There’s been plenty of activity in search in the recent years so entrepreneurs are apparently not afraid of Google. Today, a new one appeared, with a lot of Venture Capital: cuil. What is most remarkable is that the founders left Google… good luck!
Not related is the release of Ilog being acquired by IBM for $340M. Ilog was one of the European success stories. After the acquisition earlier this year of mysql by Sun, another European company is acquired by an American giant…
An interesting article about the origins of innovations was recently published. It looks at the R&D 100 Awards as a way to analyze where innovations come from. There is an interesting analysis about the evolution of economy in general such as:
– Changes in the Place of Scientific Knowledge:
– the old distinction between “basic science” and “applied science” is becoming obsolete,
– a high degree of consensus that successful technological innovation now requires the assembly and management of multidisciplinary teams,
– IBM, Xerox and others may have been the locus of great innovations, but these firms sometimes failed to exploit radical innovations.
– Dramatic shifts in oligopoly capitalism due to new challenges:
– mounting competition from foreign firms,
– shifts in government regulatory policies,
– impact of computerization,
– shifts in consumer taste away from standardized products,
– shifts within the financial markets.
– The 80’s efforts to:
– increase the commercial impact of research such as the Bay Dohle Act,
– finance precompetitive R&D (SBIR),
– provide technical support to business firms,
– support consortia (SEMATECH).
As a result, there has been a shift in the origins of major innovations as illustrated below.
I would have thought that the shift was in favour of universities and start-ups. The study shows that interdisciplinary collaborations as well as the Federal Laboratories have become the major source of innovations. “Research efforts that involve cooperation between two or more different organizations similarly weaken this hierarchical constraint on thinking outside the box.”
The end of the article is a discussion of the reasons why Fortune 500 companies have been less effective at innovating. Factors seem to be:
– big corporations facing relentless pressures from the financial markets have been forced to cut back on expenditures that do not immediately strengthen the bottom line,
– the rise of computers and the Internet, have made it much easier for small firms to enter markets previously dominated by large firms,
– a change in the employment preferences of scientists and engineers… “it seems quite possible that many talented scientists and engineers have voted with their feet and have left work in corporate labs in favor of work at government labs, university labs, or smaller firms,”
And the authors are quite convinced the
As a conclusion, “In the United States, there is no central plan for innovation, and different federal agencies engage in support for new technologies often in direct competition with other agencies. The federal government has created a decentralized network of publicly funded laboratories where technologists will have incentives to work with private firms and find ways to turn their discoveries into commercial products.” There is thus a combination of decentralized networks and targeted federal programs, similar to the venture capital model where many ideas will fail but a small number will succeed. “The enormous gains from the small percentage of winners are more than enough to cover the losses from the others.”
Another great book, so great I decide to write this post even if I have not finished reading it: Jessica Livingston in Founders at Work has interviewed 32 entrepreneurs about their story. The lessons are convincing, fascinating. Without asking for copyright, I copy here some quotes. The book is just a pleasure to read even if sometimes the Q&A are too specific about the start-up, but I assume it is part of the exercise. A Must-Read.
Paul Buchheit, creator of Gmail about Risk Taking
As I say, for people, it depends on their situation if they can take that risk of joining a startup or moving to a
Mike Ramsay, founder of Tivo about
I was curious to see what’s the attitude of a typical startup in
Joshua Schachter, founder of del.icio.us about implementing
But the guy who says, “I have a great idea and I’m looking for other people to implement it,” I’m wary of—frequently because I think the process of idea-making relies on executing and failing or succeeding at the ideas, so that you can actually become better at coming up with ideas.
and about VCs
In general, I found VCs to be significantly politer than the folks I worked with. The worst they did was not call me back. I’d never hear from them again. Brad Feld does a nice blog talking about how the VC process works. He says they never call you back to say no—they don’t want to close the door in case they want to open it again, but they don’t want to actually give you a response. Very few VCs actually said, “Sorry, we’re not interested.”
Craig Newmark, founder of craiglist on the definition of start-up
“in the conventional sense, we were never a startup. In the conventional sense, a startup is a company, maybe with great ideas, that becomes a serious corporation. It usually takes serious investment, has a strategy, and they want to make a lot of money.”
Kelkoo is a great case study. It was one, not to say the, success story of the Internet in
The capitalization table and the figures below show the evolution of the numbers. I am aware that these data are dry, tough to read, but if the reader accepts to follow me, he or she may find them of interest. Let us begin by the last table which describes the financing rounds. In 1999, Kelkoo was founded by five individuals (Chappaz, Lopez, Amouroux, Odin and Mercier) and immediately financed by two venture capitalists (“VCs”): Banexi and Innovacom. The two funds provided €1.5M in December 1999 (A round) and then a little more than €4M in March 2000 (B round). There is an important detail to notice: there was a 1 to 50 stock split between the two rounds; it explains the huge difference in the numbers as well as the fact that the price per share of €24.67 of the A round is equivalent to €0.50 after the split. The price per share of the B round was €1.45. The five founders had shared their stock as 1/3 to Chappaz, 1/3 to Lopez and the remaining between the three others. However options were granted to Chappaz and Mercier at B round to give a new founders’ balance. The pies below give therefore different ratios. Dominique Vidal is not a founder but was working with Banexi when Kelkoo was founded. He joined the founders to become a managing director and received initially 338’000 shares. He received more shares with time but the final number is not known (so I make an assumption in his case). Finally a stock-option plan was created to incentivize employees. Those had virtually 19% of the company at round B. We were only in March 2000 and the data are already complex. The capitalization table can be read on the right part with number of shares or on the left part as percent of the company.
(Click on pictures to enlarge or download)
The situation is even more complex with the acquisitions. First DondeCom (
Yahoo bought Kelkoo for €475M meaning a price per share of €5.7 if the reader accepts that the total number of shares is correct. The last column therefore gives the value of their shares for all stockholders (but it does not indicate it much these cost; this cost would have to be deducted to know the profit before tax). I can not be too far from real numbers but as I said with my previous examples (Skype, mysql) these numbers are never sure at 100%. The capital increases are however well described in documents from the register of commerce that I bought for this study. The exact number of exercised shares is however unsure. These documents were my only source of information for this study. The history of Kelkoo is also written in the book “Ils ont réussi leur start-up” at Village Mondial (Pearson
Source: www.euridile.fr
(Click on pictures to enlarge or download)
Is there anything nicer than being interviewed by your Alma Mater. The Stanford School of Engineering asked me why I wrote “Start-Up” and for whom. You will find it on the Stanford SOE web site. I tried to explain that the book is not (only) about the innovation infrastructure which failed in Europe but (mostly) about the need to encourage young individuals in taking more risks. A debate about nature and culture which I develop at length in the book.
Following the mysql case, here is the Skype capitalization. Skype was founded in November 2003 and acquired by eBay in September 2005 for about $2.6B. The deal was complex as it had a cash component as well as an equity one and because there was an upside potential, up to $4B. The SEC document said “Skype shareholders were offered the choice between several consideration options for their shares. Shareholders representing approximately 40% of the Skype shares chose to receive a single payment in cash and eBay stock at the close of the transaction. Shareholders representing the remaining 60% of the Skype shares chose to receive a reduced up-front payment in cash and eBay stock at the close plus potential future earn-out payments which are based on performance-based goals for active users, gross profit and revenue.” In October 2007, eBay announced the final earn-out to be $530M. I consider here the acquisition was $2.6B.
The two founders, Janus Friis (Danish) and Niklas Zennström (Swede) were the previous founders of Kazaa and had created a holding company, Maitland Holdings, which would own their founder’s shares in Skype. It is not clear if other people had shares in Maitland and I made the assumption that the team of Estonian early developers (Toivo Annus, Jaan Tallinn, Pritt Kasesalu and Ahti Heinla) had such shares but it is possible they had options only. Because the sharing is unknown, I plainly assume that the two founders had about 40% each and the Estonians shared equally the remaining 20%. This is not fully consistent with SEC documents where the Estonians seem to have 5.6% of the eBay shares at acquisition. But I could not find hard facts. However the number of common shares, stock options and preferred A and B shares comes from Legilux, the
Skype had two main rounds and also a seed round before the creation of the company (a convertible loan). The Legilux documents help is assuming that Skype raised €600k of seed money in 2002-2003 with Bill Draper and other angels, its first round of €1.5M in Nov. 2003 (led by Mangrove and Bessemer) and a €14.5M B round in March 2004 (led by DFJ and Index Ventures). The number of shares and the amounts in each round imply in each case a specific price per share.
Skype seemed to have a strong board with its investors, Tim Draper (DFJ), Danny Rimer (Index) and Mike Volpi (Cisco). Volpi later became CEO of Joost, Friis and Zennström’s new venture. Skype had about 200 employees at acquisition; its revenues were $7M in 2004 and expected to be $60M in 2005.
Click on pictures to enlarge or download
Sources: SEC, Legilux, Kazaa and Skype, Eestit Ekspress
Next posts: Kelkoo, Addex.
Nurturing Science-based Ventures – An International Case Perspective by Seifert, Ralf W., Leleux, Benoît F., Tucci, Christopher L.
A new book about start-ups has recently been published and it is mainly centered on Swiss (including EPFL) ventures. The authors do indeed have a strong knowledge of this environment as they are faculties from IMD or EPFL. What is unique with this book is that it does not describe success stories only, but also failures or not famous firms. Indeed failures are often better lessons than successes. You do not always know why you succeed and it may be easier to understand a failure. The authors have built their book as a process and describe in detail the development of start-ups; they begin with the opportunity recognition (chapter 1), they follow with writing a business plan (chapter2), financing a start-up (chapter 3), growing a company (chapter 4) to finally harvesting value creation (chapter 5). The final chapter is dedicated to corporate entrepreneurship (“Intra-preneurship”). I have not read it yet (it is more than 700 pages!) but the numerous case studies (more than 20) look rich and detailed. It is not the first book on the subject but it might be the first one with such a focus on European start-ups.
As a follow-up to my recent post on Scandinavia, I begin, with mysql, a series of posts which are close to Chapter 3 “Founders of start-ups”: it is quite interesting to analyze the capitalization table of a start-up at an exit event (IPO or M&A). Entrepreneurs and employees may learn there what to expect in terms of dilution because of investors, stock-option plan.
Let me come back to mysql. In the same way I built data about many success stories in chapter 3 and 8 of “Start-Up”, here is some data point about mysql: mysql (as a project) was formed in 1987 by three founders, two Swedes and a Finn: David Axmark, Allan Larsson and Michael “Monty” Widenius who had worked together in the 80’s. Marten Mickos, their CEO, joined the company in
Year Revenues
2002 $6’500’000
2003 $12’600’000
2004 $20’000’000
2005 $34’000’000
2006 $50’000’000
2007 $75’000’000
The board of the company included strong personalities such as Bernard Liautaud, founder of Business Objects and Tim O’Reilly. Finally, the capitalization table at the time of acquisition is probably not far from the one below. I had to use different (public) sources to build the table but just as with revenues, these numbers might be subject to errors.
Click on pictures to enlarge or download
Next posts should be about Skype, Kelkoo, Addex.
I am not the only one complaining about the weakness of
His comparison table is self-sufficient:
And his analysis of the reasons for problems are:
Finally his conclusions: There is a clear need in
This can be achieved by:
My comment: you can replace
The Stanford Venture Technology Program is one of the best source of info I know about start-ups. In one of their recent newsletter, they mention a video of Vinod Khosla (a co-founder of Sun Microsystems and former venture capitalist with Kleiner Perkins). STVP summarizes his views as follows:
“Launching a start-up is not a rational act. And Vinod Khosla, a partner in Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and former Sun Microsystems CEO, believes that success only comes from those who are foolish enough to think unreasonably. Entrepreneurs need to stretch themselves beyond convention and constraint to reach something extraordinary.”
