Mmmmm…. Tasty.
NickN| May 2, 2009 4:53 pmI’ve been known to cook occasionally. I’ll leave the jury out as to whether that’s a good thing or not, but there’s a site I came across the other day that is a wealth of tasty looking food.
The site is an aggregator for recipes, or to put it better in their own words:
Founded on the idea that we eat first with our eyes, TasteSpotting is our obsessive, compulsive collection of eye-catching images that link to something deliciously interesting on the other side. Think of TasteSpotting as a highly visual potluck of recipes, references, experiences, stories, articles, products, and anything else that inspires exquisite taste.
The site was launched in January 2007 and is run by Sarah of The Delicious Life and a small group who just likes to be called “The Team.”
We don’t use the term “potluck” for the hell of it. Everyone brings something to the party here: the user community submits images/links from around the web and the editorial team reviews the submissions. What finally gets served up on the site is a beautifully refined set of the community’s contributions.
Lots and lots of tasty goodness… and quite a few that even I could cook. For the cooking-challenged engineering inclined among you, I bet you can make this:
Enjoy!
Categories: Old Posts
241No Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2009/05/02/mmmmm-tasty/Mmmmm....+Tasty.2009-05-02+20%3A53%3A25NickN
No, Really, it’s Not All About Size…
NickN| May 1, 2009 10:10 amRiding the conceptual coat-tails of my last post… I’ve been spending some time lately thinking about company size. A few different events have been fueling my thoughts:
1. Attending the Triangle Gaming Conference
I’ve been out of video games for 8 years at this point, but for a variety of reasons I’ve been getting pulled back towards that industry again. When I left, one of the hot issues was growth for the sake of growth. The game side of Rainbow Studios had grown from 30-40 people to 120 so we could “do more titles”. The reality was that we failed miserably to manage more than two projects at a time with any level of efficiency. Teams got bloated, budgets got burned up, deadlines were missed etc etc etc. While gross revenues went up, our margins definitely went down and life became a lot less fun.
2. Reading “Snowball”, the biography of Warren Buffet
If ever you want to read about single minded focus, absolute thriftiness and insane return on investment, check out Mr. Buffet’s life story. The original partnership behind Berkshire Hathaway started with about $100,000. The market cap of Berkshire Hathaway today is $145 BILLION. And the company is managed by a handful of people in a relatively small office in Omaha, Nebraska.
3. (Still) Reading a biography of Sam Walton (the Wal in Walmart).
Like Buffet, the single minded focus and absolute thriftiness is remarkable. But also like Buffet, so was the focus on size and efficiency. When there were a dozen Walmart’s in existence (plus a handful of other variety stores that Walton owned), the business was doing about $10M a year in revenue. Each store had a single manager and they all reported to Walmart HQ. The headquarters was a tiny office in Bentonville, AR, with FIVE staff, three of whom handled the accounting (no computers at that time).
In my own experience, teams much larger than 20-25 people are very difficult to manage with any real efficiency, and even that size gets pretty tough. The work you can get done with a strong team of 2-5 is often far greater than what a team of 10 or more can accomplish, provided you have some focus.
One of the negative legacies of Web 2.0 and excessive/exuberant VC funding is the concept that you have to be big to win. And just as VC funding isn’t the only way to build a business, growing huge isn’t the only way to be successful either.
Besides, growth is also a one way street: you can always grow bigger if you have to, but getting smaller always hurts.
Categories: Old Posts
2391 Comment »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2009/05/01/no-really-it%e2%80%99s-not-all-about-size%e2%80%a6/No%2C+Really%2C+it%E2%80%99s+Not+All+About+Size%E2%80%A62009-05-01+14%3A10%3A36NickN
Early Stage Funding and My New Set of Allergies…
NickN| April 28, 2009 10:27 amReady for some new-found religious fervor? This was conjured up by a combination of recent events, ancient history and good old fashioned navel gazing while my newest daughter gets the hang of sleeping through the night.
In short, I believe I’ve become allergic to early stage funding, especially VC funding. Before I get to the nitty gritty, I should state for the record that there are a number of VCs I’ve met that I have a great deal of respect for. They add a lot of value to the companies they fund and the world is definitely a better place with them around. But I am increasingly convinced that early stage VC funding is simply a terrible idea for the vast majority of startups.
I’ll get to the kinds of companies that might need VC money in a bit. First, let me run through three recent events that triggered my new found allergies.
EVENT 1 — OMG, SERIOUSLY??
On April 18, Venturebeat had a great article about the state of Venture Financing deal terms. Here’s a juicy exerpt:
In recent months we have seen a resurgence of term sheets calling for preferred stock with a senior liquidation multiple (e.g., 2-3 times an investor’s initial investment), often together with “full participation” with common stock after the liquidation preference is paid out. This means that when a company is sold, the holder of preferred stock (i.e., venture investors) will be entitled to 2-3 times its initial investment before any holders of common stock (i.e., founders and employees) receive proceeds, and then will share any remaining proceeds with the common holders on a pro rata basis.
Let’s do the math here. Say a VC puts $2M into your company based on a $4M pre-money valuation i.e. they own 1/3 of the company when the deal is done. Along comes an exit offer for $30M. Normally you might wait, but in today’s uncertain times you decide to take the deal. You might think that 1/3 goes to the VC and the remaining $20M goes to you and your buddies… But not if you’re stuck with the newly resurgent liquidation multiples. Under the kind of terms mentioned above, $6M comes off the top to the VC, leaving $24M, of which $8M (1/3) also goes to the VC (and possibly more depending on all kinds of details in your deal). So out of $30M, $14M is gone before anyone on the team gets a look in. That’s also before legal costs and other gems that will quickly eat through the balance. If you’re holding 5-10% of the company, you might have been expecting to see $1.5-3M from the deal. In reality you’re looking at a best case of $1.2-2.4M, or 80% of what you expected.
Okay, $1.2M doesn’t sound so bad, right? But wait… You probably had options so that there were vesting periods etc. If you’re holding options instead of actual stock, you’ll be paying personal tax rates, not capital gains tax rates. The difference can be a lot. Personal tax will be 35% at the Federal level and you can bet your state will want a bite too. So already your $1.2M is down to $700k or less.
Now I know that $700k is nothing to sniff at, but if you went in to the deal thinking you were going to get $1.5M, you’d probably be pissed off. And when you consider all of the effort that goes in to a start up, the lower salary you made and the opportunity cost of not being elsewhere it starts to look a lot less attractive. $700k is nice, but it’s not going to change your life. You might be able to pay off your mortgage but you’re not going to retire…
And remember, my assumption was that you held on to 5-10% of the company, which means you were most likely a co-founder and have been at this for 3-4 years…
EVENT 2 — OMG, SERIOUSLY?? PART 2…
A colleague of mine recently had his company torpedoed by a wayward investor. The investor allegedly committed fraud and so the rest of his two-part investment evaporated overnight. That left the companyunable to fund their day to day operations and in the current economic climate no one would lend them money. And this was a reputable investor with references…
Instant death by insolvency. Ouch.
EVENT 3 — OH THE PAIN…
Categories: Old Posts
2293 Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2009/04/28/early-stage-funding-and-my-new-set-of-allergies/Early+Stage+Funding+and+My+New+Set+of+Allergies...2009-04-28+14%3A27%3A24NickN
Back to getting my Blog on… a.k.a. fresh blitching ahoy!
NickN| April 27, 2009 1:27 amIt’s been a long time since I wrote a blog post. Mostly that’s because I’ve been busy with work, home and life in general. I was also suffering from a little bit of writer’s blog(ck).
But I’m back. I updated my blog to a new shiny version of Wordpress and installed some fancy new plugins including IntenseDebate. I’d been holding of on that for a while, but if it’s good enough for Pete Warden, it’s good enough for me.
More posts to follow. Soon, I promise.
Categories: Old Posts
2272 Comments »http://blog.nicholasnapp.com/2009/04/27/back-to-getting-my-blog-on-aka-fresh-blitching-ahoy/Back+to+getting+my+Blog+on...+a.k.a.+fresh+blitching+ahoy%212009-04-27+05%3A27%3A11NickN
