The Future of Venture Capital Funding in High Tech

Like almost every aspect of the current economy, Venture Capital Fundings of High Tech and Software startups are way down.

There is pressure on virtually every segment of our economy, and the worldwide financial system is in by far the greatest disarray of our lifetime. The preferred exit strategy for Venture Capitalists, the IPO, pretty much shut down quite a while back. Financial returns at Venture funds have taken a hit like everything else financial, and VCs are definitely not in good position to attract new capital in the near term--given the current frantic flight to quality by investors. Things look dire in the VC business. There are even suggestions by many people, including some prominent VCs, that the long running and revered Venture Capital business model is "broken", and that it will cease to exist as we now know it.

So what really is going to happen? Is the end of the world near? (well…maybe, based on the news headlines every day). Will a software or technology entrepreneur be able to fund their company via the VC route in the future? Let's take a look at some of the things I expect to see happen.

SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS
First of all, I don't believe the end of the world is near. Nor do I think that the Venture Capital business is going away. There is a fair bit of pain left to go in this very down economic cycle, and the VC business will be no exception. So in the short term, new VC funds will have a difficult time raising money, startup capital will remain very tight, valuations will be lower and the whole experience of raising money will be even more painful than normal (and it's always painful). Many VC-backed startups which haven't gotten sufficient traction have been told if they don't have 12-18 months of cash in the bank, additional funds won't be forthcoming. But make no mistake, there are software and tech companies closing funding rounds every day. VCs still have not deployed a very large amount funds they raised in better times--that money needs to be put to work. There is still money out there in the short term for deserving business plans. And in the long run, the economy will rebound and things will go back to "normal". I do believe that the Venture Capital business needs to make some adjustments, however--so it will probably be a "new normal".

HOME RUNS VS. SOLID SINGLES AND DOUBLES
One of the staples of the VC business model has been finding "home runs", meaning those companies that can grow large enough for an IPO. These are few and far between. VCs have always said they would gladly invest in 5 to 10 failures to find that one big hit. The IPO market has essentially gone away for the time being, which puts a lot of pressure on the basic premise of how to make money as a VC. I've always thought the "big hit" model was lunacy, and akin to throwing darts at a board--it's so hard trying to pick out who the huge winners are going to be a startup stage. There's a lot of luck involved in a company getting to an IPO, and even more luck involved in picking them out at birth. This strategy seemed to work fine when the markets were consistently heading up and to the right, and quite a few companies could do an IPO and get a billion dollar market cap. But I've always thought the very basis of investing and company building is in finding those companies that can give you a return on your money, skillfully balancing risk and reward. Considering those companies that have truly developed a strategic advantage and a sound business plan, some of them may get very big, others not so much--depending upon the specifics of their target market and business. But VCs for years have been basing investment decisions almost solely upon huge markets and the potential for the big hit. I think it was lazy investing, and that part of the VC business model may need some adjustment.

VC COMPENSATION MODELS
As VC fund size and limited partner returns increased during this golden era of VC funds, so too did the compensation to the General Partners of the fund. When funds and returns were outsized, limited partners swallowed hard or looked the other way. It's analgous to a mutual fund with a hefty management fee--when the returns are great, it's no problem. But in times like today, the small fees associated with an index fund look pretty good compared to that underperform mutual fund with active, expensive management. VC fund Annual Management Fees which have typically been in the 2-3% range will likely be reduced, or maybe even go away entirely. The 20% carry standard will probably hold, and may even go up and bit if there is heavy pressure to reduce the management fees. LPs won't mind the carry if they are realizing good returns. What does this mean for the software/tech entrepreneur? It may not mean much, on the surface. But I do think it will require VCs to do more homework on their potential investments, which possibly gives an edge to those entrepreneurs will less dramatic, smaller business plans, but better risk profiles.

THE OXYMORON OF "LATE STAGE VENTURE CAPITAL"
I've always thought that the idea of "late stage" venture capital was kind of a joke. However, the Venture Capital business has been moving this direction for quite a while. Part of the reason is that VC funds have gotten so big that it's hard to deploy all of the money with "real" startup investing. And also it's a less risky way to get to that big IPO payoff. But really, these late stage funds have gotten pretty similar to Private Equity firms, except their time horizon may be shorter. So maybe these investors should really just be re-classified--in many ways they don't look anything like their early stage brethren. At this stage, there are usually many other potential sources of capital. I believe that this late stage segment of the venture capital business is one that is due to shrink the most in the near term.


CAPITAL-EFFICIENT BUSINESSES VS. KISSING FROGS TO FIND THE "BIG ONE"
I think that the Venture business will trend back to true startup investing, and will reduce it's reliance on the long home run as its basic method of making money. This is where they really add value to the "business-creation value chain". What I expect to see is a renewed search for businesses which are "capital efficient". What I mean by this are companies that will turn an invested dollar into a high multiple of that investment, in terms of revenue, profits and valuation. You might say this has always been true. But the key difference, I believe, is that that venture funds will be smaller, and as a result will feel less pressure to fund high risk, high ceiling businesses where a lot of capital needs to be deployed. As I stated earlier, VCs with large funds have previously felt that the economics of their business demanded this approach. With smaller funds, I believe that capital efficient businesses in smaller markets will no longer be ignored. Solid singles and doubles may come back in vogue (for those of you that understand baseball analogies!).


IS MONEY REALLY "SMART'? OPERATIONAL EXPERTISE VS. FINANCIAL GUYS
I've always felt that the idea of "smart money" has always been a fallacy, or least one that was greatly overblown in the Venture Capital business. I know that there are A LOT of people that will disagree with me on this point. A lot of startup advisors will tell you that it's imperative to raise money from investors who will provide much more than cash. I think it's a bunch of malarkey. No doubt that there are some experienced, skilled and very well-connected VCs that can provide a strategic advantage to entrepreneurs, who are fortunate enough to attract them as investors. But with money being a commodity, this is mostly about a VC firm trying to differentiate and provide a value-add. Fundamentally, the need for capital and the need for advice and other business assistance aren't tied at the hip. Both are often needed, but they don't need to come from the same place--they are important, but separate ingredients to the successful startup recipe. If you can get both in one package, that's great. But too many VCs present themselves as experts in areas where they've really just been investors. This is especially true for those many VCs that come from a financial background, rather than from a high tech startup management background. Frankly, entrepreneurs need to be careful of utilizing faulty advice, regardless of whether it comes from someone who has put money in their company or not. Having money in a pocket should not be confused with operational knowledge or expertise. I'm not sure whether it will happen or not, but I'd like to see the Venture Capital business present a more realistic view of the value that they are adding--it's not the same in all cases.


SUMMARY: WILL VC FUNDING GO AWAY?
The short answer is "definitely not". I do think that the bubble excesses have highlighted some weaknesses in the Venture Capital model. There will be adjustments to it--just like there will be adjustments in many other businesses, as a result of our economic duress. I've offered some ideas to get everyone thinking--please feel free to disagree, or otherwise add to the discussion. I'd welcome everyone to post a comment, if you have an additional take on this always interesting topic.


Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

System Integration vs. Product Development

I've recently engaged on assignments with two new clients. Both of them have businesses selling to large, blue chip customers. Customers of the size that are used to "having it their way"; as a result, getting a deal with them often includes the need for a lot of customization.

The interesting thing about these two clients is how they perceive and approach that need to customize.

A Tale of Two Companies

Company A views customization somewhat as a pain and distraction, something to be controlled--I am assisting them with creating a standard solution offering menu outlining the "Base" offering, with a list of options available at an added cost. They really want to discourage certain customizations, absolutely won't do some things that will be asked, and want to make sure that they charge dearly for items that they find painful. They have the classic mentality of a product company; they want to do the amount of customization necessary to make a large sale to this important customer--but NO more than they have to.

Company B, which also considers itself a product company, has a very different mentality about customization. They welcome it, pride themselves on it, and position themselves to these potential large clients as someone that can quickly bring solutions to the client, customized to their desires. They want their big account reps to be scouring the big accounts for unique pain points or opportunities, which might fall within the company's core capabilities, enabling them to propose a customized solution. In fact, up till now, their product development approach has really been to find out what individual accounts want--and build it for them.

So which of these two business models is the best way for technology companies to go?

System Integration Business Models

Advantages:
*More flexible and able to change with shifts in the marketplace
*Not as capital-intensive due to less "betting" on upfront product development
*Easier to grow business organically with internally-generated capital than in a product business

Disadvantages:
*Less risk due to lower upfront investments
*More competition; System Integration is an "easier-entry" business
*Generally lower operating margins
*Growth is less scalable than a product-oriented company

Product-Focused Business Models

Advantages:
*Provides greater opportunity for strategic advantage and resulting fast growth
*Less competition if a product/brand/technology differential advantage is created
*Can scale much quicker if a hit product is developed
*Higher operating margins if product is successful
*Usually more marketing-driven and less labor-intensive
*If creating a very large company is the goal, much easier to raise outside capital

Disadvantages:
*Much more risk of "crib death", resulting in complete capital loss if first product has problems in development or marketing
*Harder to "get over the hump"; success is harder to come by, and success often happens as a step function after a difficult startup period

First of all, I want to emphasize that there isn't necessarily a "wrong" approach with either of these business models. You can make a lot of money pursuing either model. Both of the companies I have used as models have managed to attract blue chip customer which would be the envy of any company. What we are really talking about here is the difference between a classic product-driven company and a system integrator.

Company A is that classic product-driven company. They customize when they have to, but also have a point where they will say "no".

Company B also self-identifies itself as a product company, and in fact they have built their business around a small number of standard offerings. But as their core strategic advantage they really are utilizing relationships, the ability to customize beyond what standard product companies (especially larger ones) are willing to do, as well as to react very quickly to customer requests. They've built a very nice business doing this, but have some frustrations as well. They are highly dependent upon a small number of major accounts for virtually all of their revenue, and have the major revenue/profit swings that are associated with this type of business--up one year, back down the next. They also are in constant fear that a larger company will come along and "take away" their marketplace, because they've continuously failed to create new products which build upon a core offering which is very dated technologically. The core offering appears long-in-tooth and vulnerable. This company is very account-focused, and the lack of a market focus has kept them from being able to create additional, broadly marketable products which provide them with a strong proprietary advantage (and causes a lack of sleep at night!)

Company A understands who they are and what they want. That doesn't guarantee success, but it makes it much easier to build a plan that everyone agrees on. At that point success or failure usually depends upon execution, unless the plan is awful. If failure ensues in this scenario, more times than not, the problem is in execution. Company B's biggest problem is that they are floating right in the middle between the two business models. They are trying to leverage both of these business models, and struggling with execution, in some ways with both.

SUMMARY
It isn't impossible to combine these two business models successfully. I'm sure that many of you can't point to several examples of such a very successful compromise. In fact, many technology companies combine both of these models to some extent, with good success. But I find that usually, a company identifies itself primarily as a product company first, or a systems integrator. That identification is their strategic focus, and takes precedence when prioritizing the use of always scarce assets.

The secondary business model is usually utilized on an opportunistic basis. Product companies integrate and customize as needed to get a big deal. Integrators create "products" to fill the needs of a big account, and sometimes happily find they are saleable to other accounts. Occasionally, these "products" prove so widely saleable that they are spun off into a separate product company, or the integrator changes its focus into becoming a full-blown product company.

The most important thing, in my opinion, is to understand who you are, and what you are trying to accomplish strategically. It's the company's that are trying to leverage both business models at once, without one model taking the lead, that gets itself in a heap of trouble. That's my opinion--what's yours?

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
www.pjmconsult.com

Business Models in the SMB Market

The SMB market is typically a very popular topic for hardware and software companies. Every one wants to sell to the Enterprise market; as a result, competition is fierce and standards are very high. If you get to the Enterprise market early, with an innovation that creates a new category, you can find success if you are truly making a contribution to the market. But late entries into a market segment, as well as early stage companies competing with larger, established companies, often have a very tough go of it. In these situations, attention often turns to the Small and Medium-Size Business, or SMB, market.

And why not? At first blush, the SMB market appears to be huge, as well as underserved. It looks like a perfect haven for an early stage or turnaround company with a solid product, but not quite enough differentiation, brand name, or marketing muscle to push out the big boys in the Enterprise space. So the decision is made to focus on SMBs.


What's Wrong With This Decision?

There is nothing wrong with this decision, per se--if it's done with eyes open, for the right reasons. But too often, it is done to run away from a problem (the inability to penetrate enterprises), rather than run to a great opportunity. A lot of times, companies see the SMB market as easier turf; simply a larger, less competitive market than the Enterprise market. Major problems can result from this type of mentality, and I see it quite often in my consulting practice. Companies that enter the SMB market from this perspective usually aren't fully prepared to do what it takes to be successful, in what is a very different type of market than they may be familiar with. So where are the land mines in the SMB marketplace?


What's Not Obvious in Marketing to SMBs

The first thing to consider is that customer needs are often quite different. A lot of this depends upon what technology and market segment you are in, and whether your product is aimed more at the "S" (small) segment, or the "M" (medium) segment of the SMB space. For example, if you are selling a single user productivity tool which is useful staff accountants, you may not see much difference. If on the other hand you are marketing a company wide, networked application of some complexity, the differences may be huge. Like everything in technology marketing--the devil's in the details. Every situation needs to be evaluated closely, and treated differently on its individual merits. The most important thing is TO NOT ASSUME THAT THINGS ARE THE SAME BETWEEN SMBs AND ENTERPRISES IN YOUR CATEGORY. Do the work, evaluate the situation--don't assume. Assumptions, without verification, are what get you burned in this transition. Below is a list of some of the major differences in the SMB market:

IT Departments are small and less of a factor--if they exist at all.--In Enterprises you may be dealing with persnickety CIOs that want thing just so. In SMBs, if there is a CIO at all, he will be looking for an off the shelf SOLUTION that will "just get the job done". Or you may end up struggling to figure out how you can sell your complex solution, to a company that has NO IT DEPARTMENT AT ALL.

There is less money to spend--It's harder to make money with big ticket hardware and software, let alone customization and expensive services. Your products better have value - and margin - right out of the box.

Ease-of-use is even more critical--There probably is no training department or other corporate staff, and people are busier overall. If they can't figure out how to use it quickly, you're going to have a hard time selling it.

There is much less time available to purchase products--Even the sales process may be compressed, in terms of how much time the prospect spends reviewing your marketing literature, or talking to your sales people. The actual TIME ELAPSED during the sales cycle could be EVEN LONGER due to lack of time available to the prospect, but the INTENSITY of the purchasing engagement is often much less.

How Do You Need To Structure Your Business Model Differently?

Lower prices-- They just can't, and won't pay the same prices that you can get in the Enterprise space, in most cases. So you'd better come into this segment with a price and value proposition that makes sense to these price-sensitive customers.

Marketing vs. sales--The SMB market is more marketing intensive, with respect to marketing/sales ratios, than the Enterprise market. There are many more customers; the average sale amount is much lower, and much less face time available for direct sales. While in many respects Enterprises are the most demanding customers in the world, you've got to be a better marketer to succeed in the SMB space than you need to in the Enterprise world.

Low cost sales force-- With much lower average sales amounts, and much less time available on the customer side, it is usually impractical to have a large, high-cost field sales force. Inside sales forces are the general rule in this market. If you have a product that demands customization and hands-on support, VARs are a good adjunct to consider. The more they are taking orders generated from marketing, and the less they are cold calling prospects, the better.

Better usability and reliability-- You'll need many more units being sold to get to the same level of Enterprise revenue, across a much larger customer base, with much less (if any) maintenance revenue to fund a large support staff. Your product better work when it's installed and better be very easy to use over time. Unless you have a highly customizable solution and are using VARs as a channel, SaaS is a great platform for delivering software to this market.

Little or No IT support--The good news is that there is no prickly IT committee or staff that you have to "go through" to sell to the real users. The bad news is that if even the littlest thing goes wrong, there's no one internally at the customer to pick up the slack--you're going to hear about it directly from the user--over an over again.

Summary

The SMB market is actually a simplistic catch-all phrase for a large, heterogeneous group of markets. But it is a useful abstraction, as a starting point for understanding how to penetrate and thrive in B2B marketing to smaller companies. I hope this short introduction is useful--feel free to pitch in and post a comment adding to this topic.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/

Open Source Software Business Models

Open Source has been gaining ground for quite some time. Some would say, using the example of Linux, that Open Source has Microsoft and the rest of the traditional software giants on the run. No doubt that open source software has had a major impact on the economics of the software business, across many different market segments.

But is it a good model to use in your software business--if you are actually interested in making money?

Not Generally My Cup of Tea--But Let's Take Another Look

I will admit that my feelings toward open source business models have always been lukewarm, at best. Maybe there's a bit of dinosaur in me. But the idea of putting into the public domain the code that you've sweated to produce, at great emotional and financial expense rubs me the wrong way. It trikes me as fundamentally opposed to the basic nature of capitalism and the entrepreneur.

Like just about everything else in business, however--the devil's in the details. Using Open Source methods has been shown a number of times that it can be a competitive weapon in the software business--when used thoughtfully and strategically.

Poor Use of Open Source

Let's first examine a typical example of what I consider a misuse of the Open Source model. It often goes like this: Technical founder with a crack programming team, and little marketing money or expertise, decides that they are going to use Open Source to inexpensively roll out their new product in the market. Being programmers, they love the idea of Open Source from a user perspective, and so have a strong belief that the market they are aiming at will love it as well. Unfortunately, they aren't trained as marketers, and don't think the situation completely through.

Here are some of the negative things that can happen:

1) Since the company is releasing the initial product as Open Source, they are not quite as diligent as possible with QA of the code, as well as other "commercial product" polishing activities. Basically the product is rushed to market. The product isn't well-received, costing them the one opportunity that you have, to make a good first impression

2) Open Source tactics are used prior to developing a proven business model: "We'll release a free, Open Source product, and have so many users, we can figure out how to make money later". This is reminiscent of the old "eyeballs" business plans prevalent just before the Internet bubble burst in 2001. It's very important to have a solid idea of what the Open Source release is going to gain you, and what the steps are that will to allow you to capitalize on the wide attention. Ultimately, you need to monetize SOMETHING. There are ways to make money with an Open Source model: customization, training, training, premium versions--but in many instances, these won't really support a serious, mainstream core software development effort--if you are also interested in profits.

3) The company has done some thinking about the business model issue, and has decided that there will be a free, Open Source version released initially to seed the market. The follow on product will be commercial/paid with added features, with the hope that the large user base from the free version will upgrade to the more attractive premium version. But without expert marketing analysis, balancing how much to "give away" in the free version, and how much to "hold back" for the premium version, can be quite tricky. If you don't get the balance right, the potential revenue stream can be greatly reduced.

4) The company is in a market segment that highly values order and traditional business practices--in this circumstance, using an Open Source model could seriously devalue your product, in the eyes of your target prospects.


Good Use of Open Source

The other side of this story is that when implemented thoughtfully, Open Source can be a major strategic weapon in certain markets. Let's look at some scenarios of how an Open Source strategy might be implemented more shrewdly:

A) When entering a new market against a huge, strongly entrenched (but slow and stodgy) competitor, where it will be difficult to get traction with traditional marketing methods. This is Open Source used as a Guerilla tactic.

B) In markets where the availability of Source Code REALLY IS IMPORTANT. This may be for reasons of integration, or for reasons of business continuity (for example, a bank application) where they would require source escrow anyway.

C) Having a free Open Source version for one type of small volume customer (internal developments), but to redistribute the code for commercial purposes, there is a royalty/fee. This is using the Open Source model only partially. MySQL has used this model very successfully for quite a while.

D) Formulating a well thought out, hybrid business model ahead of time. For example, a free Open Source version is made available to seed the market. Backed by extensive research and marketing planning, a paid premium version is made available, with just the right features at just the right price, creating huge upgrade numbers with minimal marketing expense.

E) An Open Source product is created for a particular market segment, with data backed by research that this segment will require and pay for substantial levels of integration, customization and/or support.

Summary

That's my view of the good and bad in Open Source as part of a commercial business model. Used well, it can be a major weapon--when the situation calls for it. But if used blindly by companies just following a trend toward the newest thing--it can be the "Business Model of No Return".

Drop me a note or post a comment with what you think.

Phil Morettini
PJM Consulting
http://www.pjmconsult.com/
info@pjmconsult.com