New York VC

Pontiflex

Pontiflex, our Brooklyn-based portfolio company, announced a Series B financing round with new investor RRE Ventures.  The team at Pontiflex has achieved extraordinary growth since our initial investment a year ago.    

We're thrilled to welcome RRE as a co-investor and in particular Eric Wiesen to the company's board.  Not much more to say since earlier today Eric eloquently outlined on his blog where Pontiflex is positioned in the online advertising universe and why they're sitting on a golden opportunity. 

       

Flat World Knowledge

I've been lucky to have a ringside seat over the last 8 years to watch as the education industry evolves right in front of my eyes.  First at my old firm Sterling Partners which sprouted blockbuster companies like Sylvan and Laureate Education and where I was exposed to a consistent dose of young, innovative education companies over several years.  In recent years I've been fortunate to spend a fair amount of time both formally and informally interacting with some of the largest education publishers in the world right here in NY.  One of them is in fact an investor in our fund.  What I've learned over the years as a VC is that finding a compelling early stage company to back in the education industry is challeging.  The venture industry's collective investment track record across the sector over the last 20-30 years confirms this to be true.  To be a successful investor in the education sector it's necessary to attack a large, preferably unregulated segment of the market with a highly disruptive solution and with an A team of domain experts that understands the education industry inside and out (rookies need not apply).  

Which brings me to the $8 billion college textbook market.  

Much has been written over the last year about the imminent demise of the $40 billion print newspaper industry at the hands of digital media.  At Greenhill SAVP we believe the newspaper industry is just the tip of the iceberg and that conditions are in place right now for disruptive and rapid acceleration of other print content to all web-based or web/print hybrid content solutions.  College textbooks are near the top of the list.  Let me explain why. 

Unlike the newspaper industry which is highly fragmented, the college textbook industry is an oligopoly where the major publishers utilize their size and pricing power to effectively control the market.  The average new business & economics college textbook today costs $150 and many have surpassed $200 during the past year.  In an age of seemingly readily available and cheap digital content, textbooks prices are actually rising.  For a 4 year public college student, the estimated average cost of textbooks and related materials as a percentage of tuition and fees is 26% and for a 2 year community college student, the percentage is about 76% (U.S. Department of Education).  As the recession has deepened, enrollments in colleges rise, university budgets are being cut, and everyone is being asked to do more with less.  In response many institutions of higher learning have been forced to raise tuition and fees to keep the lights on while students who are already struggling financially are asked to shoulder an even higher financial burden.

The current situation is not sustainable, particulary in today's economic and political climate.  A perfect storm is brewing that's created the ideal conditions to disrupt the college textbook market and rewrite all the rules.  That's why we're thrilled to announce the latest addition to the Greenhill SAVP portfolio - Nyack, NY based Flat World Knowledge.

Flat World Knowledge is the world's first publisher of open source textbooks.  Their highly disruptive business model and technology platform is breaking all the rules and doing nothing less than reinventing the textbook publishing industry.  Flat World publishes premier textbooks written by leading experts that are as good or better than those offered by major publishers.  All students can access their online texts for free or purchase affordable alternatives from paperback editions, audio chapters, Kindle versions, .mp3 study guides, mobile flashcards and web quizzes.  In other words, students can consume educational content anywhere, anytime, anyhow and in anyway.  

Additionally, Flat World openly licenses their books and provide an easy-to-use platform so faculty can modify the book and deliver a customized version to their students.  The platform also provides a rich learning environment for students through the ability to collaborate around the textbooks where students can actually create, share and sell study resources to one another.

We're excited to be an investor in Flat World Knowledge along with our good friends and colleagues over at Valhalla Partners and High Peaks Venture Partners.  In particular, I'd like to thank Hooks Johnston from Valhalla for first introducing me to Flat World Knowledge.  We look forward to working with Jeff Shelstad, Eric Frank, Brad Felix and the rest of the the Flat World team (our A team of domain experts) over the coming years to help revolutionize an industry in desperate need of change.

 

 

 

 

Is the venture capital model dead?

There's been an increasing belief over the last few years about the impending death of the venture capital business.  I'm not going to elaborate on the various theories floating around out there.  If you want to learn more then a simple google search with the keywords "venture capital dead" will provide you with plenty of reading material.

The bottom line is the venture business is alive and well but is in the midst of a long period of transition.  Alan Patricof, one of the deans of the venture industry, did a fantastic job in a NY times article a couple of days ago of explaining how the business has shifted over the last 40 years.  His view is very consistent with ours at Greenhill SAVP and exactly the view we shared with our LPs back in 2005 while raising our current fund.

Prior to fundraising back then we did a lot of research and crunched a lot of data about the venture industry and came to several conclusions:

• historically the most successful VC-backed companies are consistently the most capital efficient
• the most successful early stage venture funds were smaller in size with virtually no evidence in our industry (outside of late 90's bubble funds) of early stage funds generating strong returns above $300 million
• valuations matter - A LOT.  Fair and reasonable valuations work better for venture funds AND entrepreneurs.  Inflated valuations combined with too much capital consistently lead to exit value expectations which statistically have not been reached with enough frequency.  Most exits are less than $100 million in value with bigger exits serving as the exception, not the rule.  Too many venture funds are currently structured so they can only succeed by producing several "exceptions" in each fund.  
• the venture industry will need to contract signifcantly over the next decade.  Between 1997 (the year I entered the venture business) and 2007 the number of venture funds and number of investment professionals increased about 60% and average fund size increased 120%.  We think we'll revert back to 1997 levels over the next 3-4 years. 
• venture capital and entrepreneurship is democratizing and becoming increasingly global as core technology becomes widespread and cheap.  Silicon Valley will continue to be important but less so than the previous 30 years.  Innovation will become more distributed and certain geographies with particular depth of domain expertise (e.g., financial services in NYC) would stand out as future centers of innovation. 

Four years later our view is unchanged and in fact we expect to see these changes to accelerate.  We constructed our venture fund and investment approach based on the above-mentioned assumptions because we felt it was the best formula to serve both entrepreneurs and our investors.

We feel now is a terrific time to invest in innovative, capital efficient start-ups and we plan to be active investors in 2009.   We're fortunate to be well-positioned today with plenty of capital to invest and believe that we'll look back on the companies we fund in today's environment as some of our best performing investments.  On a macro level, we're long-term bulls on the venture industry, long-term bulls on a continued strong rate of innovation and long-term bulls on the entrepreneurial spirit that has always been the foundation of America. 

Pontiflex

Despite the fact that lead generation has been the fastest online ad category, the market is riddled with inefficiencies and problems which have led to a high degree of friction and fragmentation.   Lead generation deals take longer and significantly more effort to set up than search campaigns or banner buys. Today, to run a lead generation campaign, several different departments must get involved: media buyers / sellers, creative groups, and technology teams.                                          

                                                                                                                            

More importantly, today there is currently no efficient way for advertisers and publishers to access the entire lead generation market. Advertisers lack a way to access the universe of potential publishers to run their offers. Similarly, publishers do not have a streamlined way to present their networks and sites to advertisers.

                                                                                                      

This fragmentation leaves most companies reliant on a few large lead gen ad networks and brokers. The ad networks and brokers for the most part keep their partner lists secret, forcing the advertisers to run their lead campaigns “blind.”  Advertisers typically do not know where their offers are running, what the true markup is, and how much of a return they are yielding on their advertising investment. This lack of transparency, in turn, has led to a host of issues, including problems with lead quality, improper use of promotional incentives, and resale of leads without advertiser authorization.  As a result, the lead generation market has attracted a number of disreputable parties which has damaged the sector’s reputation and held back the overall market.

                                                                                                   

When an advertiser and publisher do strike a deal, they often have difficulty transferring lead data or advertising creative due to a variety of standards that currently exist.  For instance, some advertisers want their lead data sent by email, while others prefer HTTP or FTP format.  As a result, publishers have to set up each lead generation campaign from scratch – a process that can take several days worth of work.

                                                                                                                                       

The opaque nature of the market and the complications associated with data transfer has made it difficult for advertisers to optimize and accurately calculate the ROI of their campaigns.  Many large brand advertisers have avoided the use of lead gen for some or all of these reasons.

   

It's against this backdrop that we first became interested in Pontiflex.  Pontiflex is looking to solve all of these issues with the recent soft launch of the industry's first and only open and transparent lead generation marketplace.  Pontiflex enables advertisers to:

• find lead gen publishers
• set up and run campaigns
• optimize, report and validate leads, 
• and transmit leads in real-time

Advertisers can achieve all this with the same ease as running a search campaign with Google with the benefit of full transparency.  We believe by addressing a number of the key problems in the lead gen market, Pontiflex can grow the overall market by attracting more mainstream advertisers into the fold.  The same advertisers that adopted banner ads and search ads over the last 5-10 years can now add lead gen to the mix just as easily.  Despite being in open beta launch mode, Pontiflex has already attracted a large number of advertisers and publishers to their platform and can already deliver access to 17 million leads monthly for advertisers. 

                                                                                                                                             

We're thrilled to have invested in Pontiflex with New Atlantic Ventures and look forward to building a great company with them and Pontiflex's team - Zephrin Lasker, Roshan Bangara, Jon Beardsley, Geoff Grauer, Arun Krishnan, Chris Halvorsen and Nick Herman.      

    

It's the People, Stupid!

There have been a number of posts from Fred Wilson, Michael Arrington, Jason Calcanis and others over the weekend about the need for startups to save money by watching their pennies.  I agree with some, but not all of the ideas on saving money but I think Michael Arrington got it right - hiring the right people is what matters most.  You can save a few dollars here and there but there's no substitute for great talent.  Besides, the "right" people will look for ways to pinch pennies and turn $1 into $10. 

The classic argument within the VC community is what matters most - people, market or product?  I'm not going to rehash that argument here but through my experience 90% of success in venture is due to the people.  If you'd like empirical evidence take a look at the scientific study conducted by ghSmart.

There are three primary challenges in filling your organization with "A" players.  First, you have to find and source talent from the right candidate pool.  Second, you need the skill to identify an "A" player when they're in front of you.  Finally, you need to convince the "A" player to join your company.  All 3 of these tasks are not easy but let's deal with them one at a time.

- There are many methods to identify and source candidates including executive recruiters, email blasts, LinkedIn, job boards, etc.  I've found that using a combination of sources usually leads to the best results.  All of them can be effective depending on your time frame and the role you're seeking to fill.  Fred Wilson wrote here not to waste money on recruiters but I'd disagree.  You'll waste a lot more money by making the wrong hire, losing 6-12 months and having to start all over again.  Recruiters can be more effective than other sources (particularly for senior level jobs) and having a firm that spends each and every day wading in the talent pool can often give you a broader view of the high quality talent market than LinkedIn.  Most startups dip in and out of the talent market and as a result only get a snapshot of the available talent, not the full movie.  One of my portfolio companies used an executive recruiter last year to attract one of the top online marketers in the country to become their new CMO.  Her last two gigs she was a key factor in taking the companies from startup to $75m+ in sales in 4 years or less.  When we did our references (provided and back-channel) every person told us she was one of the top 10 online marketers in the country.  You may be able to find and recruit this kind of talent on LinkedIn but it's unlikely.

- Knowing you've got an "A" player when they're in front of you can be tough.  The biggest mistake startups make is hiring the wrong people.  The reason is simple.  The ability to interview is one of the most ignored skill sets in almost every company but especially within startups.  Startups are usually strained for resources as it is and often don't make time to train their team to interview effectively.  I find it amazing that in a world where talent defines success that very few people have gone through formal interview training to properly assess a candidate.  ghSmart talks about four types of approaches to evaluating talent by VCs but I think they apply to anyone that's interviewing a prospective employee.  They are the:

Airline Captain - assessment is a formal, structured process (like a pre-flight checklist)

Art Critic - not sure how to describe a good candidate, but I know one when I see one (like a painting)

Prosecutor - assesses candidate like a prosecuting attorney (sharp, challenging questions)

Sponge - assess candidate by soaking up information (spending a lot of time with them)

The best method to insure success is the Airline Captain.  Statistically, most VCs are Art Critics or Prosecutors.  Airline Captains post investment results that are 4x the next best method (art critic).  My belief is that most startups use the Art Critic or Prosecutor methods as well.  If you want to hire right then try to become an Airline Captain.  Learn how to conduct structured, behavioral based interviews and have a defined process with a clear understanding of the needs of the position.  Create a scorecard with the most important attributes and have all the interviewers rank candidates accordingly.  Don't wing it or suffer the consequences.  It's not a coincidence that the 2 companies that have dominated the tech landscape over the last 20 years (Microsoft and Google) are also known for their rigorous and structured interviewing process.  I've found that "A" players are attracted to companies that have rigorous, process oriented hiring practices.  They want to be with other talented people and "A" players that see a rigorous hiring process will expect the company to be talent rich. 

- So now you have found the "A" candidate and you've put them through the ringer and it's time to close them.  I find the best approach is the full court press.  Come up with a fair offer and add 5% to show them you love them.  In other words, give the candidate the love hug.  Use a team effort to get them on board.  Involve anyone from your team that can help seal the deal - managers, board members, investors or your mom.  Yes, I once backed a startup were the founder's mom came in every day with fresh, home baked cookies for the entire company.  The mom helped close an executive by telling him he was joining a family and handing him a warm chocolate chip cookie. 

Over time if you have markedly better talent than your competitors you're likely to win.  Pinching pennies is great and can help you tread water a while longer but consistently screw up on your hiring and you'll be dead in the water.      

   

      

 

   

Be Careful of Painting with the Same Brush

Last week there was an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "In Silicon Valley, Start-ups Begin Hitting the Brakes".  The article struck a very negative tone that as the economy slips into a recession that VC-backed start-ups are very worried about slowing sales and hence are rushing out to raise wads of cash in case of a downturn.  The article's tone made it seem like a new bloodbath is on the way for VC-backed companies.  As usual, the press looks to paint the entire picture with the same brush.  I can hear the editor at the WSJ saying - hey, let's go talk to some start-ups and VCs to get feedback on why the recession will hurt them and what they're doing to make sure they survive a downturn in the economy. 

In any recession a number of industry sectors suffer from a poor economic environment and start-ups are no different.  I'm sure we'll see our share of failures if the economy continues to falter.  However, I expect we'll also see quite a number of companies thrive in a bad economic environment and I've always felt that the greatest tech-related companies are usually born during the worst economic times.  In a bad economy a young company becomes battle tested, has more time to get their business model right with less competition nipping at their heels, are forced to focus on only what matters to be successful and are able to recruit higher quality talent more easily. 

This brings me to the story of KnowledgeStorm, an online lead generation company I invested in back in 2001 only a few weeks after September 11th.  If you recall that period, the tech industry was being written off, online marketing was being written off and the internet was considered dead.  Very few venture deals were getting done at all.  The entire KnowledgeStorm management team had to rent a van and drive almost 20 hours to our offices for a final presentation to our entire partnership for investment approval.  There were no planes flying yet at the time and the country was still in fear.  The truth is I knew I would fund the company before they even walked into our conference room.  Having the whole team leave their families during that time to travel and drive 20 hours in a cramped, rented van showed me they would have the guts to persevere during the toughest times.  They could have rescheduled for a later date but the team wanted the financing now and they couldn't know for sure when the airlines would be flying again.  For me the investment was a no-brainer and Kelly Gay and her entire team proved my instincts to be right.  KnowledgeStorm built a good business which was sold successfully last year earning us a solid return on our investment.   

At the time we invested, KnowledgeStorm only had $300k-$500k of revenues.  Despite the economic environment and the fact that I couldn't find another venture firm to co-lead the deal with me I was convinced it was the ideal time to make the investment.  KnowledgeStorm essentially offered technology marketers the highest quality leads and a compelling ROI during a time that tech marketing budgets were being cut dramatically.  A registered user would search tech solutions and opt-in to have the vendor contact them to provide more information.  They were offering hot, buyer initiated leads during a time when tech companies felt like they were wandering the desert for months in search of water.  Essentially, KnowledgeStorm had a countercyclical product and was able to provide the perfect offering at the perfect time.  Tech companies pulled back on B2B magazine ads and trade shows and subscribed to the KnowledgeStorm directory to acquire leads. 

KnowledgeStorm experienced tremendous growth from 2001-2004 and continued to scale once the economy turned positive again.  This brings me back to today.  In 2007 we invested in 3 new lead generation companies: BDMetrics, BestContractors and ReachForce.  All three companies are focused on a different area of lead gen but have one common thread - they provide a compelling, measurable ROI to the marketer that can't be easily achieved through alternative marketing channels.  We didn't make these investments knowing that the economy might move into a recession during 2008, however, if that happens I expect all 3 companies to see even stronger top line growth.  We'll be more likely to step on the gas, not hit the brakes. 

Lead gen isn't the only sector that does well during an economic downturn.  I'm not going to name them all here but there are a number of sectors that are either countercyclical or have absolutely no correlation to the economic environment (health care). 

And for those companies that are operating in more vulnerable sectors.  My advice is to use poor economic times to focus on what's most important so that you'll come out the other side even stronger.  Remember the old saying - what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.  For evidence see Google, Microsoft and countless other tech companies that built their commanding market share and tremendous value during a weak economy.   

   

Intercontinental Exchange acquires YellowJacket

On Thursday Intercontinental Exchange (NYSE: ICE) announced they agreed to buy our portfolio company YellowJacket.  We made an initial small investment in YellowJacket in November 2006 and made a larger follow-on investment into the company in May 2007.

Greenhill SAVP is only 16 months removed from our first investment in our new fund and only 14 months removed from our initial investment in YellowJacket.  While I'm very pleased to be able to provide an excellent early return for our investors, this acquisition is bittersweet for me as I've really enjoyed working with two talented founders in Jacob Pechenik and Greg Campbell as well as the rest of the management team.

The team's strategic vision, foresight and technical competence to create innovative technology to power a peer-to-peer, bi-lateral communications and trading network for the highly complex OTC energy derivatives market has been a key to the company's early success and has led to the creation of so much value in such a short period of time. 

While we're confident YellowJacket could have continued to created a large, successful company on its own we feel YellowJacket's strong management team, powerful technical platform and loyal customer base combined with ICE's vast distribution, asset class diversity and broad customer set will lead to very rapid growth for the foreseeable future.

I'd like to congratulate Jacob, Greg, Michelle, Andy and the rest of the team at YellowJacket on a great result so far and expect the team will continue to fulfill its vision and exceed its goals as a member of the ICE family.  I'd also like to thank Matt Gorin from Contour Venture Partners for being a terrific co-investor, fellow board member and partner on this investment.   

   

      

Are you sure you want or qualify for venture capital?

I sat on a panel last week for a Young Venture Capital Society event.  While the event was tailored to young VCs there were quite a number of entrepreneurs in the room.  I'm always impressed with the resourcefulness of entrepreneurs to get in front of VCs even if it's not their venue.  After the panel I was approached by 15-20 entrepreneurs all looking to pitch me their business and is typical at events like this only a small percentage are a fit for venture capital at all.  I find this happens more here in NY than in larger venture markets like Silicon Valley or Boston that have a more mature, venture ecosystem. 

One of the biggest misconceptions is that venture capital is at the center of the startup/early stage funding world.  The reality is venture capital is the cream - not the coffee.  Just take a look at the numbers to prove this out.  In 2006, angel investment in the U.S. totaled over $26 billion compared to $5.6 billion of seed and early stage venture capital.  That's less than 18% from VCs and more than 82% from angels.  (see these files for more info: Download 2006angelmarketanalysis.pdf Download 06q4mtprnewsfinal1.pdf).  Also, since venture deals tend to be larger than angel deals my guess is VCs represent less than 10% of overall companies funded at the seed or early stage.  Add all of the self-funded companies (cash, credit card, mortgage, etc) and that 10% number likely drops much further to perhaps 5% of all new company financing. 

There are a number of reasons why this is the case but I'll mention the four reasons I feel are the most significant:

1. Most companies don't fall within the industry focus of VC firms. 

Many early stage VC firms talk about how their investment strategies are unique or different than their peers.  The truth is the differences between funds are within a relatively narrow niche of the new business creation market.  Most VC funds invest in companies that are tech or science centric.  There are exceptions but 90% plus of the available early stage dollars are focused to tech or science related companies (web, software, hardware, life sciences/biotech, cleantech, etc.).  If your company doesn't fall within this narrow band you're likely not a candidate for venture capital at the early stage.  Areas where few VCs invest in seed/early stage include retail, consumer products, non-tech services based businesses (law, accounting, consulting, financial services, etc), health care services, restaurants, non-tech entertainment, government regulated industries, companies that sell primarily to governments and restaurants/bars/nightclubs and on and on.  I think I'm making my point.  Some of these industries represent a substantial part of the U.S. economy but just aren't candidates for VC investment because of point #2 below. 

2. Most small, new companies don't have the potential to grow up and become big successful companies - and that's ok.

VCs invest millions of dollars into companies at the early stage with the expectation/potential to return 5x-10x on their capital and preferably over a 4-8 year time-frame.  To use a simplistic example, if a VC fund invests $2 million for a 20% stake in a business the company is worth $10 million post-investment on paper.  For the VC to realize a 10X the company needs to sell for $100 million.  Very few types of businesses have the potential to reach a value of $100 million.  VCs often talk about only backing companies that can create billion dollar markets.  The reality is there are only so many billion dollar markets.  The average entrepreneur can make a really nice living being successful in a $50 million market or in a $5 billion fragmented market with 100 companies. 

I have a number of friends that run and own successful businesses that generate significant cash flow but can't grow revenues at the rate necessary to create a $100 million enterprise value in a relatively short period of time.  Many VCs use the term "lifestyle business" to describe this sort of company.  Some of these lifestyles are really nice.  My friends that run businesses like these are very happy, make a lot of money and in some cases have homes that would qualify for MTV Cribs. The one common denominator of all successful VC investments is a business model that can scale revenues rapidly and in a nonlinear fashion.  So if you're in a business that isn't capable of achieving that kind of growth pursue other sources of financing.  How do you know if your business isn't VC backable?  Research other companies in your space and if none of them received venture capital it's likely there's a reason.

3. You have no desire to sell your business or pursue an IPO in the next 10,20,30 years.

The best VCs are patient investors and are willing to work with an entrepreneur over a number of years to create significant value.  Despite this fact VCs need to return capital to their investors to stay in business and raise new funds.  LPs in venture funds look for returns over a 4-8 year period and VCs work hard to make sure this happens.  If you want to own/run your business for your entire career or hand off your business to your son/daughter (and an IPO isn't a possibility) then venture capital is not for you.

4. Your company is geographically undesirable. 

This has become less true over the years but the reality is most early stage VCs are based in only a few areas: Silicon Valley, metro Boston, metro NY, Seattle and N. Virginia/DC.  Other areas of the country have some venture presence but rarely more than 3-5 VC funds.  That's a small pool of VCs if you're not in a major market.  There are newer groups like Village Ventures that are doing a great job trying to change this fact but we're still a long way from the VC industry being highly distributed throughout the U.S. 

This is important since most VC funds insist on investing in seed/early stage deals that are local.  VCs like to be close to their companies to provide the most value to the entrepreneur.  It's also much easier to monitor an investment if it's local.  Many Silicon Valley VCs have strict rules about investing only in companies that are a car ride away.

So before you decide to pursue venture capital think hard about these points.  If you feel any hesitation it's likely you should pursue other methods of financing. 

 

 

Fashionably Late

I've been asked by numerous people over the last few years why I don't blog.  I've usually given the following reasons:

1. I don't have the time.

Each day I wake up thinking about what I need to do to help my portfolio companies come closer to reaching their ambitious goals.  When I'm not focused on the portfolio I'm meeting with scores of entrepreneurs looking for my next potential investment.  When I'm spending time with entrepreneurs I'm doing primary research on sectors that could produce significant returns over the next 5-10 years.  When I'm not conducting research I'm spending time with new contacts (other VCs, corporate execs, service providers, thought leaders, etc).  When I'm not meeting new people I'm updating my LPs on the progress of our fund.  When I'm not updating my LPs I'm thinking or working on building out our firm and plotting out the firm's future direction.  And when I'm not doing any of those things I try to find some time to spend with my wife, friends, family and dog.  Oh yeah - sometimes I do sleep although if you asked any of the CEOs of my portfolio companies they don't believe I actually ever sleep!

2. Why would I want to be tempted to reveal secret details about our strategy or my portfolio companies strategies?

Most of the greatest investors in the world don't blog, they don't share their deep thoughts or let others into their psyches for fear of losing their edge.  Warren Buffett doesn't blog and either do the most legendary VCs.

3. VCs should be LESS visible in general.

Entrepreneurs are the rock stars and should be the face of innovation.  Everyone knows Brad Pitt but can you tell me who has produced his biggest movies?  Everyone knows The Rolling Stones but can you tell me who has produced most of their albums?  Ideally the entrepreneur and her company should be more famous than the VC backing them.  Our industry worked that way for a long time and I often wish we could go back to that time.  I'm not saying VCs shouldn't work their asses off trying to promote their companies publicly but the focus should be on the company and entrepreneur.  VCs shouldn't be trying to prove how smart they are to the public or shouting from the mountain tops about their fabulous returns.  Arthur Rock never needed to feed his ego this way.  Ed Glassmeyer at Oak (a role model for me and one of the best VCs on the planet) keeps his head down and makes good investment after good investment.

So why start now when there's already 8 trillion VC bloggers?  Simple - it's the only way I can think of to most efficiently raise entrepreneur awareness of our firm here in the NY venture market as well as nationally.  My hope is through this blog I will attract the following:

- great entrepreneurs that are looking for a venture firm that will never rest in its effort to create value while putting the success of the entrepreneur's company first, second and third. 

- great entrepreneurs that value substance over flash, hard work over superficial value-add and intellectual honesty over sound bites and false support