This Sunday. April 27, will be my 206th and final post as an official columnist at TechCrunch. For a little over three years, I’ve had the privilege of posting on TechCrunch, and for the last two years, it has been weekly, every Sunday morning. The best part of being able to write for TechCrunch is that I was given complete control over what I wanted to write about, free of editorial control. In a way, that is a good deal of power and responsibility, and one that I have respected and never abused or stretched for personal gain or page views. I’d like to think, instead, I was consistent. I don’t know the details, as I’m not too involved with the publication, but the weekend and guest columns are moving in a new direction, and I’m not a part of that direction. I’ve had a special relationship with TechCrunch — as it is a very public space, it’s how I’ve been exposed and met many folks in the few years I’ve been in the Valley. Oftentimes, people think I work full time for TC. So much of that perceived identity is tied up with TC, despite the fact I’ve been working at companies and on the investing side. I guess I now have to change all my bios online. That will take some time. I am grateful for the opportunity that Mike, MG, and Erick gave me, and the opportunity that was extended by Eric, and wish Alexia, Matt, Leena, and many good friends at TC the best of luck as they continue to transform the site into its next phase. As for me, it will be strange not to write something every weekend, as it’s become a part of my routine. I may choose to write more here, on Haywire, and even elsewhere. There was an unwritten code from Mike and Erick that contributors to TC should not post elsewhere, and I have honored that code to date despite other overtures. But now, I am free, and there are interesting options to explore. I’d be curious to hear your ideas, as well. I’ve learned (the hard way) that when one door closes, two more doors open.
If you’re in tech and been following twitter over the past few months, you may have noticed a sudden surge in podcasts. Yes, podcasts, those uncool pieces of media that were dead years ago, even before Odeo tried to revive them. So, why are they cool all of a sudden? I was thinking about this until I saw Dave Winer‘s tweet above, and he, as usual, made this point cleanly and neatly. Podcasting has arrived because, as Winer points out, the infrastructure for blogging has solidified (and expanded with new platforms), and RSS provides the rails by which information travels (or Twitter, if you’d like).
I’d add one more vector to Winer’s statement — mobile.
With mobile phones now, podcasts can not only be recorded on the go (the microphone on the iPhone 5+ models are excellent), there are great apps for folks to listen to and discover new podcasts. If you search the iTunes store for podcasts, there are many results. Of course, I work at Swell (download it here! www.swell.am on iOS, and in Beta for Android) and we were betting on this kind of shift happening. For instance, anyone with a tablet or smartphone can create a SoundCloud account and use the device’s mic to create a podcast, and networks like SoundCloud, Twitter, iTunes, and even Swell will distribute it to the right audiences.
What makes podcasts exciting right now, in 2014, is that while the battle for consumer attention and eyeballs is fierce on the web and on mobile, the fight for our ears is more manageable. In the car, for instance, audio apps compete for attention from conference calls, terrestrial or satellite radio, or music apps like Pandora, iTunes, Spotify, and others. In the tech world, as people have figured out content market across social networks actually works (if done well), the battle is now extending into new frontiers. Video will be a frontier. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a VC firm, for instance, start producing real videos beyond interviews. And, there’s audio, in podcasts. To date, we see new podcasts from Andreessen Horowitz (who has invested in Swell) with Benedict Evans, from Nabeel and Bijan at Spark Capital with Hallway Chat, from Ryan Hoover with Product Hunt, from Ben Thompson who now podcasts at Stratechery.fm, from Jason Calacanis and his prolific output through Twist. (We used to have the VoiceBunny actors reading Fred Wilson’s AVC daily on Swell, but VoiceBunny unfortunately stopped in March.) Just today, in fact, Tim Ferris launched his new podcast. We are happy to provide all of these inside Swell so you can listen to great audio on the go.
Videos. Podcasts. Those are the frontiers for great long-tail content and getting in front of customers, consumers, and the like. The competition in text and online is just too fierce. There are tricks people use to get people to click on text, and then to share them across networks. On video and audio, the consumer needs to invest time and attention, and there is an element of sunk cost. Therefore, videos and audio need to be highly-produced, with good images and audio quality. The content needs to be framed, and it needs to be digested in a set period of time. It has to potential to create the feel of a radio show or television program, but also be entirely different at the same time. I think that’s what we’re seeing with these new tech podcasts, and to me, that development is very, very exciting. As someone who learns primarily through audio experiences, all of these new podcasts help me learn more stuff when I’m not at a desk, and often times, the content is more immersive than what I get on the web.
I am concerned about Twitter. I write this as someone who loves the service, but lately, I can’t say the same for the product. I know people lament about Twitter every three months, but it’s different when it’s coming from me — that’s because I literally filter the entire web through Twitter, and I have for the past six (6) years. I also tweet — a LOT. I’m closing in on 60,000 tweets. That means I’m “all-in.”
Yet, I’ve caught myself tweeting a variant of this line often lately: “I don’t use any native Twitter products.” That means, specifically, I do not use the mobile (iPhone and iPad) nor the website (Chrome browser) that Twitter produces in-house. Instead, I use TweetBot for all iOS, and on the web, I use TweetDeck in the browser, which I know Twitter HQ manages now, but still, it’s not normal, regular web-based Twitter.
There are myriad concerns about the company overall. I won’t go into all of them here, other than to suggest that while Wall Street and public investors push Twitter to grow their user base, I don’t think Twitter is a mainstream product in terms of absolute users — instead, I think Twitter should focus on extracting value from the users (like me) who are wholly addicted to the service. Sell me things, point me to apps I’ll buy, or tickets, or items. Allow me to pay for premium services and even ads. Anyway, back to native products…
The native products made by Twitter just don’t work for me, and I think they’re going to change even more as the company searches for growth. As a result, the visual design of the website, for instance, is nearly unworkable for me. For instance, if I search for a popular term, my feed consists of the following, in order: a promoted tweet, a random tweet related to the search term, a collage of 4-6 large photos, and then, after scrolling through an entire screen on my laptop, I then finally see what I’m looking for. That’s no bueno. On their native mobile apps, the sliding screens and buried functionality makes it hard for me to go through, not to mention that preloaded images, while annoying on the web, are really bad on an iPhone. If I come across two tweets with images, it can take me three phone-screen’s worth to get to the next non-image tweet. No bueno, tambien.
I don’t know what the solution is. I’d guess the simple answer is that, right now, the end result of the design just doesn’t work. An editor-in-chief, focused on design, might not be a bad idea.
If you’re reading this, you know I tweet often…a lot. I’m approaching 60,000 tweets, after opening my twitter account in mid-2008. Despite the noise I create, twitter has been critically important for me to shape and test my ideas, to share my ideas with others, and to meet other people across networks interested in technology, startups, and investing. Recently, I found that I made a list — I know what you’re thinking, “Lists are silly.” They usually are, but this one seemed different. It was created by a startup called PeerIndex. They picked about 75,000 accounts in the space of technology, startups, and venture capital, and then monitored how all 75K accounts shared content and interacted with each other in order to find which accounts drove the most attention and influence. [Click here to see the full PeerIndex list and methodology.]
The list is below, and while I did come up on the list, I thought it was a better exercise to show how the top accounts stack up in terms of number of tweets and number of followers — note, the study did not take into account the number of followers a person has, so that anyone can move up (or down) on the list over time.
For me, that was the insight, that despite the noise I create on twitter, it is an important medium to participate in — it is through twitter that someone like me, with very limited experience, was able to learn, interact, and be a small part of the conversation with some of the most-respected minds in technology and investing on the medium that commands everyone’s attention today.
And, as someone who loves language and words, I wanted to list out the Top 10 accounts and briefly unpack the style in which each person uses this medium to their advantage. Naturally, nearly everyone on here is a current investor, analyst, writer (some all of the above), as most operators wouldn’t have the time to do this — Levie being the exception. As you’ll see, the styles are very different — of course, this isn’t a list of real “influence,” it’s only looking within twitter so it’s imperfect but fun nonetheless:
Aaron Levie (~2,700 tweets, 94,000 followers)
Levie has won twitter through humor, mixing the timeliness of pop culture news with a smart brand of nerd swagger. His tweets are so funny and/or insightful that they’re retweeted and favorited at a high rate each time. He focuses on broadcasting, using interesting images, and doesn’t engage in @replies or conversations.
Marc Andreessen (~12,000 tweets in less than 4 months, 96,000 followers)
Out of nowhere this year, Andreessen decided it was time to tweet. And, wow, he’s extremely active and engaged. He also replies to many and favorites tweets all the time, each time firing a signal to the creator as if to say “Marc Andreessen is listening.” He’s almost branded his signature “1/…, 2/….” tweetstorms (which are mini blog posts), and naturally, everyone pays attention to him because of his extremely high influence based on outstanding career contributions (Netscape, a16z, etc.).
Hunter Walk (~20,000 tweets, 61,000 followers)
Walk smartly mixes links to his site and firm (which contains his original content) with fast-paced, news-driven @replies with nearly everyone in the community. As Levie uses humor to cut through the noise, Walk uses transparency.
David McClure (~49,000 tweets, 207,000 followers)
McClure is high-volume, with brash tone, and lots of conversation. Oftentimes, it can feel as if he’s sharing his inner-most thoughts, fuck-ups, controversies, and all highs and lows with everyone. He’s also cultivated a truly global audience through his global firm, 500 Startups, which helps him have a broader network (geographically speaking), which help him spread his ideas. You could say McClure wears his heart on his tweets.
Benedict Evans (45,000 tweets, 31,000 followers)
Evans is a long–time mobile thinker, consultant, strategist. He’s expert at thinking about the mobile technology landscape, so good that he was discovered by Andy Weissman, and investor at USV in NYC. In turn, Fred Wilson wrote about Evans regularly, and Evans grew his tech readership, and has now been hired by a16z. Evans uses twitter to think out loud, as if he’s forming his next blog post in his head, a deeply analytical feed which engages selectively.
Om Malik (~37,000 tweets, 1.38M followers)
Malik is the experienced, old-school journalist, gumshoe, reporter, and now investor, a long-time tweeter with a big audience, the former head of an influential blog and series of conferences around the world. His feed is mainly about curation, about using his experience to signal what is actually important in a noisy world.
Paul Graham (~1,400 tweets, 161,000 followers)
Perhaps one of the truly most influential people in the space, online and everywhere else. Anything PG tweets or links to is analyzed. He has generated a movement and uses twitter to curate a few things, share notes about companies in YC that are doing well, or use his influence to share thoughts about the ecosystem, especially through his blog.
Brad Feld (~25,400 tweets, 168,000 followers)
Feld is an OG entrepreneur and investor, and is very active on twitter, sharing links to his ideas, books, blogs, and more. He’s built up an engaged audience online, but also offline through his evangelism of the power of offline community building, which in turn translates into more attention online.
Fred Wilson (10,300 tweets, 327,000 followers)
Again, OG investor and tweeter, one of the original investors in twitter and a board member there. Like Paul Graham, a must read for everyone in the industry, though he doesn’t tweet often, choosing instead to link to his posts daily — and less of a broadcaster.
Like many mobile-first technology companies, we built Swell first for Apple’s iOS platform. As an audio player app for news, information, podcasts, and more, we had an intuitive sense that, prior to our initial launch, consumers would primarily use Swell while on the go — while commuting to work, driving in the car, exercising at the gym, going on a long run, and so forth. As we put version 1.0 of Swell (for iOS) into the market, we confirmed our intuition about how consumers would engage with Swell.
This feedback gave us confidence to quickly build Swell for Android in parallel. This is a big milestone for the team, as we launched iOS only nine months ago and built Android in parallel with our v2 for iOS with the same small team. It’s worth noting a few things. One, we are in Beta, so we’d ask kindly to have your feedback as you use the app, and also keep in mind we are still polishing a few edges of the app. Two, I’d kindly ask in advance for your patience — my colleague Justin (who is running the Beta process) is running the Beta and will get you up and running as soon as we can. Three, we will be out in the Google Play store in due time, so everyone on Android will have access.
I know I have many friends personally (I’m looking at you, Kevin Meyers!) who have waited patiently for Swell to be on Android, and I’m happy to begin to help spread the new app slowly. The Swell team is doing an incredible job of building this in parallel with iOS v2.0 (which is also coming soon). Lots of building going on here, especially for a small team — exciting times!
Some people are not going to like this post, but it’s on my mind and I have to write it. Don’t worry, it will be short. Let me state up front that I have many friends at a16z, I’ve interviewed for a few positions there, and they’re a small early investor in the company that I work for, Swell. With that out of the way, I’ve been thinking about a16z’s model and performance of late. Now, I know they engage in lots of PR (smartly, I may add), but I wanted to peel back those PR layers and look at some of the fundamentals in their model. Keep in mind that this summer, a16z will mark its 5th birthday. Here are seven (7) bets the firm made as a matter of strategy, and how those bets may set them up for true success and reinvention of the venture category:
Bet #1 – The Rising Tide Of Technology: The initial thesis of the firm was that, following the 2008 recession, technology was approaching a mainstream inflection point with strong fundamentals and without the trappings of what occurred during the Dot-com bubble. The public markets for tech have roared back and show little sign of stopping. There’s a new floor.
Bet #2 – Technology Valuations, As A Result, Should Be Adjusted: The rising tide of technology would therefore render early-stage valuations of private companies to be readjusted to this new reality. If a firm has conviction about a startup investment, paying over the market price is OK because of Bet #1.
Bet #3 – GPs Must Be Startup CEOs To Sell Executive-to-Executive: GPs sell the a16z vision and brand, as well as the services underneath, which creates a clear bar for LPs and future GPs in the fund, which in turn leads to Bet #4…
Bet #4 – Agency Model Of Services In Venture: In order for GPs to focus on courting new investments, they’d build a services network underneath to (1) serve companies they’ve invested in and also (2) to help build up the firm itself.
Bet #5 – Over The Air Marketing From Day 1: Almost from its origin, the firm rooted PR and a strong, bold new media presence as central to its strategy, going over-the-air with a mix of marketing messages that communicated the new model, the brand, and so forth.
Bet #6 – Building An Engineering Recruiting Graph: Technology companies win by building the best products in the best markets. While the firm can evaluate markets from a distance, in order for those products to exist, the best builders must build them — hence, the firm invested in and built two types of databases for engineers (college, experienced) and use double-opt-in techniques to pair interested engineers with their companies. They’re creating a long-term relationship with engineers, not just companies. (As a commenter pointed out, the firm also does this for design talent, which is also critically important at the early-stages of product-building.)
Bet #7 – Seed To Learn The Market, Shift To Fast-Follow Series B To Capitalize: The firm began investing at all stages, but eventually (recently) moved to a focus on later-stage deals, what I’d call “Fast Follower” after A rounds. This is what Greylock perfected in the mid-late 2000′s, and now a16z in pumping even more money into those winners who emerge from the A rounds and make it over the Series B Crunch. This fits their strategy as they have a big fund and need to deliver big returns. Oculus to Facebook after four months and a $75m check epitomizes this approach, and they played it masterfully.
Again, there’s a ton of PR and noise around a16z’s activities (it’s a full-court press), and this activity generates adoration (as we see on Twitter and in the press in general) as well as jealousy (as we see on Secret). As someone who is interested in investing and venture capital, I’m taking a more historical evaluation of what they’ve done in five years and wanted to present this as my own personal observations of the bets they made and how they’re on a track to be right on all of them. I have no skin in their game, I just wanted to look back on the bets they made and reflect on how prescient (and disruptive) those moves have been and may be as 2014-15 unfolds. I know some people will not like this post, but I think the facts are the facts. Yes, there’s a long way to go, but their early bets are proving to have been pointed in the right direction.
Some brief thoughts (while traveling) on what is yet another fascinating move by Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, including some open questions, the potential ripples across venture capital, and some fun wordplay with optics — I couldn’t resist ;-)
The rising tide of all tech markets (public and private) is affording Facebook a strong tailwind which makes strategic M&A possible. Public tech stocks and hyper-growth, late-stage, private tech companies are the hottest equity items on the markets right now. Whenever this topic surfaces in conversation where a participant is skeptical, I usually pose the question: “Where else would you put the money right now?” The implication is that there aren’t other good places at the moment. Anyway…Facebook’s own acuity is not in question, steadily seeing its market cap creep up and flirt with $200bn. With this acquisition, Zuckerberg calculated that spending 1.3-1.5% of Facebook for Oculus VR is good business, especially at a time when the market values his stock at a premium. (Note the deal is 80% stock-based, so Facebook spends little cash and instead spends equity, which right now may be slightly overvalued by market — about $2.24bn total.)
Instagram was the near-sighted threat; Oculus is part of the far-sighted, astigmatic vision. As Zuckerberg pointed out in his note about this acquisition, he feels his team has corrected its vision with respect to mobile, so he’s scouring the field for possible platforms which integrate with Facebook’s mission — to make the world more open and connected. Of the new platforms emerging, such as Bitcoin (the protocol), drones (also, incidentally, benefiting from the dividends of the smartphone wars), crowdfunding, wearable technologies, 3-D printers, Internet of Things, and so forth, part of Zuckerberg’s job is to monitor these and strike when he sees a fit. The consumer-level experiences of Oculus VR could be part of the next era of gaming. If one thinks of Carmack as Facebook’s Tony Fadell, and if one considers Facebook’s offerings to be about killing time, leisure activity, and social, bringing the feel of a game to the Facebook experience is a bold vision of extending the platform — such as this.
With Oculus VR, Facebook not only acquires the company, the team, the brand, and the IP, but they also bring in “their Nest” of software and hardware makers into the company. I wrote a longer piece breaking down the Nest acquisition, which you can read here. Part of that discussion focuses on the broad, horizontal nature of what that particular team could do for Google. Larry Page didn’t wire $1bn to Tony Fadell’s bank account to have him making other connected home devices — he wants Fadell to marshal his troops to build brand new hardware for Google, across a number of categories. If we extend this to Facebook and Oculus VR, Zuckerberg now has a world-class integrated software and hardware team at his disposal to complement with his cutting-edge web and cloud technologies talent. The talent inside Oculus VR alone would perhaps make up over a quarter of the deal’s final value. (A side note, it’s becoming hard to imagine a hardware company remaining independent given how much money the current tech giants have. Distribution is hard, and getting to a point like Apple with true vertical integration between hardware and software requires a unique founder, decades of pain, lots of financing (and dilution), and much more. Oculus VR, as one of the most promising integrated companies to emerge recently, is part of this trend. Investors, beware! It takes a lot of green to make this stuff stay out of the red.)
Marc Andreessen, the co-creator of Netscape and the VC firm which bears his name (which invested $75m into Oculus VR about four months ago), is also very close to Zuckerberg as one of the original angel investors in Facebook and a current board member. I have never met Andreessen, but based on watching many of his interviews on YouTube, enjoying his endless Twitter stream, and the bold thesis of his firm (which has correctly predicted many things — I’ll write on this aspect soon), he strikes me as a true intellectual polymath — not just conversant or convincing on a range of complex topics, but one of the earliest people to connect the dots of high technology at the highest of levels. Given his access to and rapport with someone like Zuckerberg, it’s not difficult to imagine the two of them discussing the future of technology platforms over the course of the years. Part of Zuckerberg’s job is to constantly be aware of what could be “next,” and who better to share ideas with than someone like Andreessen? His firm, a16z, has recently made huge bets across a range of industries which could present platform-esque characteristics — the software layer for drones, the software for three-dimensional printing, the software for transferring value across the Bitcoin protocol, and so forth. In Oculus, they likely envisioned yet another emergent computer science platform which could rewrite how people communicated with the Internet. No doubt Zuckerberg pays attention to what his board member pays attention to, and Zuckerberg can conduct his own brand of due diligence like none other in technology. [On the venture side, (a) early firms in Oculus should be noted for their early conviction and will be rewarded with a likely 20x return in about 20 months or so; (b) for a16z, their $75m investment in December 2013, just four months ago, presents them with a staggering IRR and highlights Andreessen himself as the modern standard for venture capital today -- there are many ways to win in venture, but he's effectively leveraging his relationships, his technical know-how, his robust team at the firm, and his capital like no other in the business.]
Open Questions:As with any deal of this magnitude and orthogonality, big questions loom…
Why didn’t other, more logical acquirers get into the mix? It would be common sense to think that companies like Sony (with Playstation), Microsoft (with Xbox and Kinect), Google (just because), and Apple (immersive experiences) would be interested in a team and technology like Oculus VR. We don’t know the details yet, but it’s safe to assume all players took a hard look, and that a few were involved. In such a scenario, one could assume the team had some leverage and perhaps even chose Facebook over the other suitors (for reasons we don’t entirely know just yet, though the founders may have calculated Facebook’s platform gives them the best chance to distribute their technology at scale).
How will the Oculus “community” respond in the long-term? Check out the top comments on the blog post by Oculus VR on the announcement — not pretty. Time will tell if this was fueled by hurt feelings at an emotional time in the moment, or whether over time, this refracts into what could be perceived as the poisoning of the well. Put another way, the non-myopic view could be the loss of trust with the Oculus community, which would drive the development on top of the platform. While a Kickstarter campaign does not bound a company to a path of independence, part of the belief and adoration driving platform developers and fans may have been the dream of seeing Oculus VR come into the market as an independent company, a place where the next Carmack’s would paint the next great immerse gaming canvases. In such a world, Facebook could’ve been one game of many others — maybe there could be a Snapchat VR game! — instead of Facebook owning the platform and its future direction.
I was inspired by the reaction to my earlier post called “Narrowcasting,” which shared stats on the average daily views my blog has seen in nearly two years. The discussion in the comments motivated me to dig deeper into the stats, this time looking at the overall top referrers to Haywire. No surprise here, but the overwhelming majority of people who visit this site come through Twitter. I set this all up on WordPress because of the customizability of their CMS, as well as “search,” but people rarely come to my site via search. TechCrunch obviously refers a bunch of traffic, so I’d consider that inorganic because it’s kind of unfair I have access to it. Then there’s Facebook, Disqus, and Hacker News — I rarely post my stuff there, but this all got me thinking — should I be syndicating this stuff more and more? I know how to do this — it just feels spammy, as people on Hacker News don’t really care about the topics I write about, nor do folks on Facebook. Maybe I’m not thinking about this the right way. What do you all see and infer from this data? Should I change my approach here?
For some reason, people approach me about something I’ve written — recently or in the past — and often assume whatever I write is “widely-read.” They assume what I write here is influential, by some measure. I respond by dispelling these beliefs. Usually, the other person doesn’t believe me, but it’s happened so often recently, I wanted to look at the data and see for myself. And, it’s true…not even 1,000 people, on average, visit my site (and about 450 subscribe via email). That’s kind of pathetic when one considers how many tens of thousands of people visit Hacker News or AVC on a daily basis. (I also write a weekly column on TechCrunch, every Sunday morning. Usually those don’t generate much traffic, either.)
Look at the chart above. I redesigned my blog to start on July 1, 2012. A few things are apparent. One, traffic is pretty low! Two, the first spikes are only the result of a very famous investor who linked to one of my posts and it went viral on his recommendation. Three, what I write isn’t evergreen stuff — it may be relevant for a day or two, and then decreases in value — some of it may not have value to begin with. For the amount of time I do put into it, the ROI is pretty bad.
That’s OK though. Despite what others may perceive, I have never written blog posts here “to build an audience.” I write because I have to, because if I don’t, my brain will go into a frenzy and eventually rot. And, when I write, I try to think of just one person who’d want to read it. That’s all that matters to me. A friend told me this was “narrowcasting” — kind of like broadcasting, but to an extremely narrow segment. I’m cool with that. In fact, I prefer it. Thanks for reading!
Do you ever hear a phrase, unattributable to anyone specific, and then it just rattles around your brain over and over again? Well, it happens to me all the time (unfortunately). And, when something rattles around my brain too long, I need to write it out. Until it’s written, the thought isn’t crystalized. A few days ago — I can’t remember where or whom — but I either heard or saw this line: “Well done is better than well said.” It didn’t register at first, but then it took root.
“Well done is better than well said.” In today’s culture, “well said” gets most of the attention. We judge potential political leaders on how they debate, their stump speeches. We listen to talk radio, television news shows, and more, judging people on what they say. In the startup world, the competition among investors to differentiate capital and gain mindshare with founders is so intense, some investors are turning into little media brands, full with books, conferences, and other media assets.
In today’s startup world, many things are “well said.” But, what is “well done”?
As someone who keeps an active blog, engages often on Twitter, and speaks at events, I too am a small part of the “well said” crowd. “Well said” has its advantages. It is not a bad thing. For instance, it opens doors that once may have been closed. However, “well said” does not directly generate or accrue market value. In order to generate market value — or, put another way: what does the market truly value? — something has to be “well done.” I don’t mean this in the sense of being fully-baked, or cooked through, or over-cooked. I mean, it has to not only be done, but done well.
What is done well? Uber, which started in one location, now seems to operate in nearly 100 cities worldwide. Dropbox has made, at scale, a seamless cloud-based storage service that could power the world’s next killer applications. Snapchat handles close to 500 billion images shared across various networks per day. Those are jobs done well. Investment firms like Sequoia and Benchmark, who have resisted today’s era of VC marketing/blogging, deliver some of the best returns in their investment classes. And, the market responds to it. When something is “done well,” it usually has nothing to do with that thing being “said well.” Yes, using clear language to communicate within, across, and outside of a company is very important. No doubt. The distinction I’m trying to make here — as someone who may say things “well” — is that things that are well-said are nice and have value to some degrees, but things that are “done well” are, at the end of the day, where value rests. It’s something I’m reminded of every day as I slog through the Valley.