Intermission

Halfway home…..and I’ve gotten tons more input from readers than I ever thought.  As I round the horn, and start on the last five Commandments, I wanted to reflect a little on the comments that readers have left.  I promise a more thoughtful perspective when the entire 10 are finished.

It’s been almost a couple of months since I’ve posted, which several readers have pointed out to me (embarrassingly, but truth be told, also slightly gratifyingly – you mean someone is actually reading it??!!).  I’ve been busy at work and home, but aim to pick back up the pace.  As partial recompense, I thought I’d offer a snippet of a conversation I had down at the DEMO conference a couple of weeks ago with Walt Mossberg, who writes the Personal Technology column for the WSJ.

Walt and I were having lunch, and, the talk eventually turned to blogs -- and then to my blog (which Walt hadn’t read).  He asked me about it, plus a bunch of other questions about blogging.  I told him that I was in trouble because I’d made several rookie blogger mistakes. 

They included doing a series of numerically-related posts (the “Ten” Commandments for Entrepreneurs) that hadn’t taken into account the “reverse” chronological order in which one’s posts appear in a blog. What I should’ve done, like David Letterman’s Top 10 Lists, is to have started with Commandment #10 and worked down to Commandment #1.  That way, readers new to the blog could read the posts in a more natural way, from Commandment #1 “down” to Commandment #10, instead of seemingly backwards.

But the bigger, MUCH bigger, mistake, I said, had been to promise readers TEN Commandments instead of, say, “Several” Commandments, or “A Few” Commandments – in case (as happened) I got too busy to post, got writer’s block, stepped in front of a bus, etc., etc. 

Walt then looked at me with his patented “you’re an idiot” look….Why?  Because, he said, experienced journalists never, NEVER, announce a multi-part series (especially one that has an explicit number of installments) before they’ve written all of them.  In fact, it turns out that most of the leading newspapers and magazines won’t even print the first of a multi-part article until all installments have been turned in, edited and finalized for printing. They’ve learned from past mistakes, I guess.

Wish I’d thought of that before launching into something called the Ten Commandments.

Anyway, onward and upward.

I’ve received a number of suggestions on my blog, mostly on the Ten Commandments, some of which I’ve listed (and commented on) below.

One of the most interesting, from a pseudonymous VC whom I know of, is that I write a companion series:  “Ten Commandments for VC’s”.  I will seriously consider this.  To help, I invite suggestions from any reader on what they’d include on the list.  I’m sure there are lots of entrepreneurs out there with stories they’d like to share back to the VC community.

Another suggestion was to respond to comments to my posts.  One regular reader/commentator, Vanilla Chin, takes me to task on this.  I assume “Vanilla Chin” is a pseudonym since I can’t find that name (except in connection with other comments on blogs) on Google, in the Internet Archive or at Yahoo People (yes, I know there are other, even free, sites but, at some point, it’s not worth it).  In any event, I plead guilty to Mr. or Ms. Chin’s charge, but also plead the extenuating circumstances of being very busy at work and home.

Vanilla Chin has been a very interesting reader:  sometimes scolding and sometimes supportive (in the face of attacks by Harry Kiwi (see below)).  He’s also one of the more thoughtful respondents to posts, frequently raising concerns about my advice from the entrepreneur’s perspective.  I’m tempted to respond to him or her, but I’ve decided to adopt a rule proposed by Dan Gillmor (which I’m not sure he, himself, always follows), which is:  don’t respond to comments from anyone using a pseudonym.  So, please identify yourself if you want to start a dialogue; otherwise, especially given the time it consumes, I can’t do it.

Throughout the first Five Commandments, I’ve tried to make clear that I’m not defending VC behavior in any way.  Most readers who’ve given me any feedback (either in comments to a post or in a direct email to me), seem to have, more or less, gotten that point, although several have accused me of arrogance (some pseudonymously, some using their real names).  This has made me realize that, despite a lot of effort, it’s hard to describe (sometimes) arrogant behavior without readers, some at least, thinking the writer is, himself, arrogant.

In this regard, it's important to remember that the game, "Raising Venture Capital", is not played on a level playing field.  In some ways that’s not “fair” to the entrepreneur, and I’ve never pretended it is.  But it is a fact of life.  In writing the Commandments, what I’ve tried to do is give “little”, helpful suggestions to entrepreneurs about how to optimize their chances for winning the game on this unlevel playing field.  I sometimes wonder whether – instead of the "Ten Commandments" -- I should have called them “Several Small Suggestions to Help Entrepreneurs Do Their Best When Interacting With VC’s in the Unfair Game of Raising Money”.

Finally, one reader, whose screen name is Harry Kiwi, really has it in for the VC community, and me as a representative of it (not that there aren’t occasional good reasons).  You can read his comments next to the related posts.  I have to say that I found his comments to be ad hominem and entirely off the mark, at least relative to my intended message.  I’ve also searched for “Harry Kiwi” in Google, Internet Archive and Yahoo People, but, likewise, come up empty-handed.  Dan Gillmor also warns of “trolls”, like Harry, and it is amazing how one person, especially one who only comments pseudonymously, can really lessen the whole experience, at least for the blogger.

In any event, Harry’s been the only commentator who’s tested my initial (and still standing) resolve to not block (or delete) posts from anyone unless they’re really over the top.  On a couple of occasions, he’s come close, but I consider the “open-ness” of the blog one of its most important attributes, so, for now, I’m hanging in there with the resolve intact.

Anyway, I never expected even to have to think about rules like this for my blog, because I never expected anyone to read it.  So, thanks to all of you, except Harry, who have.

Commandment #6 coming up tomorrow.

Comments

Suggestion for a commandment (since you've let out that perhaps they're not all written yet)... "Be simple." Some companies come in with lots of great ideas on how to exploit a myriad of opportunities and be everything to everyone, without really being the "killer" solution to any one problem. Focus on your largest, and often most simple opportunity, and add on small features and solve correllary problems once you've got your main value proposition firing on all cylanders.

Posted by: Charlie O'Donnell | Mar 6, 2005 7:57:35 PM

I remember your initial post about the "10 Commandments" in which you mentioned that "over the next couple of weeks" you would share your views and experience with entrepreneurs. I found that undertaking very courageous because of the implied time commitment. I suppose that you then realized how time consuming those things are, per your quote of the discussion with Walt (and the "couple of weeks" became "the next few weeks"). But it is great that you are sticking to it and releasing posts every few weeks.

On the issue of trolls and inappropriate comments, it comes with the territory. And though it is honorable to demonstrate complete openess, your blog is your space, and it is up to you to decide the threshold of acceptability - and enforce it.

When I posted on Sequoia's funding of AdBrite, my blog got inundated with hundreds of comments from F...Company's message boards. I left 4 of them, just to keep the initial "editorial concept" and removed all others, closing comments at that point. People could still vent on their blog and trackback my post, therefore taking ownership (and accountability) of their point of view. You might want to consider doing this, and turn trackbacks on for future posts.

Posted by: Jeff Clavier | Mar 8, 2005 11:59:59 AM

I have a comment on the "don’t respond to comments from anyone using a pseudonym" rule. It is, frankly, stupid. A comment either deserves an answer or it does not. For example, I choose to post anonymously because I do not like to litter the internet with my real name. Instead of using a pseudonym, I could sign my blog and my posts as Jonathan Iverson or Mark DeLeo, and you would not have a clue that it was not my real name.

And what's up with your investigating the names of people that email you or post comments on your blog? I find it creepy - especially because I do the same... ;-)

But why am I wasting my time contributing to your blog? You won't reply anyway...

Posted by: Luca | Mar 8, 2005 2:30:08 PM

if VC is by definition "not fair" (in your words), here's some commandments for VCs:

1. never say we're partners. we're not. your interests and mine are far far from being aligned

2. spare me your endless need to have discussions about "strategy." see #1

3. immediately cease the neverending babble about "adding value." if you do, you do. but its ridiculous to think that someone who acknowledges being "not fair" by definition can really add value. and in any case, its too much work and too painful to continually try to parse the difference between value and self-interest bordering on subterfuge (e.g. liquidation preferences, etc.)

3. stop giving ostensibly neutral advice to entreprenuers (e.g. your commandments.) would you invest in somebody who solicits advice from, say, competitors? then why do you think entrepreneurs should take advice from, say, VCs?

this whole fad of VCs blogging is a hot air gasbag inflating to Hindenburg proportions, and will end in similar fashion

Posted by: one entrepreneur | Mar 11, 2005 3:32:52 AM

I agree with "one entrepreneur". I have been a VC at a top firm, and a successul entrepreneur, and it is a cruel hoax to suggest that VCs are "aligned" with entrepreneurs. The economics of the VC business demand that VCs have a preferential position vis-a-vis the entrepreneur.

I also agree with the comment that VCs meddle too much in strategy. VC are investors, and they should confine themselves to investment. This whole smokescreen of "value-add" and "VC is a service business" is absolute BS to people who are in the game.

My old joke used to be that VC money costs more than mob money, and the mob adds more value. :) If you don't pay the mob they only break your legs; you still keep your job and your company.

Posted by: whippet | May 23, 2005 7:10:21 PM

I have just run across your blog. There is a lot of good advice here and also clearly there are a lot of people who have not had good VC experiences. As a past executive staff member of a VC funded firm, I decided to start my next business on cash:) If you want to understand ant situation in life, you just need to look at how incentives are aligned. VC's incentives are often not aligned with the founders---they are ultimately aligned with the people whose money they invest. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: Geoff Considine | Aug 5, 2005 3:46:58 PM

Great Blog. Luv it. Keep up the great work!

Hugs!

Kate

Posted by: Kate | Jan 16, 2006 12:59:25 AM