DISQUS

Information Arbitrage: Where and How am I Investing in Early-Stage Today?

  • innonate · 1 year ago
    Which of these bullet points are the most scarcely found in a startup you see, generally, and which do you expect to be more scarce in a down economy?
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    dude, what a great question. in general, i'd say that the roi-based sell is the one i see least frequently yet is the most important to me right now. and i think as the environment gets worse, speed to revenues will become the most challenging criterion. if advertising really falls, then most social media start-ups will struggle. the companies that are likely to get to revenues in such an environment are those that can demonstrate immediate value, products that are lightweight, easy to use, the value proposition is clear and require little integration. these are the roi-based products of which i speak.
  • innonate · 1 year ago
    Well, in that case, you've just written the blog post I've been wanting to write.

    I agree 100% It's about quickly effecting a company's bottom line and, more specifically, their expenses.

    Now is the time to sell belt tighteners!

    Why? Because the last generation of startups paved the way for light-weight apps to become integrated into business. Businesses are ready to throw out the old expensive ways, or introduce new ways, of using software for business.

    And new startups -- those who focus on easily integrating with businesses and saving them mone will not only kick butt in this market, they will be the next kings.
  • andyswan · 1 year ago
    Roger....

    1) Thanks for investing in mytrade....I hope we were helpful in accomplishing your goal with that investment.

    2) You could NOT be more right. Speed to ROI, speed to revenue will define the next gen of great investments.

    Despite what we are currently seeing, "we'll figure revenue later" is D-E-D and a dice-roll....as is "ad-based". I can't emphasize enough how quickly the companies that actually care about their bottom line will pull $10 CPM campaigns from the ones that don't.

    I'll take 10% of every deal you do from here (that's just where I am financially)....let's rock.
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    we've always been in sync, brotha. working with you on mytrade was a great experience, and you and lando were always focused on monetization from day 1. that's why you guys are so successful. i'm looking forward to many more such ventures in the future. rog
  • karls · 1 year ago
    Regarding the point: "Initially sells to the enterprise for branding, credibility, awareness and early revenues"

    Would it be realistic for a new startup to clinch these enterprise deals within 6 months? From my conversations with people with past experience in enterprise sales, most gives the impression that enterprise sales is much harder to crack than consumer/small business sales and may take at least 1 year before you get a breakthrough.
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    Karl, for clarification, it's 6 months from the time i invest, not 6 months from the time they started. most of the companies i fund have been around for 6-12 months before i ever help put their round together.
  • David Sifry · 1 year ago
    Great post Roger. Very well put. I'm with you on the advertising sector - unless you're already big with an established name, I think it is going to be really tough to succeed in hard times with an advertising model as the core model, unless you have LOTS of funding and a very very viral and marketable niche (gadgets, mortgages, etc).

    But I think there's a WHOLE lot of companies that are going to do very well by filling needs that entrenched businesses can't or won't support, and companies that invest in downtimes will be the ones who break out when the good times return...

    Dave
  • fredwilson · 1 year ago
    the problem with investing in enterprise oriented web services is two fold:

    1) you have to sell to the enterprise which requires expensive sales people and increases burn. sales cycles are long and it's hard to get a lot of product feedback from a small customer base
    2) when its so cheap to build a web service, there will always be a free service you'll be competing with

    that's why i think a freemium model is the only way to attack that market
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    fred, not sure i fully agree with you here. if the founders understand the enterprise and have lived in that world, they know how to access it and sell to it. also, the ticket sizes of deals tend to be (relatively) high, so some early quick hits pay for a lot of r&d and can fund additional development and sales. and not all businesses, imho, subject themselves to "free." while many do, others don't, and those are areas i'm focusing on. now some of the models i'm funding don't ultimately rely on a high ticket price, and begin to approach free, but that is after they've established a beachhead in the enterprise as a paid service, after which point they can attack the smb at a substantially lower price point.
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    fred, i don't completely agree. firstly, if you back people that know the enterprise, have sold to the enterprise before and know the drill, it makes getting early wins much easier. also, because of the average ticket size per deal, you only new a few early wins to fund a lot of r&d and sales help. also, i think the issue of feedback is more one of engagement as opposed to sheer numbers, particularly in the enterprise. finally, i'm not convinced that every business application, by definition, needs to be free. most of the stuff i fund starts out (relatively) inexpensively, and then gets cheaper over time as elements of it become open sourced which then makes it accessible to the long tail, or the smbs in this case.

    we just have different models and target audiences. but i think both can, are and will continue to be successful.
  • kenberger · 1 year ago
    Fair enough defense, but yet another other issue w/ selling to the enterprise is that often times, enterprises have a policy of never doing business w/ startups, even if you do have top sales folks. This is particularly true in the mobile industry.
  • darrellross · 1 year ago
    @kenberger makes a good point. There are many enterprises that will not do business with startups in today's business climate. In the late 90s, it seemed to be easier - you had companies that offered truly unique technologies or approaches to business issues (remember Personify, Blue Martini, Broadvision?). Because there was so much FUD during those days (e.g, "we gotta jump on the internet or else WebVan will eat our lunch") that enterprises welcomed startups with open arms. These days, the FUD factor is diminished. Technology procurement cycles are more involved. Enterprises want a larger throat to choke.

    Case in point - let's look at the app dev tools area. There are 70-ish providers of AJAX component libraries and frameworks, ranging from commercial to open-source. Except for Google and Yahoo's support for two of these 70 AJAX options, the next largest commercial backer is TIBCO. So......Flex is trouncing the field as an alternative to AJAX for building rich internet apps because of the corporate backing of Adobe. In the RIA field, enterprises realize that Adobe offers the largest throat to choke.
  • Mukund Mohan · 1 year ago
    I think we have several examples of companies (like ours, Zoho, etc.) that dont need expensive and long sales cycles. Re: Fred's point, if you target specific titles within the enterprise with a niche value proposition to save time or money you get traction quickly. And the "enterprise" side of the equation is the money actually comes unlike selling to startups which have payment issues.
  • aarondelcohen · 1 year ago
    Roger:

    I think we have to ask ourselves why there are not more Runescapes and Club Penguins or we might even think of these as HBOs.

    Obviously, these companies can be more capital intensive, but one of the reason I fear Jason's warning about the Startup Implosion could be accurate is the page view for advertising arbitrage business model. Most VC portfolios are full of rather one dimensional nice web services that aggregate audiences, but have a terrible time differentiating their audience in sales process. Therefore, their traffic gets reaggregated by an intermediary ad network. Perhaps this is a volume business and proftable at scale, but it certainly is not 40% EBITDA, and worse, these companies don't own the paying customer/advertiser.

    Where are the investments in companies that want to charge for the products/services they build?
  • shafqat · 1 year ago
    Everything you said makes sense. In fact, I think your requirements should apply at all times, not just during tough market conditions. There's really no excuse for startups not to be lean, agile and cheap. Maximizing output from scarce resources is what entrepreneurship is all about.

    So can we get in touch with you re: funding? ;-)
  • Craig Swerdloff · 1 year ago
    The softness in the advertising market will likely be specific to branding dollars, not performance media. For social media startups to survive, they need to find a way to turn successful P2P interactions, into successful P2Advertiser interactions.

    That does not mean get desperate (shove ad in face tactics) and pray your audience remains. I would start by leveraging data more comprehensively. Look to license data to ad and data exchanges. Incorporate CoRegistration offers seamlessly into your registration path. Build a marketable email and postal list, and license it to a reputable list manager. Partner with someone who can place text ads in email newsletters, P2P email, and SMS messaging.

    My startup is perhaps too early stage for Roger, but our focus is on improving ROLeadSpend for enterprise clients prospecting on the web. This market should help us.
  • SAG · 1 year ago
    Wonderful post. Everything here I think is fair and reasonable, although I agree with Fred Wilson that a freemium model is best for maximizing market penetration while also securing non-ad-based revenues.

    There is one point I don't understand here. Could you please elaborate on your point, "A business that has an inherent call option, that could boost its base-line exit value by at least 10x"?
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    sag, for instance, like taking a successful enterprise app and making it open source, enabling you to tap into the long tail of smbs. the enterprise app business on its own may be attractive and warrant funding, but the really exciting thing is disrupting an entire sector by providing an enterprise-quality open source solution. this is simply one example of the leverage i am talking about.
  • Ted Murphy · 1 year ago
    Well, my new company hits on all of these metrics. The only thing you haven't mentioned is a barrier to entry. I expect my new market to be massive, and the competitors to swamp us. I'm just hoping we can be aggressive enough to keep a small piece of the pie. Actually, that's the only rationale I can see for bringing in outside investors. They would help us in terms of contacts and stability more than financing.
  • tianyu · 1 year ago
    Are you interested in my project --- http://www.netfeesoftware.com
    if you do, can contact me : lty@netfeesoftware.com
  • andrew · 1 year ago
    Roger, first off, long time reader. Thank you very much for doing this, you've been a constant read of mine for months now and I wouldn't be able to grasp the situation today nearly as well if it were not for your thoughts on this blog.

    My question is this: as a 24 year old, is this the mantra you had? If you did, great. If not, what got you on the course?
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    No way was this my mantra. I only started early-stage investing 4.5 years ago. It is only through immersing myself in the business, looking at lots of deals, doing some, sitting on some boards, helping start a company (which was founded, grew and then shut down) and thinking about lessons learned that I codified my thought process. At age 24? Hell no. Try 38.
  • Engago team · 1 year ago
    OK
    We agree completely and comply with your criteria as those were our starting points.
  • Mat · 1 year ago
    Roger. Great post.

    What do you mean by "A business that has an inherent call option, that could boost its base-line exit value by at least 10x"?
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    See my reply to SAG above.
  • glemak · 1 year ago
    good thoughtful post - i added my thoughts on it in this friendfeed thread - http://friendfeed.com/e/a10a9ff1-3087-4638-9de8...
  • Andrew Rauch · 1 year ago
    Can you share your view for how important it is to quantify the character and behavior of the board and leadership team pre-funding?
  • lurking22 · 1 year ago
    Still bullish?
  • infoarbitrage · 1 year ago
    I never said I was bullish, I said there are still good deals to do and I am going to do them. My position is fundamentally unchanged. When all looks like sh*t is means that large swaths of investors aren't thinking long-term. I am. And as long as companies are well-run, well-funded and positioned to sell in a hostile environment, then when things turn up they will have tremendous leverage for success.
  • patriciawo0323 · 10 months ago
    tu blog es excelente! te mando 789 felicitaciones!