CrowdSpring Logo Design

December 11, 2008

I’ve been very impressed with an experiment my wife Charlene Li ran for her new company, Altimeter Group.

Charlene joined the ranks of entrepreneur after she left Forrester Research back in July and started her own research and advisory company. She is a thought leader on emerging technologies and co-author of Groundswell, Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies.

Charlene needed a logo for her new company and being a small business and all had a limited budget to do so. Having been through many logo designs with my own startups, I know that this can be an expensive undertaking and rather inefficient process of back and forth.

She opted to use a service called CrowdSpring where you can post a creative project such as a logo, specify a price and get contributors from around the world to post their solutions for you to pick. It also has tools for providing feedback to the contributors and for them to respond, which makes for a very efficient process. Charlene also provided her brand positioning which helped shape the designs.

Charlene wrote about the experience on her blog and there was a lot of controversy about using this service/method for the work as can be seen from the rich commentary.
I’m a big fan of this service. Even though her price for the logo work was relatively low at $400, there will be a whole lot more work associated with the web site design, business cards, letterhead etc that will make it worthwhile for the designer. It’s an efficient way for designers to get projects to bid on and for immediate feedback so they don’t waste their time and you don’t waste yours. I also noticed that all designers had profiles and you could see examples of their portfolio and past awarded business on CrowdSpring. The really good ones picked up a lot of business. I’m all for the kind of competition this encourages and rewarding good work.

I was quite impressed with both the quantity and quality of options – in all, 146 options were submitted. You can see the results here:

http://www.crowdspring.com/projects/graphic_design/logo/logo_for_social_media_web_2_0_thought_leader_charlene_li

Charlene believes she got such a rich response in part because she went through the effort to comment and provide feedback to each submission.

Her final selection :

I would highly recommend this service to any startup.

409A Valuations

December 4, 2008

I’m often asked about where I go to get an independent 409A valuation for the common stock options of our portfolio companies.

This issue is very important because it greatly impacts founders and employees and there is increased scrutiny by the IRS and penalties over pricing common stock options at “fair market value”.

Whereas in the past the rule of thumb may have been to simply price common stock options at 10% of preferred value, I have seen ranges from 10%-25% based on independent valuation analyses, all over the map, depending on the stage of the company and its traction.

I recommend to our portfolio companies that they hire an independent firm to carry out an analysis and to do so anytime there is a new round of financing in which the preferred stock price changed or ideally at least once per year.

While hiring an independent firm to do this analysis while in bootstrap mode may not be an expense you want to incur, the issue is important enough and penalties significant enough that it is worth the cost to have some independent backup to your common stock pricing.

The effort to get the job done takes about 4-6 weeks and involves providing information that you probably already have for your fundraising activities – projections, cap table, customer pipeline, legal documents related to your latest financing etc. Once you get the information together, it is really not much of a burden.

I was referred to a company called Aranca, which does 409A valuations for hundreds of VCs in the Bay Area. I have used them several times now and their rates are very reasonable (we have paid <$5K). They are able to price cost effectively because their analysis team is out of India. I have found the quality of their work to be excellent. My contact there is Ravi Prakash (ravi.prakash at aranca dot com).


Reality Check

December 3, 2008

I am thoroughly enjoying reading Guy Kawasaki’s latest book “Reality Check“. Much of it is a compilation of some of his best blog posts, but I would recommend buying the book and reading to get it all in one shot.

I particularly like Chapter 8, The Art of the Executive Summary and I agree wholeheartedly with Guy that this is perhaps the most important document you need to write as an entrepreneur.

Guy summarizes the key components as:

- Problem
- Solution
- Business Model
- Underlying Magic
- Marketing & Sales Strategy
- Competition
- Projections
- Team
- Status and Time Line

I think there are some other must reads for entrepreneurs:

- Chapter 9 – The 10/20/30 Rule of Pitching (10 slides, 20 minutes max, 30 point font). I liked Guy’s algorithm for font size, estimate the age of the oldest person in the audience and divide by two for the optimal font size!

- Chapter 10 – The Top Ten Lies of Venture Capitalists. Having myself started several companies and now on the other side of the table as a venture capitalist, I can totally relate to these, particularly “we like early stage investing”.

- Chapter 11 – The Top Eleven Lies of Entrepreneurs. I like “Our projections are conservative” and “Hurry, because several other venture capital firms are interested”. I have yet to see any startup beat their initial projections and venture capitalists don’t respond well to time pressure. It’s particularly hard if they call your bluff and it turns out you did not have others interested.

- Chapter 18, the Art of Financial Projections. Underpromise and overdeliver, something that I’ve painfully learned as an entrepreneur. I sit on a board with veteran venture capitalist Larry Mohr and I don’t think there is a meeting that goes by where he doesn’t drill that into the team. You can’t sandbag your projections but I can assure you that there is nothing worse than having to face your board consistently delivering the bad news that you did not achieve projections.


Term Sheets

December 3, 2008

I’m often asked by entrepreneurs if I can recommend a good resource for understanding term sheets. One of the best resources I can think of and one I often consult myself, is a book by Alex Wilmerding called Term Sheets & Valuations – An Inside Look at the Intricacies of Term Sheets & Valuations. It’s an easy read, 100 pages, and organized by term sheet line item.

Wilmerding explains the differences between company favorable, investor favorable and middle of the road terms, providing actual language typically used in a venture capital term sheet. I find this to be a very helpful guide for startups that I meet with and provides a context for negotiations.

Although no term sheet ends up being “plain vanilla” or “middle of the road”, understanding such things as liquidation preferences, voting rights, anti-dilution and how a Board gets composed should be carefully understood and negotiated.

Most prominent law firms will have a standard set of transaction documents tied to what they consider a middle of the road term sheet and often you can start with that when doing your first investment round, keeping your costs down by doing so.

In the past few months, I’ve also noticed expectations around terms have changed significantly within both the investment and entrepreneur communities as we all navigate the challenges of the current economy.

I recently attended a briefing by Tom Cervantez, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in San Francisco, who described some of the changes he was seeing in term sheets. Tom is also very involved in the entrepreneurial world, heading up the Golden Gate and Harvard Angel networks.

Tom had these observations to share:

- Several angel groups in Silicon Valley are no longer allowing any entrepreneurs to present if they are proposing a convertible note structure (convertible notes are less favorable as they are essentially a bridge to a venture round, offered at a discount or with additional warrant coverage, whereby the investor advances their capital and takes risks and most often does not earn a return commensurate with the risk taken…when things work out, the new round is priced much higher and they don’t benefit from the value they helped create)

- Founders are having to re-vest their shares over 4 years with 15-20% granted up front; all other key employees get 4 year vesting with a 1 year cliff

- Double trigger accelerated vesting is rare now (double trigger means your shares vest 100% upon an acquisition of the company AND a loss or reduction in position)

- $2M pre-money valuations fairly typical for a first round startup with no revenues. This of course varies greatly with where you are with traction, experience of the team, market potential etc.

- If a convertible note structure is used, 10-50% warrant coverage is typical, even 100% occasionally, whereas it was more like 20-30% before. In addition, time limits are being set for the notes whereby if a venture round is not raised within say 6 months, a term sheet is attached and valuation pre-set for automatic conversion of the notes

- Liquidation preferences are more like 2x “participating”, versus 1x “non participating” before. Participating means that after 1x or 2x is returned, the investors continue to share in the divided up profits with common holders, as opposed to non participating where they only get their 1x or 2x back.

- Antidilution is trending more to full ratchet, as it did in the years after the dot-com bust. Full ratchet means if there is a round priced at a lower share price than the last round, all preferred shares are adjusted as if the last round were priced the same, having a significant dilutive impact on the founders/team. Middle of the road anti-dilution is “broad based weighted average” which is a less dilutive formula.

- Board seats allocated as 1 for common, 1 for preferred and 1 objective outsider mutually decided in advance.

Another good resource to get a barometer for terms is Fenwick & West, who publish a quarterly survey of trends in venture financings in Silicon Valley.


W&W Communications to be Acquired by Cavium Networks

November 21, 2008

I’ll start our first post by sharing some good news about our fund, something rare in these dire financial times. We just announced the signing of a definitive purchase agreement for the sale of one of our portfolio companies, W&W Communications, to Cavium Networks (CAVM). You can read all about it at:

http://www.caviumnetworks.com/newsevents_Caviumnetworks_W&W-Communications.html

W&W was one of the first companies we invested in out of our first fund at Nueva Ventures, back in 2005, and our largest investment. Nueva led the investment round and created a syndicate with angel investor Don Hutchison and venture fund Hi-Tech Ventures. I have personally been on their Board of Directors for the past 3 years and it has been a pleasure to work with the team and company over these years.

W&W was one of those highly capital efficient ventures that bootstrapped the development of its leading H.264 video processing technology by leveraging a video processing board fabrication business it had developed since 2001 called DSP Research. When we invested, it was doing about $1M/year in revenues and cash flow neutral with this business. It raised a $1M series A round to add key talent to its team as the pipeline from licensing opportunities was growing rapidly.

The company’s business model evolved rapidly over the past few years, serving customers in video surveillance, conferencing, mobile and broadcast. It’s highly talented team designed an ASIC that to our delight worked on the first spin. The technology is a natural fit with the products offered by Cavium and I believe it offers Cavium a new avenue of high growth.

To me, there were a few important takeaways:

W&W’s founders were prudent – they avoided taking a traditional large venture capital round by maintaining a low burn mode while leveraging their base video board business and being highly focused on immediate revenue opportunities. By avoiding a traditional VC round, the team kept options flexible for a sale to a strategic buyer when the right offer and partner came around.

They were also opportunistic and quick to adapt their strategy. What started out as a licensing model quickly evolved into an ASIC model because this is what their customers were asking for. However, while it would normally take far more capital to produce an ASIC, the CEO Lars Herlitz hired a small exceptionally talented team that was highly motivated with incentives and struck a key partnership with an Asian fab to produce the chip, keeping capital needs to a minimum.

I’m proud of what we achieved with W&W and I wish the team well as they conclude their acquisition by Cavium and transition to take the company to the next level.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.