Monthly Archives: August 2011

What the Changes in Twitter’s URL Shortener Mean for Bitly

Twitter has had a native URL shortener for some time, but it wasn’t until recently that they have begun automatically shortening URLs and link-wrapping those over 20 characters with a t.co URL. Alot of people are excited about these changes, including brands and media due to the condensed traffic source via the t.co link-wrapping. One service that has to be less thrilled about these changes is Bitly.

Bitly has been the dominate force amongst URL shorteners which has afforded them access to the real-time data kingdom. Sitting at the helm of real-time information sharing enables Bitly to derive incredible insights at both an aggregate and individual level. The applications to leveraging all the real-time data sharing on the web are endless, but one that particularly excites me is the ability to identify and understand broader web trends prior to anyone else. In short, I think the real opportunities for Bitly stretch far beyond link sharing analytics. But the amazing realm of opportunities Bitly possesses are entirely contingent upon the use of their URL shortener. So where does Bitly stand after the most recent changes? Let’s start with some questions.

Where is Bitly being used?

Bitly is used across many platforms which means that they have access to data extending beyond the Twitter eco-system. I’m sure Bitly points to this position as one reason they stand a chance as more and more platforms fill the holes they once occupied by integrating increasingly robust URL shorteners. And yes, the analytics services accompanying them will be here soon.

According to John Borthwick, last year less than 1% of Bitly links were being encoded on Twitter.com after their partnership ceased. I think this statistic misleads readers about how important the Twitter ecosystem is for Bitly. This statistic accounts for links that were being shortened on the site, not the total percentage of Bitly links being shared across the platform. What percentage of the Bitly pie are links shared on Twitter? From this, what percentage of users  were motivated to use Bitly out of pure convenience? I can’t find this information, but would love to know. If Twitter convenience truly does account for a large percentage of Bitly usage, they may be in some hot water…which leads me to my next question.

Who uses Bitly and why are they using it?

Bitly does two things really well on twitter – it enables me to squeeze a link within a tweet and provides rich analytics for tracking the interactions with that link. I expect that users that don’t care for the analytics will migrate to Twitter’s automatic URL shortener (t.co) because of its convenience. Conversely, Bitly users who derive value from the analytics will probably continue to use the service until Twitter reveals their analytics product. Whether these users choose to switch to Twitter’s native URL shortener once this becomes available will depend on a few things: how the product offering compares to Bitly, pricing, tracking habits across multiple platforms, and how intuitive the user experience is (people hate changing established workflows in the absence of a far superior offering).

But this begs the question – who is the demographic that is closely monitoring link analytics and doing so across multiple platforms? I’d venture a guess its primarily brands, online marketers/bloggers, and highly engaged tech adopters. To reiterate, in the near term I predict Bitly users who fall into these categories will continue to use the service, but I imagine that we will slowly see the more passive/social Twitter users move their native automatic shortener. For the record, I’m already a convert.

So where does this leave Bitly?

For starters, it means they must continue to innovate on their analytics offering because they have to assume that Twitter’s analytics package is on the horizon. Fortunately, they’re cross-platform…so they got that going for them. The less obvious question mark surrounds Bitly’s pulse on aggregate level trends.  As I mentioned earlier, their positioning at the beachhead of real-time information sharing enables them to derive insight into the real-time web’s broader trends. If the advent of Twitter’s automatic URL shortener does leave Bitly with a userbase composed mainly of brands, marketers, and techies, their aggregate data insight will be much less compelling; the pulse of often self-interested link publishers is likely different than that of the masses. Lastly, because Twitter is now indexing a large portion of Bitly URLs along with most others through the t.co wrapping, they have greater data sets to work with. Thus, they have the ability to offer superior data products solely for the Twitter platform. Did someone say monetization?

This post is full of assumptions, but it’s always fun to speculate. I strongly believe moving forward the company that holds the keys to the real-time data kingdom has the ability to power some incredible products far superior than link sharing analytics. These recent changes in Twitter’s URL shortener have definitely been a blow to Bitly. They must find ways to improve their product in order to retain the users who give them access to their critical mass of real-time data. Otherwise I fear they will only be a cross-platform analytics product who may never be able to seize their greatest opportunities.

The Real Reason NYC Is Better Than Silicon Valley

I’m just going to put it out there. NYC is better than Silicon Valley. Whether it’s how SoHo is better than Palo Alto or any of the myriad reasons why the Big Apple will eventually win out, the East Coast’s rising tech Mecca is just flat-out better than the Valley. Am I biased? Of course. But I have also thought this for a long time now. However, my sentiment was taken to the next level after I stumbled upon this article.

If you’re unable to take a look at it, essentially, the author is bemoaning that entrepreneurship in the Valley has become productized, as groups like Y Combinator attempt to commoditize the startup process, thereby derisking it. She laments that there aren’t many “game changers” in the Valley, and everyone just wants to create a Groupon clone or another Angry Birds, ultimately concluding that the problem with Silicon Valley is itself.

Now maybe it’s my bias coming in here or the fact that NYC is relatively young as a tech / startup center compared to the Valley, but I can’t imagine a NYC-based blogger / journalist writing a piece with such a tone. Accelerators like Y Combinator, or in the NYC case TechStars and DreamIt Ventures, are phenomenal programs that help take startups to the next level by providing invaluable resources (a little capital, office space, and, most importantly, mentors). Yes, these programs are doing their best to derisk the startup process and may be “commoditizing” the process to a certain extent, but at the end of the day, aren’t these good things? You shouldn’t start a business because it’s risky – you should want to lower the amount of risk you’re taking on, which is substantial to begin with. And regarding the commoditization point, shouldn’t entrepreneurs benefit from the patterns that these accelerators have come to recognize by incubating dozens and dozens of companies? Isn’t the goal of investing in these companies to see a return on the investment? So why not refine the process, so the entrepreneurs learn as much as possible and make as much progress as possible in the most efficient manner? Given the nature of startups, no matter how much one tries to standardize the process, it’s always going to be slightly different with various hurdles to overcome.

Regarding the author’s second point of contention, during the last several months of getting entrenched in the NYC startup ecosystem, every person I met recognized how privileged they were to be part of such an incredible community of creative, bright, genuine people regardless of whether the person in the co-working space next to him was building a product to map the human genome more easily or creating another mobile, social app. Everyone recognizes that they are part of a passionate community of thinkers, doers, hustlers, and helpers with something to share with and learn from everyone else whether you’re a serial entrepreneur with multiple exits under your belt or a fledgling founder seeking a technical co-founder. This gratefulness is the same for investors, and I have seen it firsthand from the VCs with whom I’ve met. Just look at Dave Tisch’s blog post from yesterday regarding his investment in GroupMe (his first exit) and his belief in investing in the people first, and one will understand how great the NYC tech scene is.

All of the above equates to one thing: appreciation. Appreciation for entrepreneurs, appreciation for investors, appreciation for the opportunity to be a part of such a vibrant and amazing community. I can’t imagine this appreciation ever dissipating in NYC like it seems to have done in the Valley (according to that article). And that is the real reason why NYC is better than Silicon Valley – because we’ll always remain appreciative and, in turn, always remain hungry.

Groupon IPO: The Silver Lining

Groupon is a company everyone seems to love to hate.  The number of negative articles I see coming across each day has become a bit mind-numbing. From @rakeshlobster and @conorsen on Minyanville and TechCrunch, to media pundits, to @vacanti on Yipit’s blog, there’s definitely more than enough Groupon bashing to go around.  Much of it is completely justified - there is a ton of uncertainty surrounding Groupon’s business and the local commerce industry as a whole, and pointing out the risks is very important.  However, after having a look at the newly minted S-1 filing released yesterday, I thought I’d shed some light on a few potentially positive developments that I hadn’t seen mentioned anywhere else.

When a company has only been around several short years and is growing at the break-neck pace of Groupon – one additional quarter can completely change previous notions and expectations.  Here’s a couple notes to consider in concert with other analysis out there from industry experts like Yipit and others.

Returning Customers

Many argue that the swelling subscriber base is becoming stale and most people are getting sick of the multitude of daily deal emails hitting their inbox every morning.  Groupon doesn’t reveal how many of their subscribers actually click through the emails or more importantly, continue to buy groupons.  However, there is one paragraph on the bottom of page 77 that gives us a sliver of insight into how much subscribers are actually coming back – their Q2 2010 cohort.

This group of 3.7 million subscribers acquired in 2Q 2010 cost Groupon $18 million in marketing expense to acquire in that quarter and they’ve tracked this group through today.  Here’s what the data reveals (see chart below):

  • Through 2Q 2011, this group of subscribers actually held up very well.  Revenue and Gross Profit in 2Q 2011 fluctuated only slightly compared to the prior 3 quarters on average, and the number of groupons sold was flat.  So over time, this same group of subscribers is continuing to contribute about the same amount of revenue and groupons sold each quarter.  Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell if revenue from the prior three quarters was skewed towards earlier periods and therefore could be on a declining trend, but even on an average basis I’m somewhat surprised.  I think the fall in Gross Profit here is also partially attributable to a larger proportion of national deals (lower margins) being run in 2Q11 compared to the prior 3 quarters.
  • Takeaways: If subscribers can continue to generate considerable and relatively stable Revenue going forward as this cohort appears it could be doing, this is a good sign for Groupon because it means subscribers are coming back and buying.  This means that the money Groupon is spending to acquire these customers is being covered and the return on investment continues to rise.  For each of the past 4 quarters, this group of subscribers has consistently contributed more than $10 per subscriber (highlighted in green below).  Needless to say, it would be very interesting to see if this continues as well as how other cohorts might fare against this one.

Note: Subscriber acquisition costs have almost certainly increased since 2Q 2010 due to saturation and competition.  It’s also important to note that this group was a much more “early-adopter” crowd not only to Groupon, but also to the daily deal industry.  This likely means they have a greater affinity to Groupon vs. other deal sites and may be benefiting from more referral bonuses, among other unquantified biases.

Marketing Expense

One of the biggest gripes I’ve seen out there is the huge amounts of money being spent on marketing to extend the rapid growth in subscribers and customers internationally and in North America, to a lesser extent.  Notwithstanding the fact that their SG&A costs ballooned from a growingr salesforce, marketing expenses dipped significantly in 2Q 2011 vs. prior quarter.  Marketing decreased from $78.6mm in 1Q to $55.2mm in 2Q for the North America Segment (26.4% vs. 16.1%, as a percentage of revenue), and from $129.4mm in 1Q to $115.6mm in 2Q for the International Segment (37.3% vs. 21.6%, as a percentage of revenue).  Those are some pretty significant drops considering the huge amount of growth that was still observed, especially in the International Segment.  Comparable growth quarter-over-quarter on a smaller marketing budget is a good sign.  

*FY2010 for international assumes only 3 quarters of revenue

Subscriber Acquisition Costs

If the drop in marketing spend is not just a fluke, then subscriber acquisition costs are on the decline for both North America and Internationally.  1Q 2011 vs. 2Q 2011:

  • North America: cost dropped from $6.35 to $5.75 per subscriber
  • International: cost dropped from $5.12 to $4.81 per subscriber

I note that quarter-over-quarter, revenue per subscriber deteriorated in North America, and stayed flat Internationally.  Is this a bad thing?  It’s really hard to tell.. as Tricia Duryee of All Things D points out, “the average revenue per subscriber fell…which may sound bad, but at the same time, the number of subscribers skyrocketed…”.

In the end, I think there really is a silver lining in the supplemental S-1 filing.  It’s not all sunshine and roses, but I’ll let you go elsewhere to read about the other side of the argument.  Given how prevalent it is, I’d be surprised if you haven’t already, but just in case here are a few articles pointing out the faults – they all make some very valid points:

Groupon Amends S-1, But Key Numbers Still Missing by @rakeshlobster

Groupon’s Updated IPO Filing: Big Revenues, Big Losses, Lots Of Banks Underwriting It  by @jyarow

Yipit Blog: New Filing Reveals Groupon’s Oldest Markets Got Even Worse  by @vacanti

Groupon In Major Trouble as Q2 Results Show Plunging Revenue Growth by @conorsen

BOMBSHELL: Groupon’s North American Merchant Pool DECLINED In Q2 by @nichcarlson

My favorite and Most Entertaining Content on the Groupon IPO: 

Namesake panel of experts debate: is Groupon brilliant or a Ponzi scheme? 

Some gems from the @namesake conversation:

“Groupons are the subprime mortgages of 2011″ – @rakeshlobster

“The S-1 lists recession as a risk. Wrong. That was their big opportunity. A strong recovery is a risk for Groupon.” – @rakeshlobster

What do YOU think?

UPDATE: Answer the question on Quora right now: “What are the main takeaways from Groupon’s amended S-1 filing showing 2Q results?”

Being Smart vs. Being Creative

The other day my dad and I were talking about entrepreneurs (seriously), mainly because he is one, and he stated how he thought there were way more smart people than creative people in the world. And I agreed. But how do these adjectives (smart and creative) relate to entrepreneurship? What were we getting at?

What we were driving at is a point that has been debated for a long time. As an entrepreneur, is it better to be intensely smart or to be  intensely creative? I use the adverb “intensely” before smart and creative because in my opinion all entrepreneurs have some degree of intelligence (obviously Bill Gates is brilliant and Brian Chesky is somewhat smart despite a colossal lapse in judgment), and entrepreneurs inherently are defined by their ability to create something new or different that is simultaneously useful.  I’m also removing the option of being both intensely smart and creative because that is a lethal combination, and clearly the greatest entrepreneurs possess those two attributes in spades. But when it comes down to it, do you choose the entrepreneur whose IQ is through the roof and can solve any problem you put before him/her or do you pick the entrepreneur who’s not that bright but has a knack for coming up with ingenious ways to work around problems and can convince you they’re the right answers?

I believe you have to go with the latter for one simple reason: it is much easier to teach intelligence than to teach creativity. Aside from the fact that it is simpler to instruct someone formulas from a textbook than it is to train them how to think in general, the types of people also play a role in the ease of teaching. Intensely smart people are usually quite stubborn and think their way is the only way. However, intensely creative people are by their very nature receptive to new ideas and the possibility of learning something new. Being smart is a way of doing things, being creative is a way of engaging with things. Being smart is provincial, being creative is broad. This point was driven home to me while watching “60 Minutes” last night.

During the show, Anderson Cooper did a piece on Eminem. Even if you hate Eminem (or Anderson Cooper for that matter), I highly recommend watching it. Eminem is by all accounts not that smart – he dropped out of 9th grade in the middle of repeating it for a 3rd time in order to focus on rapping even before he knew there was a future there. But he is intensely creative and frankly obsessively compulsive. During the interview, he took out a box full of notepads, napkins, scraps of paper scrawled with ideas, lyrics, rhymes that he came up with and wanted to save for later. At the drop of a hat, he rhymed “orange” (a word that people say with which nothing rhymes) with “four-inch,” “door hinge,” and “porridge.” Only an intensely creative person could write all of those songs with lyrics that include rhyming “sweaty, heavy, already, spaghetti, ready, forgetting.” Some might say, so what, Eminem isn’t an entrepreneur. He’s just a creative guy. I’d say otherwise and encourage you to look at how Bill Simmons is an entrepreneur and how those traits of Simmons can be applied to Eminem.

At the end of day, you have to take being intensely creative over being intensely smart. A smart solution can be replicated – a truly creative one cannot.

Passion-Founder-Product-Market Fit

A lot of people have been talking about product-market fit and founder-market fit. In fact, Chris Dixon wrote a great post on founder-market fit that brought it all together.

I wanted to take this a step further. Over the last few weeks I have read some great posts and witnessed a few things here in the NYC that I think should be shared. This post is mostly inspired by the actions and words of Joe Yevoli, and Scott Britton’s excellent knowledge bomb posted earlier this week.

In addition to having founder-market fit and product market fit, I think its absolutely crucial to have passion-market fit. One could argue that founder-market fit and passion-market fit are one in the same, however, I see them as separate channels that are both just as important as the other. I believe that they both have to exist in parallel in order to truly be successful.

Assuming you have the product and market covered you are left with the founder, who has a certain set of skills along with a certain set of interests and passions. Having the right founder and team is critical and we all know this. I argue that we need to take it a step further. Passion for the product and market you are working on is just as important as the skillset you carry.  A great founder without passion for what he is doing is extremely ineffective.

As Joey wrote in his post he did not have a true passion for web video which is why he decided to work on Teamhomefield instead (no discredit to Shelby, I know the guys and love what they are doing). He was more than capable of working on Shelby and helping them kick ass, but he knew he would be even more effective by pouring his energy into a product and industry that he truly, truly loves.

My last point is your passion will influence your actions. Scott really drove home the point to screw the what if’s and go all in. You can only really do this for something you are passionate about. If that passion is missing you will always be jumping out the plane with a safety shoot. If you only have one foot in the door then you should rethink what you want to spend your time doing. Trust me, I experienced this myself for the last 3 years. If you do what you love, you will eventually find the product-market fit that works.

Burn Your Boats

I heard an amazing story at my Church this weekend. I drew many parallels from it to my own life including some of the things I’ve learned in my journey as an entrepreneur. The story goes like this:

Alexander the Great’s powerful army spent years overwhelming opposing armies in their conquests. His men were fierce and swelled with the confidence that comes with consistent victory. Yet when Alexander and his men arrived on the shores of Persia they were visibly outnumbered.  Clearly outmanned, his men pleaded that it would be wise to go back and get more men. Alexander responded by ordering the men to burn their boats. As their only means of retreat went up in flames, legend has it that Alexander turned to his men and said, “We go home in Persian ships, or we die.”

One of the key themes from this story I relate to entrepreneurship is the nature of options. The inherent ambiguity you face in an early stage company often causes you to think 2 steps ahead. What if it fails? What if people don’t like the product? Often times these lingering questions can compel us to find ways to hedge our bets…for better or worse.

What I love about this story is that Alexander the Great made one of the bravest decisions anyone can make by intentionally removing his options.  His command sent a message to his men, but more importantly it put them in a new position: one defined by focus where there is no other option but to do your absolute best…or be defeated.

I’ve come to realize startup founders often find themselves similar circumstances. You’re a small company trying to disrupt a space typically occupied by larger incumbents. The odds are stacked against you and the uncertainty of success is evident.

I’d like to believe the odds of success for founders who disengage their options are far greater than those who don’t. Its extraordinary what you’re capable of when you put yourself in a corner. The straightforwardness of succeed or die propels you to do things you’d never do. Coupled with  laser-like focus, this is a powerful combination. Compare this with someone who gets back in the boat when the going gets tough. I know who my money is on.

For the record, I understand the importance of remaining objective, failing fast, and having a backup plan. I think the best founders integrate these things with the all or nothing approach exemplified by this story.

Early on make the decision whether or not you’re going to burn your boats. If you do, successful or not, the simple fact that you gave it everything you had will bring you peace regardless of the outcome. I feel that founders who are truly passionate about solving the problem they have set out to tackle are the ones  that will always be the first to burn their boats. This will be the subject of a future post.

 

 

 

 

 

The Next Big Thing: Checking-In (Again)

I used to think there were three types of people in this world:

  1. Avid Foursquare users – those that check-in to foursquare religiously and have several mayorships, always vying for the top spot on their leaderboards;
  2. Casual Foursquare users – the check-in once in a while crowd, usually only at certain events, through other social apps that give you the option or when reminded by someone in group #1 ; and
  3. Foursquare non-users - those that have have either never heard of foursquare or think they are too cool to broadcast to the world where they are in exchange for points and digital badges.

With all of the hoopla around foursquare and its partnerships with deal sites over the last couple weeks, there’s no question check-in behavior is going to shift.. but how much?  I think the change could be significant, and here’s why.

The first thing you should know is that I very rarely use foursquare – you can throw me right in with the rest of group #2.  You might see a slew of check-ins from me once every couple of weeks at an event through @hashable, or bragging about being at the airport on my way to South Beach, but that’s really about it. 

Well something odd happened to me the other day: I found myself checking-in 2 times in one day (*GASP!*), unsolicited mind you, and using the actual foursquare app on my iPhone.  I couldn’t help but notice because there was a lot of extra effort involved in having to find the big blue checkbox icon buried deep in my app graveyard, somewhere amongst my collection of old beta tests and other seldom-used social apps (it was next to Color).  Something had tipped the scales in favor of making that effort. Actually, the scales never even existed before in the first place.  I’m just one guy and I could be wrong, but if they tipped for me, I think they just might start to tip for others as well.  

How it all changed: about two weeks ago,  I stopped by @WeWorkLabs Soho to say hello to @ScottBrit and @srcasm and see how Sfter and guyhaus were coming along (very well, if you’re wondering).  That’s when I was first introduced to Jason Fertel.  Jason (@fertel) is the founder of Freespeech, a group messaging app, but I didn’t know it at the time because he was enthusiastically explaining his new project - DealBurner (check out the story on BetaBeat here).  When I asked him what DealBurner was all about, he asked me first if I use foursquare (not a good start), and then Facebook Places (seriously?).

Just as I was about to write the whole thing off, he said something to the effect of, “you’re going to want to start”.  Ok, he had my attention… and I’m all the better for it.  If I could muster up the effort to check-in, DealBurner would send me notifications about deals going on near me, right then and there.  Google Now, LivingSocial Instant, ScoutMob, Tenka.. the list goes on.

A minute later I was signed-up, checked-in and, after a short pause (to let me bask in overtaking second-to-last place on my leaderboard, I was texted my first deal… And I was hooked.

Note: Foursquare has deals with Living Social, Gilt City, zozi, BuyWithMe, AT&T, and Groupon, but the Redemption Loop Issue still exists for all of them except for Groupon Now. In other words, you can get all of the regular deals through foursquare, but other than for Groupon Now, deals are not redeemable until after they close at the end of the day – which really makes this whole real-time, location-based thing foursquare does kind of irrelevant, no? Don’t get me wrong, foursquare is still a great distribution platform for daily deal sites, but when it comes to instant deals I would make sure I have DealBurner to get all of them sent straight to me after checking in.

So right after I get to experience DealBurner in action, something else really interesting happened.  Apparently my check-in had also sparked an alert from another promising NYC startup - Sonar had just notified me that I might want to reach out to someone else checked-in at WeWork because we have a mutual friend on facebook – someone named Jason F.

Touché foursquare, touché…  So now, I think there’s four types of people in this world and you can add me to a new group somewhere in between my original #1 and #2.  You still won’t see me feverishly competing for mayorships or the top spot on any of the leaderboards. Nonetheless, there’s definitely enough cool stuff now built on top of the foursquare API to bring me real value – and that means more check-ins… and a new spot for the app on my iPhone home screen.

Actually I should say, bravo foursquare.  It’s amazing that they’ve been able to capture such a large user base with so little in tangible incentives.  Now that foursquare and the applications that are leveraging their platform are finding ways to deliver real value in the form of financial savings and  serendipitous connections, it puts them in position to make some significant leaps. It also means they might be coming to a crossroads.

At the end of the day, for foursquare to truly obtain massive adoption, they need to ensure these types of “real world” value propositions become heavily coupled with the use of their application.   The big question is going to be: do they expand into these adjacent markets  and start providing these services in-house so they can extract more value?  Or, do they stay the course and continue building the platform to enable more of these services at the expense of diluting that value for something more down the road?  Or maybe they can walk the fine line somewhere in between?  I don’t know what the right answer is, and it’s probably a whole series of posts for another time, but it will definitely be interesting to see how this all plays out.