Jerks And The Start-ups They Ruin

Perhaps the premiere of Season 4 of “Silicon Valley” twigged me to share this post. but despite the title, the HBO series only connection may be the now viral “mean jerk time algorithm.” The real “Silicon Valley jerk” has been around for decades, buried with all the other dirty laundry. Uber’s Travis Kalanick has only brought it front and center at this moment. It is something of a conundrum as some of the jerks are also the most successful. We all now know about the “bad” Steve Jobs. Oracle for years had a very bad reputation that came directly from Larry Ellison himself. Microsoft was long known as a “sweatshop” with a highly negative culture led by Steve Ballmer. Even venture capitalists themselves have caught the disease as evidenced by Reid Hoffman and the late Tom Perkins of KPCB. The best assessment I have heard is that these aggressive unrestrained corporate cultures destroy their own goals. Or better yet, the saying that “culture trumps strategy.”


Perhaps the premiere of Season 4 of “Silicon Valley” twigged me to share this post. but despite the title, the HBO series only connection may be the now viral “mean jerk time algorithm.”     The real “Silicon Valley jerk” has been around for decades, buried with all the other dirty laundry. Uber’s Travis Kalanick has only brought it front and center at this moment. It is something of a conundrum as some of the jerks are also the most successful. We all now know about the “bad” Steve Jobs. Oracle for years had a very bad reputation that came directly from Larry Ellison himself.  Microsoft was long known as a “sweatshop” with a highly negative culture led by Steve Ballmer. Even venture capitalists themselves have caught the disease as evidenced by Reid Hoffman and the late Tom Perkins of KPCB.  The best assessment I have heard is that these aggressive unrestrained corporate cultures destroy their own goals. Or better yet, the saying that “culture trumps strategy.”

 

The tech industry has a problem with “bro culture.” People have been complaining about it for years. Yet nobody has done much to fix it.

That may finally change if the people in charge of Silicon Valley — venture capitalists, who control the money — start to realize that the real problem with tech bros is not just that they’re boorish jerks. It’s that they’re boorish jerks who don’t know how to run companies.

Look at Uber, the ride-hailing start-up. It’s the biggest tech unicorn in the world, with a valuation of $69 billion. Not long ago Uber seemed invincible. Now it’s in free fall, and top executives have fled. The company’s woes spring entirely from its toxic bro culture, created by its chief executive, Travis Kalanick.

What is bro culture? Basically, a world that favors young men at the expense of everyone else. A “bro co.” has a “bro” C.E.O., or C.E.-Bro, usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler. Instead of being forced by investors to surround himself with seasoned executives, he is left to make decisions on his own.

The bro C.E.O. does what you’d expect an immature young man to do when you give him lots of money and surround him with fawning admirers — he creates a culture built on reckless spending and excessive partying, where bad behavior is not just tolerated but even encouraged. He creates the kind of company in which going to an escort bar with your colleagues, as Mr. Kalanick did in South Korea in 2014, according to recent reports, seems like a good idea. (The visit led, understandably, to a complaint to the personnel department.)

Bro cos. become corporate frat houses, where employees are chosen like pledges, based on “culture fit.” Women get hired, but they rarely get promoted and sometimes complain of being harassed. Minorities and older workers are excluded.

Bro culture also values speedy growth over sustainable profits, and encourages cutting corners, ignoring regulations and doing whatever it takes to win.

Sometimes it works. But often the whole thing just flames out. The bros blow through the money and find they have no viable business. For example, Quirky, founded in 2009 by the 20-something Ben Kaufman. It raised $185 million to build a “social product development platform” that sold kooky gadgets but filed for bankruptcy basically because the “brash” and “unorthodox” chief executive had no business being a chief executive. One indication that Mr. Kaufman is a bro? Well, the first reference he lists on his LinkedIn page is: “He’s a dick … but hilarious.”

Zenefits, a human-resources start-up, and another bro co., raised $583 million, at a peak valuation of $4.5 billion, then crashed after reports that it had used software to cheat on licensing courses for insurance brokers, and operated a hard-partying workplace where cups of beer and used condoms were left in stairwells. Zenefits limps on, but its C.E.-Bro co-founder has left the company, and nearly half the staff has been laid off.

Uber’s public downfall began in February, when Susan Fowler, a former engineer at the company, wrote about enduring sexual harassment and discrimination there. Other employees came forward with stories. One involved a manager groping employees’ breasts. Mr. Kalanick’s own bro-hood became part of the story when a video surfaced showing him berating a Uber driver who complained that Uber’s price cuts had driven him into bankruptcy. Mr. Kalanick said the driver needed to take responsibility for his own life.

As this was happening, Google’s self-driving car unit sued Uber, alleging it had stolen its ideas. Then word leaked that Uber had been using a sneaky software tool to deceive regulators in cities around the world. All this is as much a part of “bro culture” as the poor treatment of women; the point is to get away with as much as you can.

Hoping to right the ship, Uber appointed one of its board members, Arianna Huffington, to join former attorney general Eric Holder and others to investigate the sexual harassment claims. Mr. Kalanick has apologized and vowed to “grow up.” (He’s 40.) Most important, Uber has announced that it is planning to hire a chief operating officer, ideally a steady hand like Sheryl Sandberg, the chief operating officer of Facebook. It’s a great idea, but it should have happened years ago. Now it may be too late.

Ms. Huffington insists the board has full confidence in Mr. Kalanick. But should it? He’s a college dropout with a spotty track record and a reputation for pugnacity. His record at Uber includes racking up enormous losses — reportedly $5 billion over the last two years. Despite this, the bluest blue-chip investors (including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) have invested a total of $16 billion in Uber.

Bro C.E.O.s are better at raising money than making money. So why do venture capitalists keep investing in them? It may be because many of the venture capitalists are bros as well.

Venture capitalists used to be tech engineers who had made a bundle, retired early and took up investing in start-ups as a kind of white-shoe hobby. The new breed are competitive alpha males who previously might have gone to work as bond traders. At the same time, there are fewer women. In 1999, 10 percent of investing partners at venture capital companies were women. By 2014 the number had declined to 6 percent, according to the Diana Project at Babson College. This is probably one reason that, despite many studies showing that women run companies better than men, none of the 15 biggest American tech companies valued over $1 billion has a female chief executive.

Uber’s collapse should not come as a surprise but it does offer a lesson: Toxic workplace culture and rotten financial performance go hand-in-hand. It’s possible for a boorish jerk to run a successful company, but jerks do best when surrounded by non-jerks, and bros do best when they hire seasoned executives to help them. Without “adult supervision” and institutional restraints, the C.E.-Bro’s vices end up infecting the culture of the workplaces they control.

This poisonous state of affairs will get fixed only when investors start getting hurt. A crash at Uber, the most high-profile tech start-up in the world, could provide the jolt that finally brings the tech industry back to its senses.

Uber’s Travis Kalanick Plumbs New Depths As Silicon Valley’s Biggest “Jerk”


Even in the early golden years of Silicon Valley, there were “Silicon Valley Jerks,” and unpleasant corporate cultures.  Larry Ellison and Oracle are the first to come to mind. Oracle was known as a very hostile, unpleasant place to work and there was a revolving door of senior executives who were fired by Ellison or who resigned. Microsoft has always been known as something of a “sweatshop,” with an excessively competitive and hostile culture, which may finally be changing with the new CEO, though his comment about women and promotions caused a flap.  We now know about the “Bad Steve” Jobs, though Apple has not had the kind of negative reputation of some of the other companies.  The late Jeanette Symons of Ascend Communications was notorious for her anti-social behaviour but also founded one of the most successful Internet infrastructure companies in history.  Even Intel, which has been generally regarded as a very positive corporate culture has had its share of “jerks.”  Former Intel VP Jack Carsten had the perverse reputation for being the catalyst for numerous resignations from Intel, and new startup companies that resulted.

But those examples pale in comparison to the current crop of new Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.  Travis Kalanick, CEO of Uber has transformed himself into the poster child for this problem. What is most disturbing, perhaps for Uber’s investors, is a stunning lack of attention to the perceptions around Uber’s brand image. Last week, Buzzfeed broke the story of an Uber senior executive who apparently planned a smear campaign against journalists, in particular, Sarah Lacy of PandoDaily.  The exec spoke of internal Uber meta data known as “Godview” that would be used, which raised questions about personal data privacy, and has now led to a formal inquiry from U.S. Senator Al Franken.  SFGate, the Web arm of the San Francisco Chronicle has also posted an article posing questions about Uber’s employment and “partnership” arrangements with drivers.  Kalanick may now have a headache, but he is not alone.  Who can forget venture capitalist Tom Perkin’s statement that the treatment of the rich in the United States was like the persecution of the Jews by Nazi Germany? The infighting among founders at Twitter has been an ugly airing of dirty laundry, and the ostentatious “nouveau riche” behaviour of others has caused ripples of resentment though the Valley and San Francisco.  Much of the criticism seems to center on the venture capitalists who have encouraged these personality types, but in fairness there are venture capitalists who are as appalled as everyone else, and refuse to invest in arrogant “God’s gift” personalities. I have also written two earlier blog posts about this problem, from my own personal perspective, having survived one of Silicon Valley’s jerks.  Links to my two previous posts are shown below.

From SFGate, via Business Insider, Saturday November 23rd, 2014, by Alyson Shontell

There’s a notion that some people become successful company founders because they have the right “Startup DNA.”

The DNA is comprised of characteristics like “resilience” and “ability to accept risk.”

Another characteristic many top entrepreneurs share is arrogance. Or worse, just being a huge jerk.

While reporting a long profile of Travis Kalanick last winter, Business Insider found a lot of people who thought Kalanick was a legendary CEO.

Friends compared him to Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.

But some who were in awe of Kalanick also said he was a jerk.

“Sometimes,” one acquaintance said of Kalanick, “–holes create great businesses.”

Inside Silicon Valley, arrogance runs rampant and investors seem to reward ruthless behavior with piles of cash.

There are numerous examples of founders who have had moments of terrible behavior that later became infamous. The founders might not be jerks all the time, of course. Everyone has moments when they behave boorishly. But sometimes the stories are so unbelievable, it can leave a lasting negative impressive of the person — that whether criticism is deserved or not.

For instance, Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth tens of billions, famously ousted his friend Eduardo Saverin from Facebook. He also stole his business idea from the Winklevoss twins. “Yah, I’m going to f– them,” he told a friend over IM about the pair. “Probably in the ear.”

Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel wrote a number of misogynistic-sounding emails when he was in college to his fraternity brothers. Once, Spiegel was so angry with his parents, he reportedly cut himself out of family photos.

Twitter’s co-founders back-stabbed each other repeatedly: Founder Noah Glass was booted out of the company. Ev Williams and Jack Dorsey were both given, and then stripped of, the CEO title. And Jeff Bezos, who runs Amazon, wreaks havoc in his organization by sending a single-character email: “?”

Even Steve Jobs, one of the world’s most-praised entrepreneurs, was said to have two sides. Jobs’ biographer, Walter Isaacson, portrayed the late Apple CEO as “Good Steve” and “Bad Steve.” An example: Jobs once stormed into a meeting and called everyone “f–ing dickless –holes.”

Robert Sutton spent a lot of time conducting research for his book, “No –hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that Isn’t,” What he found was disappointing.

“Even people who worked with Jobs told me that they’d seen him make people cry many times, but that 80 percent of the time he was right, ” Sutton said. “It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.”

It is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an –hole.

The Atlantic’s Tom McNichol agrees. He wrote an article titled: “Be a Jerk: The Worst Business Lesson from the Steve Jobs biography.”

Here’s an excerpt:

The ease with which people can possess astonishingly contradictory qualities is one of the mysteries of human nature; indeed, it’s one of the things that separates humans from, say, an Apple computer. Every one of the components that makes up an iPad is essential to the work it produces. Remove one part and the machine no longer performs its job, and not even the Genius Bar can fix it. But humans are full of qualities that are in no way integral to their functioning in the world. Some aspects of personality have little or no bearing on whether a person performs well, and not a few people succeed in spite of their darker qualities.

So, is it possible to be nice and to be wildly successful in business? And in Silicon Valley, where people praise Steve Jobs’ bad habits and founders rag on the homeless, can you be financially rewarded if you’re nice?

One venture capitalist whose firm implemented a “no –holes policy” passed on an investment in Uber. This person said Kalanick didn’t click with any of the partners and that he acted like he was “God’s gift.”

Other investors struggle with the decision to invest in personalities over returns.

“I want not to invest in jerks,” says former Silicon Valley investor, Eileen Burbidge. Burbidge is now a VC at London’s Passion Capital, which has invested in startups like Lulu and Go Cardless.  “Personally I believe life is too short. [But] I have wondered if this is actually a bad philosophy as an investor. I’d like to think not but I’m supposed to back founders for the best ROI, not personality.”

I want not to invest in jerks …But I have wondered if this is actually a bad philosophy as an investor. I’m supposed to back founders for the best ROI.

Mark Suster, a Los Angeles-based investor, also isn’t sure what to make of jerks in business. He lists “integrity” as a bonus characteristic when it comes to top entrepreneurs’ DNA.

“I believe that integrity and honesty are very important to most venture capital investors,” he wrote on his blog, Both Sides of the Table. ” Unfortunately, I don’t believe that they are required to make a lot of money.”

Many agree that being an overly aggressive entrepreneur tends to pan out.

“As much as [Travis] is inspirational, he is controversial,” a former colleague of Kalanick’s said. “If he were less brash, I don’t think he would get half as far as he did.”

Adds another Kalanick acquaintance: “There is absolutely no way [Uber] would have gotten where it is without Travis and his arrogance. Not without him being like, ‘I’m going to take over the world.’ He has the Steve Jobs mentality that ‘It’s my way or the highway.'”

One person who firmly believes you can be nice and succeed is Paul Graham. He runs top startup accelerator Y Combinator and he’s made Sutton’s “no –hole” rule popular in tech. He has backed billion-dollar startups such as Dropbox and Airbnb.

paul graham kevin roseGraham says well-known founders like Jobs and Bezos can’t be judged by their terror tales. “Famous founders who seem to be –holes might not be,” Graham told Business Insider via email. “I’m not saying they are or they aren’t, just that it is extremely hard to tell what a famous person is really like. You can’t judge them based on anecdotal evidence, which is all you ever have.”

Graham chooses not to invest in jerks because he doesn’t want to be around them. Investors and founders end up spending a lot of time together. Getting rid of one or the other can be more difficult than getting a divorce from a spouse.

“The reason we tried not to invest in jerks initially was sheer self-indulgence,” says Graham. “We were going to have to spend a lot of time with whoever we funded, and we didn’t want to have to spend time with people we couldn’t stand. Later we realized it had been a clever move to filter out jerks, because it made the alumni network really tight. We’ve funded over 630 startups now, and when founders of different startups meet there is an automatic level of trust and willingness to help one another. Much more than alumni of the same college for example.”

His take: Be nice and you can find success.

“It’s certainly possible to build a multi-billion dollar startup without being a jerk,” Graham says. “We’ve funded several, and the founders are all good people.  In fact, based on what I’ve seen so far, the good people have the advantage over the jerks. Probably because to get really big, a company has to have a sense of mission, and the good people are more likely to have an authentic one, rather than just being motivated by money or power.”

Tom Perkins of KPCB, Another Silicon Valley Jerk. Where Have We Gone So Wrong?

This weekend, the media and blogosphere have been ignited with reaction to the open letter to the Wall Street Journal by venture capitalist Tom Perkins, founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the blowback from Atlantic Magazine writer Jordan Weissmann. The overwhelming reaction has been disbelief and outrage at Perkins comments. I am so angry and sad to see this article and interview of legendary Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Tom Perkins. It is further evidence to my earlier post on the “Silicon Valley Jerk Conundrum.”

Ironically, if Perkins had kept his thoughts to himself and his mouth shut, he could have avoided what is now a firestorm likely to engulf him and insure further scrutiny of income inequality.


This weekend, the media and blogosphere have been ignited with reaction to the open letter to the Wall Street Journal by venture capitalist Tom Perkins, founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the blowback from Atlantic Magazine writer Jordan Weissmann. The overwhelming reaction has been disbelief and outrage at Perkins comments.

I am so angry and sad to see this article and interview of legendary Silicon Valley venture capitalist, Tom Perkins. It is further evidence to my earlier post on the “Silicon Valley Jerk Conundrum.”  Mr. Perkins and his firm, Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, better known in the Valley as KPCB, have spawned some of the best and most famous companies in Silicon Valley. Former Intel colleagues, Jim Lally and John Doerr partnered there. Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems made his mark there, and is now the leading clean tech VC in the Valley. But Mr. Perkin’s public claim in his interview with the Wall Street Journal that there is a “war” on the rich, which is like the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews, is just too much for any decent thinking person.  Where has Silicon Valley gone so terribly wrong as to create a plutocrat like this?  As the writer says, “This is the reductio ad absurdum of a rich-guy’s persecution complex. The Jews were a minority. The rich are a minority. Therefore, criticizing the rich is akin to committing genocide against the Jews.”

Read more: The Silicon Valley Jerk Conundrum

As a Silicon Valley veteran I am deeply ashamed of this man and his thinking.

Venture Capitalist Says “War” on the Rich Is Like Nazi Germany’s

War on the Jews

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Tom Perkins makes the worst historical analogy you will read for a long, long time.
JAN 25 2014, 12:34 PM ET
Venture capitalist Tom Perkins (Reuters) of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers

Tom Perkins is known is a founder of one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital firms,  Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. He is not, however, a very adept historian.

In a letter to The Wall Street Journal, he suggests that progressives protesting income inequality are today’s equivalent of Nazi’s persecuting Jews.

Regarding your editorial “Censors on Campus” (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these “techno geeks” can pay. We have, for example, libelous and cruel attacks in the Chronicle on our number-one celebrity, the author Danielle Steel, alleging that she is a “snob” despite the millions she has spent on our city’s homeless and mentally ill over the past decades.

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now?

Kristallnacht was a rash of anti-Jewish riots that swept Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland in 1938, in which ordinary Germans, with Nazi support, destroyed Jewish shops and burned synagogues. As the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum notes in its online encyclopedia:

As the pogrom spread, units of the SS and Gestapo (Secret State Police), following Heydrich’s instructions, arrested up to 30,000 Jewish males, and transferred most of them from local prisons to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and other concentration camps. Significantly, Kristallnacht marks the first instance in which the Nazi regime incarcerated Jews on a massive scale simply on the basis of their ethnicity.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of a rich-guy’s persecution complex. The Jews were a minority. The rich are a minority. Therefore, criticizing the rich is akin to committing genocide against the Jews. QED.

The Changing Landscape of Entrepreneurial Finance: Or Is It?

This is the best info-graphic I have seen on the historical evolution of venture capital, from the early days of Arthur Rock to the current trend of “platform” investors offering the “everything in a box” approach to entrepreneurial investment. The evolving venture capital models are overlayed onto a trend graph of the cost of startups contrasted with the number of startups. At first glance one might accept the now common refrain that traditional “venture capital is dead.” When I began my career in Silicon Valley, the typical entrepreneurial growth company needed $5 to $10 Million dollars to launch itself. Today, the argument is that a promising company can be started on $5000 or less, and competitors eager to serve this new market have mushroomed. But is this really the future?


VCfuture-of-vc

This is the best info-graphic I have seen on the historical evolution of venture capital, from the early days of Arthur Rock to the current trend of “platform” investors offering the “everything in a box” approach to entrepreneurial investment.  The evolving venture capital models are overlayed onto a trend graph of the cost of startups contrasted with the number of startups.  At first glance one might accept the now common refrain that traditional “venture capital is dead.”  When I began my career in Silicon Valley, the typical entrepreneurial growth company needed $5 to $10 Million dollars to launch itself.  Today, the argument is that a promising company can be started on $5000 or less, and competitors eager to serve this new market have mushroomed.  But is this really the future?

Two recent PBS documentaries, one on the genesis of Silicon Valley in the early 1960’s, and the other about the emergence of venture capital in the same period, something unheard of prior to that time, underscore my point.

If we are to pursue the Big Ideas, can they be funded with $5000 and a “package” of services?  I doubt it.  Examples to the contrary are available right here in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.  Quantum computing startup D-Wave, and nuclear fusion startup General Fusion, are prima facie evidence that traditional venture capital big money and expertise cannot be supplanted by an Alberta oil baron looking for a cheap risk investment.  Angel investors, even as birds of feather, do not possess the financial clout or expertise to make Big Ideas happen.

I also believe that the $5000 startup investment cost trend is not the future. It is directly related to the current infatuation with Web apps as the new frontier, rather than Big Ideas like quantum computing, clean tech, renewable energy or nuclear fusion,

PandoDaily has this week also published two stories on venture capital, launching a debate about the future of venture capital.   It is worth following.

Personally, I endorse Sarah Lacy’s defense of “venture capital classic.”

A rare defense of venture capital classic

Sarah_Lacy_6x6BY 

REBLOGGED From Pandodaily

ON AUGUST 30, 2013

OldSchool

One of our most popular stories this week was about the future of venture capital. It traced the asset class’s history from its boutique roots to the age of mega-brands to the rage around international expansion and into the last few years of microVCs, super angels, and accelerators. The article argued that “platforms” were the future of venture capital. Indeed, we’ve written before about efforts that Andreessen Horowitz and First Round Capital are undertaking to be more service oriented — through armies of people or software, respectively.

I grant a lot of the points Erin made in that post — particularly relating to the necessary change the industry has gone through as a result of startups becoming dramatically more capital efficient. As evidence of big systemic changes, she cites a lot of people more experienced than I.

But as an entrepreneur, I couldn’t help but groan at the concept of venture firms becoming “platforms.” Respectfully, I need a venture capital “platform” like I need a hole in the head.

You know what works in venture capital? A group of incredibly smart, connected people who have the financial wherewithal and risk appetite to make multi-million dollar bets on unproven ideas and inexperienced founders. People who can make decisions quickly, and who spend their time trying to help entrepreneurs make the most of that cash.

That’s it. I don’t care what decade we are in or what wave of technology we are talking about. That’s it.

Watch “Something Ventured,” PBS’s excellent documentary about the earliest VCs. You’ll see pretty much the same qualities that make up the best investors today also made Arthur Rock the man who helped fund Fairchild Semiconductor and Apple. They are the same qualities that encouraged Don Valentine to take a risk on weirdo Atari back when the idea of playing video games at home was scoffed at by nearly everyone else. These qualities epitomize Tom Perkins’ bet-the-firm risks on Tandem and Genentech.

Yes, things have changed about venture capital since those halcyon days of silicon assembly lines and fruit orchards. Typical venture firms invest later and get far smaller stakes than they did 50 years ago. Deal flow is far less proprietary in an age of demo days, tech blogs, and AngelList. And we’ve learned that many people are just awful at the job of venture capital. We’re in the middle of a decade-plus long incredibly slow shake-out of zombie firms that have chronically underperformed the market. The dramatically low costs of starting a company have given new access to entrepreneurs of all skill sets, geographies, ages, and risk-appetites that the industry certainly didn’t see 50 years ago.

All of this is mostly good for entrepreneurs, and has forced VCs to prove that elusive “value add” they always talk about.

But VCs who perform well aren’t doing it, because they are jumping on the bandwagon of new marketing trends. They are doing it because they are good VCs the way Arthur Rock, Don Valentine, and Tom Perkins were good VCs. They take risk. They coach entrepreneurs. The respect an entrepreneur’s plan, even if it deviates from their own. And most of all — they have millions to invest in each company.

No matter how much we want to go on and on (and on) about how cheap it is to start a company these days, actually building a sustainable company has never been more expensive. Venture studies show the time and money it takes to get public are longer and higher than ever before.

It’s no wonder that the flood of accelerators and seed funds and angels on that chart we published earlier this week immediately predated the so-called Series A crunch. Did these firms revolutionize how many people could raise seed capital? Yep. But ultimately the vast majority of those efforts still need good old fashioned venture capital to keep going. And that’s still in short supply. Indeed, it’s indecreasing supply.

I’m not arguing that recruiting partners and marketing partners and new ways to leverage other members of a given portfolio aren’t good things. But at best, they are icing on the cake. If you are deciding between two great firms, perhaps it tips the scales. And in terms of returns, that’s not trivial. This is a home run business, and the difference between almost getting Facebook and getting Facebook is a multi-billion “almost.”

But entrepreneurs wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) go with a firm they get a bad vibe from simply because they have someone in house who can help you hire people. They should go with a firm, because they trust that partner to stand by them and give them the unvarnished truth and material support in good times and bad.

And, by the way, as is almost always the case when it comes to Silicon Valley, it bears noting thatnone of this is new. The late 1990s saw talk of keiretsus and marketing partners and accelerators and incubators. Likewise, a desire to go international has come and gone a few times in the venture business. Even crowd funding had roots in Draper Fisher Jurvetson’s ill fated “meVC” fund.

Sure a lot of these trends are being explored today in more sober and sustainable ways. But the ideas aren’t new, just as the idea of classic risk capital isn’t an anachronism.

At our July PandoMonthly, Bill Gurley said that every time a venture capitalist opens his mouth these days, he’s marketing himself and his firm and how they are different. How much more entrepreneur friendly they are than the next guy. Ignore the marketing — just pick a good partner.

[Disclosure: Mentioned in this story are First Round Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. Josh Kopelman of First Round and Marc Andreessen, Jeff Jordan, and Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz are investors in PandoDaily.]

REBLOGGED From PandoDaily

BY  
ON AUGUST 28, 2013

The dramatic drop in the cost of creating a company over the last decade ($2 million in the late ’90s to maybe $5,000 today) has had an obvious effect on the venture capital world. Serious venture investment is not required in the earliest stages of a company’s life, so angel investors have been getting the best seed deals. That spawned “super angels” and their subsequent micro-VC funds, which in turn evolved into crowdfunding platforms like AngelList.

Meanwhile, old school venture firms with their ten-year investment vehicles and mostly mediocre returns are realizing that money is a commodity. It echoes statements made by Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, who predicts that venture capital as we know it won’t be around in ten years.

Good founders can get capital anywhere. So they’re choosing the firms that will help them the most. That’s why some VC firms, like Andreessen Horowitz, have adopted agency-like models, where they provide in-house PR, marketing and recruiting. Others, like First Round Capital, are building acommunity-driven platform that allows its portfolio companies to share knowledge and help each other.

VCs are even becoming publishers — First Round recently launched its “First Round Review.” Andreessen Horowitz hired Wired editor Michael Copeland to produce content for its site. Battery Ventures hired former Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Buckman for a similar role.

As Alex Bangash put it, “VCs are becoming platforms and platforms are becoming VCs.”

He would know — Bangash has acted as a fixer of sorts for institutional investors and venture firms over the last decade. He’s also built his own platform, a site called Trusted Insight. (Since Bangash made the chart, he’s obviously included his own platform on it, to the far right.)

The site might be the largest social network for limited partners, i.e., the pension funds, universities, family offices and institutions that invest in venture, private equity, real estate and hedge funds. Today he publicly unveiled it for the first time.

Trusted Insight has eight employees and has raised a small amount of funding from Data Collective, Founders Fund, RRE Ventures, Morado Ventures, Real Ventures, 500 Startups, Alexis Ohanian, Garry Tan, Eric Chen, Lauder Partners, Jon Moulton, and Marleen Groen.

The site has 58,000 registered users representing trillions of investment dollars, which is an impressive number when you consider how small the global pool of alternative asset limited partners is. Bangash estimates that a third of the world’s alternative asset investment managers are on the site.

Couple that with how insanely private they are. As a reporter, I know all too well how hard it is to track these people down. They make themselves difficult to find on purpose, mostly because they don’t need to promote themselves, and they don’t want to be harassed by fund managers begging for capital. “LPs want a new deal like they want a hole in their head,” Bangash says.

Limited partners are like the Field of Dreams of the investment world. I can remember the private equity conferences we threw at Buyouts magazine. As long as we got the big-name LPs to sign on, we knew the fund managers, service providers and various other industry hangers-on would be there. After all, the LPs are the ones holding the purse strings.

Through Bangash’s connections and word-of-mouth, a large population of them have signed up for his service. Around 60 percent of them return each month.

There they can network with contacts, get a serving of personalized news tailored to their interests and activity on the site, and see job postings and events that are relevant to them. There is also vouching, and users keep a much smaller circle of connections than on a typical social network.

Bangash is not planning to pimp them out to fund managers desperate for investment dollars, per se.  ”It’s built for them, to make them comfortable,” he says. He’s monetizing with a LinkedIn model. Users such as GPs raising funds, or service providers like lawyers, can pay a subscription fee for access to premium features, which includes the ability to interact with LPs. It’s akin to the way recruiters (and others) can pay LinkedIn to get messaging access to anyone they want. Since rolling out the paid tools six weeks ago, Bangash says he’s been surprised that more LPs than anyone have signed up to pay.

Bangash’s goal is to have investment professionals in the alternative asset sector use his site to do their jobs every day. As VC evolves from venture capital to venture platform, he’ll be there waiting.

[Disclosure: Mentioned in this story are First Round Capital and Andreessen Horowitz. Josh Kopelman of First Round and Marc Andreessen, Jeff Jordan and Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz are investors in PandoDaily.]