RSS Feed

March, 2010

  1. The peHUB Interview

    March 24, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    SpeakerText Founder Matt Mireles on Becoming Famous Overnight, Fundraising, and Why He’s Soon Ditching New York for Silicon Valley

    For Matt Mireles, 29, life after graduating from Columbia University in 2008 was “hard and lonely,” he says. “I was on my own, trying to make things happen” for his startup, 18-month-old SpeakerText, a Web application that lets users navigate and search through video.

    Then, in January, Mireles began writing about launching the startup at his blog, the Metamorphosis. First came an attention-grabbing two-part series titled “How to Start a Company in a Recession” that was republished by Silicon Alley Insider, where Mireles once moonlighted as a writer. 

    Last month, Mireles wrote a newer post titled, “Face It: NYC Is Not the Best Place for a Startup,” which “caused quite the shit storm,” as one commenter on Metamorphosis noted, adding that from now on, he’d be reading Mireles’s writings.

    By this past weekend, Mireles’s newest piece, “How I Judge Investors” had practically become required reading for tech reporters, entrepreneurs and, seed-stage investors, the latter of whom wondered what Mireles might say about them this time.

    To learn more about Mireles’s sudden rise to fame and what it means for SpeakerText — in the process of collecting a $750,000 round — I spoke with him earlier today. 

    You may have the most diverse background for a tech entrepreneur ever.

    I definitely have colorful stories. I went to UC Berkeley out of high school in 1999 and dropped out to work on an ambulance in L.A. I went back for two years, then dropped out again to fight forest fires in Montana and Northern California. I then became a paramedic and while I did that, I applied to Columbia, got in, and moved to New York.

    You won some journalism awards while you were at school, majoring in international relations. Then suddenly, you decided to found a Web company instead of become a reporter. Why?

    I’d started writing for the school paper and racked up some awards and started freelancing for Newsweek, then I picked up a camera one day and my story and photos ended up in the New York Times and I thought I’d go into documentary filmmaking. That didn’t really work out, but it gave me the idea that if I could map text onto video, then life would be infinitely easier. And given what had happened with YouTube, the idea of creating something that could link those quotes back to their video source — it was like, hey, there’s a f**king market right here.

    I also did a summer program, a mini-MBA for idiots at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, and that got me totally amp’d up on the startup scene.

    But you didn’t have any technical background, right?

    No, I didn’t know what the hell I was doing. But during the economic crisis, I made a decision that was half inspired, half practical. I figured my other job prospects as a journalist had just gotten toasted, so I said f**k it, I’m going to turn this into a company.

    And have you? How many employees do you have?

    My first call was to a buddy of mine from Berkeley, a brilliant engineer who has a Masters in Engineering in Engineering Physics and who’d been a rapper in Sweden. He’s this crazy, awesome dude. I said, Bjorn [Liljequist], dude, what are doing? Whatever it is, stop now and join me on this awesome idea I have. It took a little bit to work him over. Later, we went to an engineering job fair at Columbia, and hired a couple of college kids. We didn’t have any cash, but we said, “How about if we give you an iPhone and pay your bills for a couple of months?” They’re amazing.

    And when did you launch your product?

    We launched on January 5, at the New York Tech meet-up, in front of 750 people. And halfway through the demo, we got interrupted by applause from the crowd. We were thronged afterward; big companies started calling us. They were asking us all these hard questions, about the scalability of our back-end. We were like, um, funny thing about that.

    Not so scalable?

    Beyond where we were. People starting telling us all this stuff, like, “this would be amazing for search engine optimization!” It would? “This would be perfect for video ad marketing!” Really?

    I love your candor, but how far along are you really?

    What we’re doing is creating a new standard of interactivity and another data layer on top of video in a way that’s sort of hard to do. We’re using a combination of humans and machines to do it. I can’t get too detailed about it, but we’re trying to change the way people view video and all rich media on the Web.

    And in the meantime, did you start blogging to bring attention to SpeakerText or were you just venting about your experience in trying to get it off the ground?

    I didn’t really start blogging about startups. I’d been blogging here and there about other stuff. It wasn’t until December that I started blogging at all seriously about what we were doing. Then I discovered Hacker News and realized that if you wrote something good, people would see it.

    Once I got a bunch of people reading, then investors started calling me and getting to know me, then Venture Hacks syndicated my blog, then Silicon Alley Insider. That’s what sort of triggered all this other shit.

    Your most widely read post was critical of the New York seed-stage scene. Has that created problems for you, given that you live in New York, or has it mostly been a boon?

    I’d say the risk-reward of writing that was weighted heavily in the reward segment. There are some people who got pissed off by it. But in my mind, that’s an effective filter. If somebody is so close-minded and reactionary that they get pissed off by a blog post that says a lot of stuff that’s true, then really, they would have been wasting my time anyway. 

    Meanwhile, people, brand-name people, have reached out to me, pinged me, tweeted me, gotten to know me, asked to meet me — because of my blog. It’s been sort of ridiculous. I’ve even had people want to work for me because they saw my blog.

    Do you have trusted advisors to help you through this insanity?

    I have amazing advisors, like Seth Sternberg, the founder of Meebo,  and Joe Kennedy, the CEO of Pandora. These are guys I met by happenstance. Seth I met through a mutual friend. Joe came and spoke when I was at Stanford and I approached him afterward and he gave me his business card and every once in a while when I hit a crossroad, I’d ping him and he’d respond to my emails. Both have been superhelpful.

    What kind of advice have they given you?

    Well, for one thing, Seth was like, “Dude, you need a cofounder. You need complementary skill sets. No one is gong to trust a company with outsourced tech development.” And at a few steps, I’ve asked him: “Am I ready to raise money?” And he’s like, “You are most definitely not ready to raise money. Get a product out there.”

    I just feel like there’s so little information available out there for someone like me, who has never done a startup before and has no f**king clue what he’s doing. It’s for this sort of “proto founder” that I’m writing a lot of the time. It’s the person struggling alone, trying to create something. I gather a lot of people get f**ked over by service providers and lawyers and other people along the way because they don’t have Seth and Joe saying, “Actually, that would be a bad idea, here’s what you should do…”

    You were in California this past month, meeting with angel investors. How did it go?

    When my lease is up in May, I’m moving out there. It was amazing.

    In New York, when you pitch investors this big idea, they say, “I don’t know about that. How do we make this a smaller, safer business?” You get trained to take out the ambition and excitement and sort of sweeping-world-change part of your pitch. Then you go meet with Silicon Valley investors and they’re like, “Dude, this is too small. Sounds like a nice business, but you’re not going to change the world with that approach.”

    As a first timer clueless hack, being around an abundance of people who can and want to help you, either by introducing you to new investors or employees or mentors or important people inside big organizations — it’s like, okay, dude, this is amazing.

    So you’re getting a check finally?

    It’s a slower process than I would have liked, and it could all go sideways at any moment, but we’re putting together a good syndicate and I’m pretty confident that it will come through.

    Some people might read this interview and s
    ay that you’re slamming New York because no one was receptive to your startup.

    Some will absolutely say he’s writing about his sour grapes, but whatever. Look, in the Valley, they will tell you that numbers are unimportant at this stage. In New York, you talk with a seed investor, and they want to see metrics and sales projections and pricing information, and you’re like, f**k man.

    Hot Potato [which connects friends around live events] had been running around, trying to get funded, then the [funding] deal broke with [location-based social network] FourSquare, and a bunch of people suddenly threw a bunch of money at [Hot Potato].

    I’m not going to be another Hot Potato, waiting for five decent angel investors who are under no pressure to fund anyone because they see so many deals. It’s like you’re at a bar and you see two hot girls and 90 hot guys. You don’t wait until you’ve tried and failed to hit on the two hot girls. You look around and say, “This is a f**king sausage fest,” and you go somewhere else.

    via www.pehub.com


  2. The Perils of Being Outside the Valley

    March 23, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Ahh, the ironies of life. 

    When I started talking to investors in New York about SpeakerText––not even trying to raise money at that point, mind you––I offered a grand vision of how the company was going to "change the internet" and revolutionize how people interact with audio and video on the web. The response: Too big. Too ambitious. Make it smaller, safer. 

    After hearing this enough times, I changed my pitch. SpeakerText stopped being "a new paradigm" and the "next logical step in the evolution of video on the internet," but instead became "an interactive transcript tool for video publishers." Or at least in my pitch. In my mind, we're still out to change the world, but I didn't really talk that part talk up unless people asked.  

    And then I went to the Valley.

    The response: Too small. I don't see how this changes the fabric of the internet. 

    Fuck me. 

    But wait, I would explain, there's this whole other part that I didn't tell you about. And I would go on to explain how SpeakerText is going to change the internet. Ohh, they'd say, that is a lot bigger. Hmf. Why didn't you pitch that in the first place? 

    Now, at first I thought it was just me. But then I met up with another founder who was visiting the Valley as well. I heard his pitch and thought the same thing that people had been saying to me: too small. I told him this and he said the same thing I did: Wait, there's more! And he went on to explain that he had cut out the world-changing ambition part of his pitch after local VCs (he's from Vancouver) had poo-poo'd it in favor of a smaller, safer idea. 

    Hmm. Sounds like a pattern. 

    And so I now have a working thesis: There's two kinds of investors in this world. The ones who think big, and the ones who don't; the ones with a Valley mindset, and everyone else.

    One of the dangers that first time founders living outside of the Valley (like me) face is that our minds get poisoned and our ambitions shrunk by the parochial leaders. And it's not even that all the locals are small-minded or small timers, but that the ones who really push you to think big––the Chris Dixons & the Fred Wilsons––are so far removed from and inaccessible to the little guys that by the time you get a meeting with them, your thinking and your pitch has already been influenced and shaped by the more numerous and accessible VCs that push you to think smaller and safer. 

    It creates a weird paradox: to get a meeting with the big time VCs, you first need to talk with and be vetted by the small time VCs. But the feedback you'll get from the two camps will differ radically. 

    If you listen to the small timers and incorporate their feedback into your pitch, it will kill your chances with the big timers. And by the time you've figured this out on your own, it may be too late.

    Fuck me. 

    And yet such is life. You live, you learn, you stumble, you recover, you pivot and you persist. Besides, it's never too late. Life is an iterated game. You just gotta keep hustling. Always.

    As someone reminded me in an email today, it's not like everyone in the Valley wants to change the world either. On this earth, there is no paradise. It's just a matter of degree.


  3. How I Judge Investors

    March 21, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Pitching your startup to investors is a deeply personal matter.  More often than not, they––politely or not––call your baby ugly. And that hurts. Good founders, I think, learn to not take the criticism too personally. But in the end, it is personal. They are judging you. And your baby. Thumbs up, or thumbs down. 

    And such is life. But how should we, as founders, judge them? Not all investors  are created equal, after all.  Once betrothed, the investor––unlike the entrepreneur––is unfirable, a step-father to your newborn startup, an undivorceable spouse in an epic marriage.

    Like any proud founder, I am extremeley protective of my newborn startup. She's my motherfucking baby, after all. 

    Now, I don't claim to have years business knowledge or even neccesarily have it right––I'm doing this for the first time––but I do have my own formula. 

    "Do I want this guy on my board?" This, above all else, is the question. 

    Another way to put it: When the shit hits the fan, do I want to be accountable to this guy? Do I want this to be the guy who has my back? Is this guy good enough for my baby?

    In good times, it's always all smiles. But not all times are good. 

    In my previous life, I worked for many years as a paramedic in Harlem and the South Bronx. Before that, I fought forest fires on a hotshot crew for the US Forest Service. I have seen what stress does to men (and women). I have seen people die. Lots of 'em. Babies too. I have seen how people react, flip out, and lose their shit entirely. And I've seen people fail then recover with grace despite mortal danger.  And in all this, I learned a little bit about judging the character of men. Quickly. For this, I make no apologies.

    And it is this experience––combined with my own listening and study of the travails of those who have come before me––that informs what I am about to say. 

    1) Intelligence

    It should be obvious, but I want to be convinced that the investor is a very smart man. Preferably smarter than me. Steve Young (the 49ers QB with a law degree & his own private equity firm) once said that he aims to be "the dumbest guy in the room." Amen to that.

    The beauty of hanging around and dealing with really smart people is that they have a  rub off effect. Really smart people challenge you and force you to think bigger, harder and, at the risk of sounding completely vague, better. They pick apart your bad ideas quicker and see through the bullshit that even you might have convinced yourself to believe. 

    That said, scoring high on the intelligence test is not a dealmaker. Brains is a big plus, but brains without self-knowledge or an approprite level of humility is just fucking dangerous.

    2) Security & Self-Confidence

    People who are insecure make bad, irrational decisions. We are all insecure in some way, so really it's just a matter of degree. More is worse, less is better.

    Generally speaking, being insecure causes you to make decisions based on fear, and people who are motivated by fear alone cannot embrace a big, disruptive vision. They end up being fundamentally risk-averse and drive you to be too. Invariably, this leads to a focus on bullshit, like what other people are doing. 

    Even worse, you can't honestly call bullshit on people who are insecure without undermining your relationship with them. For me, this is an instant dealbreaker. 

    People who are secure, on the other hand, like to be challenged. They enjoy vigorous debate. The intellectual swordplay is what they live for. 

    When someone is secure in themselves and their position, you can be honest with them. And I ONLY want to work with people I can be honest with. Life is just too short and I'm just not that patient. 

    3) Reverence for the Entrepreneur

    I can see how easy it is for VCs to think of themselves as masters of the startup universe. As a VC, people compete for your attention and pitch you constantly. They are the judge in a never-ending baby beauty contest. It must get tiring. And in their shoes, I can see how it would be easy to think that the world revolves around you. 

    But it does not. 

    At the center of the entrepreneurial universe is the entrepreneur. And behind the entrepreneur is the employees, the team, the company. It is they who are the heros. It is they who operate unhedged. It is they who take the real risk. 

     In my mind, good investors get this. They understand their place in the ecosystem as enablers. They don't let their celebrity status get to them. Which brings me to my next point… 

    4) Humility & Self-knowledge

    To be humble is to know your strengths and weaknesses, to be aware of your place place in the world. It does not mean being non-confrontational or a softie.

    My favorite people are those who will push hard and argue vociferously on behalf of an idea but then freely admit that it's possible their assumptions are wrong. They test you, but acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge.  Or maybe they really do know something about your corner of the universe. The important part is that they are acutely aware of when they do know something and when they don't.

    The other thing that's great about people who possess a high-level of humility and self-knowledge is that they are not afraid of being challenged. Because they don't have huge egos, they are constantly listening to the people around them and learning new things, which in turn makes them amazingly capable as teachers. And god knows I need teachers in my life. 

    5) Does he understand what it means to be an operator?

    The investors that scare me most are those who posses a low-level of humility in combination with a non-operational background.

    Recently, I met a 20-something year old VC from a supposedly top-tier firm who served on the board of several companies. I had looked him up on LinkedIn prior to our meeting and noticed lots of board seats but little other experience beyond a graduate degree from a very prestigous university. He was obviously very intelligent, but after several minutes of opining to me about my industry, I decided to turn the tables a bit and ask…

    "I noticed that you sit on the board of several companies. Tell me a little bit about your background and experience building companies that qualifies you for this role. What companies have you founded? As a board member, I'd report to you and you'd have the ability to fire me. In essence, you become my boss. Why should I entrust you with this power?"

    Part of me actually wondered if this guy had had some previous experience that I didn't know about. He squirmed. "Well….ahh," he stuttered. "You know, board members are there to, ahh, give…intelligent feedback and, ahh, be there….ahh….as a sounding board…for the entrepreneur, you know." 

    What amazed me was not the vacuity of his response but that multiple CEOs had allowed this guy to take a board seat and a position of responsibility caring for their babies. 

    As far as I can tell,  there's good VCs out there who haven't really been operators. But they tend to have grey hair and not be involved in super-early, seed-stage investing. As a first time founder, I want people around me who can understand and help me manage the extreme uncertainty of company building at the ground floor. 

    6) Does he want me to lie to him? 

    One of the red flags I loo
    k for is seed investors that want me to make things up and lie to them. This typically manifests itself in the form of long-term financial projections. "What will your sales be 5 years from now?" 

    I have no fucking clue, and if you're asking me that question, neither do you. 

    I am a first-time founder in an immature, rapidly growing market. Pricing, exact business model––these things are all up in the air. My task now is to go out and prove certain assumptions about the product and the market in a way that we matched the two up and acheive the magical paradise that is product-market fit. Before I've done that, don't ask me for financial projections other than my expenses, because what you're really doing is asking me to lie to you, and I hate that. 

    7) Does he teach me things?

    Some of my favorite investors are those who, regardless of whether they've said yes or no, teach me something about my industry, product, market, team, etc. Even if they say no, they're the ones I'm gonna go back to down the road and try to lure them into the yes column. 

    My reasoning is this: If in the course of a single 30-minute meeting this person has added value to my company and my life, just imagine how much this person would contribute if he/she sat on my board! MUST HAVE THIS PERSON ON MY TEAM. 

    8) Is he a happy person? 

    The world is full of extremely intelligent and yet unhappy people. These people are like poison. Their unhappiness rubs off on you, and invariably, they attempt to punish you and take out their frustrations with their own lot in life on you, potentially disrailing your company and your life. 

    Again, I don't want you to confuse being happy with being soft. One can be both happy and hard-nosed at the same time. In fact, I like to consider myself a happy warrior. I love life and relish in the entreprenurial adventure, but yet I am (or try to be) ruthless in how I judge and execute that which is important around me and my baby. 

    At the end of the day, happy people are optimists. And when the world is going to hell, as startups seem wont to do (not to mention life more generally), you need happy, optimistic people around you to stay focused and productive amidst the storm and cataclysm. 

    Oh yeah, and life is just too short to surround yourself with unhappy people. They suck on your soul, and leave it empty. 

    I don't know that this is an exhaustive list or even the right one to use, but it's how I think. I hope my thoughts are helpful to and have some positive, enlightening influence on those who come after me. I also hope you my readers will add things that I've missed.


  4. Why we should be thankful that we live in a world in which VCs exist

    March 21, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Why we should be thankful that we live in a world in which VCs exist, even if they yell at us during board meetings, assuming they'll fund our companies at all:

    Imagine living in a world in which professional venture capital didn't exist.

    There's no question that fewer new high-potential companies would be funded, fewer new technologies would be brought to market, and fewer medical cures would be invented.

    We should not only be thankful that we live in a world in which VCs exist, we should hope that VCs succeed and flourish for decades and centuries to come, because the companies they fund can do so much good in the world — and as we have seen, a lot of the financial gains that result flow into the coffers of nonprofit institutions that themselves do huge good in the world.

    Remember, professional venture capital has only existed in its modern form for about the last 40 years. In that time the world has seen its most amazing flowering of technological and medical progress, ever. That is not a coincidence.

    via pmarca-archive.posterous.com

    -Marc Andreesen


  5. Announcing the NYC Startup Job Fair

    March 4, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    My prayers have been answered! There is now an official NYC Startup Job Fair scheduled for Friday, April 9th, from 1-5p. The event will take place at the AOL Headquarters in Grenwich Village (770 Broadway) in the Village.

    This is an awesome development! I expect a lot more events like this to be happening in the future. It's exactly what we need.

    Kudos to Alex Horn, who is running the event in collaboration with the Columbia & NYU Venture Communities.


  6. Why the NYC Startup Scene is Hot (Hint: Not Fred Wilson)

    March 2, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Stowe Boyd of True/Slant has a new blog on the NYC Startup Scene called Hotbed. This is an awesome development. Cody Brown asked, I seconded, Chris Dixon approved, and now it seems we have all received. Awesome. Welcome Stowe! 

    Now that you're here, there's something I wanted to clarify. From your inaugural post: 

    New York City’s tech scene is expanding at an astonishing rate these days, which raises the obvious question: why now? And, if New York has all the right ingredients to create a rich and deep technology culture, why didn’t it appear earlier?

    My theory is that New York lacked, until recently, a critical factor: smart early stage investors.

    The other parts of the puzzle were in place: great schools, brainy entrepreneurs, and abundant media and PR people. But without the manure that VCs provide, what looked to be a great greenhouse was cold, and very little would grow.

    It is manure that makes greenhouses hot, that makes them hotbeds, and the critical factor is now being provided by folks like Chris Dixon, Fred Wilson, and John Borthwick.

    via trueslant.com

    I think you have it backwards, my friend. NYC has an abundance of entrepreneurs, for the reasons you mentioned and more. In particular, lots of tech savvy would-be media folk like me and Cody have opted out of the media ash-heap and are deciding to do the startup thing. But there's a relative scarcity of capital relative to demand. Early stage investing in NYC is a small pond with not a ton of players. 

    This dynamic of abundant demand, scarce supply makes early stage investors feel that they can be choosy and risk-averse. They know there’s not a lot of competition, so why take lots of risk? Yet at the systemic level, people like me see the dynamic in action and consider heading West. But at the same time, folks like Ron Conway see the supply/demand imbalance and head East. Good deals are to be had, perhaps more so than on the West Coast.

    What the NYC scene needs is more of this outside capital to flow inward. As it is, I myself am in California for 10 days playing this very game.

    Also, umm, Fred and Chris are cool peeps and all, but let's get one thing straight right now: Startups happen because entrepreneurs make them happen. Entrepreneurs are the real fucking heros in this story, not VCs. We lead, they follow. Don’t forget that.

    Obviously, Chris Dixon is an entrepreneur himself (Hunch). But based on blog visibility, it’s easy to get the impression that the NYC startup scene is happening because Fred Wilson and Chris Dixon are blogging about it. They are high-visibility champions and wonderful contributors to the community, giving us all an added sense of pride and support. But in so much as they act as a source of capital, they only enable. 

    It is the little guys you’ve never heard of who struggle, take risk, fail and create. Remember them, always. 

    Stowe, welcome to New York. We should grab beers sometime. 


  7. Headlines

    March 2, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Funny thing happened last week.The post I wrote, NYC vs Silicon Valley, kinda blew up and set off wave of dicussion in the blogosphere. Silicon Alley Insider republished it and Chris Dixon, Caterina Fake, Roger Ehrenberg, and now ReadWriteWeb all responded. Some folks got pissed, but I think some productive conversations started as a result, and I'm proud of that. 

    But there's a little detail I wanted to clarify: that SAI Headline, yeah, I didn't write it. 

    My original headline: NYC vs Silicon Valley. Neutral. Reflective. Non-inflammatory.

    SAI headline: Face It, New York Isn't the Best Place to be a Startup. Provocative. Inflammatory. Declarative. 

    Here's how it happened: On Thursday, I tweeted out "Working on Epic Blog Post RE: Silicon Valley vs NYC." 

    Screen shot 2010-03-02 at 2.10.43 AM
     Nicholas Carlson of SAI @ tweeted me asking to tell him when I was finished with the post. Background: I previously had blogged for SAI and am on good terms with the crew over there. "I want to bait Chris Dixon," Nicholas told me via IM. Cool. Whatever. I stayed up until 4am writing the post and didn't think much of it. I figured he was gonna re-tweet the post and @cdixon it. 

    Screen shot 2010-03-02 at 2.17.57 AM
     The next morning, Nicholas sent me an IM: "Check out SAI." And there was my post, with a new headline. No one had asked me directly if they could republish it. 

    Now, I say all this and want to make it clear that I don't begrudge Nicholas or SAI. I actually worked for them briefly as a blogger and am on great terms with Dan, Joe, and the rest of the team over there. But I do want to make it clear to those of you who might have seen that headline on SAI and think that I wrote it. A subtle difference, I know, but I just wanted to set the record straight.

    Also, some of you, including now our friends at ReadWriteWeb, seem to develop the impresession that I am moving to Silicon Valley. As of today, this is not true. I am taking a 10 day trip to California––not moving there! Big difference. I MIGHT move there later and I'll definitely be thinking about it while I'm here, but it's far from a done deal. 

    Truth be told, my argument in that post is a working hypothesis. I think what I said is true, but I'm not 100%. And so I'm here in California to explore and figure things out.

    Cheers from Palo Alto!

    -Matt


  8. NYC Startups Need an Independent Press

    March 1, 2010 by Matt Mireles

    Last night, Cody Brown wrote:

    I can say that personally, I learn about NYC tech news almost purely from a collection of blogs I find through Twitter. There is Silicon Alley and Tech Crunch articles about NYC startups but most of the time, I’m leaning about NYC Tech from prominent investors like Fred Wilson and Chris Dixon. Despite how much I devour their work, it comes from a particular POV. If I’m anything like others in NYC who are looking for local tech news, I’m starting to think that too much of this POV is holding us back. The issues with personal blogs break down like this:

    Mission

    It’s clear why Fred Wilson blogs, he does it because it’s good for him and it’s good for Union Square Ventures. Fred has reason to care about the larger NYC tech scene, but the interests of USV will always come first.

    Transparency

    A personal blogger gets to decide, with every post, how transparent they want to be. Any VC blogger worth anything will disclose companies they have investments in when they blog but transparency is much deeper than financial disclosure. Political and personal calculus all come in to play. This is evident anytime a founder/investor talks about existing technologies or companies. When Jason calacanis dropped his rant against ComScore, it could be because he’s genuinely intellectually curious or because he is going to announce his own metrics system in 4 months.

    Restraint

    A personal blogger isn’t responsible for talking about what conversations they are avoiding. This is where it gets really hairy and I think most detrimental to the community. Imagine a situation like this, a prominent NYC founder/investor invites his friend, another prominent NYC founder/investor to an event he is hosting that will be attended by many in the field. The friend arrives and quickly notices the event is an utter disaster. The projector broke, the moderator is horrendous, and everyone is 15 minutes late because the directions to the location were wrong. If the friend were to honestly describe the event it would not be favorable. What’s your bet? Is this friend going to blog about this event the next day? Probably not. Even when you

    I love the work of many personal bloggers and value what they add to the NYC startup community, but a seemingly essential part of the ecosystem is missing.

    NYC Needs a Startup Blog. It needs brutal, unnerving, critique from an entity without a mesh of financial interest conflicts.

    via codybrown.tumblr.com

    After my last couple posts regarding Pay-to-Play at NY Angels and NYC vs Silicon Valley, I got shit on by Charlie O'Donnell of First Round Capital and, to a much lesser and dramatically more civil extent, Nate Westheimer of NY Tech Meetup. Actually, nix that. Nate critiqued and did so fairly and honorably, he did not shit. Charlie shat. 

    Regardless, most founders and proto-founders aren't going to open their mouths and speak freely about their experiences if this is what happens to them when they dare utter a frustrated or honest word. I'm in a pretty good position visibility wise with regards to SpeakerText and am more of a street fighter than most, so I am willing to take stick my neck out. But I wouldn't expect others to.

    Social media is cool, but it suffers the same limits as regular social interaction: people are afraid to piss each other off. The emperor is never told about his clothes, or lack thereof. Dollars are at stake, after all.

    Hence the need for an independent press who has a financial incentive to say it like it is. Amen, Cody.