Watercooler: Hard to Commercialize

Recently a reader sent me a follow-up email to my incubator post. He had a central question that goes to the heart of commercialization. Why are universities, who have such great research, so inefficient at commercializing it? We have thought long and hard about this very question. We have pulled technology out of well over 20 universities across the network including the University of Wisconsin, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, MIT, Stanford, Berkley, Cal Tech and the University of Texas. I believe that there are five challenges:

1) Difficulty – seed investing is the hardest kind of venture investing there is. You have a prolonged infant mortality phase where you are very vulnerable. Until your product is baked and you enjoy a ramping customer base, you are vulnerable to be being sidelined by the next New, New Thing. Unlike a cash flowing, old line company, technology spinouts walk on a tightrope and many things can wipe them from existence. Failure rates are high (over 50% for VC deals and much higher for non-VC backed efforts).

2) Visibility – not to sound like a broken record, but it is difficult to build a company if you are not sure where it needs to go or what challenges face it. Most university professors have two challenges. They are often regional isolated and they move in academic, not economic circles. It is very difficult to assess what customers want, what new start-ups are coming up or how to get access to strategic partners. Their connections and networks are great for research but lacking for business.

3) Experience base – professors have not done this before usually. The schools that do well have a number of professors who have  gone through the process and can mentor other professors and show them how it is done.  Just like VC’s are lacking in the detailed scientific matters, professors are usually very naïve about what it takes to commercialize their technology. Furthermore, they have great pride in their work and take exception to being told that it is not going to be the next Google or Cisco.

4) Ivory Tower – many professors are in universities because they are interested more in research than in business. Many universities feel that commerce often can corrupt research.   Publish or Perish is more prominent than profits. Culture plays a key role in all of this as do school policies around tenure track and promotion.

5) Applicability – the lion share of research makes much better licensing candidates than start-up fodder. It is usually very niche and addresses a very specific characteristic or component of an business product. It is more feature than company. Not knowing how to assess the difference is an issue so  lack of visibility exacerbates this.

More and more universities are addressing these challenges. They are creating more business savvy commercialization/licensing organizations. Many are also creating small commercialization teams or funds. Trying to find prosing research in a vast universities is like finding a needle in a haystack. These screeners and “guides” are very helpful in a) identifying the technology from the shadows and b) taking a first stab at packaging and prepping it.

People thinking about going into universities often have many of the same challenges. In particular, few have the national visibility, start-up experience or history battling with research cultures & professorial egos.

Suggestions:
1) target professors who are clear thought leaders (nationally/globally renowned in their field)
2) pick a few academic segments and become very knowledgeable about them. For example, if you find LED’s interesting, identify and visit the top universities working in this field (including Asia in this case). Talk to researchers in the biggest commercial players (GE, etc). Talk to analysts, possible customers, etc.
3) pull together deep pockets. Most plays are under-capitalized and often get “crammed-down”. It takes much longer and much more money than you expect. Don’t run out of gas before the finish line. Find out how much similar plays had to raise before getting to self-sufficiency.
4) get one person, who is experienced in doing university start-ups, to run the effort day to day. You need an experienced hand at the wheel early on. This doesn’t need to be a  domain expert but rather a process one.

Good luck!

Rant: I Hate Vonage

Have I mentioned that I hate Vonage? After all of those witty ads and promising benefits, I was suckered into signing up. I even ported our main line over. How much do I dislike thee…let me count the ways:
1) after 6-8 minutes, calls are often dropped. Really great when you are on hold with Vonage tech support for 30 minutes to work on why your calls keep dropping. You lose that call and have to go back to the queue.
2) it drops callers half-way through voice mail messages so they have to call back twice
3) it takes 1-2 seconds for the Phone Adapter to hook up the IP to the POTS network when people call in. You answer and say "Hello", but because the connection was not made, your caller doesn’t hear you. You have to say Hello multiple times.
4) call waiting from hell. Instead of discretely beeping once or twice, it beeps loudly every 4 seconds until the voice mail picks up. You have to stop talking until Big Ben is done chiming.
5) occasional echo
6) it goes down when our Internet goes down…this has been happening recently as we are having DSL modem issues
7) my wife is extremely displeased with all of this and wants to go back to SBC. However, getting Vonage to give up our number will be quite an ordeal…it is a number hostage.

Am I alone here or does VoIP really stink? Other experiences?

Event: BarCamp (key)

"We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
                                                        — Benjamin Franklin

Just a reminder that Jason Rexilius’s BarCamp is this Saturday (from 12pm) to Sunday (8pm) at  648 W. Randolph, 3rd Floor. Over 90 people have signed up, with another 30+ as maybe’s. Why is this a key event? Well, pardon me while I diverge…

Evolution is driven by emergent behaviour. This happens when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviours as a collective. This often leads to unexpected consequences. Evolution, as our partner Steve Jurvetson often points out, occurs at the edges this way. The power of the collective (or network) grows exponentially (some would argue actually n times the logarithm of n) with the number of connected members (Metcalf’s Law). The Valley is drowning in networked collectives. Chicago is dry as a dessert. No one in the tech community knows anyone else here.

I have been keen on getting a series of Hack-a-thons and other similar events for developers and techies to get to know each other. Everyone in tech here works in isolated islands. It makes sharing best practices, recruiting, passing industry buzz that much easier. Hack-a-thons are much more than just a social event. People bring their projects and work and co-create/share. The topics are driven by the community and have meat to them. As a VC, I am tired of our local companies searching for months to find a good DBA or coder because our developers don’t have legions of other developers they know/hang out with. This isn’t their fault, but the community’s.

I hope that this is the beginning of a new generation of tech-related, self-forming networking events. If you are tech inclined, attend…

Blog of the Week: Techcrunch

Created in 2005 by Michael Arrington, Techcrunch captures the pulse of Web 2.0. With over 85,000 subscribers (all through FeedBurner :)), it is the largest blog in its space. Michael reviews an amazingly broad array of new technologies and services before anyone else and overlays insightful commentary on top. For those of you new to the blogosphere or just looking to expand your blogroll, this is a must. I personally don’t know how Michael covers as much as he does. He is amazingly prolific. Enough said…subscribe away.

Blog of the Week: Techcrunch

Created in 2005 by Michael Arrington, Techcrunch captures the pulse of Web 2.0. With over 85,000 subscribers (all through FeedBurner :)), it is the largest blog in its space. Michael reviews an amazingly broad array of new technologies and services before anyone else and overlays insightful commentary on top. For those of you new to the blogosphere or just looking to expand your blogroll, this is a must. I personally don’t know how Michael covers as much as he does. He is amazingly prolific. Enough said…subscribe away.

Buzz: TiE Capital Efficient Notes

On June 29th, I was fortunate enough to moderate the TiE event on Capital Efficient companies. Mike Domek of TicketsNow, Lucas Roh of Hostway and Jason Fried of 37Signal were the entrepreneurs. David Dulka’s post on the event captures a lot of the key points and dialog from the evening. I was incredibly impressed by what all three have been able to achieve. Mike Domek has built TNow into the most visited secondary ticket site in the world off of an initial $100 investment. Lucas Roh built his $100 million hosting company from cash flow (remember the hundred’s of millions Exodus spent?) and Jason Fried has over 500,000 people using his services with only 6 employees. Feel free to catch the specifics from David’s notes. (thanks David)

Watercooler: Eastern Quote

A friend gave me one of those condensed subject books (about 4"x4") that you see at checkout at Borders. It is mental candy they hope, like at the grocery store, you will impulsively buy. This once had a series of "Eastern Wisdom" quotes. One I liked in particular, which should be as much a VC mantra as an entrepreneur’s is:

    In thinking, keep to the simple,
    In conflict, be fair and generous.
    In governing, don’t try to control.
    In work, do what you enjoy.
    In family life, be completely present.
                        — Lao Tzu

The last one resonated the most. In the crazy 24/7 world of entrepreneurship, it is way to easy to be fully engaged and pre-occupied about something…closing a sale, signing a strategic partnership, employee issues, etc. As a result, you never hear what your spouse or your kids are truly saying. You go through the motions of listening to play your family role, but your mind is else where. Remember, this is your safe harbor. Invest in it before the kids have grown up or your spouse grows weary. The others relate to Karma and Simplicity…favorite subjects of mine.

Bootcamp: Scalability — P*Q

"If we can sell one to everyone in China…"
                                            — Many a hopeful entrepreneur

Entrepreneurs often ask what VC’s look for in a business. While simple at first notion, it can be complex in detail. One of the key factors that VC’s look at (and which entrepreneurs should seek regardless of funding) is scalability in their business model. This term gets tossed around rather lightly but few people ever take the time to define what they mean by scalability. While different people have different definitions, my basic measure is simple: P * Q.

For all you Economics majors, you know that this is Price * Quantity = Revenue. Why do I say P*Q versus simply Revenue? It probably goes back to my early days at the Boston Consulting Group where you had to break down your analysis to the most relevant atomistic level. VC’s need to see businesses that have the ability to get big. They can do this one of three ways…lot of Q, high P or both.

In pitching a VC, never use phrases like "Gartner estimates this market to be $xx billion…". This will get you quickly escorted out of the building. These numbers are often useless and misleading. Top down approaches give very little visibility into the credibility of a business plan. Avoid "all I need is 2% of this market". Again, top down doesn’t work. First, you are probably relying on the useless analyst market estimate and multiplying by 0.02. Second, you need to be the market leader in your space to cut through the noise and grow. If you have 2% of the market, either you have defined the market too broadly or your market share is somewhere way out on the tail.

Two phrases to focus on: bottom-up and P*Q. When sizing the market, identify the relevant and believable Q. How many customers are you really going to sell to? It often is useful to identify the first vertical or two that you plan on penetrating (technology usually takes hold a vertical at a time). It is much more believable (or defendable) if you are targeting the 2,000 trade associations than it is to target the Wilshire 2000. You can describe what it is about trade associations (or what other vertical) that need your product.

Once you have defined Q, you then need to demonstrate, realistically, how much each Q/customer is willing to pay (P) annually for your product or service. It should be tied to what customers are currently paying for your product or service. If you are selling something for $5,000 a month, don’t model out $200,000 per year per customer. Show that it works at $60,000 a year and that it is gravy when it goes to to $200,000.

Another key factor in gaining credibility with your model and business…visibility. The easiest way to show visibility is to have a credible pipeline. To the degree that the customers in your pipeline look a lot like the customers buying your product, the more credibility your claims will have.

Also, if management has sold to Q in the past and has strong relationships, it enhances credibility that it will work again this time.

So, drive your models to the most basic variables for a bottoms up analysis. Break P & Q down into their sub-components…Q could be visitor traffic times conversion. Each situation has its own drivers. This way, you don’t have to sell one to everyone in China…

Watercooler: Matt’s Three Networking Laws

Lot of great comments on my Incubator post. Too late tonight to consolidate, but will definitely do so and respond this weekend. I am coming back late from the Tech Cocktails event tonight which was a roaring success. Great job to Eric Olson (of FeedBurner fame) and Frank Gruber. I think many of us expected 25-50 people to show up at this first tech outing. There had to have been over 200 people from every possible kind of tech firm ranging from Fortune 1000 to start-up.

One of the things that people going to the Valley always comment about is the number of spontaneous but applicable networking events and dinners that go on out there. This has been missing in the Midwest and other regions. There was a lot of discussion and energy at this event. However, most of these events fall flat. So why?…what makes for a useful and sustainable networking event (or series). Here are Matt’s Three Laws for Networking Events:

1) Symmetrical Benefits: the event needs to provide symmetrical benefits for everyone attending. People like to attend events where they get as much out of it as they give. Too often, events are set up to attract a couple of Lobsters (key influencers/players) and a large number of aspiring attendees. The Lobsters get little out of the event other than a lot of email the next day requesting favors. Whether it is an event for CEO’s, managers or Indians, people attending should generally be at the same station in life and able to give as well as take.

2) Common Foundation: people need to be coming from a common experience base and have common issues and interests. Putting people focused on Nanotechnology in the same room as software programmers may make for interesting conversation, but there will be limited takeaway gained by either party. It is also easier for people to talk to others who are interested or dealing with the same matters. Service providers, though I love them and need them dearly on our deals, do not qualify usually.

3) No Dilution: no, I am not talking about the drinks! The people at the event need to be active participants in the common arena. Looking at the % of lawyers or service providers at an event is one quick way to assess how likely an event is succeed. Lot of lawyers, little chance. Also, the more people at the event who are playing at the national level and dealing with key players, the higher the level of interaction will be. Having an event with a number of entrepreneurs will be better than a mixer with a lot of recently graduated MBA’s.

These events can take many forms including small dinners, hackathons, cocktail mixers or sponsored events. Dinners work well for the uber-Lobsters; hackathons and events work well for the rank & file. The key is to let a thousand networking flowers bloom. We need more informal events like this for different levels. The next big event will be the Bar Camp next weekend run by Jason Rexilius. It is a Hackathon imported from out west, targeted at hard core techies from the Perl, Python, PHP, and Ruby communities. It kicks off the morning of the 15th and continues through the evening of the 16th. They have 60 attendees and 25 maybes already.

Start planting those flowers early and often. Let’s see more informal dinner get togethers and ad hoc cocktails (bring a techie friend).

What do you all think makes for a useful, value-added networking event?