Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Filed under: start-ups

Not sure what there is the be angry about... "Angry Birds Maker Rovio Worth $1.2 Billion"

via @mashable
Rovio, the maker of Angry Birds, is set to receive funding that would give the company a $1.2 billion valuation, according to a report.

Citing “people with knowledge of the discussions,” Bloomberg is saying that Rovio is considering taking the funding from a “company in the entertainment business.” Rovio rejected similar offers from other investors, according to the report.

Michael Pachter, managing director of research at Wedbush Securities, speculates in the article that the investors may be Electronic Arts, Zynga, News Corp. or the Walt Disney Co.

The latest round of funding follows a $42 million round in Series A investment from venture capital firms Accel Partners and Atomico Ventures in March.

Though Rovio seems to be a one-trick pony, it is fully exploiting Angry Birds‘s potential. A movie and TV showare on the way. Just recently, a line of baby clothes hit the scene, and the game itself was one of the first to show up on Google+.

Is this the start of the second dotcom bubble?

guardian.co.uk home

 

Loss-making Twitter has been valued at $10bn. Facebook is said to be worth more than Ford. Now, for some investors, the alarm bells are starting to ring.

Latest internet valuations

Two years ago, anthropologist Sekai Farai was awarded a grant by Columbia University to study the technology startup community. Her timing couldn't have been better: a new goldrush is under way as twentysomethings from New York, London and San Francisco dream of making their fortunes from a new generation of internet companies.

Sitting in the lobby of Manhattan's Ace Hotel, one of new-school tech's favourite hangouts, Farai predicts the boom has just begun. "People who not long ago started startups because they couldn't get a job are turning down jobs now," she says. "There's so much money about. The idea that your idea could be the next big idea is very real. There's a real air of excitement." Could it all end in tears? "It always does."

Right now, though, who wouldn't be excited? Every week, one of the new generation of internet firms seems to attract a sky-high valuation. Zynga, the social-network games company that has tempted millions to grow virtual vegetables in its FarmVille game, has been valued at $9bn (£5.54bn). Profitless Twitter is said to be worth $10bn. Groupon, vendor of online discounts, rejected a $6bn offer from Google and is considering a flotation with a potential valuation of $15bn. Tech-watchers say this is just the start: the real boom will come when Facebook, the head boy of the new dotcom frenzy, goes public, probably next year.

This month it emerged that Facebook staff are planning to sell $1bn of private shares at a price that values the private company at $60bn – that's $10bn more than January's valuation and close to 10 times the price Russian investor Digital Sky Technologies paid employees who sold shares in 2009.

The leaps in valuation are dizzying. At its current on-paper price, Facebook's value is somewhere between that of Ford ($55bn) and Visa ($63bn). But that's still less than a third of Google's value, Facebook's arch-rival in the battle for domination on the internet.

Alan Patrick, co-founder of technology consultancy Broadsight, says we are at the beginning of another bubble and that the first breaths have been blown: "A bubble is defined by too much money chasing assets, greater production of those assets, then the need to find a greater fool to buy them."

So far, money is chasing a small group of companies – Facebook, Groupon et al – that could prove to be good investments, says Patrick, who also writes the Broadstuff blog. That was true of other bubbles too: at the start of the US property boom, for example, it was the best houses in the best locations that took off first. Only later did people start speculating on grotty flats in Florida.

According to Patrick, there are 10 tell-tale signs that a bubble is being blown:

■ 1. The arrival of a "New Thing" that cannot be valued in the old way. Dumb-money companies start paying over the odds for New Thing acquisitions.

 2. Smart people identify the start of a bubble; New Thing apostles make ever more glowing claims.

 3. Startups with founders deemed to have "pedigree" (for example, former employees of New Thing companies) get funded at eye-watering valuations for next to no reason.

 4. There is a flurry of new investment funds catering for startups.

■ 5. Companies start getting funded "off the slide deck" (that is, purely on the basis of their PowerPoint presentations) without actually having a product.

 6. MBAs leave banks to start up firms.

 7. The "big flotation" happens.

 8. Banks make a market in the New Thing, investing pension money.

 9. Taxi drivers start giving you advice on what stock to buy.

 10. A New Thing darling buys an old-world company for stupid money. The end is nigh.

This time social media is the New Thing. Its most earnest acolytes claim that the likes of Twitter and Facebook are a revolution in human communications unseen since Gutenberg started printing the Bible. They aren't making money, but they are worth a fortune. Two smart cookies – Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, and Michael Arrington, creator of the influential technology blog TechCrunch – have sold their publications to AOL, a company not noted for the astuteness of its recent decisions. Tick off stage 1.

The second stage looks tickable, too. Fred Wilson, investor at Union Square Ventures and a veteran of the 1999/2000 dotcom bubble, has been sounding the alarm for some time. In a recent interview with TechCrunch, Wilson said he was worried that a two- or three-person startup could get a $50m-$100m valuation. "To me that's not in the realm of reasonable," Wilson said.

He even went as far as to name names – in particular Quora, a questions-and-answers site set up by Facebook alumni Adam D'Angelo and Charlie Cheever that raised $11m in funding last year at a price that valued the company at $86m. Now it is reportedly fending off offers for $330m. See stage 3 above.

Mark Cuban, the investor who made a fortune in the first dotcom boom, has compared the current funding frenzy to a pyramid scheme. In another recent interview, David Cohen, managing director of the well-known Silicon Valley start-up fund TechStars, says there is a bubble in the number of companies financing startups. Cross off stage 4.

The last dotcom boom really took off after the flotation of the internet software company Netscape in 1995. Patrick says this time it's likely to be Facebook that lights the fuse. So far, private investors have been locked out of the New Thing. But JP Morgan is setting up a fund, and Goldman Sachs recently tried to get its clients' money into Facebook. That would take us all the way to stage 8, in which case we're just waiting for stages 9 and 10 – where cabbies get in on the act and the game goes into reverse.

Not everybody agrees. Sumon Sadhu, director of intelligence at Quid, a Silicon Valley consultancy, sees a lot of money but no bubble. He calculates that in the fourth quarter of 2010 consumer internet firms attracted $2.5bn in new investments, up from $949m for the previous quarter. But the number of companies getting the cash rose from 226 in the third quarter to just 252 in the fourth.

"The money is following the money," says Sadhu. Something new is happening, he argues: social media has created a vast new source of information about the people using the web. Sites such as Facebook are building a far more rounded picture of a person's identity – and that is worth a fortune.

"The first wave of internet firms gave us an explosion of information. Now we need filters – we need to trust where that information is coming from," says Sadhu. "That's what's being monetised now. With any business cycle it's going to be evolutionary, but there is seldom excess with a total lack of fundamentals."

From an anthropologist's perspective, Farai is not so sure. "There are elements out there that are pyramid-esque, Ponzi-esque, maybe even Kafkaesque," she says. "There's a sense that this isn't real money. In the long run, that can't be good." Maybe, maybe not. The sad truth is, we'll only really know that this was a bubble if it bursts.

 

 

 

8 Dot-Coms That Spent Millions On Super Bowl Ads And No Longer Exist

via @businessinsider

 

At the height of the dot-com bubble in January 2000, 19 online startups bought very expensive Super Bowl advertisements to herald their arrival on the national scene.

Eight of those companies no longer exist. Most didn't make it more than a year or two.

Pets.com sock puppet

They were crushed by the looming dot-com bust and one even folded before the end of that year.

Others have merged, been acquired, or continue to chug along, but with a much lower profile. 

Only one — E-Trade — has survived and is strong enough to have an ad during Super Bowl XLV this Sunday. 

The Super Bowl ad is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy for a company, which is why the king of this year's start-up class, Groupon, is going all in on their first big TV campaign. Will this be the coming out party that takes them to the next level? Or are they the next Pets.com?

 

Pets.com

Founded: 1998. Folded: 2000 The pet supply company (and it's ironic theme song, "If You Leave Me Now") was the poster child of the first dot-bust: Too-much, too-soon excess for a product that people probably didn't need. It was arguably the biggest flameout of the big bubble.

Epidemic.com

Some kind of viral e-mail marketing scheme that tried to pay people for putting referral links in their personal emails. They never got a second round of funding and folded by the end of 2000.

Lifeminders.com

They went the cheap-o "ironic" route, spending nothing on the production of their ad, while promising customers ... more emails. They self-declared it the "worst ad on the Super Bowl." And it was. This vague unnecessary service folded soon after.

Ourbeginning.com

In 2000, it was a wedding planning site. Now, it's a daycare in Seattle.

Netpliance.com

Founded in 1999 as "Shbang!", the company manufactured low-cost computers designed only for surfing the internet. In 2002, they pivoted to network security devices — after changing their name to Tipping Point and dumping the entire "netpliance" concept. (The URL is now owned by a shady-looking online pharmacy.)

E-Stamp.com

This was the first company authorized to sell US Postal Service stamps online. They went under in 2001, and the name and patents were bought by Stamps.com

e1040.com

Some sort of tax preparation service, built before people knew what identity theft was. The URL now directs to actual accountants.

OnMoney.com

No idea. Some kind of monster-slaying Flash game?

EDS: Herding Cats

Not technically a start-up or a dot-com, but the "technology services" company had the most memorable ad of 2000 with their famous "Herding Cats" spot. In 2008, they were acquired by Hewlett-Packard and became HP Enterprise Services,

THE SURVIVORS

A decade later, these companies are still going strong, but most have a much lower-profile (i.e. they won't be advertising on the big game anytime soon.) Click the link to see their ad from the 2000 game.

 


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/8-dot-com-super-bowl-advertisers-that-no-longer-exist-2011-2?slop=1#ixzz1CocR2Jv5

 

 

 

For Start-Ups, the Ultimate Goal: Becoming a Verb

From the New York Times
Start-Up Verbs
Nick Bilton/The New York Times

When starting a new Web site or Internet service, most technologists are aiming to sell to a larger company or gain hundreds of millions of users. But for some there is an even bigger glory than cash: their company name becomes a verb.

It didn’t take long for Google to win this honor, as people began saying “let me Google that” instead of using the verb “search.” Microsoft hopes that its search engine, Bing, is on its way to this usage too.

And of course this idea goes beyond search sites. Take Twitter, for example, which has been verbified with the advent of the word “tweet.”

read full article here: http://pulsene.ws/pUaO 

Ten Keys to a Killer Name for Your Company via @startuppro

Naming is an art... I feel pretty fortunate to have been involved with some very clever and creating people at the birth of my last few ventures.  We selected Click Forensics, OPTIMAL iQ and Max Deal.  Each meets the criteria outlined below in this excellent post by Martin Zwilling.

Ten Keys to a Killer Name for Your Company

killer-domain-nameFirst things first – your startup needs a name! This may seem a silly and frivolous task, but it may be the most important decision you make. The name of your business has a tremendous impact on how customers and investors view you, and in today’s small world, it’s a world-wide decision.

Please don’t send me any more business plans with TBD or NewCo in the title position. Right or wrong, the name you choose, or don’t choose, speaks volumes about your business savvy and understanding of the world you are about to enter. Here are some key things I look for in the name, with some help from Alex Frankel and others:

  1. Unique and unforgettable. In the trade, this is called “stickiness.” But the issue of stickiness turns out to be kind of, well, sticky. Every company wants a name that stands out from the crowd, a catchy handle that will remain fresh and memorable over time. That’s a challenge because naming trends change, often year by year, making timeless names hard to find (remember the dot.coms). 

  2. Avoid unusual spellings. When creating a name, stay with words that can easily be spelled by customers. Some startup founders try unusual word spellings to make their business stand out, but this can be trouble when customers ‘Google’ your business to find you, or try to refer you to others. Stay with traditional word spelling, and avoid those catchy words that you love to explain at cocktail parties. 

  3. Easy to pronounce and remember. Forget made-up words and nonsense phrases. Make your business name one that customers can pronounce and remember easily. Skip the acronyms, which mean nothing to most people. When choosing an identity for a company or a product, simple and straightforward are back in style, and cost less to brand. 

  4. Keep it simple. The shorter in length, the better. Limit it to two syllables. Avoid using hyphens and other special characters. Since certain algorithms and directory listings work alphabetically, pick a name closer to A than Z. These days, it even helps if the name can easily be turned into a verb, like Google me. 

  5. Make some sense. Occasionally, business owners will choose names that are nonsense words. Quirky words (Yahoo, Google, Fogdog) or trademark-proof names concocted from scratch (Novartis, Aventis, Lycos) are a big risk. Always check the international implications. More than one company has been embarrassed by a new name that had negative and even obscene connotations in another language. 

  6. Give a clue. Try to adopt a business name that provides some information about what your business does. Calling your landscaping business “Lawn and Order” is appropriate, but the same name would not do well for a handyman business. Your business name should match your business in order to remind customers what services you provide. 

  7. Make sure the name is available. This may sound obvious, but a miss here will cost you dearly. Your company name and Internet domain name should probably be the same, so check out your preferred names with your State Incorporationsite, Network Solutions for the domain name, and the U.S. Patent Office for Trademarks. 

  8. Favor common suffixes. Everyone will assume that your company name is your domain name minus the suffix “.com” or the standard suffix for your country. If these suffixes are not available for the name you prefer, pick a new name rather than settling for an alternate suffix like “.net” or “.info.” Get all three suffixes if you can. 

  9. Don't box yourself in. Avoid picking names that don't allow your business to move around or add to its product line. This means avoiding geographic locations or product categories to your business name. With these specifics, customers will be confused if you expand your business to different locations or add on to your product line. 

  10. Sample potential customers. Come up with a few different name choices and try them out on potential customers, investors, and co-workers. Skip your family and friends who know too much. Ask questions about the names to see if they give off the impression you desire.

If you are still unsure of yourself, you should know that there are many dedicated firms, like Igor and A Hundred Monkeys, that can relieve you of $1M of your hard-earned funds to come up with just the right appellation. Hmmm. I wonder how much they spent on their own names?

Marty Zwilling

MARTIN ZWILLING
CEO & Founder of Startup Professionals, Inc.; Callaman Ventures Board Member and Executive in Residence; Advisory Board Member for multiple startups; Arizona Angels Selection Committee; Entrepreneur in Residence at ASU and Thunderbird School of Global Management. See me on Twitter as StartupPro, and on LinkedIn and Facebook by name. Published on Forbes, Harvard Business Review, and Business Insider.
View complete profile

For startups, there's more than just hits and misses

For startups, there's more than just hits and misses

By Fred Wilson, contributor FORTUNE
(Fred Wilson has been a venture capitalist since 1996, and currently serves as managing partner of Union Square Ventures. He blogs regularly at AVC.)

There are a lot of "falsisms" being bandied about in startup land these days. And one that really bothers me is the idea that returns on startup investing are "bimodal."

For those who don't speak geek, bimodal means there are one of two possible outcomes. And in this case, those two outcomes are a total bust or a huge, Google-style win.

If you buy into that logic, then you want to be in every deal because if you are going to take a massive number of hits, you need to absolutely be in that Google-style win or you are toast.

But startup returns are not bimodal. They exhibit more of a power law curve. There certainly will be one or two venture deals every year that generate 100x or more. And there certainly will be quite a few total busts. But there are a lot of outcomes in the middle of those two. And you can make a great return investing in startups without being in the 100x deal.

Here is the distribution of current returns in our 2004 fund. To be confidential, I am not listing company names and have "fudged" the top returning deal number so nobody plays a guessing game with that one.

A couple things about these returns. First, many of these returns are unrealized and carried at valuations forced upon us by our auditors under the auspices of "FAS 157." If we were working under a different accounting paradigm, we would be carrying many of these investments at much lower values. Second, this fund is only six years old. And so we are still carrying one third of our portfolio at cost. When this fund is fully realized, I am pretty sure there won't be a single investment that is worth exactly its cost.

So don't get too caught up in the total numbers here. The point is that startup returns are not bimodal in any way. They exhibit a power law curve. And you can make great returns playing in the middle of the curve.

I've spent my entire career playing the middle ground of this curve. With the exception of Geocities, which my partner Jerry led at Flatiron, I have never seen a 100x return. I suspect our first Union Square Ventures fund will change that. But from 1990 to 2005, a span of fifteen years, I built an excellent personal track record that helped me and Brad raise our first fund working exclusively in the middle of the return distribution curve.

And the way you do it is you keep your "busts" to less than a third of all of your deals and make sure you don't put a ton of capital into a bad investment. And you work the middle third to make sure you make a decent return on them. And you follow on aggressively in your winners. You do that and you can post gross returns in the range of 50% annual returns gross before fees and carry.

The thing you most want to avoid is "doing every deal". You need to select good deals and avoid bad ones. That's what bothers me most about this "bimodal" argument. It suggests that you need to be in every deal so you can catch the one big winner. That's a bad strategy for everyone but the one person who can actually get into every deal. Because there is a good chance that you can't get into every deal. And there is also a good chance that the one deal you can't get into is the one that is going to be the home run.

So pick your deals carefully. Accept that you may not get into the next Google. Work the middle part of the return distribution curve. Recognize your bad decisions quickly. Work your deals hard. And follow your winners. And you'll do just fine.


Groupon Adds Self-Serve Deal Platform, Says It's the "Future"

I'm impressed with Groupon.  Not as much as a consumer but from the business concept standpoint... quite frankly, it's brilliant. There's a reason this company has been the fastest to a $1B valuation (yep, faster than Google and Facebook!)

Now Groupon is testing a new feature called Groupon Stores, which allows local businesses to create Facebook-like pages where fans can follow them and access deals. The businesses can add their own deals, bypassing Groupon’s long waiting lines in each city, but do they have more than enough to keep track of already?

Each business that signs up receives its own page with a web address that begins “groupon.com/merchants/” and can offer details about itself along with deals similar to those hosted on the main section of the Groupon website. Only a few businesses are testing out the feature at present.