Of course as you get older your attention span goes. However, I have noticed a worrying trend in me and others that I think is more to do with outside influences.
My attention span is now the equivalent to 140 characters or 15 minute slots of time
Books - I used to pick up a book and read 50-100 pages in one hit and always finish a book before starting another. Now I am currently reading about 8 books, all of them take ages as I read just a few pages a time (perhaps 15 minutes) before seemingly getting bored and moving onto another book. My favourite author is Ian Banks. Recently it took me months to read one of his recent books, Matter - it was great but at 500+ pages it became a nightmare read.
TV - I don't watch any "live" TV anymore just Sky+ recordings of mostly american dramas. However, again, on free evenings I don't find myself watching an episode right through. The other night I happily alternated between Borgen, True Blood, Sons Of Anarchy, The Walking Dead and Inside Men in 15 minute intervals.
Films - again, in the past the only way to watch was from beginning to end. Now all my films are downloaded onto my iPhone and played through that and using Apple TV. I am quite happy to watch small sections in an evening, on the train, on the treadmill, even in bed, usually in small sections of around 15 minutes.
News - stopped buying newspapers years ago, don't watch TV news, and only listen to 5Live when cooking or to wake up. Now I get all my news from Twitter. I see an article on my feed and use Instapaper to Read Later. Then catch up with loads of articles when standing on a train, waiting for a bus or waiting in cafe's or bars (I am always early) Even then I seem to be able to skim read and pick out interesting facts.
The Kids - they are being brought up in an instant world of information and quick summaries where everything is for the moment and gone in a flash, whether its X Factor, You Tube, TV, Films and Facebook. Perhaps my level of parenting and doing things with them are in 15 minute slots of time - I shall have to monitor that.
This has all crept up on me - and talking to a good friend the other day it seems I am not alone.
Are we and our kids a new generation of human beings where all walks of life will become snippets of information and where conversations will be likewise.
What was it I was talking about, bored with that, now about that Company A vs Company B thing.......
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Whose Idea Was It Anyway
Someone came up to me the other night - "Hi Steve, remember me, we had that meeting when I pitched a business social network idea back in 2003. You weren't interested. Well it became Linked In". Doh!
I was gutted - more embarrassed because I couldn't remember the meeting than because I'd missed the opportunity. As it was at that time I was so busy doing my own thing that I simply didn't have time to look at other ideas. Massive apologies to this person as I probably was so stuck up my own arse I can imagine I was dismissive too quickly.
It made me think after about other occurrences of missed opportunities.
One of my friends loves to tell the story of me pitching an idea to our then board at FriendsReunited to move our database away from just school friends and to become a contact system for all your friends, with added blogging (which had just started happening), events, games and message boards. I've still got the screens somewhere I knocked up. It fell on deaf ears - although we did try to do a sub site called called Connections which failed pretty miserably. I am not saying my idea was Facebook but it had the seeds of it. This was probably 2003.
Not long after, a chat with a colleague at FR and we came up with an idea to extend FR beyond your school to create a life chart of your life. After I left FR in 2005 he went onto incorporate into FR - but I am not sure of its success. I started my own little project where I wrote a Lifechart personal site, went through all my old diaries and loaded it with my life. Then added lots of world events, number one's football games etc to see what was happening around different events in my life. Basically Facebook TimeLine. (a sample of the many thousands of entries in mine is below - it was only for me hence why it looks shite)
Am I bitter? Not in the slightest - my fault for not doing anything about them. I am actually pretty happy with my lot of FR and GR (although a little piece of Facebook and/or Linked In would actually have been the icing on the cake)
When Julie came up with the idea of finding her old school friends in 1999, we went away and did a lot of research. I never tried to hide the fact that we found an already well established site in America called Classmates. There were also other smaller versions dotted around the world. We just knew we could do it better, bigger and grander. Hence FriendsReunited was born.
A lot of people came up to be over the course of FR and said they had the same idea, mostly friendly, some bitter. One even tried to sue us (ridiculously) based on the most funner tenuous links (hmmmm - thats an idea for another rant another time) - he even sent a "dossier" out to all the newspapers about this "outrage" - strangely it was never printed. Although a story about a fucking madman would have been nearer the truth.
Anyway - the point. Everyone has ideas - especially tech and internet ideas. Everyone talks about them and how it can make them millionaires. Only a handful actually do anything about it and that is all about application and making it better than anyone else's. Hats off to anyone who has tried. And for the rest, keep dreaming.
I was gutted - more embarrassed because I couldn't remember the meeting than because I'd missed the opportunity. As it was at that time I was so busy doing my own thing that I simply didn't have time to look at other ideas. Massive apologies to this person as I probably was so stuck up my own arse I can imagine I was dismissive too quickly.
It made me think after about other occurrences of missed opportunities.
One of my friends loves to tell the story of me pitching an idea to our then board at FriendsReunited to move our database away from just school friends and to become a contact system for all your friends, with added blogging (which had just started happening), events, games and message boards. I've still got the screens somewhere I knocked up. It fell on deaf ears - although we did try to do a sub site called called Connections which failed pretty miserably. I am not saying my idea was Facebook but it had the seeds of it. This was probably 2003.
Not long after, a chat with a colleague at FR and we came up with an idea to extend FR beyond your school to create a life chart of your life. After I left FR in 2005 he went onto incorporate into FR - but I am not sure of its success. I started my own little project where I wrote a Lifechart personal site, went through all my old diaries and loaded it with my life. Then added lots of world events, number one's football games etc to see what was happening around different events in my life. Basically Facebook TimeLine. (a sample of the many thousands of entries in mine is below - it was only for me hence why it looks shite)
Am I bitter? Not in the slightest - my fault for not doing anything about them. I am actually pretty happy with my lot of FR and GR (although a little piece of Facebook and/or Linked In would actually have been the icing on the cake)
When Julie came up with the idea of finding her old school friends in 1999, we went away and did a lot of research. I never tried to hide the fact that we found an already well established site in America called Classmates. There were also other smaller versions dotted around the world. We just knew we could do it better, bigger and grander. Hence FriendsReunited was born.
A lot of people came up to be over the course of FR and said they had the same idea, mostly friendly, some bitter. One even tried to sue us (ridiculously) based on the most funner tenuous links (hmmmm - thats an idea for another rant another time) - he even sent a "dossier" out to all the newspapers about this "outrage" - strangely it was never printed. Although a story about a fucking madman would have been nearer the truth.
Anyway - the point. Everyone has ideas - especially tech and internet ideas. Everyone talks about them and how it can make them millionaires. Only a handful actually do anything about it and that is all about application and making it better than anyone else's. Hats off to anyone who has tried. And for the rest, keep dreaming.
 |
| Welcome back Stephen Pankhurst | (Logout) | |
| Home | | Add Event | |
| |||||
| 22 Jan 1984 |
| ||||
| 04 Feb 1984 |
| ||||
| 26 Feb 1984 |
| ||||
| 27 Feb 1984 |
| ||||
| 10 Mar 1984 |
| ||||
| 12 Mar 1984 |
| ||||
| 24 Mar 1984 |
| ||||
| 30 Mar 1984 |
| ||||
| May 1984 |
|
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Alternative Startup Investment Guide
I probably get about 2-3 business plans a week on average. Some are huge (got a 47 page one yesterday) - thats a lot of reading. I then follow up maybe 3-4 a month to meet the founders and see if any are worth investing in. Of them I probably only go ahead with about half a dozen a year on average.
I've made a lot of mistakes along the way - but am coming to the view that however good the idea is, so much is down to the founders and the team around them. And a bit like interviewing people, you never really find out what they are like until you start working with them.
1. Business Plans - always too long and too much waffle. I want a 1-2 page exec summary, simple P&L and simple cash flow. Keep it simple.
2. First meet - down the pub. Alcohol has a good way of finding out what people are really like.
As a gauge -
1 pint - I will consider their idea
2-3 pints - thats the due diligence - can the founders take their drink
4-5 pints - I'm probably in
5+ pints - I will probably forget everything in the morning and retract offer.
I've made a lot of mistakes along the way - but am coming to the view that however good the idea is, so much is down to the founders and the team around them. And a bit like interviewing people, you never really find out what they are like until you start working with them.
So, in continuation of my last rant 'How to Look after Investors' I provide my own alternative decision making process to making startup investments.
1. Business Plans - always too long and too much waffle. I want a 1-2 page exec summary, simple P&L and simple cash flow. Keep it simple.
2. First meet - down the pub. Alcohol has a good way of finding out what people are really like.
As a gauge -
1 pint - I will consider their idea
2-3 pints - thats the due diligence - can the founders take their drink
4-5 pints - I'm probably in
5+ pints - I will probably forget everything in the morning and retract offer.
3. Equity negotiation - best over a game of texas hold em poker (you can go all in but be warned)
4. Don't even offer any wanky director or non exec role - not interested.
5. Once a month meet up (pref down the pub again) with one pager showing
- summary of month (no bullshit please)
- income, expenditure and cash position (drinks are on me and not a company expense)
- metrics (there must be some)
- marketing update
- forthcoming issues (which pub to meet in next time)
Oh I wish it was all that simple.
How To Look After Your Investors
This is a story of two companies. Both of whom I have invested in, during 2011. Both are in the social media space.
Company A. Fantastic idea. Team already in place and well funded.
Company B. Cool idea. Small team and seed funding required.
After investment both invited me to meetings. Now if you read my previous posts I in no way push myself as some sort of guru that I know some start up techies do. I like to give my view and hope it helps in some way.
Company A. Completely ignore anything I say, to the point of being so dismissive its actually quite rude (yawning when I talk)
Company B. Completely engaged in our conversations whether any useful advice is there.
Company A. After a month or so I am no longer invited to any strategy meetings and get no update for many many months. Not even an email. In fact getting any stats out of them is very difficult.
Company B. We setup monthly very informal meets that give me a complete run down on the sites progress. I am given access to analytic stats.
Company A. One year later - spent a fortune on dev and marketing. Got no traction and suddenly running out of money. I am not going to invest more.
Company B. Massive traction, huge interest and I am looking at investing in the next phase.
Now the results of both companies has nothing to do with me but Company A leaves such a bad taste and Company B leaves such a warm glowing feeling that I wonder whether there is something in the way the Companies are run that has resulted in their success/failure.
Of course I don't want to see either fail but I know which one has a good chance and which one doesn't.
NOTE : if any of the above happens to fit your company that I invested in then it is merely coincidental.
Company A. Fantastic idea. Team already in place and well funded.
Company B. Cool idea. Small team and seed funding required.
After investment both invited me to meetings. Now if you read my previous posts I in no way push myself as some sort of guru that I know some start up techies do. I like to give my view and hope it helps in some way.
Company A. Completely ignore anything I say, to the point of being so dismissive its actually quite rude (yawning when I talk)
Company B. Completely engaged in our conversations whether any useful advice is there.
Company A. After a month or so I am no longer invited to any strategy meetings and get no update for many many months. Not even an email. In fact getting any stats out of them is very difficult.
Company B. We setup monthly very informal meets that give me a complete run down on the sites progress. I am given access to analytic stats.
Company A. One year later - spent a fortune on dev and marketing. Got no traction and suddenly running out of money. I am not going to invest more.
Company B. Massive traction, huge interest and I am looking at investing in the next phase.
Now the results of both companies has nothing to do with me but Company A leaves such a bad taste and Company B leaves such a warm glowing feeling that I wonder whether there is something in the way the Companies are run that has resulted in their success/failure.
Of course I don't want to see either fail but I know which one has a good chance and which one doesn't.
NOTE : if any of the above happens to fit your company that I invested in then it is merely coincidental.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Addressing Issue
When was the last time you read a site's Terms and Conditions. Even if you do they are usually so long and legalistic its a bit of a lottery to understand some of the important terms. So what is the point if after using a service and agreeing to the unread T&C's, the that site goes and changes them to allow them to do something you didn't allow them to do.
It came out last week that a lot of sites have accessing our address books on our iPhones and not just using the data (I sort of knew and expected that) but actually storing it. Firstly Path got caught out and then it transpires that a lot of other sites, including Twitter do so. And what does Twitter do - it changes its T&C's so that in place of "scan your contacts", the site will use "upload your contacts" and "import your contacts" instead, for iPhone and Android apps respectively. This makes a mockery of it.
Sorry everyone - at last count I had a address book of over a 1000 names, addresses, email and phone numbers. Looks like every app I've ever downloaded could be storing your data without you knowing.
It came out last week that a lot of sites have accessing our address books on our iPhones and not just using the data (I sort of knew and expected that) but actually storing it. Firstly Path got caught out and then it transpires that a lot of other sites, including Twitter do so. And what does Twitter do - it changes its T&C's so that in place of "scan your contacts", the site will use "upload your contacts" and "import your contacts" instead, for iPhone and Android apps respectively. This makes a mockery of it.
Sorry everyone - at last count I had a address book of over a 1000 names, addresses, email and phone numbers. Looks like every app I've ever downloaded could be storing your data without you knowing.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Valuation Madness Again
I still haven't met anyone who says Facebook's valuation is sensible or anyone who actually says they will buy some shares. When companies like this normally go public everyone rushes to buy shares. I suspect a lot of people will but won't admit it for some reason. (Update - just done a thumb.it vote and 83% say No)
But Facebook's valuation is worrying. Its making lots of other companies valuations go up relative to them. I have spoken to a few people recently and their current fund raising round valuation seem inflated.
Of course the value of a company when it is trading with revenue and profits is reasonably straight forward under a set of calculations. However valuing a start up with just an idea and no track record is plain finger in the air. I should know I've been on both sides of the negotiation many times. Generally its the old adage of what someone will pay for it. And that comes down to gut feel and fair negotiation (not Dragons Den negotiation)
Is it my imagination or have we gone back a over a decade and forgotten nothing that went on in the boom and bust internet crash of 2000? Valuations then were crazy, money was being thrown at some of the most ridiculous companies and business models it makes made me sigh in disbelief.
However, maybe the Facebook IPO will actually make this more sustainable than a decade ago. Think of all the millionaires Facebook is going to create.A lot of them will go onto to create their own startups and a lot will invest back into tech startups. Thats a lot of cash flushing around and hence companies will probably be able to stand the high valuation.
I still think its mad.
But Facebook's valuation is worrying. Its making lots of other companies valuations go up relative to them. I have spoken to a few people recently and their current fund raising round valuation seem inflated.
Of course the value of a company when it is trading with revenue and profits is reasonably straight forward under a set of calculations. However valuing a start up with just an idea and no track record is plain finger in the air. I should know I've been on both sides of the negotiation many times. Generally its the old adage of what someone will pay for it. And that comes down to gut feel and fair negotiation (not Dragons Den negotiation)
Is it my imagination or have we gone back a over a decade and forgotten nothing that went on in the boom and bust internet crash of 2000? Valuations then were crazy, money was being thrown at some of the most ridiculous companies and business models it makes made me sigh in disbelief.
However, maybe the Facebook IPO will actually make this more sustainable than a decade ago. Think of all the millionaires Facebook is going to create.A lot of them will go onto to create their own startups and a lot will invest back into tech startups. Thats a lot of cash flushing around and hence companies will probably be able to stand the high valuation.
I still think its mad.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Pinteresting
I've read a lot this week about Pinterest and the fact its gaining revenue through affiliate marketing. Shock horror - social website makes money. This really resonated with me from my past again.
In the interest of transparency first though, let me inform you that I do have personal interest in this story. I own a small stake (very small) in the company who does the affiliate marketing for Pinterest - Skimlinks. Happy days (hopefully) - Right thats out of the way.
There seems to be people shocked that a site like Pinterest could possible make money from people clicking on the images on their site. Why could anyone complain - its not intrusive advertising - do these people want the site spoilt by adverts everywhere. And they only get a commission paid if the person clicking on the image goes to a third party site and buys a product or a service. It's win-win-win.
Affiliate marketing does have some other sides to it I admit. Fake sites that draw users into them to then pass them onto other proper consumer sites to try and earn a commission are not in my mind legitimate businesses. In fact, if truth be told, I managed to recently find myself associated with one, didn't like the practise and am now politely excusing myself.
But back to people getting out of their tree on such things.
These are the same people I suspect that I had to deal with 11 years ago. Yes it's time for me to harp back to the old days of FriendsReunited (sorry I always do this)
In early 2001, FriendsReunited, which had sort of started off as a hobby for Julie my wife, was beginning to get some traction. Therefore bandwidth and server space was beginning to cost us more and more (a lot more expensive than now) Our time was getting taken up too, nearly full time. The ad revenue from the one ad we had on the site was paying peanuts - this was the bust period of the internet boom/bust a decade ago. We didn't want to start selling email addresses and stick ads all over the place (like some companies that had just gone bust did)
So therefore what to do.
Over a round of drinks in the pub we decided to introduce a subscription model for a premium service on the site - i.e., to actually contact people. It was the massive sum of £5 per year (that figure because we didn't get change from 2 pints of lager)
Whilst almost from the start the idea of introducing this charge became a great success, initially from some quarters we had a backlash from certain users. We got "The internet is free", "How dare you charge to send an email", "I loved your site until this" etc etc. It was such crap. I actually enjoyed responding to each one individually explaining how the site was run by 3 of us from a bedroom and how much it was starting to cost us. Nearly all were won over.
Strange that things have not moved on in over a decade - that people still begrudge a revenue on something perceived as free. I suppose there are always ranters out there - me being one.
In the interest of transparency first though, let me inform you that I do have personal interest in this story. I own a small stake (very small) in the company who does the affiliate marketing for Pinterest - Skimlinks. Happy days (hopefully) - Right thats out of the way.
There seems to be people shocked that a site like Pinterest could possible make money from people clicking on the images on their site. Why could anyone complain - its not intrusive advertising - do these people want the site spoilt by adverts everywhere. And they only get a commission paid if the person clicking on the image goes to a third party site and buys a product or a service. It's win-win-win.
Affiliate marketing does have some other sides to it I admit. Fake sites that draw users into them to then pass them onto other proper consumer sites to try and earn a commission are not in my mind legitimate businesses. In fact, if truth be told, I managed to recently find myself associated with one, didn't like the practise and am now politely excusing myself.
But back to people getting out of their tree on such things.
These are the same people I suspect that I had to deal with 11 years ago. Yes it's time for me to harp back to the old days of FriendsReunited (sorry I always do this)
In early 2001, FriendsReunited, which had sort of started off as a hobby for Julie my wife, was beginning to get some traction. Therefore bandwidth and server space was beginning to cost us more and more (a lot more expensive than now) Our time was getting taken up too, nearly full time. The ad revenue from the one ad we had on the site was paying peanuts - this was the bust period of the internet boom/bust a decade ago. We didn't want to start selling email addresses and stick ads all over the place (like some companies that had just gone bust did)
So therefore what to do.
Over a round of drinks in the pub we decided to introduce a subscription model for a premium service on the site - i.e., to actually contact people. It was the massive sum of £5 per year (that figure because we didn't get change from 2 pints of lager)
Whilst almost from the start the idea of introducing this charge became a great success, initially from some quarters we had a backlash from certain users. We got "The internet is free", "How dare you charge to send an email", "I loved your site until this" etc etc. It was such crap. I actually enjoyed responding to each one individually explaining how the site was run by 3 of us from a bedroom and how much it was starting to cost us. Nearly all were won over.
Strange that things have not moved on in over a decade - that people still begrudge a revenue on something perceived as free. I suppose there are always ranters out there - me being one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)