Just read this story over at TechCrunch. Though the gist of it is technically more about file sharing and the music industry, it reminded me of the old days of 1999-2001 when all the dot-com douche bags (myself included) would cram into SOMA bars and think they were the kings/queens of the world. I distinctly remember a confrontation when one group of folks from Start Up A was monopolizing bar space and a group from Start Up B were trying to order drinks. As expected a little pushing and shoving match ensued with the requisite "Do you know where we work?" and "We're gonna buy this place!" was thrown around. Basically, young knuckle heads with too much money and too few failures in their young careers to know any better. A scant year or two later and most of them probably were unemployed. Another conversation I overheard was where a guy was talking about jumping to another start up only 3 months after joining his current one. His friend was saying "Do it man! That place is gonna take off! Take less money and get more equity. It's all about the equity man!" It was definitely a sign of the times.
 
As we have gone through one dot com implosion and are currently in the midst of a major recession, the number of young start ups has definitely diminished. Plus the fact that most start ups aren't getting monster investments and hiring just for the sake of hiring. The people who work at start ups today do it because they prefer to work in that environment versus trying to make a quick buck (believe me, there are far easier ways to make money than working at a web start up). This culling of the herd has definitely reduced the number of douche bags I see in the industry. But as the old adage goes, a douche bag never thinks he/she is a douche bag. Maybe someone is reading this and thinking, "This guy is such a douche bag." Wouldn't be my first time.

Last month, I wrote a post about California's absurdly high unemployment rate (9.3%). Today, news is released that the unemployment rate is now up to 10.1%. I guess my hope that last month was the bottom was wrong. Another thing wrong was my calculation of how many people were actually unemployed. I originally said 3.5 million Californians were out of work (9.3% multiplied by the population of California or 35M). However, it seems the EDD calculated the number for January as 1.7M and the number for February as 1.8M. What I should have done was multiplied the unemployment rate not by the total population but by the labor force. Still, 1.7M and 1.8M people not working is a huge number.

I've posted before about Facebook and its valuation ... not always in the most optimistic light. I'm reading a post today about rumors that Bebo is being actively shopped by AOL. Now I'm doing some very very rough calculations based on some very very vague assumptions, but I think I might have undervalued Facebook.
 
My take has always been that Facebook should be valued at about 5 times revenue. I still hold to that value and have said I would revise my numbers should I get more detail into Facebook's real revenues. Well based on the TechCrunch post, Bebo is rumored to be valued at about $200 million which supposedly is two times its current annual revenues (or $100 million). I pulled some traffic numbers from QuantCast for both these guys:

(download)

Click here to download:

Maybe_I_was_wrong_about_Facebo.zip (20 KB)

Making a very simple assumption of traffic = revenue, I'll assume that Facebook has 11.47 times the revenue of Bebo or $1.147 billion. Based on that, my new valuation for them is about $5.735 billion. Still a far cry from the $15 billion valuation they raised their last round with but not too shabby. Again, this is a very rough estimate and who knows whether I'm still above or below their true revenue number. My hope is that Facebook is doing well and that they can still grow. We all know the Bay Area could use a big employer nowadays.

This is a pretty scary statistic - I guess that translates to almost 3.5 million people. It's always been the case that California leads in boom times but I guess the same can be true during the bust. Not only is unemployment at the highest point in about 15 years but home prices have been sliding, as well. On top of all of this, there are reports that the state only has about a month of cash left while the politicians argue about a budget. Let's hope this is the low point.

A few days ago I wrote about lay-offs and how I was glad we played it safe with our hiring strategy. Today, I read over at Techcrunch that Mahalo is cutting 10% of its staff. The thing I was most impressed with was CEO Jason Calacanis' honest admission that he let down the people who he had to lay-off.

"It’s my responsibility to make this hard decision and I don’t take it lightly. To the people impacted I’m very sorry that I wasn’t able to anticipate this better. It’s my fault and I’m sorry that you’ve got to bear the burden of my inability to better prepare."

Contrast this with the somewhat arms length statement Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang made when he announced his 10% cut.

"affected employees will be notified of layoffs in the next several weeks. we understand that hearing this news now creates uncertainty, but we are moving ahead in a way that balances speed with a clear focus on accomplishing what is necessary to set the organization up for long term success. going forward it will continue to be important for us to make the right decisions to keep our business efficient and strong.

having layoffs is very difficult, particularly in light of all we’ve experienced this year. but we don’t take these decisions lightly, and are committed to treating affected employees fairly, offering severance and outplacement services."

In my very humble opinion, Jason's statement had genuine feeling and an admission of failure. It sounded like he really cared about his employees and that he took full responsibility for his actions. Jerry, on the other hand, seemed to take a very corporate approach in his statement. Almost as if he's disconnected from the entire process. In saying that they are "moving ahead in a way that balances speed with a clear focus", I felt he placed some of the blame on the company's poor performance on the employees themselves. As if letting them go will help turn the ship around. Let's not take into account the fact that Yahoo! could have sold itself to Microsoft just a few months ago for more than 2.5 times its current value. Or go back a few years and ask why Yahoo! couldn't counteract the Google threat even as they were sending millions of queries a day when Google powered their search engine. No where did I ever hear an admission of guilt from Jerry even though he is the head of the company.

In all fairness, it's easier to be close with your employees when the count is 50-60 versus 14,000+ and Jerry can't be blamed for all that is wrong with Yahoo! He inherited a company that lost its edge the day they decided to outsource their search technology. Still, a little contrition couldn't hurt.

One of the worst feelings in the professional world is having to let people go not due to performance (that's easy) but due to financial constraints. I've been reading about the latest rounds of lay-offs in our sector and it's pretty sad.

It's times like this that I'm so glad we've decided to stay lean. Yeah, maybe a project gets delayed here and there but I'll take that over having to tell someone they lost their job not because it was their fault but because it was my fault for not planning properly ahead of time. It's just unfortunate that it took a soft investment market for companies to realize they should pay attention to pesky little things like revenues and/or profits. My personal philosophy has always been that if cash flow cannot support a full-time employee (salary, benefits, taxes, etc) PLUS at least 25%, then don't hire that person. If it's a revenue generating position, have the person work on commission until they generate enough cash flow per the last sentence. Maybe it's time start-ups began running their businesses like nearly all the other businesses out there (ie, make profits now) instead of waiting for that next round or the buy out.

I'm reading Jessica Livingston's "Founder at Work" book and one particular chapter is quite appropriate. It's about how Charles Geschke and John Warnock only needed about $50K to start Adobe and that shortly thereafter they got $1 million plus contracts from guys like Apple and others to license their printing software. Why don't entrepreneurs think like that any more? Build something, make more money than you spent building it, repeat. Maybe that's just too pedestrian for today's founders but that's one way to ensure your business is recession proof. Another great read is Paul Graham's article about starting a technology company during a recession.

Not literally, of course. Anyone who knows me will agree I could lose a few lbs. I'm speaking from the start-up sense. I just read an article on Techcrunch that VC backed start-ups are having a hard time exiting. The post right after it was that Eyespot ran out of cash and shut down. I've never used the Eyespot service but it looks like it took some heavy engineering to get it done. To that end, they raised about $3.6 million and hired 22 people. I'm sure they also got an office, computers, water, etc. to support these 22 people. That's a lot of infrastructure cost and it looks like they didn't have the revenues to support it.

Taking the lessons learned from our last start-up, we definitely decided to go lean the second time around. Case in point, at our last start-up we got a 3 year lease on almost 5,000 sq. ft. of office space when we only had 6 employees (we were going to grow into it - so we thought). Turns out that the lease was one of our biggest cash sinks. Start-up number two? We share desks in a shared office space. Here's a shot of our messy work area.

We did this when we didn't generate any revenue because since we boot-strapped this venture, we thought it better to spend our limited funds on talent versus rent. It turned out to be a good move as we weathered through some lean months before ultimately hitting our stride and becoming cash flow positive. Fast forward to over a year and we're still sitting at the same desk except now we rent out a few more desks as we've grown. Once we have built enough of a cash flow cushion, we MIGHT think about getting a separate office space. Part of me has become attached to the more intimate setup, though. We now easily bounce ideas of each other which will become harder once everyone has their own desk. I guess that's the price of progress though.