521 posts categorized "Web/Tech"

Feature Friday: Archive All

I just went and archived all the unread email in my inbox. I do this from time to time. It is the only way I can get to inbox zero. In the past I have called it email bankruptcy, but since I am archiving the email, it's not really bankruptcy. It is more like out of sight, out of mind. It's still there but just not begging to be opened.

Actually what I do is archive all mail in my priority inbox, keep all my starred emails, and permanently delete all mail in the rest of my email inbox.

I figure if I haven't replied in a week, I am never going to reply. So it's out of my inbox and into the archives or into the trash.

It's a great feeling to do this. But gmail doesn't make it easy to do. You can archive a page full of email (50 at a time). Or you can create a filter and archive all the filtered mail. I would love a button that says "archive all mail in your priority inbox" and another that says "delete everything else". But I don't expect google is going to give us those buttons any time soon. Maybe google labs will.

When you have archived all the mail in your priority email, you get this message:

Inbox zero

Woohoo! is exactly how I feel. And you can get that feeling without actually reading all the important messages in your inbox. Which is why Archive All is the feature of the week this friday

Rethinking Mobile First

I wrote the Mobile First Web Second blog post a few years ago. In that post, I talked about apps that were designed to be used on mobile primarily with the web as a companion.

There have been a number of startups that have taken that approach and done well with it. Most notably Instagram, and also our portfolio company Foursquare. It has become a bit of a orthodoxy among the consumer social startup crowd to do mobile first and web second.

But is it the right thing to do? Vibhu Norby, co-founder of Everyme and Origami, wrote one of the most thought provoking posts of the past month arguing that mobile first is a recipe for failure for most, if not all, startups.

Vibhu makes some excellent points:
All in all, mobile service apps turn out to be a horrible place to close viral loops and win at the retention game. Only a handful of apps have succeeded mobile-first: Instagram, Tango, Shazam, maybe 2 or 3 others.
and
You have an entirely different onboarding story on the web. You can test easily, cheaply, and fast enough to make a difference on the web. You can fix a critical bug that crashes your app on load 15 minutes after discovery (See Circa). You can show 10 different landing pages and decide in real-time which one is working the best for a particular user. You can also close a viral loop: A user can click an email and immediately be using your app with you. You can’t put parameters on a download link and people don’t download apps from their computer to their phone. Without the barrier of a download + opening the app to try your product, you can prove value to the user immediately upon their first impression, as is with Google. In addition, the experience of signing up for a service is superior in every way. Typing is easier. Sign-up with OAuth is faster. Tab to the next field. Provide marketing alongside sign-up as encouragement. Auto-fill information is a feature in every browser. The open eco-system of the web and 20 years of innovation has solved many of the most difficult parts of onboarding. With mobile, that kind of innovation is lagging significantly behind because we create apps at the leisure of two companies, neither of which have a great incentive to help free app makers succeed.
and
I use my phone more than anything else. I just don’t think that an entrepreneur who wants a real shot at success should start their business there. The Android and iOS platform set us up to fail by attracting us with the veneer of users, but in reality you are going to fight harder for them than is worthwhile to your business. You certainly need a mobile app to serve your customers and compete, but it should only be part of your strategy and not the whole thing.


Vibhu also takes a stance against the ad-supported, privacy challenged, free consumer app world. I respect that stance and every time I upgrade from a free ad supported app to a premium version (advertising free) via the in app upgrade on mobile, I express my solidarity with him on that one. But as a business person, I have and will continue to advocate for a free tier with a premium upgrade (or just entirely free) because as I have written many times on this blog, I think that is the value maximizing approach and it also allows the greatest number of users to access your product or service.

But I don't want to focus on business model in this post. We are at the start of what will be a long MBA Mondays series on business models and will be talking a lot about that.

What I want to focus on is the paradox that mobile is where the growth is right now and that mobile is very very hard to build a large user base on. Everything that Vibhu says in his post is right. Building an audience on mobile is a bitch. I talked about that in my what has changed post:

distribution is much harder on mobile than web and we see a lot of mobile first startups getting stuck in the transition from successful product to large user base. strong product market fit is no longer enough to get to a large user base. you need to master the "download app, use app, keep using app, put it on your home screen" flow and that is a hard one to master

But just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do it. I am convinced the next set of large and valuable consumer facing services will be built with mobile as the primary user interface. You can see it in the success of Uber and Etsy this holiday season. That's where you users are most of the time. And if you don't design your products and services for what is rapidly becoming the dominant UI, you will not maximize the success of your business in the long run.

So do I disagree with Vibhu? Not at all. I think he makes some great points on why you might not want to go mobile only unless you are in the games business. But I differ in two important areas. First, I think you can't abandon mobile. It is the future like it or not. And second, I think it is critical to design for mobile first and then build a web companion. If you design for the web and then port to mobile, you will find that it is really hard to fit your UI onto the small screen. Better to design for mobile first and then build a web companion. Mobile first, web second. But as Vibhu points out, the web can't and should not be ignored. It is valuable in many many ways.

Media Metrix Multi Platform

comScore is announcing something today that I am quite excited about. It is called Media Metrix Multi Platform and comScore describes it this way in their announcement:

Media Metrix Multi Platform offers unduplicated accounting of audience size and demographics that reflects today’s multi-platform digital media environment, which includes websites, apps and video content accessed from multiple devices.

This "multi platform" environment is the reality of most online properties today. We access them on the desktop/web, the mobile web, and on iOS and Android apps (and some other ways as well). But it has been impossible to get an aggregated and, importantly, an unduplicated view of the audience across all of these devices.

Currently, comScore is only releasing US audience data in the Multi Platform report. They are working on getting their global data into the Multi Platform format and I am even more excited to see those global numbers once they get the data cleaned up and QA'd.

This chart, from comScore's release on the Multi Platform service, tells the story well:

Media metrix multi platform

There's a bunch of interesting stuff in there. Take Google. They have 189mm users in the US on desktop/web. They also have 109mm users in the US on iOS and Android. But the unduplicated total audience is 211mm, meaning only 22mm of Google's users are mobile only in the US.

Pandora and Twitter stand out as highly mobile user bases. Pandora's mobile user base is >2x their desktop/web user base. Twitter's mobile user base is almost equal to their desktop/web user base.

If you are a Media Metrix user, you will see the option to get Multi Platform data on your key measures reports. I have been using this service in beta this past week and it is very useful in many ways.

comScore uses a combination of panel data and self reporting by websites and mobile apps to produce its data. The panel data is quite good for large mainstream properties. It is not as great for small websites and apps or services whose audiences are less mainstream and more niche. For those services, self reporting is a good idea and comScore allows you to self report for free by including their tags in your websites and apps.

I hope the entire analytics industry (first party and third party) follows comScore's lead and offers a multi-platform view as the standard view. That's the reality of how users access services today and the analytics industry needs to reflect it in their products.

Disclosure: I was a venture investor in comScore from the late 90s to the mid 00s and was on their board for almost a decade. I still own a few shares personally which I have no intention of selling.

The # Discover Tab

I've been really impressed by the quality and especially the diversity of news I am getting from the #Discover Tab on Twitter lately.

This exchange between Hunter Walk and me from last week is a good example of how I feel about it (sorry that I could not figure out how to embed a Twitter conversation):

The # tab

I actually don't love the visual treatment of the #Discover tab, particularly on mobile, but also on web. I wish it was just like the timeline. I don't need all those "blobs" of images that pop up sort of randomly and jarringly.

But the data I am getting is super relevant to my interests and incredibly diverse (sports, entertainment, friends, tech, NYC, etc, etc).

I am curious how all of you are finding the #Discover tab these days.

What Has Changed

As I read this post in the WSJ about the changing nature of VC funding of consumer web companies, I thought that we may be looking at the symptoms and not the disease. As the WSJ notes, VC funding of consumer web and mobile companies is down 42% in this first nine months of 2012 (vs the first nine months of 2011). And the big falloff is not in seed rounds, which are still getting done, but in follow-on rounds, which are not.

So what has changed in the past couple years? A lot, actually.

1) the consumer web has matured. we are almost 20 years into the consumer web and we have large platforms that are starting to suck up a lot of the oxygen. google, facebook/instagram, amazon, microsoft, apple, twitter, ebay, yahoo, AOL, craigslist, wordpress, linkedin together make up a huge amount of the time spent online, particularly in the english speaking world. there are still occasional new entrants into this list and departures too. tumblr and pinterest have risen a lot in the past couple years while myspace has declined. but consumer behaviors are starting to ossify on the web and it is harder than ever to build a large audience from a standing start.

2) the consumer is moving from desktop/web to mobile/app. we've talked about this transition ad nauseam on this blog. it is the single biggest megatrend in the consumer internet space right now. most new consumer internet startups need to build for iOS, Android, and web at the same time. it is making the startup more expensive and time consuming. distribution is much harder on mobile than web and we see a lot of mobile first startups getting stuck in the transition from successful product to large user base. strong product market fit is no longer enough to get to a large user base. you need to master the "download app, use app, keep using app, put it on your home screen" flow and that is a hard one to master.

3) the momentum/late stage investors have moved from consumer to enterprise. there is a large pool of money in the venture capital asset class that is opportunistic, momentum driven, and thesis agnostic. this pool is driven largely by the public markets. this pool of capital was "all in" on consumer web/social web in the 2009-2011 time frame. it drove a lot of activity throughout the venture capital markets because each layer of the VC stack (angel, seed, Srs A, Srs B, Srs C, etc) needs to be aware of what the next layer up wants to fund. when the momentum/late stage wanted web/social, the layers below gave them web/social. now that the momentum/late stage wants enterprise, we should expect the layers below to give them enterprise.

The combination of these three factors is making it harder for consumer internet companies (web and mobile) to get funding. But the first two factors are also making it harder for consumer internet companies (web and mobile) to breakout which is more and more a prerequisite for funding. As venture portfolios fill up with promising companies with solid products that are struggling to breakout, the VCs will naturally be drawn ever more to the companies that are in fact breaking out. It is a pernicious cycle and we see it playing out very clearly in the consumer internet space these days.

What does that mean for USV? Well not that much actually. We are thesis driven to the core. We believe in what we believe in, for good or bad. And that is large networks of engaged users that have the power to disrupt big markets. We are investing at the fastest rate right now in the history of our firm. We are doing a lot of Srs A and Srs B rounds right now because that is where we see the biggest vaccum in the market. We have not done a real seed or angel round in quite a while. But that doesn't mean we wouldn't and our next investment could well be a seed or angel round.

But we are a small firm. We put out maybe $40mm to $50mm per year across all of our core funds, across initial investments and follow-ons. That is a tiny fraction of the venture capital market. We are small on purpose. We don't want to be the market. We want to invest in a tiny slice of the early stage ecosystem where our thesis collides with great teams and unique and differentiated products.

All that said, these three trends are impacting our portfolio. We have fifty portfolio companies, with the vast majority in the consumer internet space. We encouraged our portfolio companies to raise a lot of capital in 2011 and many did. But even so, we are seeing fundraising challenges everywhere, even in our very best portfolio companies. We are also seeing many of the youngest companies in the portoflio, those started after the summer of 2010, struggling with the breakout challeneges I mentioned earlier in this post. We are patient investors and believe in our portfolio companies and the teams we have funded. We are seeing patience being rewarded, particularly in the mobile market. But it is a tougher time for early stage consumer internet companies than I have seen since the 2001-2004 time frame. And I think we are still in the early innings of this more challenging environment.

So things have changed. As they always do in tech. Those who adapt to the changing dynamics, who see the openings that were not there before and slice through them, will succeed. But the wind that has been at our back for 7-8 years in consumer internet is no longer there. It's tougher sledding and will likely continue so for some time to come.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Boxee Saved Our Thanksgiving (And How The Jets Ruined It)

Due to the fact that we are homeless in NYC on account of Sandy, the Gotham Gal decided to take her Thanksgiving on the road this year, out to our beach house on the east end of long island. It was a great idea and starting on wednesday afternoon, our entire family and some friends made the pilgrimage out east to celebrate Thanksgiving at the beach.

But when we arrived wednesday evening we found at that Sandy had an impact on our beach house too, specifically the DirecTV satellite dish was out of whack. I guess I should have thought about that but I didn't. Of course, getting a DirecTV technician out to our beach house on Thanksgiving day was not going to happen. But Thanksgiving without football? That is downright unamerican!

So I went for plan B. Time to hack the NFL. Here's how I did it with the help of Boxee's new Boxee TV product.

I have a Boxee TV in my USV office which gets all the broadcast channels in NYC in HD. Via the Boxee TV's cloud service, I can get all of those channels on my laptop anywhere I am. So I was able to get the three football games yesterday on my laptop.

We also happen to have an AppleTV in our beach house. So with airplay mirroring from my laptop to the AppleTV, I was able to get the games from my laptop to the big screen in our family room at the beach.

Here's how it looked from the warmth and comfort of the family room couch yesterday afternoon as the Gotham Gal and her sister Susan were cooking up a storm in the kitchen:

Boxee tv at the beach

This all worked out great until the Jets played the Patriots last night. That was awful to watch. I turned it off at halftime. I am embarassed to be a Jet fan this morning.

The Missing Ad Unit

For the past six years, AVC has run display advertising in the right column. I chose to do this for a bunch of reasons. At the time, USV was an active investor in ad:tech companies and I felt that I needed a laboratory to explore trends in display advertising. In addition, the revenue generated by that ad unit was material, almost $25,000 last year, all of which has gone to charity since I started running advertising on AVC. And I wanted to support Federated Media, a company started by my friend John Battelle, and now run by another friend Deanna Brown. Federated has always exclusively sold the display advertising on AVC.

A few weeks ago, Federated announced that it was getting out of the "directly sold display advertising business" in favor of programmatic display and conversational marketing. Federated purchased Lijit a year or two ago and it has turned that business into a huge and growing programmatic (meaning machines buy and sell the ads) advertising business. Federated has also built a number of interesting conversational marketing products not unlike the advertising units that Zemanta and Disqus operate on this blog.

So like Federated, I am walking away from high priced CPM driven display advertising. I could keep running the programmatic ad units that have been on display here as of late, but I find that uninteresting to me and likely to all of you too. Instead, I want to explore more conversational marketing oriented (ie native) advertising here on AVC. I hope to be able to work with my friends at Federated on that. They have been awesome to work with over the past six years.

What will not change is that all ad revenue generated here at AVC will be donated to charity. I am not interested in operating a for profit business on AVC.

What might change is the blog layout now that the right side of the blog looks a bit vacant. Nathan and I are discussing a single column layout that should render better on mobile. More to come on that.

Feature Friday: Etsy Gift Cards

It might seem strange that a service that is seven years old would just be getting around to gift cards, but Etsy did not have its own payment service until this year. Paypal was the default payment system on Etsy for the first seven years of its life. Sellers can still accept payments via Paypal and for international sellers, Paypal is still the only payment option on Etsy.

One big benefit of having its own payment system, called Direct Checkout, is that Etsy can now offer gift cards which can be used to purchase from sellers on Direct Checkout. The majority of Etsy sellers in the US now accept Direct Checkout so that means hundreds of thousands of sellers will accept payment with Etsy Gift Cards.

As you might imagine, sending and receiving a gift card on Etsy is a beautiful experience.

Etsy-giftcards

So if you have a friend or loved one who enjoys buying on Etsy but you can't decide what to get them this holiday season, head on over to Etsy and buy them a gift card. I plan to do that a fair bit this year.

Turntable 2.0 and Passion Pit

The folks at Turntable aren't calling it 2.0, but it sure feels like a massive upgrade to me so that's what I call it when I talk about the new UI and big rooms concept that Turntable quietly launched yesterday without much fanfare.

Full disclosure, USV is an investor in Turntable and I am on the board.

Turntable.fm, for those that don't know, is a live social music experience. Anyone can start a room in the service and a room features up to five users who jump up on stage and take turns DJing, and then the rest of the folks in the room listen, rate the songs, and chat. It is the most social music experience I have ever experienced online. I spend most mornings between 5am and 7am eastern hanging out in Turntable. Like most social online services, I have friends there who I have never met in person. I get better music discovery at Turntable from people I have never met than I get from anywhere else.

It makes sense if you think about it. Folks who are so passionate about music that they get up on stage and DJ live in front of everyone else will also likely have spent countless hours finding music that nobody else knows about yet. That's how music has always worked and how it will always work.

Turntable's achilles heel has always been that the rooms didn't scale. In version 1.0, when a room got to 200 people, it closed up to new entrants. So if you showed up looking to get into your favorite room you could often be out of luck. That is not and never was a good user experience.

Worse is that when a musician, artist, or celebrity showed up in one of the rooms, only 200 of their fans could get in to hear what they were up to. So the whole viral nature of an artist with hundreds of thousands or even millions of fans tweeting out that they are in a room in Turntable was mostly wasted in version 1.0.

All of that has been fixed in Turntable 2.0. The rooms scale up as more users show up. The UI changes in real time. A room starts out feeling like a tiny club and could end up feeling like an arena concert. Here's an example of a "big room" in action:

Turnable big rooms

It's a real work of UI art and kudos go out to Billy and Byron for their work in building the new Turntable UI.

They've also made a bunch of smaller changes, cleaned some things up, moved some things around, speeded it up considerably, and made the service easier to join and get into quickly. I've been watching this new version emerge over the past few months and am so excited as a user to be able to experience it myself now.

If you want to see a big room in action, you can log into Turntable today at 3pm eastern to catch the electropop act Passion Pit playing some of their songs in Turntable. I expect that room will fill up nicely. I am going to try to get in and check it out myself in between running around SF between meetings. I hope to see you there.

Social Commerce Is Commerce With A Social Layer

I've thought this for a long time but never really articulated it publicly until the Q&A session at ad:tech last week.

There are a ton of social services that sit on top of the world of e-commerce and allow users to curate items they like and may want to buy in the future. These experiences can be highly social. And there are services that allow for transacting and payment inside of large social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest. They bring commerce to social platforms. This entire category of services is called Social Commerce.

I have not been particularly bullish on these services because I think social commerce is most naturally e-commerce with a well implemented social layer built natively into the commerce platform. When you look at conversion rates in e-commerce broadly what you see again and again is that the more friction and overhead there is between discovery and transaction, the lower the conversion rate. Something as simple as logging into a commerce platform to complete a transaction can lower converstion rates by an order of magnitude.

Conversion rates are critical. They tell you what systems perform best for the end user. When a system converts north of 5% of users visits to a transaction, it is working extremely well for the end user. When a system converts 0.1% of user visits to a transaction, it doesn't work as well for the end user.

When a retailer or e-commerce service implements a highly social layer into their service with hooks into the major social platforms, the conversion rates can be significant. I have seen this first hand. This is an indication that users enjoy and benefit from social commerce when it is built into a native e-commerce service.

When users start in a social system that is divorced from the e-commerce platform, I believe the conversion rates are significantly lower, often by an order of magnitude or more. This, to me, suggests that the overhead of multiple systems reduces the effectiveness of the experience for users and is suboptimal.

So this is the thinking that led me to say what I said on stage at ad:tech this past week. I've felt this way for a long time and I am glad that I got the question and had an opportunity to address this issue publicly. I am eager to hear the discussion of this issue in the comments.