I have some personal news to share. I am going to write a book. Yes, a book that you can physically hold in your hands, or download to your Kindle. Though many people who know me came to know me through my writing on blogs, I don’t consider myself a writer — rather, it is just the way I interact with the world around me and just a byproduct of the work I’ve been doing, either at companies, in venture capital, and as an independent investor. Yet, about a month ago, on a Sunday morning tailgating before a football game with a bunch of colleagues, we had a few beers and got on the topic of an idea that turned into a longer conversation.
And, since then, I couldn’t shake the idea. The more I thought about it, and the more I socialized the idea with friends, they too agreed it would be a good idea and that my background, more diverse than deep in any one category, could provide an interesting lens with which to write this book and share the associated ideas widely. I am going to put my name on the line and use my little platform to market the book. My intention is to make the book an organic extension of this blog, with more organization, and to share the story in an authentic, civil manner and attract the proper audience for it.
“OK, OK,” you say, “What’s the book about already!?” My answer: “Uber.” For lack of a better title, for now, I’ll call it: “The Uber Effect.”
Over the past year, I noticed that I would write more and more on this blog about Uber, and then when I searched the history on the site, I noticed it came up much more than I had imagined. And, recently, it has come up in conversation more, and when people I’m talking with realize the company is a big deal but have a harder time imagining how big the company can get and what type of influence it will collect and exert, those conversations turn into debates that touch on many aspects of how we organize society today. The more and more I think about the company and its growth potential, the more I’ve come to realize it will not just be a financially powerful company, but Uber will hold all other sorts of power related to data, mobility, logistics, commerce, transportation and more. Like Amazon, Google, and Facebook before it, it is a once-in-a-lifetime company, it is on the verge of going public within the next two years, and I have made a personal decision to commit some of my time to organize and tell that story as the drumbeat gets louder.
“What will the book cover?” you ask. I am still sorting that out, but expect it to touch on how mobile devices help create the largest technology market our society has ever witnessed, how humans are migrating to cities worldwide, how centralized systems (like governments) are being challenged by decentralized networks, a citizenry more willing to pay by the mile rather than pay more taxes and the subsequent effects on public transit infrastructure, a bifurcating labor market between high-skilled and not in an age with automation on the horizon, the distribution of knowledge via cloud-based servers and mobile devices, just-in-time inventory management powered by mobile devices, and how autonomous vehicles may turn this all upside down again.
Truth is, I’m still sorting this out, talking to an agent and publishers, but I want to commit to it, so I’m publicly sharing it, and I will need to really sharpen the scope and focus. That’s what the holidays are for, I guess!
All that said, here’s what will not be covered in the book:
One, this book will not be a hit-job on the company, nor an excuse to be an academic cheerleader for the company. I am an Uber “bull” and would love to own stock in the venture, but I have no financial connection to the company and I do believe Uber will face some bumpy times ahead. Uber is also a company which has been described as “unscrupulous” by many, and I will look into those stories. I want to write a fair book.
Two, the book won’t be unnecessarily long — rather, I want to write it in a style that a smart person can dig into it for a few weeks, let it marinate and digest, and then talk about it with other people.
Three, the book won’t go into gossipy detail about the company’s formation or startup competition — nothing wrong with someone else taking up this angle, and I’m sure there’s an audience for it, but it doesn’t interest me personally.
Four, it won’t be an excuse to show off data porn — I don’t want to be reliant on getting proprietary data nor do I want to get into academic debates about how one labeled a graph and such. There will be people who disagree with the book, and that’s great — heck, right now, many smart people think the company is grossly overvalued.
Five, my goal is to not make it the typical business or strategy book — think of the brilliantly short “Holidays On Ice” book by David Sedaris that you can read every holiday season with a heavy dose of the type of writing that’s on this blog already, but much more organized.
And, Six, this won’t be an “official” account or the “official” book on Uber. I won’t have that kind of access nor would make that claim. It will simply be my point of view on the company, in greater detail than could afford on this blog, and something tuned for the more casual reader who is interested in issues like globalization, mobile technology, new business models, labor markets, and reimagining cities.
Anyway, that’s it. I’ll share more details as I organize them. Will probably start with a Table Of Contents. Also, there will be many people reading this and on Twitter with a much better grasp of the company than I have — I want to write this book both for the technology early-adopters who have seen the Uber tidal wave coming for a while, but also for a more general audience who may have not yet. I hope that I can set expectations here and write a book that will appeal to both. Thanks for reading, and thanks to friends already who have listened to my idea and offered feedback and guidance. (And, yeah, there are probably typos in this post, so I’ll have an editor and fact-checker clean up the book.)
** Update: I rec’d a lot of email/DMs on this one. My takeaway from this is there’s a mismatch of expectations when founders meet VCs. The founders may perceive they’ve raised Seed and are “going for A,” while VCs may perceive that same company to have already raised an A and, therefore, expect B-level metrics.
Monday night was a night on Twitter I did not expect. It’s easy to say that all the naming of rounds (seeds vs A vs ____) is semantic and tired — that’s true. What is interesting (to me), however, is the general knowledge gap between bigger institutional funds and the seed ecosystem at large. If you open this tweet and click through the various threads, the key lesson for me is that founders at the seed stage should be aware of how a larger VC firm will evaluate them based on the amount of money they’ve raised to date.
In particular, and this is just one person’s POV, but one of the largest, most public VCs said he viewed startups that took on around $3m or more in seed funding or notes had already raised their “A round.” Yes, semantics again, but founders are obsessed with these monikers, so everyone else is, too. A step further, for seeded companies that have raised this or more, a VC firm may benchmark that opportunity against other Series B deals they’ve done and/or are evaluating at that time.
This is all important today because (1) most people who aren’t on the inside don’t understand these goalposts; and (2) founders are operating in a climate where they can raise many rounds within a set of rolling closes of notes with caps. So, lamenting about what rounds are named misses the main point: Now that this knowledge has been made public, how will it impact how much founders raise, will it impact seed investors from continuing to invest in or bridge their companies? Whether or not $3m is the right benchmark, people are searching for guidance, and in the absence of perfect information or standardized milestones for companies to hit, a discussion like tonight’s helps shine a spotlight on companies who raise too much in the seed round.
It is not about the semantics. That may be obvious to some, but it’s great to have a leader in the world of VC just come out and say it so clearly. Not many people would.
A few weeks ago, I was invited to Cendana Capital’s & SVB’s annual “LP/GP Summit” at the Bloomberg offices in San Francisco. I asked the head of Cendana if I could briefly summarize my takeaways of the event (without ascribing any comments made on stage to anyone in particular), and Michael graciously agreed. As I am new to the investing game and the smallest player by every standard, these types events are really impactful for me. Please note, Cendana is focused on early-stage VC or microVC, and less so on the bigger funds. I’m like a sponge trying to soak up everything I hear. So, here are “The Big Takeaways” for me:
[Before I do this, a few big disclaimers as inevitably people will read this with all different perspectives and points of view. What’s below does not necessarily apply broadly -- rather, it’s based on what I’ve observed. Many funds have different relationships with their LPs. Therefore, these are my observations, and only that -- my perspective on what I’ve noticed, and it’s likely to be at odds with what others may have seen.]
Today, everyone wants to invest directly./ This was the biggest theme of the day, and as I’ve been mentioning on Twitter, everyone and their parents want to invest directly into private companies. Crowdfunding, AngelList, Kickstarter, and so on. By now, we all now private companies can stay private longer, so as the opportunity set in the private sector grows, money on the sidelines is getting hungry. And, I mean HUNGRY. LPs increasingly want to not just follow-on into their GP investments, they want to co-invest at the time of the original check. // The inverse of “everyone wanting to invest directly” is that what people are saying is: “I don’t want to pay fees.” This can cause tension between LPs and GPs, and brings up all sorts of issues around which LPs are shown opportunities from which GPs, and so forth. There’s something broken in the VC fund model (fees or carry, or both) that’s aggravating LPs at a time when the real growth of new companies is captured by private investors.
LPs expect GPs to design their funds to be ahead of the curve. / It’s 2014. Venture has been through a few industry corrections and every smart person I talk to about this expect a few more. In a somewhat similar fashion as GPs scout the landscape for founders to back, so to do LPs scout for GPs to invest with (and alongside of). What does this mean in reality? It means larger funds (over $100M) might be expected to have budgeted fees instead of fees based on a percentage of total capital managed. Some larger firms have done this a while ago, and we should expect more will. LPs are looking for GPs to commit even more of their own capital to the fund. // On top of this, LPs seem to be digging into just “who” are GPs they’re partnering with, how they interact, how long they’ve known each other. One LP said that a common mistake in meetings was to notice GPs talking over each other. I chuckled at that one.
***A few other observations***
A dollar travels far before it reaches a founder./ Overall, now a week or so after the event, I find myself still thinking about how far a dollar travels to reach a founder. This stuff is all over the Internet in detail if someone wants to dig into it, but I’ll offer up a basic example to illustrate: Consider back to when you were in high school, working over the summer to earn some money toward college tuition. Those tuition dollars (along with other university revenues, like donations) go into the school’s endowment, which in turn hires sophisticated investment professionals to manage the endowment and grow it. One of the ways an endowment management team can grow the pie is by allocating a portion of its assets into riskier categories, such as venture capital. From there, they allocate funds directly to VC firms whose names you’d recognize and/or into “Fund of Funds” (FoF) which in turn invest those dollars (for a fee and carry rights) to VC firms. The VCs take fees on the money they manage and then allocate that pool to founders — though “some” also invest in smaller funds, if you can believe it. // In the previous example, you can replace a university’s endowment with a range of institutions or organizations which manage big sums of dough — corporations, sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, hedge funds, governments, wealth families, and so forth. However the dollar reaches these funds, it then is allocated and depleted a bit with fees every time new hands touch it. In the event a single dollar isn’t returned, it’s OK because it’s usually a small portion of the overall cash the original lender manages; but, when a single dollar put into Facebook when it was worth $100M is returned, it’s the type of money multiplier rarely seen.
Given that context, here are few things I’d point out that happen in the world of venture that may not be totally obvious to folks who observe, especially the founders who are busy team-building, product-building, and growing the company:
It’s easy to assume VCs are just investing other peoples’ money. There’s some truth to it, but in most funds, the LPs have the GPs also commit their own money to the fund, and that number seems to be increasing.
When there’s a big exit or uptick in the price of a company, the press and chattering class can easily latch on to what the estimated stake of a fund’s rake is. For instance, when Facebook was creeping up to $50Bn in the private markets and equity shareholders were selling some stake, people may have thought Fund X owned $Y because of some estimate of percentage ownership. That’s only part of the story — those proceeds are mainly sent to the LPs, usually 80%, and the GPs can take home the remaining 20%, give or take.
Investing is definitely easier than founding and/or building a company, but that doesn’t mean it’s a cushy or easy job. Yes, there are perks, but there is a lot of pressure, uncertainty, long feedback loops, and if someone doesn’t do well, the post-VC career options can taste a bit overripe. I don’t think anyone needs to feel sorry for a VC, but saying it’s an easy job doesn’t match reality.
Historically, lenders aren’t viewed favorably. In today’s climate, investors have become more public to share their thinking but also to help differentiate their offering beyond the same dollar everyone else has. That, combined with all new classes of early-stage investors and more diverse pools of financing available to founders combine to put a bright spotlight on VC firms that are not performing and/or not behaving well and/or who can’t raise future funds. There’s probably a ton of legacy stuff that still needs to shake out, a lot of which likely originated way before I became interested in this stuff. And, while I would welcome things getting better, I do find the chatter online against investors to be different from the reality I’ve seen firsthand. Yes, there are unsavory actors and plenty of time-crunched distracted VCs, but overwhelmingly I see professional investors who work basically around the clock to help their companies, to help out people in the ecosystem, and to advance the careers of the executives and recruits around them. That story isn’t often told, but maybe that will change as time carries on.
Snapchat is the subject of more tech chatter (again!) because of the popularity of “Stories” and this video describing all the facets of what makes the product for young people today. You must watch this video. I started thinking more about Snapchat today, and I showed my wife a few of the “Stories” from today — the Stanford vs Notre Dame game (she works at the University) and the Hot Air Balloon contest. She’s heard of Snapchat, but doesn’t know what it is — she watched the stories and figured out she needed to keep her finger on the screen. She loved them. Stories are, no doubt, more dynamic, real-time, and engaging/real than what we’ve been trained to see when we visit Facebook. So, all of this got me thinking again:
Snapchat V1 May Have Been A Fluke, But “Stories” Prove Product Genius: My wife asked me today, “What are “Stories?” I showed her on and then tweeted this line: “Snapchat Stories = mobile-native, user-generated, crowdsourced video clips curated for a current event = the most engaging real-time media.” Think about this. Snapchat has the mobile broadcast DNA of Twitter + Instagram, the photosharing & messaging of Facebook & Whatsapp, and the original, user-generated videos of Vine and YouTube. Wow. Power play. Who knows what motivated the founders to create the initial engagement hook of their first version. Maybe genius, maybe a fluke. Stories prove they’re product geniuses. The content in Stories is just right.
The Search For “The Instagram Of Video.”Remember Viddy? A few investors certainly do. At that time, people assumed Instagram’s success would open the door for a video counterpart, so we saw SocialCam, Vine, and Instagram included video. Earlier today, I tweeted: “Turns out “The Instagram for Video” wasn’t SocialCam or Viddy or Vine or even Instagram. It was Snapchat.” A clunky line, but you get the idea. Of course, all of this could be moot if the company won’t make the turn from product sensation into business. Admittedly, I thought at the start of 2014 that Snapchat would be acquired this year because the market was hot, they could get Whatsapp-style bids with stocks surging, and because going through the revenue game could present a risk. So, I came out and wrote “Prediction: Snapchat Will Be Acquired In 2014.” Looks like that post will be wrong ;-)
I have been tweeting about some unease I have about the local economy, not out of any great wisdom or experience, but just noticing some random signals. Since then, of course, a conversation has exploded around bubbles, burn rates, and every investor transforming into an armchair economist on Twitter. Offline, this topic comes up so much in conversation, i wanted to briefly outline my point of view on the matter. I thought about doing a Tweetstorm, but I tweet so much that I thought if I do a Tweetstorm, my followers would kill me. So, here are my thoughts on the matter:
1/ Difficulty In Defining Terms: It’s hard to have a discussion about “bubbles” because different people define them differently. For me, I define a bubble as having two characteristics — one, an environment where overpriced assets have no buyers; two, where people take on debt to buy those assets; and three, where the pain associated with the bubble popping is widespread among a population.
2/ Bubbles As Geometric Shapes In Motion: Additionally, it’s not quite right to ask “Are we in a bubble?” The answer to that is “yes.” The more pertinent question is: “In the bubble we are in, how big is the sphere and how fast is it expanding?” The shape, size, and speed is important.
3/ Current Mood Of Public Markets: It’s not totally easy to go IPO right now. A few handful of tech companies have tried and been rebuffed. The public markets are accepting IPOs with certain fundamentals but rejecting others, and are especially harsh on ones with high sales and marketing engines.
4/ Private Market Slices: The private market is so big now as a result of stricter IPO requirements and more patient capital. Crudely, I slice it into three sub-markets: Amateurs, Pros, and Greed. The amateurs (where I sit) consist of the crowdfunding platforms, the accelerators and incubators, and people like me who invest very early. The Pros outsource this risk to the amateurs, and both sides are happy. The Greed (not stated in a bad way) are there to provide growth, patient, and leveraged capital cheaply to companies which want to stay private longer. (The late-stage greed rounds is where many think a mini-bubble has formed or is forming.)
So, therefore, I believe…
5/ Mini-Bubbles Will Concentrate Pain: My belief is that between the companies funded by the amateurs and the greed rounds, many of those will not live on. Many will be subsumed through M&A or go away. The pros are looking for more and more proof points, willing to pay more for more de-risked opportunities, and the public markets have welcomed a good number of companies with open arms, but also given the Heisman to a few, as well. This time around, folks may be hunting for the small acqui-hire exits or the big M&A exits, and some of those may come at prices below what the cost of capital in the previous rounds.
And, so here we are…what to do? For most people in the early-stage, it’s just the same. Maybe we all should be even more sober about the realities of what’s needed for real institutional financing? Maybe we’re about to hit a zone where AngelList backers and newly minted tech millionaires who dabbled in angel investing start putting up big zeroes on the board? But, we all knew that going in to it. For the later stage folks, tech is still hot — and there’s a vibrant secondary market, so maybe the really expensive shares purchased at $10bn can still find a buy tomorrow at $20bn. It all seems plausible until there’s no one left to buy a share.
People won’t say this publicly, but I hear it all the time — many folks across companies, investment firms, and media properties sort of want a bit of a correction. Talent is very fragmented across companies. Consumers are running out of time in the day to try new apps. Today’s exciting new platforms will take time to bake and get market-ready. That doesn’t mean folks should stop trying — but just a little fear might turn out to be a gift for the ecosystem at large.
A few days ago, my friend @KevinRoose (a reporter for New York Magazine) emailed me for some comments and quotes for an article he published today investigating the use of contract workers by on-demand startups. If you are in this space, it’s worth reading Kevin’s article. He is a good reporter. My quotes didn’t make it in, but as someone who has invested in this space (and uses many of these services as a consumer, too), I asked Kevin if I could post the email I sent to him on my blog. He said, “Sure!.” So, here they are:
Link to Kevin’s article in New York Magazine [link]
My quote to Kevin:
I can’t speak for various startups’ experiences, but I’d imagine (1) [hiring contract workers] makes it easier to start and get things off the ground and (2) many of these jobs may have been contracted out or one-offed prior to the startup matching them.
I am personally not aware of any abuse [of contract workers], and knowing many of the CEOs in this space personally, I am certain this is on their minds. Scale matters, of course. The bigger and more important a company gets, that is likely to come with all sorts of responsibilities. I am not a lawyer, but I’d imagine the recent FedEx ruling is being examined – The Information wrote a good piece on this. (I believe the courts ruled that FedEx had to make those people employees because they were working full time and wearing a uniform, etc. Right now, I’d imagine drivers, delivery-people, and other on-demand labor use different marketplaces to find jobs.)
I don’t believe that the startups we all associate with this are in the crosshairs, but with success comes a spotlight, so if imagine the best companies will address this head-on versus waiting to react.
Regarding a potential backlash to the model – it’s no secret that the American economy is pretty uneven overall. That can create a tense atmosphere. In the on-demand world, there will be some workers who benefit from this shift (more income, higher rates, flexible hours, etc) and some will not like how these changes affected their business.
Part of my “time-off” this fall is to travel and explore a bit. I’m still working a bunch but trying to take a few days here and there to catch up, unwind, and help with stuff around the apartment. In October, I’m lucky to be traveling to a few events I’m really excited about it. I’ve never done this before, and it’s rare for me to travel and speak like this (especially with a kid at home), so I figured I’d share the events/links in case any of you were attending or in the area. If there’s any video of the talks after the fact, I’ll try to post them here.
Oct 7-8 | Venture Alpha West, Half Moon Bay, CA [link] [I'll be on a panel about early-stage hardware investing on that Tuesday, in the afternoon. Interesting side note is that former 49ers Quarterback Steve Young will also be speaking there.]
Oct 13-15 | Marketplaces, by Silicon Valley Bank, New York, NY [link] [This is private event on marketplaces and investing in them. I'll be in NYC the day before hanging out.]
Oct 19-20 | Rutberg Mobile Influencers, Los Angeles, CA [link] [This one is about 30 minutes south of LAX, a more private event but I think lots of CEOs are going. I'm moderating a panel on on-demand services with Tri from Munchery, Kevin of Shyp, Basti of Postmates, and maybe one more guest TBD. It's gonna be good fun.]
Oct 26-28 | Stocktoberfest, San Diego, CA [link] [I am so pumped up for this. Have heard great things about Howard's event, and I'll be on a panel about mobile technology and also (potentially) giving a talk about using startup insights to play the public stock market -- something I like to dabble in. Mostly, I'm going to meet other folks in the Stocktwits community who live and breathe this stuff and learn from them. And have fun.]
And, for a more local event I’m helping organize…if you’re in the Bay Area, pay close attention to this one…
Dec 2 | The Post-Seed Conference, San Francisco, CA [link] [In my work with Bullpen, the firm is organizing a one-day conference on Tuesday, December 2 in San Francisco. The event will be solely focused on the changing landscape in early-stage funding and finance. You can read more about it on the site. There will be many draws to this, but in particular, our keynotes for this are amazing -- a16z's Chris Dixon will be interviewed by Bloomberg's Cory Johnson; Khosla Ventures' Keith Rabois will be a featured speaker 1:1;, and I will close out the day's events by hosting a fireside chat with AngelList's Naval Ravikant. If you're an early-stage founder, investor, or writer covering the area, you should definitely explore attending. Registration information is here.]
Let’s start with the bad news first: Twitter, no matter what you do to it, will no longer ever be a hyper-growth product. That time has passed. Yes, I know public investors expect this of you, and I know that’s what all other social network companies strive for, but it won’t happen. Twitter has hit a local maxima, and that’s nothing to be ashamed of — in fact, Twitter’s mainstream success to this point is quite incredible for such a geeky, complicated, niche product. But now, messing with the feed, degrading the design, and all those other copycat changes will not solve this core growth problem.
But, this is only bad news because Twitter is responding to the wants of the outside world. It is listening to others instead of itself. For success, all the answers are inside. Instead, Twitter should double-down on what does work and chart its own path.
This is the good news: Twitter’s hyper-addicted daily active users comprise of some of the most valuable minds and wallets on the planet today. Instead of trying to degrade their experience in favor of growth (which is, in my opinion, not attainable), why not turn that huge, active, valuable base of Twitter addicts into money? Right now, millions of smart Twitter users take actions on feeds like RTs and favorites — why not “Buy” or “Share” to other channels? Why not show me ads that are product endorsements from credible Twitter users? Why not open the API to developers again and have them experiment with new ways to monetize and grow? Why not make Tweetstorms part of the product and get more journalists and bloggers to write on the platform instead of linking (as we know clicks are down for many)?
I write this open letter out of concern and love. For over two years, I have used Twitter without touching native products. Twitter is the service I use the most, and I never go to www.twitter.com or use Twitter for iPhone. I understand I’m a power user, so this doesn’t apply to all, but I do believe it gives me the platform to share my views on the likelihood of success of Twitter in its current form. Twitter, you are now public, embedded into the fabric of society, both complex and simple at the same time. Now is the time to ignore the outsiders, and look within; now is the time to harvest your loyal user base to take the product to the next level. I’m happy to help any way I can.
There is a certain excitement, a certain uptick in pace, in the Fall around these parts. This year, I feel like I’ve seen enough interesting early-stage founders and companies (so much of it falls into patterns) that I sort of have a picture of what we may be talking about as September and the final months of 2014 unfold. Keep in mind that this list is about the Series A level, when bigger institutions get involved — and is by no means an indication of overall success for anyone involved, investors included. (Also, of course, we will all be chattering about Apple and the other big tech giants, as a given.)
In no particular order, here’s what seems to be entering either the echo chamber and/or mainstream conversation:
Parking: Yes, I’m obsessed with parking startups. No good reason other than I can’t wait to see the #Parkageddon hashtag spread.
Apps That Support On-Demand Economy Companies: See a company like Checkr, which helps the Ubers of the world perform better background checks and processing of labor. These startups and companies will likely need a whole set of services and have likely built their own, as well.
Apps That Support On-Demand Economy Workers: This is a category where I’m seeing tons of startups. Like Mailbox clones designed for “the enterprise,” I’ve passed, but I’m just waiting for one to have a clever hack around distribution — most likely to be the preferred vendor of a company like Instacart or Postmates, etc. There’s an opportunity for a new Intuit for 1099′ers out there, but it has to grow like a weed.
Block Chain Apps: There will be a few companies that get bigger institutional funding which leverage the block chain to handle business processes, most notably the creation, enforcement, and settlement of contracts. Yes, some of these can be mediated in Bitcoin, but it’s not required to do so.
Mobile Commerce: This is the area I’m most excited about, even more than parking! If you’re working in this space or have an app you love, please tell me. I like mobile commerce experiences that either leverage a phone sensor; or have a clever logistics angle; or leverage a proprietary data set; or even those that hold inventory in inventive ways. Of course, I’ll rarely turn down any mobile marketplace, and my old fears about mobile platform fragmentation crippling liquidity is now gone. iPhones, all the way.
Consumer-Grade Artificial Intelligence: This totally snuck up on me and I will admit I missed it, even though it was right under my nose. For the first time, I saw an app/service that uses a combination of AI and ML to do a job better than a human and solve multiple problems in the process. Then I started to think — if it can do it for this one task, why not other mundane tasks? I see no reason why not.
Interactive iPhone Notifications: No real surprise here. Borrowing from Android, iOS developers now have the power to allow users to take action on an item directly from push. Let’s go back to Uber. The app knows you’re about to leave work (you’re a pattern). The app pushes to you — “Call an Uber?” You gently slide over the push and tap “Yes.” Never go into the app itself. That is huge, and apps like Wut, Yo, and others, as well as the push notification ESP equivalents like Kahuna and AppBoy, are well positioned to secure their place in this new landscape.
Here’s a brief thought that’s come up in conversation quite a bit this week, about where consumer attention is:
In venture capital, the one of the biggest categories is consumer, because consumer-facing products and services at scale present the greatest possible market. This is, in part, what drives valuations for early-stage hot consumer deals up — the upside always has huge potential. On the web, consumer products and services could grow and scale based on the network effects of the open web itself.
But, today, we live in a different world — a mobile world. All consumer attention is on mobile, but on mobile, growth and scale are confined to a few “growth pipes” which present their own issues. For instance, gaming is an expensive category to compete in, photo and location apps are usually chased by investors after the fact, messaging apps create network effects but those options have largely been set and regionalized, and then there’s the hottest category out there today –> mobile on-demand services.
I’ve written about mobile on-demand services often here. We all get the picture. In a world where mobile scale is near impossible, better to aggregate consumer demand on the phone, but fulfill that demand through offline logistical prowess. Hence, we have Uber, Instacart, and many others. But, consumer web products could scale with much less friction. In the world of mobile on-demand services, there is significant friction — expanding geographically, hiring and training reliable labor, and so much more. As the coefficient of friction rises, so does the risk. This dissuades some investors from jumping into the space, but it also highlights the importance (or advantage) of having investors with real operational experience in geographical expansion, logistics, delivery models, and more.
There is an inherent friction to this new consumer mobile opportunity. With mobile growth elusive, entrepreneurs have shifted to transactional businesses, and with each transaction comes friction. This is both a challenge and opportunity — a challenge to those founders and investors who are concerned about friction (which is a real concern in venture investments) and an opportunity for those who can identify the categories (and the people behind them) who can overcome any coefficient of friction.