I don’t know a ton of important people. But as a founder of a venture-backed startup with some amazing investors and advisors, I do know a few.

With Nivi and Naval preaching the gospel of social proof (can I get an “amen”?!) and with fundraising posts and articles espousing the importance of introductions, it’s no surprise that about once a week someone asks me to introduce them to someone else. It’s especially common around Y Combinator Demo Day, where YC groups shift from pure product mania to fundraising mode. I’m pretty sure that YC tells new crops of startups to ask for introductions from the funded companies from previous sessions.

What does surprise me is how people ask for these introductions. Here’s pretty much how they usually read:

“Hey Tony. I’m [insert name] from [company name]. We’re starting our fundraising effort and I was wondering if you’d introduce me to [insert RescueTime investor/advisor].”

I usually will make the introduction, but the person asking for it is certainly not making the most of the opportunity (and asking me to spend my social capital by doing so). So after making a mess of these introductions in varied ways, here is my suggested checklist for making an introduction (it’s pretty much my reply when I get a request like the one above):

• Write the introduction for me. Seriously. You know more about your story than I do. You know the things to say that will make someone light up. I don’t. I might flub it. I can personalize it (“Hey [insert investor name]- hope your trip to [offensively exotic location] was fun. Welcome back! Listen, I wanted to introduce you to…”), but you should make the pitch. Bonus: this saves me a few minutes of writing, which is kind and thoughtful of you!
• Don’t bury the lede. What’s the thing that will get an investor excited? Be concise, but talk about social proof, traction, growth, size of the market, how badass your team is, mainstream press coverage, other investors who are on board, and user passion/joy. Choose whatever distinguishes your startup from the sea of startups that investors read about every single day. Unless your product is revolutionary, spend more time talking about your market (“we’re helping companies in the billion dollar widget maker market sell doodads”) and your team than your product (“we’ve got an ajaxy shopping cart!”). If they investor blogs or has EVER talked about their investment strategy, hopefully you’ve read how they think and tune your pitch to match that.
• Heap on the social proof, man! Getting an email intro from a near-stranger (me) is about the weakest social proof you can get (but it’s better than nothing). Tell us how many other investors you have soft-circled. Give us a link to a list of all of the blog posts praising you. Or all of the users tweeting about you. We’re herd animals. If the investor feels like the herd is leaving him behind, that’s a good thing.
• Think about why it’s an opportunity for investors. If I’m writing to an investor about a company that looks like a credible opportunity, that’s me doing them a favor. If you don’t have any bullet points that many you look like a great opportunity, that’s me doing you a favor and adding noise to their already overflowing inbox.
• Keep it short. All of the above stuff could mean a lot of content. You’ve got to pick and choose what to send and hope it’s enough bait for the investor to dig in and learn more.
• Bonus points: track it. When we were talking to investors, we created custom (private) pages for each investor we were courting giving them a ton more to dig through and get excited about if they wanted. The emails were short and sweet with a “want to learn more” link at the end. We used Google analytics to track which people clicked through and which individual pages they clicked on so we could know what to focus our discussions on when we met them.

All that said, if you’ve got a great investment opportunity (with a launched product and some happy users), don’t be shy about dropping me a line if I can help (with introductions or advice).

(post scriptum: If you are in the market for introductions, you should check out VentureHacks’ StartupList!)

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

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

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

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

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

What you need to send to reporters and bloggers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post Scriptum – On the Value of PR

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

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

[Timely note! We're hosting a Y Combinator Meetup in Seattle on Thursday Feb 25... details here!]

March 3 is the deadline for YC’s Summer 2010 session. I figured that I ought to throw my thoughts out there on the decisions that lead up to the application, the app itself, and the interview process that follows (if your app makes the cut!).

Making the Decision to Apply

• First off, I think the most important thing to emphasize as an entrepreneur is that you should optimize for your chance of success a meaningful exit, NOT the magnitude of your it should it happen. It may seem like selling for millions to Google is a foregone conclusion given how brilliant you are, but it’s not. Startup success is a tough slog with lots of randomness outside of your control. If you can trade a little bit of equity to nudge up your shot at success by a few percentage points, you should do so. Thankfully, YC from this perspective is a no-brainer. No one can argue that it doesn’t improve your shot (with the amazing mentoring they provide, the investor introductions/credibility, and PR bump), and if you calculate YC’s take is if you sell for $100m (divided by the number of founders), it isn’t too painful.
• Think about what you’re building, what market you’re playing in, and whether it’s appropriate for venture financing. I think I recall reading about someone applying who was proposing to build an app to manage Dungeons and Dragons campaigns. While there’s probably a business there, it’s pretty unlikely that the pen-and-paper RPG market is going to be the next big thing to change the world. Pick a big market– or better yet, pick a small market that can eventually morph into a huge market (like classifieds for San Francisco, selling books online, or an online garage sale).
• Read everything here and make sure you agree with some of it, but don’t be afraid to disagree with some of it either!
• Do something bold. You aren’t going to be thinking to yourself on your deathbed that you really should’ve taken less risks. YC is a blast. You get to meet amazing mentors, other great startup founders, and a few fairly impressive robots.
• Consider how committed you are to your idea/market, your company, and your co-founders. YC has plenty of flips, but the majority of ‘em seem to be going concerns for years. Can you get excited about what you’re doing (and who you’re doing it with) for 7 years?
• Do a gut-check on your team. Do they have the rough ingredients necessary to kick ass? If the better mousetrap you propose to build is going to be better because of an amazing UI, make sure you have a great UI guy. If you’re doing a vertical search/UGC play, make sure someone is at least a little interested in SEO. If you’re going to sell software to businesses, make sure someone is willing to sell stuff. And, of course, if you’re tackling something with big technical challenges (like most of us are) make sure you have some great hackers.

The Application Process

• Read Paul’s essays. It provides good insight into what’s important to him (and YC). Reading Founders at Work is a good idea, too. It’s a great book and shows you some patterns for startup success.
• Remember that the app is a sales pitch and focus your answers on the things that are important to YC. The biggest risks to YC are:
  • That you don’t have the chops to build something good. The best way to deal with this concern is to show them something good that you’ve built. Preferably several things, and preferably things that you’ve built with your co-founders.
  • That you’ll get bored/discouraged and quit. So try to work in examples of times when you’ve persevered despite significant obstacles.
  • That you’ll fail to make something that people want. So do what you can to show that you’re in tune with the market you’re proposing to serve. You can be a badass hacker with unflagging dedication, but if you don’t/can’t understand your users, you’re probably not going to be a big win for YC.
• Don’t be too shy or too arrogant to sell. I remember reading a comment on Hacker News that said, “My code speaks for itself.” No, it doesn’t. At least, not to investors, customers, employees, reporters, and the zillions of other people out there you’re going to have to sell to.
• Get working on your software ASAP. If you apply with a functional product (or even a launched product that people love), you remove a lot of the risks listed above.
• Get working on the YC app ASAP. If you’re unsure, apply! The app takes a few hours and it’ll help focus your thinking if nothing else.
• If possible, make sure that your whole team is ready to dive in whole hog. Starting something up is a commitment to your founders and to your new investors. Having a team member who has other commitments can be a source of contention.
• Hack the system! Every session I get emails from people asking me to review their apps. I usually do. I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t do this… YC founders are people who wrote successful applications and spent at least 3 months getting repeatedly kicked in the junk by Paul Graham and friends. I’m sure we must know something about how YC thinks that might not be obvious. If you can’t bring yourself to ask a stranger for some time, how are you going to raise money after YC? How are you going to hire your first employee?

The Interview

I don’t recall the stats on how many applications make the cut, but if you get asked in for an interview, congratulations! Now get to work building something (hopefully you already have).

• Get started on a demo. If you walk in and start monologuing, you’ll fairly quickly get interrupted and asked to start showing stuff.
• The “demo” will be less like Steve Jobs and more like Guantanamo Bay. You’ll be derailed almost instantly and peppered with questions and objections.
• Have a backup idea that you’re comfortable talking about. I know several founders who were essentially told, “we don’t like that idea. Do you have any others?” This may be a test of how much you love your idea as much as anything else. Founders who refuse to pivot often die from it. It also might be a test of your ability to have good ideas. If they don’t like your idea OR your backup, they might los faith in your ability to grok what people want.
• Practice. Ask 10 smart people to name 10 things that will make your idea fail. Have good responses for those objections. Don’t practice a speech. Don’t practice a 10 minute demo, practice little 1-2 minute chunks of a demo that you can string together if they leave you alone. Practice individual talking points and responses.
• Be willing to be wrong but also be willing to disagree. YC doesn’t want lapdog PG fanboys(and girls!), but they also want people who are coachable and willing to learn. Don’t be afraid to say, “That’s one of the things we’re going to have to figure out, but we have a few ideas.”
• Be dynamic and energetic. You’re a storyteller here. Your job is to get YC excited about your business. Make them believe that it (and YOU) are an investment opportunity. Work on eye contact, not talking to too fast, and thinking on your feet. Have someone role-play an aggressive interviewer.

That’s about all the advice I have. I’d close with this point– very very very few YC founders wouldn’t do it again in a heartbeat. It’s a killer experience and it’s certainly a needle-mover during the most fragile part of your new company’s life. Applying is cheap in terms of time and rewarding even if you don’t get asked in for an interview. Do it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of my biggest frustrations with Twitter is that it’s a pretty clumsy mechanism for 2-way conversation (IM style) as well as “one and a half way” conversation (commenting on a tweet that may or may not elicit discussion). I posted a tweet the other day to see what other people think:

I quickly got two responses from two people whose opinion I really respect (@sacca and @andrewchen).

@Sacca’s Response: “@webwright Speaking for myself, it seems like that could induce some lame behavior in asymmetric networks.”

@andrewchen’s response “@webwright inline replies work best in 2-way friending environments. Otherwise ppl you don’t follow show up in your main feed”

I found myself vehemently disagreeing with them, so I figured I’d blog through it as an product design exercise. Disclaimer note: armchair quarterbacking is easy. The Twitter team (note: @sacca is an investor/advisor) has more brain cells and a helluva lot more time invested in designing Twitter than I do– I have no illusions that a little rumination over Christmas makes me smarter than they are. I also know that there are (were?) some technical hurdles. For a while, Twitter wasn’t TOO good at understanding when an @ tweet was actually a reply, and which tweet it was replying to. Still the case, or no?

So here are some ideas for your consideration. I’d love to hear what folks think in the (delightfully threaded) comments.

1. Twitter would do better to think about their site as a content/microblog network than as a social network.

This is my fundamental disagreement with Andrew and Chris’s response. They’re thinking of Twitter like a social network with asynchronous/2-way friending (maybe it’s because the media is constantly comparing them to Facebook?). It isn’t, IMO. In fact, I think Twitter would have more success if they acted more like Wordpress.com (or LiveJournal?) than like Facebook. Twitter followers aren’t friends. They are subscribers. The people you follow aren’t people you know– they are microblogs that you find interesting. Twitter is a fabulous distillation of blogs and an RSS reader all rolled into one. It’s 10x easier than blogging. Following is 10x easier than subscribing via RSS (and following is a lot more grok-able than RSS to begin with). But they’ve crippled/marginalized one of the key features that make blogging so damn sticky (for bloggers and readers)– comments and discussion.

2. The problems of Chris, Andrew and (to a hugely lesser degree!) me are not the problems that most Twitter users (or bloggers) have.

To many/most Twits/bloggers, they are doing it because they want to be heard. I remember when I first started blogging what an absolute rush it was to get a comment on my blog. Heck, it still is. Similarly, I confess to checking my @replies fairly often. Is anyone listening? Did my breathtakingly insightful/amusing tweets result in anyone replying or retweeting? I think this changes when you get to the follower count that some celebrities enjoy (Chris, who mentioned above that inline comments might result in too much noise, has ~1.3 million followers). Similarly, there are some pretty famous examples of prominent bloggers shutting OFF comments… They’ve transcended the “I just want to be heard” problem of most twits/bloggers and have graduated to the “holy crap, discussion is a nightmare to manage/moderate” problem. My guess is that the higher up you get at Twitter, the less the product managers empathize with people who have less than 100 followers, who often feel like they are talking to an empty room.

3. Regardless of whether you want Twitter to be a social network instead of a content/broadcast network, it’s more VALUABLE as a content network.

First of all, look at Twitter’s big pile of 4th quarter revenue (high five, Twitter!). That’s for content. That content would be more valuable if it was richer. Let’s take Paul Kredosky’s “Dishwasher” scenerio, discussed on Fred Wilson’s blog. He’s looking for a dishwasher and finds that Google’s organic search results are lousy. I empathize– after a 6 month home remodeling effort, I am aghast at how bad Google is once you move outside the realm of the “linkerati“). Paul searches for a dishwasher, and now that Twitter content is featured in Google results, he sees a tweet that says, “Just got a new Bosch ScrubGunner Dishwasher installed today. Amazing!” That tweet would be way more useful if it also had associated with it the three @replies that said stuff like “The ScrubGunner starts off strong, but has a record of exploding about 3 months after you buy it”. Added bonus– this would make Twitter’s permalink pages quite a bit richer in terms of indexable content, which would increase traffic dramatically. Permalink pages with lots of comments could actually be VALUABLE pages.

Even taking the search deals out of the equation, Twitter is a consumer web service and its stock and trade are things like pageviews, # of tweets, retention cohorts, return visits per day, etc. In short, it wants lots of addicted users using it a LOT. Nothing does this better than conversation and Twitter is lousy at conversation. There are very few emails I open more reliably than the Disqus comment notifications for my blog, the WordPress.com notifications for the RescueTime Blog, or Facebook telling me that someone has responded to one of my status updates. Further, nothing brings me BACK to a blog like a reply to my reply. Take a look at Fred Wilson and Neil Patel– they pretty religiously reply to every commenter on their site and it generates return visits, more (valuable) content, and happier “customers”.

In short, if Twitter made conversation easier and noisier, it’d help engagement, retention, and growth (or that’s my guess anyways). New users would graduate from the “empty room” feeling quicker.

4. To keep things simpler, they should consider punting retweets for replies/comments.

Retweets are interesting and certainly help Twitter and API-wranglers understand the value/popularity of a tweet. But they don’t feed the core need that Twitter is filling for most twits… To feel HEARD. Further, the retweet feature is simply too smart and assumes too much understanding of how Twitter works. I’d wager that if you took 10 “newborn” Twitter users and asked them to explain retweets, you’d get a fair bit of confusion (humble hat tip to Twitter though– I can’t imagine retweeting being implemented clearer than it is). Comments/conversations, on the other hand, are as old as the Internet. People grok that right out of the gates.

Beyond just “grokability”, retweets just aren’t as approachable as replies. While Facebook’s “like” feature is the lightest way to endorse a status update, the retweet FEELS heavier. It’s saying, “I like this– and I like it enough to broadcast it to others”. I personally @reply folks about 10x more than I retweet them (and I imagine I’m not alone). If this is true for most people, who not focus on enabling what most of your users are doing more often?

Discussion would also help with user discoverability. @replies are often a source of followers for me (replies to me as well as others when I bother to dive into the clickfest necessary to track a full conversation on Twitter).

5. How I’d implement inline discussion on Twitter.

Obviously, comments/discussion would accelerate the number of tweets dramatically, so I think slamming them all into the main feed might be bad. I’d:

- Add the text “11 replies to this Tweet” as a gray link at the bottom of any applicable Tweet (when shown in a stream) to i
- Add threaded replies on the tweet’s permalink page. So Tweets like THIS ONE would actually be rich/interesting/engaging conversation and clickthrus to tweets from search engines would actually have more meaningful content.
- present @replies that are actually replies to other tweets as part of a conversion. So the “in reply to…” text below reply tweets could be a bit richer/more enticing, like “reply to @username (13 other replies)”.
- Maybe present a “thumbs up” or “like” button (a la facebook) for light endorsements of a tweet (easier and less noisy than “I agree” or “this is awesome” comments). Would this be better than a retweet option?
- Allow people to turn off the above display of @replies if they want.

Twitter is obviously a public IM client/chatroom for some. For others, it’s a microblog broadcast platform. For still others, it may actually be a social network. But I’d contend that serving those first two audiences FIRST (by making conversation easier) would create happier users, gut-punch their early attrition problems, and create a more valuable business. What do you think?

(You should follow @sacca and @andrew_chen and maybe even me on Twitter!)

I love games. While I did wear a letterman jacket through most of high school, I surreptitiously played Dungeons and Dragons every week with my brother’s gaming group. I’ve played a wide variety of games on every computer I’ve ever owned. I like board games like Settlers of Catan, and (god help me) I even futzed around with Magic: The Gathering.

Like a lot of software folks, I have a secret wish to punt everything, run into the hills, and make GAMES.

So it’s exciting to see this gaming renaissance. Casual games, social games– whatever you want to call them– there are new ways to make money making games and it’s no longer the big budget hit-driven madness that we’ve grown accustomed to.

But boom times like this can be messy and noisy, and this one is no exception. One of the key elements of this new gaming revolution is the potential to be VIRAL. As a developer, it’s fairly trivial to have your game automagically announce itself to a player’s Twitter followers, Facebook friends, whatever. “[friendname] just found a +11 Sword of Evisceration, but he needs your help to consecrate it in the blood of the Celestial Dragon – click here to join [gamename]“. Or, on Twitter, “I’m now the Mayor of Baskin Robbins. Bask in my benevolence! [insert bitly link here].”

The cost of shooting out these messages periodically as a user plays is trivial and there’s only upside, right? If 1,000 users play to that point and they each have 100 followers on Twitter, well– you just got 100,000 free ads for you game, packed with the kind of social proof that advertisers can only dream of.

But, at the end of the day, it’s SPAM. As a developer, they shouldn’t be asking themselves whether the cost/benefit analysis works. Heck, it costs me a billionth of a penny to send an unsolicited email and I’m sure I could craft an email that would convert more than a billionth of the time. WIN! Instead, they should be asking themselves the following questions:

• Does the player WANT to tweet about this? If they do, encourage them but let them opt-in every time and do it in their own words.
• How many of the players followers gives a rat’s ass? If a game auto-tweets on my account, 99.9% of the people are going to get no value. 99.9% aren’t going to find it interesting. I’m looking at you, Foursquare.
• What percentage of the players would, once they realized that they just blasted their friends with this promotional tweet would say, “Ooooh, I didn’t know it’d do that! That’s GREAT that I just told all 1500 of my followers that I’m the Mayor of Hooters!”

Yes, social game makers, your spammer math WORKS. 99.9% of my followers will consider it noise– if they read the tweet, they’ll want their 10 seconds back. But you’ll get your 0.1% clicking the link, and those clickers will convert (some of them). And THEY’LL make noise too and you’ll have your virus.

But because this works so well, we’re going to have more and more of it. If you’d told the first guy that sent an email that 95% of the world’s email would be spam in 2007, I think he’d be pretty horrified. While I tend to like federated models like Email more than walled gardens like Facebook and Twitter, in this case I’m glad there are some sensible folks at the helm who can shut this stuff down (or at least give users the tools to turn the noise down).

For what it’s worth, if I wasn’t in the weird and wonderful world of time management software, I’d be doing social games. Hell, maybe I’d suck at it because I took the high road. But I think I’d just focus on making really fun games, making it MORE fun if people invited friends, and giving them the tools to tell the world should they want to.

(note: this is modified from a talk I gave at Seattle Tech Startups on Wednesday)

The more I think about it, the more I’m impressed with software businesses that are great businesses (not just great software). There’s a class of entrepreneur that is product focused (like the folks at Twitter), there is a class of entrepreneur that is business focused (the white-toothed stereotypical biz guy), and there is a class of entrepreneur who is PR focused (I won’t name names, but we all know of startups that seem to thrive simply because of the attention they draw). I think good things happen when you create an outstanding product that has a clear path to monetization– add on someone who is also an attention magnet (like Steve Jobs, who is all three flavors rolled into one) and amazing stuff happens.

A couple of examples

• One you might have heard of– Google. Their outstanding product certainly earned them clear leadership in the world of search engines. But it was Adwords and Adsense that got them to the point where they could feed every employee gourmet meals and do their laundry for them.
• One you haven’t heard of– Autotegrity. This tiny company is finding leads for car dealerships via Google Adwords (among other things). They find people who are looking for very specific things (“blue honda accord”) and offer to get them three competing quotes. They take these leads and sell them to car dealerships (3 times, predictably). It’s a win for both sides and they are staggeringly successful.

One thing I increasingly believe is that the idea of just building something great is a game with much higher risks and rewards. Clearly if you build something that captures attention like Twitter and Facebook, you have the luxury of nearly infinite time to figure out how to monetize what you’ve built. But all of the people trying to build the NEXT Twitter end up in much more dire circumstances. A smallish audience of a few million early adopters a month– an audience which is neither big enough nor unique enough to monetize very effectively. This is no joke– I know lots of services out there that are getting tens of millions of page views and millions of uniques per month that can’t manage to get enough ad revenue to pay a single salary.

So step out of the gates with a strong idea of who’s going to be paying your paycheck and how many of those people you’re going to need to pull it off. If “targeted advertising” is your answer, find an audience that PAYS– that means creating a content site for an audience than some subset of marketeers would chew off their own arm to get in front of. That may mean creating software for weird-but-profitable niches like home remodeling (which commands $20 CPMs last I heard). And it certainly means serving audiences who actually SEE and CLICK on ads (which means that your blog about startups is not going to make you any money, natch).

The key here is that owning a business isn’t about building a product any more than owning a car repair shop is about fixing cars. You’ve got to broaden your vision and bring your passion to bear on stuff like marketing, business models, customer service, guerrilla PR, SEO, and more. It’s hard to name any companies that are admirable who don’t excel at things well beyond product development.

So if you’re supposed to work on everything, what do you work on FIRST?

You should look at your business as a funnel (which, incidentally, is how every salesguy on the planet looks at their sales pipeline). Here’s one that’s in my head all the time:

What’s at the top of this funnel varies on what type of business you have. Maybe it’s page views from organic SEO and SEM. Maybe it’s warm leads from a bank of cold-calling lead-gen folks. And maybe your conversion event is a software purchase (like ours is). Maybe it’s an ad-click. Maybe it’s an account signup. But trust me, you have a funnel.

So when trying to figure out what the hell to work on as an entrepreneur, go worship at the alter of the funnel. That means:

• Measure the hell out of everything. If you don’t know many many new visitors are coming to your site, what percentage of them do something, what percentage of THOSE people, click signup, what subset of THOSE people actually successfully signup, and what percentage of THOSE people are paying you a month later, the first thing you should do is work on metrics. Don’t go overboard, but know your funnel.
• Work your way UP the funnel, not down (if you have the financial luxury to do so). Most entrepreneurs ask “how do I get people to come to my site so it can grow?” The answer most often is down the funnel: the product isn’t providing enough value, communicating clearly enough, engendering enough passion, or causing people to want to tell their friends.
• Seek the low hanging fruit in the funnel. That means that you should seek out where people are escaping your funnel. If you get tons of visitors but no one clicks on anything (high bounce rate, low time on site), chances are your value prop is confusing or isn’t very compelling. You might need to improve the product, but chances are you just have to improve how you talk about it.
• Seek leverage. The lower you attack the funnel, the more it helps. If you do something to improve your retention that will help you forever. If you do something that gives you a boost in acquisition (like a SuperBowl ad), the value will be short-lived (unless you have a true viral loop). Two great retention stats (via Andrew Chen):

  “If each month you lose 8% of your existing users (92% retention) from the previous month, the average use will stay for 12 months. If you can hold just 4% more of your users (96% retention), then they will stick around for 2 years. If you can hold only 1.3% more than that (97.3% retention), they will be in for 3 years.”

  And, if you take a cohort of 1000 users from a month an 80% retention rate means that you’ll have 68 of them after 12 months. If you can get that to 90%, you’ll have 282 left. A 300% revenue boost for that single cohort (and every subsequent monthly cohort!).

• Don’t give up on making your product great. It’s easy to get sucked into data, A/B testing, form fields, etc. But at the end of the day, people don’t just abandon signup forms because they are hard and confusing, the abandon them because they don’t care enough about signing up.

Resources Referenced in the Presentation

Bokardo’s “Designing for Social Traction” Presentation
Josh Kopelman’s Cohort Analysis Spreadsheet

Hat Tip to:
Gladwell’s Blink (has the story about likable doctors getting sued less regardless of how good they are at healing)
The Heath Brother’s Made to Stick (best marketing book on the planet, they talk about the “Curse of Knowledge” and the “Tappers and Listeners” study)

Here’s the full presentation:

I admit that I am a bit of a contrarian. For a long time, the contention that “if you’re doing a startup, you HAVE to be in Silicon Valley” didn’t sit well with me. Sure, talent is important– but for many startups you need only a few talented folks to prove that you’ve got something and companies like WordPress have proven that you can build a great team (literally) anywhere and everywhere (they are virtual and across the world). Sure, energy is important– but the biggest source of energy isn’t your peers– it’s the people who are finding value in your product (users and customers). And sure, you need money… Well, the Valley wins hands down here. If you need to raise money, that’s where you need to be. But more and more early stage investors seem willing to invest outside of their little patch of Californian dirt. After our stint at Y Combinator and a bit of fundraising, the decision about our startup (an employee time tracking tool) was pretty clear to us. We headed back to Seattle, where we had a rich network of geeks to work with and talk with and (more importantly) we could live cheaply and not die.

So it was with great glee that Jim Karsten took the gauntlet I threw down in my last post and mined the vaunted CrunchBase for some real live data. Now, CrunchBase is obviously NOT scientific… But it’s the biggest and most consumable dataset that I know of. Without further ado, here is a table showing startups by location and the percentage of startups in that location that have been acquired. Note: Jim has kindly put up the full scrape of data here – there are other interesting bits worth looking at.

Disclaimer: Yes, CrunchBase is flawed for this. No, ~5% isn’t REALLY your chance at getting bought if you start a company tomorrow, etc., etc. Please don’t troll about the quality of this data. It’s still thousands of records, which is better than the alternative.

At first glance, the key number (acquisition RATE) doesn’t seem markedly different. Heck, if you live in Virginia, CrunchBase tells you that you have a 4.3% shot at an exit… Why move to California for a measely 6.9%? But I think it’s better to focus on the fact that you’d be increasing your exit shot by *over 50%* with such a move. With acquisition rate being as vanishingly small as it is, nudging up a few percentage points is a huge deal.

But overall, as a contarian (AND as a resident of Washington State– the big winner by a nice margin), I was pleased by the results. The bottom line? It’s hard to quantify the COST of moving to a startup (months of distraction, expense, stress, loss of social network, etc), but my gut says (as it always has) that if you live in a technology hub like Seattle, NYC, Boston or Austin– hunker down and start building value- your success is based on how much value you can give versus how much you take.

Edit: some interesting insight from John Cook over here.

[Edit: Added the raw data in a table at the end]

Some of the smartest startup brains I’ve ever met have said that if you want to be in the startup game, you MUST be in the Valley. There are plenty of justifications out there for it, and many/most of them make a fair bit of sense. Recently, Paul Graham posted another great essay on the topic, and said:

The second idea is that startups are a type of business that flourishes in certain places that specialize in it—that Silicon Valley specializes in startups in the same way Los Angeles specializes in movies, or New York in finance. [1]

What if both are true? What if startups are both a new economic phase and also a type of business that only flourishes in certain centers?

I don’t know the truth of Silicon Valley’s gravity (or more importantly, how that gravity is trending) but the idea of it doesn’t sit right with me. Emotionally, I found myself wanting to agree with Aaron Swartz and Glenn Kelmann rather than Ron Conway, Mike Arrington, and PG (which is pretty much the only time that’s ever happened).

So as an exercise in digital outsourcing, I took some public lists of technology acquisitions in 2007 and 2008 and paid some nameless person in some nameless town a few dollars to research the locations of those companies when they were acquired. The results surprised me. Here’s the spreadsheet, if anyone wants to fiddle with it (in hindsight, I should’ve used the CrunchBase API– if someone wants to dive in and do this, I’d love to see it).

Highlights, Acquisitions in 2007 / 2008
225 total acquisitions on the list (110 in ‘07 and 115 in ‘08)
175 (77%) were in the USA
63 (28%) were in the Valley
Top states beyond CA were NY (19), WA (14), MA (11), TX (6), IL (5), NJ (5).
Israel and the UK were dominant internationally

Removing Acquisitions with Prices under $20mm or Undisclosed
(This was in response to the thought that the non-valley acquisitions were the small one)
110 total
91 USA (82%)
28 in the Valley (25%)

The Really Frakkin’ Interesting Bit
In 2007, 45 of 110 (41%) acquired companies were in the Valley. In 2008, only 18 of 115 (16%) were.

Now, 1 year does not a trend make. And, this is some pretty amateurish research and number crunching. The numbers that I really want (which is really hard to find) are the denominators. In other words, how many valley startups spun up in these years versus the rest of the world? Does the Valley meaningfully change the chances of startup founders making it? And how have these numbers changed over the past 5-10 years?

My theory?

The core things that REALLY matters to build a v1 software startup are (in order of important):

• having the will to build one
  Silicon Valley used to have a pretty serious monopoly on people who wanted to be technology entrepreneurs. I think that’s changing– the number of people who are getting their feet wet with entrepreneurship outside of the Valley seems to be skyrocketing. People don’t want to be doctors and lawyers any more– they want to own their own companies. And as entrepreneurs in non-Valley locations see exits, it inspires a new crop in their home town.
• building something that people really freakin’ want to have
  The Valley offers no edge here– in fact, some people wonder if the “echo chamber” doesn’t actually get in the way of understanding the rest of the world.
• having the team/resources/cash to get your product to market
  THIS is where the Valley has always dominated. But I think that’s changing. We’ve all seen how cheap it is to start a software company nowadays (though you might still need VCs to GROW it).

  In terms of teams– clearly if you’re going to be recruiting lots of geeks, you want to be in the Valley. Or do you? I’ve heard that WordPress has a virtual team all over the world and they seem to be doing okay. With all of the great information on software development and startups and with the fabulous open-source projects out there, maybe it’s getting easier to get to be a great hacker outside of the Valley. And, just as the cost of building a startup has gone down, the manpower necessary to build a v1 product has gone down as well. So MAYBE you need to move your startup to the Valley when it’s time to ramp up, but I’m not convinced you need the Valley to collect two or three motivated hackers.

• Note: I think distribution magic and TAM (total addressable market) are hugely important for magnitude of startup success… But that’s a different post.

There is no doubt that Silicon Valley wins. Even a paltry 16% of 2008’s acquisitions is a staggering number for a little cluster of cities in northern California. But it’s not as big a monopoly as I might have guessed. Maybe that 1 year trend is starting to show that the institutional dollars in the Valley aren’t as important as they were in years past (or heck, maybe those funds are looking beyond their traditional borders). And maybe all of those great technologies that allow us to connect with people around the world are helping entrepreneurs connect with the energy and relationships that the valley brings the the table.

Again, Big Dislaimer: This is quickly googled data, outsourced research, and quick-n-dirty spreadsheeting. And, of course, acquisitions are an imperfect measure of success. AND, each startup/market/region is different. Bad science all around. Just a conversation starter, really.

Raw Data:

People are upset about the news industry dying/changing, and with good reason. There’s a lot of great history and romance in journalism, and it’ll be a shame to see them go. There’s a great summary of the issue by Nick Carr and some good thoughts (with a linkbait title) by Scott Karp. Karp says:

Those who argue that Google is a friend to content owners because it sends them traffic overlook the basic law of supply and demand. The value of “traffic” is entirely relative. The more content there is on the web, the less value that content has — because of the surfeit of ad inventory and abundance of free alternatives to paid content — and thus the less value “traffic” has.

He’s right that it’s a supply and demand issue, but he’s wrong that Google isn’t a friend. Newspapers got to be a VERY fat business with a huge expense line because there was a limit of supply. You want written news in your hometown? You’ve got one choice, maybe two if you’re lucky. You want to advertise to people who care about the news? Same choices.

Over the past 50 years, reporting the news SHOULD have gotten cheaper. A flood of journalism grads, word processing and desktop publishing tools, increasingly sophisticated global communication, and cheap syndicate-able news stories when it’s not practical to report it. Over the past 20 years, you’d think it’d have gotten cheaper yet. Why have a press at all? When a story is breaking in Istanbul, why not just find a freelance reporter there rather than fly one of yours over and put ‘em up in a hotel? Need to do some fact checking? Try the internet. Don”t have time to write a deeper article? Link to some content partners in a “learn more” section at the end of your article. Looking around at content startups (like TechCrunch), it’s easy to see imagine cheaply you could run a newspaper. But modern newspapers don’t have that imagination, and if they did they don’t have the agility to get there with huge debt service, huge staffs, and big infrastructure to support distributing dead trees and ink.

The problem with the industry isn’t that Google owns the middleman slot. The problem is that the news industry as we know it is fundamentally inefficient. There were local walls around the supply, and little fiefdoms of news grew fat and happy (and horribly inefficient) inside these walls. Now that innovation has removed those walls, an oversupply of news has spilled into the world and the girth of these news organizations just can’t be supported. This doesn’t mean we should pour the hate on innovation.

Technology innovation is often about making markets smaller/more efficient. It’s taking something that used to cost $50 and making it available for $5, which tends to make innovators rich and incumbents flounder and die. It’s about making music sharing cheap and easy so record-labels can’t get drunk off of the insane profits they’ve been enjoying. It’s about sites like Kayak and Faracast making the market for airline tickets more efficient and less inscrutable.

Google *IS* a friend to the news business. They are giving them a free/huge distribution channel that they don’t have to pay for. There are plenty of small/nimble news startups from the Huffington Post to the West Seattle Blog (my neighborhood rag) that are happily growing and collecting advertising revenue.

There’s clearly a need/demand for news and a clear path to making money with content on the Internet. There’s not much we can do but sit back and watch most of the dinosaurs die, rot or evolve, and watch the nimble little mammals grow up to fill the niches they leave behind.