Getting Back Into Web 2.0 Biz…Maybe

By admin January 19th, 2006

After about an year of being a Web 2.0 spectator, I’m thinking of getting back into the Web 2.0 “building” biz. Yes, that means a startup. I’m not sure when, although I do have a few ideas floating around in my head but I know it’s going to happen. Well, maybe. Seriously, you will never experience Web 2.0 until you are Web 2.0 which takes some guts and I’ve seen too many people just talking the talk to be one of them.

So, I plan to have a startup by August and get acquired by December. Just kidding. I have no fixed plans as such but yes, if I do have a startup by August (IF), I know the last thing I’ll do is get acquired..again. So anyway, I wanted to make this post to list a few things I’ve learned about Web 2.0 and being a company (just by being a spectator). This is all by merely following this industry and listening to all the things some cool people have to say.

Interface first, backend second.
Getting acquired too soon means you have to give up the idea of being the next Google or Yahoo!
Hire less, do more, make more, in the end share less.
VCs are bad. They don’t care about you, they just want your acquisition dollars.
~~Hire the best, start from the worst.~~ Hire the good, make them better.
Avoid being stereotyped as a typical Web 2.0 company. Seriously, AVOID IT.
Fill in a niche, but do so differently than other attempts to fill that niche.
Don’t give up your day-job. Use the money from your day-job to fund your project. Only team up with folks who are willing to do this as well.
The [acquisition] bubble may burst anytime… so be ready.
Don’t try desperately to “have a voice” in the industry. If you do, you just look stupid and like a try-hard.
Keep it simple, yet do the most advanced things. Probably my most important one.
Keep up with your competitors, but don’t copy them or get inspired by them.
Don’t spend money promoting your product (and that too in something like Google AdWords). Don’t. You look like one of those spammy companies just looking to make money with their third-class product.
Keep it as free as possible, but be smart to make money off of the most money-making things. Oh, and decide this from the start.
Start hiring only when you start making unless you want to declare yourself bankrupt.
Don’t attend conferences where there is politics. Attend those which will get you more contacts.
Give what the users want, not what your programmers or designers think is cool.
Don’t self-promote. You look like a loser.
Don’t go with the beta tag unless you want to seriously get bashed and stereotyped as a typical Web 2.0 company.
Talk with your competitors about partnerships, not “you don’t have this feature”.
Don’t try to act as a cool company which eventually everyone figures out isn’t. Try to act like a smart one which no one bothers to figure out.

As you can see, this list can go on and on (I did have a couple more) but my point is that don’t follow this list. Yes, don’t. Make up your own and follow that. People who follow other peoples’ beliefs are just copy-cats (another point).

Seth

Good list. I agree, mostly. A few comments:

FWIW you’ve made my mind up on whether we go with the “BETA” tag or not when we launch

What do you mean by “Start from the worst”? I think you should start with good people and try to keep hiring good people, but trying to find “the best” is pretty hard. Hire good people and make them better is my policy.

I think once you get into the Fortune 100 it’s ok to stop being cool and just be smart. But I admire Google for so many things that they do – they were cool when they started, and I’m inclined to think they’re still at least moderately cool, they just have a few more suits getting in the way of being cool now they’ve gone public.

I think the world has become a bit more free and democratic because of Google’s superior technology and their relative lack of evil. That’s pretty cool.

However, building and milking their advertiser base is just the obvious thing for them to do now.

They can keep doing cool stuff at the same time, it’s just that someone inside google will always be trying to figure out where the best point is to inject advertising into the cool stuff. And if there’s no way to get advertising into it, it is unlikely to ever get past labs.google.com – and if it might actually _hurt_ their advertising revenue stream it won’t even _make_ it onto labs.google.com

I don’t think VC is a black and white issue. It all depends on the people involved, and the company in general. Google taking VC didn’t seem to hurt them!

Anyway, enough about Google. One last comment:

My personal experience has been that trying to build a product while maintaining a client base was a hassle, I think if you can get some angel investment under your belt instead that’s a worthwhile option. It depends largely on what sort of clients you have, I expect, and how good you are at multitasking.
http://www.rev2.org Sid Yadav

I think I agree 101% about the “hire good people, make them better” point and therefore I’ve edited my original post.

VCs didn’t do Google even a tad bit of harm, I agree, but we have to realise that:
(a) That was Web 1.0 before the bubble burst.
(b) Those guys were really poor when they started off. They needed them.

My point about VCs which connects to a couple of other points I made is that don’t take VCs alone, who just sit at home watching TV and asking their agent for advice. Take VCs which actually will DO something to your company, eg. benefit from it in someway except for the money. Be involved, is what I’m looking for. Not just ‘visit the office every week to see how it’s all going’ but put their ass on the line on the day-to-day basis. That shows a successful company. Of course, the second best thing to do would be not to take VCs as a whole but be your own VC if you have that much money. Also, if you’re going to take VCs which sit at home, I would suggest that you take the LEAST POSSIBLE amount from them. If, say, you turn out to be the next Google, seriously, you’d be regretting every dollar you took.

As for Google and cool, I agree on the most part, but, they’re just making it so obvious these days that it’s sort of annoying. It’s essentially erased my whole belief of ‘Google is cool’ that I used to think, say a few months ago. $1 billion in acquiring 400,000 clients to switch to AdWords. What does that tell you? From the article itself: (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/technology/18google.html?ex=1295240400&en=9ee019a08e1ea37c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

“It plans to integrate dMarc into its existing advertising system so that its 400,000 advertisers will be able to place radio ads in addition to those that appear on Google search results pages and the other Web sites where it sells ads.”

Oh god, that makes it so obvious. It doesn’t only show that a company like Google only cares about the money (400,000 x 1000 each = $4 billion. That’s 4 times more of what they’ll pay) but also tells you Google’s strategy both in the long and short-term. It spells it out for you. Now that’s not exactly what I’d call cool. That’s what I’d call “rip-off” to me as a Google-believer.

Much appreciate your comment, either way.

Rev2.org