Tag Archives: Harvard University

Barbarians at the Watergate

THIS PLACE Washington society adjusts to a new breed: the fast-moving, different-thinking, so very dot-com riche In a blaze of lights at the MCI Center Arena, the nouveau Madison Square Garden of Washington, D.C., basketball superstar Michael Jordan made his announcement. He was acquiring an ownership stake in the Washington Wizards and would serve as the team’s president of basketball operations. The news, widely anticipated because of leaks prior to Jordan’s January 19 appearance, played well in the capital. Neighbors couldn’t stop talking about it. Pundits had a field day. It was the knell that signaled an end to the district’s darkest days. There was a new Washington now, with a new, can-do mayor, Anthony Williams. The city’s financial crisis was over. Real estate was rebounding. And now Michael Jordan, with that perennial movie-star grin, had arrived. Only one way to go, everyone seemed to be saying — up — a direction particularly well suited to His Airness (and the loss-ridden Wizards, too). It hasn’t been that long since D.C. — besides being the seat of the most powerful government in the free world — was a ranking murder capital with a standing mayor who was an international embarrassment. The city government was so mismanaged that stories of payroll checks being issued to dead or nonexistent employees were daily fodder for the Washington Post. “We’ve taken such a bruising in the past 10 years,” says John Tydings, president of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, sort of a chamber of commerce for the Beltway. Now, though, the new mayor, the city’s comeback, and Michael Jordan — hell, even the Washington Redskins’ finally making the NFL playoffs — were like manna from heaven. But Jordan’s entrance was eye-popping in another, more significant way. The deal that brought him to town was done without any help from the usual suspects — the cabinet officials, career politicians, lobbyists, media stars, Georgetown Brahmins, society hostesses, policy heads, real estate barons, and well-connected lawyers who have made the town what it is for decades, if not centuries. No, the people who landed Jordan were outsiders, like Wizards part-owner Ted Leonsis, who helped build a local company called America Online Inc. into, arguably, the first dot-com Goliath. These new big-city players did the Jordan deal in their off-hours with play money, much of it from tech fortunes. They made a huge splash for guys who five years before hadn’t even been on the radar screen, let alone on society-party lists. But this is a new day, and not only in Washington. Now politicians are no longer the role models they used to be, especially when compared with the strike-it-rich business stars. On March 9 the Wall Street Journal likened the new era to the turn of the last century, when industrialists with names like Carnegie and Rockefeller led the first entrepreneurial revolution. “It was an era when the economy — with wildcat prosperity, businessmen as media superstars — was shifting like tectonic plates; an era when Wall Street, not the White House, drove events,” the Journal reported. The first big wake-up call for Olde Washington had come only a week before the Jordan deal went down. That’s when America Online — a once unknown speck of a company dabbling in that Internet thing from offices in the distant suburbs — announced it was buying Time Warner Inc. for upwards of $166 billion. The establishment movers and shakers were caught off guard by the hordes of tech millionaires making waves in “our city.” “They don’t know who these people are. They don’t know anything about them. They don’t even know enough to be suspicious,” says Sally Quinn, the Georgetown high-society hostess who offers a window on the elite and also helps shape its outlook through her writings in the pages of the Post. “The first moment anyone ever thought about it was the AOL thing, and they said, ‘Oh, my God! That’s what they do over there.” None of those people were bred in Georgetown. Nor did they attend St. Albans, the elite private school in northwest Washington. Most don’t even have degrees from Yale or Harvard. Worse, they couldn’t care less about the society way of life. They trade neither on their social connections nor on their pedigree but rather on their business exploits, which might include a flaming dot-com failure (it seems to give them credibility, of all things) as easily as a stunning success. Instead of considering social standing in the good old-fashioned meaning of the term, they measure one another by the growth curve of their companies, the size of their paper fortunes, and the global impact of their businesses. Washington, to put it politely, has always been defined by power and access — who’s got it, who wants it, who lost it. Money has never been a part of the equation; certainly not in the way it is in, say, New York. But now money is a force to be reckoned with, big-time, and it’s here to stay. Politics has always supplied Washington with a new crop of movers and shakers, who tended to assimilate into the standing social fabric, refreshing their own ranks with each election. But this new group of tech-fortune youngsters isn’t leaving with the next election. “The way I view it, this is the biggest thing to happen to this city since Washington was made the capital of the nation,” says Quinn, who notes that the recent arrivals are infusing much-needed new blood into a town where the old money kind of “dried up.” And she enthusiastically welcomes the transfusion. “It’s going to have a big impact in every way,” she predicts. Washington used to be quaint, run by a stable circle of friends. Not anymore. To understand how all that is playing out, you need to look at the people who made the Jordan deal happen. The aforementioned Ted Leonsis, now president of AOL Interactive Properties Group and worth an estimated $1 billion, came up with the idea. Originally, he’d been a marketing guy with a company of his own, whose operations were folded into AOL when the larger company bought him out, in 1994. The then-unproven online service paid $45 million, mostly in stock, for Leonsis’s CD-ROM catalog company. That brought Leonsis on board for practically the whole AOL ride, all the way from obscurity to megagiant. Now he’s using the resources he gained to have some real fun. In May 1999, Leonsis and two partners plunked down $200 million for the Washington Capitals hockey team and a stake in the holding company, which counts the Wizards basketball team among its multiple properties. Leonsis figured that snagging Jordan would be the ultimate buzz card, elevating the profile of both teams. He and his group took a meeting with Jordan at his Chicago restaurant. Under the deal they eventually cut, the one that was announced at the MCI Center, Jordan got the front office of the basketball team, a stake in the partnership, and a chance to play with the dot-com boys. ( Boys is not a casual term; modern as dot-coms may be, there are few women among their ranks in Washington.) The way Leonsis tells it, the Capitals’ Web site will be the foundation for building an “Internet distribution channel” for the team in the same way that Ted Turner used cable TV to promote the Atlanta Braves. Right now the Capitals are red-hot. If Jordan also manages a comeback for the Wizards in the next few years, it isn’t hard to figure the upside: valuable teams, Web channel, and then the eventual acquisition of the entire basketball franchise when its current owner, Abe Pollin, 76, retires. No doubt, this was a value investment for all concerned. Six days before Jordan made his role official, Leonsis brought in a partner, Raul Fernandez, to help design the sports-team-cum-Web vision. Fernandez immediately took a place on the roster of Washington’s new power players. Just 33, he is a card-carrying member of the current crop of dot-com millionaires. He is the founder and CEO of Proxicom Inc., a fast-growing Internet-consulting firm based in Reston, Va., that serves clients like General Electric Capital Corp., Mobil Corp., and Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. And he’s a big sports fan. “I told Ted last summer, ‘If you ever need another partner, I’m in,” he says. Fernandez has gotten a lot of ink lately, being featured in the Wall Street Journal and on the cover of Fortune, where he appeared right next to Jordan (“America’s 40 Richest under 40″). His background speaks volumes about how diverse the new A-list in D.C. can be. Fernandez is the son of a Cuban immigrant who came to this country with $100. He grew up outside Washington, D.C., attended the University of Maryland, and then worked on Capitol Hill for Congressman Jack Kemp. In 1991, with $40,000 in savings, he formed his own company. It grew like crazy and went public in April 1999. Since then Proxicom has grown so rapidly that Fernandez’s 28% stake is now worth about $600 million. With that kind of money, he can afford to indulge his “love of competition, in any form.” Although he jets around the world all the time — Proxicom is steadily expanding — Fernandez calls the sports team his “night job.” It has raised his profile, as have his other local activities. Fernandez talks passionately about the importance of community service and appears on philanthropic panels. He is conscious of being a role model for his employees, many of whom are already millionaires in their late twenties and early thirties — the coming shock troops for the new establishment. The rise of a figure like Fernandez is just another signal that times are changing inside the Beltway. Talk to one of the society veterans, like real estate power broker Robert Linowes, about the Washington business world of the 1960s and 1970s. You’ll get a picture of a quaint, provincial town, run mostly by developers, bank managers, and retail executives, who would welcome the other power players — the pols and their minions — in full knowledge that eventually most would return to wherever it was they came from. By contrast, the old Washington hands Linowes recalls knew one another: they sat on the same corporate and philanthropic boards. In the evenings they hobnobbed with the ever-changing political-cultural elite. “It was incestuous, but no one even thought about it,” Linowes says, recalling the days when the landscape could be altered by a few words over dinner at the Willard Hotel. “Conflict of interest? If you didn’t have a conflict, you didn’t have any interest.” It was a cozy little community in those days. But that community has long faded away. The local retail chains were bought out or folded. The banks were gobbled up, the CEOs with community ties replaced by professional managers. And while Washington’s business world was devolving, the federal government was seeding a vast and entirely new industry outside the city’s borders. So-called Beltway bandits grew by feeding an insatiable demand for information technology, supplying all the computers, software, telecommunications services, and training that could fit into the budgets of federal agencies. The defense buildup and deregulation of the telecommunications industry during the 1980s fueled the growth of high tech so well, it now has more employees in the D.C. area than the federal government itself. By the mid-1990s, the local versions of Silicon Valley-style growth companies were primed like a tinderbox ready to explode. The technology, the communications, and the workforce were all in place. All that was needed was the economic spark — and then came the Internet. Mike Daniels, chairman of the Internet-domain-registration company Network Solutions Inc., based in Herndon, Va., is a prime example of a player who was brought into the game by the dot-com revolution and the explosion in Web businesses. He’s one of the “new” breed that was actually in the area all along, one of the tech executives who had worked for decades in obscurity under the shadow of the military- industrial complex. He started out as a naval research officer at ARPA (the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, which invented the Internet — first known as the ARPANET) and then formed his own technology-consulting company. He sold it in 1987 to Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC), an employee-owned company and one of the Beltway bandits. “We were very typical of what went on here in the Washington technology community, especially in the northern Virginia side, until the Internet revolution began,” says Daniels. In 1995 he convinced SAIC that it should buy Network Solutions for $4.8 million. Network Solutions was as close to being a world-dominating organization as there ever was, if you consider cyberspace to be the world. The company was the registrar for the Internet, the keeper of domain names on the Web. Daniels became chairman of the subsidiary and led its initial public offering. In March, VeriSign Inc. agreed to buy Network Solutions for $21 billion. Obscure no longer, Daniels is a made man. Now he appears with the Steve Cases and Michael Dells of the world on panels such as Governor Jim Gilmore’s 2000 Global Internet Summit, which was held in March in Fairfax, Va. The pace at which this new world has emerged isn’t lost on traditional power brokers like Linowes. In the past, he says, if he wanted to raise money quickly on behalf of some philanthropy, all he had to do was get on the phone. With calls to 20 close friends from the city’s business community, he could complete a fund drive. That’s all changed now. Trudging out to northern Virginia recently to seek funds for the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, Linowes met with a number of the new-wealth class of greater Washington: high-tech executives. “But I had to be introduced. No one knew me,” Linowes said afterward, briefly interrupting the interview to take a call from the governor of Maryland. And what of the old crowd in the Washington business world? Where are they now? “Either dead or out of business or both,” he said, laughing. Anthony Kennedy Shriver (a member of two of the “best” families in town) started the nonprofit organization Best Buddies in 1987, when he was a student at Georgetown University. His organization offers social and employment opportunities for the mentally retarded. In the early days, he says, he relied on his family’s circle of friends — Washington’s political and cultural elite — for the donations he needed. That all changed in 1995, when Shriver was introduced to Leonsis. The AOL honcho decided to make Best Buddies his charity of choice. Leonsis came aboard as cochairman of the Best Buddies ball, the nonprofit’s fund-raising event, and one that drew many famous names. But not the names Leonsis could draw. He brought in his contacts from the high-tech world. “Honestly, in those days no one had heard of Ted Leonsis, and when I told my mother, she was like, ‘Fine, whatever. It’s your thing,” Shriver recalls. “But Ted was willing to work and get involved, and that’s what we were looking for.” Now Shriver talks about the “pre-Ted” and “post-Ted” eras at his charity. “I try to avoid remembering the pre-Ted days, because they were very unpleasant,” he says. In those early days the charity typically raised anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 from the establishment. But with Leonsis working the phones — or rather, E-mail — the northern Virginia tech crowd began to show up in force at the Best Buddies ball and to give generously. Last year, with Leonsis’s Wizards partner Fernandez serving as cochairman of the event, tickets went as fast as shares in a dot-com IPO. With the ball oversubscribed, Shriver expanded the tent at his aunt Ethel Kennedy’s Virginia estate, and then he sold out again. When the black-tie event took place, in October, limos got stuck in the driveway. Muhammad Ali posed for pictures. The Pointer Sisters sang. The Kennedys welcomed guests. “People showed up from my family, but they didn’t know anyone, which from my perspective was a great sign,” Shriver says. Best Buddies raised a record $1.1 million that night. “When we hold events in Hollywood with a good number of celebrities, or in Houston, Palm Beach, Miami, or New York on the Forbes yacht, we raise maybe $300,000 to $400,000 a night,” Shriver says. “Washington just blows them away.” He is calling the upcoming 2000 event the “dot-com ball.” And this year he plans to raise $2 million. It will be a real A-list event, especially in the tech community — a party “where anybody who is anybody in the Internet world will be,” he says. That example hasn’t been lost on the region’s cultural institutions, ones that have been at the heart of the Washington social circuit for ages but that have been at a loss to capture much of the new wealth. “In the 1990s, at almost every board meeting I attended, the question was always raised, ‘How are we going to get those people interested?” Linowes recalls. “Almost every major foundation and charity had a committee aimed at doing just that.” “Is it a conscious strategy to get those new people involved? Yes. Is it organized? No,” says David Levy. The disconnect makes sense when you think about it. Many of the new paper millionaires are young and simply haven’t had the time that the older crowd has had to focus on how to give money away. And many of the philanthropies have never had ties to a class of people who lived on the wrong side of the Potomac River. But that’s changing. The Corcoran Gallery of Art, which as the largest privately funded art museum in the capital also runs a college of art, recently lured Bob Pittman, president and chief operating officer of AOL, to its board; he’s the first major figure from the tech community to join at that high level. Why, you might say that Pittman — the New Yorker credited with creating the massive MTV phenomenon before making his high-profile move to start shaping the world in AOL’s image — had finally arrived. But you’d better have your tongue firmly in your cheek, because in this case it seems that Pittman brings as much cachet to the Corcoran and the society it represents as they give to him. “Is it a conscious strategy to get those people involved? Yes. Is it organized? No,” says David Levy, the Corcoran’s president and director. The way he sees it, people give money for two reasons: to support the arts and education and to gain access to social and cultural circles in Washington. “We provide that access, and they provide the support,” Levy says. What’s not clear, however, is whether access to society is something the dot-com crowd wants. Where a charity-board seat might have been de rigueur for the well-bred, it’s more of a fun option for the newly minted. As Linowes says, “We had a certain way of giving and a certain level of giving. These people want to do things in new ways.” Remember, many high-tech fortunes were spawned by battling the establishment business world. These start-ups exploited small niches and built new entities by going against the grain. The late Bill McGowan, founder of MCI, is a perfect example. In fact, he’s something of an Ôber role model for many of the established entrepreneurs in the region, because his Washington-based company battled giant AT&T for years. McGowan used to exhort his troops, Whatever AT&T does, do the opposite. That rattle-the-gates strategy worked for all who followed, and they prospered by it. Why change any of those attitudes now? Already, there are strong indications that Washington’s technology elite is treating philanthropy in a very different way from that of the establishment. Many even take umbrage at the word philanthropy, since it suggests a handout rather than an attempt at producing fundamental change in people’s lives. Mario Morino, chairman of the nonprofit Morino Institute, in Reston, Va., for example, speaks in no uncertain terms of the need for “social change” to correct the huge disparities in wealth and opportunity for youth in the region. He’s not going by Karl Marx; quite the opposite. He’s repeating lessons learned by virtue of his entrepreneurial experience, which some would term ultimate capitalism. Morino earned his first entrepreneurial merit badge building Legent Corp., a software company that was sold to Computer Associates International Inc. in 1995 for $1.8 billion. By then Morino had stepped back from day-to-day business affairs and embarked on an eight-year odyssey to figure out how to give some of his $140 million away. Oddly, he found it harder to properly give his wealth away than it was to build it in the first place. [In the interests of full disclosure, the writer of this article worked on speeches for Morino a couple of years ago.] “We took [MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor] to lunch, and over the course of that lunch his net worth went up by $145 million.” –Lloyd Grove, society columnist fpr the Washington Post

The Forks in Their Roads

Start-Up Diaries The forks in their roads Our story so far… It’s been just three months since the January issue of Inc. launched the Start-up Diaries, introducing five new businesses and their founders, and promising to report on their progress — or lack of it — in future issues. But that’s three months of start-up time. Which is to say, time when anything can happen. Luis Espinoza, the electronics technician moonlighting as a Hispanic-foods entrepreneur, was offered a potential revenue windfall and turned it down for want of the $250,000 he would have needed to pursue it. He seems happy enough with his choice, but where does it leave his company? Meanwhile, edu.com’s Adam Kanner did get his money ($30 million in new capital, to be exact) but still can’t be sure it’s sufficient to make his E-commerce Web site for students work the way it needs to. Still looking for funding or strategic partners were Johann Verheem of Application Technologies as well as the three cofounders of 10 Minute Manicure — though the three have scored a major contract by changing their concept. Will that decision hurt them later? And as for the two Harvard students squeezing in their start-up chores between classes, they may have a surprising new deal, too. Levi’s has approached them about modeling their jeans. For more details, read on. In the money COMPANY: edu.com, in Boston, creator of a Web site where college students can buy stuff cheap and where the companies selling that stuff can market to and do research on the students FOUNDER: Adam Kanner, 29 AT OUR LAST LOOK: Kanner was hunting for desperately needed capital in amounts that would dwarf the $4 million he’d already raised. The site was struggling technologically. And Kanner was sorting out his working relationship with his chief operating officer — Linda Kanner, his mother. LAST DIARY ENTRY: ” Mother Is the Necessity of Invention“ Things at edu.com have ballooned. A small, discreet sign remains affixed to the start-up’s front door, but it’s dwarfed by a back-lighted, billboard-size “monstrosity” (as CEO Adam Kanner calls it) above that loudly proclaims edu.com’s presence to workers in Boston’s financial district. The company’s staff of 60 or so people, who’d previously worked two to a desk in a spartan, 3,000-square-foot office, has swelled to 75 and moved up a flight of stairs into 24,000 square feet of carpeted nirvana, complete with Foosball tables and a built-in putting green. And the start-up’s war chest has grown to the size of a small closet, thanks to several months of vigorous fund-raising in which Kanner brought home an additional $30 million. The new capital came from a variety of sources, including the two Silicon Valley venture firms that had backed him originally and, for geographic diversity’s sake, four firms in Boston, one in New York, and one in Chicago. “We were trying to raise between $20 million and $25 million,” Kanner says, “so we’re oversubscribed.” He’s especially excited about a $5.3-million investment from Student Advantage Inc., a large, well-established provider of student-discount cards and related services, which had loomed as a major competitor. A new partnership, in which edu.com acts as the commerce arm for Student Advantage’s community-oriented Web sites, drastically reduces Kanner’s customer-acquisition costs. (Student Advantage’s 1.5 million members are automatically sent to edu.com’s site whenever they want to buy something.) It also suggests that edu.com may find happiness covering the back end for other student-focused marketers. As for Linda Kanner, Adam’s mother, she’s devoting less time to operations and more to her new duties as chief marketing officer. That, together with the fact that the two no longer share an office, gives mother and son some welcome space. “The more the organization grows and her role becomes defined, the less we overlap and bump into each other,” says Adam. “And the better our working and personal relationships become.” –Leigh Buchanan Starting over COMPANY: Inca Quality Foods, in South Bend, Ind., a distributor and “micromerchandiser” of Hispanic foods in grocery stores FOUNDER: Luis J. Espinoza, 48 AT OUR LAST LOOK: Espinoza, a moonlighter struggling to balance his ambitions for Inca with his work at a satisfying full-time job, was wondering how fast Inca should — or needed to — grow. LAST DIARY ENTRY: ” Moonlight over Indiana“ Luis Espinoza’s secretary has found another job. So have his two full-time truck drivers. Espinoza says that in early December, Kroger’s supermarket chain, which had Inca’s display cases in 20 of its stores, notified him that either he should gear up to add operations in 30 more stores in 30 days (at $4,000 a pop just for the new displays) or the chain would find another Hispanic-foods vendor. “The amount of money I needed was tremendous,” Espinoza says. “A quarter of a million dollars. I can’t come up with that amount of money.” (Even the smaller sums Espinoza located required him to put up his house as collateral, which he refused to do.) And so by the end of December the Kroger business — 60% of Inca’s revenues — was gone. He may be down, but he’s not out. “It’s like we’re starting all over again,” he says, describing the small stores he’s continuing to serve in the South Bend area. “It took a lot of pressure off. It’s like regrouping.” What about just giving it all up and being satisfied with his regular job at the steel-finishing plant? “I would never let my business go,” he says. “Never. I could even get to the point when springtime comes around that I wouldn’t mind getting a little cart selling ice cream in the street.” –Nancy Lyons Dream inflation COMPANY: 10 Minute Manicure, in Miami, a would-be chain of manicure kiosks in airports FOUNDERS: Karen Janson, 33; Vivian Jimenez, 31; and Lorraine Brennan O’Neil, 35 AT OUR LAST LOOK: The founders were closing in on their first airport contract (Dallas-Fort Worth) and were negotiating with an angel for the capital ($500,000) they needed to launch their company. LAST DIARY ENTRY: ” Three Women and a Kiosk“ In the early months of winter, the elegantly simple kiosk idea got, shall we say, a little bigger. Several hundred square feet bigger, to be exact. When the Dallas-Fort Worth airport deal stalled, the 10 Minute Manicure founders turned to Pittsburgh. The good news was that the concession management at Pittsburgh International Airport liked their concept enough to send them lease terms by mid-January. The bad news was, there were some catches. The Pittsburgh people had just one space available, and they were thinking “hair.” Within 24 hours, Karen Janson and Vivian Jimenez had revised their concept. Nails and hair. Instead of just manicures, the newly conceived Style Express would also offer quick, inexpensive hair services for women and men. Not that the enlarged operation would replace the goal of building manicure kiosks in other airports, the founders say. As they see it, the Pittsburgh Style Express will be kind of a showplace, a foot in the door of the airport industry. “It’s a brand extension,” says Janson. Or it will be, provided the women can come up with the $150,000 needed to launch it. The good news was that the Pittsburgh-airport people liked their concept. The bad news was, there were some catches. They had just one space, and they were thinking not nails but hair. Within 24 hours, Janson and Jimenez had revised everything. Nails and hair. “It’s a brand extension,” says Janson. They are, they would acknowledge, increasingly desperate for financing. By mid-January, they had reached their personal investment limit (about $35,000 among all three cofounders) and had yet to seal a deal with any angel or investor. But even as they worried about raising the bare minimum of cash, something dramatic was happening to the founders of 10 Minute Manicure. As they talked to more and more prospective investors about putting up the $500,000 they thought they needed to start, they began to understand that there wasn’t some big secret about financing a start-up that everyone knew but them. There was no one right answer. “Some people say you have to give away 70% of your company; some people say 30%,” says Janson. “There’s no standard whatsoever.” And as they realized that not everyone knew more than they did, they gained confidence. “The funny thing is, I think our hopes have gone up higher,” says Jimenez. “I think that we value ourselves more. Now we’re looking for more than just a $500,000 investor. We’re looking for a partner that will invest up to $5 million — one that will stick around with us and help us expand very aggressively.” So now the founders of 10 Minute Manicure cum Style Express are talking about a rapid national launch. They’re in search of financing partners who understand the size and scope of their ambition. “If you really look at the way to do business today,” says Janson, “it’s either get brand recognition from the get-go or you’re in the wasteland.” The small kiosk concept has, again, gotten just a little bit bigger. –Karen Dillon Model attraction COMPANY: FÚxito Worldwide Inc., in Cambridge, Mass., a Web site for the international soccer community, which offers E-commerce, news, and a recruiting database FOUNDERS: Richard Powell, 20, and Daniel Hoffer, 22 AT OUR LAST LOOK: The two Harvard University students were searching for capital, employees, and ways to attract more visitors to www.fuxito.com. LAST DIARY ENTRY: ” The Player“ Not long ago the cofounders of FÚxito were struggling to refine their business model. Now they may very well redefine the whole concept of what a business model is. Since they appeared on our January 2000 cover, Powell and Hoffer have been approached by Levi’s about modeling jeans. “To be honest, this is really small and inconsequential for me,” says Powell, a Harvard junior who began developing the soccer-focused Web site in late 1998. “I don’t let it take priority over the other things we really need to do.” Such as? Recruiting seasoned talent, raising venture capital, and enhancing the Web site — the same challenges they faced three months ago. But if those challenges aren’t new, the environment in which FÚxito faces them is. Since last fall FÚxito has encountered three new direct competitors, Internetsoccer .com, LiveSoccer.com, and Goalnetwork.com. “We have to make sure we’re not working too slowly,” says Powell. To boost its working capital, in January the company raised about $1.2 million, the bulk of it from three New York City­based institutional investors. That represents FÚxito’s first funding from nonangel sources — and begins a pattern Powell hopes will continue as he sets out to raise as much as $12 million from venture capitalists. Hoffer predicts the valuation of FÚxito, which this year is on track to post revenues of more than $5 million (from selling soccer merchandise), will get a kick from the expected relaunch of www.fuxito.com, which included the long-awaited addition of an online store. Soon, thanks to a partnership with a virtual-reality vendor, FÚxito expects to add “really cool” features, Hoffer says. Even so, he adds, “we need some people with solid business experience to turn this into a $1-billion company.” The key to attracting such folks? Well, it couldn’t hurt to have the company’s name on all those jeans ads. “But,” notes Powell, taking a break from studying for an econometrics exam, “being plastered over billboards everywhere won’t do anything if we’re not building more value for our users.” –Joshua Hyatt Package deal COMPANY: Application Technologies, in San Diego, a developer of new consumer-product packaging, including the Appli-K pouch FOUNDER: Johann Verheem, 33 AT OUR LAST LOOK: The Appli-K pouch was designed, but Verheem needed capital to develop manufacturing processes, as well as customers to build the market share that would protect him against knockoffs. LAST DIARY ENTRY: ” Plan B-Minus” Verheem and company marketing manager Natasha King are no longer seeking to raise significant capital. While Verheem and his wife, Emmarance, were back in their native South Africa for an extended family visit over the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, he negotiated an agreement locking in a deal with a strategic partner that will develop the manufacturing processes and prototypes for the Appli-K pouch, the product he’s basing his business on. Verheem plans to let his strategic partners fund development of the Appli-K. He realizes the pouch alone is not enough to grow the business on; he needs a whole line of products. So while he locks in the relationships he needs for the pouch, he is also starting to look for new products to bring out. –Michael Warshaw Please e-mail your comments to editors@inc.com. Read the complete Start-Up Diaries series.

Are You Ready to Lead the E-Cultural Revolution?

Managing Change To take full advantage of the potential in E-business, a company’s leaders must lead differently, and people must work together differently Are you an E-believer? Or are you cyberspaced out and ready to declare E-nough? Are you convinced that the Internet offers limitless possibilities and overturns conventional wisdom about how to run a company? Or do you believe that E-commerce promises more than it delivers? Enthusiast or skeptic — choose your side of the debate. Beneath these general attitudes about the Internet lie a series of assumptions about whether, when, and how much you should change your business to take advantage of it. But regardless of whether you’re an enthusiast or a skeptic, the fact is, the advent of the Internet has forced the business world to go through a massive, unprecedented exercise in managing change. Established companies in traditional industries are just beginning to grapple with the nature and magnitude of the changes. Today a company’s success requires challenging traditional assumptions about organization, communication, decision making, operating style, and managerial behavior. To take full advantage of the potential in E-business, a company’s leaders must lead differently, and people must work together differently. I call this new way of working E-culture — the human side of the global information era, the heart and soul of the new economy. E-culture is not yet well defined or well understood. But my Harvard Business School E-culture project, which I have recently launched, has uncovered some clues to what lies ahead. New companies that work solely through the Internet, especially the dot-coms, have a distinctive style. Many pure Internet companies are small and new, and that alone gives them a special flavor. But strip away the chaos of a start-up — working out of boxes, doubling up in offices, tripling the staff every few months — and they still seem different. Some dot-coms have the flavor of a youth cult, rather than a culture, complete with preferred wardrobes and special languages. Employees take pride in pulling all-nighters that resemble communal living in the office. They are convinced that they will change the world and that no one over 30 can be trusted. Those superficial characteristics are not the essence of E-culture, however. They do not show grown-up companies what to do if they want to succeed in a globally connected, Internet-enabled world. But there is something to be learned from companies that are born on the Internet. The fresh start that they exemplify helps illuminate why it’s hard for many established companies to shift into E-business mode. The challenge: deciding whether to embrace the Internet and understanding new requirements for running an E-business organization. My E-culture project’s initial investigations have uncovered a long list of barriers preventing established companies from embracing E-business. Some are external: resistance to sweeping changes in the supply chain or outmoded government rules and regulations, such as those governing intellectual property. But most of the obstacles involve things that lie within the company’s control — leadership, organization, and corporate culture. In some cases, turf battles or rivalries between divisions make it hard to innovate. History also can get in the way — a bad previous experience with new technology increases reluctance to change, or sometimes the company feels it has too many other problems to solve before tackling the Internet. Past success can be a barrier, too; why change a good thing? Or companies that do try an internal E-business start-up may find themselves with two conflicting cultures — a new venture that consumes resources and seeks to break loose may end up warring with the mainstream business that makes all the money and prefers settled routines. If support at the top is lackluster, the company’s leaders themselves can undermine E-business success. The challenge for established companies is not only deciding whether to embrace the Internet; it is understanding new requirements for running the organization that a move to E-business involves. Six new principles are already in play at Internet-savvy companies. Network power. E-business thrives on the strength of networks, on the connections among the entire extended family of business relationships. As geographic boundaries dissolve and companies need to reach market scale quickly, alliances and partnerships become a powerful source of advantage. The size and strength of the network matters more than that of individual components. Very small companies gain very big clout by being linked to wider networks. But companies pay a price for network advantages; they become dependent on outsiders whose behavior affects them but whom they do not control. Business executives must then become ambassadors beyond the company walls, and their employees diplomats who can manage complex negotiations and soothe ruffled feathers. Direct communication. Managers must learn to spread information rather than hoard it. Mediated communication is increasingly distrusted when it is possible to go directly to the source or when E-mail distribution lists make it easy to copy everyone on everything. Playing “I’ve got a secret” is no longer a way to feel powerful. Information blockages slow down the whole system. Opposition, not just competition. Companies have grown accustomed to watching the competition, but they’re not as likely to be prepared for the speed with which opposition to their actions and offerings can be mobilized. Bad news seems to travel faster than good news in an Internet environment. The technology lends itself to guerrilla tactics, such as the rapid spread of unconfirmed rumors or messages broadcast to many lists simultaneously. The new knowledge premium. The Internet economy values new ventures and new ideas deliberately detached from tradition. How many years a company has been in business matters less than whether it has the newest, latest offering. When it comes to talent, the prevalent assumption is that recently completed education and recently gained technical knowledge have the greatest value. Hierarchy is turned on its head. Senior people must learn from their juniors, old-timers from newcomers. Business as improvisational theater. In an E-business environment, orders issued from the top are replaced by ideas spreading from any part of the organization. The drama of business was once like following a script; E-businesses operate more like improvisational theater. The employee-actors are given a theme or vision, and they develop the story as they interact with one another to create products and services. Mistakes and false starts are tolerated as long as response to feedback is rapid. Rather than waiting to build the perfect show, companies create ever-improving versions using audience reaction. Managing crowds. It was considered a paradigm shift when managers discovered the wisdom of teams. With the Internet, company leaders must manage not just teams but large crowds. Teams have clear boundaries: defined membership and specific tasks. Crowds, in contrast, are larger, amorphous masses whose boundaries are unclear; they can include groups of unknown composition extending as far as E-mail can be forwarded. Leaders must understand how crowds — from virtual protest movements to subversive employee E-mail lists to large audiences at pep rallies — work. Leaders can’t operate behind closed doors; they must play to the crowd. Crowd phenomena are a natural outgrowth of E-business imperatives. Because power lies in the network, all parts of it must adjust their actions in light of what others are doing, and the only way to move quickly is to convene as many people as possible to make those adjustments simultaneously. This is clearly not business as usual. The challenge for organizations and their leaders goes beyond developing an E-business strategy or a model for using the Internet. The challenge is to manage the next step in a cultural revolution that began even before the Internet became a household word — a revolution that liberates people from the vestiges of machine-age bureaucracy and readies them to embrace and lead change. Though there is a revolution afoot, there is still much more than these six principles that we can learn about E-culture. And it’s too early yet to tell who will succeed and who will fail on the Internet in the long run. This overview of the human side of the information economy is the starting point for a dialogue in which you can participate. Think about where you stand in the E-business debates. Will the global 2000 companies, with their market might and deep pockets, win the Internet race? Or will today’s giants be outrun by nimble competitors unencumbered by history, tradition, bureaucracy, and fixed physical assets? What about your own organization? How are you taking advantage of the potential of the Internet? What do you see as your organization’s culture today? The barriers to change? Our research project at Harvard is conducting a survey to gather businesspeople’s answers to those and other questions about E-culture. You can participate by filling out our E-culture survey, which you can find at www.inc.com/ poll. We hope that the survey will focus your attention on the leadership challenges of the global information economy and stimulate your thinking about your own organization. By completing the questionnaire, you will contribute to a global conversation and ensure that the results are comprehensive and useful to your company. Rosabeth Moss Kanter is the Class of 1960 Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Evolve!: Succeeding in the Digital Culture of Tomorrow by Rosabeth Moss Kanter is the book that grew out of the E-culture survey. Related resources: You Are Here Comments from the E-Culture Survey E-Culture Survey Methodology

The Start-Up Diaries: Mother Is the Necessity of Invention

Adam Kanner needed the highest-powered talent he could get. And he knew just where to find it When Rob Levinson faced Adam Kanner across the threshold of Kanner’s family home in October 1998, the two might have been posing for an iconic portrait of the old and new economies. There was Levinson, a 35-year-old refugee from a big Boston ad agency, all decked out in nice clothes and a tie. And there was Kanner, the then-27-year-old founder of the Internet start-up edu.com, dressed in jeans and a T-shirt and sockless to boot. But in a matter of seconds Levinson had bridged the cultural gap. “I know exactly how you feel,” edu.com’s marketing-director-to-be told Kanner. “I used to run a business with my mother, too.” The fact that Kanner is launching edu.com with Linda Kanner, who also launched him, has introduced what both mother and son call a “huge weirdness factor” into what is otherwise an archetypal dot-com start-up tale. Inverted hierarchy adds another twist: as chief operating officer, 55-year-old Linda Kanner reports to her son. “Everyone asks about it,” says Adam, taking a chair near the slightly more boyish version of himself that peers out from a frame on his mother’s desk. “They want to know, What happens if Mom screws up? Will people work for a mother-son team? Can Linda be objective when the person making decisions is her son?” But what outsiders find curious, the CEO simply considers smart staffing. Growing up, Kanner watched his mother power her way through a series of high-profile positions, including senior vice-presidencies at BankBoston and Bank of New England. Even after he left Boston for marketing jobs in New York City, hers was the number he dialed whenever he wanted to toss out a new business idea. So when one idea — an E-commerce site selling discounted brand-name goods to the college crowd — finally stuck, he desperately wanted her to be part of it. “Every entrepreneur my age should have the benefit of bringing someone like that to the table,” says Kanner. But clearly edu.com is Adam Kanner’s table — one he’s been mentally setting since the mid-1990s, when he was working at prestigious New York ad agencies J. Walter Thompson and Saatchi & Saatchi. As an account manager, he was charged with initiating lifelong love affairs between Gen-Xers and products like Tide detergent. “These marketers are willing to spend a disproportionate amount of money to get products into college students’ hands because that’s the point at which they’re developing brand loyalties,” says Kanner. “But handing out samples is a flip of the coin, and traditional media advertising isn’t efficient. When the Internet started to get big, I thought it might be the answer.” At the time Kanner was also toying with a plan to manufacture customized CDs, and he figured a stint at Harvard Business School would let him put both ideas through their paces. So he made the CD project the center of a yearlong field study and split the college-marketing scheme among the remainder of his classes, emerging at the end of his second year with full-fledged business and marketing plans and a polished investor presentation. By June 1998 he was convinced that the college Web site was the better bet. “The only drawback to starting this thing was that I’d have to live at home for a while and I couldn’t spend the summer in Europe,” says Kanner. “As far as I could see, there was zero downside.” Well, almost zero. Like any Internet entrepreneur worth his salt, Kanner has been logging 16-hour workdays, resulting in the total annihilation of his personal life. Most of his time is spent on the fund-raising and sales circuits, as the young CEO hammers out partnerships with those stellar brands he feels the company can’t live without. And often his mother has been beside him. After the young founder moved back into his family’s home in Lincoln, Mass., in the summer of 1998, he hopscotched across the country, pitching blue chippers such as IBM, Dell, and AT&T on the merits of making edu.com their collegiate distribution channel. Linda Kanner was still only a consultant for the start-up at that point and was unsure about making a greater commitment. Several Boston venture capitalists had reacted unfavorably when the two had informally floated the idea of her assuming the COO role. “I told Adam that if you have to get rid of Mama to get funding, then that’s fine,” Linda says. That November, having already netted $150,000 in cash from individual investors (including $50,000 from his grandfather) and offers totaling $1.5 million more from several angels, Adam flew out to Silicon Valley, hoping to persuade Apple and some other computer-industry types to offer their products through his site. It was never meant to be a fund-raising trip — he figured that edu.com was still too embryonic to parade before professional investors — but on the advice of a friend he decided to drop in on a few VCs. “I had a list of firms, but I’d only heard of a few of them,” he says. When he went to see people at the Mayfield Fund, a respected 30-year-old firm that manages more than a billion dollars in capital, “I didn’t know them from Joe’s Venture Capital Firm and Garage,” Kanner says. That navetÉ turned out to be to his advantage. “If I had known the stature of the people I was dealing with and the stakes that were involved, I would have been intimidated. But I didn’t know,” he says. “So I would be really frank. I’d say, ‘Listen, if you’re not going to come to me with a valuation in this range, it’s not going to happen. It was great to meet you. Let’s stay in touch.” Linda Kanner found it hard to share her son’s sangfroid. “I’m sitting there listening to Adam talk to these guys and thinking he should be thrilled that they’re interested, even at lower levels,” she says with mixed horror and admiration. “And he’s saying, ‘Nope, not good enough. We’re worth more than that.’ I couldn’t even listen.” But the VCs did listen, and Adam Kanner’s three-day sales trip turned into a three-week fund-raising marathon, at the end of which he flew home with $2 million from the Mayfield Fund and an additional $1.8 million from Information Technology Ventures. Better yet, unlike some of their East Coast counterparts, the Silicon Valley funds smiled upon Linda Kanner as welcome seasoning for the young firm. Today, as edu.com’s 55 employees get comfortable in newly rehabbed office space on the cusp of Boston’s Chinatown, close to 30 vendors have embraced edu.com’s business model, which has grown increasingly sophisticated since the days when Adam conceived of a place for college kids to buy stuff cheap. The company is now a multifaceted commerce site that offers vendors of computer products, financial and telecommunications services, textbooks, and travel a way to sell to, collect information on, and customize pitches to college students. The company makes money in two ways: from product sales, and from marketing dollars that pay for research studies, banner ads, customized storefronts, and other services. Of course, most of those revenues are so far theoretical. Kanner projects that edu.com will remain unprofitable until the end of 2002. The start-up also faces some formidable obstacles. For one thing the indisputable yumminess of the college market (15 million mostly wired students spending a total of $120 billion a year on goods and services) has not gone unnoticed. Edu.com’s potential competitors include on-line textbook sellers like VarsityBooks.com, which is one of its partners, and peddlers of more general merchandise like CollegiateMall.com, CollegeClub.com, and StudentMarket.com. “I think we’re going to be part of a consolidated industry with at least one or two multibillion-dollar players and maybe a few smaller ones,” says Kanner. “We may be the consolidator. We may be consolidated.” Another fly edu.com has to pluck from its ointment involves technology. Its Web site is a complex, heavy-duty commerce engine that as of last fall still needed a lot of banging. Kanner hoped to achieve relative perfection by year-end, but during the site’s first few weeks of operation “the most frequently visited page was the error message,” says the CEO. He attributes most of the problems to haste: in order to fulfill its commitment to a partner, edu.com had to launch in time for the back-to-school season, which left just two weeks for testing. Adding to the stress is Kanner’s heavy business-development schedule, which has kept him out of the office and remote from what he now considers critical decisions. “I didn’t even see the problems until the site went live,” he says. “I went on to check what we were charging for a Targus computer bag that I had seen advertised on another site, and I couldn’t find it. It took me 10 minutes just to figure out how to search for it. I couldn’t believe that a business grounded in creating a best-of-market commerce experience was this disaster of consumer unfriendliness. It made me almost explode.” On that occasion Kanner charged down the hall to confront the person who was ultimately responsible for the mistake: his mother. “She was just as upset as I was, but we had to have this conversation that said, ‘You dropped the ball, and how are we going to fix this thing?” says Kanner, sounding like anything but a mama’s boy. “There’s probably a downside in this for her in that I hold her to standards much higher than I hold any other employee. I always thought my mom was perfect. Now I’m getting to know her better, and you know what? She’s a real person who makes mistakes.” Leigh Buchanan is a senior editor at Inc. Read the complete Start-Up Diaries series. Executive Summary COMPANY: edu.com FOUNDER: Adam Kanner, 29 FAMILY: Single EDUCATION: B.A. in government from Harvard University; M.B.A., also from Harvard TYPICAL WORKWEEK: 90-plus hours, much of it spent on the road raising money and negotiating with potential partners. “I have no life,” Kanner says. CONCEPT: Create a Web site where major consumer brands can win the dollars and loyalty of college students — a market that is hugely wired and poised to embark on a lifetime of spending — by offering best-in-market pricing on everything they need for school FINANCING: $1.8 million from Information Technology Ventures, $2 million from the Mayfield Fund, and $150,000 from private investors PROJECTIONS: Profitability by the end of 2002 HURDLES: Getting noticed in an electronic marketplace as noisy as a frat party; competing with a slew of other student-hungry start-ups; quickly assembling a mighty technology team and bringing the site up to snuff PERSONAL FUNDS INVESTED: Zero EQUITY HELD: The largest slice of the company pie SALARY: Enough to live on PREVIOUS JOB: Account manager at ad agencies J. Walter Thompson and Saatchi & Saatchi SOURCE OF IDEA: Years spent helping major marketers sell to college students combined with his own miserable experiences as a college student trying to buy stuff BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Jeffrey Rayport, associate professor of business administration at Harvard Business School and a specialist in digital commerce; Michael Bronner, chairman of direct-marketing agency Bronnercom and originator of the idea to distribute free coupon books to college students through their campus mailboxes; Tony Menchaca, former chairman and CEO of CUC International and founding partner of venture firm eCom Partners; Michael Levinthal, partner in the Mayfield Fund; and Virginia Turezyn, cofounder and general partner of Information Technology Ventures WHAT HE DREAMS ABOUT: Building a sustainable business that in a perfect world would be a leading multibillion-dollar company; making a lot of money for his mother WHAT HE’LL DO IF THIS FAILS: Return to the world of corporate marketing until the time is ripe for the next start-up SOURCE OF INSPIRATION: The desire to control his own life; the college students from whom edu.com seeks constant feedback and reinforcement; his overachieving family ROLE MODELS: His mother and his grandfather. (“He built a company [J. Baker, operator of Big and Tall stores and other apparel retailers] from the ground up the hard way over 50 years and is still giving good advice,” says Kanner.)

The Start-Up Diaries: The Player

A college student ditches the sport he’s worked his whole life to master for the dream of an Internet start-up Richie Powell is getting impatient. He’s just heard from one of his nine full-time employees that a key recruit has yet to accept what he regards as a generous offer. “He’s getting a nice equity stake in this place,” Powell proclaims. Let’s get the deal signed today, he tells Kofi Kankam, vice-president of business development. By this afternoon, if possible. Before 4, actually. “I want to leave early,” explains the cofounder, president, and CEO of FÚxito Worldwide Inc. “I have a lot of homework.” In that regard, at least, the 20-year-old Powell resembles any other college student. But Powell, a junior economics major at Harvard, recently ditched his spot on the varsity soccer team — his playing skill earned the native Jamaican a scholarship to Phillips Academy, in Andover, Mass., and helped him get accepted by Harvard — thereby disappointing both his coach and his father. “I have priorities,” he says. “I have a company to run.” That’s a fact anyone around him can’t easily forget. Every few minutes Powell’s cell phone beeps out Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy,” kicking him into high-pitch mode. The year-old company’s new headquarters consists of three freshly painted rooms in Cambridge, Mass., sandwiched between Harvard and MIT, institutions from which FÚxito draws not only employees but also its many interns. Powell wants to have his desk in a corner so that he can gaze out the window, fueling his fantasy of occupying “a big corporate office in New York.” For now he’s standing there, yakking on his cell phone. “I’m not worried about a couple of extra points in here,” Powell announces. “I want to see this thing go public by 2001 or be acquired in nine months.” In a less speculative era — the Roaring ’20s, say — FÚxito’s tender-aged team might have been dismissed as pretenders, merely playing at business until they get called in for a reality supper. But, then, isn’t this how a modern windfall-in-the-making is supposed to look? A gang of smart, focused, and energetic young folks (in this case, guys) who have taken an oath to rule whatever Internet “space” they’ve marked as their own. Sure, they’re in a hurry, but they’re not rushed. Powell knows, for instance, that it took another recent Cambridge-based entrepreneur, Warren Adams, almost two full years before he could sell his Internet start-up, PlanetAll, for $100 million. Powell has studied the get-rich-click set perhaps as diligently as he’s studied anything. “I really should study more,” he admits, suffocating a yawn. But, hey, Powell didn’t choose Harvard for its curriculum. A stock trader since the age of 12 who started an export and investment-management company after high school, he spied a more precious, and lasting, commodity on campus: contacts. “Harvard, to me, was all about the networking,” says Powell, who spent his freshman year crashing entrepreneur-related events. The plan for FÚxito is as much the product of Powell’s grandiose ambitions for himself as it is of anything he absorbed at those outings. Still, it was a nugget he picked up during a class led by an accomplished entrepreneur — “know your market,” the guru advised — that got the idea of a soccer-related start-up, appropriately enough, “running around in my head,” Powell recalls. Powell knew firsthand that in soccer “a lot of recruiting right now is by chance.” His venture, he decided in October 1998, would “drastically improve” that process, using the Internet to enable coaches to view demographic profiles and video clips of players. Two months later, Powell says, “everyone was excited” when he presented his five-page plan to 30 attendees of the Harvard Startups group. Oh, they did suggest that his pricing structure, which called for coaches to pay as much as $10,000 a year for access to an international database, might benefit from further market research. Powell had no trouble accepting their criticism because he hadn’t finished his market research. Nor had he really started it. “Richie understood the soccer market from the point of view of being a very good athlete, but he didn’t have a good foundation in business,” recalls John A. Clendenin, a senior lecturer at Harvard Business School who attended that presentation. But Powell rightly believes that “the passion I exude is an asset.” And one highly valued by Clendenin, who is also a sports psychologist. “There’s no substitute for enthusiasm, drive, desire, and determination,” Clendenin says. “Richie’s idea didn’t have any structure, but it was a good dream.” The dream of being part of an Internet start-up, any Internet start-up, has captivated the members of FÚxito’s management team nearly as much as its ever-evolving mission has. Sanjeeb Bhuyan, the company’s 22-year-old chief systems administrator, joined FÚxito in late June. A month later he was having dreams in which “we had sold the company for a lot of money, and we were all sitting around and talking about how we did it,” recounts Bhuyan, who is also earning a master’s degree in computer science at MIT. Powell says he’ll feel satisfied if FÚxito “gets sold for only $20 million.” Granted, it’s hard for anyone involved in such a breed of business to ignore the possibility of what Powell calls a “financial hit,” given the stories that are all around: Netscape, PointCast, Yahoo. Last summer those very companies were literally right around FÚxito, near the Sunnyvale, Calif., office that nine of the start-up’s staffers occupied — and more than half of them lived in — for two months. Once, at 5 a.m., Bhuyan suggested that Powell get some shut-eye. No, Powell replied, I’ll go to sleep when we do an IPO. “It felt like we had been taken away from everything and we were living in a FÚxito world,” says Bhuyan. It may have felt that way because FÚxito’s mission had expanded so grandly. Three months after Powell’s presentation, he contacted Daniel M. Hoffer, a Harvard senior who operated his own technology consulting firm. Hoffer heard the idea — and the magnitude of the technological challenges — and “within five minutes I was sold,” he says. “He had a great idea.” Powell believes that the idea was only part of the allure. “Once again I infected somebody with my passion and vision,” says Powell, who gained in Hoffer a cofounder and a chief operating officer. The two founders’ market research made Powell feel even more strongly that the site needed to have broad appeal, since an on-line soccer-recruiting tool was “not something you sell in 15 months for $150 million,” he says. What FÚxito needed to be was a venture aimed not at 3 million soccer coaches but at 3 billion soccer fans. (The company’s name combines the Spanish words for soccer and success and offers the added bonus of “sounding obscene, if you pronounce it wrong,” Hoffer says.) Given the scope of its aim, FÚxito also needed to be in “the heart of the start-up community,” as Powell says. So he and his team moved to Silicon Valley — briefly, anyway. But after consulting a lawyer, Powell learned that his visa required him to return to Harvard this past fall. Hoffer, who dropped out a semester shy of earning a B.A. in philosophy, theorizes that “it’s not bad from a publicity perspective to have this wonder boy in school who is running the company.” But from a money-raising perspective, it hasn’t helped. “No matter how good the idea is, it’s still an idea with a 20-year-old CEO who is a college student,” notes Clendenin, now a FÚxito board member. Right now, all that 20-year-old can say is, “We need money. But I try not to worry about it too much.” Like most other Internet entrepreneurs, he and Hoffer do worry about drawing traffic to their site. Live since the end of June, it has attracted far fewer user hits than hoped for. Working with Iconomy .com, a provider of E-commerce services for which Hoffer’s older brother David serves as chief operating officer and general counsel, the partners struggled to get the E-commerce component of the site up in time to generate holiday sales. Still, “there’s no way any broad-based E-tailer can focus on soccer the way they can,” notes Roger Cameron Wood, vice-president of E-commerce and global direct marketing at Reebok International. “FÚxito’s secret weapon is its focus.” Wood, who met FÚxito through Iconomy.com, says that Reebok has entered “a broad-based alliance” with the start-up. Clendenin, on leave from Harvard to launch an Internet business, is working to give FÚxito’s store “a competitive advantage” by applying principles he developed while managing the supply chain at Xerox Corp. Clendenin’s efforts are expected to yield prices at least 20% below FÚxito’s competitors’. “We’ve got some buzz going,” Hoffer says. Not enough, though. Right now, FÚxito’s brand-building strategy consists mainly of Powell’s dragging a three-by-six-foot banner to soccer matches, and an intern who systematically defiles the purity of chat-room dialogues by planting pro-FÚxito messages. Powell envisions sponsoring tournaments and camps, building kiosks in the United States and Latin America, and parking a multimedia van at matches. “There are a lot of breathless pitches out there, but Richie’s passion is not grafted on, and Daniel’s intellectual gifts are enormous and obvious,” says Wood. “Passion and gray matter on that level usually find a way of willing their way to success.” Which is why, last June, Wood joined FÚxito’s board — despite the circumstances of his invitation from Powell. “I called him in his dorm room, and he was definitely a little foggy,” Wood recalls. “I think he was recovering from exams.” Joshua Hyatt is a senior editor at Inc. Read the complete Start-Up Diaries series. Executive Summary COMPANY: FÚxito Worldwide Inc. FOUNDERS: Richard Powell, 20, president and CEO; and Daniel M. Hoffer, 22, chief operating officer and chief technology officer FAMILY: Both are single CONCEPT: Create the premier E-commerce site devoted to soccer, including news, free E-mail, discussion boards, contests, auctions, and a database for recruiting FINANCING: $300,000, mostly from three angels; seeking $8 million in venture capital PROJECTIONS: First year, $7 million in revenues, $4.1-million net loss; second year, $18 million in revenues, $4.3-million net loss; third year, $46 million in revenues, $1 million in earnings HURDLES: Given inexperienced management, being fleet-footed enough to raise the money needed to fulfill its aggressive plans. Better-heeled competitors, such as two-year-old Fogdog Sports, an on-line sporting-goods retailer positioned for an initial public offering, may be better equipped to establish market leadership in a fragmented industry. PERSONAL FUNDS INVESTED: $15,000 from Powell in stock trades and liquidated assets EQUITY HELD: Together the founders own a controlling interest. SALARY: Zip for both SOURCE OF IDEA: Powell’s extensive experience with the target market, which came from having played soccer on national teams in his native Jamaica BOARD OF ADVISERS: Nick Mehta, vice-president of marketing of Chipshot.com, an on-line golf retailer founded in a Harvard dorm; David Hoffer, chief operating officer and general counsel at Iconomy.com, a provider of E-commerce services; Seamus Malin, ESPN soccer analyst since 1979 and director of Harvard University’s International Office, formerly a leading scorer and then an assistant coach of Harvard’s soccer team; Steffan Berelowitz, founder and president of the Bit Group, a Boston-based Internet developer WHAT THEY DREAM ABOUT: That FÚxito has been acquired — first, at a price of exactly $170 millon, and then, in the sequel, for $250 million, says Powell WHAT THEY’LL DO IF THIS FAILS: “If we don’t succeed enough to retire, we’ll do it again,” Powell says. “I will be a millionaire off the Internet — if not through this company, then through another one.” SOURCE OF INSPIRATION: Seeing Netscape Communications Corp. cofounder Marc Andreessen, 24-year-old graduate-student-turned-jillionaire, on the cover of Time magazine in 1996 “made me realize I had to accelerate my personal plan” of making $1 million by age 30, Powell says. “I had to step things up.” ROLE MODEL: Bill Gates, for “having the right mix of technical and business savvy to turn Microsoft into a global giant. Every company would like to have Microsoft’s position in the marketplace.”

The New-Boy Network

In today’s fast-paced world of Internet finance, whom you know is just as important as what you know The thrill ride of financing Guru.com began to hit breakneck speed late last May. Brothers Jon and James Slavet were in the middle of wooing one investor for their Internet start-up when another prospect called and “wanted us to pitch to him right away,” recalls James. Just a few weeks earlier, things had not been going so well. The Slavets had been downcast by the glazed stares they’d received from the venture capitalists they’d approached about their San Francisco-based company, which offered job-matching and other Web-based services to independent contractors and soloists. But the brothers had now gained momentum, leveraging a network of contacts they’d amassed at Harvard Business School and from Internet companies at which they’d worked. Hats in hand, the Slavets had humbly drummed up financial backing from their old bosses at E! Online and Drugstore.com. They had tapped their Internet connections for leads to angel investors such as CitySearch Inc. cofounder Thomas Layton and Yahoo’s Matt Rightmire. Now Fred Gluck, a former partner and managing director of McKinsey & Co., wanted an impromptu face-to-face with the start-up. In San Francisco for a meeting, Gluck had some downtime before returning to his office in Los Angeles. He asked the Guru.com team to meet him at the airport’s Red Carpet Club. James and his second business partner, former Harvard classmate Al Yau, jumped into a cab and obliged. Slavet and Yau had been through their 20-page presentation a dozen times, but in the Red Carpet lounge, Gluck took their breath away by challenging them to identify the key uncertainties in Guru.com’s projections. Downplaying what was probably a heart-stopping moment, Yau admits, “It was a level of probing we hadn’t anticipated.” If their answers lacked clarity, it hardly mattered, because Guru.com had people pulling strings behind the scenes — where it really matters. A former McKinsey consultant had already put his own credibility on the line with Gluck in vouching for Guru.com. The start-up’s list of advisers featured prominently in Guru.com’s pitch — also suggested that an investment in the company warranted serious consideration. Moreover, the management team — led by the Slavets — boasted an impeccable Internet pedigree. With all that going for Guru.com, Gluck decided to bet on the company, joining 19 other angels in a $3-million round of financing that closed last July. In interviews two months later, Jon, 32, and James, 29, exuded a boyish joyfulness that made it seem as though lining up a killer pack of angels were as easy as arranging a squadron of toy soldiers. As they closed in on a second round of financing — $16 million in venture capital — the Slavets’ enthusiasm for Guru.com was so infectious, it made you want to jump into the game too. After all, in the first half of 1999 alone, venture capitalists poured a record $5.9 billion into Internet-based companies, according to the VentureOne Corp., which tracks the venture industry. In this era of Internet riches, entrepreneurs can simply slap “.com” behind a catchy concept and watch investors rush in, right? Sure, just about everyone wants to dip a pan in the Internet and swish for gold. But Web-based start-ups thrive not on easy money but on smart money. “Easy money is like crack,” warns Robert Bingham, an Internet-entrepreneur-turned-angel in San Diego. Trouble is, with everyone vying for a taste of the Internet rush, avoiding a quick fix in favor of astute strategic investments has become harder than ever before. As Bingham puts it, “the bar has been raised.” These days, as Guru.com’s example shows, spectacular Internet business plans attract smart money only when paired with even more stunning management teams. When they first started, Guru.com’s founders might have thought their product was hot enough to get a fast investment. But they quickly realized that more than anything else they had to build and work a network. Savvy investors assess a start-up as much by its founders’ connections as by the founders themselves. And that’s all assuming the entrepreneur can rise high enough above the noise to catch investors’ attention. In raucous Silicon Valley, literally thousands of Internet proposals streamed into the big venture firms last year. “On a daily basis I receive a dozen unsolicited business plans,” notes Mayfield Fund partner Robin Vasan. “I look around my office, and there are dozens and dozens more.” Most, he admits, will never be read. Guru.com might also have languished at the bottom of the heap. Instead, the Guru.com team put their plan on top by piggy-backing on the success of others. That strategy provides a management lesson in how to get smart money from angels who can help guide and groom a company for venture funding and crucial Internet partnerships down the road. The story of Guru.com’s financing also serves as a tip sheet on how to act like a player in the new, new economy. It’s an economy in which money is merely a commodity, and strategic assistance is key. The dollars you’re after are a consequence of the relationships you build. Observes William Sahlman, a professor of entrepreneurial finance at Harvard Business School who is one of Guru.com’s investors and advisers: “The game that we’re talking about, you can’t play as an amateur …. It’s like running up rock faces, trying to get an edge with every move you make.” It’s 9:15 on a sweltering September morning in San Francisco, and Guru.com’s tunnel-like office space is coming to life. James Slavet, sporting a suit as black as his slicked-back wavy hair, munches on a bagel and cavorts with incoming staffers as they take their places around makeshift workstations. An imposing six feet five inches tall, James has to duck through the doorway as he enters the front room, where his older brother (a mere six feet three) has staked a claim on the only office with a view. Bristling with confidence, the Slavets explain that they’ve worked alongside each other before. In 1995 and 1996 they were both at Wired Ventures Inc., where they helped engineer the technology-magazine company’s on-line offering, HotWired; Jon on the ad-sales side and James in business development. Later Jon moved to E! Online, where, according to former president Jeremy Verba, he proved himself “a very street-smart, savvy salesperson.” James, meanwhile, headed for Harvard Business School and spent the summer between sessions on Drugstore.com’s team, sealing deals with partners like Yahoo. “We’re both Internet babies,” says Jon. The brothers’ experience at the feet of other Net-company founders provided the impulse for the launch of Guru.com. “I was more afraid of not taking the jump to start a company than I was of taking the jump,” Jon says. James is the more plodding, cerebral Slavet. “I’m the brakes in the operation,” he offers. From an investor’s standpoint, it’s an appealing partnership. “They’re the yin and yang of management,” comments Verba, who’s now at HearMe (which provides live-voice technology for the Internet) and is also a Guru.com angel. The brothers’ complementary styles create “the success recipe at Guru,” Verba says. “James has this very strong, analytical, strategic business mind. Jon is someone who, just through the sheer force of execution, can get things done.” “The game that we’re talking about, you can’t play as an amateur,” observes one investor. On this late September day, there are two tasks at the top of the company’s to-do list: raise a second round of financing and launch Guru.com’s premier product — a job-matching service designed for independent professionals. The launch is just eight weeks away. No one has had a day off since starting with the company; all the employees need sleep and haircuts but are upbeat all the same. Joking about the dim, disheveled office space, Yau, Guru.com’s 30-year-old vice-president of finance and strategy, says, “As a ratio of empty pizza boxes, I think our valuation is a little low.” Valuation is on everyone’s mind because, at noon today, the Guru.com team will meet with Greylock, one of six venture firms that the start-up has targeted for its second round of financing. Twice before, the founders have talked seriously with Greylock general partner Aneel Bhusri. The vice-chairman of the board of PeopleSoft Inc., Bhusri first heard about Guru.com in August, from one of the software company’s former executives, who had hired Yau as an intern when Yau was in business school. Having tried unsuccessfully to hire Yau full-time at PeopleSoft, Bhusri says, he was keen on learning about the former intern’s new business. Even more influential, though, was the good buzz that Bhusri heard about the Guru.com team from William Sahlman. “He couldn’t stop saying great things about these guys,” Bhusri recalls, adding, “I immediately felt that they were right on the mark.” It isn’t that Guru.com involves a mind-blowing technology play. Nor does it have a particularly innovative business model. Rather, in the increasingly familiar phraseology of the Net, it seeks to “amalgamate the unamalgamated” — in this case, the roughly 25 million Americans who work as free agents, or independent professionals, according to the company. What resonates with Bhusri is the way the Guru.com team talks about serving customers. Guru.com’s proposition holds that free agents (or “gurus,” as the company likes to refer to them), who lack the community and other trappings afforded workers in traditional office settings, will glom on to a site where they can create an alternative to the watercooler. These solitary folks will be drawn to a special place on the Internet where they can chat about “what it’s like to work in your boxer shorts,” as Guru.com’s content director, Todd Lappin, puts it. Guru.com intends not only to unite independent professionals but also to empower them — by peddling tools and services geared to making their work lives more productive. A key function in that respect: job matching. “A lot of Internet companies talk about the business — the advertising and other revenue streams,” Bhusri says. “These guys talked about what they were going to do for people who work on their own. When someone talks to you from the perspective of the customer, you listen.” The Guru.com team may have wowed Bhusri, but today marks its very first meeting with two other Greylock partners. “We have to assume that they know nothing,” Jon says as he delicately picks up what he calls “the valuation glasses.” In one dramatic gesture, he slips the sleek Matsuda frames onto his angular face and instantly transforms himself from earnest youngster into formidable deal maker. Jon laughs, but he’s only half joking about the glasses. Everyone at Guru.com fully understands the profound power of perception in the Internet-company finance game. As the Slavet brothers stride into Guru.com’s modest conference room, the perception — clearly — is that their deal is now in hot demand. They have at this point already talked with all six firms, making it plain in all their communications that they don’t want to see any term sheets until mid-October. They have also taken pains to keep the names of all the venture firms with which they are speaking under tight wraps. “We want to control the flow of information,” Jon confides. What’s most remarkable about this scene is that seven months ago, when Guru.com was a fledgling idea just out of Harvard Business School’s hatchery, venture capitalists were ambivalent about it. Among VCs, explains Mayfield partner Vasan, “there was the perception that the space they were going after was crowded.” Sites such as HotJobs and CareerMosaic were already up and running. Guru.com lagged behind those and other competitors in the job-matching business and had yet to prove its community-building concept. “That scared people,” says Vasan. The Slavets admit they were frightened, too, upon learning in late April that Monster.com was also moving into the talent market for independent professionals. Though they now deride the Monster.com competition as “a human auction,” at the time “they were really thrown off balance,” recalls Thomas Eisenmann, one of James’s Harvard Business School professors. Their disequilibrium deepened upon hearing that a hoped-for domain name (free-agent.com) presented serious trademark complications and was owned by enterprise-software maker Opus360 Corp. “We were completely bummed,” says James. Eisenmann calmed them, assuring them that the competition served as validation for their business model. The competition also signaled that Guru.com could not afford to waste time seeking venture capital. Even if the Slavets found a VC willing to take them on, doing a venture deal could require three to six months. “So much about the Internet is about speed that if there’s any way that you can jump-start your company, you should do it,” notes David Hornik, a San Francisco lawyer and business adviser to Internet start-ups. “If you are even a short time ahead of the pack, you will simply expand your lead over time because the growth is exponential.” “Everything conspired to make it very clear that we should go angel,” concurs James. The Slavets and Yau hit the streets, asking their old bosses and colleagues for advice, for money, and for leads to angels who would not only invest but also add genuine strategic value — through experience and through relationships with companies that could become Guru.com’s partners. Among others, Jon brought aboard Wired Ventures Inc. cofounders Louis Rossetto and Jane Metcalfe. Yau roped in Yahoo’s Rightmire and Steve Rehmus, an angel and start-up adviser he had worked with while at Goldman Sachs. Rehmus agreed to back the Guru.com team and gave the Slavets entrÉe to two other heavy hitters: former McKinsey partner and managing director Gluck and CitySearch cofounder Layton, who has invested in a total of 32 companies so far. “When Steven calls and says he’s got a company that he believes in and wants me to see, no matter how busy I am, I’ll find the time to see them,” comments Layton. The founders followed the same systematic approach with all their prospective angels, relying on personal contacts to introduce them to Internet heavyweights such as former Amazon.com VP for business development George Aposporos, two-time Net-business founder Ariel Poler, and even Allen & Co. managing director Stan Shuman. “We didn’t call anyone blindly,” notes Jon. The Slavets followed up every contact with a letter that reiterated their connections, identified their existing backers, and included a four-page summary of the business plan. “It gradually got easier as we had more investors come in,” notes Jon. “The last few investors said, ‘Wow, I know five of the people on your list.” From an investors standpoint, the brothers are an appealing partnership, “the yin and yang of management.” Of course, the founding team’s personal strengths were also a big draw. “I was willing to do this because I believe in James,” explains Mark Silverman, a Drugstore.com vice-president of business development and Guru.com investor. “It’s not because I perceive it as a great economic opportunity.” In at least one instance, though, the system failed. After spending eight hours in pitches to a husband-and-wife angel team, the Slavets were shut out cold, Jon says. “They wouldn’t return our calls.” By mid-July, just two weeks after completing the $3-million angel round, Guru.com had erected an elegantly designed “preview site.” The main page introduced Guru.com as “power for independent professionals” and defined guru as “an expert, a resource to others.” But for all its attractive look and feel, and lively, entertaining content, the site offered not a smidgen of job matching or other services. “It’s a juicy promise,” acknowledges the site’s designer, Steve de Brun. “It’s all about managing the perception.” Adds content director Lappin, who has stocked the space with a question-and-answer feature and guru profiles: “I’m like the guy in the circus who juggles flaming bowling balls until the elephants arrive.” Worried that the site might appear “half-baked,” two of Guru.com’s angels argued in a strategy meeting last July that the Web site should come down. It was a heated discussion, according to three people who were there. It also illustrated the degree to which Guru.com’s angels have been willing to get involved with the company, as well as the Slavets’ willingness to follow their own instincts. The Slavets opted to keep the preview site alive, a decision they now consider one of their smartest early moves. By September, Guru.com’s site had attracted some 20,000 users and had generated feedback proving that the company had hit a nerve with its audience. The 230 E-mail messages reviewed for this article were overwhelmingly positive, describing the site as “brilliant and indispensable” and “a fantastic idea for the Net.” One true believer gushed, “I have been waiting for more services like yours.” “The feedback almost seemed like it was scripted, it was so positive,” observes Bhusri, who reviewed E-mail responses as part of Greylock’s due diligence. Indeed, several Internet entrepreneurs interviewed for this article emphasized that having a bona fide site, as well as a loyal customer following, is crucial to attracting VCs. “You have to get an initial proof of concept,” says Alan Warms, whose Participate.com, which helps companies set up and manage on-line business communities, received more than $13 million in September. To be sure, Guru.com’s preview site generated great buzz. After it posted a press release under the headline “Guru.com Announces First-Round Financing from Leaders of the Internet Economy,” for example, CBS MarketWatch featured the start-up as its lead “Executive Briefing” item of July 26, highlighting the names of the company’s angels. Soon thereafter, a venture firm came calling, this time waving a term sheet and “trying to take a deal off the table preemptively,” says James. The Slavets and Yau turned down the offer, flat. Relying on the advice of their angels, they instead identified six “dream firms,” distinguished by partners and portfolio companies that Guru.com wanted to have involved with its business. The strategy was to have in-depth discussions with every firm on the list, get offers from three or four, and then choose two. The founders also made it clear that they would not use an offer from one firm to drum up higher offers from others, as some Internet entrepreneurs do. Instead, they proposed to “front-load the due diligence,” as James puts it, with a goal of both sides’ attaining an intimate knowledge of their prospective partners and reserving discussions of the deal’s terms for later. Because there’s much more money out there than there are good deals, some venture firms these days throw down a term sheet almost right away, seeking to lock up a deal for 30 days of due diligence, James explains. By contrast, Guru.com’s strategy put the entrepreneurs in control, enabling them to drive up the start-up’s valuation through a polite and restrained bidding in which they held most of the cards. What’s more, their strategy succeeded. In the second week of October (right on schedule) Guru.com received term sheets from four of the six firms. Jon and James then split the list and embarked on an aggressive final phase of due diligence, requesting five references from the contact partner at each firm. They methodically asked the same five questions of every reference: Why did you choose this VC firm? How effective has the firm been in securing deals and partnerships for your company? How effective has the firm been in recruiting additional board members? How has the firm helped your company increase its valuation? How would you rate the contact partner overall, on a scale of one to five? In the end Guru.com settled on two firms: Greylock and August Capital, which along with a few other investors put into the company almost twice as much as the Slavets had said they hoped for in September. Back then, the Slavets had cautiously pegged the deal in the $8-million-to-$10-million range. As this article went to press, in November, Guru.com was preparing to announce that it had raised $16 million — a stunning comeback for a company that had been casually brushed off by VCs just nine months earlier. “The first time out, we didn’t have anything. We were just three guys saying, ‘Picture this,” remembers Yau. “The second time out, we were able to say, ‘Look at all this backing we’ve got from this A-plus list of angels; look at our team; look at this feedback from our site.” Indeed, in the view of Guru.com’s new venture partners, the company is well worth its valuation. “These guys really understand the market,” says August Capital’s Andrew Anker. “They really see that for gurus, it’s a lifestyle, not just a job, and they’re going to give gurus all the things they don’t even know they need.” Greylock’s Bhusri, who has joined Guru.com’s board along with Anker, concurs. “They have done the right things for the right reasons. Not to get the highest valuation or the most money but to help them build a company.” Now the Slavets confront the real task of making that company work. “They’ve got terrific traction in a very interesting space, but they’re going to have to be very flexible and relentlessly focused on the needs of their customers,” says CitySearch’s Layton. “There’s no model for what they’re doing. They’re organizing something that was inherently unorganized before.” D.M. Osborne is a senior writer at Inc. Guru.com’s Seven Strategies for Financing an Internet Start-Up The formula for financing an Internet start-up is an imprecise mix of art and science, charisma and luck, timing and contacts. Some companies strike it rich right out of the gate, like Drugstore.com, in Bellevue, Wash. Founder Jed Smith’s concept for an on-line drugstore went straight to the top at Silicon Valley venture firm Kleiner Perkins because Smith knew an assistant to partner John Doerr. Other entrepreneurs, such as Blaise Barrelet of San Diego­based WebSideStory Inc., have had to bootstrap their businesses and found outside funding only after proving their model in the market. Whether you’re on the high road to capital, like Guru.com, or on the low road, here’s a tip sheet for navigating the funding stream. 1. Go after smart money, not easy money. THE HIGH ROAD: Scour your Rolodex for deep-pocketed contacts in the Internet arena — and then check with all your friends, your boss, and your colleagues. That’s what Guru.com did in spades, and it clearly worked well. Have your contacts introduce you to people who can provide funding or act as strategic advisers. Feature advisers in your investor pitch, and update the list each time a new one comes aboard. “Once the dollars start to flow,” observes Salt Lake City entrepreneur Will West, “there’s a herd mentality.” THE LOW ROAD: No contacts? Drop in on your chamber of commerce and find out who’s involved in the local Internet economy. Track down your closest angel-investor group. Chat with the group’s administrator about the sorts of businesses its angels have funded and why. Find out how best to submit your business plan for the angels’ consideration. Do everything in your power to put off relying on relatives. In the Internet-finance environment, explains Harvard Business School professor William Sahlman, “from whom you raise money is often far more important than the terms.” 2. Use your first dollars to buy topflight management. THE HIGH ROAD: A truism these days among Internet angels and venture capitalists holds that a stellar management team is worth more than a supercool business plan. “The idea is irrelevant,” states venture partner Andrew Anker of August Capital, in Menlo Park, Calif. He’s exaggerating — but not by much. “So many people are focused on the Internet right now, the reality is that any great idea you may have, five other people are going to have, too.” Guru.com, for example, bet a lot on being able to hire technology director Kevin Kunzelman early on. Kunzelman, who had been the systems architect of E! Online’s Moviefinder.com and Match.com’s Internet dating service, was hard to woo. Guru.com had to up the ante twice — and in the end resorted to offering to pay for him to take a vacation anywhere in the world (he chose New Zealand) on top of a signing bonus. As Guru.com’s experience demonstrated, a team that has proved itself capable of running with an idea at Internet speed can break ahead of the pack. THE LOW ROAD: If you can’t bring top talent in-house right away, forge strategic alliances with others and then link their management with your concept. Remember, too, that customers speak volumes about a business. 3. Speed is paramount: get your site up and running. THE HIGH ROAD: It was the subject of heated dissension among investors, but Guru.com’s strategy on this score paid off in the end. Work out bugs in the business while you gain traction in the space. Instruct your Web designer to put a premium on users’ experience; look and feel are as important as functionality. Track usage closely and keep the figures on hand when you look for financing. Guru.com deployed user feedback to great advantage in its second round. “The very fact that they had collected it showed that they cared very much and were building a business to serve customers,” comments Guru.com venture partner Aneel Bhusri of Greylock. THE LOW ROAD: If you can’t afford the $1 million it will likely cost you to erect a bare-bones Internet business, seal a deal with a company that is positioned to help your business take off once you do go live. Chad Carpenter’s Klickback.com, an Internet-based rewards program headquartered in San Diego, recently forged a strategic alliance with paging company Metrocall Inc. “When we go live, we will be selling their paging services on our site, and they will use our rewards as their loyalty program for their 1.4 million consumer customers,” Carpenter explains. 4. In approaching venture firms, home in on a specific partner and make your initial contact through one of your advisers. THE HIGH ROAD: As Guru.com did so well, do extensive research on the venture firms you might want to have involved with your company. Look in their portfolios for companies with revenue models similar to yours and for businesses you could partner with. Ask your angels or advisers to give you entrÉe. Active angels can drum up VC interest in your business even before you have your foot in the door. THE LOW ROAD: If you have no VC ties, tap into the goodwill of other Internet entrepreneurs. Contact executives at companies that are funded by the venture firms of your dreams. Would they be willing to introduce you to their venture partners? 5. Don’t marry your first date. THE HIGH ROAD: There’s a lot more money out there these days than there are good deals, so explore all your options. Guru.com’s founders resisted the urge to snatch up the first term sheet that VCs threw down on the table. It’s smart to be choosy about whom you take money from. With every firm that grants you a meeting, take time to get to know the partner who will be your company’s primary contact (and possibly a board member). Ask the entrepreneurs at portfolio companies what their venture firms have done for them and others at your stage. Play your cards close to the vest, but be clear with VCs that you’re shopping around. VCs start to salivate if they have reason to think that your deal is in demand. THE LOW ROAD: It’s not the end of the world if no venture firms come courting. 6. Take the best deal, not the biggest deal. THE HIGH ROAD: Whether your capital is coming from angels or VCs, go with the deal that will not only carry you to your next planned round of financing but also add genuine strategic value. Consider the questions that Guru.com asked of its prospective investors: What’s the relevant experience of the partner who will join our team? What future partnership opportunities exist among the firm’s portfolio companies? THE LOW ROAD: Measly pickings? Take what you can get and run with it. Financing options for Salt Lake City high-speed Internet service provider STSN Inc. had become so thorny in early 1999 that founder Will West resorted to bridge financing. But as soon as West had inked a long-term deal with the Marriott International hotel chain, investors stepped right up: STSN vendor Intel and another major chip manufacturer suddenly wanted an equity position, as did two VCs. 7. Keep up your momentum. THE HIGH ROAD: In today’s supercharged Internet economy, even the leaders are constantly reinventing themselves. You should be, too. Momentum equals execution. When the founders of Guru.com discovered they had formidable competitors, they could easily have become distracted — and derailed their financing. After an initial panic, they instead came to view the competition as proof of just how hot the market for their services was, and got back on track. THE LOW ROAD: Even if money isn’t pouring in, stay focused on the business and look for other ways to fuel growth. And If You Can’t Get Venture Capital… Blaise Barrelet admits he “didn’t even know that there were venture-capital firms” when he and his wife, Agnes, started WebSideStory, back in 1996. The starting gun had just gone off in the race to cyberspace, and as he watched the throngs jockeying for position, Barrelet wondered, “How do all these people measure returns on their investment?” To answer that question, he built HitBOX, which measures Web-site traffic, taxing his credit-card limits in the process. At first, Internet start-ups refused to pay for the tool, forcing Barrelet to give it away free in exchange for ads on customers’ sites. Against all odds, the ads drove traffic to Barrelet’s own Web pages, where San Diego-based WebSideStory ranked sites by their traffic. “Instead of being paid with dollars, we were paid by traffic, and we found out a way, very fast, to make money,” says Barrelet, a 36-year-old Parisian. In short order the Barrelets’ fledgling business achieved positive cash flow as Internet companies lined up to advertise on the site — at the HitBOX opening page, as well as on pages with category-specific site rankings. Three years later WebSideStory is a booming business, with 350,000 HitBOX subscribers to date and more usage-tracking products in the pipeline. WebSideStory’s Web sites now get close to 500,000 visitors a day. And unlike the vast majority of Internet businesses, WebSideStory actually makes money. “They have been able to finance the business through internal cash flow,” observes Kurt Jaggers, a managing director at the Menlo Park office of TA Associates, a private-equity firm. That, says Jaggers, was a key factor in his firm’s decision last June to join forces with Summit Partners in plunking down $30 million for a minority position in WebSideStory.