November 2020 - Tape Sucks: Inside Data Domain, A Silicon Valley Growth Story by Frank Slootman

This month we read a short, under-discussed book by current Snowflake and former ServiceNow and Data Domain CEO, Frank Slootman. The book is just like Frank - direct and unafraid. Frank has had success several times in the startup world and the story of Data Domain provides a great case study of entrepreneurship. Data Domain was a data deduplication company, offering a 20:1 reduction of data backed up to tape casettes by using new disk drive technology.

Tech Themes

Data Domain’s 2008 10-K prior to being acquired

First time CEO at a Company with No Revenue. Frank is an immigrant to the US, coming from the Netherlands shortly after graduating from the University of Rotterdam. After being rejected by IBM 10+ times, he joined Burroughs corporation, an early mainframe provider which subsequently merged with its direct competitor Sperry for $4.8B in 1986. Frank then spent some time at Compuware and moved back to the Netherlands to help it integrate the acquisition of Uniface, an early customizable report building software. After spending time there, he went to Borland software in 1997, working his way up the product management ranks but all the while being angered by time spent lobbying internally, rather than building. Frank joined Data Domain in the Spring of 2003 - when it had no customers, no revenue, and was burning cash. The initial team and VC’s were impressive - Kai Li, a computer science professor on sabbatical from Princeton, Ben Zhu, an EIR at USVP, and Brian Biles, a product leader with experience at VA Linux and Sun Microsystems. The company was financed by top-tier VC’s New Enterprise Associates and Greylock Partners, with Aneel Bhusri (Founder and current CEO of Workday) serving as initial CEO and then board chairman. This was a stacked team and Slootman knew it: “I’d bring down the average IQ of the company by joining, which felt right to me.” The Company had been around for 18 months and already burned through a significant amount of money when Frank joined. He knew he needed to raise money relatively soon after joining and put the Company’s chances bluntly: “Would this idea really come together and captivate customers? Nobody knew. We, the people on the ground floor, were perhaps, the most surprised by the extraordinary success we enjoyed.”
Playing to his Strengths: Capital Efficiency. One of the big takeaways from the Innovators by Walter Issacson was that individuals or teams at the nexus of disciplines - primarily where the sciences meet the humanities, often achieved breakthrough success. The classic case study for this is Apple - Steve Jobs had an intense love of art, music, and design and Steve Wozniak was an amazing technologist. Frank has cultivated a cross-discipline strength at the intersection of Sales and Technology. This might be driven by Slootman’s background is in economics. The book has several references to economic terms, which clearly have had an impact on Frank’s thinking. Data Domain espoused capital efficiency: “We traveled alone, made few many-legged sales calls, and booked cheap flights and hotels: everybody tried to save a dime for the company.” The results showed - the business went from $800K of revenue in 2004 to $275 million by 2008, generating $75M in cash flow from operations. Frank’s capital efficiency was interesting and broke from traditional thinking - most people think to raise a round and build something. Frank took a different approach: “When you are not yet generating revenue, conservation of resource is the dominant theme.” Over time, “when your sales activity is solidly paying for itself,” the spending should shift from conservative to aggressive (like Snowflake is doing this now). The concept of sales efficiency is somewhat talked about, but given the recent fundraising environment, is often dismissed. Sales efficiency can be thought of as: “How much revenue do I generate for every $1 spent in sales and marketing?” Looking at the P&L below, we see Data Domain was highly efficient in its sales and marketing activity - the company increased revenue $150M in 2008, despite spending $115M in sales and marketing (a ratio of 1.3x). Contrast this with a company like Slack which spent $403M to acquire $230M of new revenue (a ratio of 0.6x). It gets harder to acquire customers at scale, so this efficiency is supposed to come down over time but best in class is hopefully above 1x. Frank clearly understands when to step on the gas with investing, as both ServiceNow and Snowflake have remained fairly efficient (from a sales perspective at least) while growing to a significant scale.
Technology for Technology’s Sake. “Many technologies are conceived without a clear, precise notion of the intended use.” Slootman hits on a key point and one that the tech industry has struggled to grasp throughout its history. So many products and companies are established around budding technology with no use case. We’ve discussed Magic Leap’s fundraising money-pit (still might find its way), and Iridium Communications, the massive satellite telephone that required people to carry a suitcase around to use it. Gartner, the leading IT research publication (which is heavily influenced by marketing spend from companies) established the Technology Hype Cycle, complete with the “Peak of inflated expectations,” and the “Trough of Disillusionment” for categorizing technologies that fail to live up to their promise. There have been several waves that have come and gone: AR/VR, Blockchain, and most recently, Serverless. Its not so much that these technologies were wrong or not useful, its rather that they were initially described as a panacea to several or all known technology hindrances and few technologies ever live up to that hype. Its common that new innovations spur tons of development but also lots of failure, and this is Slootman’s caution to entrepreneurs. Data Domain was attacking a problem that existed already (tape storage) and the company provided what Clayton Christensen would call a sustaining innovation (something that Slootman points out). Whenever things go into “winter state”, like the internet after the dot-com bubble, or the recent Crpyto Winter which is unthawing as I write; it is time to pay attention and understand the relevance of the innovation.

Business Themes

Importance of Owning Sales. Slootman spends a considerable amount of this small book discussing sales tactics and decision making, particularly with respect to direct sales and OEM relationships. OEM deals are partnerships with other companies whereby one company will re-sell the software, hardware, or service of another company. Crowdstrike is a popular product with many OEM relationships. The Company drives a significant amount of its sales through its partner model, who re-sell on behalf of Crowdstrike. OEM partnerships with big companies present many challenges: “First of all, you get divorced from your customer because the OEM is now between you and them, making customer intimacy challenging. Plus, as the OEM becomes a large part of your business, for all intents and purposes they basically own you without paying for the privilege…Never forget that nobody wants to sell your product more than you do.” The challenges don’t end there. Slootman points out that EMC discarded their previous OEM vendor in the data deduplication space, right after acquiring Data Domain. On top of that, the typical reseller relationship happens at a 10-20% margin, degrading gross margins and hurting ability to invest. It is somewhat similar to the challenges open-source companies like MongoDB and Elastic have run into with their core software being…free. Amazon can just OEM their offering and cut them out as a partner, something they do frequently. Partner models can be sustainable, but the give and take from the big company is a tough balance to strike. Investors like organic adoption, especially recently with the rise of freemium SaaS models percolating in startups. Slootman’s point is that at some point in enterprise focused businesses, the Company must own direct sales (and relationships) with its customers to drive real efficiency. After the low cost to acquire freemium adopters buy the product, the executive team must pivot to traditional top down enterprise sales to drive a successful and enduring relationship with the customer.
In the Thick of Things. Slootman has some very concise advice for CEOs: be a fighter, show some humanity, and check your ego at the door. “Running a startup reduces you to your most elementary instincts, and survival is on your mind most of the time…The CEO is the ‘Chief Combatant,’ warrior number one.” Slootman views the role of CEO as a fighter, ready to be the first to jump into the action, at all times. And this can be incredibly productive for business as well. Tony Xu, the founder and CEO of Doordash, takes time out every month to do delivery for his own company, in order to remain close to the customer and the problems of the company. Jeff Bezos famously still responds and views emails from customers at jeff@amazon.com. Being CEO also requires a willingness to put yourself out there and show your true personality. As Slootman puts it: “People can instantly finger a phony. Let them know who you really are, warts and all.” As CEO you are tasked with managing so many people and being involved in all aspects of the business, it is easy to become rigid and unemotional in everyday interactions. Harvard Business School professor and former leader at Uber distills it down to a simple phrase: “Begin With Trust.” All CEO’s have some amount of ego, driving them to want to be at the top of their organization. Slootman encourages CEO’s to be introspective, and try to recognize blind spots, so ego doesn’t drive day-to-day interactions with employees. One way to do that is simple: use the pronoun “we” when discussing the company you are leading. Though Slootman doesn’t explicitly call it out - all of these suggestions (fighting, showing empathy, getting rid of ego) are meant to build trust with employees.
R-E-C-I-P-E for a Great Culture. The last fifth of the book is all focused on building culture at companies. It is the only topic Slootman stays on for more than a few chapters, so you know its important! RECIPE was an acronym created by the employees at Data Domain to describe the company’s values: Respect, Excellence, Customer, Integrity, Performance, Execution. Its interesting how simple and focused these values are. Technology has pushed its cultural delusion’s of grandeur to an extreme in recent years. The WeWork S-1 hilariously started with: “We are a community company committed to maximum global impact. Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness.” But none of Data Domain’s values were about changing the world to be a better place - they were about doing excellent, honest work for customers. Slootman is lasered focused on culture, and specifically views culture as an asset - calling it: “The only enduring, sustainable form of differentiation. These days, we don’t have a monopoly for very long on talent, technology, capital, or any other asset; the one thing that is unique to us is how we choose to come together as a group of people, day in and day out. How many organizations are there that make more than a halfhearted attempt at this?” Technology companies have taken different routes in establishing culture: Google and Facebook have tried to create culture by showering employees with unbelievable benefits, Netflix has focused on pure execution and transparency, and Microsoft has re-vamped its culture by adopting a Growth Mindset (has it really though?). Google originally promoted “Don’t be evil,” as part of its Code of Conduct but dropped the motto in 2018. Employees want to work for mission-driven organizations, but not all companies are really changing the world with their products, and Frank did not try to sugarcoat Data Domain’s data-duplication technology as a way to “elevate the world’s consciousness.” He created a culture driven by performance and execution - providing a useful product to businesses that needed it. The culture was so revered that post-acquisition, EMC instituted Data Domain’s performance management system. Data Domain employees were looked at strangely by longtime EMC executives, who had spent years in a big and stale company. Culture is a hard thing to replicate and a hard thing to change as we saw with the Innovator’s Dilemma. Might as well use it to help the company succeed!

Dig Deeper

August 2020 - Venture Deals by Brad Feld and Jason Mendelson

This month we checked out an excellent book for founders, investors, and those interested in private company financings. The book hits on a lot of the key business and legal terms that aren’t discussed in typical startup books, making it useful no matter what stage of the entrepreneurial journey you are on.

Tech Themes

The Rise of Founder Friendly VC. Writing on his blog, Feld Thoughts, which was the original genesis for Venture Deals, Brad Feld mentioned that: “From 2010 forward, the entire VC market shifted into a mode that many describe as ‘founder friendly.’ Investor reputation mattered at both the angel and VC level.” In the 80’s and 90’s, because there was so little competition among venture capital firms, it was common for firms to dictate terms to company founders. The VC firms were the ones with the cash, and the founders didn’t have many options to choose from. If you wanted to build a big, profitable, public company, the only way to get there was by taking venture capital money. This trend started to unwind during the internet bubble, when founders started to maintain more and more of their businesses before the IPO. In fact, as this Harvard Business Review article points out, it was actually common to fire the founder/CEO prior to a public offering in favor of more seasoned leaders. This trend was bucked by Netscape, which eschewed traditional wisdom, going public less than a year from founding, with an unprofitable business. The Netscape IPO was clearly a royal coming-together of technology history. Tracing it all the way back - George Winthrop Fairchild started IBM in 1911; in the late 50’s, Arthur Rock convinced Fairchild’s son, Sherman to fund the traitorous eight (eight employees who left competitor Shockley Semiconductor) to start Fairchild Semiconductor; Eugene Kleiner (one of the traitorous eight) starts Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm that eventually invested in Netscape. Kleiner Perkins would also invest in Google (frequently regarded as one of the best and riskiest startup investments ever). Google was the first internet company to go public with a dual-class share structure where the founders would own a disproportionate amount of the voting rights of the company. Marc Andreessen, the founder of Netscape, loved this idea and eventually launched his own venture capital firm called Andreessen Horowitz, which ushered in a new generation of founder-friendly investing. At one point Andreessen was even quoted saying: “It is unsafe to go public today without a dual-class share structure.” Some notable companies with dual class shares include several Andreessen companies such as Facebook, Zynga, Box, and Lyft. Recently some have questioned whether founder friendly terms have pushed too far with some major flameouts from companies with the structure including Theranos, WeWork, and Uber.
How to Raise Money. Feld has several recommendations for fundraising that are important including having a target round size, demo, financial projections, and VC syndicate. Feld contends that CEOs who offer a range of varying round sizes to VC’s don’t really understand their business goals and use of proceeds. By having a concrete round size it shows that the CEO understands roughly how much money it will take to get to the next milestone or said another way, it shows the CEO understands the runway (in months) needed to build that new product or feature. It shows command of the financing and vision of the business. Feld encourages founders to provide a demo, because: “while never required, many investors respond to things we can play with, so even if you are an early stage company, a prototype or demo is desirable.” Beyond the explicit point here, the demo shows confidence in the product and at least some ability to sell, which is obviously a key aspect in eventually scaling the business. Another aspect of scaling the business is the financial model, but as Feld states, “the only thing that can be known about a pre-revenue company’s financial projections is that they are wrong.” While the numbers are meaningless for really early stage companies, for those that have a few customers it can be helpful to get a sense of long-term gross margins and aspects of the company you hope to invest in and / or change over time. Lastly, Feld gives advice for building a VC syndicate, or group of VC investors. Frequently lead investors will commit a certain dollar amount of the round, and it will be up to the founder/CEO to go find a way to build out the round. This can be incredibly challenging as detailed by Moz founder, Rand Fishkin, who thought he had a deal in hand only to see it be taken away. There are multiple bids in the VC fundraising process, one called an indication of interest, which is non-binding and normally provides a range on valuation, one called a letter of intent, which is slightly more detailed and may include legal terms of the deal such as board representation, liquidation preference, and governance terms, and then final legal documentation. A lot of time, the early bids can be withdrawn based off of poor market feedback or when a company misses its financial projections (like Moz did in its process). Understanding the process and the materials needed to complete the deal is helpful at setting expectations for founders.
Warrants, SPACs, and IPOs. With SPACMania in full-swing, we wanted to dive into SPACs and see how they work. We’ve discussed SPACs before, with regards to Chamath’s Social Capital merger with Virgin Galactic. But how do traditional SPAC financings work and why is there a rush of famous people, such as LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, to raise them? A SPAC or Specialty Purpose Acquisition Company is a blank-check company which goes public with the goal of acquiring a business, thereby taking it public. SPACs can be focused on industry or size of company and they are most frequently led by operational leaders and / or private equity firms. The reason SPACs have been gaining in popularity is that public markets investors are seeking more risk and a few high profile SPAC deals, namely DraftKings and Nikola, have traded better than expected. Most companies that are going public today are older, more mature businesses, and the public markets have been generally favorable to somewhat suspect ventures (Nikola is an electric truck company that has never produced a single truck, but is worth $14B on hype alone). VC firms and companies see the ability to get outsized returns on their investments because so many people are clamoring to find returns above the basically 0% offered by treasury bonds. The S&P 500 P/E ratio is now at around 26x compared to a historical average around 16x, meaning the market seems to be overvalued compared to prior times. SPACs typically come with an odd structure. A unit in a SPAC normally consists of one common share of stock and one warrant, which is the ability to purchase shares for $0.01 after a SPAC merges with its target company. The founders of the SPAC also receive founder shares, normally 20% of the business. Once the target is found, SPACs will often coordinate a PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity), where a large private investor will invest mainly primary (cash to the balance sheet) capital into the business. This has emerged as a hip, new alternative to traditional IPOs, keeping with the theme of innovation in public offerings like direct listings, however, its unclear that this really benefits the company going public. Often the merged companies are the subject of substantial dilution by the SPAC sponsors and PIPE investors, lowering the overall equity piece management maintains. However, given the somewhat high valuations companies are receiving in the public markets (Zoom at 80x+ LTM Revenue, Shopify at 59x LTM Revenue), it may be worth the dilution.

Business Themes

How VC’s Make Money. In VC, the typical fund structure includes a general partnership (GP) and limited partners (LPs). The GP is the investors at the VC firm and the limited partners are the institutional investors that provide the money for the VC firm to invest. A typical structure involves the GP investing 1% of their own money (99% comes from LPs) and then getting paid an annual 2% management fee as well as 20% carried interest, or the profit made from investments. Using the example from the book: “Start with the $100 million fund. Assume that it's a successful fund and returns 3× the capital, or $300 million. In this case, the first $100 million goes back to the LPs, and the remaining profit, or $200 million, is split 80 percent to the LPs and 20 percent to the GPs. The VC firm gets $40 million in carried interest and the LPs get the remaining $160 million. And yes, in this case everyone is very happy.” Understanding how investors make money can help the entrepreneur better understand why VC’s pressure companies. As Feld points out, sometimes VC’s are trying to raise a new fund or have invested the majority of the fund already and thus do not care as much about some investments.
Growth at all costs. There has been a concerted focus in VC on the get big quick motto. Nobody better exemplifies this than Masayoshi Son and the $100B VC his firm Softbank raised a few years ago. With notable big bets on current losers like WeWork and Oyo, which are struggling during this pandemic, its unclear whether this motto remains true. Eric Paley, a Managing Partner at Founder Collective, expertly quantifies the potential downsides of a risk-it-all strategy: “Investors today have overstuffed venture funds, and lots of capital is sloshing around the startup ecosystem. As a result, young startups with strong teams, compelling products and limited traction can find themselves with tens of millions of dollars, but without much real validation of their businesses. We see venture investors eagerly investing $20 million into a promising company, valuing it at $100 million, even if the startup only has a few million in net revenue. Now the investors and the founders have to make a decision — what should determine the speed at which this hypothetical company, let’s call it “Fuego,” invests its treasure chest of money in the amazing opportunity that motivated the investors? The investors’ goal over the next roughly 24 months is for the company to become worth at least three times the post-money valuation — so $300 million would be the new target pre-money valuation for Fuego’s next financing. Imagine being a company with only a few million in sales, with a success hurdle for your next round of $300 million pre-money. Whether the startup’s model is working or not, the mantra becomes ‘go big or go home.’” This issue is key when negotiating term sheets with investors and understanding board dynamics. As Feld calls out: “The voting control issues in the early stage deals are only amplified as you wrestle with how to keep control of your board when each lead investor per round wants a board seat. Either you can increase your board size to seven, nine, or more people (which usually effectively kills a well-functioning board), or more likely the board will be dominated by investors.” As an entrepreneur, you need to be cognizant of the pressure VC firms will put on founders to grow at high rates, and this pressure is frequently applied by a board. Often late stage startups have 10 people+ on their board. UiPath, a private venture-backed startup that has raised over $1B and is valued at $10B, has 12 people on its board. With all of the different firms having their own goals, boards can become ineffective. Whenever startups are considering fundraising, it’s important to realize the person you are raising from will be an ongoing member of the company and voice on the board and will most likely push for growth.
Liquidation Preference. One of the least talked about terms in venture capital among startup circles is liquidation preference. Feld describes liquidation preference as: “a certain multiple of the original investment per share is returned to the investor before the common stock receives any consideration.” Startup culture has tended to view fundraises as stamps of approval and success, but thats not always the case. As the book discusses, preference can lead to very negative outcomes for founders and employes. For example, let’s say a company at $10M in revenue raises $100 million with a 1x liquidation preference at a $400 million pre-money valuation ($500M post money). The company is pressured by its VCs to grow quickly but it has issues with product market fit and go to market; five years go by and the company is at $15M in revenue. At this point the VCs are not interested in funding any more, and the board decides to try to sell the company. A buyer offers $80 million and the board accepts it. At this point, all $80M has to go back to the original investors who had the 1x liquidation preference. All of the common stockholders and the founders, get nothing. Its not the desired outcome by any means, but its important to know. Some companies have not heeded this advice and continued to raise at massive valuations including Notion which has raised $10M at a $800 million valuation, despite being rumored to be around $15M in revenue. The company raised at a $1.6B valuation (an obvious 2x) after being rumored to be at $30M in revenue. While not taking dilution is nice as a founder, it also sets up a massive hurdle for the company and seriously cramps returns. A 3x return (which is low for VC investors) means selling the company for $4.8B, which is no small feat.

Dig Deeper

March 2020 - The Hard Thing About Hard Things by Ben Horowitz

Ben Horowitz, GP of the famous investment fund Andreessen Horowitz, addresses the not-so-pleasant aspects of being a founder/CEO during a crisis. This book provides an excellent framework for anyone going through the struggles of scaling a business and dealing with growing pains.

Tech Themes

The importance of Netscape. Now that its been relegated to history by the rise of AOL and internet explorer, its hard to believe that Netscape was ever the best web browser. Founded by Marc Andreessen, who had founded the first web browser, Mosaic (as a teenager!), Netscape would go on to achieve amazing success only to blow up in the face of competition and changes to internet infrastructure. Netscape was an incredible technology company, and as Brian McCullough shows in last month’s TBOTM, Netscape was the posterchild for the internet bubble. But for all the fanfare around Netscape’s seminal IPO, little is discussed about its massive and longstanding technological contributions. In 1995, early engineer Brendan Eich created Javascript, which still stands as the dominant front end language for the web. In the same year, the Company developed Secure Socket Layer (SSL), the most dominant basic internet security protocol (and reason for HTTPS). On top of those two fundamental technologies, Netscape also developed the internet cookie, in 1994! Netscape is normally discussed as the amazing company that ushered many of the first internet users onto the web, but its rarely lauded for its longstanding technological contributions. Ben Horowitz, author of the Hard Thing About Hard Things was an early employee and head of the server business unit for Netscape when it went public.
Executing a pivot. Famous pivots have become part of startup lore whether it be in product (Glitch (video game) —> Slack (chat)), business model (Netflix DVD rental —> Streaming), or some combo of both (Snowdevil (selling snowboards online) —> Shopify (ecommerce tech)). The pivot has been hailed as necessary tool in every entrepreneur’s toolbox. Though many are sensationalized, the pivot Ben Horowitz underwent at LoudCloud / Opsware is an underrated one. LoudCloud was a provider of web hosting services and managed services for enterprises. The Company raised a boatload ($346M) of money prior to going public in March 2001, after the internet bubble had already burst. The Company was losing a lot of money and Ben knew that the business was on its last legs. After executing a 400 person layoff, he sold the managed services part of the business to EDS, a large IT provider, for $63.5M. LoudCloud had a software tool called Opsware that it used to manage all of the complexities of the web hosting business, scaling infrastructure with demand and managing compliance in data centers. After the sale was executed, the company’s stock fell to $0.35 per share, even trading below cash, which meant the markets viewed the Company as already bankrupt. The acquisition did something very important for Ben and the Opsware team, it bought them time - the Company had enough cash on hand to execute until Q4 2001 when it had to be cash flow positive. To balance out these cash issues, Opsware purchased Tangram, Rendition Networks, and Creekpath, which were all software vendors that helped manage the software of data centers. This had two effects - slowing the burn (these were profitable companies), and building a substantial product offering for data center providers. Opsware started making sales and the stock price began to tick up, peaking the attention of strategic acquirers. Ultimately it came down to BMC Software and HP. BMC offered $13.25 per share, the Opsware board said $14, BMC countered with $13.50 and HP came in with a $14.25 offer, a 38% premium to the stock price and a total valuation of $1.6B, which the board could not refuse. The Company changed business model (services —> software), made acquisitions and successfully exited, amidst a terrible environment for tech companies post-internet bubble.
The Demise of the Great HP. Hewlett-Packard was one of the first garage-borne, silicon valley technology companies. The company was founded in Palo Alto by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard in 1939 as a provider of test and measurement instruments. Over the next 40 years, the company moved into producing some of the best printers, scanners, calculators, logic analyzers, and computers in the world. In the 90s, HP continued to grow its product lines in the computing space, and executed a spinout of its manufacturing / non-computing device business in 1999. 1999 marks the tragic beginning of the end for HP. The first massive mistake was the acquisition of Compaq, a flailing competitor in the personal computer market, who had acquired DEC (a losing microprocessor company), a few years earlier. The acquisition was heavily debated, with Walter Hewlett, son of the founder and board director at the time, engaging in a proxy battle with then current CEO, Carly Firorina. The new HP went on to lose half of its market value and incur heavy job losses that were highly publicized. This started a string of terrible acquisitions including EDS, 3COM, Palm Inc., and Autonomy for a combined $28.8B. The Company spun into two divisions - HP Inc. and HP Enterprise in 2015 and each had their own spinouts and mergers from there (Micro Focus and DXC Technology). Today, HP Inc. sells computers and printers, and HPE sells storage, networking and server technology. What can be made of this sad tale? HP suffered from a few things. First, poor long term direction - in hindsight their acquisitions look especially terrible as a repeat series of massive bets on technology that was already being phased out due to market pressures. Second, HP had horrible corporate governance during the late 90s and 2000s - board in-fighting over acquisitions, repeat CEO fiirings over cultural issues, chairman-CEO’s with no checks, and an inability to see the outright fraud in their Autonomy acquisition. Lastly, the Company saw acquisitions and divestitures as band-aids - new CEO entrants Carly Fiorina (from AT&T), Mark Hurd (from NCR), Leo Apotheker (from SAP), and Meg Whitman (from eBay) were focused on making an impact at HP which meant big acquisitions and strategic shifts. Almost none of these panned out, and the repeated ideal shifts took a toll on the organization as the best talent moved elswehere. Its sad to see what has happened at a once-great company.

Business Themes

Ill, not sick: going public at the end of the internet bubble. Going public is supposed to be the culmination of a long entrepreneurial journey for early company employees, but according to Ben Horowitz’s experience, going public during the internet bubble pop was terrible. Loudcloud had tried to raise money privately but struggled given the terrible conditions for raising money at the beginning of 2001. Its not included in the book but the reason the Company failed to raise money was its obscene valuation and loss. The Company was valued at $1.15B in its prior funding round and could only report $6M in Net Revenue on a $107M loss. The Company sought to go public at $10 per share ($700M valuation), but after an intense and brutal roadshow that left Horowitz physically sick, they settled for $6.00 per share, a massive write-down from the previous round. The fact that the banks were even able to find investors to take on this significant risk at this point in the business cycle was a marvel. Timing can be crucial in an IPO as we saw during the internet bubble; internet “businesses” could rise 4-5x on their first trading day because of the massive and silly web landgrab in the late 90s. On the flip side, going public when investors don’t want what you’re selling is almost a death sentence. Although they both have critical business and market issues, WeWork and Casper are clear examples of the importance of timing. WeWork and Casper were late arrivals on the unicorn IPO train. Let me be clear - both have huge issues (WeWork - fundamental business model, Casper - competition/differentiation) but I could imagine these types of companies going public during a favorable time period with a relatively strong IPO. Both companies had massive losses, and investors were especially wary of losses after the failed IPOs of Lyft and Uber, which were arguably the most famous unicorns to go public at the time. Its not to say that WeWork and Casper wouldn’t have had trouble in the public markets, but during the internet bubble these companies could’ve received massive valuations and raised tons of cash instead of seeking bailouts from Softbank and reticent public market investors.
Peactime / Wartime CEO. The genesis of this book was a 2011 blog post written by Horowitz detailing Peacetime and Wartime CEO behavior. As the book and blog post describe, “Peacetime in business means those times when a company has a large advantage vs. the competition in its core market, and its market is growing. In times of peace, the company can focus on expanding the market and reinforcing the company’s strengths.” On the other hand, to describe Wartime, Horowitz uses the example of a previous TBOTM, Only the Paranoid Survive, by Andy Grove. In the early 1980’s, Grove realized his business was under serious threat as competition increased in Intel’s core business, computer memory. Grove shifted the entire organization whole-heartedly into chip manufacturing and saved the company. Horowitz outlines several opposing behaviors of Peacetime and Wartime CEOs: “Peacetime CEO knows that proper protocol leads to winning. Wartime CEO violates protocol in order to win; Peacetime CEO spends time defining the culture. Wartime CEO lets the war define the culture; Peacetime CEO strives for broad based buy in. Wartime CEO neither indulges consensus-building nor tolerates disagreements.” Horowitz concludes that executives can be a peacetime and wartime CEO after mastering each of the respective skill sets and knowing when to shift from peacetime to wartime and back. The theory is interesting to consider; at its best, it provides an excellent framework for managing times of stress (like right now with the Coronavirus). At its worst, it encourages poor CEO behavior and cut throat culture. While I do think its a helpful theory, I think its helpful to think of situations that may be an exception, as a way of testing the theory. For example, lets consider Google, as Horowitz does in his original article. He calls out that Google was likely entering in a period of wartime in 2011 and as a result transitioned CEOs away from peacetime Eric Schmidt to Google founder and wartime CEO, Larry Page. Looking back however, was it really clear that Google was entering wartime? The business continued to focus on what it was clearly best at, online search advertising, and rarely faced any competition. The Company was late to invest in cloud technology and many have criticized Google for pushing billions of dollars into incredibly unprofitable ventures because they are Larry and Sergey’s pet projects. In addition, its clear that control had been an issue for Larry all along - in 2011, it came out that Eric Schmidt’s ouster as CEO was due to a disagreement with Larry and Sergey over continuing to operate in China. On top of that, its argued that Larry and Sergey, who have controlling votes in Google, stayed on too long and hindered Sundar Pichai’s ability to effectively operate the now restructured Alphabet holding company. In short, was Google in a wartime from 2011-2019? I would argue no, it operated in its core market with virtually no competition and today most Google’s revenues come from its ad products. I think the peacetime / wartime designation is rarely so black and white, which is why it is so hard to recognize what period a Company may be in today.
Firing people. The unfortunate reality of business is that not every hire works out, and that eventually people will be fired. The Hard Thing About Hard Things is all about making difficult decisions. It lays out a framework for thinking about and executing layoffs, which is something that’s rarely discussed in the startup ecosystem until it happens. Companies mess up layoffs all the time, just look at Bird who recently laid off staff via an impersonal Zoom call. Horowitz lays out a roughly six step process for enacting layoffs and gives the hard truths about executing the 400 person layoff at LoudCloud. Two of these steps stand out because they have been frequently violated at startups: Don’t Delay and Train Your Managers. Often times, the decision to fire someone can be a months long process, continually drawn out and interrupted by different excuses. Horowitz encourages CEOs to move thoughtfully and quickly to stem leaks of potential layoffs and to not let poor performers continue to hurt the organization. The book discusses the Law of Crappy People - any level of any organization will eventually converge to the worst person on that level; benchmarked against the crappiest person at the next level. Once a CEO has made her mind up about the decision to fire someone, she should go for it. As part of executing layoffs, CEOs should train their managers, and the managers should execute the layoffs. This gives employees the opportunity to seek direct feedback about what went well and what went poorly. This aspect of the book is incredibly important for all levels of entrepreneurs and provides a great starting place for CEOs.

Dig Deeper

November 2019 - Brotopia: Breaking Up the Boys' Club of Silicon Valley by Emily Chang

This book details a number of factors that have discouraged women’s participation and promotion in the tech industry. Emily Chang gives a brief history of the circumstances that have pushed women away from the industry and then covers its current issues - weaving in great insights and actionable takeaways along the way.

Tech Themes

The Antisocial Programmer. As the necessity for technological talent began to rise in the early 1960s, many existing companies were unsure how to hire the right people. To address this shortfall in know-how, companies used standard aptitude tests, like IBM’s Programmer Aptitude Test, to examine whether a candidate was capable of applying the right problem solving skills on the job. Beyond these standard aptitude tests, companies leveraged personality exams. In 1966, a large software company called System Development Corporation hired William Cannon and Dallis Perry to build a personality test that could shed light on the right personalities needed on the job. To build this personality test, Cannon and Perry profiled 1,378 programmers on a range of personality traits. Of those 1,378 profiled, only 186 were women. After compiling their findings, the final report stated: “[Programmers] dislike activities involving close personal interaction; they are generally more interested in things than people.” Furthermore, Cannon and Perry’s 82-page paper made no reference to women at all, referring to the surveyed group as men, for the entire paper. A combination of aptitude tests and Cannon-Perry’s personality test became the industry standard for recruiting, and soon companies were mistakenly focused on stereotypical antisocial programmers. Antisocial personality disorder is three times more common in men than women. Given how early the tech industry was, compared to what it is now, this decision to hire a majority of anti-social men has propagated throughout the industry, with senior leaders continually reinforcing incorrect hiring standards.
Women in Computer Science. According to the book, “there was an overall peak in bachelor’s degrees awarded in computer science in the mid-1980s, and a peak in the percentage of women receiving those degrees at nearly 40 percent. And then there was a steep decline in both.” It was at this time in the mid-1980s that computer science departments began to turn away anyone who was not a pre-qualified, academic top performer. There was too much demand with a constrained supply of qualified teachers, so only the best kids were allowed into top programs. This caused students to view computer science as hyper-competitive and unwelcoming to individuals without significant experience. Today, women earn only 18% of computer science degrees – a statistic that shocks many in the industry. Researchers at NPR found that intro CS courses play a key role in this problem – with many teachers still assuming students have prior familiarity with coding. Furthermore, women are socialized in a number of ways to achieve perfection, so when brand new code is not working well, women are more likely to feel discouraged. It is imperative to encourage women to try computer science if they have interest, to combat these negative trends.
PayPal and Perpetuating Cycles. After the dot-com bubble burst in the early 2000s, several newly minted millionaires did the natural thing after selling a company for millions of dollars, became a venture capitalists. One of the major success stories of the era was PayPal. Among those newly minted millionaires were the PayPal mafia: Peter Thiel, Keith Rabois, Elon Musk, Max Levchin, David Sacks, and Reid Hoffman. Thiel and Rabois have a history of suggesting a meritocratic process of hiring where only the most qualified academic candidate should land the job, not taking into account diversity of any form. Furthermore, in his book Zero to One (which we’ve discussed before), Thiel proposes startups should hire only “nerds of the same type.” The mafia began investing in several new companies, seeding friends who were likely to perpetuate the cycle of recruiting friends and hiring based on status alone. Rabois, who is currently a venture capitalist has remarked: “Once you have alignment, then I think you can have a wide swath of people, views and perspectives.” These ideas seem more like justification for hiring large groups of white males who were friends of PayPal executives than a truly “meritocratic” process, which is not the best way of building a successful, diverse organization. Roger McNamee, founder of technology private equity firm, Silver Lake, suggests: “They didn’t just perpetuate it; they turned it into a fine art. They legitimized it… The guys were born into the right part of the gene pool, they wind up at the right company, at the right moment in time, they all leave together and [go on] to work together. I give them full credit for it but calling it a meritocracy is laughable.”

Business Themes

chartoftheday_4467_female_employees_at_tech_companies_n.jpg

The Women at Early Google. A lot of people know the story of Sergey Brin meeting co-founder Larry Page. But few are aware of when Sergey and Larry met Susan Wojcicki, who is now CEO of YouTube. Sergey and Larry were looking for office space, and through a mutual friend, were introduced to Susan Wojcicki, who worked in marketing at Intel at the time. Though she didn’t jump on board immediately, Susan eventually came around and was instrumental in launching two of Google’s most important products: AdWords and AdSense. Wojcicki would soon be working closely with a newly recruited, Marissa Mayer, who after graduating from Stanford with a degree in Symbolic Systems, joined Google to help build AdWords and design Google’s front-end. Wojcicki and Mayer would soon be joined by Sheryl Sandberg, who came to Google in 2001 as Vice President of Online Sales and Operations. Another now-famous early female employee was Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor, who joined the company in 2004. All of these early, powerful female leaders, with the continued urging of Larry and Sergey (who wanted to achieve a 50/50 ratio of male to female employees) helped build a strong culture of female leadership. But as the Company scaled it lost sight of its gender diversity goals – “In 2017, women accounted for 31% of employees overall, 25% of leadership roles and 20% of technical roles.” Google claims it lost touch as it scaled, when the need for hiring outpaced the ability to find qualified and diverse candidates – but that sounds like an easy cop out.
Startups and Party Culture. Atari and Trilogy Software pioneered the idea of a work-hard, play-hard startup cultures. Nolan Bushnell of Atari would throw wild parties and have employees (including Steve Jobs) work late into the night, building for the company. Trilogy, a provider of sales and marketing software, extended this idea even further. It started with hiring, where, according to a former engineer, Trilogy’s ethos was: “We’re elite talent. It’s potential and talent, not experience, that has merit.” The Company regularly used complicated brain-teasers in interviews and attracted swaths of anti-social engineers with young and attractive talent recruiters. Joe Liemandt, the CEO of Trilogy, also moved the company to Austin, Texas; executives likened the tactic to marooning members of a cult. Co-founder Christy Jones remarked: “I didn’t go on vacation. We called holidays competitive advantage days because no one else was working. It was a chance to get ahead.” The Company had a strong drinking and partying culture and bares striking cult-like resemblance to WeWork, except it had a sustainable business model. Other technology companies have mixed constant alcohol and long hours, which has led to numerous assault charges at well-known startups including Uber, Zenefits, WeWork and others. Startup and party culture does not need to be so intertwined.
Hiring Practices to Encourage Diverse Backgrounds. Stewart Butterfield, the founder of Flickr (sold to Yahoo for $20 million in 2005), has focused on diverse hiring efforts at his new company Slack. According to Brotopia, “In 2017, Slack reported that 43.5% of its employees were women, including 48% of managers and almost 30% of technical employees – far better numbers than any tech company in Silicon Valley.” Butterfield, who grew up on a commune in Canada, recognizes his privilege, and discusses its not insanely difficult to create a diverse environment: “As an already successful, white, male, straight – go down the list – I’m not going to have the relevant experience to determine what makes this a good workplace, so some of that is just being open but really just making it an explicit focus.” Slack’s diverse recruiting team was given explicit instructions to source candidates from underrepresented backgrounds and schools for every new role in the organization. More companies should follow Slack’s lead and adopt explicit gender and diversity goals.