Why The Stimulus Package Isn't For Startups: The Gov't Doesn't Want Creative Destruction

from the startups-are-about-short-term-job-destruction dept

Earlier this week, I was on a fun panel put together by the Telecom Council of Silicon Valley, which was mainly focused on what the Obama Stimulus plan (and the broadband allocation specifically) would most likely mean for the industry. At one point, an attendee in the audience said that he was from a startup, and questioned how he might partake of the stimulus funds -- and I responded, perhaps flippantly, that he was out of luck: the stimulus isn't for startups. That's not entirely true, of course. There will be some token amounts of money handed out to startups, but pretty much everyone on the panel agreed, the administration has made clear that the stimulus package is about creating jobs as quickly as possible, and the administration has made it clear in so many words that this means handing it to incumbents. They've been pretty frank that the stimulus plan has a lot less to do with increasing broadband capabilities than with job creations -- and plans to get funds that show more job creation will get preference over those that actually increase broadband.

And that's why the stimulus package is not for startups -- and is potentially dangerous in the long run. Truly revolutionary startups don't immediately create jobs -- they destroy them. The process of creative destruction takes on those incumbent providers and wipes them out. We're seeing it with plenty of industries today that are challenged by new upstarts that have upset their old business models. And, while most economists should recognize that this process is good for the overall economy, in that it leads to economic growth and more efficiency, it does upset the status quo, and causes many big companies to contract or disappear altogether.

So, think about it from a government bureaucrat's perspective right now. Go back a few decades, and assume someone came to you with a plan to create the internet -- and even accurately described how it would allow a great free exchange of information. The reaction, if you were trying to deal with an economic crisis, would be to focus on all of the jobs it upset. People can share music online? Think of all the job losses in the music industry! People can read news for free? Think of all those newspapers shutting down! But they wouldn't consider all of the economic activity created by the internet -- the billions of dollars and millions of new jobs created thanks to it.

If, today, you had a concept for a totally new technology that would greatly increase broadband access across the globe, in a revolutionary way. It would allow anyone to have super high speed access anywhere. It wouldn't be that costly to create or build or even maintain... and it wouldn't even require making use of existing infrastructure. From any normal calculation this would be fantastic. It would spur enormous new economic growth opportunities and speed along our economy in massively useful ways. Yet, it's exactly the type of project the government would be against right now -- because it would make AT&T, Verizon and others obsolete... and think of how many people that would put out of work, at the same time that the gov't wants to claim how many jobs it's created.

That's an extreme hypothetical, but it's useful in illustrating the point. So, this focus on using the stimulus for short-term job creation is dangerous in that it will likely be used to prop up existing incumbent businesses, because they can create the most jobs most quickly -- by doing very inefficient things. The startups that do things more efficiently end up doing short term job destruction, even if the long-term results would be a much larger, more stable economy with larger job creation.

Filed Under: creative destruction, job creation, startups, stimulus

Journalism Isn't Dead: More Journalism Projects Getting Funded

from the ain't-dead-yet dept

Last week, in yet another post about old school journalists complaining about the supposed "death" of journalism, someone complained in the comments, saying that the "utter lack of interest" from venture capitalists concerning journalism startups should disprove that there are others out there who can build such a business. That seems like a ridiculous criteria (venture capital interest is hardly a barometer of what works and what doesn't). But, even if we assume that you need to see VC interest, well, then that commenter is wrong also. Someone anonymous pointed us to the recent launch of Patch, a company that is hiring full-time journalists and building hyperlocal community sites and is funded by Polar Capital. And that's hardly the only one. In the last month alone I've had conversations with three different VCs looking at journalism startups and exploring whether their models made sense. Once again, we're seeing that if there's demand for a product (journalism), there will be businesses that will figure out ways to supply it. Not all will succeed. In fact, many will fail. But from that we'll certainly come up with models that work.

Filed Under: funding, journalism, startups
Companies: patch, polar capital

Microsoft Tries A 'First One's Free' Strategy To Lure Startups

from the you-know-you-want-to-try... dept

Microsoft certainly recognizes the fact that most startups these days are automatically gravitating to a LAMP infrastructure (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP). So, now it seems to be trying out a new program to lure startups by offering them free software for a few years and combining it with additional services that they hope will appeal to startups. It's an interesting approach, though, in the long run, it still seems like they may have the equation backwards. While they are giving some stuff away free initially, the ultimate goal is to lock companies into paying for infinite goods like software, rather than scarcities like services.

Filed Under: free, services, software, startups
Companies: microsoft

Do Celebrities And Startups Mix?

from the where's-william-shatner? dept

Back during the first dot com boom, you may recall that various startups started to suddenly find "celebrity" front men, from Whoopi Goldberg touting "Flooz" to William Shatner pitching Priceline. This time around, it appears that the various Hollywood celebrities are perhaps a bit more involved in various web startups, but does it matter beyond getting an initial burst of press? Liz Gannes, over at GigaOm, has a good look at the rise of "celebrity" startup founders, noting that while there are a bunch of Hollywood folks jumping in and starting web companies, not many of them have done all that well (at best, a few are muddling along). Apparently, unlike Hollywood, having a big name star isn't all that's needed to make something a success. It also needs a plan that works.

Filed Under: celebrities, founders, silicon valley, startups

Powerset Turns Out To Not Be All That Powerful

from the powering-down dept

We never understood the hype around Powerset. It was the latest in an extremely long line of startups that claimed to focus on "natural language search" -- which is one of those holy grails for computer scientists who never stop to ask whether or not there's actually any market demand for it. As Google has shown, people don't need to use natural language to search. They're just fine doing keyword search. Yet, for some unclear reason, Powerset was able to raise a ton of money at a ridiculous valuation, and did so using all sorts of buzzwords (and vague patent threats). But when it finally released a product (just to search Wikipedia) it proved to be rather ho hum. Searching Wikipedia via other means was still more effective.

Now comes the news (first leaked last week) that Microsoft has bought Powerset. While both sides will present this as a big win, the numbers being tossed about ($100 million) are not a big win at all for Powerset's investors, and the exit certainly falls well short of the hype around Powerset. If Powerset was actually seeing any traction at all it never would have agreed to sell at that price. Basically, Powerset discovered what was widely known by industry watchers for years: natural language search is a neat challenge, but it's not something the market is demanding. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft actually does anything with the technology, but my guess is that it will slowly fade away. If anything, Microsoft may do a little saber-rattling over the patents Powerset hyped up, but little else.

Filed Under: buyouts, hype, natural language search, search, startups
Companies: microsoft, powerset

What Happens If A Startup Founder Gets Hit By A Bus?

from the perhaps-not-much dept

The importance of a founder working at a company is a question that gets a lot of attention for various reasons. Most startup founders certainly want to stick around and see their "baby" through, obviously. However, once investors get involved, the role of founders gets trickier. Investors often ask the key question: "what happens if a key founder gets hit by a bus?" That's the point at which a founder needs to convince the investor that the structure of the company itself is so well established that it can live on without the founder. Of course, if they're too convincing, it can backfire when the investors look to replace the founder (as they very often do), noting that the founder made a convincing enough argument as to why they're not needed.

Of course, until now, all of the stories on this were anecdotal. But, Paul Kedrosky points us to new research that was done on what happens if a founder dies early on in the life of a company, in an attempt to determine just how important it is for founders to stick around. It may surprise many (as it surprised me) to discover that, apparently, there isn't much of an impact if the founder passes on. The only real impact is a brief hit to profitability -- but it doesn't seem to have much long term impact. In other words, it really does take a team of folks to successfully implement an idea and bring it to market. While that doesn't necessarily mean founders are "expendable," it does highlight the importance of a strong overall team, rather than reliance on a single "visionary" expected to guide all aspects of the company. It doesn't mean founders shouldn't watch out for speeding buses, however.

Filed Under: founders, startups

When We Said OLPC Should Act Like A Tech Company, We Didn't Mean Microsoft

from the bureaucracy dept

In the latest blow to the OLPC project, the organization's security chief, Ivan Krstić, has resigned over philosophical disagreements with the organization's direction. The nub of the dispute seems to be chairman Nicholas Negroponte's belief that now that it's out of its startup phase, the project needs to be run "more like Microsoft." Krstić complains that the organization's previous president, Walter Bender, was demoted, and Krstić was asked to report to "a manager with no technical or engineering background who was put in charge of all OLPC technology." Now as we've said before, it's healthy that the OLPC organization is beginning to realize that they face many of the same challenges as for-profit technology companies, and might be more successful if it adopted some of their methods. But bringing in non-technologists for senior leadership positions and adopting a rigidly hierarchical org chart might be taking things a little too far. Culture matters in technology companies, and it probably matters even more in an organization like OLPC that depends on having employees willing to go above and beyond the call of duty for relatively modest pay. More orderly management is a good thing, but not if you cause your best people to jump ship in the process.

Filed Under: non-profit, olpc, startups
Companies: olpc

Hollywood Writers Eye Startup Life

from the risky-business dept

The LA Times reports on ongoing negotiations between writers and venture capitalists to create Hollywood startups. Apparently "dozens" of Hollywood writers are looking to launch companies that would allow them to produce video content that would be distributed directly to fans on the web. We've noted that there are already a number of companies pursuing this strategy, and with thousands of talented writers sitting idle, this is an ideal time to start more of them. In the long run, these kinds of startups will ensure writers get compensated fairly because it will give writers who feel they're under-compensated an exit option. On the other hand, the LA Times makes clear that writers jumping into alternative business models may find that the reality of Hollywood startups to be a culture shock. A lot of successful online content outfits tend to be shoestring operations, and it's likely to take a few more years before the bulk of viewers make the switch to Internet-based sources of information. Writers used to the relatively large budgets and large audiences of Hollywood studios may find it difficult to adjust to being at a web startup that no one has (yet) heard of. This may explain why in a town with ten thousand writers, only "dozens" are looking at the startup option. On the other hand, those writers with an appetite for risk or a thirst for creative control may thrive in an environment where they call the shots and reap a much larger share of the rewards if they succeed.

Filed Under: hollywood, startups, writers, writers' strike

If You Want To Attract Venture Capital, Don't Tell VCs Anything

from the we-need-money,-but-for-what-we-can't-say dept

The news that the micro-blogging/message service Twitter has attracted a round of venture capital funding has been greeted with the requisite back-slapping and congratulations, but also with some bemusement by folks wondering what the company's business model is. Even the investors, Union Square Ventures, don't know yet, and say the investment will go towards making Twitter "a better, more reliable and robust service." Paul Kedrosky offers an interesting take on the matter by saying that for companies looking for VC money, business plans and profits are overrated. He contends that offering VCs a detailed business plan only gives them more things to nitpick, while early profits can overinflate their expectations, so it's better for a startup looking for cash to go light on both. It's easy to take his point to an extreme and say it's yet more evidence that we're in another bubble, but Kedrosky really seems to be saying that startups shouldn't pitch their detailed plans to VCs, and not that they shouldn't have one at all. Of course, regardless of whether you have business plan or not, if you can grab the traffic and attention of something like Twitter, there will be plenty of VCs ready to open their wallets, either as a vanity investment, or because they know they should be able to flip the company to a bigger buyer pretty quickly -- much like Union Square did with a previous investment, the social-bookmarking service Del.icio.us, which was later bought by Yahoo.

Filed Under: startups, vc
Companies: twitter, union square ventures