Disqus - Latest Comments for jasoncohen

Re: Do You Strive To Be Disruptive?

Jason Cohen — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:25:30 -0000

Thanks for the rebuttal.

I grant you that if you're not changing the world, the world changes anyway. And of course if you're only going to compete in one of the areas you list -- price or different features -- then of course you're vulnerable to others' disruption.

Of course you're also just vulnerable to any competition, because those things aren't good competitive advantages anyway...

It's easy to say "change the status quo," but it's hard to sell to new customers. It's easy to say "change the world or be changed by it," but it's hard to be profitable doing that.

I do like your conclusion though -- that maybe we can keep that stuff in the back of our minds as a vision without letting it foul up the day-to-day efforts of just getting profitable and following our nose. Maybe a good compromise.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Re: Sacrifice your health for your startup

Jason Cohen — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:40:34 -0000

Sounds like you missed the point of the article. And to say that anyone who works really hard and succeeded at building a company "inherited and cheated" their way is really insulting to every entrepreneur I know.

Of course you should prize health over money. Of course you need to pick when you do it -- I said exactly that at the end of the article (did you read it?).

You can ask dying anyone what's important and they won't say "more money right now." That doesn't mean there isn't the correct time in your life where it is appropriate.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:55:17 -0000

Good discussion though guys, thanks for the perspectives!

If I may weigh in, first it's clear that "Angel" can mean several things, which might be the cause of the disconnect. For example, there's "Angel" as is "before the planned A and B rounds" and "Angel" as in "We shouldn't need any more money than this."

I am writing from the latter perspective; it's possible (correct me!) that e.g. Kerry is writing from the former? In any case, clearly there are different possible motives.

I would agree that if the business is healthy, exit opportunities do appear in the sense that a growing, profitable company of a certain size or higher is always in demand, even as a profitable division of a holding company designed for such things. I also agree that myopically setting you sites on "exit" could damage your perspective on just building a good company.

Still, for an investor it's nice to have possible exits understood. E.g. that it's typical for this industry to consolidate.

But there are other ways -- like balloon loans -- for an Angel to make a good return without worrying about exit at all!

Re: 4 MORE ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:50:50 -0000

Ah -- I didn't understand at first your point that it's OK if all this stuff isn't explicit on the slides so long as the attitude and answers to questions show the entrepreneur is "thinking right."

I 100% agree with that! And with your point that if 2 of 8 are "missing" it's not a deal-breaker. I know the title is forceful, but of course there's artistic license there... "automatic rejection" is of course harsher than reality dictates.

Also I think we angels need to appreciate that there's such a thing as a terrific entrepreneur who is awful at making investment pitches. :-) Allowances have to be made for that. IMO founders need to be good at selling their product to their end customers, but that's not at all the same as selling the idea of the business to investors!

Also I agree East Coast is different from West when it comes to these things. East Coast VCs are likely to, let's just say, have the Wall Street mindset, whereas Valley folks often don't and seem more likely to shoot for the stars without mechanical analysis.

Re: 4 MORE ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:45:29 -0000

Good points. It's true that I, personally, represent a more conservative approach to investing, and that others are not so conservative, and in that case other attributes might be more important.

I would argue this though -- that the more solidly you address these issues, the better standing you have with any investor. Would you argue that folks should NOT address competition or NOT focus on customer acquisition strategy or pretend this isn't risky?

Finally, I completely disagree with your assessment of VCs as "one that is highly conservative." VC investment is *explicitly* not conservative. In fact, it's their job to take big gambles. The folks putting money into the funds *demand* high-risk-high-reward, otherwise there are easier ways to play it safer.

But I do agree that there's a HUGE variety in types of angels, both in what they expect, what they want to invest in, and what they may or may not have to offer, and that I'm giving just my opinion.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:27:02 -0000

It's funny you should say this, since I'm on the record as agreeing with you that it's hard to tell the difference between ability and luck! http://blog.asmartbear.com/...

However:

1. I've been successful three times, so the Black Swan argument is harder to make.
2. All of the points above are good business tips regardless.
3. I agree many people don't need investment at all! But that doesn't mean Angels == Greedy. In fact, I'm wondering where you got that idea...

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:12:52 -0000

I humbly accept your criticism!

Seriously, I do. But allow me to defend my style choice:

1. Being strong-worded is more brief and powerful than hedging.
2. Hedging barely adds to the content, but hampers readability.
3. If you read more of my work (http://blog.asmartbear.com) you'll see that I'm transparent and honest about all sorts of things, and *often* talk about my mistakes and how I've changed my mind.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:09:16 -0000

Thanks for the kind words!

Traditional angels don't necessarily have a bad track record. However, my point of view is that if they significantly disagree on a significant number of these points (and stay tuned for 4 more in a subsequent article!), IMO they're not being reasonable or practical, and therefore they're probably a bad influence over your business.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:20:11 -0000

Have you seen a 5-year projection that you felt was realistic?

I agree with you that IF the 5-year proj seemed reasonable, PERHAPS that would be a good sign. In my experience, however, that hasn't happened even once.

What I *do* want to hear is *how* revenue and costs will be handled, which I talked about in detail in the article. But the projection itself is useless to me.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:19:00 -0000

I totally agree with both points! Thanks.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:18:42 -0000

Love it, thanks!

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:18:27 -0000

hmmm, I never said "viable needs" and "IPO" is not a word anyone made up....

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:17:50 -0000

Why would you say that?

I do agree that in other industries it can be easier to make projections because costs and customer acquisition can be more quantifiable.

Still, I challenge you (for example) to find an industry in which a "5 year project" for a BRAND NEW COMPANY has any validity.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:16:06 -0000

Hi Jennifer,

I agree that VCs want to see it, but I disagree that it's useful. I understand about the thought process, but you can talk about that without actually inventing numbers.

Angels are usually very different than VCs in the type of companies they want to invest in. This really depends on whether you expect to ONLY raise Angel or whether Angel is the round before round A. If the latter, you're right. If the former, the type of investor is different.

Re: Which box do you pick? - Ninh Nguyen's blog

Jason Cohen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:01:53 -0000

You're right of course that there are more than two boxes.

I didn't mean to suggest there are only two paths in life! Only that the box puzzle as stated is a useful TOOL for deciding what's really important to you, and as a tool to illustrate a point.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:15:28 -0000

I think you're both right! :-)

Competition is healthy because it indicates there's a market. However if you don't have a good story for how you'll carve your niche in that market, then it's not clear that you'll defeat that competition.

Good stuff guys!

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:14:25 -0000

Agreed that many want projections anyway. However you might find that VCs want projections, but Angels are not as interested.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be: Have a reasonable path to profitability, but not hard numbers to hit in 3 years.

Finally, if your Angel or VC is adamant about those projections, consider that perhaps you don't want their money, because they're already not thinking properly about business.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:13:21 -0000

That's hilarious, because what you don't know is that there's a part 2 of this article already queued up, and one of those points is there!

:-)

Thanks for posting the video too. The more perspective folks get on this, the better.

Re: 4 ways to get automatically rejected by an angel investor

Jason Cohen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:08:30 -0000

Yes, terrific observation! I agree completely and I wish I had thought of it first. :-)

Re: danieltenner.com — The questionable value of the real-time web

Jason Cohen — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:38:03 -0000

Thanks for the kind mention. I completely agree with your argument against the RT web.

Consider the few things which merit being real-time -- those things are drowned in a sea of garbage. By not separating things by urgency, we no longer have that mechanism for prioritization.

I can't imagine this is making us happier in our everyday lives. The date cartoon is too true. You see people glued to a tiny screen, sending and receiving useless tidbits, rather than interacting with the world OR reading/writing something truly useful, inspiring, edifying, or any of the other wonderful things writing can be.

Thanks for calling it out.

Re: Which box do you pick? - Ninh Nguyen's blog

Jason Cohen — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:01:39 -0000

I wonder if Bill Gates' goal was always "to change the world."

At least for me, that is NOW a goal, but only because I have the financial freedom for it to make sense to be a goal.

Re: http://blog.omgponi.es/post/209273534

Jason Cohen — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:32:45 -0000

You're totally right! I'm a moderator on the site.

Unfortunately we're using StackExchange, which means we're not in control of those rules. So our hands are tied.

I hope you come back anyway! Thanks.

Re: The Lazy Way to Success: Book Review

Jason Cohen — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:39:02 -0000

If doing nothing and being unremarkable was the way to success, success wouldn't be so hard.

I do agree it's great to ask the fundamental questions of productivity, of what's truly necessary in a business, etc.. However I disagree with using hyperbole like "lazy way to riches" or "how to do nothing and get everything," because that's disingenuous.

Re: Would you pay for the NY Times?

Jason Cohen — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:44:54 -0000

Yes they are exploring, and I wish them the best of luck because it would be a shame to lose the real journalism and commentary.

I worry that they'll run out of money before they succeed, and that they might be too stuck in the past to succeed.

I'm rooting for them anyway.

Re: Would you pay for the NY Times?

Jason Cohen — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:30:52 -0000

While people still stay "I can get that information for free elsewhere," I doubt they can charge.

Whether that sentiment is TRUE or not is irrelevant. Clearly you can't get NYT op-ed pieces elsewhere, clearly there's a base level of journalism that CNN doesn't have, clearly the in-depth pieces aren't matched by any blog-level source on the Internet.

But if most people don't value it, it doesn't matter.

Personally I pay $50/year for the New Yorker magazine because it's amazing and you can't get that content anywhere else. But I could argue with other people all day whether it's "worth it" -- doesn't matter right?

In the end we know they can't make enough money on-line to cover costs. After all, without classified they can't make enough money even in print to cover costs!

There's probably completely different models that could work, but just transferring the old model into the new medium isn't enough.