Over 30 Age Meme.. this one's getting old

Dave Winer's at it again. He's baiting Fred Wilson into continuing the 'over 30 means you can't do a startup' meme.

Fred should know that Dave's a master at this (especially the baiting part) and has been doing it very successfully for years. For Dave, I suspect, it's fun. A sort of sport really.

The age meme discussion is getting too much play though. I'm gonna sum it up and pack it away:

-Yes, if you're over 30 (or 40 or 50) it's harder to do a startup than if you're under 30.
-Yes, you're harder to 'deal with' for VC's and angels because you've had time to learn up from down. They'll deal.
-Yes, it's likely you'll work less if you're still married with kids. Or married w/o kids. Or divorced with kids.
-Yes, it's only likely you'll work like a 22 year old if you're single or divorced w/o kids.
-Yes, over 30's know more and can avoid potholes under 20's cheerfully bee-line into.
-Yes, if you're willing to find us (single/divorced/healthy/withoutkidsathome) we are gems.

Any money guy who bases a decision on funding primarily on your birthday isn't a funding guy you should be dealing with anyway (even if you're under 30).

Fred knows this. Every top notch VC or angel knows this. And Dave knows it too.

And now... I'm done commenting on this one.

Blogging: Average Persons Way To Immortality?

I know that's an odd title, but I think it's true.

The Chinese have a great saying that puts everything into perspective:

"Every 100 years- All new people".

Think about that. It's effectively true. For the vast majority of people on Earth, their time here is nothing more than a blink of the eye and then they're gone. Poof. Dust. Forgotten.

Unless they write a blog.

I suspect that, 1000 years from now, your blogged words, thoughts, ideas, rants and tirades will, somehow, somewhere, still be stored in the Googleplex, or on the Internet (or it's equivalent) and accessible. Effectively the only thing left of you long after you're dead and gone.

I doubt anything else you do with your life will have that kind of personal staying power. Maybe if you write a book or record a song, but that's not something the average person does. The only other thing that might be really equal in representing you, and what is uniquely you is the DNA you pass on to your children.

Even then, your thoughts via blog are more personal, public and representative of you when you were alive and spewing energy into the void.

I've always known whatever I wrote here was available to anyone, anywhere. What I didn't think about before was that also means anytime. Now, or 1000 years from now.

This stuff isn't going away anymore. The internet saves everything somewhere.

I'm sure you've all thought of this already and you're doing the 'so what'. Still, the TIME aspect and what that means to a human with a deterministically short (<100 years) existence never really sunk in until recently.

Time to go read a book. :)

Hatchery's vs. Angel Investing

I've been watching what Brad and David are doing over at TechStars and I think they're really onto the right model. I've heard David say that it's the evolution of angel investing, and I think he's right. Especially in the high tech/internet/media sector.

I look at what I've done with ClickCaster, which was a traditional angel model. First the founder invests his own money/time/resources to get an idea to a certain point (a team that delivers, a market identified, a beta product in production) and then he goes for either angel money or VC money depending on how big his/her plans are. In high tech/internet, with the costs to get to the next level so low, it's usually angel money. Certainly less than $1m, and usually half that; call it $500K average.

So I'm an angel investor, and I've got, say, $50 or $100K into an angel round of an early stage startup. I've put a pretty fair amount of betting money into this one deal. Is that good? Is it the most efficient way to invest money on high risk ventures? Until recently, I'd have said yes. Now, I'm not so sure.

David Cohen's TechStars is bringing in 10 groups at $10-15K investment each. Invested amount of around $150K total. Another $50K for things like creating a space for 3 months for them to work out of, maybe some datacenter setup with servers and bandwidth everyone can use to prototype on and some computers in the space they'll work in.

$200K. 10 companies. 20-30 hungry and foolish entrepreneurs with big dreams. Out of that you're likely to get 1 or 2, maybe 3 real companies that get their claws dug into a real market. For the money put in, you get 5-6% of the company. But they've been seriously vetted to get there. Maybe 200 applicants for 10 slots of which 2 companies will emerge. That's a hell of an efficient tunnel that happens in very short order (2 months to screen the 200, 3 months to screen the 10). Get your other legal, data center, entrepreneur and angel friends to help out and, man, you've got a wisdom of crowds market that, I suspect, kicks ass on the traditional angel investing or even early stage VC model.

Old news to many of you I'm sure, but here's what's new news (at least to me).

I put in about $200K of my own money for ClickCaster and a couple of years of my life (so far). I'm over 40, I've got some money to bet, I'm reasonably smart. I've been involved in starting things for a couple of decades, I'm well versed in the high tech/internet space and I want to get involved in the startup world.

Would doing a hatchery have been a better approach than focusing on a single company? Should a guy like me do this as opposed to a single focused startup with that $200K?

I don't know the answer, but I would bet big that several thousand guys like me, and angel investors who already have networks of friends, VC's and resources needed to do startups, are having this exact thought right about now.

They're watching TechStars and Ycombinator and the other hatchery's and looking to see if this way of filtering ideas, people and markets is the best approach for this particular investment sector.

If I were an entrepreneurs or angel investor (or a wanna be) who was looking for what's next, I'd want to talk with David and gang, get the initial formula/playbook (and blessings), move to Austin, Santa Fe, Iowa City, Portland or any of a couple of dozen smaller cities with high quality of life, a university, get plugged into the local scene and fire it up.

One side note on Hatchery's vs. Incubators:

David likes to point out this is not the old bubble days incubator approach. An incubator owned a larger percentage of the companies, was more deeply involved in the day to day business and didn't have a well defined near future endpoint when the money stopped, dead, and you were kicked out of the nest to live or die.

A hatchery is fast, ruthless in it's selection process and, after everyone involved votes (by what I can tell, with angel or even VC money) shuts down the 7-8 companies that didn't make the cut and does everything it can to help the 2-3 survivors.

Darwin, I think, would be proud.

The "bad news for graybeards as entrepreneurs" meme rears it's head again- or - In defense of the over 40 entrepreneur

Well shit.

Here we go again. Now Valleywag says you can only do a really big win startup if you're in your 20's and then Fred Wilson back peddles (sort of) on his back peddle about funding in their 20's vs. over 40 entrepreneurs .



Valleywag:

Bad news for the graybeards: a quick check on the great tech companies of the last three decades shows a pretty brutal rule. The most spectacular successes are launched by founders still in their twenties. The peak age: 26. Within a year of that age were Google's Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Apple's Steve Wozniak, Yahoo's Jerry Yang, Skype's Janus Friis, Chad Hurley from Youtube, and Tom Anderson from Myspace. Full post here

Fred:

So I don't know if youth is an advantage in the tech/startup world, but it certainly isn't a disadvantage. And I see our job as being able to work with young entrepreneurs in a way that allows them to be their best while helping them where they need it. It's something we are working very hard on perfecting. Full post here.

At least Fred tempers his with 'it's a state of mind' more than anything else. He's right. It IS a state of mind. I refer, again, to my post last year "Are early stage start ups and normal lives incompatible?"

Of course a 23 year old with no family, no mortgage, no kids, no college funds, no IRA or 401K to fund in perfect health (and no medical or health insurance bills), a paid for 1990 volvo and 3 roommates (who are also your co-founders), no cube life/big company work experience with the requisite cynicism/dilbert disease and with no fear and a 140 IQ unimpaired by 20 years of (pick one): Drinking, drugs, bad relationships, lousy kids, all of the above bills, etc. has an advantage.

Doh.

Life can wear you down. And it does most people. Doing a startup requires dedication, focus, naive belief in the impossible, more dedication, long hours and sacrificing 'life balance'; at least for awhile. That's why alot of entrepreneurs kill themselves and succeed (or fail) take off a few months (or in some cases a few years if the battle was particularly gruesome) and do it again.

I would put forth that it takes a particular (some would say peculiar, others would say slightly warped) personality type that's similar in some ways to the addictive personality to do a startup company. In our case, the addiction is the process of creating something useful and valuable from nothing and marshaling it through all the creativity, elation, pain, fear and fun that doing it entails.

Age isn't the defining factor. However, it does change the equation. I would bet fewer over 40's have it in them to do it than the same personality type does in their 20's, for instance.

Our society tries it's best to beat individuality and creativity out of you as soon as you hit 'the workforce'.

Even the good companies do it. Near the end of my tenure at Apple, my boss had an executive consultant (who worked with executives and CEO's to make them them better at their jobs) work with his reports. She set up as series of meetings with me for a 6 week period. In our first meeting, we talked for 4 hours. At the end of it, she said "Scott, I'm cancelling the rest of our meetings'. Thinking I'd done something wrong I asked why. She said "your one of those guys that drive corporations crazy. You have the qualities all of them are trying to bring out in themselves, but they can't control you. They want to find a way to tame it, and still have it. If I put you through this, it's like taming a wild stallion (no shit, that's exactly the phrase she used) and this company needs people like you". My boss was a little pissed, but, interestingly, he also gave me alot more funding and leeway after that.

Most people in their 40's have had it beaten out of them. Even big company senior execs and CEO's (there's a whole consulting industry built around it). Them, maybe, more than most.

But some of us survive the process. Not many, but some. And those of us that do are the over 40's that are capable of doing startups.

And we bring experience, contacts and resources no 23 year old has.

So...if we over 40's successfully run the product, market and funding gauntlet alongside the 20 somethings, even with a graybeard, we shouldn't be written off or filtered out just because of a birthday.

Granted, I'm biased, but if you ask me, smart investors should seek out that hard to find seasoned just right over 40 entrepreneur. There's likely 1 of us for every hundred 20 somethings of like mind, but if you can find us, we're worth it.

David Cohen on Vertical Social Networks.

David Cohen, of TechStars (www.techstars.org) a huge supporter of entrepreneurship in Colorado (www.coloradostartups.com) , and Angel investor, has a series he and Brad Feld do called Big or Bullshit. He just wrote one on Vertical Social Networks.

His question is: Will they ever be big enough to be worthy investments? His second question is: Doesn't the aggregation of these networks contain more value?

On the first one, I say: big, not bullshit. Why? Community. We're communal animals and community has been part of how humans operate from the beginning. We're clever beasts though and we use our tools to improve community. I won't go through a history of it here, but I'll start with computers. In the early 80's, modems became available to the average person. What's one of the first things we did? We wrote BBS's(Bulletin Board Systems). Each tended toward specific communities. The whole social networking phenom of today isn't new, it's just more common to have the tools in your day to day life. In 1982, few people had personal computers. Today, the majority of US households do. Put a cell phone in the mix (which is becoming the PC of choice for the rest of the world), and you have the tools you need to participate. Social Networking is just better interface, easier to use and more realtime communications and richer media. MySpace is just one big BBS system with more advanced user tools.

Can verticals be valuable enough to be worth investing in? Again: yes. It all depends on the drivers. Here's an excerpt from an article from CNN's Business 2.0 magazine on one set of verticals (note that the title is a bit sensationalized, this is, after all, CNN territory):

The accidental 'friend' finder

Andrew Conru didn't aspire to be a sex-industry mogul. But his $200 million empire attests to the old adage: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Business 2.0 Magazine reports.

(Business 2.0 Magazine) -- You know how you'll be trying to do work, and the Internet will inexorably drag you into porn? That's exactly what happened to Andrew Conru's career.

A mechanical engineering doctoral student at Stanford who grew up with churchgoing Lutheran parents in northern Indiana--the kind of guy who holds the door for everyone until he gets stuck there so long that someone has to make a joke so he can let go--Conru started the first online dating site, WebPersonals, in the early '90s. He sold it in 1995, pocketed a minor windfall, and started all over again.

Now he owns 27 sites under an umbrella company called Various, controlling twice as much online dating traffic as better-known rivals Match.com and Yahoo (Charts) Personals. But his clients tend to be much more fun. That's because most of them post pictures in which they're having sex. When you've already seen your date naked, it's a lot easier to focus on what she's saying.

Of all the dating sites Conru has launched--ones for Latinos, seniors, Asians, Jews, churchgoers--the biggest by far is AdultFriendFinder, which accounts for more than 60 percent of Various's revenue. Conru says his privately held, 450-person company brings in well over $200 million in annual revenue, averaging 40 percent growth for the past nine years. With more than 35 million visitors in 2006 and 75,000 new users registering each day, AFF ranks among the 100 most popular sites in the United States.

OK, I'll grant you, this is effectively adult content and we all know how popular that is. But this (if you take recent numbers on the porn industry in the US into account) is around 8-10% of the entire adult business take in the US (about $2.4B in 2006). And non of it is professionally produced. It's all user generated social networking DNA at work.

People are passionate about sex (doh!) but what about their dogs? Music? Religion? Politics? It's all based on the driver and if that driver is something emotionally important to that community, that's powerful stuff. Will Dogster get to $200 Million a year in revenue? I doubt it, but $20 million? Yea, that I can see happening. And that's a marketcap in the $150-200M range. Not a bad investment if you ask me.

The packaging of these (and using the same infrastructure, development and some content) is where you can get to FriendFinder levels of revenue and profit. How about Petster Inc. doing a Dogster, Catster, Snakester, Birdster, Fishster, etc.? Go down the long tail and add it all up. Dogs and Cats-the most popular pets (the head): Say, $30 million (60%). All the rest (the long tail), say $20 million (40%). That's up to a $500M marketcap potential there if you play it right.

Second are his observations on aggregators. He says, take the idea of OpenID and expand it into your 'full profile'. These will take off as well, but for different reasons centered mostly around convenience for the user and the perceived, by the user, value of that information. As we become more sophisticated about the value of our own personal information habits online (your Clickstream) we'll want to control that and gain some financial advantages for our attention (discounts, coupons, better targeting of the ads we know we have to see anyway, etc). That's not community though. There's nothing social about it (if anything I'd say it's more selfish than social). Is it a business? Absolutely. A big one? Most likely yes, but it'll take average people becoming aware of the value of their attention first. That's going to take time.

In the meantime, everyone loves their dog.

If I was thinking 'next 3-5 years' and had to pick vertical social networks or social network aggregators, I'd put my money on the vertical social networks.

More on Mark Udall

I received an email from a good friend who I have alot of respect for about my last post on Mark Udall, Colorado Congressman. He's got his supporters it would seem.

I'm also impressed with Udall himself. I emailed him directly and in less than 12 hours got a response that was similar to what my friend sent. The email from Udall was a cut and paste, but hey.. it answered my question. Rarely do I get a response to an email when I write a politician, and when I do, it's not on topic or some lame 'we appreciate your input' and then a pitch for money. To be fair to Udall, here's what my friend sent:

Udall Supports Iraq-Afghanistan Spending Bill To Take America In A New Direction

I voted for the Iraq supplemental spending bill because it will make sure that America's soldiers get the equipment and resources they need and the top-quality health care they may require when they come home. This bill holds the president and the Iraqi government accountable to the benchmarks they have set for themselves and it is an important step toward what I think must be our goal - a responsible end to the war in Iraq, based on a strategy of phased withdrawal, accelerated diplomacy and troop redeployment that avoids the crossfire of civil war.

The bill includes a goal of March 2008 for completing the redeployment of U.S. combat troops, and allows enough troops to remain to protect U.S. military and civilians in Iraq, conduct counterterrorism operations, and train Iraqi soldiers.

I remain convinced that we should steer clear of arbitrary public deadlines for military actions and focus instead on realistic diplomatic and political goals. Our military needs flexibility to be able to link movements of U.S. troops to the realities of the situation on the ground, and successful diplomacy requires this flexibility as well.

We are four years into a war the president told us would be short and decisive. The Bush administration's misjudgments, lack of planning and poor leadership have made a bad situation worse - and the "surge" is no substitute for what is needed, which is a strategy for containing civil war and a wider regional war.

I opposed giving the president the authority to wage war against Iraq, and whatever may be said about the wisdom of invading Iraq, the fact is that we are still deeply engaged there. So long as our troops are in the field, we must provide them what they need. And we must extricate them from this emerging civil war.

We need to be scaling back our military mission in Iraq. We need to make the U.S. military footprint lighter to salvage a critical measure of security and stability in a region of the world that we can ill afford to abandon.

The president's decision to take the nation to war has made our country less safe. We need to change course and chart a path that enhances our national security and sets the right priorities for the war on terrorism and struggle against extremists.

Mark Udall- Colorado Congressman- A Closet Republican?

I haven't been writing much about politics of late but I just found out that the congressman for my area here in Boulder, Democrat (?) Mark Udall, voted against the McGovern Bill to get us out of Iraq. One of 59 democrats to do so. And one of only 13 in districts that carried Kerry in 2004. From the CommonDreams.org blog:

Thursday the House voted on a slightly revised version of the McGovern bill. It would have mandated the beginning of withdrawal (”redeployment”) of U.S. forces from Iraq within 90 days and completion of the withdrawal (”redeployment”) of most U.S. forces from Iraq within 180 days after thatThe bill was defeated 171-255. 59 Democrats joined almost all Republicans in voting no.

The roll call is here:http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll330.xml

State	District	Rep.	04Bush	04Kerry
California	28	Howard Berman	28%	71%
Colorado	2	Mark Udall	30%	67%
Georgia	13	David Scott	37%	62%
Illinois	3	Daniel Lipinski	41%	59%
Nevada	1	Shelley Berkley	42%	57%
Maryland	5	Steny Hoyer	42%	57%
Pennsylvania	13	Allyson Schwartz	43%	56%
Texas	29	Gene Green	44%	55%
Maryland	2	Dutch Ruppersberger	45%	54%
Georgia	12	John Barrow	46%	53%
Tennessee	5	Jim Cooper	47%	52%
California	20	Jim Costa	48%	51%
Wisconsin	3	Ron Kind	48%	51%

I think it's pretty clear to everyone who's been paying attention to all the facts that as far as the Iraq War is concerned, this is one dog that just won't hunt.

I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican), I'm a Libertarian Hippie. I'm liberal on some things, conservative on others. But I'm no fool. The fact is, all of my left leaning friends are against this war. Interestingly, most of my right leaning friends (if you draw them out) are as well. All you have to do is look objectively at the facts (which have been clearly articulated in many other places so I won't repeat them here).

I think Udall needs a good whack upside the head. I think a primary challenge for Mr. Udall might be in order.

The amount of money spent on this war (around $450 billion, so far) could have funded education, healthcare, budget imbalances and a dozen other more worthy causes. And then there's the over 3000 dead American solders (with the death toll going up daily). with 10's of thousands more crippled for life.

For what, exactly? I'm generally not dense, but I cannot see why we're doing this.

If you live in the 2nd district in Colorado, email Udall. Tell him you're PO'd. Hell, email him if you don't live here.

Yes. A primary challenge, especially for the 13 democrats in districts that went Kerry in 2008. Something to be considered very seriously.

Creative Commons in Boulder

I love this.

I've been a huge supporter of the Creative Commons movement over the last 3 years (we built it into ClickCaster from day one).

From their website:

Creative Commons provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. You can use CC to change your copyright terms from "All Rights Reserved" to "Some Rights Reserved."

It looks like Andrew Hyde is putting together a get together for creative types in Boulder to talk more about it and, maybe, spread the word a bit. From his blog:

In Boulder there is a problem. There are hundreds of talented creative professionals working and creating some beautiful stuff, but you ask them to name some names at other companies they draw a blank. Our community, and design can only go so far in our isolated pockets. Let’s get together and start the conversation.

I would like to invite you to the first Boulder Creative Commons. It will be an informal gathering of creatives of all types at my office in Boulder on Thursday, May 17th. 1035 Pearl St. 4th Floor. I will provide drinks and some snacks.

If I can, I'm planning on being there.

If you'd like more on what it's all about, check it out at the main creative commons site.

Your over 40 and you want to start your first company. Now what?

OK, I've been doing this for a couple of years now and I've had enough people ask me about the experience that it's worth writing up a blog post on my observations for folks like me who are over 40 who want to do their first startup. Fred Wilson's post on mid life entrepreneurs (which initially implied it was less than positive to be an over 40 startup guy, then backed away from the premise in a second post) also got me thinking that this might be useful to the people that are thinking of doing this but aren't sure of what it takes.

There's a followup blog from Paul Kedrosky about how he disagree's with Fred and how the average ages of entrepreneurs is actually pretty broad. He blogs about it here. Some interesting facts from Paul's post.

• The average age of Inc Hot 100 members is 41, but there is huge spread
• U.K. data shows that while the average of entrepreneurs there is 36, there is little age difference between that group the rest of the working population. Matter of fact, 23% of entrepreneurs there are between 45 and 54

So, here's how it worked for me (disclaimer: I'm just making observations based on my own single experience doing this to date. Take it all with a grain of salt):

1) Having a balanced life and doing a startup isn't an easy thing to do.

See my post on early stage startups and normal lives. I know this may scare some of you away (and piss off some others) but I'm sticking to my guns on this. Startups are hard work and if you want it to fly, it's going to take up your every waking moment in one form or another (actual work or thinking about actual work). This is likely to be the hardest thing you'll have to do since you've very likely gotten comfortable in life. There will be many late nights and weekends when you think: what am I doing? Is this worth it? For those of you passionate about this, the answer is, of course, yes, but you'll feel it nonetheless. Key word there: Passionate. You've got to have passion for what it is you're doing or you'll burn out long before you get to where you need to be.

2) Assume you're going to self fund the first year. Maybe longer.

If you've spent the last 20 years working in big companies (as most of you first time wannabe startup guys have) you haven't built the network you'll need to get funding (Angel or VC). It's just that simple. The good news is it takes a lot less to get a startup to the point where you can get outside funding compared to a few years ago (now: $100K-250K vs. several million a few years ago). I know of some people that have done it for a few tens of thousands. The other good news is that having been around for a couple of decades, it's likely you've got some assets to draw on. Now's the time to do it. Form a corporation or LLC, open a bank account and put $X into that account. That's your funding and it will determine your ramp (how long you have until you either start making money or get outside funding). Assume that money's spent and be disciplined about spending it only on your new companies needs. The goal here is to make it last as long as you possibly can. Then, build your team (which is an art requiring an entire post onto itself and I'll write that up in another blog entry in the near future).

3) As soon as you decide you want to do this, start talking to VC's and Angels in your local area.

If you're not in an area with VC's and Angels, consider moving. Seriously. You're new to the game and they're going to want to be close to you. Count on it. Assuming you've got a good idea, and some chops (exec for a fortune 500 company, key person in a smaller company, impressive resume of experience/accomplishments, etc) , all good VC's will find time (30 minutes) to meet in a 'no harm no foul' type meeting. The second way is you very likely know someone who can introduce you to a VC (this is the best way and how I met our lead investor and chairman, Brad). Maybe have a low key lunch. If you like them, stay in touch. That's it. Just stay in touch. Do not ask for money; you're not ready anyway. Ask for advice on your idea and people you might talk to. You need to show you can do something other than dream.

Unless you plan to fully self fund, this really is important. You really need to spend a year or more building up a list of contacts with people that can help you and that you like and who like you. No one's going to fund you cold (unless you've somehow hit the right product out of the gate and built up a real business with revenue and profit already flowing).

Chances are you don't need $3M plus (VC territory). Concentrate on networks of angels (<$1M).

4) Don't do it alone.

This is where I made a real mistake in starting my current company. I did the benevolent dictator model where I funded everything and kept a tight rein of control on everything. We built some kick ass technology and saw some market success, but we didn't really nail the business side. I'm good a certain set of things and I'm weak at another set of things. I made the mistake of thinking I'd learn the stuff I hadn't done before on the fly. The reality is: you won't have time to learn the stuff you need to know when you need to know it. Yea, to a degree you will by fiat, but not enough. Find 1-2 folks you like, respect and want to work with and who compliment your skills. Essential. It's also going to be easier to get funded. Investors like teams that are filled out (at a minimum: a technology person that can make things real and a business person that can put together strategy and develop new business).

5) Don't ask for money to soon, or too late.

You've got an idea that's been put together into a working prototype (in today's tech world where I'm focused, that's a website with at least an active base of 'beta' users-usually 'at least' ). There's a degree of buzz about the area you're focused on. You've been in touch with potential investors for a while. You're running out of your 'I'm comfortable that I can lose this' money, or you really need to expand quickly and just can't bootstrap it. Now's the time to talk to your contacts. Tell them you're at a crossroads which is, usually, go forward and get funding or shut it down. If you've got something real, you've got a team that can actually build and deliver and you've got a market that looks interesting and you've got smart potential investors, ok, cool. Ask them to lunch and give them the pitch. I won't go into the pitch, but the reality is, it's more about you, the team and your tenacity and dedication at this point. That'll show, or it won't. They'll make a decision largely based on that.

On the flip side, don't wait too long. When it's looking real, don't hesitate. Call your folks and set up a meeting and lay it out. If you wait too long (i.e. too many competitors, someone else gets in the door first, etc.) you might miss the chance. As with everything, it's all about timing. And you'll find out pretty quickly if you have what it takes. Or not. Better to shut it down now than dropping another $100K of your own money to keep it going when it's not going to fly.

6) Start with one really good investor who's known as being a really good investor.

Easy to say, hard to do. I was lucky this way. Our lead angel investor, Brad Feld, also happens to be a VC and he's known as a guy who knows how to make bets like this. He's very smart, very likable and we were damned lucky to met him and click with him. Our angel round last year was a flurry of meetings between myself and his network of angels. I think something like 85-90% invested after initial meetings with me. It wasn't really me who sold it... our lead investor being involved sold it. The people you pick to work with are going to make or break your ability to get funding beyond your own bootstrapping. Pick early, pick wisely, and sincerely develop the relationship over time. And don't forget, you've got friends that can invest as well. Maybe not at the level a professional or serial angel investor would, but some. Pull them in too. Every little bit helps. The process for us was about 60 days from go to close. The reason? Our lead investor is a rock star in his field.

7) Getting the money is when the real work starts.

Up to this point you've likely been running your own show. No more. You're now going to have a board of directors and they're going to help you run your company. This is (initially) a big shift but an essential one and something you should prepare for. Your board is going to be made up mostly of your investors and they are a true wealth of wisdom and experience. Use it. And get ready for the ride of your life.

Fred Wilson on 'older' entrepreneurs

Fred Wilson, one of the with it VC's (in my book) blogs in two posts about entrepreneurs in their 40's and 50's doing startups. He addresses it in two posts. In the first he says:

One of them asked me - do you know any 45 year old entrepreneurs?

Yes I do. But only one of the entrepreneurs in our current portfolio is older than 45. And he'll probably be starting companies until he dies. It's what he does.

But the facts are pretty eye opening. Nine of our eleven entrepreneurs are in their 30s. One is in his 20s, and one is in his 50s.

And man did he get some great comments! In the second he concludes with:

So I don't have any really good advice for the mid life entrepreneur going through a "what next?" crisis. But one thing I'd say is try to think like that late 20s/early 30s entrepreneur doing it for the first time. Don't let everything you've learned get in the way. Go for it with gusto and don't think too hard.

Bravo Fred! I couldn't agree more. The key is keep the sense of 'it's possible' in the forefront of your mind at all times. As you age, and collect the scars of war that day to day business brings, you learn to avoid things. You collect things, assets, family, responsibilities that make taking risk a little more difficult. That can be the death of having an entrepreneurial spirit.

Sometimes, 'fools rush in' is exactly what it's all about. Sometimes, a fool that doesn't know better (or chooses not to know better) is exactly what's needed to create something truly great. To have the balls to think they might be able to change an industry or maybe create a new one. To believe that they might be able to use technology to democratize some capability out to millions of people that was once controlled by only a few.

When a 23 year old Steve Job's creates Apple Computer, mostly because he doesn't know he can't and that the odds are completely against him, and again, an 'in his 40's" Steve Job's takes a has been company slowly on it's way to irrelevance that's had the shit beat out of it by big bad Microsoft and revitalizes it into one of the hippest coolest (and most financially successful) companies in the tech world, it's because he didn't let the world beat that 'it's possible' thing out of him. When he was young he was often described as mercurial, arrogant and haughty. Today... Is he older and wiser? You bet. But he never lost his sense of 'it's possible'... in his case, to change the world. To make a dent in the universe. And yes, he's still mercurial, arrogant and haughty. And for Jobs, maybe that's just what it takes for him to keep at it, to believe that it's possible.

Where did User Generated Media start? My vote: Cheap Gear.

When I look at what's happening to the old media world (disintermediation, collapse of classified ad cash cows, loss of editorial control, erosion of readers/viewers/listeners under 30 etc., etc.) and think to myself, why is this? What's the base cause for it.. I come up with alot of possible answers. Things like low cost high speed internet connection, opensource software making it reasonably easy (and cheap) to start new businesses but, more than anything, I think it's Cheap Gear my mom can use.

I know this sounds simplistic, but I like to get to base causes. What's the one thing that we had to have before all the Web 2.0 magical poofy things that sucked in millions of average people with a computer was possible? My conjecture: It's Cheap Gear.

It's that hardware interface that takes life and turns it a mishmash of words, pictures, sounds and videos.

I'm looking at around my office and I have what's really a recording and video production studio. Nothing new there, but, what IS new is that this stuff is fairly easy to use and damned inexpensive by historical standards.

Here's a partial list: USB Mixer with digital effects, $149 and studio quality powered speakers: $199. Professional quality condenser microphone $69. Studio headphones, $19. 3CCD Digital hard disk camcorder, $499. Two 22" flatpanel monitors $600. 1 dual core desktop with 2GB RAM and a 500GB HD $800. Total cost? $2336.00. Software? Free opensource recording with Audacity and basic sound processing with Levelator. Video? Drop $50 for Vegas Movie Studio and you've got the equivalent of an AVID video editing bay from 10 years ago. If you have a Mac, all that software comes with it.

Not super cheap, but I can record a band, make podcasts, create and edit a video, all at a quality level as good as anything on the internet today and, with rich media, almost as good as the quality of about 1/4 of what you find broadcast today. Print pubs? I'm on par.

And you can do it with a lot less gear than I have (take out the computer.. you've got it anyway) and the real cost of the gear to create comes down to below $1000. A few hundred if you push it. Cheap Gear.

I have a full blown 'fits in the palm of my hand' recording studio (the Zoom H4) that can record a live concert at the same quality as about 80% of the professional live recording setups today. I just hit a button and point. It encodes it as an MP3 on the fly. I just plug it into my computer, and upload it to ClickCaster, iTunes or my blog. Instant concert recording system. Cost? $299. The first step in the system? Cheap Gear.

I've got a 6 Megapixal camera (Casio Exilim) that weighs 2 oz, takes semi pro level photo's and VGA (broadcast TV) level video (a couple of hours worth per 2GB SD card) that I can shoot a video with, take some snapshots and record an interview with that cost me $200. Same as the last paragraph, rinse, repeat.

I can set up and run a blog with my friends on any subject we happen to be reasonably versed in that can rival any 'professional' publications website with relative ease. All I need is free blog software, an internet connection and a $600 laptop. Cheap Gear.

Every musician I know has the ability to record themselves at home with cheap gear, make their own podcast and use YouTube, Google, MySpace and similar sites to promote themselves.

It all started about 6-7 years ago with really usable Cheap Gear. It's accelerated in the last 24 months. The power of the microprocessor embedded into low cost tools just about anyone can buy with high enough quality to rival 'the pro's'. And the kids (literally, kids.. like, 12) know how to use it.

Imagine what would happen if groups of regular people with a passion actually started combining all this media into print, pictures, recordings and video and gave it some relevant editorial perspective? Decided they could be a hybrid local newspaper/tv station/radio station for their local town? We used to say at Apple that the power of the press belongs to those that own one (picture of a LaserWriter Printer)... the ideas been around, but the tools, finally, have caught up.

The infrastructure and software tools that give them a radio station/TV station and newspaper all rolled into one are pretty much here too. The monetization tools for incorporating advertising are getting close to being real. It's like pirate radio stations, but it's legal and it's more. It's Pirate Media stations.

And it all started with cheap gear.

The story line is getting old

I have friend who's a 24 (the TV show) fanatic. He just posted that it got boring.

The Day 24 got boring. April 23, 2007. Another 24 fanatic just came in my office and announced that to me. Unfortunately I agree. I watched it last night with Amy, Jason, David, and Jill and we all had that ho-hum look on our face when it ended. Oh well – it’s rare that a show makes it six years anyway before it loses it.

I think this is a great example of how being in a state of constant tension, regardless of how thrilling the tension is, eventually, gets old.

That's what's happening in America's political climate right now. You can say 'terrorist!' only so many times before it stops working and, man, has it stopped working. Interestingly, he infers that 6 years' is a good run. Isn't that about how long Bush has been beating a story line very much like 24?

I agree with him, it's getting old. Time for a new story.

Apologies for using his blog post as a political metaphor, but I suspect he doesn't mind.

I'm going Mac, why? DRM.

I never thought I'd be saying this but I've decided that all my computer purchases in the future are likely to be Mac's. The reason isn't intuitively obvious either because it's DRM.

From The Inquirer article: Avoid the Vista Badge, it means DRM inside.

He who controls the DRM infection controls the market. DRM is about preventing you from doing anything with the devices without paying the gatekeeper a fee. This is what MS wants, nothing less than a slice of everything watched, listened to or discussed from now on. DRM prevents others from playing there, thanks to the DMCA and other anti-consumer laws.

The article goes on to reflect on just some of the evils of DRM built into hardware. I suspect we'll see more (and more) compatibility and ease of use issues as more people buy a new PC with Vista enabled hardware over the coming years.

Oddly, Apple, a company I used to work for and adore, then lost respect for and who I've bashed more than a few times here, largely about DRM with their iTunes software, is the good guy. Also, oddly, my one Mac, a dual core intel laptop, is my favorite machine for running Windows (and Linux). And yes, I have many machines (8 between two offices and home).

Using multiple OS's on an Intel based Mac is wonderful. It's simple to set up, simple to switch between OS's and fast as hell. And, when you look at the cost, it's only slightly more expensive (the XP license) and you get a great OS, OSX, thrown in for free.

The vast majority of my time spent on computers nowadays is using something on the internet. Virtually all my productivity software lives online (currently provided, mostly, by Google via gmail, googledocs, etc.). What OS I'm using isn't overly important anymore, as long as I've got FireFox on the box.

So, thank you Apple. Man....who'da'thought that the king of proprietary hardware/software systems would be the best 'open' PC choice (at least for me) available in the market today?

Time to start a next generation local media & news portal in Chicago, LA, Balimore and 13 other cities

And the battle begins. Sam Zell is buying the Tribune Company (16 newspapers including the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun). In a recent Washington Post story. From the WP story:

In conversations before and after a speech Zell delivered Thursday night at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, Calif., the billionaire said newspapers could not economically sustain the practice of allowing their articles, photos and other content to be used free by other Internet news aggregators.

"If all of the newspapers in America did not allow Google to steal their content, how profitable would Google be?" Zell said during the question period after his speech. "Not very."

Wow. I wonder if he knows the demographics of the newspapers he just bought very well? Has he asked any of his under 30 (hell, under 40) grandkids if they subscribe to a newspaper? Just one? I doubt it.

Now would be a very good time to start putting together a web based locally focused online media startup for each of these 16 cities where the Tribune is, apparently, going to turn off (or try to start charging somebody) for the online component of their newspapers.

It's too bad he's not thinking of newspapers for what they are: The best source of LOCAL content available in a community (regardless of where the community gets is- paper or online) vs. a ground up tree with ink smeared on it.

Companies have been experimenting with local online communities that were supposed to replace newspapers, radio and TV for years. I think the window to start really focusing on it may have just opened up.

Microsoft died in 2005.

I just read a great essay by Paul Graham that made me stop dead in my mental tracks and go oh yea... damn! I love Paul's writing. He's generally dead on with his observations and this one's right in line with that trend.

His claim? Microsoft died in 2005.

How?

1) Google. Need I say more?

2) XmlHttpRequest- Created by MS for Outlook, Mixed with JavaScript you get AJAX and that was the beginning of the end for desktop applications. This made it possible to move applications to the web. One of the first was Gmail. Now you can get photoshop functionality on a webpage.

3) Broadband internet. The faster your connection, the less you need the desktop.

4) Apple. Ever check out anyone working on what's next? Chances are he or she's on a Mac. Windows? For grandma.

Read the whole thing. It's here and by Paul Graham standards, fairly short. Anyone who's been around for awhile will go.. oh, yea... that's it. Damn!

www.scottconverse.org

So, I finally cleaned up my domain name/URL act procured the www.scottconverse.org URL and pointed it at this blog. From now on, even though blogger is where I'll keep my blog for now, when I change my platform, the URL will stay the same. So, if you care about stuff like this, take out the blogger URL for this blog and put in http://www.scottconverse.org

Design Is Inherently About Control. Or is it?

Great blog post on the tale of two architects. See the entire post at the Logic + Emotion blog.

"Design is inherently about control"

In a nutshell: They both build a playground. One architect goes to watch the unveiling and cringes as the children play in ways he never intended. The other goes to watch and sees same but is delighted, takes notes and plans on how to integrate what's happening into the next project.

Which are you more like?

I know that, by nature, we have a vision of what it is that we're building. We know how it's supposed to be used. When your audience does things with it you never considered, is that a bad thing? And if so, how do you stop the buggers?

I would conjecture that no, it's not bad. I think the second architect has it right. One mind can imagine only so much. Many minds can imagine so much more with the same materials. The trick is to pay attention, learn quickly from what you're seeing and incorporate it into your work.

In our world of agile software development, SCRUM's, rapid release schedules and (close to) unlimited flexibility, it's a gift to watch and learn. To do this you need to make sure you're tools are in place. Watch the numbers. Pay attention to the features that get used and expand them. Lower the priority on features that don't get used (and don't get overly attached to them, even if they're "Key To Your Grand Plan"). Examine and learn from the creations people make with your products capabilities. Talk to your users regularly and make sure your development team has customer interactions. Most of all, make sure the people that design and create aren't walled off in dark cavern full of computers and Redbull.

So is design inherently about control? At first blush, it feels that way, but in the real world, it almost never is.

When the Internet Was Young

I was going through old files tonight and stumbled on something I hadn't thought of in awhile. I'd pretty much forgotten this article in Wired back in 1994 (above). 1994. That's the effective 'birth year' of the commercial internet as we know it today. This article was written about a hobby of mine that I did outside of work called OneNet (the OneNet Member Network). I started it in my garage and when I finally moved on I had about 15 computers and 24 phone lines running into that thing and there was somewhere around a 800K to a million people using it around the world.

What's interesting about this is the time that's passed. 13 years.

Now think about that a little. The cutting edge/state of the art online systems of the times were being run by guys like me out of their garages (big numbers considering these were run on Mac SE's, granted, but really they were primarily hobbies on steroids).

13 years ago. That's not really that much time. Look at where the internet is today compared to Mac's running BBS software with store and forward protocols for conferences and email.

What's really interesting is that OneNet was about mostly one thing: Community. In particular, creating online community that transcended geography. Today we take it for granted and we make up new phrases for it (like social networking) but it's all the same stuff with more advanced technology (and richer media).

What's old is new yet again.

The Business of Innovation

Innovation is a interesting business. CNBC has a great series on innovation (and what it takes to BE innovative) on it's website. It's title? The Business of Innovation (of course). They have some very major business names on the show. Here's the line up for just the first show (title: Innovators & Iconoclasts):

Cathleen Black
President
Hearst Publications

Howard Putnam
Former CEO
Southwest Airlines and Branif Airlines

Vinod Khosla
Founder
Sun Microsystems

Arkadi Kuhlmann
CEO
ING USA Direct

It's hosted by Maria Bartiromo with help from Roger Schank (see below).

The Business of Innovation is a series of 5 one-hour programmes produced by CNBC, the worldwide leader in business news, which explores in-depth the most important topic in the business world today - Innovation. Each program will explore a different aspect of Innovation using CNBC's global newsgathering capabilities, well-known current and former CEO's and innovation experts to dissect the topic and provide guidance for viewers seeking to innovate in their own organizations. The series is hosted by award-winning journalist Maria Bartiromo, who calls the programmes "...ground breaking in scope".

Supporting Maria throughout the series is innovation expert Roger Schank. Schank is John Evans Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, Psychology and Education at Northwestern University. He is the CEO of Socratic Arts a company that designs software that enhances working place learning and thinking. www.socraticarts.com. He is also the CEO of Engines for Education (www.engines4ed.org) a non profit that is building a new kind of learn by doing online high school with a modern curriculum.

Each show is an hour:

Innovators & Iconoclasts
Revolution & Evolution
New Tricks & Old Dogs
People & Technology
Loners & Teammates

All are good, but if you watch only one and you're a startup guy, watch the first one (Innovators & Iconoclasts)

Single vs. Multiple Founders

Over the last couple of years, I've learned one very good lesson about startups.

You shouldn't try to do it alone.

Yes, of course, I had my team (mostly 20 somethings in their first real high tech jobs), but the burden of getting the company going, funding it and figuring out where to take it was always my responsibility.

The next time I do a new startup, it's going to be with a partner.

Ever talk to a single mom or dad? Virtually all of them will tell you it's the most difficult thing they've done in their entire lives (parenting in general can be this way, but it's greatly amplified for single parents).

Startups are a little like that. It's a new baby, created by you. Trying to do and be all things as a single founder is damned difficult.

So, with that said, and with a BoD that's very good at recognizing that single founders have a hard time of it, we've brought on a partner for me here at ClickCaster.

I wrote a post on how startups need BOTH a King Aurthur and a Merlin. That's what we've done here at ClickCaster.

More in a future post.

Pretend your in a startup... get the girl

When I was in college, guys usually pretended they were in a band. Now, they pretend they are in a startup. The times have definitely changed.

Dustin, one of my developers, send a link out on a blog posting about how college kids are pretending to be doing a startup company in college to... get this.. pick up girls. The whole story's on BusinessPundit.com.

David Cohen talks about how the real value in startup land isn't ideas, it's the ability to execute.

I think he's right, but I'd also say that.. at least for the time being.. just an idea (and a photoshop mockup) might actually be useful for at least one thing that's important to every guy in college I've ever known.

Turns out the Internet really IS a series of Pipes

Yahoo announced something yesterday called Pipes.

This is a big deal. But it's only going to be interesting for the slightly more geeky among us for the time being. Give it time though. It's a paradigm shifter. It'll seep into everyday online life for all of us soon.

The creator, Pasha Sadri, says this:

"I believe that feeds are a mechanism for content/information distribution. Pipes (or similar services) allow consumers of feeds to get more refined (ie: high quality) information out of them. This means that the publishers in return will get more qualified/interested readers of their content. So, I believe that publishers in general will benefit from having another mode of distribution for their content."

I think that for those watching, in a few years (maybe less), we'll point back to this as one of those moments when the RSS world and the cool and useful things it can do for us moved from the realm of geekdom to the world of the average user. For more read:

Tim O'Reilly's take here.
Niall Kennedy's take here.

Investing as a dating strategy

This is interesting. I've got some friends that are dating. They have alot in common but wanted more in common so they both invested modest amounts in an angel investment round for a startup. It seems to be going well for them but I'm curious if anyone else thinks this is a good idea or not. If so, why? If not, why? Would love your comments or drop me an email directly at scott dot converse at gmail dot com.

The Third Board Meeting

Short, sweet and to the point.

That pretty much sums up our meeting this month. Interestingly, most of the board wasn't there in person. Brad and Jerry were on the east coast, David was, I think, in Cali somewhere and only Niel and I were in the room with the speaker phone.

Interestingly, it was one of our more collaborative interactions as a group.

Maybe it's just me getting a little better at prep and pre-meeting meetings. More than likely, though, it's my board being supportive and guiding me in the right direction. I may be old by startup standards, but it turns out I can still learn.

Jerry and I, for instance, are doing weekly coaching sessions. This is one of those added bonus type things you get when you have a great board of directors. Didn't know Jerry Colonna is an executive coach? Either did I, but he is, and a damn good one. He coaches several people, including the CEO's of other startups. Once a week for about an hour we talk about what it means to lead in a start up; what turns your crank, your fears, your weaknesses and what you can do about improving them, how your folks are doing, where to focus, what personal things might be going on that effect life and work, a broad range of things, all useful. And he does it in a way that's supportive but firm. He asks tough questions that make you pause and really think through issues. Fun? Not the word that pops immediately to mind, but when we're done it feels like I've really learned something, and most of it was in there already. Jerry just helped find it and bring it out.

Yea yea.. I know.. sounds all touchy feely. To a degree it is, but only a little. The results are real. Having an experienced, resourceful, intuitive, honest and damn smart guy to talk things over with who's got a very objective point of view is incredibly helpful in figuring out how to do what you need to do.

We scheduled the board meeting for our usual 3 hours. I distributed the pre meeting materials a couple of days beforehand as easy to print PDF's for everyone and set a simple 4 point agenda. 3 'handling board business' type things and one major item: Products and Markets.

We put spent about 10 minutes on the first three points and the rest of the meeting on an overview presentation of the business, products, product mixes, potential markets and associated (est.) revenues from each market. With Brad, Jerry and David on the phone and Niel and I in the room, the conversation flowed very well.

Although the presentation was about 40 pages, we only used about 5 or 6 of them for the entire conversation (with a couple of references to other pages for numbers or target markets). I led them through each of the key slides, we discussed what it meant, bounced back and forth between the concepts a few times, expressed opinions, disagreed, debated, found agreement and came out with a pretty clear picture of what we should be doing as a business.

Our problem has been the typical startup problem: too many opportunities and potential directions to go in. If you build a really flexible feature rich platform that can do a lot of things and can be used in a broad range of potential markets..what's the business you focus on and go after?

The presentation framed (most) of the best potentials (but substantially more than we could do with the resources on hand). First, we got agreement that this was a good overview to work from (focus…), we looked at the four big areas, decided pretty quickly that the first two were low hanging fruit (addressed reasonably broad markets with self serve tools and could be implemented with reasonably minimal effort) and we should just do them. 2 down, 2 to go. The third was by far the biggest revenue potential, but also the hardest to nail down.. so we skip that for a few minutes and look at the fourth area and quickly determine we like it, but it’s payoff isn’t big enough right now and we’ll back burner it for the time being (ahh.. more focus, take something out of the mix).

Back to the third big potential. Each of the board members likes a slightly different set of 2-3 primary markets. We debate this for awhile but we don’t settle on specifics. So, I asked them to each think about the complete list (about 15 markets) and for each of them to get back to me with their top three markets. This was, essentially, assigning homework. Brad then comments that between the 4 of them, once we nail the markets down, they could likely get several dozen companies to open their doors to us for a pitch. If we included our angel network (and we have something of a dream team of angels), we could potentially make that a couple of hundred leads to work with. Nice.

Jerry suggests I set a due date for each director’s ‘top three’ (let’s make it 4 days from now). We all agree. Wrap up.

Total meeting time? About 90 minutes. Could we have stretched it out another 90 minutes to fill the entire 3 hours scheduled? Probably, but why? It was good to have the time available if needed, but what we really needed was to get one pretty major thing done and we did it efficiently and reasonably quickly. The bonus was an hour and a half of extra time for a bunch of time starved folks. I even got a ‘great board meeting’ text message from Brad after the fact.

Lesson learned? Keep it focused, get your board business wrapped up quickly at the front end and spend your time on what you really need the collective intelligence of the board’s help with. No less, but also, no more.

And if you can, give them some of that time back,. Time’s one of the few things your board members are likely short of. They’ll appreciate it more than you know.

And yes, they all did the homework and via email we narrowed it down to 2 markets (and maybe a 3^rd) within 4 days. Great stuff and exactly how I envisioned an active and engaged board of directors really adding value to a startup.

What Every Startup Needs: A King Arthur and a Merlin

King Arthur or Merlin. Which are you?

I suspect that many if not most successful high tech companies have both as founders. A King Arthur, the front man, the person facing the world and the overall leader, and a Merlin, the magician behind the king who, with Arthur, puts together the magic of the company like products, strategy, teams, vision and council to Arthur.

Think Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak of Apple, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen of YouTube, and of course, Captain Kirk and Spock of Star Trek (OK, that's a stretch, but you get the idea).

Startups that have both of these archetypes in the early stage mix seem to generally do better than those that don't. Of course, you don't have to have these two, you can start with one or the other, but if you want to truly get both great product and market traction, and do it quickly, you'll be better off if you have both.

So ask yourself: Do you have both? If you don't, and you're a Merlin, get yourself an Arthur. If you're the King already, don't try to do it alone.

Blogs and Newspapers

I got an email today from someone at The Denver Post announcing that they were going to do a business oriented blog.

I’m writing to introduce and invite you to a new blog now featured on the Denver Post website.

blogs.denverpost.com/bizbuzz/category/technology

This blog will feature information and commentary about developments in the rapidly-changing world of technology, but heavily focused on Colorado and surrounding regions.

OK, interesting. Might be worth reading and I'll check it out. But then this:

While this blog – and all of our Denver Post blogs – are not replacements for news, this kind of interaction is designed to supplement and hopefully strengthen the exemplary news coverage you find in our newspaper daily.

This is interesting. They're saying: "This isn't news or meant to compete with news". To a degree, that's true, it's context for news. It's also, often, The News to me. It's all I read, if there isn't a relevant link. Where do newspapers think we get news now? Yes, often, it's an article in the NYT or WSJ if it's national, or the Denver Post or the Boulder Camera if it's local. But, almost always, I read that story now as a link from a blog. Someones blog recommended the story (or referenced it in a context I'm interested in). Either that, or from Google News, Digg or Reddit. I haven't read a paper newspaper in years, and only rarely do I go directly to newspapers websites anymore. I get to them through the context of someones opinion.

If newspapers really wanted to drive the creation and consumption of news on the internet, they should consider using their editorialists as context creators. Encourage and empower those folks writing their editorials (i.e. their blogs.. pretty much the same thing) to talk about things we're interested in, and then reference the stories in their papers (and if they were really smart, other papers and information sources as well). That, assuming I like and or trust the editorial/blogger, is much more valuable to me in finding relevant reading than context free news stories.