Startup Programming Jobs: C++, C#, and Java Reign Supreme?

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Newbie’s Guide to Startup Compensation (or “Stock Options will Make Me Rich!”)

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

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

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

3 Harsh Realities of Startup Options

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

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

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

So are Options a Crappy Deal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You’re Buying More than Just a High Risk Investment

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

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

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

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

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

Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

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

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

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

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

Two more things to add here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

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

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

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

— Barry Krause, in Made to Stick

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

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

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

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

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Scroll to top