B2B: Large Partners and Deals

Closing deals early and quickly can make or break your startup. It is great to have a pipeline of deals, especially strategic, larger deals that can help you scale faster than you could on your own. However, you have to be able to walk a fine line when signing a much larger partner because of the risk and pressure it puts on your team AND technology. Here are some things to keep in consideration, especially for enterprise:

Push your limits: Large partners are great to have, especially early. Your initial reaction would be the opposite because of the risk involved and the fact that you may not be 100% ready. You have to realize that this pressure is great for your startup because it gets you moving faster than you would on your own. It will help push the threshold of what both your team and technology are capable of if you can balance their demands with your capabilities.

Understand needs: It is critical that you clearly understand your partners needs and intentions. Their needs are more transparent because they will have to explain what they are looking for. However, their intentions are not always aligned with their needs. Since it is uncommon for large partners to work with early stage startups, they obviously have intentions that may not be aligned with your long-term goals. You need to make sure during the negotiation process that you are candid about where you are taking your company to make sure both parties are completely aligned.

Your technology is key: At the end of the day it is all about your technology, which is a huge function of the quality of your team. Large companies cannot iterate and build new technology or platforms as fast as a startup can. That’s the beauty of the large opportunities out there in enterprise. However, you absolutely have to have the foresight to build your team and your technology with the long terms needs of larger partners in mind. You have to make it bullet proof and scalable. Very scalable.

One last thing to keep in mind when working on closing a big deal. Don’t look desperate or too excited. Keep calm and play hard to get. You and your team are the ones with the advantage in that you have either superior or complementary technology. Keep those cards ready.

9 Lessons You Need to Succeed in a Crowded Market

Stand Up to the Elephant | Sparkology

When I first pitched the idea for Sparkology as an exclusive dating service, the biggest objection was also the most obvious: are you really going to create another dating site?  After all, there are thousands of dating service companies operating in the US and a handful of conglomerates have dominated the space for over a decade.  Match.com (owns OKCupid), Spark Networks (owns JDate and other properties), eHarmony, PlentyOfFish, Zoosk, True.com… all major companies with big marketing spend and millions of claimed users.  How did I expect to stack up and create a profitable business?

Six months later we have a solid team that’s generating real revenue on top of a successful platform.  Our client base is growing according to plan and, most importantly, those who use our service have become loyal brand evangelists.  Here are some of the strategies we have learned to use:

Choose the Right Niche

This is the only “no-brainer” of the pointers but I would be remiss if I excluded it.  You want to choose a niche demographic that the 800lb Gorillas won’t want to touch.  For us, it was selecting a demographic that is too small for a volume-based company to focus on.  We also selected a population that has high expectations for quality and customer service.  Lastly, we chose a demographic that is highly educated and is thus less effected by mass-media marketing approaches typically used by major brands.

However, you should also select a demographic that does not have a low ceiling for growth.  For example, one could create a dating website called jewishlithuanianswholovecats.com but that has a very real and very defined cap on the target demographic.  Instead, our mission of creating a quality-driven and efficient dating experience for young professional singles in large cities offers room for expansion of the potential market in step with the expansion of the company.  A company like IvyDate.com, for example, may experience brand dilution as it has run out of Ivy grads and is no longer true to its name.

Find Their Weakness

If you are innovating in a crowded market, you need to determine and exploit the key common weakness shared by your behemoth foes to make your marketing message efficient.  When Chipotle entered the crowded Tex-Mex food market, they exploited the common belief that a typical fast-food Tex-Mex establishment was grimy.  When we entered the dating market, we found that the majority of users in our demographic viewed dating sites as untrustworthy and only for runts who couldn’t get a date in real life.  If you can focus on the common weakness, you are able to cast a shadow on all of your competitors with one fell marketing line.

Take a Bold Stance

By being small, you have the ability to make bold, controversial statements.  If a few years ago the guys from 37Signals said “Salesforce sucks” only their fanboys would take note.  If Salesforce.com did the opposite, the negative public fallout would be a PR nightmare, not to mention all the positive publicity that statement would generate for 37Signals’ Highrise product.  Your goal as a small company is to develop a core group of Innovators and Early Adopters that are loyal to your dogma and help spread your gospel.  However, you need to provide your early clients with a powerful gospel to spread.  A guy won’t tell his friend that there’s a “new dating site” but he might tell his friends he’s on a site that lets him “stand out from the losers on OKC”.

Jujitsu

Assuming you are trying to shake up an industry, you can use the widespread negative sentiment against the current state of the industry by becoming the anti-status quo.  We’ve seen “voting for change” win over a national electorate base and it works the same way with customers.  Whether you are the anti-McDonalds, anti-800Flowers.com, or anti-Match.com you can use negative sentiment built by large brands over decades to your advantage.  You are changing the industry for the better, and you should motivate all those who believe in a better industry to take your side.

Geography

Unless you managed to get a Series C valuation on an Angel round, you simply do not have the capital and manpower to compete on a national or even regional scale.  Pick the smallest geography that will get you to profitability in light of your fixed costs and become master of that domain.  You will not be able to compete against the marketing machine of a large competitor in all markets, but perhaps your marketing power can match the large competitor in a small geography.  After you succeed in one place, you can easily ride the enthusiasm and positive press into other areas.

* The obvious risk is that a competitor launches your exact same product/service in parallel in another area.  Your goal should be to reach cash flow positive in the first geography in half the time it took you to develop the company from start to launch.

 

Get Personal

Embrace the fact that you are a small passionate team.  It’s much easier for customers to support the efforts of 5 struggling entrepreneurs than 500 corporate cogs.  Make yourself accessible to customers and share your personal story.  What made you start this company?  What keeps you going?  What do you struggle with?  Post pictures of your team doing something silly.  Send personal gifts to clients.  Get your hands dirty in the customer service inbox.  Every person on your small team may be a C-level executive… but the customer will still relish a personal response signed by the CEO rather than the intern you hired last week

As a startup, you should be maximizing the personal connection with customers.  While live events don’t always have high ROIs in terms of customer acquisition, the rapport you can build with attendees is immeasurable.  I can write all over our website that I believe in the modern gentleman and lady… but that belief becomes much more authentic when members see the passion with which I embrace that mantra.  Perhaps you can host intimate dinner parties for select customers?  Perhaps you can create an invite-only Facebook group for the key influencers?  You need to use the low barriers between you and your customers to your advantage.

The Big Guys Are Smart – Learn from Them

Chances are, the incumbent players in your space have been around for a while.  They have optimized their platforms for user acquisition, user experience, and user retention.  This is not the time to put your head in the sand.  Why not take a lesson from the pros?  Become a customer of every competitor. Learn what they do and why they do it.  I’m not saying you should replicate an entire business model, but at the very least you should understand their rationale for doing X before you do Y.  We hypothesize that OKCupid intentionally makes dating into a game to keep users clicking around their website so they can serve as many ads as possible.  When we designed a results-driven user experience, we needed to understand this would diminish the time a customer spends on our site so ad-based revenue would be irrelevant.

Competitive tracking also helps Search Engine Optimization.  There are a myriad of tools that will expose how a competitor obtains a certain page rank and where they source their backlinks.  With this information, you can at the very least employ a strategy to match their SEO status if not beat it.

Ninja Speed

Perhaps the most important element you possess is the speed with which you can adapt your service.  How long do you think it takes for your 800lb Gorilla to roll out a new feature?  Even after spending months gathering customer data, defining project objectives, assembling a dedicated team, and all the other corporate muck, they would need to test it exhaustively to make sure it doesn’t interfere with any of the other thousands of features that were added over the last decade; they would need to ensure compatibility across all their platforms, some of which are likely leftover from past acquisitions; they would need to test the update to ensure it propagates properly across dozens of servers; etc. etc. etc.

How about you?

My hope is that you can go from a customer suggestion to a team decision to test environment in 48 hours and get it into the customer’s hands within 3 days.  You get instant feedback on the feature’s performance and the customers see continual evolution of the product as well as a barrage of positive product updates to keep enthusiasm high.  Make sure to notify the customer who suggested the change after the feature has been implemented. What better way to create loyal customers than letting them take ownership of the product itself?

Divide into two teams of developers.  A core, focused team that works on major releases and a smaller scrum team that handles the hellish firedrills.

The Bigger They Are…

Entering a crowded market is a daunting task.  However, you are also entering a market where the customer is already “trained” to purchase a product or service type so the risk of building primary demand is gone.  By using your small size to your advantage, you can utilize the negativity associated with large competitors to create a core group of devout customers who recognize your value proposition, promote your product, and drive you toward positive cash flow so you can successfully take on the 800lb Gorillas.

Now get out there and disrupt a market!

New Problems

When I first started playing guitar all I wanted to do was learn barre chords. That’s it. After that I’d be able to play all of the Blink songs I wanted and then just relax or move on to something else (quite frankly I didn’t think there was music beyond Enema of the State).

But as it turns out, once I learned barre chords I wanted more. I wanted to actually sound like the recordings and not some haggard resemblance. And then, thankfully, I got into other music and wanted to solo like Duane Allman and Eddie Hazel, and then I wanted to write songs like Brad Nowell and play jazz like Wes Montgomery.

And now I have new problems, like channeling whatever talents I have into a consistent deliverable so I can play in public with or without a band.

The point is that I was never finished, I’m still not finished, and never will be finished. The finish line kept getting pushed back further and further until it disappeared altogether and then I realized, perhaps later than most, that there is no finish line.

So if you’re never finished with something how in the hell do you measure progress?

For certain endeavors there are metrics you can and should use and sometimes you can just tell.

But a helpful, basic way to measure progress – good, life progress – is by paying attention to the frequency with which you’re facing new problems.

For guitar that means getting past skill issues like developing hand strength, proper picking technique (by far the most important), and an effective vibrato and bend. Then you need to study music theory, practice scales and improvisation, learn about equipment, sound, and setup, play while singing and on and on and on.  The problems – or maybe “challenges” is a better way to think about them – never end.

If that sounds like an existential nightmare then I suggest you get over it. Because that’s life – it’d be easy and boring and not worth your time if it was any different

In terms of startups you can think of it this way:

  • Just linked up with a brilliant co-founder? Great. New problem.
  • Comfortable that you have a market? Awesome, now here’s a new problem.
  • Finished your product and ready to launch? Wonderful, now get a shit-ton of users and iterate like crazy (new problem!).
  • Raised a $1.2 million in series A? Congratulations! What’s your prize you ask? (Bob Barker voice): Whhhy it’s a BRAND NEW PROBLEM!

The other day I was reading up on the biographies of guys like Jim Breyer and Mike Moritz and Yuri Milner – basically masters-of-the-universe level dudes – and it struck me: as disgustingly accomplished as these guys are they still have real problems that they face day in and day out.

What’s the best use of their immense wealth and influence? How do they keep motivated and driven and grounded in the face of massive success? How do they carve out meaningful personal lives when everyone is trying to suckle at the teet of power?

Marlo Stanfield from The Wire would call these “good problems” and I wholeheartedly agree. But they’re problems nonetheless.

Or think about Adam Sandler’s character in Funny People. Same kind’ve of thing.

My point is that new problems are generally a good thing – they mean you’re growing and stretching and improving. You’re taking risks and rising to challenges.

Consider, on the other hand, old problems. If your job, after several years, is still an issue (in the sense that you hate it) then you need to do something about it. Same goes for relationships and personal shortcomings.  Old, enduring problems – in my experience at least – are surefire indicators of an atrophy in your abilities and character. And they’re constraining your potential.

So go out there a get some new goddamn problems.  They’ll be better than your old ones.

CrunchFund and Why We Care

Over the summer, I wrote a post on Ventureminded.me entitled “The TechCrunch Machine” in which I railed against Arrington, his conflicts of interest, and how the site had lost its way, particularly how it shifted from highlighting up-and-coming startups to focusing on larger tech companies. Arrington has long been criticized for being a Silicon Valley insider writing about startups while simultaneously being an active investor. More recently, MG Siegler’s pseudo-departure from TechCrunch to join Arrington at CrunchFund raised some eyebrows as well. But why?

Chris Dixon tweeted that Michael Moritz was a former journalist and became a successful VC, so perhaps Siegler would follow a similar route. However, there’s a major difference between the guys at CrunchFund and Moritz. The latter stepped away from his journalism career at TIME to pursue a career in venture capital at Sequoia. Arrington, and to a certain extent Siegler, is still very much entrenched in unearthing stories, breaking news, and relying on sources. All of these things are not only critical to being successful at writing about startups, but are also vital to sourcing deals. So why can’t they do both and just disclose when they’re writing about an investment (as Arrington has done and continues to do)? Simply, when someone is talking to Arrington or Siegler, is he/she speaking to the writer or the investor – who knows?

In my opinion, it all comes down to a simple distinction between bloggers and journalists. The guys at CrunchFund want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be called “journalists” to have that official seal of approval from the media community, but they want to be renegade bloggers in order to continue investing without a conflict of interest cropping up all the time. It just can’t happen. A journalist must be completely impartial. For example, no CNBC employee is allowed to hold stock of any kind – even sports business reporter Darren Rovell (who is also the source of this statement). Why should a tech writer be allowed to invest in companies (whether he writes about his investments or not)?A “blogger,” on the other hand, is unofficial; it’s a person who dabbles in writing online but has some other main profession. No one has a problem with Fred Wilson blogging on a daily basis because no one would ever confuse his style or content with actual journalism, and he’s not breaking news by relying on inside sources. Arrington and Siegler, however, are journalists all the time – whether they want to be or not.

For the sake of transparency, impartiality, and a host of other reasons, Arrington needs to shut down Uncrunched or CrunchFund. Something tells me he’d be more likely to part with the former.

Learning from Experience: Technology, Content, and Users

When I first dabbled in coding years ago, I got delusional. I think it happens to a lot of people… Looking at many of the companies that are getting funding today, it’s easy to think “I could build that, and if I do people will flock to it, which equals a successful business!”

It’s easy to think that a web application, with the right features and API connections, equals a business. But, from experience and making lots of mistakes, I’ve realized how important it is to balance technology, content, and users, instead of planning and building just the technology (or product) assuming the other two will follow.

I’ll use DeviceKnit as an example. It was started in early 2010 as a user-generated content site where people share the ways they’re using their own electronics together to help others find ways to get the most from devices they own.

We set out with an audience in mind, but instead of talking to potential users as much as we could have and developing the content, we spent way too much time building the site itself, and then, only after months of development, started getting it in users’ hands and getting feedback, and finally started creating content.

It was very easy to get locked into thinking about cool features we could build, but at the time we didn’t realize that’s completely useless if no one has told us it’s what he or she wants.

Working this way lets you come up with a grand idea that’s far from a business. Warning signs: you pitch as “we’re going to build a platform for _” or “we’re going to build _, and then the same thing in many different verticals!” or your pitch sounds more like a list of features.

DeviceKnit got into an incubator too early. We should have had a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) generating revenue before even thinking of applying to any kind of accelerator program. Here’s a quick overview of DeviceKnit from late 2009 to today:

  1. Had basic idea
  2. Had more ideas to make it into a huge business
  3. Got carried away looking at it from a high level
  4. Designed a few wireframes (almost technology/product, but not really)
  5. Realized how bloated the idea was
  6. Removed the ridiculous parts that wouldn’t be included for years
  7. Got into an incubator (and got money) to work full time on it
  8. Contracted an AWESOME designer (in hind site, the best investment we made, but it was too early… this is the first bit of the “technology” part)
  9. Started building prototype (Finally! some “technology”)
  10. Spent months trying to build our first version and integrate it with our designs with wayyy to many features and without talking to people about it (technology)
  11. Launched with a little content and no committed users (lack of content and users)
  12. Raised a little more money from angel investors so we could pay ourselves to keep working on it full time (Probably the biggest mistake: raising money to pay ourselves to work on an un-tested idea full time!)
  13. Added content slowly and spent money quickly (content)
  14. Slowly started making revenue, slowly added more content (content)
  15. Started taking features out and refining it (based on feedback) into what should have been our minimum viable product as the site grows (technology)

If you watch people pitch at the Launch conference or TechCrunch Disrupt, one of the biggest things you’ll hear VCs and other judges ask many of them about is “distribution”… or if you build this idea, how will people find out about it? How will your application break into their workflow?

Think about building up an engaged audience (users) FIRST. DeviceKnit could have started as a simple blog that featured the kind of content we wanted people to eventually submit on the site, even if we just reblogged other content from around the Internet. The technology part would already be built (WordPress or any CMS), and then we could start building content ourselves and conversing with people about it (potential users). What is the blog-only equivalent of your idea?

My recommendation: Start with the users and content. Find communities and content that are out there now. What are all the potential substitutions for the content or technology your planning on providing? Talk openly with everyone in the communities about the application (the technology or product) you’re thinking of building. Ask what would make their lives easier. What they would pay for?

Gauge how excited these people are about any ideas you propose and LISTEN, instead of shaping their feedback to fit your idea and the features YOU think it should have. Re-read that last sentence. You will probably hear things that don’t fit perfectly with your grand idea, but remember, that’s why you’re talking to people now and haven’t built anything yet!

Then, start small with whatever content or software your audience thinks will provide the most value. Don’t write a business plan. Don’t try to raise money. Don’t try to get into an incubator/accelerator program, and don’t spend days designing your logo. Start building and keep it simple. Learn Rails and deploy on a cloud service like Duostack or Heroku. It is FREE up to this point, except for the time you’ve invested. You can’t code? Give this a shot: http://innonate.com/hope/ (I only recommend Rails here because it’s easy to deploy. If you want to go with PHP that’s fine, too.)

Build something, but don’t get too attached. Remember to think about people and quality content, not just technology. For lots of ideas, it’s easy to whip up the technology/product aspect in a week or even a few days. Just look at the products that come out of hackathons! You’re idea is mostly worthless until you start getting it into people’s hands and hearing what they think of it. Then, you can iterate and shape it to best fit their needs.

In my opinion, only now is DeviceKnit reaching the MVP (Minimum Viable Product) stage. I rebuilt it from scratch a few weeks ago to be only focused on content, leaving out many things from the original version that we thought were absolutely necessary when we launched it, and as it gets simpler it gets better: people are less confused, traffic is going up, and it is making more revenue.

You don’t have to take my advice, I just want to help people avoid the same mistakes I made. Do you have feedback for me on this article or DeviceKnit? Hit me up on twitter and let me know your thoughts, I’m @gohnjanotis.

I wrote this guest post on Venturebent after getting to know some of the writers while living in NYC for the summer to get a new project, Broodr, off the ground. I was amazed how strong the startup community was here, the quality of tech talent, and how many great new people I met through random startup events. If you’re looking for a change of scenery and interested in getting a company started, New York is definitely a place you should consider.

Tools for Flossing the Teeth You Want to Keep

There was a lot of buzz on twitter about Nick Crocker’s Tedx talk called “Floss the Teeth You Want to Keep”. As a personal development buff, I not only loved the talk, but also enjoyed seeing others people who are passionate about bettering themselves come out of the woodwork.

If you haven’t had a chance to watch it you need to asap. His talk focused on the process of change in the context of improving ourselves. I can’t hold a candle to the real thing so if you want a more in-depth description go watch it.

One section of his talk focused on 10 things that help make change easier. I thought it’d be fun to highlight some examples and ancillary web tools that can make putting these practices in action easier. I already use most of these tools in one way or another, but plan to incorporate these into my workflow as I pursue changes in different areas of my life.

Services that Provoke Action

A friend of mine recently invited me to join a google group called Really Think. Not only have I found it to be incredibly valuable, but it has got me thinking a lot about how certain applications provoke actions online that might have otherwise not occurred.

On the first of every month, members of the Really Think group send out questions/topics/issues to think about. The questions can be about anything you find thought-provoking. They’re often non-tech related which honestly amidst a sea of push notifications can be very refreshing. Examples of questions I’ve come across since joining the group are:

What is the best way to tackle the obesity epidemic in the United States?
Who is Your Idol?

After the questions are sent out, members are encouraged to share their thoughts amongst the group. In general, the group is intended to be a mechanism for members to actually make time to collect their thoughts around topics they’re interested in  and then engage in a healthy discussion.

At the core, Really Think helps me to do something that I’d like to do, but frequently fall short on. Sometimes I just have difficulty setting time aside to think about many things outside my immediate environment. I define my immediate environment by the people, places, conversations, tasks, and activities I encounter on a regular basis. The mountain of twitter links, 8 books I want to read, and growing to-do list just isn’t conducive to me consciously taking time to meditate on things that are so important, but rarely engage me directly.

At a higher level, this group is forcing me to do something that I want to do, but just don’t make time for. I want to periodically take an hour to think about how we can solve American obesity and who I should strive to model myself after…yet I rarely do. The main thing that prevents me from doing this is really permission more than anything else. That is, giving myself permission to forego the million things “I have to do”  and put time aside to think about these things which are usually far more important. In short, Really Think has removed a barrier that prevented me from doing something I’d like to do, but find reasons not to.

I think this is really powerful and many services have emulated the same effect across the web. My personal favorite is Quora. So many people set out to blog, yet either never do or write three posts and stop. They know they should, but they find reasons not to.

Quora removes many of the barriers to blogging. People can broadcast their thoughts in long form without having to worry about the setup, whether there will be an audience, or what they should write about. This allows Quora to capture activity and engagement online that might otherwise not exist. Its interesting that people mainly identify Quora as a question and answer site, but in many instances its more of a short-form blogging platform. I’d venture to guess that many heavy Quora users don’t have a blog.

I think there is a tremendous opportunity for services that remove barriers enabling us to accomplish things we typically find reasons to push aside. These services provide a ton of value to both users and their eco-systems alike. I’m anxious to see entrepreneurs build services with similar higher-level functions and would love to hear what other services are helping people accomplish things they might have otherwise fell short on.

What the Changes in Twitter’s URL Shortener Mean for Bitly

Twitter has had a native URL shortener for some time, but it wasn’t until recently that they have begun automatically shortening URLs and link-wrapping those over 20 characters with a t.co URL. Alot of people are excited about these changes, including brands and media due to the condensed traffic source via the t.co link-wrapping. One service that has to be less thrilled about these changes is Bitly.

Bitly has been the dominate force amongst URL shorteners which has afforded them access to the real-time data kingdom. Sitting at the helm of real-time information sharing enables Bitly to derive incredible insights at both an aggregate and individual level. The applications to leveraging all the real-time data sharing on the web are endless, but one that particularly excites me is the ability to identify and understand broader web trends prior to anyone else. In short, I think the real opportunities for Bitly stretch far beyond link sharing analytics. But the amazing realm of opportunities Bitly possesses are entirely contingent upon the use of their URL shortener. So where does Bitly stand after the most recent changes? Let’s start with some questions.

Where is Bitly being used?

Bitly is used across many platforms which means that they have access to data extending beyond the Twitter eco-system. I’m sure Bitly points to this position as one reason they stand a chance as more and more platforms fill the holes they once occupied by integrating increasingly robust URL shorteners. And yes, the analytics services accompanying them will be here soon.

According to John Borthwick, last year less than 1% of Bitly links were being encoded on Twitter.com after their partnership ceased. I think this statistic misleads readers about how important the Twitter ecosystem is for Bitly. This statistic accounts for links that were being shortened on the site, not the total percentage of Bitly links being shared across the platform. What percentage of the Bitly pie are links shared on Twitter? From this, what percentage of users  were motivated to use Bitly out of pure convenience? I can’t find this information, but would love to know. If Twitter convenience truly does account for a large percentage of Bitly usage, they may be in some hot water…which leads me to my next question.

Who uses Bitly and why are they using it?

Bitly does two things really well on twitter – it enables me to squeeze a link within a tweet and provides rich analytics for tracking the interactions with that link. I expect that users that don’t care for the analytics will migrate to Twitter’s automatic URL shortener (t.co) because of its convenience. Conversely, Bitly users who derive value from the analytics will probably continue to use the service until Twitter reveals their analytics product. Whether these users choose to switch to Twitter’s native URL shortener once this becomes available will depend on a few things: how the product offering compares to Bitly, pricing, tracking habits across multiple platforms, and how intuitive the user experience is (people hate changing established workflows in the absence of a far superior offering).

But this begs the question – who is the demographic that is closely monitoring link analytics and doing so across multiple platforms? I’d venture a guess its primarily brands, online marketers/bloggers, and highly engaged tech adopters. To reiterate, in the near term I predict Bitly users who fall into these categories will continue to use the service, but I imagine that we will slowly see the more passive/social Twitter users move their native automatic shortener. For the record, I’m already a convert.

So where does this leave Bitly?

For starters, it means they must continue to innovate on their analytics offering because they have to assume that Twitter’s analytics package is on the horizon. Fortunately, they’re cross-platform…so they got that going for them. The less obvious question mark surrounds Bitly’s pulse on aggregate level trends.  As I mentioned earlier, their positioning at the beachhead of real-time information sharing enables them to derive insight into the real-time web’s broader trends. If the advent of Twitter’s automatic URL shortener does leave Bitly with a userbase composed mainly of brands, marketers, and techies, their aggregate data insight will be much less compelling; the pulse of often self-interested link publishers is likely different than that of the masses. Lastly, because Twitter is now indexing a large portion of Bitly URLs along with most others through the t.co wrapping, they have greater data sets to work with. Thus, they have the ability to offer superior data products solely for the Twitter platform. Did someone say monetization?

This post is full of assumptions, but it’s always fun to speculate. I strongly believe moving forward the company that holds the keys to the real-time data kingdom has the ability to power some incredible products far superior than link sharing analytics. These recent changes in Twitter’s URL shortener have definitely been a blow to Bitly. They must find ways to improve their product in order to retain the users who give them access to their critical mass of real-time data. Otherwise I fear they will only be a cross-platform analytics product who may never be able to seize their greatest opportunities.

The Real Reason NYC Is Better Than Silicon Valley

I’m just going to put it out there. NYC is better than Silicon Valley. Whether it’s how SoHo is better than Palo Alto or any of the myriad reasons why the Big Apple will eventually win out, the East Coast’s rising tech Mecca is just flat-out better than the Valley. Am I biased? Of course. But I have also thought this for a long time now. However, my sentiment was taken to the next level after I stumbled upon this article.

If you’re unable to take a look at it, essentially, the author is bemoaning that entrepreneurship in the Valley has become productized, as groups like Y Combinator attempt to commoditize the startup process, thereby derisking it. She laments that there aren’t many “game changers” in the Valley, and everyone just wants to create a Groupon clone or another Angry Birds, ultimately concluding that the problem with Silicon Valley is itself.

Now maybe it’s my bias coming in here or the fact that NYC is relatively young as a tech / startup center compared to the Valley, but I can’t imagine a NYC-based blogger / journalist writing a piece with such a tone. Accelerators like Y Combinator, or in the NYC case TechStars and DreamIt Ventures, are phenomenal programs that help take startups to the next level by providing invaluable resources (a little capital, office space, and, most importantly, mentors). Yes, these programs are doing their best to derisk the startup process and may be “commoditizing” the process to a certain extent, but at the end of the day, aren’t these good things? You shouldn’t start a business because it’s risky – you should want to lower the amount of risk you’re taking on, which is substantial to begin with. And regarding the commoditization point, shouldn’t entrepreneurs benefit from the patterns that these accelerators have come to recognize by incubating dozens and dozens of companies? Isn’t the goal of investing in these companies to see a return on the investment? So why not refine the process, so the entrepreneurs learn as much as possible and make as much progress as possible in the most efficient manner? Given the nature of startups, no matter how much one tries to standardize the process, it’s always going to be slightly different with various hurdles to overcome.

Regarding the author’s second point of contention, during the last several months of getting entrenched in the NYC startup ecosystem, every person I met recognized how privileged they were to be part of such an incredible community of creative, bright, genuine people regardless of whether the person in the co-working space next to him was building a product to map the human genome more easily or creating another mobile, social app. Everyone recognizes that they are part of a passionate community of thinkers, doers, hustlers, and helpers with something to share with and learn from everyone else whether you’re a serial entrepreneur with multiple exits under your belt or a fledgling founder seeking a technical co-founder. This gratefulness is the same for investors, and I have seen it firsthand from the VCs with whom I’ve met. Just look at Dave Tisch’s blog post from yesterday regarding his investment in GroupMe (his first exit) and his belief in investing in the people first, and one will understand how great the NYC tech scene is.

All of the above equates to one thing: appreciation. Appreciation for entrepreneurs, appreciation for investors, appreciation for the opportunity to be a part of such a vibrant and amazing community. I can’t imagine this appreciation ever dissipating in NYC like it seems to have done in the Valley (according to that article). And that is the real reason why NYC is better than Silicon Valley – because we’ll always remain appreciative and, in turn, always remain hungry.

Groupon IPO: The Silver Lining

Groupon is a company everyone seems to love to hate.  The number of negative articles I see coming across each day has become a bit mind-numbing. From @rakeshlobster and @conorsen on Minyanville and TechCrunch, to media pundits, to @vacanti on Yipit’s blog, there’s definitely more than enough Groupon bashing to go around.  Much of it is completely justified - there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding Groupon’s business and the local commerce industry as a whole, and pointing out the risks is very important.  However, after having a look at the newly minted S-1 filing released yesterday, I thought I’d shed some light on a few potentially positive developments that I hadn’t seen mentioned anywhere else.

When a company has only been around several short years and is growing at the break-neck pace of Groupon – one additional quarter can completely change previous notions and expectations.  Here’s a couple notes to consider in concert with other analysis out there from industry experts like Yipit and others.

Returning Customers

Many argue that the swelling subscriber base is becoming stale and most people are getting sick of the multitude of daily deal emails hitting their inbox every morning.  Groupon doesn’t reveal how many of their subscribers actually click through the emails or more importantly, continue to buy groupons.  However, there is one paragraph on the bottom of page 77 that gives us a sliver of insight into how much subscribers are actually coming back – their Q2 2010 cohort.

This group of 3.7 million subscribers acquired in 2Q 2010 cost Groupon $18 million in marketing expense to acquire in that quarter and they’ve tracked this group through today.  Here’s what the data reveals (see chart below):

  • Through 2Q 2011, this group of subscribers actually held up very well.  Revenue and Gross Profit in 2Q 2011 fluctuated only slightly compared to the prior 3 quarters on average, and the number of groupons sold was flat.  So over time, this same group of subscribers is continuing to contribute about the same amount of revenue and groupons sold each quarter.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell if revenue from the prior three quarters was skewed towards earlier periods and therefore could be on a declining trend, but even on an average basis I’m somewhat surprised.  I think the fall in Gross Profit here is also partially attributable to a larger proportion of national deals (lower margins) being run in 2Q11 compared to the prior 3 quarters.
  • Takeaways: If subscribers can continue to generate considerable and relatively stable Revenue going forward as this cohort appears it could be doing, this is a good sign for Groupon because it means subscribers are coming back and buying.  This means that the money Groupon is spending to acquire these customers is being covered and the return on investment continues to rise.  For each of the past 4 quarters, this group of subscribers has consistently contributed more than $10 per subscriber (highlighted in green below).  Needless to say, it would be very interesting to see if this continues as well as how other cohorts might fare against this one.

Note: Subscriber acquisition costs have almost certainly increased since 2Q 2010 due to saturation and competition.  It’s also important to note that this group was a much more “early-adopter” crowd not only to Groupon, but also to the daily deal industry.  This likely means they have a greater affinity to Groupon vs. other deal sites and may be benefiting from more referral bonuses, among other unquantified biases.

Marketing Expense

One of the biggest gripes I’ve seen out there is the huge amounts of money being spent on marketing to extend the rapid growth in subscribers and customers internationally and in North America, to a lesser extent.  Notwithstanding the fact that their SG&A costs ballooned from a growingr salesforce, marketing expenses dipped significantly in 2Q 2011 vs. prior quarter.  Marketing decreased from $78.6mm in 1Q to $55.2mm in 2Q for the North America Segment (26.4% vs. 16.1%, as a percentage of revenue), and from $129.4mm in 1Q to $115.6mm in 2Q for the International Segment (37.3% vs. 21.6%, as a percentage of revenue).  Those are some pretty significant drops considering the huge amount of growth that was still observed, especially in the International Segment.  Comparable growth quarter-over-quarter on a smaller marketing budget is a good sign.  

*FY2010 for international assumes only 3 quarters of revenue

Subscriber Acquisition Costs

If the drop in marketing spend is not just a fluke, then subscriber acquisition costs are on the decline for both North America and Internationally.  1Q 2011 vs. 2Q 2011:

  • North America: cost dropped from $6.35 to $5.75 per subscriber
  • International: cost dropped from $5.12 to $4.81 per subscriber

I note that quarter-over-quarter, revenue per subscriber deteriorated in North America, and stayed flat Internationally.  Is this a bad thing?  It’s really hard to tell.. as Tricia Duryee of All Things D points out, “the average revenue per subscriber fell…which may sound bad, but at the same time, the number of subscribers skyrocketed…”.

In the end, I think there really is a silver lining in the supplemental S-1 filing.  It’s not all sunshine and roses, but I’ll let you go elsewhere to read about the other side of the argument.  Given how prevalent it is, I’d be surprised if you haven’t already, but just in case here are a few articles pointing out the faults – they all make some very valid points:

Groupon Amends S-1, But Key Numbers Still Missing by @rakeshlobster

Groupon’s Updated IPO Filing: Big Revenues, Big Losses, Lots Of Banks Underwriting It  by @jyarow

Yipit Blog: New Filing Reveals Groupon’s Oldest Markets Got Even Worse  by @vacanti

Groupon In Major Trouble as Q2 Results Show Plunging Revenue Growth by @conorsen

BOMBSHELL: Groupon’s North American Merchant Pool DECLINED In Q2 by @nichcarlson

My favorite and Most Entertaining Content on the Groupon IPO: 

Namesake panel of experts debate: is Groupon brilliant or a Ponzi scheme? 

Some gems from the @namesake conversation:

“Groupons are the subprime mortgages of 2011″ – @rakeshlobster

“The S-1 lists recession as a risk. Wrong. That was their big opportunity. A strong recovery is a risk for Groupon.” – @rakeshlobster

What do YOU think?

UPDATE: Answer the question on Quora right now: “What are the main takeaways from Groupon’s amended S-1 filing showing 2Q results?”