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.