Non-Linear VC

A glimpse around the next corner; mind the curves.

Areas I’m most likely to invest in during 2010

I have always been fairly thematic in my investment approach. For me, the process starts with identifying big markets that are either 1) emerging (and will therefore be created over the next several years) or 2) undergoing some structural shift that will enable new entrants to grab market share from incumbents. I have seen Companies succeed in both types of markets and so I don’t have a preference for either approach. In 2010, there are a several big themes that I’m tracking which are likely to influence my investment selection during the year.

Everything is a service

For several years I’ve been spouting off about the notion that “everything is turning into a service”. I outlined some detailed thoughts on this trend in a post titled “The future is in services” last June. As I look several years out, I see several big value chains threatened by this trend, creating opportunities for upstarts. For example, I think there will continue to be pockets of attractive investments in SaaS. But where I see big opportunity is in cloud based services and platforms that enable the cloud to become a true utility to the enterprise, small business and even consumers. Transforming computing from a product into a service is a non-trivial shift that will take many years, but the march is on and the direction of the trend is undeniable. Computing, storage, etc. will all primarily be purchased as a service in the not too distant future.

Platforms

For me, 2010 will be the year of the platform. The notion of open platforms that enable third-party developers to innovate on top of the platform by consuming API is alluring to me. I’ve already put my money where my mouth is on this one as several of my investments have ”platform” as a core component of their product and go-to-market strategy. Communications is an areas that has largely been untouched by the platform trend. It seems to me that the time is ripe for the network to begin opening up. I’ve written about this in the past on my firm’s blog; you can find that post here. The post is a bit dated, but I think you will get the point. Location services is another area where I think there are platform plays emerging.

Payments

I have an inkling that innovation is finally coming to payments. There have been some big exits in recent months, including BillMeLater and Revolution Money. Neither is particularly reflective of the type of innovation I think is coming in payment, but both show the size/scale of businesses that can be built given the massive size of the payments sector. With PayPal opening up its platform to third-party developers, there is going to be a rash of new payment application development in the coming years. As an investor in IP Commerce, I have a special perch from which to watch this trend. I’m staggered by the diversity of payment applications being developed on top of the IP Commerce platform. Several have already caught my eye as potential new investments and I believe more will do the same in 2010. I’m also tracking some big last cash markets, which I think are finally opening up to electronic payment providers.

Mobile

Mobile is an area I have tracked closely for several years now. And while some would argue that the market has disappointed, I would counter that we are still in only the early innings of a very long game. I continue to believe firmly in the mobile web, or the web optimized for the display needs and the unique capabilities/properties of mobile phones. I’m less enthusiastic about applications being developed for the iPhone/Android/RIM and other operating systems; or at least less enthusiastic about investing in companies that create those apps. There is just too much OS fragmentation for application developers to manage effectively and it is difficult to make any particular app stand out in the crowd.. As 4G networks begin to roll out, more bandwidth may obviate the need for a downloadable app. In some ways, apps remind me of PointCast; remember that? I’ll continue to track this trend closely, but as it stands, my money is on the web, not the apps in the long-run. Regardless, I’m more interested in the infrastructure and plumbing in mobile than the consumer-facing application side. The fact is that the mobile use case is fundamentally different from the web and it enables usage paradigms that are not relevant on the tethered web. As a result, the capabilities of the plumbing for mobile need to cater to what is unique about the mobile experience, creating an opportunity for new players to stake out a dominant and differentiated position.

I’m likely to make two new investments in 2010. I am more likely to prioritize my review of investments that synch with the themes outlined in this post. I’m also more likely to make investments in these areas than other areas I’m not tracking as closely. Having said that, I think it is critical to marry a thematic (and therefore planful) approach to identifying great investments with an opportunistic approach. So I don’t rule out making investments in other areas in 2010. I know there will be several entrepreneurs with whom I interact who light a spark causing me to dig deep into areas not outlined in this post. Frankly, I look forward to having that spark lit; it is a great part of the process of discovery that the VC business requires.

Filed under: Cloud, Investment Selection, Payments, Platforms, Themes, Venture Capital, Wireless , , , , , , ,

Financing a Services Business: The Valley of Death

It is a late afternoon ritual for me to read the Meritage Minute, a daily briefing on key news events published by my colleague Heidi Longaberger. If you would like to receive The Minute, email Heidi at: hlongaberger@meritagefunds.com. Yesterday’s briefing included an AlwaysOn piece titled “In Ten Years Will All Apps Be in the Cloud?” I’m not here to debate the merit of the piece; ”all” is a strong word despite the fact that directionally, movement toward the cloud is inevitable. The article lists a series of challenges of moving into the cloud, most of which are the same FUD often touted by those that don’t quite understand. And of course there is the compulsory Twitter data breach mention. Despite that, the last paragraph contains an important nugget of wisdom; a challenge all services businesses (including those in the cloud) face which has nothing to do with technology, scalability, security or compliance. Here it is:

Return on Investment. From a VC standpoint, it takes a long time to run a subscription business past the Valley of Death.  Time to revenue for a cloud business is very long, because revenue comes in a stream, not a lump. Driving sales has to be very swift and very focused.

This is essentially a financing challenge. It is all too often overlooked by entrepreneurs. Services businesses can be capital efficient, but are not necessarily so. To understand this fully, we have to look at both the cost and revenue-sides of the business.

Build it Before They Come

In the services business, you have to build the service before you serve the first customer; not just the product, the entire service. The product analogy is the R&D that goes into hardware/equipment design or into software development in the software business. But in the services business, the stakes are higher, you also have to create a customer service infrastructure, billing and operating support systems, and service delivery infrastructure to wrap around your offering. These costs are ongoing, they are not one-time and sunk. Worse yet, all that infrastructure has to be supported by staff. Early in the businesses’ development, the services operator is by definition operating at well less than minimum efficient scale, so these up-front investments can consume significant amounts of capital and look highly inefficient on paper. Simply “outsourcing” these functions is not the solution. You are still running at sub-scale so whoever you outsource to is going to charge you rates that reflect your scale.

The point is that the services business has a significant minimum cost structure that is required to deliver on a minimum required level of customer support, quality of service, uptime, sla management, etc. Relative to other businesses, the cost structure is high fixed operating cost, low marginal cost per incremental customer. Now lets look at the revenue side of the equation.

Delayed Revenue

One of the appealing elements of the service delivery model for customers is that they get to swap up-front CapEx (think hardware and software purchases) for a delayed, consumption-based payment stream. This is well and good for the customer, but has some significant implications for the services operator. The first and most obvious issue is that the receipt of cash is delayed; that is challenge enough.

But what happens when you miss your bookings of incremental monthly recurring revenue (MRR)?

The Rule of 78s

Those of us who have been around services business have internalized a concept called the rule of 78s. Lets say you project your company will book $50k of new MRR during your first twelve months of revenue generation. The rule of 78s say that the company will generate a total of $3.9 million ($50k * 78) of revenue over that year. [Note: 78 is simply the total of the revenue months during the year; 12+11+10+...+1] But what happens if the company does only $25k of MRR bookings. Now the first year revenue is only $1.95 million. The company just missed its revenue number by$1 million and that miss is probably all incremental burn because of the high fixed cost, low marginal cost of operating the business. I’ve taken a bit of a liberty (albeit a small one) on the cost structure assumptions here, but you get the point.

Run-Rate Matters

Now lets look at where the company stands at the end of that first year of revenue generation. If the business hits the $50k MRR bookings number, the end of year run-rate revenue is $600k. But if the Company does only half of the projection, the end-of-year run-rate revenue also drops by half; to $300k. Again, the difference, in this case $300k per month, is probably all incremental burn, because of the cost structure of the business. So not only has the company burned $1 million more than anticipated in the first year, but the business is also burning $300k per month more than projected at the end of year. If your fixed operating costs are $600k per month, the business is 2 months away from covering fixed operating expenses under the $50k MRR bookings scenario, but 12 months away under the $25k MRR bookings scenario; assuming no churn. This gap between fixed costs and recurring revenues is the Valley of Death referenced by the AlwaysOn author. Further delays in revenue acquisition are going to exacerbate this problem, particularly if your fixed operating costs are higher than $600k. MRR bookings misses don’t just impact the month of the miss, but reverberate though every subsequent month.

Skeptical not Cynical

You can understand why investors are weary of investing in services-delivery model businesses early in their life-cycle. And so far, we’ve only addressed the costs and revenue economics of the business at an income statement level. We haven’t even begun to address the uncertainties around customer profitability, including the lifetime value of a customer, which makes investors really queasy. Profitless prosperity (think Vonage), is a scary concept to investors and without operating history to prove out metrics around customer acquisition costs, ARPU, churn, renewal rates, costs to serve, there is a bunch of guesswork to be done, educated as it may be. I’ll address some of the issues around customer lifetime value in future posts.

Don’t fret, all is not lost. Some of this, particularly on the cost side can be managed. Better yet, there are actually investors who prefer the services model (I happen to be one of them) and understand how to build services businesses. Having uncovered some of the services businesses flaws, I’ll talk about why I prefer it in future posts.

Filed under: Cloud, Economics, SaaS, Venture Capital , , , , , ,

The future is in services

Last week, I attended GigaOm’s Structure ‘09 Conference: Put Cloud Computing to Work. It was worthwhile to attend and I intend to return next year. It was exciting to see how the services business model is being rapidly adopted by the technology-delivery value-chain.

In a talk titled The Cloud in Context, Russ Daniels, VP and CTO of Cloud Services Strategy at HP put it most succinctly, describing HP’s vision as:

“Everything is a Service”.

Full video of Daniels’ talk here. While the “everything is a service” mantra is almost certainly overreaching, it drives home an undeniable point; the action is in services. To make it fully, I think you have to start with the view from the customer’s perspective. What the customer wants is functionality that helps them achieve a business objective delivered at a total cost of ownership that is less than the value they can extract from the functionality. Issues of security and control aside for a moment, the customer is mercenary about this and will adopt the delivery method that gives them the functionality they want with the best ROI. Said another way, customers are becoming delivery-model agnostic.

It is no wonder then that the operating model through which value is delivered to customers (whether enterprise, smb or consumer) is turning away from products and toward services. It is well documented that in many cases, the services model has an ROI advantage over the product model. At a macro level, I tend to frame the transformation technology markets are undergoing as one where products are turning into services.

Products turning into services

Consider the transformation taking place in each of the following areas:

Value Proposition Product Delivery Model Services Delivery Model
Application level functionality Shrink-wrapped Software Software as a Service
Data storage Hardware Storage as a Service
Computing power/Processing Web Servers Computing as a Service

In each case, the value proposition – once delivered to the customer in the form of a one-time sale/license product – can now be accessed by the customer through a CapEx light service. Customers are dropping the CapEx and OpEx associated with managing IT infrastructure for pure OpEx in the form of services.

An Investors View

While technology plays a key role in enabling the trend toward services, the trend itself is not fundamentally about technology. Rather, the opportunity offered by the cloud is a more efficient operating model; the service operating model. This creates a new layer to the technology value chain; the services layer. Any time a new layer is added to a value chain, new investment opportunities are created and pre-existing layers of the value chain are at risk. From a venture investor’s point of view, this forces a rethinking of investment approaches.

An ecosystem play

The new investment opportunities in the cloud go way beyond the traditional IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS layers of the stack, although there are opportunities within each of those categories. Each of these layers will require its own support ecosystem to achieve its full potential. These are often referred to as enablers. Enablers are interesting investment opportunities, because they enable the investor to play the momentum of a category. For example, an investment in a SaaS enabler that provides billing, operating support and other capabilities to SaaS developers is a play on the success of SaaS as a category as opposed to any one SaaS operator. If the category you “enable” fails, like the mobile virtual network operator category, your enabler will fail, like the mobile virtual network enablers failed. But if the category you are enabling is successful, the rising tide is likely to lift your boat too, so long as you have a valuable service.

Existing value chain is threatened

The emergence of the service layer is facilitated by massive improvements in networking, computing, storage and software, including virtualization. What is ironic is that the emergence of the services layer threatens the very same product vendors that have facilitated its development. In the product oriented technology value chain, product vendors (software, storage, computing) sold to end users; enterprises, small businesses and consumers. In a services oriented value chain, these same product vendors sell to the service providers (IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS). For an investor there are two implications. The first is that those product companies just lost access to the end customer, replaced by the relationship between the service provider and the customer. The second implication is less obvious, but more threatening. The services business is a business of economies of scale. It requires a significant up-front investment in service delivery infrastructure, but has very low margin costs for each new customer added. The result is that sub-scale service operators can’t compete; and the big get bigger. This tends to restult in a concentrated service provider market, consolidating buying power, which squeezes margins of  the suppliers to the service providers. Those of us who have roots in the services sectors understand this phenomenon quite well. We have a saying at Meritage about the communications equipment space that I’ve grown fond of; “there are too many vendors and not enough customers”. This is one of the many reasons we don’t invest in communications equipment, but we love the communications services landscape.

The point is, if I were a product company focused on selling software, storage, or computing, I’d be frightened right now because my sales model is going to change dramatically over the coming ten years and not in my favor. The “On the Shoulders of Giants” panel at Structure really drove this message home. The panel, moderated by Jonathan Heiliger of Facebook, included ops leaders from Microsoft, MySpace, Google, Yahoo! And LinkedIn. These guys push their vendors hard. Heck, Google designs its own hardware and considers it a competitive advantage. Product vendors can expect more of the same treatment with the emergence of big cloud services operators like Amazon, Salesforce.com and others.

It is no wonder then that every major product vendor, from SAP to EMC is stuck in a seemingly bipolar tug of war between their legacy product businesses and their emerging attempts to run services platforms. Unfortunately, the key success factors for running a product-oriented company don’t translate well into a services environment.

Implications for Venture Capital

Participants in the technology supply chain aren’t the only ones struggling with the implications of the cloud’s emergence. The venture community is as well. It turns out that investing in services businesses demands a different skillset and philosophy than investing in product companies.

Because most services businesses go to market with a recurring revenue business model, the economics of the business are much harder to evaluate and the profitability is back-end loaded. In a prior post, I wrote about The economics of on-demand services, which includes an evaluation of unit factors like ARPU, churn, service delivery costs, etc. This is sufficiently more complicated than the economics of hardware; sell a unit, collect the revenue and lock in your gross margin on the sale.

The net result is that services businesses can be quite capital intensive, even if the market responds well to the service. It is more capital efficient than was the case when you had to build your own network to deliver a service (think cable), but still more capital intensive than product investing. As a result, investing in services is not for the faint of heart. Early indicators of success that are so prevalent in the product world are harder to come identify, except with an expert eye. It takes a tremendous amount of patience and in some cases stubborn conviction to be successful in services investing.

The opportunity for investors in the cloud is real, but only for those with an appropriate long-term company building philosophy and a level of comfort with the services business model.

Filed under: Cloud, Conferences, Themes, Venture Capital , , , , , , ,

Reactions from the Glue Conference

Last week I attended the Glue Conference here in Denver. As the name suggests, Glue is all about connecting things on the web; specifically, connecting infrastructure based services, to platform services through to applications and SaaS based services. Thematically, Glue is a rare targeted conference that fits well with my investment interests, which casually I describe as “all about platforms and services”. To have this conference in my “back-yard” was a real treat. First about the conference, I have to say that Eric Norlin, the conference coordinator did a great job with the agenda, which came off without a hitch. Eric made what is inherently a chaotic process look easy; no small feat. He had a big assist from the Foundry Group guys, and in particular Seth Levine. Great job to all!

A couple of key observations struck me after I’d had a chance to digest the two-day agenda and I wanted to share them here.

Bright Light on Services: For some time, I have believed that we were in the early stages of a major wave of service-based innovation. Certainly, there remains innovation in products and technologies that facilitate these services, but increasingly, services are where the action is. As if I needed further evidence, Glue offered it.  The amount of innovation going on in the loosely coupled web is staggering, all facilitated by cloud-based services delivery platforms.

“The Cloud” Remains Early: You know you are early in a market cycle when no-one can agree on the definition of the market. The cloud, its boundaries, remain amorphous and poorly defined. This is not to say that the opportunity isn’t real, it is simply to say that the market has yet to sort itself out with common language that has shared meaning. The same terms are used to describe varying concepts. Take the simple stack-based construct of a) infrastructure as a service, b) platform as a service and c) software as a service; where the lines of demarcation are between these layers of the stack remain fuzzy.

 One Size Does not Fit All: While one may be able to define the common architectural and infrastructure layers of the cloud with common language, applying them to specific business problems will take a much more flexible construct. The early innovation in the cloud seems to be in the social networking space where the use of APIs and cloud based service delivery platforms are comfortable to engineers. But I was amazed at how cavalier those with a focus on social were about applying cloud based principles to the enterprise space. I asked several people at the conference who would be accountable for quality of service, uptime, reliability, etc. to the the enterprise customer of small business owner in a loosley coupled application environment where multiple “services” were integrated into a single application environment (for example a third-party calendar application integrated into a CRM application. The answer I typically got was; “well the calendar is a small application so its no big deal if it goes down.” Really? Its as if I was speaking a different language. Krishnan Submaranian and I had the one thoughtful conversation I had at the conference on this topic. The topic of our conversation was “whose throat do you choke”, which he blogged on today. I couldn’t agree more with his post. Cloud and loosley coupled application developers will have to internalize these issues if they are to suceed in the enterprise and smb market.

 The Big Barriers: There are some big unresolved questions that I believe must be answered before one can expect massive customer adoption of cloud based computing platforms. The first category is around data portabilty and ownership. Who owns the data? How does the data get transported from one platform to another? Will the cloud platform vendors adopt open platform business practices? There was alot of discussion about standards as the “way to solve these issues”. I see it a bit differently, which is to say that until platform vendors adopt open business practices (as opposed to “standards” which are subject to interpretation), the cloud will hold itself back. Vendors will have to learn to differentiate their services on factors that are fundamentally valuable to customers, as opposed to holding customers hostage through data lock-in.

All in all, if you are intersted in the cloud and the loosley coupled, web, you really should attend Glue next year. I had a great couple of days, met some great people and learned alot. Most of all, I remain excited about the investment prospects in this area.

If you would like a more granular review of the two-day agenda, the guys at Cloud Ave. guys did a nice two-part piece which you can find here: Part 1; Part 2.

Filed under: Cloud, Conferences ,

My Twitter Feed

  • RT @JumpTap: #mobileupfront John Hadl favors mobile browser over apps and thinks it will win > I agree; eventually. 15 hours ago
  • RT @kcbigring: wsj and npr building custom ipad websites ... yeh that's just great #twostepsback -do smart people not see the absurdity here 15 hours ago
  • @bfeld Hard being a captive audience. Wears you down. 1 day ago
  • @jbminn Best to avoid it. Floyd Hill and tired, testosterone induced, 4k lbs. SUV drivers a bad combo. 1 day ago
  • I've finally "come down" from trip down the mountain last night. Reckeless drivers infuriate me; particularly when my kids are in the car. 1 day ago