Strategic Investors – You’ll Have Sold Your Company. You Just Won’t Know It.

Angel-vs-Devil-cropped2

According to CB Insights, 30% of fundraising dollars in Q1 2014 was from strategic (or corporate) investors, with corporate VC funds participating in 15% of all rounds. The discussion invariably comes up at Board Meetings when a fundraising process is begun. Legendary VC Ted Dintersmith of CRV once said to me, about taking capital from strategics, “Be careful. You’ll have sold your company. You just won’t know it.”

These days, a new class of investors, corporate funds like Google Ventures and Intel Capital, operate more like a financial VC than typical strategic investors. Nonetheless, I’ve been on the receiving end of strategic investments for nearly all of the companies I co-founded, and I’ve learned a lot. Ted’s words still ring true today.

Below are some examples and lessons learned.

Example #1 – Handshake.com & SBC Communications (1998-2001)
In ‘98 Handshake built one of the first online booking and scheduling platforms for small businesses (from hair salons to house cleaners). Not far from Handshake’s offices in Marina Del Rey, CA was a corporate skunk works projects called Smart Pages. Smart Pages, a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC Communications, was formed with the distinct purpose of developing a “next-gen Yellow Pages.” SmartPages and corporate parent SBC Communications seemed eager to do a deal with Handshake. So, roughly one year from our A round, we closed a $20M financing at a $100M valuation (despite virtually no revenue and only a basic product).

My lessons learned at Handshake:

Valuation hypnosis – Don’t be bamboozled by sky high strategic valuations, they create issues for future financings – we would have been better off with a lower valuation from a conventional VC

No fairweather fans – Some strategic investments are used to justify corporate side projects or to tell a “story” to Wall St (in this case, that SBC was hip to the web). When winds shift, the strategics aren’t always around to help. Often their investment vehicles are the first to go.

Example #2 — Brontes & a large private co. (2003-2010)
Brontes Technologies (sold to 3M in 2006) developed a 3D scanner and digital workflow software for dentists. Our strategy early on at Brontes was to get close to potential investors, partners, and acquirers, but not too close. As we were getting ready to raise our Series B, conversations heated up with a large, privately held dental products company. We had had discussions with other players, but felt that taking capital from most industry players would have limited our exit options (fortunately Ted Dintersmith was on our board!). Playing hard to get paid off with the other potential strategics. The Series B fundraising process catalyzed the M&A process and we ultimately sold the company.

We learned:

Everyone wants to join the club that won’t have them – Strategic investor interest can sometimes be parlayed into an M&A process. (turn them down as investors and they may want to buy the company even more)

Keep your enemies close (but not too close) – Be careful of whom you share information, some parties will use it to learn but have no intention of investing or acquiring despite their overtures.

Example #3 — Sample6 & Chevron Tech Ventures (2011+)
Sample6, spun out of BU and MIT, develops a technology for rapid detection and elimination of harmful bacteria in a wide variety of applications. Early on at Sample6, we were eager to explore applications in oil & gas and thus took Series A capital from Chevron Tech Ventures. However, over time, we determined that the right applications for the technology were in the food and water industries, not oil & gas. This took some of the bloom off the rose for Chevron.

Our mistakes were:

Figure out what you want to be when you grow up – We took strategic money too early- before we had really firmed up the company’s ultimate use case. We let strategic interest drive the initial explorations of the company instead of focusing on where the highest value could be created with the technology.

Crossing signals – There can be real signaling risk in taking strategic money early as well. Since we no longer were executing oil & gas applications, future investors always wondered why Chevron was invested in the first place.

I’m not suggesting that companies should never take strategic or corporate money under any circumstances. Just tread carefully – understand how the strategic’s fund (if there is one) is set up, how the managers are compensated, and speak to other portfolio companies. Strategic capital is typically best used in later rounds from investing companies that have a neutral spot in your market, and, where there is a true champion from the operating team.

Cats in the Cradle: Aging in the start-up world

harry chapin cats in the cradle backing track

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s a funny thing about age in business. It swings quickly between being your greatest asset and seemingly overnight, a major liability. It’s a factor on all sides of the table. Despite the lesson that we learned in Kindergarten about “not judging a book by its cover,” we all do it. Age impacts fundraising, business development, sales, hiring and more.

Spring 1999

The moment I walked into the room of blue blazer clad venture capitalists, I felt like such a kid. I was at least 15 years younger than the youngest guy in the room. I just graduated from college and had no real business experience. Fortunately for me and my other 22-year old Handshake.com co-founders, it was the beginning of the dot com era. It was a moment in the venture ecosystem when youth was a huge advantage (like today). The mantra was “new (read as: young) industry” is disrupting “old industry.” The younger, the better. I could get meetings with senior execs of many public companies. We secured $3 million in funding within a few weeks of presenting our business. Youth had its advantages. That was, until the bottom fell out of the market in the fall of 2000. Then youth, mine included, turned into a major liability.

Fall 2003

Eric Paley and I were fundraising for Brontes Technologies. We were rejected more than 30 times by VCs. We were often branded as “freshly minted MBAs,” (not a compliment) and we didn’t look the part of your typical Boston med-tech founding team. Neither of us had gray hair nor were we career dental industry executives. One VC asked us, “Which one of you went to dental school?” Our age was totally working against us. We later brought another founder aboard, an experienced tech CTO who, incidentally, had grey, thinning hair. Sure enough, we closed the Series A.

Spring 2011

When I first started fundraising with my co-founders for Sample6, I thought I would be viewed as perfectly ripened. I was mid-30s and had a company “exit” behind me. I later realized that the perspective really depended on who I was talking to. Some VCs perceived entrepreneurs to be in their primes when in their mid-20s, like professional athletes, others prefer older founders. And with the upswing in IT investing (as opposed to med-tech), youth was particularly valued. Had I become a washed-up entrepreneur?

Today

I always thought I’d switch over to the venture side sometime in my 40s. It seemed like an older person’s game. That was until a trusted mentor of mine confessed, “Venture is a young man’s game, just like the start-ups we invest in.” That was all I needed to hear. Everything requires hustle in the end. So, at 37, I became a VC.

As a VC, I hear pitches almost every day. I would say the majority of the founders that pitch me are younger than me, though, there’s quite a bit of variability. When I feel the need to put a founder at ease, I make a joke about my age (I find self-effacing humor to be disarming). I often think about founder-business fit when evaluating an opportunity. So, if someone is in their 40s or 50s and talking about their idea for a social networking or dating app, I am negatively biased. Not sure that it’s the right bias, but it exists.

My advice is that one should be self-aware of how they come off in the room. Are you noticeably older/younger than the others? Either way the old adage is true – if you can’t hide it, flaunt it. Make a joke about it and get everyone to look past age and focus on substance and not, in my case, the dwindling number of hairs on your head.

From the front lines of a NYC office hunt — Our new home at 580 Broadway

photo 2 (1)

580 Broadway – After build out

photo 3

580 Broadway – Before build out

I’m proud to say that Founder Collective has a new home in NYC. We’ve just moved to 580 Broadway in Soho. We’re thrilled. But getting here wasn’t easy. Here’s what I learned while out on the hunt for new space.

Set your parameters clearly at the outset, and conduct the search with several brokers at once.

When we started our search we anticipated looking primarily in the Flatiron and Union Square and we expected low $40s per sqft. The market proved to be much more expensive (and tight) than we expected – especially for small footprints of 1-2,000 sqft in downtown Manhattan. Within 48 hours of listing, a desirable spot had several offers. We fell in love with a slick, top-floor space on 23rd St that, amazingly, was on budget. We put the offer in as soon as we returned from the showing, and it was too late. Because we asked for a three-year term instead of the five the landlord was asking, we lost out to another bidder.

After losing 23rd St, we decided to expand the southern border of our search to Tribeca despite that it would add to the team’s collective commute. Broadening the search helped, and we got more firm on budget and specs. We tracked everything on a Google Doc, checked 42floors.com religiously and worked with several brokers concurrently. The best brokers were hustlers who called us the minute they saw a space available that they thought we’d like.  We also found that the best brokers knew the landlords well, and they often had the inside scoop on a given building.

Startups (and others) should consider sharing or subleasing.

Subleases and office shares are ideal for the start-up. Its often best for the start-up to be the roommate. Security deposits required by some buildings can be 6 months or more depending on the credit history of the company (often on the larger side for early stage companies). For a fast growing company, or a super early stage company, this can be prohibitively expensive and a major drain on cash. More established companies (Series B/C+), or venture funds in our case, have better financials and thus can negotiate lower security deposits. Additionally, companies that are taking larger footprints (>5000 sqft) also typically have more room to negotiate rents, security deposits and build out costs. In one instance, we have 2 portfolio companies moving in together to distribute costs and end up with better space at a better deal (often the larger the footprint, the better the deal).

Don’t fall in love and don’t over-optimize

Searching for an office is pretty similar to searching for a home or apartment. It’s a grueling process that mixes the emotional with the rational. The emotional side (the “feel” of a space, how it impacts one’s commute etc) is hard to separate from the rational (budget, size, price per sqft etc). Just like searching for a home, however, one must temper the temptation to over-optimize. Real estate, particularly in NYC, is filled with trade-offs. Find the best place, move in and get back to business.

 

Investments over dinner and board room – Angels v Seed Funds

Image

(embarrassing picture from an old Newsweek article)

Eric Paley called me one evening to talk about an angel deal he was looking at. I was cooking dinner with my wife when he phoned. We talked about whether behavioral psychology could really work in convincing consumers to reduce their energy consumption. Eric had known the founders for years and thought the world of them, and I had gotten to know one of them, and figured the business was a bet worth taking. While still cooking, I agreed to invest with Eric and Dave Frankel. That investment, Opower, is my best to date.

It got me thinking how different angel investing is from my role as an institutional seed investor. I no longer make investing decisions while cooking, and that’s just the start.

1000s of companies vs dozens

As an angel investor, I saw a dozen or two companies per year. For the better part of my angel investing career, I was running a business so I didn’t have time to meet hundreds of start-ups. Thus, my context was very different. My first year as an angel, I looked at a med device company, a sports nutrition company, and a restaurant business. I had very little context on any of these. In some sense, ignorance was an asset and thus it was easier to make a quick decision with limited data. There was no time or means to “get smart” in a given space, so if I didn’t get the gist of the business in the initial pitch, I didn’t invest. (that year, I invested in none which was a mistake!)

Founder Collective receives thousands of opportunities per year and we take about 1000 pitches. We track our “venture” funnel in a CRM (jerry rigged Salesforce.com). The minute I see a company that’s intriguing, I can see if we’ve met them before and ask my partners what they think. Usually one of them will have knowledge about the space or related companies. Thus, the context around each deal is much more developed when we make an investment.

Angels pursue passion, invest in the network (and mostly ignore valuation)

When you’re investing your own capital, you can invest in stuff you’re passionate about. Noted angel investor Andy Palmer pays particular attention to the healthcare space, and Joanne Wilson favors women entrepreneurs in the industries she knows well. I invested primarily in my network – virtually everyone I invested in as an angel was someone I knew.

In the seed fund world, investing is our business. We can’t just invest in industries or people that we know. (If so, I would only invest in dental companies!) We make 20-30 investments per year. There simply wouldn’t be enough opportunities. That isn’t to say we don’t have high conviction and enthusiasm for the stuff we fund, its just that we need to explore a myriad of opportunities. Additionally, while some more experienced angels are price sensitive, as a fund, we are much more focused on valuation than I was as an angel. Angels don’t need to think about IRR, mainly cash on cash return, but as a fund we’re measured on it.

Follow on support

I did very little to check in on my investments. Often times, I wouldn’t even be aware of follow-on financings. These investments were for fun and hopefully a little extra “alpha” for my personal portfolio.

As a partner at Founder Collective, I’m responsible for keeping my partners up to speed on our companies. In turn, we have to keep our investors (LPs) updated on the performance of our companies. We discuss them at our annual meeting and they receive regular reports on their value. There’s a benefit here, which is our portfolio gets the benefit of help not just from me, but from the whole FC team and sometimes, even our LPs.

The increase in the universe of angels and seed funds is a good thing for entrepreneurs, but with so many options, fundraising has gotten more complicated. Entrepreneurs today can sequence their fundraising, and graduate from Angel to Seed Fund to Series A fund, etc. This provides the entrepreneur with more options along the way, even for those starting companies in the dental industry!

 

SXSW observations (party meter is at 7)

After a few days running around Austin, I jotted down a few of my observations.

International flavor
Maybe it was the fantastic mix of Korean kimchi and Mexican tacos that I ate last night, but I sensed an international vibe to SXSW. I heard numerous accents and languages spoken throughout the convention center. Prior to the conference, I received invites from dozens of groups outside the US hosting events. The Silicon Valley culture has definitely permeated the globe (nobody carries that torch better than Dave McClure). Moreover, the Whatsapp acquisition has led the generally inward focused tech community to understand the value of a global userbase.

Medtech is mainstream 
I saw connected health devices of all kinds. One example was Wello, an iPhone case that captures your vital signs. Another interesting one was Push Strength, a wearable that ensures you’re exerting the ideal amount of power when lifting weights. The R/GA accelerator in NY hosted its demo day in Austin as well, featuring a handful of intriguing connected devices. I still believe we’re in the early innings as it remains ambiguous as to how  consumers will use this information in our daily lives.

Commoditization of hardware is fast
I was in the market for a battery recharger (juice pack) and was able to pick one up that can charge my phone 2x for $20. I was shocked how cheap it was. It was a reminder that despite barriers to entry, hardware can commoditize quickly. Larger companies or companies that know how to access Asian manufacturing can produce similar quality stuff quickly and cheaply. It’s another reminder why upstart hardware companies must leverage software as their differentiator. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see lots of low-cost wearables in coming years.

SXSW fatigue
The conference was as energizing as ever. However, I noticed that some of the entrepreneurs and VCs I would have expected to attend, did not. I  heard someone say “The valley is over SXSW.”  While that didn’t feel to be the case, we did find that within the FC portfolio, fewer founders attended than in previous years. I suppose they’re all heads-down focused on growing their businesses instead of loading up on BBQ!

Tech party meter stands at 7
When I started Handshake.com in 1999, I remember attending a party on a huge yacht that served lobster and top shelf drinks.  A well known band performed on the deck. Those types of events were the mainstream in those days. While the parties at SXSW this year were  swank, and enthusiasm ran high, it didn’t feel over-the-top like I remember from 1999. On that metric, I’d put the tech party meter at about a 7, so I suppose we’re okay … for now.

Thirtysomething Entrepreneurship

As I recently hit the second half of my 30s, I must admit that my views towards entrepreneurship have changed since I launched my first comapany at 22. Entrepreneurs like myself are probably the least “career focused” people on the planet. I long held the romantic notion that I’d just keep starting companies until I could no longer form a coherent sentence. I never took the long view – always focused on the venture at hand, even the specific issue of the moment. Lately, however, I’ve become more philosophical about start-ups, risk and the long-term entrepreneurial career.

1)
30 somethings start to feel and think about their “legacy.” Perhaps intertwined in this is, unfortunately, a heightened sense of ego. Many serial entrepreneurs like myself focus on making their next venture bigger and more meaningful than the previous. It’s hard not to look at recent successes and IPOs and ask oneself “why not me?” Still, I try to not only think about building large businesses but ones that solve problems with real impact on society, with teams and products that I’ll always be proud of.

2)
The demands on time increase with age. When I started Handshake.com in 1998  the line between work and my social life was fuzzy at best. We were largely a group of recent Cornell grads who moved our all-nighters from Uris Library (sometimes!) to all-nighters building a web business.  My girlfriend (now wife) worked for free and we often wouldn’t get home until 2 or 3 in the morning. Nowadays, with 2 kids and ambitions like non-profit work, involvement in my kid’s school and a desire to stay active, the juggle of time is increasingly complex. Even one’s mortality starts to creep in the brain.

3)
For the first time, many have said to me, “the next years are your prime working years.” The unstated motive is that one should focus on earning enough for retirement, kid’s education and a place in Florida. By your mid-30s many peers have now been financially successful so even if you’ve done well, you’re likely not alone. In many cases, others seem to be working less hard and taking less risk. You can’t help but ask yourself “Am I the fool?” There are clearly easier, less stressful ways to make money, despite that they are far less fulfilling. 

That said, I couldn’t imagine doing anything else. Perhaps the problem with getting older is you think too much. Next time I won’t wait til I’m 22 to start my first venture!

Dropping Science

The delta between academic lab projects and a commercial product is huge and often underestimated. Similarly, the challenge of moving from a science-based culture to a product/commercially minded one is equally daunting. I’ve found myself working this set of issues for almost a decade. Recently, I’ve learned that the problem is more acute in companies that have a biological component to the product.

In my web and hardware days, we hired “engineers.” In biotech and bio-diagnostics (like Novophage), a disproportionate percentage of job candidates call themselves “scientists.” This distinction is more than just a name, it suggests to me that there’s an inherent lab bias in the culture and training of today’s biotech community. The desire to think in an applied manner hasn’t permeated this community as strongly as the software or hardware communities. Some of this may stem from the state of maturation of biological sciences relative to other fields – perhaps it’s more like the web circa 1995.

I’ve also observed that bio-based companies tend to speak much more about platforms than products. This is an interesting paradox to me. I would have expected a focus on solving constrained problems given the sheer complexity and lack of understanding of biological processes.

As trite as it seems, I think the physical barrier of a separate lab impacts this mentality as well. In my previous ventures, our office was a giant open bullpen where marketing guys and coders were a few feet from each other. However, with a physical lab, you’re forced to separate those in the lab from those outside the lab. There are good reasons for having a separate lab (e.g. spilling pathogens in the conference room is not usually a good idea) but the barrier translates both physically and psychologically.

At Novophage, we’ve worked hard to address these issues by taking a somewhat unique approach to company building. We keep our burn lean by avoiding high salaries and buying used equipment. We’re building a mindset around short-term milestones that translate directly to market needs. We talk about products and specific value creation to a customer as opposed to general platform capabilities. That’s not say we neglect the ultimate long-term value of what we’re building, but rather our day-to-day activities are focused on specific goals. Just as I’ve done in previous ventures, we have daily huddles where everyone quickly shares what their goals are and relevant updates for the group.

Changing mindsets and cultures is not easy work, however, I think it’s critical for commercial success. For the first time in my career, I believe I am not simply trying to build a great new product, but also bring a different development philosophy to the field of biological tools. That’s pretty inspiring.