Tony Wright (dot com) - Latest Comments in General

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

technotheory — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:27:18 -0000

Really great ideas here, Tony, and thanks for the reference to the discussion about pitching the big boys. Also, you also have my vote for the material by the brothers Heath (Made to Stick).

It's easier said than done trying to build that product, fan base, and social proof...but it's worthwhile. And in this world of so much noise and people saying the same thing, that's really the only way to differentiate.

Needless to say, I won't be holding my breath for a call from Oprah.

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

mattsurfs — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:03:49 -0000

Focus on product, and the calvary will come.

I agree with you with exception to #4; the traction.

I believe a start up can be newsworthy without traction, just look at Powerset.

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

webwright — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:13:48 -0000

Hey Kyle-- I looked at Scrapwalls a while back and really like it-- it's a really unique UI (something I'm always a sucker for)!

On the surface, though, it's not clear to me what the big play is and what itch you're scratching. It's a MUCH more creative way to publish photography, which is cool. I don't know the photosharing space very well (though I have a pro account on Flickr and love it).

There are plenty of stars in the photosharing space (Flickr, Smugmug), but it's a pretty mature space. So the big question is: Is the innovation you're bringing compelling enough to shake up the space? If you reached out to 100 photo nuts right now, how many would sign up and how many would be there in a month?

My gut says that it'd be a hard slog for fundraising-- I don't think VCs are looking to the photosharing space to spit out a $100m biz (though remember the Google example). You'll get the "It's a feature, not a business" response until you prove otherwise.

If you can afford to do it, my advice would be to keep at it 'till you have a healthy user growth curve, solid retention, and a proven zero-cost distribution plan (SEO? VIral?). Early monetization would be good too ("ad supported" seems like a non-starter).

I would also experiment with marketing-- if you haven't already, branch out to people you don't know (find a photography forum), post your value prop and a link and measure the number of people who come and the percentage that sign up to see if anyone wants what you've built. This allows you to experiment with messaging, which is critical, and get a reality check on the demand.

And for God's sake, don't trust your friends/colleague's feedback.
(read this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39174 )

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

repalviglator — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:57:23 -0000

Tony, thanks a lot for your presentation, and writing a follow up. It's good to have this stuff in writing in addition to having the audio/video version.

For context, I was the person who asked the second question. The reason I asked was because my two co-founders and I have worked in our spare time on this project for a while now. I've heard from many people that the funding process takes a long time, and I feel that that time would be better spent actually just working on the product instead. So far, the only money we've spent was to pay for a single dedicated server and our relatively small AWS bill. The rest is just our time. My guess is that after funding we would be able to move faster, but do we really need to do that? I don't know, maybe you could offer some advice?

You mentioned some hot VC trends now. Our application is in the photo-sharing space which you said was on its way out, but we are also working on a facebook app and considering building an iPhone app if our viewer doesn't work so well in Safari on the iPhone.

The product we are creating is a web-based photo collage maker called ScrapWalls. You can upload your photos, and drag them around a giant canvas. Once you publish your ScrapWall, you can share it via a URL of your choosing. The web-based ScrapWalls viewer allows walls with thousands of photos to initially load just as fast as a single image. You can then zoom in and pan around using controls similar to Google Maps. Zooming in all the way will give you the full resolution image.

The site is live, and you can try it out if you'd like. We'd love to hear feedback from you as well as other people who like photos and photo collages.
http://www.scrapwalls.com

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

cdevore — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:28:40 -0000

Great post, Tony. The "big hole" you see in the funding market is one of the main reasons Andy and I decided to channel our private check-writing activity into Founders Co-op. There are so many great teams / ideas out there that can become real businesses with far less capital than VCs can afford to invest, and becoming more transparent / accessible to these founders just made sense.

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

Clay Loges — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:15:08 -0000

Tony, I enjoyed your refreshing presentation. You packed a lot of good info into your commentary and slides....and you are a great member of the entrepreneur community to post these follow on thoughts. Thanks, Clay

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

nordsieck — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:53:40 -0000

Great talk. I really liked the contrast between "product" and "lifestyle". I've really only heard DHH talk about the two with much perspective, and everyone knows that 37 signals lies.

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

webwright — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:36:56 -0000

Great points, Jordan! (readers: Jordan has done this a time or two in bigger leagues than I've played-- he's worth listening to)

I touched on it a little last night-- I think a lot of people nowadays shoot for the "sell for $15m to Google and get out" target, which is a shame. Big ambitions often need big dollars (though I do think that for most web software, you can run the experiment for much less than most VCs want to invest and court VC only AFTER you've proven things out a bit).

Regarding the lifestyle stuff-- Righto! My preso last night was purposefully ordered to talk about the "what do you WANT?" discussion before talking about the "what are you going to build?". I think most people (myself include) chase ideas that they love without considering what their goals are... Which is kinda bad. A lot of people who set out to build high-growth businesses are not the type who would enjoy growing/running them.

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

Jordan Mitchell — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:14:11 -0000

Good stuff, Tony. My thoughts ...

“Given that taking huge piles of VC money both has the dangers you describe and and firmly closes the door on most early acquisition opportunities, why are people still going after big VC?”

Just as there are people who only eat at nice restaurants or only ski when the conditions are perfect, there are entrepreneurs who are only looking at big market opportunities (where selling for $10M isn't on their radar). For instance, for someone who sold their last company for $100M+ then they might have their sights set on the next one going public and being worth $1B. When you think bigger like that, you tend to only think about bigger investment checks -- like, why waste your time raising ONLY $1M and 50k at a time?! Look at McCaw and Clearwire -- I'm not sure they even bothered with traditional VC instead going for ibank money right off the bat.

Plus VCs can often bring a lot more to the table than money, if you need certain experience, contacts, etc.

“Can you talk about how to decide whether a business/idea should fall into the “lifestyle” category or the “get funding a go big” category?"

It feels to me that the person/founder(s) should decide this for themselves, not the business. As in, do you *want* a lifestyle business (which are certainly the majority), or do you only want to swing a bit more for the fences. The majority of people in this world decide to have a business that earns them a comfortable living, which is fine. Then there are the nutcases (yours truly) that are only looking at big market opportunities and way different risk/reward ratios. Doesn't mean one can't lead to the other, but I think you need to decide what you want first THEN whether your idea fits.

Re: Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

Eric Willis — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:35:39 -0000

Awesome post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

cssacca — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 01:06:13 -0000

Nothing is more fun than emailing Arrington a link to a company that I really think kicks ass. In that case the "pitch" really just becomes a "pointer."

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

christiananderson — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 04:36:12 -0000

Knowing the "GOOD kind of PR/Marketing folks (the kind that focus on messaging and product rather than just spamming lists of email addresses)" can be tough -- especially when there are only a few precious dollars to allocate." I have a post partially drafted that attempts to address the challenge in a useful way, without painting with too broad brush.

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

webwright — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:06:15 -0000

"All that said, there is room for PR / marketing counsel in early stage start ups, but often a little effort in the right places can go a long way."

Man, I totally agree with that. Had you asked the Tony Wright of 6 months ago, I would've been a bit skeptical... But messaging is HARD, and the "curse of knowledge" that comes with the intimate relationship that builders have with their product is a hard thing to get over. It's very easy to get to the point where you literally can't empathize with a 1st time user/viewer, and that can be deadly.

It stands to reason that the GOOD kind of PR/Marketing folks (the kind that focus on messaging and product rather than just spamming lists of email addresses) will simply be better at empathizing with an "average joe" user than hackers/designers... Of course, the tragic thing is that good PR/Marketing folks are hard to find and identify!

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

christiananderson — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:51:48 -0000

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the read. You are 100% right. When it comes to media outreach, start with product. Get your product right, know your users/customers and know the equation you are solving for. Only when your product is solid and improving should you start to think about media (this is true in virtually all cases).

Interesting too you mention Oprah. I was reading the Seattle PI today (Yes, I love to read the newspaper -- the actual big dirty physical paper) and there was piece on entrepreneurs and using PR firms. The writer's gist was basically, "don't target just Oprah." (http://tinyurl.com/5gmc92) The writer is right.

It accrues nicely to your point that entrepreneurs should focus outreach on singles and doubles -- especially early on. No need to swing for the fences right away and definitely don't pin the success of your business to just ONE big piece of coverage or ad campaign. Focus instead on your product and doing your business well. Let your users / customers do your crowing.

But, make sure you have your story tight for when Oprah does call.

All that said, there is room for PR / marketing counsel in early stage start ups, but often a little effort in the right places can go a long way.

Re: PR: Pitching TechCrunch, Scoble, and other Influentials

glhoffman — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:51:38 -0000

Nice post, I will be back.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

Jerrnej — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:55:43 -0000

Thank you, Tony! It's so true. Looking at the "startup- rockstars" many of us are too much focused on buying a ticket to Gran Canaria in 3 months after the launch of the business rather than on focusing on the business itself :)

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

Mark Maunder — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:55:21 -0000

Besides nytimes, rescuetime has been well covered by several (arguably more relevant) publications. Kudos to Tony and Team for the amazing progress they've made in a relatively short period of time.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

spencerfry — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:57:08 -0000

I like how you divided it into three bars. The different levels are widely neglected by people bootstrapping their own company. Simply having revenue doesn't equate to being able to pay the bills AND pay yourself.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

jhancock — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 08:52:03 -0000

amen brother!!! My startup is http://shellshadow.com.
We are just coming out of what turned out to be a long R&D phase and will start aggressive marketing in a few weeks.
I fully expect a 12-18 month cycle to get enough users to reach the second bar. Sure, selling to a bigger software company that has enough foresight in your product is a nice dream. But you can't count on that. You have to slog your way through and be able to survive a long long time on your own.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

Erik Dungan — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:58:59 -0000

Good post.

I co-own a small web/saas firm and we've cleared all 3 bars at this point (we're about 4 years old).

One thing I'd like to throw in–if you're trying to bootstrap a startup, you can go a long way by focusing on a niche market and need. That's what we have done, and its worked great. I'd even argue that 37signals started this way with their first product (Basecamp was built for designers and consultants). If you find a niche market with a need, it makes it easy to define your requirements and promote to your target market.

Building a consumer-focused or horizontal saas startup is a nice idea, and getting written up in TechCrunch is a nice ego-boost–but its really hard to turn a profit, especially if your self-funded.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

jbyers — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:40:05 -0000

Great post, I think you've hit it dead on. Entrepreneurs are an optimistic sort, and the misestimation of how long it will take to get over the bar of profitability -- with salaries -- is a killer. I'd guess this above all else will scuttle a lot of small startups who are otherwise benefiting from very low costs.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

webwright — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:21:05 -0000

probably worthy of another post. We started free to work out most of
the bugs and because it started out as more of a project than a
business...

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

webwright — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:19:04 -0000

Good gravy. No, it wasn't a profile of RescueTime, but it was a front
page article above the fold. Our mention was indeed deeper in the
article. You can pick nits, but the point was (in aggregate) we've
been crazy lucky on the PR and word of mouth front... Sales have been
solid but we STILL have a ways to go.

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

Chris Ritke — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:47:00 -0000

Great post. Everything rings a bell, although that last paragraph might be better served with 24-36 months - well, whatever - who knows. But there's one thing that bothers me: why is RescueMe "only a month or two into having an offering that people can pay money for"? If you're going to bootstrap - shouldn't you have a revenue model from the get-go? Uh - em - ehem - shouldn't there be a revenue model - period?

Re: Bootstrappers Beware

bfioca — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 02:38:12 -0000

Jealous much? ;)

Nice troll attempt, btw. My response doesn't do it justice.