Author Archives: Adam Besvinick

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.

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.

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.

Defining an Entrepreneur

Some believe that a person is simply born an entrepreneur, that entrepreneurship can’t be taught in the classroom or through seminars and conferences. Others believe that you can mold and shape someone into becoming an entrepreneur over time. I tend to align with the former group. Yes, you can certainly teach someone the necessary skills that an entrepreneur needs to possess. However, people that are entrepreneurs are just hardwired differently than everyone else. They are willing to throw caution to the wind when necessary but also can take measured risks. They find solutions to problems that were previously thought unsolvable. This inherent hardwiring is certainly not a guarantee for success; just as not being an entrepreneur doesn’t mean you will fail. It is merely a dichotomy in the way people think about the world and the problems that are in it. But if we take this as a given, that some people think like entrepreneurs and others don’t, how do we define those that do? Does an entrepreneur have to start his / her own company? Does an entrepreneur have to create something entirely new? What really is the (non-Oxford English Dictionary) definition of an entrepreneur?

In a post yesterday, on the Harvard Business Review blog, Grant McCracken asks the question, “Who and what is an entrepreneur?” He poses this question after hearing Marc Ventresca, a professor from Oxford’s Said Business School, say that entrepreneurs create endeavors by  ”marshaling, mobilizing, and connecting different worlds.” In essence, Ventresca believes that nothing that is invented or started is new – it is merely a derivative of something or combination of things that came before it. McCracken, on the other hand, subscribes to the “heroic” definition of an entrepreneur, such that a person creates something altogether new and goes outside the “capsule of culture.” While he acknowledges that some entrepreneurs “repurpose what exists,” that type of definition doesn’t aptly describe those entrepreneurs who suffer the “penalty of taking the lead.” At the end of the day, though, defining an entrepreneur is a virtually impossible and, frankly, fruitless task. An entrepreneur (and by extension, entrepreneurship and the entrepreneurial spirit) is not tangible. Sure, a person can be an entrepreneur, but the effort, the hardwiring, the belief system, etc. that goes into a person doing something entrepreneurial can’t be put in a box. For me, trying to define an entrepreneur is a little like what Justice Potter Stewart encountered when trying to define pornography: I know it when I see it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Best Part About NYC’s Tech Scene

Last week, my fellow Venturebent writer Nick Gavronsky wrote about how critical it is for startups to create their own unique culture and the various ways the initial leadership team can do so.  Part of what goes into the cultivation of this culture is the intrinsic ethos that entrepreneurs and management teams themselves bring to the table.  Oftentimes, the primary component of this ethos is dogged determination, the notion that even if no one believes in your idea, you and your team do — and that is all that matters on Day 1.

Over the last several months, as I’ve gotten to know numerous young entrepreneurs in NYC, I have found this stubborn persistence in every person I’ve met. This attitude was perfectly encapsulated in a recent post by Reece Pacheco, one of the entrepreneurs I’ve gotten to know. After raising a round of funding for Shelby.tv, Reece reiterates the importance of a key mantra: expect nothing, earn everything. This attitude is one I’ve adopted during my efforts to break into NYC’s tech scene, and I’ve also seen it in all the guys on our Venturebent roster as well as others entrenched in the NYC tech scene whether they’ve taken the plunge of starting a company or not.

Alex Taub recently tweeted that he has a circle on Google+ called “Young and Hungry Tech,” a phrase which epitomizes Venturebent’s mission as well as the best part about the NYC tech community. As this tech wave continues, I have no doubt that NYC’s startup scene and the guys I write with on Venturebent won’t get full on current successes, but rather will look to feast on future endeavors.

The Startup World’s Balance of Power

A couple days ago, Phineas Barnes wrote about how he plans to fix the VC product for entrepreneurs by allowing them to review him after every meeting with the hope that over time he will improve his preparation for meetings and punctuality, among other things. I think Phin’s goal is very admirable and one which I hope all VCs will strive to achieve, particularly during this current tech wave we are riding. Moreover, upon finishing the article, I realized that it is somewhat in line with a theory I have been kicking around for a little while.

The theory: The balance of power between entrepreneurs and VCs is cyclical and constantly shifting back and forth. Right now, when money is easier to come by, entrepreneurs have the leverage. VCs are competing for the hottest deals, and when it comes time for an entrepreneur to pick his/her investors (because the entrepreneur has that luxury during times like this), he/she will choose based on factors such as terms, geography, resources, experience, likeability, etc. For example, firms feel like they absolutely have to have certain types of senior associates and partners because they want the entrepreneurs to feel comfortable and select them. Phin says “investors are service providers.” However, I would argue that it is only now during this frothy period that VC has swung to more of a service business with entrepreneurs as the clients. When money is tighter, such as in 2001-2002, VCs had the leverage. Now, this “power” wasn’t an excuse to be unprepared for or late to meetings, but they just had more influence in the relationship. It was much less of a service business during that time and truly what one thinks of when the term “buy-side” is said.

So what does all this mean for entrepreneurs and VCs alike? As many have pointed out, entrepreneurs should be raising as much as they can during these good times because you never know when the shit will hit the fan, while also respecting that VCs are ones deploying that capital. And for VCs, regardless of whether they have leverage or not, they should understand that they only see a return if an entrepreneur accepts and does something lucrative with their investment. At the end of the day, it seems to me that if entrepreneurs and VCs could peacefully coexist (and realize it’s very difficult for one to thrive without the other), they could put an end to this cyclical tipping of the power scales and work together on equal footing.

 

Google+…More Like Google-

Yesterday Google unveiled its super-stealth social project, Google+, to a variety of reactions – from amazing to embarrassing. On the aforementioned spectrum, my reaction probably falls somewhere closer to embarrassing, but the best word to describe how I feel is underwhelmed. There is nothing in Google+ that blew me away. Each of the features seems like a slight derivative or virtual clone of something that is already out there.

Circles prides itself on being a more efficient way of sharing things, but sharing with different groups of people is why I use Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. I like how I have 3 distinct places to go to for 3 very distinct groups of people with whom I interact. Sure, some people overlap between the 3, but I’d rather not have to manually create these groups using Circle, especially when I’ve already done it (i.e. switching cost). Sparks reminds me of Twitter lists – I can already create a list of people that tweet about a particular interest I have. Hangouts is Skype group chat. Huddles is GroupMe. The whole site, in its current state, feels like a “nice to have” but not a “must have.” It is certainly not a Facebook or Twitter killer. It is hardly a complement right now. And, despite what some people have suggested on Twitter, I certainly don’t think that these services will ever replace enterprise social networks or WebEx (or Go To Meeting). Gmail hasn’t replaced Outlook (or Lotus if you’re stuck using that still), so why would companies switch to Google+?

The way Google went about selecting features seems like they took all the social features that Facebook hadn’t done yet. For a while now, I’ve bemoaned to friends that nothing about Facebook is original: the basic idea is MySpace, pictures is Flickr (or another photo sharing site), video is YouTube, status is Twitter, Places is Foursquare, Deals is Groupon (or another daily deals site), chat is IM, the list goes on. I give Zuckerberg 2 pieces of credit: seamlessly integrating all these ideas fromother people and not selling. This seems to be exactly what Vic Gundotra is doing with Google+ – let’s take a bunch of features that other social sites are doing and mash them together into one service. It’s as if they said to themselves, “Well it worked for Zuck with Facebook, so it should work for us too!”

However, perhaps the biggest thing working against Google+ right now is that it’s Google. Google used to be synonymous with creativity, innovation, and things that were just plain awesome. But when you hear Google and social in the same sentence, you think of words like Buzz and Wave. There is a stigma attached to Google+ already, and people who try the service will be doing so with a heaping pile of salt. They decided to call the service Google+, but for now, in my mind, it’s Google-.

Enhanced by Zemanta

NYC Tech’s New Home

Welcome to Venturebent! Whether you realize it or not, you have stumbled upon a bastion of NYC tech, startups, and VC started by Nick GavronskyAlex Topiler, Scott Britton and I (Adam Besvinick). This concept was envisioned by four friends working at various financial institutions and early-stage companies, whose real passions lie in the world of startups, both as aspiring entrepreneurs and investors. Previously, on my personal blog I wrote about how Bill Simmons had teamed up with a number of top writers and thinkers to create Grantland, an online hub for sports and pop culture. Today, I’m proud to announce a partnership that the four of us have formed. While we each have a blog of our own that we’ll maintain separately, we’ve decided to join forces to showcase our very best content along with links to other resources, guest posts from respected names in the industry, and coverage of up-and-coming NYC startups. Additionally, you can also follow @Venturebent on Twitter for updates to the site as well as general observations by us writers. Our goal is for Venturebent to be the definitive hub for NYC tech, and we are hoping that it will be a must-visit site for those interested in startups, tech, and VC. We will likely have an East Coast and NYC bias for obvious reasons, but we hope to encourage a friendly rivalry with our counterparts in the Valley, as we accumulate more and more content (and traffic!). So, on that note, I highly encourage you to check out our debut posts on what we expect to become the go-to site for NYC tech talk.

Foursquare’s Big Round: A Sign of Things to Come for NYC

A little over a month ago, I wrote about how NYC was poised to make a run at Silicon Valley and how ultimately, the Big Apple would win out. Last Friday, Foursquare pulled a Neil Armstrong – one small step for them, one giant leap for NYC startups. After raising $50 million at a whopping $600 million valuation, they came that much closer to becoming the first $1 billion social media startup in NYC. And once we get one, I think the momentum will increase exponentially. Later that day, Bryce Roberts perfectly encapsulated the feeling I previously wrote about when he tweeted: “cool that NYC founders see the @foursquare funding as a win for the whole city. THAT is why NYC is such a special place for startups.” I described the physical and emotional closeness of the startups in NYC, the ease of communication, the confluence of creative industries. But I forgot one key point – we hate to lose and love to win.
New Yorkers are some of the most competitive people on Earth (and I’m proud to say I’m one of them in that regard), but when it comes to the startup community, we want NYC to win. (Quick side note: This also goes back to the notion of lessening the importance of individual accomplishments, which is why Millennials are the next great generation). Every entrepreneur will poor his/her blood, sweat, and tears into their startup to make sure it succeeds because at the end of the day, it’s for the betterment of the City’s place in the startup world. Foursquare eventually reaching a $1 billion valuation or Tumblr raising another ridiculous round is a proof of concept for the NYC startup. Not only can you come and build a great company here, but it can be a massive, game-changing one, which gives tremendous hope and confidence for all entrepreneurs in the City from the ones bootstrapping in the outer boroughs to the ones pitching at TechStars Demo Day at Webster Hall. Last Friday was an historic day in the NYC startup world, and we at Venturebent are proud to be part of an ecosystem that lauds this accomplishment but knows it’s just a sign that we’re moving towards bigger and better things.

The TechCrunch Machine

Last week, the frequently polarizing Michael Arrington wrote a post about how TechCrunch often “blindsides companies” by writing breaking news about them without reaching out to the entrepreneur or company itself first. Of course, at the center of attention this time, is Caterina Fake and her most recent startup. Despite Arrington’s reaching out to her to ask about a round of financing she supposedly raised, Fake decided to break the news herself on her own blog. While Arrington has done a lot of great things for startups, it’s nice to finally hear of someone “standing up to him” (even if that wasn’t Fake’s intention).

When TechCrunch first launched, not only was it a fantastic resource for readers but also entrepreneurs. Readers, particularly outsiders to the startup world, could gain “insider access” and learn about the happenings in the Valley. Entrepreneurs were able to get exposure for their startup. However, over time, the mission of TechCrunch has been lost, in my opinion.

Yes, it still is a fairly good resource for people to learn about tech and startups (but there are numerous other blogs which do this comparably well). However, I feel as though the site has become “too commercial.” There’s a reason the “What’s Hot” bar at the top of the page includes: Android, Apple, Facebook, Google, Groupon, Microsoft, Twitter, Zynga. The little entrepreneur has been pushed aside for the most part. An appearance on TechCrunch has become more about marketing than anything else, and the up-and-coming startup has become an afterthought. However, startups are very much afraid to “bite the hand that feeds them” because they don’t want to become the next Fake in the eyes of Arrington.

The other main flaw with TechCrunch is more a symptom of our society now than anything else. However, it featured prominently in Arrington’s most recent post, so I feel it’s worth addressing. That is, the idea of “breaking news.” In our 24/7 news cycle Twitter world, everyone becomes a journalist who can scoop any story. Not only is TechCrunch competing against every other tech blog and the entrepreneurs themselves, but they’re also competing against you and me. If we at Venturebent hear of an amazing new startup in NYC or a crazy development at a startup here, we could potentially break the news before Arrington. And frankly, that scares the shit out of him because his competitive advantage has long been that he has the most connections. Granted our audience is microscopic compared to TechCrunch’s (for now), but losing out on a scoop damages one’s credibility, especially if that’s what you hang your hat on. Consequently, Arrington’s trigger finger has become quicker and quicker over time to the point that he’s almost adopted the phrase, “ready, fire, aim.”

Despite all the TechCrunch / Arrington bashing, I still continue to follow both on Twitter and check the site on a daily basis. I just wish they’d go back to their roots, rather than continuing to evolve into this TechCrunch Machine with Arrington at the helm.