Month: August 2004
To see how it works, you need to have Microsoft Messenger running on your computer. Go to a site running LiveMessage and click on the appropriate link (e.g. Bink.nu has a LiveMessage button, Flexbeta has a Flexbeta Alerts button, Feld Thoughts has a LiveMessage button, and OnlyOnce has a LiveMessage button.)
If you have a blog consider trying out the LiveMessage Blogger alert service as an option for your blog subscribers.
Paul Berberian, chairman and founder of Raindance, wrote a provocative post today called Free Conferencing is Theft. Paul knows this business extremely well – I was an early investor in Raindance (I left the board two years ago and am no longer involved in the company – but I continue to be a strong supporter and fan of it).
While Paul’s position is influenced by his role as a major investor in a leading web conferencing company, he describes clearly how the regulatory economics of the conferencing business works as well as the loophole that free conferencing companies are taking advantage of. He makes the point that someone is paying for this and – eventually – if the cost gets big enough – “someone” will notice and the dynamics will change.
Paul refers to the free Internet access business as an example of a bad business model that wasn’t sustainable that tried to take advantage of a shifting a cost disparity. I know this all too well as an early investor in PeoplePC (now owned by Earthlink and a paid service) – we spent a lot of money and acquired 600,000 customers on the path to having a non-sustainable business model. Part of our problem was the cost arbitrage we were trying to take advantage of – we thought we could provide retail ISP services at free prices but make up for it through our share of margin on computer sales, partner rebates, pull-through e-commerce sales, advertising revenue, and credit card incentives (all of these were revenue opportunities that we had that were associated with each new subscriber we acquired.) While we weren’t arbitraging regulatory issues (as with free conferencing), we applied a business model that required scale to a well-established business infrastructure, and ultimately failed. In hindsight, if we’d merely charged a commodity price for Internet access, we would have likely had a sustainable business.
Ironically, one of the very visible free ISPs (NetZero) has turned into a very successful paid ISP (United Online). The successfully transitioned enough of their large free customer base to a paid customer base – along with some smart financial engineering and good operational management – to use their initial “free” arbitrage position to create a sustainable and successful business. For those of you enjoying “free conferencing calls” today – don’t get too used to “free”.
Last month Mediathink published a White Paper title RSS: The Next Big Thing On Line. It’s the best starter piece that I’ve seen so far for people – especially in a business context – that are trying to figure out the answer to the question “what is this RSS thing and why do I care.” It’s a short piece (seven pages) – about a third is an intro to RSS, a third talks about aggregator technologies (and gives my favorite – NewsGator – a great review), and the final third talks about implications of RSS on marketing, email, messaging, search engines, and rich media.
Remember – it’s an introductory piece – so if you are an RSS / blogging pro it’s unlikely that you’ll see any new information. But – if you are either trying to figure out RSS or trying to help explain to collegues or customers why they should care about RSS – this belongs in your document toolkit.
I was on a board call for a company today that pays their employees bi-weekly (every two weeks). At some point in time there was a rationale for this since this company has a lot of hourly employees and there was a perception that folks would want to be paid every two weeks. So – presumably this was a logical decision at the time.
However, it creates havoc with our monthly reporting and forecasting as we have at least two months per year with three pay periods. This adds an extra pay period to our expense structure for those two months (and lowers it correspondingly for the other months where we only have two pay periods). As a result of this, we are constantly backing out expenses (or adding it back in) to get “apples to apples” monthly comparisons.
The vast majority of the companies I’ve been involved with pay employees semi-monthly (twice a month – usually on the 15th and last day or the month). While you obviously can do the work to “normalize” month to month expenses if you pay your employees bi-weekly, do yourself and your investors a favor and pay semi-monthly. It’s so much easier to deal with.
Fred wrote two stories on the cliche “if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.” I saw it right after I responded to a few comments on my To Participate or Not post and was chewing on the notion of the behaviorial dynamics and mismatch that often occurs between investors and entrepreneurs, even when both sides are behaving as rational actors.
Amy and I have a saying that “The fantasy is better than the reality.” It comes up when incongruent situations appear in our life, where something that hasn’t yet happened appears irrationally magnificent in comparison to something that already either exists for us or something that is also a good thing and more achievable, but not as magnificent. After we chew on it for a while and think about the unintended consequences and side effects, we often conclude that we’ll stay with what we have, but enjoy thinking about the fantasy. Now – I’ve never been accused of not “going for things”, so you need to imagine “big fantasies” here.
This is a corollary to Fred’s anecdotes – which rang true with me this morning.
My friend Paul Berberian and his friend Paul Wareham did a round trip from Colorado to Alaska earlier this month. They stopped off and visited us for a few days which included a trip to Anchorage for sushi (ironically, we don’t have much sushi in Homer, although we have an endless supply of halibut.)
PaulB took some incredible photos – many from the plane. Here’s the view from my house in Homer, which we’ve enjoyed most of the summer. After we landed in Anchorage for our sushi run, PaulW captured me kissing the ground – not because of pilot issues – but because the passenger is a weenie. And – if you wondered what my friendly neighborhood glacier looks like, here it is.
When I wrote my first post on the structure and financial components of a typical venture capital investment – where I described Liquidation Preferences – I alluded to the concept of participating preferred as a maligned and typically hotly negotiated issue in many venture capital investments. In this post, I’m going to try to explain the notion of participating preferred (referred to hereafter as PP), how it works, and its financial and emotional impact on a deal. I’m not going to take sides, but rather try to give a broad perspective on it.
First – some history. I first encountered PP when several of the angel investments that I did in 1994 and 1995 matured to the point where they raised a round of institutional venture capital. Since I was living in Boston at the time, most of the VCs looking at my angel deals were east coast firms. In every single case, the initial term sheets each of these companies received included a PP feature – a “double dip” as my east coast lawyer called it. When we pushed back on the PP, we were told that all east coast term sheets had them (our lawyer told us it was negotiable, but that it was definitely an east coast standard request). The PP survived several of term sheet negotiations, but not all of them.
My east coast-centric world changed significantly after I moved to Colorado in 1996 and started doing venture capital. Because of geography and investment focus, I ended up working on more stuff on the west coast. There, I rarely saw a PP feature and was told flatly that PP was “an east coast term.” As the 1990’s marched on and the bubble started to build, I rarely saw a PP – even the east coast guys had dropped it from their standard term sheets.
After the bubble burst in 2001, PP was back – and this time on both coasts. Suddenly every term sheet I saw had a PP feature in it, regardless of the stage of the investment, type of business, or location of investor. It had once again become “a standard feature”, although it was now bi-coastal (or – more accurately – a red-blooded American term.)
So, with this as background, and before we dig into the actual mechanics of a PP, lets first recognize it for what it is – an economic feature in a venture investment. It’s not a standard term, nor is it something that is evil and should never be part of a deal. Unlike a liquidation preference which is rarely negotiable with a VC, a PP is almost always negotiable. There are even cases where it economically disadvantages an early stage investor who insists on it in the deal from the beginning. Importantly, there is not a consensus among investors on when a PP feature is appropriate in a deal and each firm approaches it from their own, unique perspective.
A PP is the right of an investor, as long as they hold preferred stock, to get their money back before anyone else (the “preference” part of PP), and then participate as though they owned common stock in the business (or, more technically, on an “as converted basis” – the “participation” part of PP). It takes a preferred investment, which acts as either debt or equity (where the investor has to make a choice of either getting their money back or converting their preferred shares to common), and turns it into something that acts both as debt and equity (where the investor both gets their money back and participates as if they had converted to common shares).
To illustrate, let’s take a simple case – a $5m Series A investment at $5m pre-money where the company is sold for $20m without any additional investments being made. In this case, the Series A investor owns 50% of the company. If they did not have a PP, they would get 50% of the return, or $10m. With the PP they get their $5m back and then get 50% of the remaining $15m ($7.5m), resulting in $12.5m to the Series A investor and $7.5m to everyone else. In this case, the Series A investor gets the equivalent of 62.5% of the return (rather than the 50% which is equivalent to their ownership stake). The PP results in a re-allocation of 12.5% of the exit value to the Series A investor.
Obviously, this can get much more complicated as you start to have multiple rounds of investments with a PP feature. A simple way to think about how the economics of a PP works is that the total dollar amount of the preference will come off the top of the exit value (and go to the investors); everyone will then convert into common stock and share the balance based on their ownership percentages. For example, assume a company raises $40m over 3 rounds where each round has a PP feature and the investors own 70% of the company. If this company is sold for $200m, the first $40m would go to the investors and the remaining $160m would be split 70% to investors / 30% to everyone else. In this case, the investors would get a total of $152m, ($40m + $112m, or 76% of the proceeds – 6% more then they would have gotten if there was no PP.)
If you sit and ponder the math, you’ll realize that a PP usually has material impact on the economics in low to medium return deals, but quickly becomes immaterial as the return increases (or – more specifically – as the ratio of the exit value to invested capital increases). For example, if a company is sold for $500m, a $10m PP re-allocates a small portion of the deal ($10m of the $500m) to the investors vs. the $40m of $200m or $5m of $20m in the other preceding examples. As a result, a PP usually only matters in a low to medium return situation. If a company is sold for less than paid in capital, the liquidation preference will apply and the participation feature will not come into play. If a company is sold for a huge amount of money, the PP won’t have much economic impact, as the preference feature of the PP becomes a small percentage of the deal total. In addition, in essentially every case, PP’s don’t apply in an IPO where preferred stock (of any flavor) is typically converted into common stock at the time of the offering.
As PP started showing up in more deals, some creative lawyer came out with a perversion on the preferred feature called a “cap on the participate” (also known as a “kick-out feature.”) In this case, the participation feature of the PP goes away once the investor holding the PP reaches a certain multiple return of capital. For example, assume a 3x cap on a PP in a $5m Series A investment. In this case, the investor would benefit from their PP until their proceeds from the deal reached $15m. Once they reached this level, their shares are no longer counted in the cap structure and the other shareholders share the remaining proceeds. Of course, the investor always has the option to convert their shares to common stock and give up their preferred return (but participate fully in the proceeds). Put another way, at a high enough valuation the investor is better off simply converting to common (in the current example at an exit value above $30m).
Participation caps, however, have a fundamental problem – they create a flat spot in most deal economics where the investor gets the same amount across a range of exit values. If we stay with the example above and assume a 50% ownership for the Series A, the PP would apply until the exit value reached $25m, at which point the investor receives $15m in proceeds. Between $25m and $30m, the investor would continue to receive this same $15m (this is the flat spot – it doesn’t matter whether the exit value is $26m or $29m, the investor would get $15m). At exit values above $30m, the investor would convert to common stock and take 50% of the proceeds (i.e., their as-converted share of the proceeds would exceed the $15m cap so they would be better off converting to common and taking this share of the exit value). This is an odd dynamic, since the common shareholders are clearly not indifferent to exit values in this flat spot, but the investor is (and consider a case where this flat spot was much larger than the one in the example above). Any way you cut it there is misalignment, at least for a range of outcomes, between the investor and the rest of the shareholders.
Another perversion is the “multiple participate”. In this case, the investor gets some multiple of his participate off the top of the transaction. For example, a 3x multiple participate on a $40m investment would mean the first $120m would go to the investor (and then the remaining proceeds would be distributed to the investor and the rest of the shareholders). This type of PP only appeared for a short while when investors were doing recapitalizations without actually going through the mechanics of recapitalizing the company (more about this in a future blog post).
Interestingly, there is a case to be made that PP in early financing rounds can actually end up disadvantaging early investors. The math on this gets complicated very quickly, but if you assume that every subsequent investment round has at least as favorable terms as the initial round (i.e., include a PP if the first round does) and that subsequent rounds include new investors there are many cases where the initial investor is actually disadvantaged by the existence of the PP (they would have been better off to have not put it in the initial round and because of that pushed for its exclusion from subsequent rounds). It’s counterintuitive, but it actually works out this way in a number of very common financing scenarios.
So – if PP simply relates to economics, why is it a term that brings out such emotion in entrepreneurs and investors alike? A close friend of mine who is an extremely successful entrepreneur recently told me “I’ve walked on every investment deal for any company that I’ve run that even smelled of multiple dips of participation – and spit back in the direction the term sheet came from!” We debated back and forth a while. For example, I asked him “would you take $5m for 33% of a company with no participate or 25% of a company with full participate?” He responded “I would go find a deal where I gave up 26.5% without a participate” which, while an emotional reaction, ironically reinforced my point that it was just economics. After pondering this term over the years, I’ve concluded that participating preferred is one of those terms that creates real tension between the entrepreneur and the investor – it forces the acknowledgement by the entrepreneur that a moderate return is not a success case for the investor and at the same time forces the investor to acknowledge that in those moderate cases they believe it is fair to receive a greater percentage of the proceeds at the expense of the entrepreneur.
Everyday Matters is a remarkable book. If you live in New York; have a family member who has had a tragic accident or a crippling disease; or are subject to bouts of depression, you must read this book.
I came across the book while I was browsing in my local bookstore in Homer. The cover caught my eye but the excerpt on the back captured my attention. It was a drawing of the eight stages of an apple being eaten with the quote “Two years before I started drawing, my wife was run over by a subway training and nearly killed. Well, this book is about how art and New York City saved my life.”
I bought the book ‘Your marketing sucks” because of the title. While I didn’t expect much from it, it was worth reading. It’s a quick and easy read that I recommend it to any CEO who thinks marketing isn’t working as well as it could for his company.
I’m the second guy to admit that I don’t really know jack about marketing (Steve Bayle is the first – he’ll readily admit that I don’t have a clue.) I came to this realization in the middle of the Internet bubble. I was sitting at my desk in Colorado one day when I received a giant overnight package from one of my investments that I’ll refer to as YACOTWTF (“Yet Another Company On The Way to Failing”). It was an unusually large overnight package and I wasn’t expecting anything, so I was curious. When I opened the package, inside was a giant picture frame with a note taped to it. The note said “Congrats on the great ad we’ve placed in Red Herring Magazine.” I looked at the picture and it was a giant (poster sized) framed (in glass) replica of the ad. My first thought was “why the fuck did they send this to me?” I read the ad. My second thought was “what a shitty ad – it doesn’t say anything about what YACOTWTF does.” My third thought quickly followed, “What did we pay for this?” You can see where this was going. “Did I approve the marketing budget”, “Who is the VP Marketing again”, “I better call the CEO to fire the guy.”
After this ran its course, I called up my doctor, made an appointment at a special top secret medical facility for entrepreneurs and venture capitalist (there are two separate buildings but the dining hall and gym are shared), and had an operation that replaced the phrase “marketing” with the phrase “demand creation” in my brain. Oh – and the ad campaign – which cost $2 million in total (unfortunately, Red Herring wasn’t the only place a full page ad was run) – generated ONE lead and ZERO customers. The company went out of business about a year later. If YACOTWTF was the only company on the planet that did something as dumb as this it’d be one thing, but they had plenty of company as many of the Internet bubble companies spend grotesquely more than $2m on “marketing” that had zero return.
It should be no surprise to you that I didn’t hang the ad on my wall in my office. Our building is two stories high – glass makes a neat scatter pattern when dropped from that height (although it was a pain in the ass to clean up.)
This book reinforced a lot of messages around using that thing that I refer to as demand creation to generate value in your business. I knew I’d at least enjoy the book (even if it wasn’t good) when the first chapter started out with the rule that “Marketing is not about spending money on such things as advertising, direct mail, and P.R. Those are just tools. Marketing is about growing your business – its revenues, profit, and valuation.” Ok – well – duh – but it’s often overlooked. When the author started the next chapter with “Most companies make salesmanship the last step in the marketing process. Most companies are wrong: Salesmanship should have come first” I was hooked – at least for the hour it took me to read the book.
While the book has all the flaws of today’s typical business book (author platitudes followed up by mediocre and often self-serving examples, desperate need of a better editor, and reader fatigue after about 150 pages), it’s still a worthwhile book for a CEO struggling with demand creation (I mean marketing).