The coffee shops of Mayfair

Mass Personalisation and Venture Capital: not just 3D Printers.

One of my Investment themes at Advent is Personalisation.

Why?

eCommerce is clearly one of the few bright spots right now and we’re still in the realm of simple investment stories around backing companies selling stuff online. The Chemist Direct  investment thesis?  The “Superdrug”  of tomorrow.  ASOS?  The Arcadia of tomorrow.  ChainReaction (my personal favourite) is the Halfords of tomorrow. Vente Privee the TKMaxx of tommorrow.  Etc etc.

So we’re getting better and better at selling standard product online.

However, there’s an interesting batch of companies who’ve been funded which I expect to see more and more money chasing: Retailers selling product SKUs of 1. A product that personalised and unique to each purchasers.

How can this stack up?

The web is one low-cost route to market and can be leveraged to offer everyone the tools to create their own products.  The challenge for businesses is getting the back-end right to be able to manufacture and fulfill.

On “simple personalisation” Europe has some excellent first-wave companies.  Spreadhshirt and personalised t-shirts, still growing nicely. Moo.com and cards. Graze.com and healthy food boxes.

What interests me is the second wave of far more complex manufacture & fulfilment or completely new products.  GlassesDirect is a great example: something made specifically for me. Not to mention the operational ball-ache of made to order glasses and the drop shipping challenges of fulfillment.

Tailorstore is another great example: We all want tailored shirts but here’s something made in Asia, and delivered to the UK via Germany, from a business based in Sweden.

There is real innovation here: at the technical, operational, manufacturing and financial level. This is a great playground for die-hard entrepreneurs: intellectual challenges, people saying “it can’t be done”, creative solutions and grinding out deals.

I would love to meet more companies in this sector.

There is also a level beyond this: companies coming up with products that are not currently available.  I love the idea of being able to design a new car online specifically for me or design a new gadget and get it made by a 3d printer.  It’s just I’m not yet convinced this is en-masse right now.  Tell me if I am wrong.

When personalisation goes wrong: an ecommerce story.

"A story of dried mangoes and split yokes"

A key investment theme for me around ecommerce is personalisation.  I have a new post coming on this but a quick bit of background on the sector by way of anecdote. Two examples from recent personal experience:

 

Graze have a beautiful box and bodenesque (innocentesque ?) branding for middle class brits. They also have a very comprehensive online form to fill out so you spend 15 minutes telling them exactly what you do and don’t like so they can tailor it for you.  However my first box arrived and I contained something I hate: Macadamia Nuts.  I cancelled it.  I am sure it was my fault.  I am sure I missed a tick box somewhere.  But the point is that if you raise expectations for a perfect product (which by definition a personalized product is), then too much choice can be negative.  

 

TailorStore solves my problem of over-paying for tailored clothing.  Which is a big problem for me. After a similarly convoluted online form-filling process (but this time involving a measuring tape, my wife, an old shirt and a mirror) I got a shirt ordered.  However when the shirt came, the shirt did not fit.  A bit of forensic investigation revealed an error in one of their pictures on how to measure for a shirt.  This was their fault and after an awful customer service episode I have a credit note, but the point here is that there is a now a useless shirt on my shelf that has pissed me off and destroyed the margins of Tailorstore.

 

As an investor this is another area of caution for personalisation businesses: Returns can completely alter the profitability of a standard ecommerce operation but when you can’t sell the returns on…

Thefunded.com: Empty vessels make the most noise

There's a bit of a hoo-haa right now about the impact of thefunded.com. See here.

I would claim I am in a pretty unique position to comment on this story.  For 5 years I worked with a series of start ups with, amongst others things, the job of raising VC for them (Glasses Direct, Reevoo, Rawflow, Zeus, OmniPerception).  I negotiated with numerous VCs and sat in hundreds of pitches. Literally.

I have seen the good the bad and the ugly of VCs.  Nowadays, on the other side of the fence I see the good, bad and ugly of entrepreneurs.

Adeo Ressi (CEO of thefunded) claims to have two main aims: To make the funding process easier “entrepreneurs should pitch to 10 firms at once, closing in 2 months, having reasonable economic terms.  none are true now” (I think this is factually incorrect). Secondly he aims to get a wider breadth of firms funded. 

Lofty ideals indeed.   Let’s analyze the two things he’s doing:
1)    Giving presentations advising entrepreneurs on how to raise funding
2)    Running thefunded.com

Giving Presentations

Giving useful advice to entrepreneurs is great.  Especially if it is sage advice from people who’ve done it before. Even better if its fresh from the current market.

•    Lots of what Adeo presents is fundraising 101.  It is a useful footnote to the great stuff from the likes of Guy Kawasaki .

•    Some of what Adeo presents is good: Stuff like “its OK to walk away from a VC offer you don’t like, run fundraising discussions in parallel not in series, try and get multiple offers” etc.

•    Some of what Adeo presents is plain wrong.  For example the stuff about VCs deliberately trashing companies they want to invest in, or a rule on only ever pitching to general partners.

•    Some of what Adeo presents is dangerous. For example “always go for a 20% option pool” or “ never give two board seats”. All companies are different and this “advice” is woeful.

So my advice to entrepreneurs when listening to Adeo’s current presentation on the conference circuit is to listen with interest, don’t take it as gospel, and get some advice from someone who really knows what they are doing.

TheFunded.com

This is a vibrant community that aims to help entrepreneurs raise money.  That’s a great aim.  I also like the way its bringing more transparency & visibility to the VC industry which despite all the efforts from VCs  (most notably Saul Klein) remains a tough world to get your head round. 

My central problem with thefunded is that it doesn’t actually help entrepreneurs that much.  At best it’s something to use after you have made a long list of people to go and talk to.  At worst it’s a stack of incredibly subjective views that are plain wrong.

Why isn't much use? Accuracy. The wisdom of crowds needs a crowd.  The US VC market isn't massive. By comparison, Europe is small.

I will save the long essay till another day, so here are some bullets:

•    Some VCs can be very difficult in meetings.  This ranges from mild arrogance through to yawning, falling asleep or being proactively obnoxious.  Some VCs need to pull their socks up and thefunded.com helps with this.

•    However, some VCs see aggressive questioning as part of their selection criteria. Its not my style but I know some VCs, who have helped their entrepreneurs make a lot of money, who aren’t the easiest of people to deal with.

•    Just because a VC is rude in first meeting, doesn't mean they won't add lots of value when on your board. Being a VC requires a range of skill sets: analyzing strategy, negotiating contracts, making intros, running acquisitions, leveraging brand. The funded.com doesn’t give much insight into this.

•    One meeting wonders.  The problem with thefunded.com is that it gives poor execs who crash after one meeting a disproportionately louder voice than those who have had 2 years of experience. For example, I doubt that the Skype guys have written on the site? 

•    VCs say “no” more than “yes”.  Some people simply don’t like to be told “no”.  To quote venturebeat; “VCs say “no” to a lot more entrepreneurs who request backing than they say “yes” to, which suggests the ratio of critical reviewers to positive reviews will be quite high.”

•    There’s a theory in VC land that the noisiest entrepreneurs who complain most about investors “not getting it” are only those who didn’t get funded.  I wonder if there’s a link there….?

So this post has been inspired by a question from Mike Butcher on twitter musing if thefunded would kill the European VC scene.

My response is that there is not a cat in hell’s chance.

It’s a useful tool in that it gives a bit more visibility to a sometimes impenetrable industry.  It’s also nice to see a bit more power with the execs.

But it scares me that entrepreneurs will read the funded .com and either believe it to be truly representative or treat it as proper advice.  This is very far away from the wisdom of crowds.

Right.  I’m off to try and persuade some investee CEOs to stop focusing on executing the business plan and instead write reviews of VCs on thefunded.com (ahem)

The Post-Google VC

I have been spending some time with some great entrepreneurs across Europe as part of the FOWA Road Trip and yesterday in Copenhagen was no exception.

In particular it was great spending some time with Nikolaj Nyholm and Nicolaj Reffstrup.

Nikolaj Nyholm made one comment to an entrepreneur which really resonated with me.  To paraphrase:

“You need to raise money from a post-Google VC.  An investor who has lead a company in the last 5 years since Google has been so dominant.”

At one level this is another contribution to the discussion of what makes a great VC (I will leave that one to Fred et al.)

It is, however, of far more significance for entrepreneurs with a web app or offering.

Working for Reevoo and Glasses Direct, both very different businesses, taught me the significance of distribution, and the dominance of Google.  Some examples:

You need first rate SEO?  That will be >£100k p/a for a 19 year old whiz kid.  Someone who will be impossible to manage but can transform your business with organic traffic.

You need to bolster traffic in certain niches?  That’ll be a potentially bottomless pit of adword spending.  (Particularly true if you’re late to a competitive market: look at the differential in adword spend between gocompare, moneysupermarket and confused)

That’s not to mention the possibility of Google using some of their warchest of come after your particular market.

Many entrepreneurs are so focussing on building such a great offering that they also assume virality of distribution is inherent or inevitable.  Unfortunately its not that easy, and Nikolaj is dead right to warn that getting help from people who “get it” is crucial.