Monthly Archives: October 2011

New Problems

When I first started playing guitar all I wanted to do was learn barre chords. That’s it. After that I’d be able to play all of the Blink songs I wanted and then just relax or move on to something else (quite frankly I didn’t think there was music beyond Enema of the State).

But as it turns out, once I learned barre chords I wanted more. I wanted to actually sound like the recordings and not some haggard resemblance. And then, thankfully, I got into other music and wanted to solo like Duane Allman and Eddie Hazel, and then I wanted to write songs like Brad Nowell and play jazz like Wes Montgomery.

And now I have new problems, like channeling whatever talents I have into a consistent deliverable so I can play in public with or without a band.

The point is that I was never finished, I’m still not finished, and never will be finished. The finish line kept getting pushed back further and further until it disappeared altogether and then I realized, perhaps later than most, that there is no finish line.

So if you’re never finished with something how in the hell do you measure progress?

For certain endeavors there are metrics you can and should use and sometimes you can just tell.

But a helpful, basic way to measure progress – good, life progress – is by paying attention to the frequency with which you’re facing new problems.

For guitar that means getting past skill issues like developing hand strength, proper picking technique (by far the most important), and an effective vibrato and bend. Then you need to study music theory, practice scales and improvisation, learn about equipment, sound, and setup, play while singing and on and on and on.  The problems – or maybe “challenges” is a better way to think about them – never end.

If that sounds like an existential nightmare then I suggest you get over it. Because that’s life – it’d be easy and boring and not worth your time if it was any different

In terms of startups you can think of it this way:

  • Just linked up with a brilliant co-founder? Great. New problem.
  • Comfortable that you have a market? Awesome, now here’s a new problem.
  • Finished your product and ready to launch? Wonderful, now get a shit-ton of users and iterate like crazy (new problem!).
  • Raised a $1.2 million in series A? Congratulations! What’s your prize you ask? (Bob Barker voice): Whhhy it’s a BRAND NEW PROBLEM!

The other day I was reading up on the biographies of guys like Jim Breyer and Mike Moritz and Yuri Milner – basically masters-of-the-universe level dudes – and it struck me: as disgustingly accomplished as these guys are they still have real problems that they face day in and day out.

What’s the best use of their immense wealth and influence? How do they keep motivated and driven and grounded in the face of massive success? How do they carve out meaningful personal lives when everyone is trying to suckle at the teet of power?

Marlo Stanfield from The Wire would call these “good problems” and I wholeheartedly agree. But they’re problems nonetheless.

Or think about Adam Sandler’s character in Funny People. Same kind’ve of thing.

My point is that new problems are generally a good thing – they mean you’re growing and stretching and improving. You’re taking risks and rising to challenges.

Consider, on the other hand, old problems. If your job, after several years, is still an issue (in the sense that you hate it) then you need to do something about it. Same goes for relationships and personal shortcomings.  Old, enduring problems – in my experience at least – are surefire indicators of an atrophy in your abilities and character. And they’re constraining your potential.

So go out there a get some new goddamn problems.  They’ll be better than your old ones.

CrunchFund and Why We Care

Over the summer, I wrote a post on Ventureminded.me entitled “The TechCrunch Machine” in which I railed against Arrington, his conflicts of interest, and how the site had lost its way, particularly how it shifted from highlighting up-and-coming startups to focusing on larger tech companies. Arrington has long been criticized for being a Silicon Valley insider writing about startups while simultaneously being an active investor. More recently, MG Siegler’s pseudo-departure from TechCrunch to join Arrington at CrunchFund raised some eyebrows as well. But why?

Chris Dixon tweeted that Michael Moritz was a former journalist and became a successful VC, so perhaps Siegler would follow a similar route. However, there’s a major difference between the guys at CrunchFund and Moritz. The latter stepped away from his journalism career at TIME to pursue a career in venture capital at Sequoia. Arrington, and to a certain extent Siegler, is still very much entrenched in unearthing stories, breaking news, and relying on sources. All of these things are not only critical to being successful at writing about startups, but are also vital to sourcing deals. So why can’t they do both and just disclose when they’re writing about an investment (as Arrington has done and continues to do)? Simply, when someone is talking to Arrington or Siegler, is he/she speaking to the writer or the investor – who knows?

In my opinion, it all comes down to a simple distinction between bloggers and journalists. The guys at CrunchFund want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be called “journalists” to have that official seal of approval from the media community, but they want to be renegade bloggers in order to continue investing without a conflict of interest cropping up all the time. It just can’t happen. A journalist must be completely impartial. For example, no CNBC employee is allowed to hold stock of any kind – even sports business reporter Darren Rovell (who is also the source of this statement). Why should a tech writer be allowed to invest in companies (whether he writes about his investments or not)?A “blogger,” on the other hand, is unofficial; it’s a person who dabbles in writing online but has some other main profession. No one has a problem with Fred Wilson blogging on a daily basis because no one would ever confuse his style or content with actual journalism, and he’s not breaking news by relying on inside sources. Arrington and Siegler, however, are journalists all the time – whether they want to be or not.

For the sake of transparency, impartiality, and a host of other reasons, Arrington needs to shut down Uncrunched or CrunchFund. Something tells me he’d be more likely to part with the former.