Chip Griffin: Pardon the Disruption

The Death of the Live Interview?

Bloggers' distrust of the mainstream media threatens one of the most useful tools available: the live interview.  Some prominent bloggers like Jason Calacanis and Mark Cuban have taken to requiring interviews to be conducted by email -- a medium which makes it more difficult to build a rapport between the interviewer and his subject and also dispenses with the spontaneity of both questions and answers that makes live interviews everything they are.

In responding to questions to email, it is all too easy to polish and think through every answer.  While this may help to avoid potential minefields, it deprives everyone -- the participants and the audience alike -- of the value of a true give and take.

As someone who spent a lot of time in professional politics, I understand the pitfalls of interviews and the risks of being misquoted, quoted out of context, or simply misconstrued.  But the way to resolve those issues is to work on building a rapport with the interviewer.  If someone truly has an ax to grind, simply don't speak to them at all. 

Jason Calacanis says he will make exceptions when he "really trusts" a journalist.  And that's really the start of the solution -- build that trust, don't walk away from the live interview.

BusinessWeek REALLY Doesn't Get It

Paul Kedrosky points out that BusinessWeek has corrected the Digg story -- because it called some offices "grungy" and they now say that is an incorrect description.  The made up $60 million figure from their dumbest cover story ever apparently doesn't matter.

Tags: BusinessWeek, Digg

Inside the Bubble Thinking

I spent the better part of a decade working "inside the Beltway" (the insider's term for the Washington, DC area).  Most who work there for any length of time develop a healthy concern for "inside the Beltway thinking."  That is, being overly concerned with what other professionals think, say, and do.  When that happens, the focus on what grassroots America -- "beyond the Beltway" in DC parlance -- believes gets lost.  This usually leads to bad decision making.

The current Web 2.0 hype chamber often consumes those of us who live in the world of high-tech entrepreneurship.  Like the Bubble Boy of unfortunate 80's fame, our universe isn't as large as I'd like it to be.  The danger comes, though, when we believe it is. 

I'd like to think I learned the lessons of Beltway thinking and can now avoid "inside the Bubble thinking."  I admit it is very difficult. 

I read TechMeme and follow what's happening on Digg.  I follow the blow by blow of the Jason Calacanis/Kevin Rose soap opera and hunger for the latest installment of Greg Galant's Venture Voice podcast to hear from founders in their own words.  I read Steve Rubel and Scoble religiously.  I devour the latest news from TechCrunch to see what's new.  I chuckle as much as the next geek over Ken Yarmosh's t-shirts, mugs, etc.  Heck, I know more about how Brad Feld spends his time than my own brother.  And I take seriously the restaurant recommendations I get from reading Fred Wilson and his wife, Gotham Gal.

Every morning I get my news via RSS feeds -- first my Red Sox news, then the blogs noted above and more.  All told, I read something on the order of 170 feeds every day.  I go to conferences like DEMO and follow others like Gnomedex through web video and audio feeds, just to get my fix and spur the creative juices.

I learn a lot from all of this, but so much of what's covered in these sources is inside baseball to the extreme.  Seriously, how many people outside the Bubble care about the Windows Vista startup sound?  And the recent collapse of calendar site Kiko (and its subsequent sale on eBay) shows the risk in creating a startup so heavily dependent on Bubble Boys and Girls. 

Ironically, Paul Graham -- who invested in Kiko and is widely regarded as a pretty smart guy -- recently took Google to task for this very notion:

So far Google only seems to be good at building things for which Google employees are the canonical users. That's because they develop software by using their own employees as their beta users-- sometimes for years before they release to the general public. This works well when the product is something smart hackers would use at work, and not so well otherwise.

Yet Graham points out in the same post "a large fraction of Kiko's users had Gmail addresses."  Now we all understand the early adopter concept, but a successful startup needs to strive for "real" users right from the get-go in most cases.

Not everyone uses RSS (Business 2.0 recently reported that only about 12 million of the 295 million monthly page views on the New York Times web site came from their RSS feeds).  Most real consumers don't even know what a blog is let alone read them.  They've never heard of Gmail and wouldn't imagine to use an online calendar.  To them, a wiki is that thing on Survivor.

Real consumers don't care about being able to tag their photos, they just want to share them easily with friends and get prints made.  The folks who will actually end up generating revenue for startups don't care if they can connect to a WiFi network at the ballpark or that the Motorola Q isn't as cool as everyone thought it was going to be.  And the death of Boeing's in-flight Internet service (Connexion) should be a clear signal to all of us that not everyone subscribes to the notion of constant connectivity.

I write this not to inspire gloom and doom thinking, but to help me -- and my readers -- make a much-needed reality check.  We constantly need to be asking ourselves, who are we creating our products for?  It's one thing to put in a couple of neat features to help get some early adopter juice, but the core product must be designed with the eventual customer in mind.  (And those customers need to be using the product as soon as possible to ensure the early adopters don't take over the product and drive it in a direction that's not helpful to the goal of marketing to a wider audience.)

It's time we all look outside our Bubble.

UPDATE: Rick Segal offered a similar admonition over the weekend.

Interview: VC Life Outside Silicon Valley

I had the opportunity to interview Matt Rightmire of Borealis Ventures, an early stage VC firm based in New Hampshire.  Matt left the entrepreneurial community in Silicon Valley to join a venture firm in NH's Upper Valley -- a move some might not expect from a veteran of Yahoo (he joined them in 1995) and other startups.  He's a smart guy with a lot of interesting things to say.  Highlights are below, along with a link the MP3 of his interview.  The complete transcript appears at the end of this post.

Why did he do it? "At a certain point in life, there's more to what you're doing than work."  He explains that he and his wife wanted their kids to go to school somewhere other than Northern California.

What does he think of Silicon Valley?  First, Matt notes that the culture of Silicon Valley attracts lots of smart people and capital.  But, he says, "I think people have to recognize ... that there are elements of that culture that ... balance out those positives."  He adds, "I think people's priorities are a little skewed, and I think somtimes that impacts some of the business decisions that are made" in Northern California.

What's the difference between East Coast and West Coast VC's?  "I think it's much harder to find capital available, back here in the east, just because of the numbers."  Matt also says there's a difference in the types of people who become VC's on each coast.  In California, "A lot of them have played the role of early stage start-up founder" while in the Northeast, "More so, they come from financial industry backgrounds. They haven't worn the entrepreneurial hat."

Where should budding entrepreneurs start their companies? Not surprisingly, Matt says "If I liked the idea, I'd say, 'you can start it right here in my office.'"  Otherwise, each entrepreneur has to judge the individual circumstances for their company and idea.

What is different about the Borealis approach?  Matt and his partners like to say they are different from other VC firms, and from what I've seen (at least from a distance) they are.  Their philosophy is to get actively involved with early stage companies and try to take them to the next level, not just with capital, but with brainpower and elbow grease.  Matt explains: "Both of those things, though I think that they were the foundations on which venture capital was created in the late '60s and early '70s, as traditional funds have gotten bigger and bigger in terms of capital and their management and in terms of number of people involved, people involved in those firms have become less willing and less able, either to get involved early, or to roll up their sleeves and be very active with the companies in which they invest."

Finally, is there (or will there be) a Bubble 2.0?  "I like to think that everybody -- everybody -- is a little bit smarter this time around."

Download rightmire.mp3

or read the transcript below

Read This Before You Interview With Me

So here's a little test.  I've been doing a lot of job interviews lately and a fair number of candidates have been smart enough to Google me and my companies.  Most have found this blog. 

If you're one of these people (or if you're interviewing for a job anywhere for that matter), read this excellent advice from Guy Kawasaki.

UPDATE:  A few tweaks to Guy's advice:

1.  Appear eager, but not overly so.  Balance is always good.  That goes for before, during, and after the interview.

2.  Get there early, but 30 minutes is a bit much to actually sit in the waiting room.  Shoot for 10-15 minutes there -- chill out in a nearby coffee shop or your car if you really are 30 minutes early (and you won't be -- something always goes wrong to delay you).

3.  I'm ambivalent about notes.  Listening is most important, notes are fine if they help you.  But don't overdo it.

The Dumbest Cover Story Ever (and Why BusinessWeek Should Apologize)

BusinessWeek has embarrassed itself.  Their August 14 cover story on Digg founder Kevin Rose represents irresponsible journalism and outright silliness.

The cover screams "How This Kid Made $60 Million In 18 Months."  Intrigued (and not having heard that Digg had been acquired) I thought I'd check the story out.  All too soon it became clear that the number was completely made up.  In reality, Kevin Rose hasn't made a single penny (unless he takes a salary).  In fact, Digg is just at the break even point on $3 million in revenue. 

Most absurd is the fact that the $60 million appears nowhere in the article, except in this sentence: "At 29, Rose was on his way either to a cool $60 million or to total failure."  It appears to be a made up number based on a made up valuation of $200 million (which is cited to the oh-so-prophetic "people in the know" -- as in "people in the know say Digg is easily worth $200 million.")

Now I like Digg.  I think it has value.  Heck, it might even be good enough to be acquired someday.  But it hasn't.  And it isn't a public company with a documented value.  And it has no profits.  So Kevin Rose has not made $60 million. 

At best, the BusinessWeek cover is sloppy.  At worst, it is a sensational lie designed to sell magazines.

Either way, BusinessWeek owes subscribers an apology.  This sort of hype should be beneath a quality publication like that.

BONUS: Steve Rubel digs up an old Time magazine cover that at least shows someone who made some real money, but does seem eerily similar.

Tags: BusinessWeek, Digg, Kevin Rose, bubble

State of the Political Blogosphere: A View from the Center

The political blogosphere continues to get a lot of traditional media attention and I believe is worth watching even for those who may not be inclined to join the political fray directly.  Along those lines, I am endeavoring to bring readers a range of perspectives on the state of the political blogosphere, and in order to offend fewer people (or everyone, depending on how you want to look at it), I decided to start with someone in the middle.

Marshall Wittmann takes fire from the right and left, as he is currently at the Democratic Leadership Council and previously worked for Senator John McCain.  So he is able to offer what I believe is a unique perspective on political blogging.  Marshall has been blogging as "The Bull Moose" off and on for five years now. 

Marshall sums up his overall view of blogs this way:

I think there's a dangerous tendency to place too much significance on blogging because, at the end of the day, bloggers are unedited folks who are merely speaking their minds, which is not insignificant, but there are reasons there are editors and much of the blogosphere is unsubstantiated and it doesn't have the rigors of journalism. So it certainly has its limitations, but I don't disparage it because it is an innovative way that millions of people can be part of the political debate that was not open to them but for a few years ago.

And Marshall pulls no punches when he says, "Kos is sort of the kingpin keyboarder and he has had a particularly pernicious effect on the Democratic Party, again, because he's driving it to the left."  He also says that much of the political center is absent from the blogosphere: " the readership is very highly ideological. That's true on the right and left."

As for what the future holds, Marshall believes that blogs will be around for a long time and will continue to have influence.  But he says, "I think there'll be a shakeout. There are so many blogs to pick and choose from, there will be certain ones that are thought to be more respectable and more authoritative and more reliable."

This is a 17 minute podcast interview.  It is available in MP3 format or as a transcript below.  The interview was conducted on July 31, 2006.  And in the interests of disclosure, Marshall was a colleague of mine more than a decade ago.  We may not agree on many issues, but I certainly respect his knowledge of many things, including the political blogosphere.

Listen to the MP3 here.

10 Ways Web 2.0 Promises to Change the Way We Live and Work

I’ve spent some time recently thinking about how Web 2.0 will impact our daily lives.  Rather than products, features, or technologies, I wanted to think about it in terms of themes.  In the end, I came up with 10 themes that I think encompass the promise, in real-world terms, of the modern web.  I plan to elaborate on each of these themes in coming weeks in this space, but here’s the overview (in no particular order):

1. Organizing the Unorganized.   The power of the Internet to provide structure to niches enables communities of everyone and everything to form easily.  Support groups, specialized information, and sometimes obscure discussions are no more than a mouse click away.  Companies are sprouting up all over to organize everything from parents and pets to coders and sports fans. (Hat tip to Scott Cleland of Precursor for helping gel this idea for me.)
2. Enhancing Consumer Choice. Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail explains how much easier it is for content producers to make their stuff available online to consumers.  The hits may still rule, as Lee Gomes pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, but consumers can now access books, songs, and movies that would have otherwise been overlooked or out of reach in the past.
3. Empowering Individuals to Become the Media.  A variety of tools have come together to enable virtually anyone to become part of the media.  Podcasting, blogging, vlogging, and even consumer review sites put the power of publishing in the hands of average users.  Services like Lulu even allow people to easily and affordably enter book publishing.  And the traditional media has taken note and now uses these web publishing platforms for themselves – and the consumer generated content as information for its stories.
4. Facilitating Constant, Cheap Communication.  People are more connected now than ever.  Instant messaging, free VoIP, text messaging, and mobile email all make it simple and inexpensive to stay in touch 24/7/365.  The opportunity to more easily communicate with each other – and with businesses – opens the door to new and better services that take advantage of constant connectedness.
5. Sharing with Friends.  Unlike the “unorganized” mentioned above, friends typically have some organization to them.  But Web 2.0 sites take advantage of technology to make it easier to share photos, build broader networks, engage in broader conversations, and even develop new online friendships through services as varied as MySpace, World of Warcraft, and Second Life.
6. Enabling a Multimedia Revolution.  Cheap pipes and improved technologies make it that much easier for consumers to enjoy a rich multimedia experience from wherever they are.  Whether it’s the mobile SlingBox product making it possible to watch live TV on your cell phone, or a service designed to bring real movie choice to your widescreen TV at home, or a subscription music service, these technologies will change how you watch and listen, where you watch and listen, and what you watch and listen to.
7. Making it Easier to Find and Spend Online.  Web 1.0 featured search engines like Google and portals like Yahoo.  (I still remember the very old days when you went to akebono.stanford.edu instead of Yahoo.com to find the portal that then resided on Jerry Yang’s personal workstation.)  Today there’s so much information and so many products out there that the big players often don’t make it easy to find niche items.  So vertical search has popped up as an important tool to enable searching for specific categories of information.  Jobs, news, video, coupons, products, photos, and myriad other categories have their own search engines.  And services like PayPal and others make it easier to buy small amounts of content or products that would not have been feasible before.  Continued work in the area of simplified micropayments will make it easier for consumers and producers alike to enjoy and build niche markets.
8. Democratizing Labor Markets.  It used to be that to hire someone or find a contract worker a company would have to advertise in the paper or rely on word of mouth or a professional organization for a referral.  Today, a wide range of services have popped up to match freelancers and job seekers with the companies that need their help.  Services like RentACoder or LogoWorks and even Amazon’s Mechanical Turk do a nice job of providing a marketplace to reduce the friction of the consultant and freelance process.
9. Breaking Down Geographic Barriers.  Today it is just as likely that a worker in Homer, Alaska will get a gig as one in Manhattan, thanks to the democratization of labor markets.  The tools of constant communication and prolific bandwidth make it easy to live and work where you want.  Web 2.0 companies themselves no longer feel constrained to exist in traditional hotbeds like Silicon Valley and Route 128.  And though offshoring gets a bad name at times, it serves a real purpose for many companies and ultimately consumers.  And it isn’t just workers who benefit, communities of the interested span geographic boundaries.  You’re no longer limited to the local book or wine group, you can join one online and meet folks from across the country or even the globe.
10. Engaging the Individuals in Conversation with the Powerful.  Never has it been easier for average people to engage in conversation with the powerful.  Whether a CEO, a prominent member of the media, a presidential candidate, or these days even an a-list blogger, typical citizens have real access to a conversation with these powerful individuals.  Blog comments, interactive chats, and other online forums provide an opportunity to empower people.  These conversations improve the powerful by helping them better understand what matters and by getting great ideas.  And it lessens the sense of frustration that many have had in the past about being unable to get their message across to those in power.

Tags: Web 2.0, future