Hitchhiker’s Guide to 650 :: September :: 2006

ChinaSeptember 26, 2006 5:51 pm

The rumour starts again (this is not new news people!). . . let’s remember the same rumor took place in March . . . Tom.com Eats World. At the time the rumour was that Tom.com might buy both Sina & EachNet.

If you can read chinese, here it the Sina report that mentioned the old rumor and today’s re-emergence . . .

 昨日,有关“TOM集团将在数日之内宣布全面收购eBay易趣”的消息,使得已经沉寂了半年之久的传闻再度成为最热的互联网新闻。然而,面对记者的提问,TOM集团表现得非常低调和谨慎,犹如当初对待“TOM集团收购新浪”的传闻一样。 (Sina)

I”ll maintain the same position as I had before. Tom.com is one of the most “western” of the Chinese companies (its actually more “Hong Kongnese” than Chinese). eBay has done well in its partnership with Tom.com on Skype. The acquisition is more likely to be a partnership with equity in Tom.com’s favor. I would bet on this transaction to happen eventually but not in the next 6 month. And that eBay will NEVER exit China completely.

Ofcourse, the denial happened quite quickly later in the day. TOM否认收购eBay易趣

“我们也肯定不会撤离中国市场。”刘薇在电话里告诉记者,并认为中国市场潜力巨大,eBay易趣不会放弃国内业务,而是在发展国内业务的同时会加强跨国贸易。她称,eBay易趣及贝宝中国首席执行官廖光宇最近刚刚上任,希望加强eBay易趣及贝宝两家独立运营公司的协同能力,提升海外贸易。

On a side note, the combination of Paypal and EachNet make A LOT of sense. PayPal and EachNet needs make a big bet on cross border trade (海外贸易). The only way to do that is to integrate the customer experience from search, settlement, to logistics. The ideal strategy is to attack Taobao through attacking its cash cow - Alibaba.com, a glorified but very profitable directory . . . the same way Alibaba outflanked EachNet initially. Cross border e-commerce is a nut that has yet to be cracked. There is a reason lots of trading firms still thrives. Back in the B2B days, a whole slew of companies was funded to the tunes of $50M plus to duke it out in this market . . . nothing worked . . . but the opportunity is still there. . .

UnderBanked 10:28 am

What a difference a year makes. Early in 2005 Virgin Mobile USA passed the million subscriber milestone. Their success began inspiring numerous copycats with its example of how a more focused MVNO can do a better job targeting and serving specific subscriber segments than could a large carrier. During a conference I attended at that time, a noted research firm predicted the channel would experience such significant growth that in a few short years more new wireless subscribers would be added by MVNOs than by the direct channels of wireless carriers. By midyear a steady string of press releases ensued, announcing one new MVNO after another. MVNOs were hot; if you had a recognized brand or an established distribution channel you too could cash in on the wireless bandwagon. One began to wonder if the ‘O’ in MVNO stood for ‘Over-saturation.’


David Grigg for Prepaid Press

What people didnt realize at the time was that the first gen MVNO’s that suceeded (Tracfone, Virgin, Boost) all had one common characteristic . . . and it wasnt that they are all MVNO’s . . . it was that they were targeting a segment of the market that was completely untargeted by the “post-paid” billing model of mobile carriers (cingular, nextel, verizon etc) -> the underbanked.

The MVNO craze that followed extrapolated their predcessors’ success to mean that targeted niche marketing of ANY segment will be sucecssfull. They failed to realize that the reason the first gen MVNO was successfull was because of their prepaid business model was able to attract an audience that was completely UNSERVED by traditional carriers. As an ESPN addict, I already have a phone provided by Cingular. As a result the ESPN MVNO is now competing “@ the margin” for small slice of incremental switchers. Targeting an unserved versus already served market is a hugely different marketing challenge.

If ESPN Mobile is the poster child for diminished optimism on the MVNO model, industry analysts and other MVNO insiders knew for some time that things weren’t as rosy in the MVNO world as the press releases would lead you to believe. The industry was never without its detractors and naysaysers. Public speculation that the bloom had fallen from the rose for new MVNOs actually began at CTIA in April of this year when Sprint- Nextel’s chief operating officer at the time, Len Lauer, announced they turn down a lot of MVNO applicants and will wait three to four quarters before judging the performance of those recently launched. Implying they were tightening the spigot on new MVNOs was significant because Sprint-Nextel is the MVNO channel leader, having launched the most of any U.S. carrier. (Lauer has subsequently left Sprint.)

Venture Process, Start-Ups, Product ManagementSeptember 20, 2006 3:34 pm

Wouldnt it be nice to join Google in 00, eBay in 98, Yahoo in 95, Dell in 92, or even Myspace in 2003? Not having to deal with the startup risk while gaining all the upside is one of the best bets you can make in your career - monetarily but even more so, for career progression (everyone loves a winner). Joining a startup with only 10 people is way too risky if you dont have over 5% of the equity. Joining big company after the hypergrowth means that you are stuck in a Corolla while everyone else at work has a M5 at home (and a Prius at work). My advise is to be like a VC and do due diligence on the new prospect like they do. Investing in your career is actually a bigger bet than the $4-5M in investment the average VC’s make in any round. This is not as hard as seed stage investing cause you dont want to be betting on a idea. This is much more similar to late stage investing where the financials/metrics can tell 70% of the story.

Not trying to say its a fool proof (or even a good way . . . time will tell) methodology or that its the only way. . . this is the process I came up with and went through as I hunted for my next adventure.

The key is to understand if COMPOUNDED growth can take place in the company and how close the company/startup is to reaching that stage. Geoffery Moore calls it the tornado, bankers call it hockey stick, VC’s call it traction, I just call it 100%+ growth year over year in REVENUE with a customer base over 500K. (law of small numbers can fool people into thinking the growth is large when its not sustainable).

1) First, I try to understand the buinses model well enough that I can identify the main levers that moves the business. The key is to have a water fall of metrics that starts at acquisition (or awareness) and all the way to revenue (profit is even better but too hard to measure in a startup cause you are sacrifising profitablility for growth)

Example here might be eBay in 1999

- new registration per month
- active customers per new registration
- # purchases per month per active customer
- average purchases per active customer

2) The basic requirement is that atleast one or two of these metrics has to ALREADY be growing at 15% - 30% year over year

3) Understand what needs to happen to make the other metrics grow 15% - 20% as well. Has anyone been trying to move these metrics? what tactics/programs/strategies has been tried? The answer I want to hear is actually that no one has been looking at it too carefully because the other metrics are already driving enough growth for the company. (And I think these needles can be moved)

4) #2 gives me proof of success, #3 shows me potential for even faster growth.

5) If EACH of these metrics can grow independently @ 20% a Year over Year, you have a blockbuster on your hand . . .

No company can grow at 80-100% year over year without multiple underlying factors growing at a reasonable 20% a year. It is often not sustainable if only one metric is growing at an incredible rate while the rest is stagnating. (quick example, retail companies relying soley on store expansion to drive growth . . . ie GAP in 2000)

So there you go, happy hunting . . .

Start-Ups, Product Management, CommunitySeptember 7, 2006 6:11 pm

Companies are the stewards of the community NOT the manager . . . it was something that was deeply ingrained into every single employee’s psyche at eBay. (eventhough it may not seem like it from the outside :) ) Apparently that lesson is being learned everywhere these days : youTube, eachnet, myspace, digg . . . the latest is that of facebook.

There are a lot of random posts on the controversy but only two actually offered some solutions and suggestions from the company/product management angle : Ed Sim & Ken Norton . . .

I wrote about it before on so called Web 2.0 Community Management but I think Stewardship is probably a better word for it. . .

A/B testing of new features is actually really really hard (like Ken said). You have a few options (not mutually exclusive)

1) Blind A/B
2) Opt-Out A/B
3) Opt-In A/B

None of them are perfect and in the end the community might still scream and yell . . . .

1) Blind A/B
This just doesnt really work for community centric businesses . . . peoeple are just so attached and familiar to the site you need to be extremely transparent, otherwise you are going to get support calls (people think the site is broken) or another riot on your hand. Google/Yahoo/Amazon can do this because they have huge amount of “blind” traffic coming through the site. . . Google especially is already a black box so people dont expect it to be transparent in the first place. For eBay and, my guess, social networking sites; it will not work.

2) Opt-Out A/B
This is a little better in preventing a riot but you better make sure the A(control group) portion is siginifcantly bigger. Even so, you are going to get huge self selection issue because people will notice the “opt out message” and act very differently (such as clicking around a lot more and become a lot less task oriented). The portion that got sent there by default might still cause a rukus because they believe these features have a huge sunk cost so they will be released eventually anyways - perhaps with tweaks - and you know what. . . he/she is probably right . . .

3) Opt-In A/B
This will get you more input and participation from the community but in the end, the results are not going to be high fidelity. . . or even directionally correct. Those who opt-in either are early adoptors, have an ax to grind, or explorers. Furthermore, whatever metric you are testing for, selection bias will make it almost irrelevant. In many ways, this is the ONLY option community based sites have to be partipatory in releasing new features . . . another thing to do to reduce bias is to run the A/B for LONG time so that you at the very least filter out the riff-raffs who are digging around for dirt (reporters?) and see if your community either adopts its slowly but surely or segments significantly. (or never at all!).

For companies without conversion metrics (like facebook) the above tests are even harder . . . you can survey people at the end of the new experience but expressed and behaviorial feedback is very different. Furthermore, not until they have explore the majority of their OWN use cases for the site, their opinion might change if the feature is rollout permenantly. Retention/repeat visit/page view metrics are not linearly correlated to “satisfaction”, thus the effect of these features might be delayed or compounded negatively by some other factor down the road. And ofcourse relying soley on “feedback” creates self-selection bias on top of self-selection bias.

For companies with conversion metrics (eBay) the sampling bias is a huge issue for opt-in/opt-on. Furthermore what do you do if 5% of the population is hugely against the new feature but the silent majority (based on metrics) seems to be inconclusive or positive?

Llastly, as Adam Nash likes to say to me. . . what IF your most vocal community is the dying majority (as in The Innovator’s Dilemma - also brilliantly point out by Ken Norton). What IF you end up beholden to a segment of the customer base indefinitely and if that segment for some reason slowly shrinks? You do not have the strategic alternative of serving a new segment and grow for the fear of losing your current customer/user base. Many industry giants have died off this way . . .

(Side note, if facebook rolls back this feed feature, some startup should build a social network purely on the idea of broadcasted status . . . they will attract/self select those who dont mind and they will also know that the incumbents will not encroach. And as I suspect, as the web matures evenmore, the who idea of realtime updates will become more common place/desirable).

There are 20+ variables to evaluate when trying to roll out a new feature smartly to a community of users, there is no right answer for all cases, this is what makes this whole web 2.0 thing harder than people think . . .

Start-Ups, Research, Advertising 10:49 am

(Guest Column: Peter Daley, Digital Media Analyst, Rutberg & Co)

During the one month period from July 1 through July 31, 34 private digital media companies announced $403.1 million in venture capital financings. Investments were primarily in the Advertising Infrastructure, Applications, and Content Publishers sectors. There were also 24 M&A transactions announced during the period, including Motorola’s acquisition of Broadbus, AMD’s acquisition of ATI, and Planar System’s acquisition of Clarity Visual Systems.

In this newsletter, rather than our traditional review of the previous month’s news items, we discuss the venture capital, M&A, and IPO activity in digital media over the past two quarters and compare these findings to the activity of 2005.

Venture capital activity in digital media is, by all accounts, robust. During the first six months of 2006, private digital media companies raised $2.4 billion of venture capital through 278 financings. This activity nearly matches that of the full year 2005, in which $2.6 billion was raised through 313 financings. Notably, 245 venture capital firms announced two or more digital media investments during the eighteen month period between January, 2005, and June, 2006.

The robust activity indicated by the financing totals is consistent with our conversations with entrepreneurs and investors. On an anecdotal basis, for example, we note the formation by numerous venture firms of digital media-specific strategies, practices, and portfolios over the past two years. Although raising capital is never “easy,” we believe the current environment is healthy for private digital media companies.

The M&A market remained steady in 1H06 with 181 transactions announced during the period, as compared to 183 and 185 in 1H05 and 2H05, respectively. Further, the IPO market for digital media companies remains muted. During the first half of 2006, only 6 IPOs were filed and 6 were priced in the industry, as compared to 5 filed and 19 priced in 2005. We do not find visibility toward a substantial change in the dynamics of the IPO market in the near-term. As such, we believe M&A remains the far more likely exit scenario for private equity investors.

Overall, we note that venture capital activity has increased substantially over the previous 18 months, while M&A activity has remained steady over this same period. Several venture investors in our conversations have referred to this situation as a “bubble without an exit,” indicating a concern and frustration over the high investment levels but low exit numbers. As we discuss below, we believe that this situation may be, at least partly, due to the early stage of digital media as an industry, and that there are underlying, positive indicators for future M&A activity in the industry.

Venture capital activity in digital media is, by all accounts, robust. During the first six months of 2006, private digital media companies raised $2.4 billion of venture capital through 278 financings. This activity nearly matches that of the full year 2005, in which $2.6 billion was raised through 313 financings.

On a quarterly basis, total venture capital raised during 2Q06 was $1.3 billion, representing 127% growth from the total during 2Q05.

Media

Heading into 3Q06, venture investors appear poised to continue their strong pace. The $403 million of venture capital raised in July 2006 is on par with the $398 million monthly average over the previous six months.

media

The robust activity indicated by the financing totals is consistent with our conversations with entrepreneurs and investors. On an anecdotal basis, for example, we note the formation by numerous venture firms of digital media-specific strategies, practices, and portfolios over the past two years. Additionally, we hear comments from several entrepreneurs on strong interest by venture firms and on relatively attractive transaction valuations. Although raising capital is never “easy,” we believe the current environment is healthy for private digital media companies.

Size of Financings

In terms of financing size, the average size of digital media venture transactions has remained stable since 2005. During 1H06, the average financing size was $10.6 million, as compared to $9.1 million and $11.5 million during 1H05 and 2H05, respectively.

Interestingly, over this period, transactions have trended toward smaller (less than $5MM) and larger (greater than $20MM) financings. The percentage of mid-sized (between $5MM and $20MM) financings has commensurately decreased. We believe this change in distribution is driven by two factors: 1) increased venture capital for private companies in the Applications sector, which is at an early stage of development and which typically requires less total capital commitments per company than the broader digital media industry; and 2) the emergence of private companies with late stage revenue levels in several digital media sectors, such as Semiconductors, Content Service Providers & Retailers, and Advertising Infrastructure.

media

Most Active Sectors

The sectors with the largest total venture capital raised during 1H06 were Semiconductors, Content Service Providers & Retailers, and Advertising Infrastructure. Notable financings during the period were: $150 million by Amp’d Mobile, $49.2 million by Digi TV Plus, $48.5 million by MovieBeam, $48 million by AdKnowledge, and $46.6 million by Sling Media.

media

By number of financings, the Applications, Advertising Infrastructure, and Provisioning & Delivery Infrastructure sectors were the most active during 1H06. In particular, the Applications sector included 46 financings during 1H06, as compared to just 9 financings during 1H05. The significant rise in venture activity in Applications companies is driven, among other factors, by the investment theses in user-generated content and other personal media.

Overall, as per our comments in recent newsletters, we remain bullish on investment theses related to user-generated content, casual video games, and content delivery networks, among other areas.

media

Most Active Investors

The investors with the greatest number of digital media investments in 1H06 were Intel Capital, Sequoia Capital, Cisco Systems, and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Notably, 245 venture capital firms announced two or more digital media investments during the eighteen month period between January, 2005, and June, 2006. In our view, this demonstrates the broad participation and interest in the industry by venture firms.

Number of M&A Transactions

The M&A market remained steady in 1H06 with 181 transactions announced during the period, as compared to 183 and 185 in 1H05 and 2H05, respectively. Notable recent transactions involving venture-funded private companies include Microsoft’s acquisition of Massive, VeriSign’s acquisition of m-Qube, and Viacom/MTV’s acquisition of Atom Entertainment.

media

The North America region saw the largest number of transactions during 1H06, with 94 M&A announcements. M&A activity in the Asia region, however, increased significantly, representing 19% of transactions in 1H06, as compared to 8% in 2005.

media

Most Active Sectors

The 1H06 M&A transactions were primarily in the Content Service Providers & Retailers, Advertising Infrastructure, and Content Creators sectors. The Retailing Infrastructure sector experienced the sharpest rise in M&A activity, with 14 transactions announced in 1H06, as compared to 4 in 1H05. Further, the steepest decline in M&A activity occurred in the Content Publishers sector, with 19 transactions announced in 1H06, as compared to 36 in 1H05.

media

The IPO market for digital media companies remains muted. During the first half of 2006, only 6 IPOs were filed and 6 were priced in the industry, as compared to 5 filed and 19 priced in 2005. In our conversations with private company board members and CEOs, we find several inhibitors for IPO activity, including the generally unreceptive public markets and Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs and risks. We do not find visibility toward a substantial change in the dynamics of the IPO market in the near-term. As such, we believe M&A remains the far more likely exit scenario for private equity investors.

Overall, we note that venture capital activity has increased substantially over the previous 18 months, while M&A activity has remained steady over this same period. Several venture investors in our conversations have referred to this situation as a “bubble without an exit,” indicating a concern and frustration over the high investment levels but low exit numbers. In our view, this situation may be, at least partly, due to the early stage of digital media as an industry. Industry drivers of broadband penetration and alternative media business models are just now emerging as visible, mass market forces, and revenues from the associated services and technologies are only recently beginning to be explored, defined, or built. Further, we find that interest on behalf of potential acquirers exists, even if only on an exploratory basis. Although it is infeasible to predict timing or to provide certainty, we believe the underlying dynamics are positive indicators for future M&A activity in the industry.

OtherSeptember 1, 2006 9:43 am

Why are Ninjas and Pirates cool? How did lonelygirl15 get 1M page views (a day!)? How did Tuscan Whole Milk get 738 reviews on Amazon?

These are the real mysteries of our time . . . Someone will win a Nobel Prize one day solving these puzzles . . .

(tips to statastic)

My favorite is this one

Once upon a midnight yearning, passion and desire burning
Wide awake with slumber hopeless, I rose in search of tender closeness
The stairs I did descend so softly, bristling with anticipation
Past trysts fueled expectations lofty, bracing for emancipation
Soon the corner I had rounded, heartbeat raced and lust abounded
My presence by the floorboards sounded, switch now flipped, his face astounded
Hopes and dreams came crashing down, despair; how could he do it?
As Tuscan and a bashful scoundrel stared back, exchanging fluids.
I wept for all that had been built, destroyed when he’d been caught
This milk no doubt was many things, but `wholesome’ it was not.

appropriately titled . . . “Lactose Intolerant”. . . cause so am I . . . havent tasted milk since 7th grade :( . . .

(graphic below will screw up my margins, but its funny enough to be worth it)

Web 2.0 Visits the Grocry Store