Florida Venture Blog by Dan Rua dan

No-BS Venture Thoughts for No-BS Entrepreneurs.

A running perspective on Florida's growing tech and venture community, with an occasional detour to the Southeast/national scene, venture capital FAQs and maybe a gadget or two....

By Dan Rua, Managing Partner of Inflexion Partners -- "Florida's Venture Fund".

Help Haiti

haiti earthquakeLike many of you, I've been wondering how best to help the Haiti earthquake victims. The following list (thanks Bro!) makes it easy...

Disaster relief organizations are mobilizing to aid Haiti - and are asking for help. Funds are needed to provide enough safe water, temporary shelter and vital medical supplies.

UNICEF and Save the Children already have emergency teams in Haiti, and the Red Cross has released $200,000 in disaster funds.

You can donate to these groups:

- Text Yele. Wyclef Jean is urging donors to text 'Yele' to 501501 and make a $5 contribution to the relief effort over cell phone. Click here to get more information via Wyclef's foundation page.

- Text HAITI. For those interesting in helping immediately, simply text "HAITI" to "90999" and a donation of $10 will be given automatically to the Red Cross to help with relief efforts, charged to your cell phone bill.

- Save the Children. Donate at savethechildren.org or make checks out to "Save the Children" and mail to: Save the Children Income Processing Department, 54 Wilton Road, Westport, Conn. 06880

- UNICEF. Go online to unicefusa.org/haitiquake or call (800) 4UNICEF.

- Red Cross. Go online to redcross.org and click Donate, or call (800) REDCROSS.

- Direct Relief International. Donate online at directrelief.org.

- Mercy Corp. Go online to mercycorps.org or mail checks to Haiti Earthquake Fund, Dept. NR, PO Box 2669, Portland, Ore. 97208 or call (888) 256-1900


To find information about friends and family in Haiti: The U.S. State Department set up a toll-free number to call for information about family members in Haiti: 1-888-407-4747.

The department said some callers may receive a recording because of heavy volume of calls.

The State Department has also set up links on its Web site to facilitate donations to disaster relief agencies.



**For a list of other charities active in Haiti or for additional information, please visit http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34835478/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/

Labels: , , , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

How to Approach VCs

I got a great set of questions from an entrepreneur (Delena) on an earlier post, concerning how to approach, qualify and follow-up with VCs. I've heard these tactical communication questions a bit more often in the past year so I thought I'd expand upon at least one of Delena's questions here.

Delena asked "How long should one pursue a [VC] firm?" My first answer is to pursue appropriate investors until you no longer need funding, but the devil's in the details.

Chum the Water, Before Baiting a Hook

chumYou've seen those deep sea fishing shows, right, where they throw meat out well before casting a line? This is especially true for shark fishing. Well, given how the popular media likes to equate VCs and sharks (think SharkTank), follow that same approach for engaging VCs. Reach out to appropriate VCs well before you need funding and start a relationship that invites curiosity or informal advice. Share what you're doing, maybe an exciting announcement, and solicit advice, not money. Believe it or not, VCs are much more likely to engage if they're being approached for their "infinite business wisdom" instead of their checkbook. This requires more legwork than just emailing executive summaries, but getting to know VCs before you need money is critical to getting their attention later. This also provides an opportunity to understand a VC's hot-buttons so you can demonstrate progress on those prior to pitching for investment.

Be Persistent, but Polite

persistenceNow, once you have baited your hook and cast it out, what if you don't get any nibbles? That period just after submitting an executive summary or business plan to VCs is one of the most uncertain for young entrepreneurs. What does silence mean? How soon is too soon to follow-up? My advice is to be persistent, but polite. Give VCs about two weeks to work through dealflow and review your plan, but after that follow-up weekly in a multi-modal, but polite way. This is a simple concept, but less than 1% of entrepreneurs execute on it. Follow-up emails, phone calls, and even twitter DMs should always stay professional, but push for the next step of call, meeting or feedback. VCs review thousands of plans a year and you want yours on the top of their inbox as much as possible -- each ping gets it another look until they decide a formal next step. In addition to getting attention, this process also demonstrates to a VC how you conduct business -- persistent entrepreneurs win customers, partners and top talent. The worst case of being persistent, but polite, is you get a "no" sooner than you might otherwise -- but even that's better than staying in limbo.

Gather Believers, Even if they Don't Give to the Cause

believeWhat if you chum the water, bait the hook, follow-up in a persistent, but polite manner; and it still results in a "no"? Well, I'd suggest you are after two things when talking to a VC: 1) believe and 2) invest. A "no" on investment doesn't foreclose the potential of gaining a believer in you, your product, or your market. Try to find out what area of your opportunity a VC does believe in, and what areas are a problem. Then, add that VC to an ongoing distribution list for future updates. This is another tactic that less than 1% of entrepreneurs utilize. If you get me on a distribution list of updates, you have the opportunity to grow my belief over time and address problem areas so I'll re-engage. For example, if a key missing piece was customer adoption, an email that mentions landing a big customer might cause a VC to reply for an update. Even if it doesn't pull a VC back to you, you never know when VCs are networking and your company is mentioned. If multiple VCs are aware of your latest company wins, there's a higher likelihood they will compare notes on your opportunity. Likewise, a VC familiar with your progress might point customers, partners or talent your way.

I've seen plenty of other tips for approaching and attracting VCs, particularly as it relates to qualifying the right VCs. These tips are not a replacement for those; just communication tactics once you've decided who to approach. I hope they help...

UPDATE: In the comments, Sam highlighted another great resource on pitching VCs, put together by Mark over at GRP. I think it's so useful, I wanted to highlight here -- and throw some linklove to yet another VC who understands the power of in-stream advertising.

Labels: , , , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

IZEAFest at SeaWorld Recap

After attending IZEAFest @ SeaWorld last weekend, I was planning to share a summary of the event here. However, I see that Convention News TV has already created a very nice video detailing the event, including clips from speakers such as Chris Brogan (@chrisbrogan), Aaron Brazell (@technosailor), Rae Hoffman (@sugarrae), and others.


IZEA and other attendees did such a good job documenting the event, I'll just share this media feast:

If you remember nothing else from this cornucopia of media, remember that yet another IZEA innovation was unveiled: Sponsored Guest Posts via Sponzai

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Florida Growth Fund

Earlier this week I attended a Florida Venture Forum welcome event for the Florida Growth Fund, a $250 million hybrid fund-of-funds managed by Hamilton Lane for the Florida State Board of Administration. A say "hybrid" because the fund has two missions: 1) invest into Florida-focused venture capital funds and 2) invest directly into Florida companies. It's not clear how much of the fund will go into each of those buckets, but their investment amounts per deal/fund are roughly $5-15 million.

A couple of the principals from Hamilton Lane spoke at the event, Greg Baty and David Helgerson, and it was very well attended. Both Greg and David are drinking from a firehose at the moment, Florida is a big, diverse geography for venture capital. They are doing a good job of meeting the right folks around southern, central and northern Florida. In parallel, they are also dealing with the logistics of fund creation, including new offices in Ft Lauderdale and Orlando.

Attendance included local entrepreneurs and venture funds from inside and outside Florida. As predicted for years, a pension fund commitment to local venture capital has focused venture fund attention on Florida -- pulling venture funds to the event from just about every state in the Southeast, and some beyond. Now that we've got the attention, it falls to Greg, David and their team to pick the funds and companies that will drive the best investor returns for FSBA.

Their mandate sounds pretty broad, covering early & later-stage venture capital funds and multiple industries for direct deals. Although they're after Florida direct deals and looking for funds with a Florida connection, they are not bound to Florida-only funds. For direct deals, they will not lead and price rounds, but would consider following-on up to half of a round. At the event, they announced their first two investments: 1) Voxeo and 2) an unnamed later-stage venture fund.

In my opinion, the hardest part of their mandate will be to balance priority on near-term small wins and long-term results. I was in Tallahassee when the Florida Growth Fund was announced and I remember a media question about "when can we expect results from this FSBA program?" Part of the answer mentioned seeing near-term (3-4 years) "points on the board" -- something that historically conflicts with achieving the highest returns from early-stage investing (see chart). Although balancing near-term and long-term expectations is tough, it's not insurmountable. With stage-diversification and patience, "invest in ourselves" programs like this can deliver great results. Hamilton Lane manages similar programs for multiple states across the country and they seem to understand the value of mixed early-stage and later-stage investments to achieve blended success.

Although their website hasn't fully launched yet, you can see their splash page at http://www.floridagrowthfund.com/. It includes email and phone contacts. If you learn more from your interactions, share with other Florida entrepreneurs by commenting here...

Labels: , , , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Venture Capital Syndicates

I've written before about how tough markets like this really separate the wheat from the chaff within a company. As if your company were a foxhole, you get to see who stays to fight by your side and who runs to another foxhole with more protection; or worse, who runs away from the fight altogether looking for a safe desk job far from the battlefield.

My past posts were more about people within a company, but a similar test of commitment happens within investor syndicates. Most entrepreneurs I've met focus on picking their lead investor, but spend little attention on the long-term strength/weakness of the syndicate that forms around that lead. As an investor that typically leads deals, Inflexion spends considerable time and diligence architecting the syndicates in our deals. Most of the time, we select investors we've built companies with before, but every now and then we partner with a fund for the first time. That requires a bit more diligence and we look for, at least, the following four things:

1) Value-add: Relevant investing or operating experience for the opportunity. Beyond the dollars, syndicates are about bringing value-add to a portfolio company thru experience and relationships.
2) Congruence: A POV on the opportunity that's consistent with the entrepreneur and lead investor. Although a quality syndicate requires diversity of experiences and networks, divergent views on the "big opportunity" can be a huge time/resource sink.
3) Dry Powder: A fund size, age and reserve philosophy that suggests they won't get "over their skis" prematurely. We'd rather a co-investor put in less money up front and reserve appropriately (2X-5X), than go heavy early, leaving little dry powder for critical later rounds.
4) Consistency: A track record of consistent operating and financial decision-making. A co-investor that provides inconsistent guidance can wreak havoc at a board level, and a hair-trigger between greed and fear will whipsaw entrepreneurs and co-investors alike. In the unpredictable world of early-stage venture capital, co-investor consistency is an absolute must.

There are plenty of other factors, like investing style (west coast vs. east coast, home-runs vs. doubles), but those four are at the top of my list. I only want investors in my foxhole who will add significant value beyond their dollars, see the same "big opportunity", reserve dollars to play when entrepreneurs really need them, and behave in a consistent manner we can rely upon -- particularly in tough times. I don't always get that mix right, but it's my job as lead investor and commitment to my entrepreneurs to try.

Labels: , , , , , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Dystonia Cure Within Reach for Tyler's Hope

I've blogged here before about Tyler's Hope and wanted to share a big day for Tyler and his family. This morning CNN.com posted the video below and TylersHope.org is getting bombarded with people wanting to help find a Dystonia cure. How can you help?
1) Watch this video;
2) Learn more at TylersHope.org;
4) Help Tyler find a cure by giving and inviting friends to help!

Tyler Staab is a classmate of my daughter's and I'd personally appreciate anything you can do to help...



Labels: , ,

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

When Marketers Collude, Bloggers Lose

As an active investor in social media, I've followed the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) since it's founding by a handful of marketers back in 2004. The growth of marketers in the organization is a testament to the power unlocked by consumer generated content. The core of that power rests with the content creators such as bloggers, podcasters, vloggers and even to the granularity of social network participants. I think WOMMA understands that, but I fear they've been led astray by a minority of marketers who want to dictate payment terms when engaging bloggers. Sure, they want the exposure bloggers can deliver, but they only want to pay bloggers in free markers, coffee mugs, products, trips and passes.

Normally the market would sort that out, rewarding marketers who recognize the value of bloggers and weeding out those looking for free product reviews. Unless, of course, the largest marketers band together to declare that barter (non-cash) is the only allowed means of transaction. That's what recent WOMMA Code changes are attempting to do: declare that cash is not allowed, whereas non-cash is fine -- even with the exact same level of authenticity and disclosure for each transaction.

As you'll see in the comments below, I disagree with that stance from many perspectives. I feel that cash and non-cash transactions carry equal levels of conflict, but with authenticity and disclosure they can both deliver win-win-win for bloggers, marketers and readers. WOMMA is currently accepting comments on the topic and I've provided my comments below. Agree, disagree? Do you think it's appropriate for marketers to dictate terms to bloggers in this way? Speak now or don't complain when future sponsors say "I'd love to compensate you for your published feedback, time and effort, but my industry association won't let me...how about a branded coozie?"

--------
  1. June 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 | #3

    As a marketer, blogger, and WOMMA stakeholder (via IZEA investment) I’ve lived this topic firsthand from many perspectives. To share those experiences as clearly as possible (and to enabled threaded dialogue), I’m providing separate comments from each view. From all perspectives, I believe the WOMM market and its participants are best served by allowing and requiring the same standards for cash and non-cash compensation in WOMM campaigns.

    To start, as a marketer, I believe even your topic “Paid Blogging: Ethical or Not” misses the point. WOMMA’s code already allows “paid blogging”, so long as payment is done indirectly via products, gifts, passes, trips etc. Therefore the real question is whether advertisers who do it directly via cash should be held to a different standard than those who shroud their compensation in non-cash forms. So long as both advertisers follow WOMMA’s Honesty ROI, I see no reason for such a distinction other than to protect the “old guard” who have built their agency businesses on shrouded influence and compensation. Let’s embrace and encourage transparency of all forms of compensation.

    Likewise, I believe a cash vs. non-cash distinction creates an inappropriate “caste system” between advertisers with large-ticket items and those with small-ticket items. For example, the recent “Bloggers at Sea” boondoggle arranged for a group of large and small bloggers such as Kawasaki, Scoble, and Sernovitz to visit the USS Nimitz is a free trip worth thousands of dollars and probably an experience of a lifetime. There is no way one can argue posts about the trip are not paid blogging — typically without disclosure of free airfare etc.. However, the owner of a free content website has nothing of that value to exchange for similar blogger coverage. Why should the former be allowed “paid blogging” when the latter is not? Those agencies wielding free gifts to provide such as cars, electronics, consumer goods etc. may not like it, but cash gives everyone a shot at social media coverage — something WOMMA should support.

    Finally, cash and systems based upon cash rather than manpower can be more efficient, delivering ROI in a social media world that still struggles with unlocking marketing ROI. I’m sure there are some who might claim non-cash compensation delivers better ROI, but who’s right in a specific case study doesn’t really matter. The question is whether WOMMA should foreclose an approach, assuming Honesty ROI is followed, while the industry is still so young and in need of creative solutions. Like cash-based sponsored content today, cash-based sponsored search ruffled the status quo when Overture/Yahoo and Google leveraged it to deliver better ROI. Sponsored search is arguably the most successful online business model ever, powering all of the innovation at Google, Yahoo and much of the online ecosystem. Imagine if the largest trade association of the time had disallowed it before the world realized its potential? As a beneficiary of those innovations, I believe such a move would have been short-sighted and, frankly, tragic to the future of the medium.

    Thanks,
    Dan (Marketer)

  2. June 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 | #4

    As a blogger, I also believe the distinction between cash and non-cash paid blogging is inappropriate. So long as I blog with disclosure and authenticity (including follow all FTC guidelines), I don’t believe it’s appropriate for marketers to collude on the terms I’m allowed to charge for my time, effort and publication. If I’ve built an online media business that is worth $1,000 in goods/freebies/trips, it’s equally worth $1,000 in cash. Coordinating marketers to disallow the latter payment terms is tantamount to price-fixing.

    Given discussions I’ve had with other bloggers, it’s obvious to me that cash/non-cash distinctions in WOMMA weren’t driven by bloggers. Depending on the product or service in question, bloggers will decide what’s appropriate for their blog/audience, but they almost universally agree that cash (with transparency) should be one of many valid options.

    I believe the closest analogy for the majority of bloggers is talk-radio hosts - even more obvious as bloggers do podcasts & videos. Like most bloggers, talk-radio hosts are more discussion-starters and entertainers than journalists. They grow their audience by topic, geography and/or talent. Some are small-town voices that wouldn’t be recognized elsewhere and some are national celebrities. However, they almost universally accept cash and non-cash payment from sponsors — mostly cash — to speak in their own voice about the sponsor. The FTC allows this radio model, even without disclosure, so why in the world would we handicap radio’s online counterparts with an arbitrary distinction between cash and non-cash sponsorship even when Honesty ROI is followed?

    Thanks,
    Dan (Blogger)

  3. June 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 | #5

    As a WOMMA and industry stakeholder, I believe dictating non-cash terms is inappropriate, unnecessarily risking the industry, the association and it’s members in one fell swoop.

    I’ll start with the most dangerous risk: trade association antitrust. In the interest of brevity, this DOJ speech (and multiple related guides) provides a decent summary of Trade Association Antitrust risks: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/0106.htm One example in that speech is US vs. Association of Retail Travel Agents, whereby the association attempted to dictate pricing terms and transaction structure. Similar to current WOMMA “stand against” language, members of the association boycotted doing business with any providers who didn’t meet their pricing structure/terms. The DOJ’s view was as follows: “This is the kind of trade association activity that is of serious competitive concern. ARTA developed a position for its travel agent members on the prices and terms upon which they should be compensated, and then invited and encouraged members not to deal with travel providers that did not follow its prescription. This amounted, in effect, to an invitation to engage in price-fixing.”

    The penalties for such trade association activities can be severe (up to treble damages) and can extend to collaborating members. As such, setting all other arguments aside, I believe disallowing US legal tender in a social media marketing transaction puts the association and members in unnecessary legal jeopardy. I believe WOMMA probably understood this at it’s founding because it’s own 2004 antitrust guidelines specifically state: “Since both the Sherman and Federal Trade Commission Acts prohibit combinations in restraint of trade and since an association by its very nature is a combination of competitors, one element of a possible violation is already present. Only the action to restrain trade must occur for there to be a violation.” It may be understandable that WOMMA accidentally wandered into antitrust territory by competitive members, but now that multiple members have raised the question, the association won’t be able to claim ignorance. Therefore, I believe WOMMA should immediately remove any pricing structure/terms distinctions in the code.

    Although I’ve already covered the industry risk for disallowing a young, promising marketing model; as a WOMMA stakeholder, I believe there is another industry risk at play: wasted association energy/resources. The WOMM industry will be better served helping everyone understand compensation and conflict exists whether payment is cash or shrouded in non-cash forms. The FTC makes no distinction between the two and, in fact, recent FTC Guide updates added specific examples for social media non-cash transactions to make their concerns clear — all compensation and conflicts must be disclosed. There are multi-billion dollar industries, such as social media affiliate marketing, that will not abandon cash payments, but could be encouraged by WOMMA involvement/cooperation to increase transparency. Focusing WOMMA’s resources on driving Honesty ROI across all social media marketing will serve the industry far greater than drawing arbitrary lines on an unsettled topic that, by your own words, “is driving strong points of view on all sides.” Find common ground within your membership and focus WOMMA’s scarce time and dollars where we can agree…

    Thanks,
    Dan (WOMMA Stakeholder)

    Labels: , , ,

    SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend