I've been getting a lot of inquiries on what is StartupHouse, a new business I will be unveiling to the world with the help of some of my friends. All will be revealed in due course, but in the interim, you might appreciate a video my good friend Al Faulkner produced on "StartupRocket". Too many inside jokes to explain, but this parody done for our own private entertainment actually does a pretty good job explaining what's to come 
ICANN two months ago made an announcement that domain names can now be extended beyond the generic TLD's set (they also are allowing the use of non-Latin characters such as Cyrillic, Arabic, Chinese, etc). Meaning, instead of everyone competing to get a ".com", people can buy ".yourbrand" and create websites off that. I think it's brilliant -- Ester Dyson, the founding chairperson of ICANN, doesn't agree.
As someone that's developed multiple online properties, organisations (both for-profit and not-for-profit) and had people try to rip-off several brands I've created, I've experienced enough to welcome this as a huge step forward -- and here's why.
ICANN's strategy originally wanted to disrupt a market place player, which is why they assigned these generic TLD's like .org and .net (.com was controlled by a corporation). But what matters now is not the historical reasons but what will benefit the world based on historical experience (and failed strategy). That benefit is better consumer protection and reduced costs of business.
Let's rethink this
Consider the following:
(1) The purpose of a trademark is to allow customers the ability to distinguish what they are buying. It's for the customer's protection first.
(2) A domain name is simply a human-intelligent way to to access ip address. Whether it's apple.com or apple.eats.microsoft -- the point isn't one of branding, but for humans to be able to identify a resource they seek.
(3) While there are plenty of domain names available, good ones no longer exist. There is a bias to having a ".com" and it's why many companies from the web2.0 era had to resort to creative domains like del.icio.us and missing vowels like flickr.com
What the historical DNS system has done is create an unnecessary scarcity where domain name registrars and brokers of 'premium' domain names benefit. Having a company own the name space like ".IBM" makes perfect sense because ".com", ".org", and ".net" have lost their original meaning of distinguishing "commercial" businesses over "non-profits" and the like.
What matters more is that when a consumer wants the comfort of the company they seek, they can do it with the assurance it's correct. ".paypal" for example could have huge implications for fraud detection for consumers (some fraud is done due to misspelled domains similar to the target or switching .com with another TLD). Better still, it actually decreases the cost of businesses for companies because they no longer need to chase the unlimited TLD variations of their name to protect their brand -- which they only did so, so they wouldn't lose customers confused by confusing branding.
ICANN's changes are a radical change, but they are perfectly in line with the original intent of trademark law. Sorry Ester, but you're wrong on this one.
Several years ago, I considered someone "successful" because he had sold a business to a brand name technology company. Recently, I discovered he practically made no money from it. He's still successful in my eyes, but when it comes to giving people advice on building a successful business I hold his opinion just as high as any other reasonably intelligent person -- but no more.
This is a common issue for people living in Silicon Valley that they can relate to: Smart people that "sell" their company and become celebrated entrepreneurs. As a case in point Facebook has quite openly said they only acquire companies for the talent and not for the business itself. What this means is that the products the startup built isn't the reason they exited; instead the value of the people in the business are what was acquired. If I was to start a solar company and buy expensive furniture -- only to be "acquired" for the value of that furniture and nothing more, that's not success; that's just money being shuffled around.
I've been observing a trend where smart engineers think they are founders. They start a company, but they lack essential skills that makes the startup gradate to a sustainable business: which is what the entire point is for a startup (the search of a business model, which it can then execute on). These smart engineers are smart engineers -- but they are not founders. And because there is a talent crunch, these companies will get "acquired" and be considered a success, distorting the story that will inspire and help future entrepreneurs.
A ponzi scheme built on snake oil
If a company is acquired before it generates positive cash flow or even revenue, it means what they build wasn't a success in the context of "let's copy that model". As to why they were acquired, there could be multiple reasons: talent acquisitions are just one example, but there could be strategic value in acquiring a company as it complements the acquiring company's existing product line. A product is a solution to a problem, and often people build great technology that is better classed as a feature. An acquisition gives these feature driven technologies a fake sense of validation. It's a ponzi scheme.
Economically, this ponzi scheme doesn't hurt so there is no need to regulate it: these founders cash out something and the company that acquires them can likely absorb the losses. In fact, the maturity of the information technology industry now has allowed for outsourced innovation which I think is a great thing. (Innovating in a big company is practically impossible if you ever meet someone who has lived to tell the tale, and now Silicon Valley giants can acquire disruptive innovation rather than solely relying on it to be generated internally.) But it also creates a fake understanding of what success is. An externality of this are small ideas and nothing game changing, the higher calling for those that can change our world.
A true measure of success
I've come to realise that the only metric that matters in business is cash. Not revenues, not number of employees -- but cash that sits in the bank and the inflow of it that will grow it. I get nervous when I see companies hire ahead of their revenue growth and skeptical of companies that boast about revenue but sugar coat their margins. Cash is king, and any evaluation of a business is useless without understanding its cash position.
Which leads to why the ultimate goal of a startup is to be able to generate enough cash from customers so that it can fund its operations. You may want to change the world and that's an honourable goal for a startup -- but if you are not sustainable, you're not going to last long enough to have that impact.
When we hear about smart people selling their companies, stop to ask are they really successful? Technology allows us to automate processes, but this simply allows us to scale operations due to reduced cost. But scalability is irrelevant in the same way revenue is irrelevant for a professional services firm that relies on the hourly input of its staff. If you've built something that improves society, while at the same time return increasing profits despite a constant investment -- you're a success and you should be ranked according to the fundamental value of the asset you build. And if you sell your company for whatever reason, you're still a success: just don't go around rubbing that snake oil in people eyes, because that's not the medicine we need to foster the next generation of great businesses.
Recent comments