DISQUS

I've found that most of the debate isn't whether or not VCs are to blame for anything, but whether or not the traditional model of venture capital works. Very few problems can ever be blamed on one person or group of people. The most important aspect of the debate in my mind is related to whether or not the traditional venture capital model helps companies succeed and provides significant / big returns for LPs (since that's what it's all about.) If VC doesn't do those two things then it's open for debate as to whether the model has to evolve.

And where I see most of the discussion focusing is on the middle ground between early angels and traditional VC money that comes in on a Series A (or maybe in the future more often on a Series B). That middle ground - in the $500k range or so - where angel groups can play a role or smaller, more agile funds can play a role making more, but smaller bets. I think the debate should focus on that aspect of things, and whether a middle layer between individual angels and traditional VC can work successfully, and how. And by extension how the VC model evolves to accommodate that.

Charles - great post and interesting comments that follow. I think it's also important to understand a company's sales model and strategy in conjunction with the business model.

If you find that sales are generated more successfully through a higher touch model (i.e. demos, etc.) then offering anything for free is a challenge, because you have to exert more energy to make a sale but the sale brings in $0. I think of http://www.hubspot.com as a good example. No free trials. No free version. And the sales process involves a demo. That's a high touch model where it would be silly to offer the product for free.

So beyond just the business model and whether some form of freemium works, companies need to evaluate how they're going to market and sell the product as well, and understand how their market wants to be sold. That can impact the business / revenue model.

(Incidentally, I found your site through http://www.startupcfo.ca where you left a comment.)

I'm always a fan when venture capitalists or folks working at VC firms (or as angel investors) decide to blog. It can give entrepreneurs (like yours truly) a bit of a sneak peak inside what they're thinking - and it's great for reaching out and connecting as well.

Todd - thanks for linking over, and I look forward to news on your startup.

Howard wasn't solely saying that it's a bad time to start a coming, quite the opposite. What he was saying is that some startups may work less effectively in this economy and market. A startup focused on revenue (and profit) is going to get more traction than one that's based on an advertising revenue model.

He also supported the ideas of starting "micro-startups" like his latest venture, StockTwits, where the cost is so low that you can afford to grow it very slowly through lousy times.

Mentorship is key. I've written about that in the past - and just recently after attending StartupEmpire. The challenge in Canada is that we don't have a significant volume of successful entrepreneurs (with 1 or more exits under their belts) to serve as mentors. Some of those stars have gone to the US (although we could drag them back!), and others are in industries where participation isn't the same as it is for us (think: gaming, super high tech stuff, biotech, etc.)

I don't know if a TechStars-like program could work in Canada, but I certainly think we should keep looking at those possibilities and work towards those types of initiatives.

That's a great idea. I didn't take notes, but I would go back through the content and highlight some things that I thought were particularly important, once that content is available...

The key - and I hope I have time to write about this on my blog - is that most of the information was practical. That's important. There were details in many of the presentations that you wouldn't normally get at a similar conference. And some tough questions asked. Hopefully next time the questions get even tougher.

InstaPitch was critical as well. Again: practical.

I think there are enough conferences / presentations / blogs / etc. that talk about the sky falling, about macro issues, and provide fairly generic, standard advice. And even those blogs that provide real, detailed and practical advice can't replace the face-to-face, in-person atmosphere of an event.

Nice job guys.

I wish I had been starting companies at 15 ... congrats.

Thanks for having me Aaron, and thanks to Jimmy for being well prepared and asking great questions - it was fun all-around, and hopefully useful to your listeners!

This is precisely why I didn't want to use it. I didn't read the ToS (I'm glad someone did the work for me!) but the concern of having any information I submit suddenly show up somewhere ... didn't sit well with me. I didn't get far in the process, but I suspect a chunk of the information is quite private for most companies ... typing that randomly into a web form is a bit scary.

Furqan - Thanks for linking over and adding your thoughts to Support 2.0. I think some of the best folks involved in this new approach are the guys @ Get Satisfaction (http://www.getsatisfaction.com).

Congrats Tamar! Very cool news...

Hi Brad - Thanks for the feedback. Where Jobster and Standout Jobs differ, is that we're not focused on building a destination site. Instead, we're giving companies the tools they need to build their own audiences and talent pools.

Of course, with the attention we received today, a lot of that was focused on our site, but over time companies will be building up their own traffic. This will be done through things like job marketing/distribution.

As well, we launched with just about 30 customers. So while search is something we may very likely include on the site, it wasn't the highest priority. And for us, the companies are as important if not more important than the jobs. And we hope candidates are willing to do a bit more exploration of companies to find the right cultural and personal fits.

Thanks again.

Thanks Jevon. It's been a wild day so far, and I expect it's only going to get crazier.

Thanks Jevon. It's been a wild day so far, and I expect it's only going to get crazier.

Video for recruiting definitely can work. As much as a company may be concerned with the issues (time, quality, etc.) - which are all valid, but not insurmountable - you can't get past the fact that a video shows off a company infinitely better than text. I have yet to read more than a handful of job posts that would inspire me to apply for a job. But video does a marvelous job of showing candidates what matters to them - the team, culture and office.

I'm simplifying, but video definitely works. A candidate can instantly visualize whether they'd work there or not, and if the answer is "yes" they are going to make more effort when they apply (which is good for the companies.)

Video isn't for everyone, but most companies I speak to are surprised at how easy it is to do it well. And the technology barriers are lowering daily.

Congrats Adam. I look forward to seeing a greater and greater contribution from you on the site.