at a time.
3. They are scrappy survivors. Many suffered disasters, even death as some businesses moved from generation to generation, yet they all kept growing.
4. They hired great people (friendly, knowledgeable staff) and kept them for a long time (which is unusual in retailing). They took care of their people who, in turn, took good care of their customers.
5. They embraced change and instilled a culture within their companies to allow staff to innovate and adapt to the needs of their customers and communities.
6. Even as circumstances changed, they maintained long term relationships both inside and outside of their stores. Repeat customers and word of mouth advertising fueled growth in each business. They figured out viral marketing long before it was so hip.
7. Surprisingly, they used technology to their advantage. Technology is just a means to an end. Most used the Internet and social media to engage their customers and broaden their reach (before the Internet, they used catalogs and direct mail). Every single business in the book grew with an absolute focus on the customer. If technology is useful for that purpose, it should be used.
8. They all gave back. Each retailer were pillars of their communities and incredibly generous to various causes around their communities with not only money but time and thoughtfulness.
9. They defied conventional wisdom and showed that there are many ways to succeed. Some retailers had great selection and huge stores. Others were focused and had very small stores. Some retailers offered great value and led with price. Others catered to the very high end and would give you sticker shock! Some operated in very big cities and big markets. Others operated in very small towns in the middle of no where where customers would have to drive miles to visit - yet they all built very successful, growing businesses.
10. A company can lose its soul when hired guns (i.e.“professional management”) take over. Home Depot was a fantastic entrepreneurial success in its growth phase when it started out employing skilled carpenters, painters, plumbers and electricians to work in its stores. “They served their customers well and the company grew into the largest home center retailer in the country. When management changed and a take-no-prisoners, cost cutting approach was adopted, most of those full-time craftsmen got caught in the cross fire. Without skilled employees, Home Depot’s sales suffered and its sterling customer service reputation was tarnished.”

One great retailer not covered in this book is Borsheims in Omaha, which operates the largest jewelry store outside of Tiffany's in NYC. It's the place Bill Gates flew his private jet to to pick out a ring for Melinda (their buddy Warren Buffett owns it). Nebraska Furniture Mart is another great retailer, also in Omaha, and also owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway. 

Woodman's is one of my favorite success stories of all time. No book has been written about them, unfortunately. They are an employee owned chain of grocery stores in WI and IL and have built a $1B+ business that has been evolving and growing for decades and will continue to kill the local Safeways, Whole Foods and Wal-Marts (http://www.woodmans-food.com/). One can learn a lot about how to compete and run a defensible business by studying a company like that. 

One of my favorite retailer-entrepreneurs, Barnett Heltzberg, wrote a book called "What I Learned Before Selling to Warren Buffet." I've blogged about him in the past and it's worth a quick read if retailing or entrepreneurship fascinates you. His key lesson was "Focus on the Controllables" (http://www.blog.altosventures.com/vc/2007/06/the_controllabl.html).

Finally, one of my favorite entrepreneurs of all time is Sam Walton. There have been so many articles and books written about the man as well as his company but the one I'd recommend is "Made in America." 

What Did Bill Gates Worry About? Lean or Fat?

I found this from the transcript of a Charlie Rose interview with Ken Auletta, right after "Googled" was published. It is interesting to hear about what Bill Gates worried about back in 1998, near the all time peak of his power (and the peak of the fat startup era). 

CHARLIE ROSE: And are they on the cutting edge of exciting stuff or are there two more kids in a dormitory room at Stanford that are about ready to come up with something that’s going to blaze new trails? 

KEN AULETTA: Well, we don’t know that. That’s the great thing. I mean, I think I may have told the story when I was on your show, I tell in my book that Bill Gates in ‘98, when I asked him what he worried about, he didn’t say the obvious, which is "My competitors, Netscape, or Oracle or Apple." He said "I worry about someone in a garage inventing something that I haven’t thought of." 

(LAUGHTER)

That year there were two guys in a garage. 

CHARLIE ROSE: Sergey and Larry in a dorm, yes.

KEN AULETTA: Google has the same reason to worry. What is that new technology? One thing they are conscious of is social networking and that could pose a problem for search. 

 

Now, I should also point out that Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook in a dorm room while Kleiner Perkins and Benchmark funded Friendster and Sequoia funded Plaxo during the very early days of social networking.

I feel like a broken record but this is something I wrote in 2006 in Venture Lotto:

The most sought after deals are led by proven managers. Especially popular are entrepreneurs who have made money before - they get investors lining up like sheep.

Ironically, the people who end up creating the blockbusters are usually unproven managers. They emerge from the fringes, and start small, in niche or overlooked markets. They take time to learn and iterate and burn very little capital before turning profitable. They follow a slower, but lower-risk path. In our own portfolio, the companies which raised less funding not only performed far, far better but had much lower failure rates.

Entrepreneurs can't count on a portfolio. The best ones we know are much more risk-averse than conventional wisdom might suggest. They don't take foolish chances. They spend money as if it were their own. They observe, listen and adapt; but fundamentally, they strive to control their own destinies, which is best done by generating profits. They do need a little capital, but they want help and advice even more. 

Ben Horowitz Makes Compelling Case for Lean

Like many of you, I've been following a fascinating and important debate between Ben Horowitz and Fred Wilson over the past couple of days. To recap, it all started with this post: The Case for the Fat Startup.

Fred then responded with Being Fat is Not Healthy which has received a lot of comments worth reading, including some comments from Ben. 

Then earlier today, Ben responded with the best post of all The Revenge of the Fat Guy.

After reading through the posts, I've come to the conclusion that Ben and Fred actually agree on the fundamental points. In fact, the most important point was already made by Steve Blank last year in Lean Startups Aren't Cheap Startups.

Steve, a key figure in the lean startup movement, felt the need make the case that you cannot confuse lean with cheap. He concludes with the point that if you confuse the concepts "when you do find a repeatable and scalable sales model, you will starve your company for resources needed to scale."

The reason I love Ben's latest post is that he helps debunk some myths about Product-Market Fit, which, according Marc Andreessen, is "the only thing that matters" Along the way, he also makes a compelling case (though perhaps unintentionally) for staying lean. 

Ben's post should be a warning for entrepreneurs and VCs who put too much faith behind the magical product market fit concept. Here are some things to watch out for:

1. Product market fit is NOT a discrete, big bang event. If you are fortunate to find product market fit, you will most likely get there through lots of hard work "through partial fits, a few false alarms, and a big dollop of perseverance...there’s no formulaic answer."
2. It's NOT obvious when you have product-market fit. "It’s usually not black and white."
3. Once you achieve product-market fit, you can lose it.
4. Once you have product-market fit, you still have to "sweat the competition."

All of these points should serve as a warning for people with too much money to spend (or invest) and eager to step on the gas once product market fit is found. Given all of the uncertainties, it would be prudent to maintain some humility even if you believe that you've found product-market fit (you can also reach the opposite conclusion - even when in doubt, step on the gas - it's just not the path I'd recommend). 

Ben's last point is important to consider because, on the surface, it makes a case for the fat startup. Since "the best markets are usually the ones in which competition is fierce" you should invest aggressively to make sure you win the market."

I would ask, how much should you raise/invest? How about a billion dollars as Webvan did?

In any huge new market, there is no question competition will heat up. But even a billion dollars is nothing when you are talking about competing against the big guys. 

Rather than focusing on how much money to raise, how about focusing on producing profits and creating a sustainable business model?

When I look at competitors, the ones that scare me are the ones that have found ways to make money and scale at the same time. The "fat startups" that are burning through millions or tens of millions of dollars a month don't scare me.

Ben says that you can't win the market by saving your way there. I totally agree. But conversely, you can't win by spending your way there either. Even if you raise hundreds of millions. For every Loudcloud/Opsware, there are dozens of craters. As David Packard liked to say, "more companies die from indigestion than starvation."

There is no question that Ben is a great entrepreneur who knows first hand how difficult it is to build companies. He knows that it often takes more money and longer than you'd like. So it would make sense to raise more money than you think you need. If someone offers to invest boatloads of money in your company at a great price, you should consider taking it. I agree. But even Ben has said that it should not be your plan A.

If you are one of the very fortunate entrepreneurs who is able to get boatloads of funding at a great price, you should be careful to resist pressures to spend that capital from excited investors. You need to also do your best to resist your own temptations to pursue every great idea that you and your great team comes up with to win the market. A company growing on profits just tends to be much more disciplined than one growing based on boatloads funding.

Just as Ben agues that Twitter is the exception, not the rule, I'd say that Loudcloud/Opsware is the exception, not the rule.

Even Loudcloud/Opsware is not a very compelling case for the fat startup. They raised $346mm in 15 months and went public in March 2001. By September 2002, market cap had fallen to $28mm, which was less than cash on hand and about 8% of capital raised to date. That sounds like value destruction to me. If you were an investor or employee, you'd be pretty bummed right about then.

Then an amazing thing happened. From 2002 to 2007, the company raised no more capital and created tremendous value - great job Ben! They exit for $1.6B in September 2007! I would guess that there was a lot of great technology created in the prior 2 years that helped. But I would also guess that the thought of running out of cash was pretty scary when you are at a $28mm million market cap. If I were in their shoes, I would have been more determined than ever to get to profitability so that I would never have to raise more funding. 

To recap, during the first era (Loudcloud), hundreds of millions are raised and return almost nothing. During the second era (Opsware), if you bought stock, which was publicly available, so any of you could have participated - you did NOT have to be a famous entrepreneur or a hotshot VC to get a chance to invest - you would have made a spectacular return.

Ben Horowitz just reinforced my belief that "fat startup" is not only a bad idea but a dangerous one. Just as the lean startup concept can be harmful if people misunderstand the key points, the fat startup concept can also be harmful. In fact, it can be a LOT more harmful to the VC industry. Entrepreneurs will also suffer from excessive dilution, recaps and wasted lives pursuing bubbles and false dreams.

I'll end with a concept Warren Buffet has repeated over and over again - don't count on the kindness of strangers to save you. Make sure you have enough cash on hand. To me, that is not an argument for the fat startup, it's an argument for the lean startup.

Celebrity Investors, Board Members and Advisors

"The quality and quantity of the financial backing that HomeGrocer.com has received for this latest round of financing clearly indicates that we have a model that is both viable and sustainable." 

- Homegocer's CEO in 1999 Press Release announcing $100mm round 

Chris Dixon's blog post from today about how to select your angel investors talks about a common mistake entrepreneurs make - choosing an investor based on their "celebrity value (by "celebrity" I generally mean in the TechCrunch sense, not the People magazine sense)." 

The same is true for choosing VCs, board members and advisors. We've invested with plenty of famous VCs and board members who were extremely well connected to the CEOs and boards of companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, Intel and many other Fortune 500 companies. 

In our experience, celebrity investors and board members do little to help entrepreneurs do what they need to get done. They offer little in the way of strategic or practical advice about hiring, firing, product development, closing deals and financing. Even worse, sometimes the advice can be out of touch with what is going on in the industry or company but due to their celebrity status, some off the cuff comments can carry too much weight. 

Perhaps the most value that celebrities bring to the table are connections (even Chris in his blog post applauded "connectors" who can "introduce you to key people when you need it"). In practice, however, most people with great connections guard their rolodexes. 

Even when an intro is made directly to the CEO of a BIG company, it will get passed down the organization (usually down several levels) to the real decision makers. If the company is well run, the CEO will let his/her people make the decisions. 

If you do choose to use high level connections to force a deal through you should be warned that such a deal can backfire. If you don't take the time to build real support with the right people in the organization, they can do many things on a day to day basis which can ultimately sabotage the deal down the road (and distract you from what you should have been doing in the first place). 

My advice to entrepreneurs is to build your own buzz, based on fundamentals (an excellent banker advised one of our companies to "build your own heat" - it was good advice). You have to deliver real value! 

Also, please, please, please focus on generating your own leads. No matter how big your board or how well connected your advisors are they will NEVER produce the quantity or quality of leads your own team (and sales/marketing engine) will produce for you if you are going to be successful building a real business. 

In my experience, the entrepreneurs who see the most value from celebrity investors/board members and "advisors" build nothing of real value themselves. On the flip side, the best entrepreneurs see little value from celebrities (in fact, they probably find them distracting, if not somewhat annoying). 

Ironically, celebrities begin to embrace entrepreneurs once they think they are going to be successful anyway - with or without them. As it turns out, most celebrities need you more than you need them.

As far as I'm concerned, the real stars are entrepreneurs who create something from nothing.

Disclosure: As Chris D. admitted, as a non-celebrity but hard working small investor, this post is almost entirely self serving.

Overcommitted

Hard working entrepreneurs and their companies often feel over-committed. There are always too many things to get done and not enough resources.

One of our companies that is growing at 200%+ this year was feeling that way and we had a serious discussion about various options. One was to do a better job of account management so that expectations of customers and partners do not get ahead of our ability to deliver. Another option was to raise more funding and hire more people. A third option was to make tough decisions about what to cut (this is not an exhaustive list but will give you a flavor for the discussion).

The third option is a hard one to swallow, especially when things are going well. We have customers lining up and a window of opportunity that may close if we don't go for it - NOW! An easy answer would be to raise more money and ride the momentum.

After much discussion/debate, we made a decision to cut. We did not cut people. In fact, we will continue to hire. But we cut some very promising initiatives and we will have to turn away customers that are ready to pay (or have already paid).

Cutting can be scary, but it can also be liberating. It is not 100% clear that we made the right decision but here are two interesting quotes to think about, if you ever find yourself in a similar discussion with your board/investors:

"The essence of commitment is making a decision. The Latin root for decision is to 'cut away from,' as in an incision. When you commit to something, you are cutting away all your other possibilities, all your other options."
    -The Lombardi Rules, Rule #6 - Be Totally Committed 

"A great company is more likely to die of indigestion (from too much opportunity) than starvation (from too little)."
    -David Packard ("Packard's Law")

A Modest Proposal for the Venture Industry: Better Customer Service

There has been much talk lately about the demise of the venture capital industry.  Big funds are imploding after a decade of poor industry returns.  The causes are many: wacky capital markets, Sarbanes-Oxley regulation, ballooning fund sizes, misaligned incentives, generational turnover, etc.  Reviving the industry was such a big topic at this year’s National Venture Capital Association meeting that NVCA leaders issued a bold set of proposals to jumpstart the industry.

I haven't spent much time trying to dissect the causes of our industry’s current malaise.  But one thing I know for sure is that we are doing a lousy job of basic customer service.  How bad?  If you google “venture capitalists suck” you will get more results than “United Airlines sucks”.  A totally inaccurate measure to be sure, but to be anywhere near United Airlines on the suckage scale is not something that our profession should be proud of.  I think we can do better. 

So let me make a more modest proposal.     

We venture investors could do a lot for the reputation and health of our profession by getting back to the basics of good customer service. 

Many of us have forgotten that our business, after all, is to serve investors who entrust us with their capital and entrepreneurs who entrust us with their dreams.   Having raised money at three start-ups before starting in venture, I have more than a few opinions on how venture professionals could act more, well, professional.  Let me start with a few simple ones:

1.    Return calls (and emails)
One of the classiest and most successful venture investors I’ve ever met is Brook Byers of Kleiner Perkins.  Early in my career, I asked him at a panel discussion to share the secret to his success.  He explained that one of his basic rules of doing business was to call people back by the following day.  It sounds so simple, yet every week I talk to entrepreneurs who drive themselves insane wondering when the VC they met is going to call them back.  I’m not talking about unsolicited inquiries (only the appropriate ones of which deserve a response); I’m talking about getting back to people with whom we’ve already met.   Email overload is no excuse.  Not when we’re checking our Blackberries every five minutes.

2.    Pay attention
Which brings me to my next suggestion.  I vividly recall pitching my third startup to a famous Sand Hill venture capitalist back in 1999.  We had studied his portfolio, prepared a customized presentation and shown up early for the meeting, only to have him spend the hour distractedly munching a bag of peanuts and tossing the shells on the table in front of us.  Now that a decade has passed and peanuts have given way to Blackberries, it is a rarity that I sit through a meeting where a VC is not checking email, surfing the Web or popping out to make a phone call.  What’s the point of making all the physical effort to get face-to-face only to be mentally absent?  I’m as guilty as any, so let me resolve immediately and publicly to put my Blackberry away when meeting with entrepreneurs, or at least use it as a drink coaster.

3.    Just say NO
Given that we need to turn down 99% of the ideas that come our way, you would think that VCs would be pretty good at saying “no” to entrepreneurs.   The best salespeople and entrepreneurs know that a quick “no” is better than a long “maybe”.  Some of my VC colleagues don’t like to say “no” to keep their options open for a potential investment, but the vast majority just don’t like using the two-letter word because they are nice people.  They hem and haw and say something about having to “talk to the partnership”, then worry for weeks about how to make up a reason for declining the opportunity.  I’ve resolved to either tell entrepreneurs in the meeting or get back to them within a week.  It sure has made my life a lot easier and I hope it’s helped them waste less of their precious time.

4.    Be accountable
All this is easy to say, but aside from some community rating sites like thefunded.com, venture capitalists are simply not accountable to entrepreneurs.  At Altos, we’ve begun measuring the time it takes us to get initial and follow-up responses to entrepreneurs, but we are by no means perfect.  For a profession that generates all of its returns from the hard work of entrepreneurs, we sure do a lousy job of customer service.  So hold me to what I say.  Call me on it.  If I (or my partners) don’t follow my own advice in this blog, just email alee@altosventures.com and you’ll get a response from me.  If I still don’t get back to you, then you should probably give up on us and try United Airlines instead.

Burn the Ships!

The past 6 months have been two of the toughest quarters in decades. Almost every company is struggling - but some are surviving and some are not. What separates them?

I want to share an observation. There seems to be one common theme across every Silicon Valley company that I've seen go out of business. For some reason, the management of companies that abruptly shut their doors thought that they would get more funding. It could have been VC funding, debt financing or some other source of outside capital. That was their back-up plan. They were counting on it.

If you are an entrepreneur, you should have the attitude that there will be no-one to save you. There will be no outside capital. You have to generate revenues, cut costs, make the business model work - or find some way to survive until you do.

This doesn't mean that entrepreneurs should not raise any debt or equity financing. It just means they should never, ever count on it.

In Silicon Valley, it almost seems as if entrepreneurs count on VC as a business model. They aspire to become adept at raising VC money and "exiting" in a few years. What ever happened to the idea of building a real business, funded by paying customers? How about building a company that can stand alone, built to last?

In a book called Predictable Irrational, I found a story that every entrepreneur should think about.

In 210 BC, a Chinese commander named Xiang Yu led his troops across the Yangtze River to attack the army of the Qin (Ch'in) dynasty. Pausing on the banks of the river for the night, his troops awakened in the morning to find, to their horror, that their ships were burning. They hurried to their feet to fight off the attackers, but soon discovered that it was Xiang Yu himself who had set their ships on fire... With their ships gone, the soldiers had no route of retreat. Winning was the only option. 

They won 9 battles in a row before defeating the mighty Qin forces.

If you are an entrepreneur and you think that you will need some more funding to survive - or thrive - I have one piece of advice for you. Burn the ships.

RIP Good Times? A Different Perspective

Rip Good Times A Different Perspective

View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: venture capital)

I put this presentation together to encourage a group of entrepreneurs I was to speak to at a conference in Reno, NV last week.

It's funny how times change.

People who have been following our blogs over the past 2 years know that we've had a more pessimistic, contrarian view of the venture business, even as the number of VC investments, fund sizes, deal sizes and valuations had been going up.

Now, of course, the world is totally different. Whether or not you believed that we were in a Web 2.0 technology bubble, Sequoia declared that the good times were over and it's now time to hunker down and fight for survival. In their widely publicized "RIP Good Times" meeting, they extolled the virtues of cash conservation to all of their CEOs and told them that they had to change in order to survive.

Now, we are contrarians again.

Our companies did not need Sequoia to tell them cash is king. They had been operating that way for years. In fact, more than a third of all of our companies are on track to be profitable this quarter. Many have been maintaining profitability while growing for many years.

The reason that we feel like we are contrarians again is that we have not seen such a good environment for building companies in years. Entrepreneurs are more focused on getting to profitability and building companies based on solid fundamentals. Before, we felt like lonely voices in the VC world, which seems to be filled with people working toward billion dollar exits for money losing companies.

Over this entire year, we've noticed a trend. Some of our companies started seeing a steady flow of high quality resumes from competitors. I think it's now about to turn into a flood! It will be much easier to hire great people who are more hungry and realistic about compensation and how long it will take to build shareholder value.  

For entrepreneurs in it for the long haul, this downturn just bought them more time. Impatient VCs won't be hounding them to take more risk, to grow faster, to get more aggressive. Remember, as an entrepreneur, you have one company. You don't have a portfolio of companies. You can't afford to play venture lotto.

Remember what we said back in 2006 about Foxes and Hedgehogs in Silicon Valley?

"Foxes are great at raising capital - they thrive in bubble markets. Hedgehogs would rather bootstrap - they do far better during the inevitable crashes."

For all you hedgehogs out there, this is your time to shine!

Don't Worry, Be Scrappy

“Don’t worry” does not exactly sound like responsible advice at a time like this. After all, we often remind our CEOs of Andy Grove’s famous adage that “only the paranoid survive”.

But it is a serious piece of advice that we are giving to all of our portfolio entrepreneurs. Over the last two weeks, many of our portfolio CEOs (and fund investors) have been asking us for our take on the current financial crisis. So here it is:

The bad news

Let’s first understand that things will be bad – really bad. In fact, this downturn will almost certainly be deeper and longer than the post-Bubble “nuclear winter” of 2001-2004 that so many of us struggled through as entrepreneurs and investors. That crash was precipitated by a financial bubble seeded largely by the venture/technology markets and abetted by all-too-willing public investors. But despite the fall in IT spending and concurrent drop in the NASDAQ index, the general economy kept humming along. In the five dark years following NASDAQ’s peak on March 9 2000, the Dow Jones actually went up. In the same five year period, the national housing price index nearly doubled. Most Americans hardly noticed the Internet Bubble and crash.

Now this is a totally different story. This economic crisis is about all of us. It’s about a fundamental realignment in global asset values. Whatever happens to venture/technology will be collateral damage, but will likely be worse than what we in tech experienced after the Internet Bubble. If that felt like a nuclear winter to tech companies, this one may well be an ice age for all of us. We may be wrong about this, but we’d rather be wrong on the upside than wrong on the downside.

The good news

As an entrepreneur, there are a lot of factors that figure into your success or failure. Some you control and most you don’t. Macroeconomics is one that you certainly don’t. So if, like me, you believe in worrying only about the things you can control, then this is a great time to get focused on building your business and stop fretting about the economy (see Focus on the Controllables).

In fact, a recession is probably the best time to start a company. Great companies like Disney, GE, HP and Microsoft were all started during recessions. As the clever folks at Google like to say, “creativity loves constraints”.

Why?  Bad times can build good DNA.  A down economy does not leave room for entrepreneurial sloppiness. It forces entrepreneurs to be honest about how good their products are. It mandates financial discipline. In other words, it is a perfect time to get focused, get real and get lean.

After the giddy NASDAQ highs of March 2000, it took most people way too long to come to grips with reality. I had personally just joined the venture business and my first company, Evolve Software, went public in August 2000 – a full half year after the peak. Most companies did not start cutting back until late 2001 and by then it was too late. The smart and lucky ones survived the ensuing five years and some became big winners. But most companies just ran out of money and ran out of time.

The rules

Plenty of smart people have already made prudent recommendations to their teams about what to do in this environment, so I won't repeat. See in particular Sequoia’s doom and gloom presentation to their portfolio CEOs earlier this week and Jason Calacanis’ email. But let me summarize with just two simple rules that we've tried to impress upon all of our CEOs:

Rule #1: Don’t run out of cash.

Rule #2: See Rule #1.

Then, go out and build the next great company.

Ousting the Founder

I was shocked to learn this week that Diane Greene, the co-founder and CEO of VMWare was ousted. I was not alone. Except for senior management (who found out very late, the night before) the employees of VMWare read about it, just like I did on Tuesday morning.

I guess $1.3B in revenues, $14B market cap, 50% growth rate and market dominance was not good enough for the board/EMC. One slight miss in one quarter and BANG! You're out. Perhaps the board believed industry pundits and worried about competition from Microsoft. So they brought in a "heavy hitter"...former Microsoft exec Paul Maritz as CEO.

I'd guess that the more likely reason was that Diane Green was a difficult person to deal with. There is no doubt that she was a controversial CEO. It was her way or the highway and she churned through senior execs (especially in sales and marketing). She never gave much respect to the folks at EMC either (who owned the vast majority of the stock - and controlled the board).

Some other hard-headed, "controversial" founder/CEOs that come to mind are Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Steve Jobs. These founders may be difficult to deal with but I'd rather go with them than take my chances with a new hired gun CEO.

Over the years, we've observed that it's difficult, if not impossible, to match the passion and commitment that founders bring to their companies. It's not just a job for them. It's deeply personal. The difference in commitment is akin to the differences you might observe between missionaries and mercenaries (or hedgehogs versus foxes).

Look, I have nothing against Paul. I'm sure he's a very smart, capable and hard working guy. But this whole situation reminded me of the time Steve Jobs was ousted from Apple more than 20 years ago.

As co-founder and CEO, Diane Green built one of the all time great successes in Silicon Valley. Very, very few companies ever reach $1B in revenues. Even fewer in the technology industry. Even fewer in the software industry. And even fewer ever exceed $10B in market cap.

Why the hell would you fire her?? No, don't tell me...I've heard all the reasons. VCs oust founders all the time. I've been in plenty of board level discussions around this topic!

It's almost a rite of passage in Silicon Valley. As a founder, you start a company, get VCs to fund you, recruit a "world class" management team...and eventually, find your replacement (or get ousted).

What people seem to miss, however, is that just about every great company ever created - in technology as well as low-tech, was built by a founder (or a CEO who happened to join the company very early in its growth phase) and a team of dedicated people who grew with their companies.

I don't believe in "world class" management in the generic sense. "World class" in what??

What I believe in is people who learn on the job and become - over time - the best at what they do. Along the way, they make plenty of mistakes. But that's part of the learning (and perhaps the luck of it - because the mistakes happen to be not fatal for the survivors).

Think about it. Some examples of great companies led by founders for decades are GE, UPS, FedEx, Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, HP, Intel, SAP, SAS, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, Adobe, Sun, Dell, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, Dolby, Amazon.com, Salesforce.com, etc.

There are some great companies where the original founder(s) did not grow the company but the CEO who grew the business to $1B+ in revenues joined very early on in the life of the company (typically below $10mm in sales): IBM, McDonald's, Starbucks, Veritas, Cisco and Google are examples.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Even a founder hanging on to the bitter end won't save some companies (i.e. Wang, DEC). But I'd rather take my chances with the founder who built a $1B business from scratch than go with someone new.

The average tenure of the CEOs in our three largest companies is 9 years. They learned on the job. None of them had been CEO before we started working with them. None had much experience in their industry - the market did not exist, and the technology and business models had not yet been invented. But they are guys who took us this far (average sales of nearly $90mm this year) and we will gladly stick with them as long as they still want the job.

I'd rather take my chances with the people who built the business and grew their companies than the "professionals" - the hired guns - the mercenaries - coming in, after the fact, to "fix" things or to "take it to the next level."

We tell all of our companies this - if you want to build the leader in your industry, you have to have the world's leading experts in your field working for you. But do NOT expect to find them outside of your company. Someone senior from the outside won't come in to show you the way. They won't save you.

Think about it. If you can go outside and hire a CEO or other very senior executives to come in to YOUR company and tell you what to do and how to do it - better than you - then you've created nothing special. There is no secret sauce and you have NO CHANCE of building a truly great company.

We like to tell all of our companies this - the world's leading experts in your business will be the people you develop. The young people you hire today will be your future leaders. Five to ten years from now, they will BE the world's leading experts in your business. You will have to figure it out - together - along the way.

Don't count on those mythical "world class" managers to come in to save the day. Not only are there no guarantees, I believe they will end up hurting your chances of building a special, lasting company. If you do try to hire them anyway...good luck. What I will guarantee is this - they will negotiate HARD for a nice severance package.

Failing Fast

Lately, I’ve been telling all our companies to fail.  Fast.

It’s not that I’ve decided to throw in the towel. Quite the contrary. After doing startups for a dozen years, I’ve come to believe that the best way to maximize the chance of a big success is to fail often and fail fast.

Thomas Edison was one of history’s most successful failures. He failed more than a thousand times before inventing the incandescent light bulb. When Edison finally figured it out, he famously said: “I didn’t fail a thousand times. The light bulb was an invention with a thousand steps.”

The idea of taking a thousand steps is core to our investment philosophy here at Altos.  We’ve come to understand that every company goes through a series learning processes – about new markets, products, distribution strategies, etc. My partner Brendon wrote a great post on the fact that there is just no substitute for time when going through these learning cycles. Sometimes, the outcome of learning means tweaking the product to meet unforeseen customer needs; other times it means completely scrapping the business model and starting fresh. In fact some of our most successful companies started with one business and ended up with something entirely different. Put a smart, tenacious team against a big market opportunity with enough operating runway, and you have a decent formula for success.

Failing fast is even more imperative in the world of Web-based software and services. Back when I was a rookie product manager, I’d spend months perfecting product requirements documents (PRDs) that would disappear into an engineering organization only to emerge months or years later as a finished software product. Nowadays, that one-shot, monolithic approach is just not a competitive option.

Failing fast requires companies to think about perfecting their products differently. To quote LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve probably launched too late.” Perfecting a product the first time out is impossible, but getting it out and iterating a thousand times just might get you close.

Some of our best development teams cull user feedback into new priorities to build/test/release on a weekly cycle. It doesn’t really matter whether they are using newer lightweight tools like Ruby on Rails and Adobe Flex or “heavier” Microsoft-centric stacks. The key is to obsessively listen to and incorporate feedback from Web users who aren’t afraid to tell you if their release sucks (or not). Keep what sticks, toss what stinks.

Of course, just failing a lot is no guarantee for success. There are plenty of teams that just fail all the way to a big fat zero. These teams either spend too much time and money failing or don’t fail in the right ways. Let me elaborate:

One corollary to failing fast is failing cheaper. Josh Kopelman has a good post (and investment model) on this, so I’ll let that him tell you all about it.

A second corollary to failing fast is failing well. Systems that fail well compartmentalize and minimize a failure so that it does not impact the whole system – for instance, a sealed chamber in the hold of a cargo ship that allows a single area to absorb damage without flooding the entire hold. Failing well is a lesson most of us learned in high school chemistry lab: isolating experimental variables by using a scientific control. Similarly, start-up teams that fail well run multiple experiments to get small, controlled failures. These teams understand that failure is a desirable and necessary byproduct of the learning process. They are humble, smart and fast.

So don’t be afraid to fail. Don’t even be afraid to be embarrassed. It’s all just part of being successful.

The Ramp Phase, Jack Welch and a Coin Flip

The "ramp phase" is a period that my partners and I define as a hyper-growth phase somewhere between $10mm and $100mm in sales. It is perhaps the most exciting period in a young company's development. After years of hard work and tinkering, getting the product, packaging, pricing and positioning right (or at least good enough), you think that your company is finally ready to scale. By the time you reach this phase, you have a business model that is starting to work and lots of raving customers. Most companies don't even make it this far, so you are feeling great about things...

At this phase, most VCs are ready to invest big dollars and encourage entrepreneurs to be aggressive. They say, it's time to break through or get left in the dust. VCs don't invest in lifestyle businesses, you have to go for it!  Don't sand bag. Shoot for the moon! Those projections are not exciting enough...it's not BIG enough...the stakes are getting bigger...yada, yada, yada.

Let's get real.

Something that we see all the time when we drill down into sales projections of start-ups is a failure to take into account hiring mistakes that inevitably occur as companies ramp a sales-force.

Sales is typically the department which has the highest turnover in companies going through the ramp phase. Over the years, we've seen hundreds of sales reps get hired (last year alone, our companies hired 200+ sales reps) only to see most of them struggle, get fired or quit at some point along the way.

Based on our experience, less than one out of two new sales reps end up working out. Whether you have voluntary or involuntary turnover, the end result is the same - you end up with fewer sales reps than planned.

Given the time spent on each hire (plus recruiting fees) a lot of precious start-up resources are wasted. Some of this waste is unavoidable. It's just the cost of doing business. However, we believe that most of the waste can be avoided if companies apply some realism.

For example, when it comes to making sales rep or any other types of hires, the sobering reality is that many mistakes will be made. In fact, it's a virtual coin flip according to Jack Welch (who recently discussed this issue with one of our CEOs).

What exactly did he mean by this?

Basically, Welch thought that he was no better than 50/50 early in his career. Half of the hires he made were good and half were mistakes (which he tried to correct as quickly as possible).

Think about it. If Jack Welch (one of the most respected and talented businessmen of his generation) thought that his hiring decisions were no better than a coin flip, what are your odds?

Over the course of his career, Jack, of course, did get better (he was a learning machine and tried to mold GE into a learning organization). How much better?  Well...after 40+ years of hiring and firing people, Jack thought that he got to 70/30 for really important hiring decisions - such as a CEO hire.

In other words, even at the end of his career, he was very aware of the fact that he can (and would) make hiring mistakes a large percentage (at least 30%) of the time - no matter how hard he tried to avoid them.

The bottom line is this - making good hiring decisions is extraordinarily difficult to do. It's a super high risk activity. The risk level is higher, of course, when you're looking to fill critical positions (like CEOs) but even for lower rank, more "cookie cutter" hires (like sales reps) the risk is high (at least much higher than most people perceive).

So, as a CEO or VP Sales of a start-up projecting that "shoot for the moon" sales ramp, you have to ask yourself this question....are you going to be much better than Jack Welch at sizing people up?

If not, you had better plan for at least one in three new hires NOT working out. If you want to be realistic, plan on every other sales rep not producing for you (and try to correct your mistakes ASAP). If you actually planned for this, how would you modify spending in the rest of the company? How would you change your plans on ramping marketing, customer support, R&D, etc?

If you are indeed a superstar (or just super lucky) and you end up making better hiring decisions than Jack Welch...good for you. Use the extra cash-flow generated by your sales-force to reinvest for even faster growth.

But for planning purposes...I would not count on being much better (or luckier) than Jack.

LEARNING TO GIVE A DAMN

Almost every venture capitalist I know lists passion as one of the most important traits they look for in entrepreneurs.  Most VCs, I am sure, also talk about their own commitment and passion when pitching themselves to limited partners.

My personal lessons in observing people with real passion came from my Army days as a 22 year-old lieutenant in charge of about 40 people.

On one Saturday night approaching midnight, my boss called me at home. He said, “LT (that is what we were called, especially when he was angry about something), come over to the motor-pool right now.” The motor-pool was where we kept all of our equipment such as trucks, tanks, dozers, etc. When I got there, I saw my boss standing nearby a truck with a flashlight. As he saw me approaching, he threw a maintenance book at me, and said, “We are going to go through the standard maintenance inspection of this truck…together.”

When we got done, we found the truck with only half-filled gas tank (it is supposed to be full at all times when inside the motor-pool), malfunctioning fire extinguisher, and without several items that belonged in the truck at all times. After the inspection, I was embarrassed. My boss then smiled, held up a cigarette butt, and said, “LT, I knew one of your trucks was due in around 11PM. So, I just came by and looked inside the truck. And I found several cigarette butts and empty coke cans. I knew then I had to teach you an important lesson on leadership. That is to give a damn.”

He then explained, “If a soldier does not care to clean up the truck when he reports back in, then he probably did not bother refueling. Furthermore, there is a high probability that he is not taking care of the truck every day.” At that moment, he grew very serious, and said, “You have to care. You have to make sure your soldiers care. Otherwise, you and I will be explaining to the soldier’s loved ones why his truck ran out of fuel, did not reach the destination, and got killed by enemy fire.

My second lesson came from a sergeant who was at least a decade older than me. On the first night of our field exercise, he got me up in the middle of the night. He said, “Sir, get up. You don’t have time to be sleeping. Come with me.” He then took me around every guard post, checked to see if anyone had wet boots (and when he/she did, immediately had them change socks and boots and personally applied foot powder), and talked with them about family, girlfriends/boyfriends, and football teams, etc.

After checking with every guard, he then said, “Sir, the guards change every two hours. You should get some shut-eye now. But in thirty minutes, I am going to wake you up. And you are going to do what I did with every set of guards.” My sergeant truly cared about his soldiers. He wanted to make sure I also learned to give a  damn.

My Army days feel distant as I go through my days as a venture capitalist. The risks VCs take on are far from matters of life and death, but the lessons I learned in giving a damn gives me proper conviction to stick to what we call a responsible way to build companies.

I wonder ...what would all VCs do if they gave a damn?

If VCs gave a damn, they would be more interested in building special companies than flipping them, just to make money. They would pay attention and not spray and pray their investments, hoping to get lucky.

Also, they would not over-commit by taking on too much money, too many companies and too many board seats. They would capitalize companies responsibly, not according to how much money they had to invest.

Finally, they would take the time to get to know the businesses and people involved. They would focus on developing talent and not rush out to hire mercenaries looking for quick fixes. There are no short cuts. It is critical to make the proper trade-offs between growth, profitability and sustainability.

Fear of The Living Dead in Venture Capital

It was not until I got into the VC business that I found out about the terrible, dreadful "living dead" - a term used to describe companies that merely survive, without future prospects. Normally fearless VCs fear the living dead. So do our LPs (the people who invest in VCs) who worry that we might waste our time (and their money) on a bunch of little companies that go nowhere.

Venture Capital is a "shoot for the moon" - go for the homeruns - business (for more on this topic see Swinging For the Fences). Most deals won't work out but great VCs bounce back quickly and easily. They focus on the winners and waste as little time as possible on the losers. When you think about it, the living dead might be far worse than the total losers because they continue to go on and on...potentially sucking up valuable time, energy and resources...indefinitely. Yikes! No wonder VCs fear the living dead!

The bigger you are (whether in size of wallet or ego) the more you will think that wasting time and money on little ideas and small deals is not worthwhile. For example, Larry Ellison believes that there will be only a handful of survivors in the software business - Oracle, Microsoft, SAP and IBM. To Larry, all others in the software business are as good as dead (or the living dead).

BUT, if you're really dead, then you have no chance.

In the VC business, all of our companies, even the very best, follow a rather bumpy and windy road. In the beginning, every company looks like a struggling little company with uncertain prospects.

The best approach to take in venture capital is to relish in uncertainty and to have a little humility.

There is no way to control outcomes in the start-up game. What you can control is whether or not you do your best and make sound decisions (like spending your time and money wisely) and just deal with problems (and take advantage of opportunities) as they come. If you stay hungry and learn along the way - and just manage to somehow survive - you give yourself a chance to make course corrections, take advantage of changes (often unexpected) in market conditions, or just get plain lucky once in a while.

So let's get back to basics...if you really want to have a chance at a homerun, you have to, first and foremost, make sure that your company survives.

Surprisingly, this is not obvious to some people.

One prominent LP once told me that he would rather have us return NOTHING than to play it safe. He was serious - dead serious. He wanted "volatility" because that's what is expected from the so called VC "asset class."

When I first heard this advice I was a bit shocked!

At Altos, rather than worrying about the dead, the living dead or the homeruns, we focus our early stage companies on getting to 1st base - typically around $10mm in revenues - without burning through a lot of capital.

If we can get to 1st base, then we might start to believe that there could be an interesting business forming. In our experience, most companies don't even make it that far, especially if people get obsessed with creating the next BIG whatever.

After reaching 1st base, some companies might go out of business (the equivalent of getting tagged out at 1st), or get bought out, or start slowing down. Only a minority of the companies that make it to $10mm, make it to 2nd base, or $40mm in revenues. At that level, we start to be fairly certain that we will have a winner...but we still don't know whether or not we have a homerun.

At this stage, some more companies might get acquired and others will start flattening out in growth (start-ups rarely go out of business at this stage but, as in baseball, you CAN get tagged out from 2nd base). Again, only a minority of companies break through to the next level...this time to 3rd base, or $100mm in revenues.

Once 3rd base is reached, VCs will typically get a 10x return on investment (sometimes 100x-1,000x, depending on market froth/timing). By that time, we also know that management is competent, scrappy and adaptable, through multiple iterations of products, strategies, business models.

By the time a company gets to 3rd base, at least 5 years (sometimes 10+ years) have passed. In the technology industry, that's an awfully long time! Whether or not a $100mm company can become a much larger company depends on countless factors that are largely unknowable at the time of investment.

We will submit that there is no way to know - a priori - which company will turn out to be a homerun at the time a company starts out (or when VCs invest).

Here is a thought experiment.

If you were really great at predicting the homeruns (and the losers), what would happen if you abandoned the VC business and started a hedge fund? If you can predict the winners and losers when companies have insignificant revenue streams, then you should be even better at predicting when companies reach $100mm (around the time of an IPO). Hedge fund managers can invest tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars at a time - buying or shorting public companies.

If you had invested in companies such as Oracle, Microsoft, SAP, Dell, Cisco and dozens of other companies shortly after their stocks were publicly available, you could have made 100x or more on each deal. So why waste time investing single digit millions in puny little companies?

As VCs, we love investing in tiny little companies started by passionate founders in interesting, dynamic markets. They always start as small, obscure, insignificant little companies that struggle along the way. The path is NEVER smooth!

It is a fact that most VC backed companies won't even make it to 1st base let alone home plate. But if we build solid businesses, based on sound fundamentals, we've seen that some do break through...to 1st, then 2nd, then 3rd, before reaching for home. We just don't know which ones will break through, often for many years after we invest.

We have ten year funds because it takes time as well as a great deal of hard work and suffering, enduring the ups and downs that come along for each and every company as they grow.

But hey, I'm not complaining about all that suffering (didn't Buddha say that "life is suffering"?). We actually love the bumps and bruises we get along the way. Some might say it builds character. But that's not the real truth. To actually LOVE IT, I'd say that great entrepreneurs, as well as VCs, are a bit quirky (some might even say that they are mentally imbalanced).

Rational or not, it has taken me a while to get over my fears...I fear not, the living dead.

The Peter Principle

The Peter Principle is often cited as a cynical view on management. Basically, it says that people are promoted until they reach a level of incompetence after which further advancement is not possible. Taken to the logical extreme, at some point everyone will be incompetent - it will only be a matter of time!

The funny thing is, I actually view the Peter Principle as an optimistic view on  management. Reality is worse (which is why Scott Adams came up with the Dilbert Principle, but I digress).

I would love to see the Peter Principle at work. In the old days, you had to work your way up from the bottom. For example, at UPS, you might start at the loading docks and if you were successful, you would become a truck driver. Eventually, you might get promoted to management - at first, managing a single warehouse, then a district, then a region, etc. The CEO and senior management have decades of experience from the bottom up.

Successful entrepreneurs (the ones who actually build their companies long after the start-up phase) are the ultimate bottom up guys. I've seen entrepreneurs goto Fry's Electronics to buy parts, crawl under desks to install wires, move furniture, clean up conference rooms,...heck, they might even scrub toilets. They do whatever it takes. 

A good friend of mine (and experienced serial entrepreneur) once remarked that "80% of the work at a startup is mundane & inglorious, and exactly the type of work that most people will put off for months in their daily lives (the equivalent of balancing the check book)."

Perhaps making progress one step at a time is not so glorious. These days, young people are in such a hurry to take short cuts that it's hard to find people who actually did demonstrate competence before they were given a chance to take the next step.

How many times have you met a manager who had no clue what their employees did? If companies followed the Peter Principle, at least a former programmer would manage programmers so that they would understand technology and be able to mentor young programmers. If companies followed the Peter Principle, at least a guy managing sales reps would have carried a bag before and would know what it felt like to handle rejection after rejection.

Unfortunately, as we enter yet another bubble (at least in certain sectors of the venture economy), we're seeing people with scopes of responsibilities far beyond even their Peter Principle level of incompetence.

But the problem isn't just caused by MBAs and young whipper snappers looking to skip a few rungs of the ladder as they climb to the top. It's also caused by investors, boards and corporations looking for quick fixes.

In corporate America high profile mercenaries are hired into businesses with obscene compensation (and severance) packages. It seems that even if they destroy value, they can walk away with millions of dollars (hundreds of millions in the case of Bob Nardelli and Home Depot).

The same goes for investors. How many VCs and other money managers are handling large sums of money far beyond what they are capable of managing? It seems that every Joe who has a decent track record with a small pile of money tries to raise much larger funds.

The world might be a better place if the Peter Principle were really true.

At our best companies, we avoid mercenaries who enter from the top. We try to hire smart, young people, challenge them, nurture them, and develop them over many years. It takes great patience, dedication, and commitment (on both sides) but it's well worth it. These people will become the future leaders of our companies.

Even if every hire doesn't work out or even if many of them eventually reach their levels of incompetence, to me, the Peter Principle doesn't seem all that bad. We're never at that theoretical "end point." We're always in transition, striving toward the next goal. If people are actually competent and have the patience to demonstrate competence at every step along the way, we might be much better off.

Cargo Cult Capital

During a Caltech commencement address one of my childhood heroes, Richard Feynman, introduced a tribe of people who practice a peculiar form of science. Here  is an excerpt:

"In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to make things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head to headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas -- he's the controller -- and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."

In past articles, we've described VC investments as "controlled experiments." We don't build new businesses through random trial and error; we develop them through a process of deductive tinkering. We try things out and perform tests against market realities, the way that scientists set up experiments to test hypotheses - and iterate and adapt along the way.

Unfortunately, almost three hundred years into the scientific revolution most people still don't get it. Perhaps this should not be a surprise. From a genetic perspective, humans beings are still pretty much identical to neanderthals who honed their instincts roaming the Earth for more than two million years.

Using Feynman's analogy, many people practice a form of business which I call "cargo cult capitalism." Delusions in the business world have been covered in books such as "Fooled by Randomness," "Hard Facts" and "The Halo Effect" so I'll focus on a special form of cargo cult capitalism practiced right here in Silicon Valley.

In our neck of the woods, the planes revolve around "top tier" venture capitalists who have become mini celebrities...sort of like in college sports, where coaches tend to be the stars (in the big leagues players are the stars). If entrepreneurs are fortunate enough to get funding from a Silicon Valley celebrity, their company might gain instant credibility and become branded as the next hot thing.

There are service providers who market the fact that they have "access" to the top VCs. There are later stage funds who raise money based on claims that they can access deals of the top firms. There are also angels and "feeder funds" who hope to co-invest with top VCs by courting them from the other side. They cultivate relationships with powerful deal makers and give them first looks at deals so that they might invest once key "milestones" are met.

The cargo cult capital wheel keeps spinning around and around...as the crowds scramble to "get in" to what is hot (or what they speculate might get hot). Once funded, some entrepreneurs might feel like they are playing with the big boys. They retain the top law firms, the best PR agencies, and the most exclusive recruiters.

Armed with prestigious backing and exclusive relationships of kingmakers, the hottest companies hire the best talent that money can buy. The hired guns then create more frenzy...attracting even more capital to support ballooning headcounts and lofty salaries.

There are definite patterns followed by the cargo cult crowd. The form is perfect - the top deal makers, "world class" talent, a hot sector and business model du jour. Yet, ironically, I'd bet the next Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Phil Knight, Chuck Schwab, and Sam Walton are quietly going about doing their own thing...building companies based on business fundamentals.

Real entrepreneurs cut through the hype - they know what is essential. Their sense of pride doesn't come from who they know or what others think - it comes from making a contribution and creating value. They will do it their own way - which won't include wads of cash from outsiders. They figure out how to do more with less by using their brains, guts, and sweat.

Disruptive new entrants that topple giants belong to determined, frugal and independent minded entrepreneurs - and in their minds, the true stars are the customers they serve and their tireless co-workers who help turn dreams into realities.

Focus on the controllables

I came across this great quote by a guy whose father ran a jewelery store during the Great Depression. He carried on to build Helzberg Diamonds into a big enough (and wonderful enough) business that Warren Buffet eventually wanted to buy it:

"When growing up, I was intrigued that my father only concerned himself with those business elements that were controllable. He refused to acknowledge the Depression and did quite well during that period. He was unwilling to talk about recessions or 20-inch snowfalls. He only thought about and talked about those conditions within his control. I saw this daily in Dad’s actions. I never knew when the country was in a recession because Dad wouldn’t talk about it. People would suggest we close the store on Labor Day because everyone would be out of town. He’d say, “How many will be gone?” Of course, we’d stay open and do just fine. He taught us to concern ourselves only with those things over which we have control. I thought he was unique in this until I realized this is one of the key common traits of highly successful people. Those folks are never victims; they take what comes and handle the situation. The rest is a waste of time."

        - Barnett C. Helzberg (from "What I learned Before I Sold to Warren Buffet")

This quote hit me like a ton of bricks. Barnett Helzberg, in describing about his father, simply and concretely described a prototypical "hedgehog entrepreneur" in a way that I could not. (See Foxes and Hedgehogs).

Hedgehogs don't concern themselves with a lot of nonsense. They know what matters. They ignore the rest.

There are some clever foxes who see themselves as intellects who have a mission in life to combat oversimplification. They like to say, "well, actually it's a bit more complicated than that." True. Unfortunately, in the process they may obfuscate the issues.

Albert Einstein once said, "any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Most people understand that it takes intelligence and deep knowledge to simplify (if you can't explain something simply, then you really don't understand it). But why does it take "a lot of courage"?

Reducing complexity involves making decisions. If you choose to march down a certain path, it means you are cutting off your other options. In business and life, we always have to make decisions in environments of uncertainty. The need to choose can create fear, anxiety and paralysis. The choices can be tough.

By choosing, you are rejecting other options. You live with the consequences. Sometimes, it can be a matter of choosing between the lesser of evils. It's never black or white. We live in a Machiavellian world - full of greys (whatever his faults may have been, Machiavelli was a realist. He tried to see the world for what it was, not what he wished it to be).

Some people will find Heltzberg's advice not useful at all. They will ask, well, just what is controllable? What is not? What is knowable? What is not? What is important? What is not? The answers depend on the situation. There are no easy answers, no one size fits all formulas.

To quote Einstein again, "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." There are no pat answers. Think for yourself. Each situation is different. The only universal truth is that there is never a clear roadmap, no pre-defined plan (experienced venture capitalists know that business plans always change). Just be mentally prepared to "take what comes and handle the situation."

Great entrepreneurs thrive in environments with high degrees of uncertainty (like the Depression). They tinker, experiment and figure things out along the way. They stay vigilant because they know that change is constant and the world is full of risks and uncertainties. Robert Ruben, the former co-head of Goldman Sachs and Secretary of the Treasury had this to say:

"some people I've encountered in life seem more certain about everything than I am about anything. That kind of certainty isn't just a personality trait that I lack. It's an attitude that seems to me to misunderstand the very nature of reality - its complexity and ambiguity - and thereby provide a rather poor basis for working through decisions in a way that is likely to lead to the best results."

The best entrepreneurs know how to simplify. It doesn't mean that things are so easy. It's never easy. There will always be randomness (if you don't understand what is going on things will appear random). Clever foxes sometimes try to anticipate those twists and turns in life. They seek certainty and control, put together fancy models and perform calculations to Nth degrees of precision. Those poor foxes often have a tougher time of it than hedgehogs who honestly don't think that they know as much (perhaps this makes them more immune to illusions of control).

Hedgehogs keep their noses to the ground. They stay in tune with reality because it's a matter of survival. They do learn along the way. They do adapt - but they don't dart around (like those quick and clever foxes). Hedgehogs know what they know (which is not a lot) and they know what they don't know. They know that there are always things are beyond their knowledge and control - like luck - yet they keep moving forward.

Everyone will have their share of luck - both good and bad. Some people will be prepared when opportunities pass by. Others will be asleep...or perhaps darting the other way (in the wrong place at the right time...or at the right place at the wrong time).

Hedgehogs are not simpletons who over-simplify. They get it. Which is why they are so effective. They don't waste time or effort. They make decisions and move forward. They get shit done.

Monkey See Monkey Do

A few weeks ago, a fascinating New York Times article described observations of morality in the behavior of apes. For example, Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would deliver electric shocks to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for days.

Apes are social creatures. So for the good of the species, evolution has wired them to act in unselfish ways which can be interpreted as moral or ethical. Since we are also social creatures, it might be nice to think that perhaps humans have also developed "good" DNA like those apes.

With the invention of language, logic and technologies (such as the printing press, invented almost six hundred years ago), human societies and cultures have been evolving at rates far faster than evolutionary pace. Even though culture is a human creation rather than a biological one, culture now has a powerful influence over us.

For example, economists demonstrated the influence of culture by studying data from New York City on parking tickets issued to U.N. diplomats. From an economic point of view, diplomats should not care how many tickets they get (due to diplomatic immunity). However, according to the data analyzed between 1997 to 2002, certain diplomats committed hundreds of violations while "not a single parking violation by a Swedish diplomat was recorded...Nor were there any by diplomats from Denmark, Japan, Israel, Norway or Canada."

The reason for such wide variations is that we are not merely products of DNA or economics. Human beings are shaped by cultural and moral norms. According to the article, "if you're Swedish and you have a chance to pull up in front of a fire hydrant, you still don't do it. You're Swedish."

I'm no expert on Swedish culture, but I'd guess that there is a sense of honor and values which influence behavior more so than rules and regulations. In fact, Sweden perennially ranks among the least corrupt in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

In modern society, I believe there is a third powerful influence - it is the culture of our workplace. The corporate entity is a relatively new invention dating back to the mid 19th century. Before then, liability was not limited to a corporate entity so owners and managers often risked all of their personal reputation and assets. (What would happen to the venture capital industry if we had to risk far more than invested capital?).

An example of a company with a powerful culture is Toyota (now worth more than GM, Ford, and Chrysler combined). According to Michael Cusumano, a professor of management at MIT, “the founders and the managers created and refined Toyota company culture, which is far more powerful than Japanese culture. It does build on many things that are Japanese — precision, quality, loyalty. But the Toyota culture dominates.”

With corporate scandals over the past few years our confidence in corporations has been shaken. Isn't it ironic to think that apes may have a sense of right from wrong, but humans need more and more laws and regulations? It seems a whole new profession is thriving these days - that of corporate ethics and compliance officers.

Unfortunately, I think we are barking up the wrong tree. New ethics and compliance officers won't shape human behavior any more than new regulations, motivational posters or "core values" statements on plaques. Anyone who has worked for different companies knows that companies have very different and distinct cultures. Whether good or bad, corporate cultures influence behavior.

In the "HP Way", David Packard did not talk about ethics and morality (and certainly not about compliance). He did talk about values - integrity was presumed. Packard promoted mavericks - people willing to buck the system and go against the rules (in order to create a great product and rise above bureaucracy). But when it came to ethical issues, everyone knew Packard had a "zero tolerance policy."

Both Hewlett and Packard set the tone for decades. HP was a highly ethical company long before there was a "Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer" (a new position created by Mark Hurd, after the recent board scandal). So where did they go wrong? As a society, where did we all go wrong? Answering such questions probably requires a book rather than this short blog post.

As VCs, we work with entrepreneurs and managers who shape the culture of companies from day one (whether they intend to or not). For example, I recently noticed that one of our companies has a peculiar culture - most employees get to work by 7:30am. That's unheard of in Silicon Valley, especially for engineers. Well, it turns out that the founder is an early riser and often gets to work by 4am. That company had only one employee last year. Now that it has a few more people, we can start to see the culture forming. (It'll be interesting to see how it evolves).

Over the years, we've observed that the behavior of management has a huge influence on the values and cultures of companies (what they DO, not what they say). If we want more honorable behavior by corporations, we don't need more regulations (and we don't need more compliance officers). What we need is better leadership. Character, integrity and leadership should go hand in hand. Being ethical is also more profitable in the long run. (Even merchants and traders from centuries ago figured out that a great reputation was the only way to build a great business).

Entrepreneurs have always had huge influence over the rate of innovation and the growth of world economies. I believe they can have even a more profound impact. Just as DNA can impact entire species starting from a single cell, start-ups can be the beginning of new corporate entities which can change our lives. It is much easier to get it right from the beginning than it is to change a fully grown entity. Entrepreneurs are the future. They can set the tone with the example they set in the companies they build.

Raising Sheep

"We're raising sheep in our educational system, not independent thinkers and doers."
      - Paul Orfalea, Founder, Kinkos

Have you ever wondered why so many successful entrepreneurs didn't get the best grades in school?  Even in the technology industry, where education is paramount, many of the best known entrepreneurs were college drop-outs (i.e. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison and Michael Dell). Maybe there's some truth to the saying - the A students work for the B students, the C students run the companies, and the D students (or dropouts) dedicate the buildings.

I don't want to diss the best students because we need them. They become our engineers, doctors or lawyers (OK, maybe we don't need any more of that last category). Overall, the conventionally successful will do quite well. Last year, I heard Eric Schmidt talk about "the premium for competence" as he described how Google was able to access top talent they could not attract when they were small. He explained that some people are so competent that they don't have to settle. They can wait to see the data (look for the sure thing) rather join a risky start-up. Good for them.

On the business track, the most popular (and highest paying) jobs graduates of top MBA programs pursue are in management consulting (McKinsey, Bain, and BCG are the most prestigious), investment banking (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are tops), private equity (just about any firm), and, these days, the most coveted jobs are at giant hedge funds (how depressing).

In school, there are discrete tests with answers that determine the grades. The real world is more complicated. Fundamental tenants such as "be honest" or "work hard" are too simple (and overlooked) to be useful. Good advice can even sound contradictory like "get the facts, do the analysis" versus "trust your gut." The real world is full of apparent paradoxes. There are no black and white answers, just shades of grey, and even being right may not be good enough.

In the business world, the cold reality is that being good - or even great - may not be good enough. The key to winning is differentiation. Great entrepreneurs have an edge  - but it doesn't come from higher IQs or greater imagination. The best entrepreneurs might even be considered simple minded (see the post on Foxes and Hedgehogs.) However, they do possess special qualities. They think and act differently. They don't go along with the crowd. Peer pressure is not their thing. Not only are they willing to be different, they ARE different.

Nature versus nurture?

In some cases, there could be biological differences. For example, dyslexia, a neurological condition which causes difficulty reading and writing, is a learning disability which afflicted entrepreneurs such as Paul Orfalea (Kinkos), Richard Branson (Virgin), Ingvar Kamprad (IKEA), Craig McCaw (McCaw Cellular) and Charles Schwab. Perhaps, as a side-effect of their condition, they were forced to work harder, see things differently, and do things in unorthodox ways.

Whatever the cause, most of the time, there is no scientific proof of biological differences - but let me try to characterize these very special people who turn out to be extraordinary entrepreneurs.

This great country was founded by people who possess characteristics inherent in great entrepreneurs. Such people are rebels at heart. They are willing to fight for what they believe in.  They have the courage to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. They never use the excuse "everybody else is doing it." Throw out convention! They can be brash and stubborn. They don't pine to be popular. One might say that they just don't give a damn what others think.

They are skeptics at heart. They won't take your word for it - they always ask probing questions. They are incessantly curious. They look beyond the surface. They dig deeper. They don't fear the truth or the unknown. They don't fear change, they crave it. They strive forward, relentlessly, toward an expansive future, not with uncertainty and doubt but with faith and optimism. In fact, one of their most special qualities is that rare combination of forward looking idealism with a skeptic's realism.

However, contrary to what you might think, they are not driven by the desire to stand out or the courage to be different. They're driven by the courage to be true to themselves - it takes self-awareness and integrity. They are 100% genuine - the real thing - authentic, original, and refreshingly unique.

The willingness to go down an unconventional path requires CONVICTION. As investors, something we have in common with entrepreneurs is this - to win BIG you must have conviction (great fortunes are made through concentrated portfolios, while a diversified portfolio makes it easier to keep). Of course, in the investing world, it takes judgment to decide when a deal makes real sense. (Confused people tend to rely on stock charts or "comps" rather than fundamentals and valuations).

My wife likes to say that I have "an incredibly high tolerance for risk" (she prefers a much bigger safety net). But what I consider to be extremely conservative might appear risky to people who don't see what I see. That's exactly how entrepreneurs feel! They don't feel that they're taking incredible risk. When Bill Gates dropped out of college, he did not see himself as taking tremendous risk (although his "parents were very concerned"). If entrepreneurs don't believe in what they're doing, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

It's fascinating to observe people who possess that rare combination of conviction and open-mindedness. Conviction keeps them charging ahead while their questioning nature allows them to constantly learn and adapt. Balancing these paradoxical qualities is one of the keys to entrepreneurial success. 

Qualities such as intelligence or the ability to "think out of the box" are over-rated. You don't need to be smarter or more creative, but you must have your own point of view. This is NOT the same as being contrarian, which can be just as mindless as being conventional (just the mindless opposite).

The crowd is not always wrong. In fact, under the right circumstances, the crowd can be more wise than even the smartest individuals. According to "The Wisdom of Crowds," three conditions must be met for crowds to be smart - 1) diversity of opinions, 2) independent thinkers, and 3) decentralization. Ironically, Surowiecki's book contains many examples of the stupidity of crowds (when such conditions are not met). More examples can be found in "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds."

Herd mentality?

Sand Hill Road is full of people who got the best grades from the best schools (VC and private equity shops are full of Harvard and Stanford MBAs). It's a small, tight knit community (the "old boys club" as some might say). They graze the same grounds and talk about the same stuff - big markets, passionate entrepreneurs, connections, relationships, proprietary deal flow, experience, adding value, home-runs, and being part of the "top quartile" (the last point is important because average VC returns have been less than impressive).

The VC industry is full of rules of thumbs and conventional wisdom. The industry moves in herds. Variations of the theme epitomized by the classic (outdated) phrase "you don't get fired for buying IBM" seem to be the mottos most people live by. These days, the most popular deals involve social networking, user generated content, wireless, China and India. Look, I'd never short a tidal wave (like China or the Internet) but the herd mentality (and the lack of originality and depth) is real.

As Yogi Berra says, it feels like deja vu all over again. The conferences and cocktail parties are buzzing from Shanghai to Silicon Valley (see comments from last month's post). Just don't expect to meet the best entrepreneurs at such events. They are too busy to attend. The real entrepreneurs are out there doing their own thing.

At first, what great entrepreneurs do might appear uninteresting, mundane, strange, unimportant or too early (or too late). In the beginning, companies like Southwest Airlines, eBay and Craigslist seemed strange. HP, Wal-Mart and Intuit probably seemed unimportant. RIMM, Qualcomm, and Pixar looked too early. Cisco, Dell and Google were thought to be too late.

In Silicon Valley, the heroes are the technologists ("the suits" are thought of as necessary evils). Unfortunately, in the real world, entrepreneurs must have a nose for business. The great ones always figure out how to make money (even as teenagers, they often have track records - from running newspaper routes, writing code, buying stocks or selling stuff).

Entrepreneurs like Sam Walton, Bill Hewlett, David Packard, and Herb Kelleher didn't care about what investors wanted (or about changing the world or their industries). In the case of Kelleher, a middle-aged lawyer who sketched out his plan on a cocktail napkin, Southwest Airlines operated in the fringes, in small, under-served markets. No one took them seriously for years. They just kept plugging along, posting 34 consecutive years of profitability in a volatile, cyclical industry marred by enormous losses and bankruptcies. (Southwest also outperformed ALL public companies in stock market performance over the 30 year period starting in 1972).

One of the paradoxical qualities of great entrepreneurs is that they are actually conservative at heart. They say "show me the money" - in some ways, they might have more in common with those frugal, skeptical farmers from Missouri than most entrepreneurs and VCs running around Sand Hill Road. Our Venture Lotto article contained this characterization of entrepreneurs:

"The best ones we know are much more risk-averse than conventional wisdom might suggest. They don't take foolish chances. They spend money as if it were their own. They observe, listen and adapt; but fundamentally, they strive to control their own destinies, which is best done by generating profits. They do need a little capital, but they want help and advice even more. Being an entrepreneur is, at times, a very lonely endeavor."

However, this talk about profits should not take away from the most special quality of great entrepreneurs - they inspire others. Don't think of them as shrewd opportunists who read the fine print on every contract, looking to take advantage of every deal. Such people might do well (for themselves), but they won't build wonderful and enduring companies. Great entrepreneurs bring others along. They grow the pie, rather fight for a bigger piece (or the crumbs).

To go back to the example of the founding of this country, problems (like taxation without representation) may stir the pot (like inciting riots or unrest) but revolutions are ultimately inspired by values and ideals (like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). In the business world, a problem may lead to an invention or a new company...but exceptional companies are built on a foundation of core values and dreams of entrepreneurs.

If you want to be an entrepreneur, just remember this - follow a different path - your own path. The most successful entrepreneurs win with or without VC funding - they go out and just do it. Forget about the cocktail parties, the hot sectors, hot deals, or what's popular with investors or anyone else - think for yourself. If you do, you just might come up with something that you will pursue with all your heart and soul. Conviction, rather than convention, is the key.