Silicon Avon - startups doing it ‘Bristol fashion’
12 Comments
by Guest Author on August 19, 2008

In the first of a series of guest posts about the startup scene in various parts of the UK (get in touch if you’re interested in writing one), John Bradford gives us the low-down on the scene in Bristol.

It’s not all stovepipe hats and clay dogs in Bristol. These days its more location aware gaming, mobile media and building businesses. Two Bristol startups you may have heard about are Glasses Direct (James Murray Wells, a UWE graduate) and MyBuilder (Ryan Notz, a Bristol Uni graduate). But what else is going on? As a relative newcomer to the city (5yrs and loving it) here is a quick peek around some local start-ups.

The Watershed, a digital media & arts complex in the heart of the city, has been mixing up creativity and technology for over 20 years.The place for start-ups is their new Pervasive Media Studio, headed by Clare in partnership with HP Labs & with heavy involvement from both Bristol University & UWE. The Studio launched with it’s Media Sandbox competition. Several of the projects came from larger established companies (including Aardman, HMC, BDH, Plot, etc) but the winning project brought together two startup companies, Thought Den (Dan) and Mobile Pie (Richard), to create Happy Packages. After some early PR from the Guardian, Mobile Pie have knuckled down to turn out a number of games and have picked up some awards along the way. They’ve also since been confirmed as one of the first 4,000 iPhone developers and are working with Futurelab to find funding for an exciting e-learning project.

Another Sandbox success is the Comfort of Strangers from the eponymous Simon + Simon. Using a heavily modified mscapes platform, two teams have to ‘discover’ matched players while avoiding opponents. A soft voice in your ear is all that alerts you to the fact that ‘a dancer is nearby, you have lost a life point…’ This ARG team game has been showcased at New York’s Come Out & Play. They now organise the monthly igLab to explore collaborative and social gaming developments. 19-21 Sept they’re turning Bristol into one giant playground… everyone is playing - running, hiding, seeking, finding, escaping, tagging…. igFest.

Just north of the M5, Chris & Craig at BexMedia have been developing a video platform for mobile devices, recently expanding into interactive video after developing a mobile map & video experience for freshers to quickly acquaint themselves with Anglia Ruskin University. On a slightly bigger scale is the Visualise project from 3C Research to bring unprecedented levels of personalised streaming data & video to mobile devices at live sports events. Currently with the World Rally Championships, Nigel’s actively spinning out new startups to commercialise the software & services.

Round the beck end, The Web People started up coding websites like everyone else but Tom quickly developed a web-services management system that made it simple for him to manage lots of websites, with lots of different services, for lots of clients all in parallel. Co-founder Mark saw the opportunity, they’ve just launched an open beta, and are on track for some stellar growth (clients are already beating a path to their door). Also working behind the scenes to spread and gather the word virally is Team Rubber with Andy at the helm. Though not strictly a startup, having survived the dot-com boom, Andy’s a staunch supporter and is actively helping the ‘new guys’ get off the ground.

Behind all these successes lies a growing entrepreneurial ecosystem mixing startups, future clients, partners and investors. This mixing covers everything from the fun & interesting (Dorkbot / igLab), learning & technical (Skillswap / BathCamp), business & sectoral (OpenCoffee / Media Tuesday) to University sponsored (BEN). Its not just the geeks & designers either, lawyers, accountants and exec recruiters are getting behind the start-up scene in Bristol like never before.

Aiming your startup at the US - without leaving the UK
17 Comments
by Guest Author on August 18, 2008

Four guys in Edinburgh now run a site aimed entirely at the US. Even the UK section of the site appears under “International”. What have they learnt? The following is a guest post by Nigel Eccles, co-founder and CEO of Hubdub, the prediction trading game.

Many start-ups in the UK face the challenge that their major market is the US. While Hubdub is based in Edinburgh, 75% of our users reside in the US. That was a deliberate marketing decision and here are our top tips on how to better compete there.

1. Decide on your target market and focus

Very early on in the development process we decided that the US would be our target market. The US represented a much larger market and is home turf to our main competitors. Winning there was strategically important for us. Before launch we considered launching in US and UK simultaneously but quickly realised that running two sites would significantly increase our costs without any clear strategic benefit.

2. Launch at a tech conference

We launched at DEMO in January. It was expensive ($18,500) but worth it. We got a huge amount of exposure and also probably pulled forward our launch date by two months (which stopped us from developing a bunch of features our users would never have used). While DEMO was good for us, TechCrunch 50 is probably better tailored to web start-ups and also happens to be free.

3. Use a PR agency for the launch

There is quite a lot of debate about whether or not web start-ups should use a PR agency. If you are a UK company trying to launch at a US tech conference, then the decision is a no brainer. You need a PR agency. There will be 50-80 other companies out there all screaming for attention. No matter how great your product is you need a way to get to key journalists and bloggers.

4. Build a US based board of advisors

Look at the advisory board of US based start-ups in the same industry (but obviously not competitors) and work out who could add value. Use your network to get to those people and start building a relationship.

5. Always write in US English

Dates, spelling and phrases – UK readers are generally used to reading both UK and US English. Many US readers aren’t so don’t make understanding your product harder for them. Also US English will be better for your SEO.

6. Travel stateside regularly

Pack out an agenda of who you want to meet. Work UK hours in the morning and US hours in the evening. Sleep on the flight home.

7. Ask fellow entrepreneurs for help

Nearly every successful entrepreneur I have met is happy to help entrepreneurs starting out. Work out who can help and use your network to get to them. Go direct if you can’t network to them. Make sure that you are asking for something that they can easily help with (e.g. making an intro, quick piece of advice etc), explain who you are and concisely ask for help. At least 80% of the time you will get it.

8. Use web tools to track your industry and competitors

Use Google Alerts and Summize RSS Feeds on your product name and your competitor names to track what people are writing about your industry. Get involved in that discussion.

9. Build a virtual team from your US user base

Apart from you, no one will be more passionate about your product than your top users. If you need someone to evangelize your product then look to hire from your US user base.

10. Start the US visa process early

Skype and Last.fm show that UK based start-ups can compete with US competitors and win, however geography still matters (I know start-ups in Seattle that feel their location is a handicap). Most UK based entrepreneurs want to stay in the UK and help build the start-up community here, but if geography is becoming a serious issue then move to the US, successfully sell to AOL for $850 million and then invest in some UK start-ups.

Trust me, I’m a start-up
5 Comments
by Guest Author on August 15, 2008

This is a guest post by David Cruickshank, co-founder of Business IT Online, the web-based suite of business software applications for small businesses. David blogs at Internet business.

Many of the greatest challenges start-ups face involve trust. Earning it, growing it, rewarding it, avoiding the loss of it and recovering it when you fail. To succeed, we need to be trusted in key business relationships and ultimately, our users and investors will vote with their cash as to whether we are trust-worthy or not.

Our personal relationships show us that trust grows with time. Those we trust the most, we have known long enough to feel assured that our trust in them is not misplaced.

This is the start-up’s paradox:

To succeed, start-ups must build trust. Earning trust takes time and start-up businesses are operating from a standing start with no history of competence or credibility. Intriguingly, start-ups are constrained by the very resource they need to thrive.

From a user’s perspective, trust is inextricably linked to risk and motivation. More trust is required when there is a high perceived risk of using a service. Less trust is required when we are highly motivated by the benefits of that service.

A low risk, high value service, therefore, will win trust the quickest and, all else being equal (which it never is), will more likely succeed. The diagram below illustrates this.

Food for thought for anyone planning a start-up; your start-up’s chances of success are better if you are focused in the red or orange areas.

So how does a start-up build trust with so little trading time behind it? The good news is that risk and value are perceptions that can be influenced to some degree.

Case studies, customer service, advisory boards and employment interviews are useful mechanisms for reducing the perceived risk in new ventures. Testimonials, market research and employee stock options can also positively influence the perceived value of using, investing in and working for a new business.

However, communications issued directly from a start-up are not the most powerful trust-influencers. In the early days of a start-up, with very little reputation in the marketplace, it is not surprising that the Holy Grail is to achieve a highly viral propagation of the service. This is not solely because of the obvious economic efficiencies of ‘sneeze marketing‘ but also because we are more likely to trust an independent third party user of a service than we are to trust the provider of that service. After all, if you think about how you originally came to hear about Google, eBay, Amazon or Hotmail, it probably wasn’t from a carefully devised press release or TV ad.

So what can we do to influence trust? An interesting essay on Trust & Trust Building suggests that, ultimately, trust-worthiness is assessed, based on three characteristics:

  1. Ability - our competency to deliver on our promises
  2. Integrity - our credibility of communication and commitment to fairness
  3. Benevolence - the intentions and motives behind our actions

These are interesting because many of the initiatives that we see start-ups deploy to help grow a service, build trust in one or more of the above ways:

  • Hiring experienced entrepreneurs
  • Building an open service and releasing APIs
  • Building partnerships
  • Offering referral rewards
  • Promoting case studies and demonstrating early traction
  • Announcing an advisory board
  • Generating and linking to press coverage
  • Working with charities and not-for profits

How trust-worthy is your service? Is it low risk? Is it high value? Although the web offers many advantages in business, one of the drawbacks is reduced direct customer interaction. In the end, people like to trust people, which means Internet businesses need to work harder than most at building trust. Take a look at some of the initiatives listed above. What can you do to build a deeper level of trust in your service?

Whatever you do, remember the words of the Dutch statesman, Johan Thorbecke, "Trust comes on foot, but leaves on horseback".

As Twitter withdraws SMS, startups rush to fill the void
10 Comments
by Mike Butcher on August 14, 2008

Assuming the founders of Twitter are listening, then they will have been be hearing about the outcry from users outside the US (just read these comments) after they completely cut off all outbound SMS services in the UK and chose not to replace them with premium rate SMS services - services which, surprise, surprise - millions of people in Europe already happily pay for.

But no matter. Twitter’s loss is the startups’ gain, and a number of them are hungrily eyeing up the potential premium-rate SMS market which Twitter has built and bank-rolled as a free service till now.

Just two of them to hit my inbox in the last 12 hours include Zygo Tweet and Tweet SMS.

The latter says “for a low price, tweetSMS can send you individual, hourly or daily updates from all of your friends!”. Though who these guys are is anyone’s guess, and they haven’t told me yet. But they say it will “be available worldwide across almost all carriers” and they “also plan to deploy an ad-based service for free updates.”

Zygo Tweet however are already known to TechCrunch as the guys behind UK-based Zygo Hubs, a mobile startup which could almost be likened to an SMS version of Twitter already.

They are asking people to register their interest - once they hit enough users it’s going to be worth their while to offer the service. I understand it will cost about 5p per message or less, down to 4p in large quantities. As other observers have said, it’s clear that for many people it is the DMs - the direct messages from Twitter on SMS which is the real ‘must have’ part of the service, so 5p is a small price to pay in that respect.

Meanwhile, I would not be surprised to find all sorts of people starting to offer SMS services based on Twitter’s API, but I would certainly be careful who you entrust with your Twitter name and password.

Twitter cuts UK SMS - there goes another business model
68 Comments
by Mike Butcher on August 14, 2008

Twitter has killed its outbound SMS services outside of the United States, Canada or India, and with it a potentially highly lucrative business model in Europe. In the UK you’ll still be able to send Twitter an SMS to update your status, but you won’t be receiving them. Apparently rising rising costs made it impractical, and we have been getting those SMSs for free.

In a blog post co-founder Biz Stone says: “Even with a limit of 250 messages received per week, it could cost Twitter about $1,000 per user, per year to send SMS outside of Canada, India, or the US.” In the US and some other countries they’ve been able to negotiate service fees with mobile operators that cut out after a certain point, saving them money. But they haven’t got this deal in the UK.

However, as a few mobile experts are starting to point out, Twitter could have charged heavy users a premium bundling package to recieve their Twitters via SMS. Alfie Dennen, co-founder of Moblog.net today says that he would have paid “4p per message if offered a 250 sms bundle.” Vero Pepperrell of mobile startup Taptu finds it “Really annoying that DMs won’t arrive by SMS anymore.” Many UK Twitterers today are expressing their disappointment using phrases like “shame”, “bye bye Twitter”, “disappointed”, “Gits” and “Gutted”. Setting up premiums SMS services is a doddle.

In Europe there is mainstream adoption of premium SMS services so introducing charges would not have deterred too many Twitter users. Personally I was amazed Twitter didn’t do this from the outset two years ago. In many respects, Twitter took off in the UK precisely because it had an SMS service, whereas Jaiku, the competing service which was bought and virtually killed off by Google (at least so far), did not only had SMS in Finland, a tiny market, and thus languished on the desktop rather than the mobile. If Twitter had put even a small premium on SMS it might not be cutting the SMS service today - and it would have a sustainable business model. It may come as a surprise to non-Silicon Valley American’s but not everyone in Europe has an iPhone or is on unlimited data plans. SMS still rules in Europe and makes any update services far more available to the mainstream.

It’s worth noting that because the UK SMS service has gone, people in other European countries using the UK number for mobile updates have now been cut as well.

UPDATE: There is now a Facebook campaign to get UK mobile phone operators to “cut Twitter a decent deal”.

Terms of VC endearment - Forget the valuation, what’s the deal?
4 Comments
by Guest Author on August 14, 2008

British, and by extension European, startups often talk heatedly about valuations. But across the pond where they’ve been doing this for many years, the talk is usually about how any deal is structured. Sean Glass, founder of Pikum!, has now founded a startup on both sides of the Atlantic, and lays it all out in a guest post.

I was at the Always On Media conference in New York last year, when one of the speakers on a panel about M&A and exit activity made a very sage comment. He said “You name the price, I’ll name the terms - I guarantee I’ll win every time.”

When talking to first time, early stage entrepreneurs about raising money, often the piece that I find they are most interested in is how a valuation will be agreed upon – and how to get it as high as possible. It’s amazing how often this comes up at entrepreneurial workshops, panels, and networking events. In fact, one London VC and I thought that it might be worthwhile to create a handout that said “Forget valuation – 0% of 0 is 0″. Worry about how you’ll make the business work so you can raise money, and a good valuation will take care of itself.

The truth is, when you do get to a term sheet, valuation is important, however the terms are equally, if not even more important. Although there are many key terms, liquidation preference and participation are terms that are probably the most important to understand as they may severely affect the entrepreneurs outcome.

Liquidation preference guarantees that investors get X times their investment prior to any money going to common shareholders in a distrubtion. A great post as to why investors want liquidation preference (and why they’re fair) can be found here:

Participation (or participating preferred) enables the investor to receive both their liquidation preference and their % allocation of the remaining funds to be distributed. Brad Feld discusses the concept and gives a concise description here:

The reason that liquidation preferences and participation matter is that they may affect how much you make when you sell your business as much or more than the pre-money valuation you negotiate. This is particularly true if the business is very successful, but not a “10 bagger” [A 10-bagger means that for every $1 of investment made, the VC fund receives $10 back when they sell their stake (either selling the company to someone else, or after an IPO). 10-baggers are pretty rare].

Let’s look at a couple scenarios based on the idea that you are raising a $5 million series A and targeting a $15 Million Pre-Money valuation (you’ve built a lot so far right?). We’ll then look at how the founders and employees do if they accept the terms offered.

One mythical VC, who we’ll call Simple Terms Ventures, thinks your valuation is high and offers $5M with a 1X liquidation preference, non participating.

Their competitor, Liquidation Preference Capital, thinks your valuation is high, is willing to go to $10M pre-money if you accept a 3x liquidation preference.

Meanwhile, in the office across the road, those Our Terms Fund guys are willing to go with your valuation, however they want a 3x liquidation preference and participation.

Two years after your series A, you get an offer to sell the company for $60 million (3x on your targeted post money for Series A – nice job). How did you do?

You accepted Simple Terms Ventures Proposal
You get $30MM which is shared by common shareholders. Simple Terms gets 3x / 2 years, a really solid return. What if you’d received an offer price of more or less? Here’s the return to common versus total acquisition price would play out at different prices. The key is that as long as the company is sold for more than $5 million, common shareholders will get 50% of each dollar over that threshold.

You Accepted Liquidation Preference Capital’s Proposal
At a $60 million exit value, common shareholders receive 66% or $40. Because you negotiated a better pre-money, you’ve made more money. However, it’s important to note that you had to sell the company for more than $15 Million to get anything.

You accepted the terms from Our Terms Fund
At a deal price of $60 million, you got out $33.75 million, better than the low simple valuation, but worse than the valuation without the participation term. Additionally, again it was important that you sell for at least $15 million to make anything, and from that point, what you make is lessened as investors get the $15 million out first, then their pro-rata share of the remainder.

What’s the right path?
The answer is, like most things with a startup, it depends. Many entrepreneurs and VC’s prefer simple, clean terms where both sides do equally well as the value of the company grows. Other entrepreneurs prefer the higher valuation and larger upside that can be obtained by accepting liquidation preferences of 2-3X or more (and then delivering a huge exit). The key to is understanding that when you’re raising money, it’s not just the valuation, but also the terms that count.

UK 2.0 - Why the UK can become the global hub for mobile
10 Comments
by Guest Author on August 14, 2008

This is a guest post by jamescoops from the mjelly mobile internet blog. 


There’s been a lot of discussion on Techcrunch UK and elsewhere about how to make London and the UK a hub for Web/Mobile 2.0 startups and businesses.   However, London arguably has a much better chance of becoming the leading cluster for mobile 2.0 specifically, the new generation of mobile internet and mobile media services.

Over the last couple of years, a wave of mobile 2.0 startups have emerged in the UK that in many cases eclipse anything found in Silicon Valley.  Those in London include Trutap, Fulham-based Mippin, Reporo and Truphone in Bermondsey, moblog over in Shoreditch, and buddyping and Flirtomatic in Soho. Down the road in Cambridge we’ve got Taptu taking on Google in mobile search, Rummble pushing back the boundaries of mobile location based services and Bango making moves in mobile payments and advertising.  London is also becoming the location of choice for the mobile HQs of more established players such as admob, who just opened their European office in Oxford St, and Google who have a mobile development base in Victoria.   

The UK mobile market is a great place to launch mobile 2.0 startups; all five national network operators are offering 3G services, and faster 3.5G HSDPA networks are being widely rolled out.  There are already over 15m 3G subs, around 25% of all mobile connections.   Believe it or not, UK operators have been much quicker than those in the US, and much of Europe, to enable and support access to third party mobile internet sites.  The last year has seen an explosion in flat rate data tariffs with Vodafone now bundling free unlimited data on mid-range contracts. 

Since the mid-noughties (2005), the UK has been one of the world’s most developed markets for mobile 1.0 services such as personalisation content, which has lead to a well-established local ecosystem of service delivery platforms, sms aggregators and mobile technology expertise.  The UK’s strength in mobile 1.0 is underpinned by a consumer base that is willing to spend money paying for mobile content and services.  This has helped to boost the local mobile advertising market, with UK CPC and CPM rates way above any other territory.   As a result, UK mobile 2.0 startups benefit from valuable local traffic in their home market.

The English language and historic trading connections mean that UK-based mobile services are well placed to expand internationally, not only into the US, but also into the hyper-growth mobile data markets such as South Africa, India and Asia.  Many of the UK mobile 2.0 startups have substantial South African and Indian user-bases and Trutap is reportedly one of the most popular social media services in Indonesia.  Flirtomatic is also beginning to address non-English speaking markets with a rollout across Europe, starting with Germany. 

Social capital, the glue that holds a cluster together, is there in abundance for mobile 2.0 startups in London right now.  There are loads of great events happening, for example, Mobile Monday London is the largest MoMo chapter in the world, hosting events with hundreds of attendees.  There are also plenty of smaller grass roots events like Mobile Geeks of London, Swedish beers and Unlimited Drinks.   

Whilst there is competition from elsewhere in the world, nowhere seems to have quite the same mobile 2.0 buzz as London and the UK. Silicon Valley has its fair share of new mobile 2.0 startups but not at the same level of comparative scale as in web 2.0.  France is surprisingly strong in mobile, with Goojet and Igloo both doing interesting things and Germany has spawned two of the biggest mobile community sites in Pepperonity and Itsmy.   Italy seems to be good at producing big mobile content aggregators like Buongiorno and Dada but there appears to be few mobile 2.0 startups apart from the mobile media sharing community Mobango (which seems to be largely run out of the UK now).  Similarly, Spain is home to Zed, one of the world’s largest D2C mobile content players, but again, fewer mobile 2.0 startups than the UK. 

So it seems that London and the wider UK have a fantastic opportunity to become the dominant hub for mobile 2.0 startups and services.  This raises the question, should investment and activity be focused on new mobile services, where the UK has a greater comparative advantage, rather than on the generic “Web 2.0″ arena?

Taking the shine off: Why blog publishing ‘failed’ in the UK (or at least didn’t create a $30m exit)
118 Comments
by Guest Author on August 13, 2008

US entrepreneurs have had notable success with Blog publishing startups, in particular Jason Calacanis (Weblogs Inc sold to AOL for $25m) and more recently Rafat Ali (Paid Content sold to The Guardian for $30m). Ashley Norris, former co-founder of early UK blog network Shiny Media, left the company last week to create another startup - but there is no multi-million sale yet in sight for Shiny. In this guest post for TechCrunch UK he makes his first public statements on the matter, he rails against the BBC, VCs, ad agencies and pores over why he thinks Blog publishing has had only limited success in the UK. Did Shiny ‘cut the mustard’ or were wider factors at work? You decide.

The last five years have seen an explosion in the number of independent commercial blogs, blog networks and websites in the US. The Huffington Post, Sugar Publishing, Perez Hilton, Gawker Media, Engadget - the list goes on forever, and they are just the Web 2.0 premiership. There are thousands of individuals running less high profile blogs and websites who are making a significant living from their work.

In the UK it is a depressingly different story. I have spent the last five years of my life developing Shiny Media, the largest and most successful UK blog network. When I left the company at the end of August it could boast that over four million people each month were either reading or viewing its content. Shiny Media is however one of a handful of independent UK content companies to attract more than a couple of million monthly readers to its sites. There are some amazing blogs and sites out there, Hecklerspray, Anorak, The Spoiler, Coolest Gadgets, Unreality TV and Pocket-Lint spring to mind, but of those only one can claim more than a million monthly readers.

There have been several attempts to develop a UK based blog network (Mink Media, Blog Nation and Messy Media are the most high profile) but many have crashed just months after their launch.

When I first started seeking investment for Shiny back in 2005 I was constantly told I was wasting my time and that the business would never be worth more than a couple of hundred thousand pounds. Ok, so content was rather unfashionable with VCs back then, and what they told me only served to strengthen my resolve to make Shiny successful, but in retrospect I do think that many of the VCs had quite an accurate take on the difficulties facing any developing independent media companies in the UK.

So three years and lot of water under the bridge later here is my take on why I think the US explosion of new media companies hasn’t been repeated over here.

1 Limited number of UK online eyeballs – The obvious reason why UK new media companies haven’t achieved the same success as their US counterparts is down to economies of scale. US sites have at least five times more readers to aim at and that counts for an awful lot when most online advertising is still based around a CPM model (advertisers pay a between 50p-£20 depending on the campaign per thousand people who see their ad). What makes it even trickier is that most UK advertisers for obvious reasons only want their ads to be seen by UK readers. For most UK blogs and established websites Britons count for between 30-50% of their readership, the rest is from the US and other English language speaking countries. It is possible to monetise non-UK ad inventory but it is generally at much lower rates than the UK inventory. The difficulty for most UK blogs and websites is that they simply don’t have enough UK readers to interest ad agencies and brands, so they are left to monetise even their UK traffic using ads that have very low CPMs.

Perhaps an obvious tactic is to forget about the UK completely. Maybe there is something in the fact that two of the five best read blogs to emanate from the UK – Mashable and Coolest Gadgets – are focussed on a worldwide (in the main, US) audience.

2 Lack of imagination in the ad industry – Shiny has been very successful at attracting blue chip brand advertising (Marks and Spencer, Nokia, Dyson, BMW are among the high profile brands who have advertised on its sites). However it has been a long and slow process convincing agencies and brands to advertise on blogs. In reality it should be simple. The readers of the bigger British blogs (if Shiny and other groups like Glam are to be believed) tend to be young, affluent, educated and spend much more time online than they do imbibing other media. However many brands and their agency planers have chosen to play it safe and will work with established media brands or mega portals like MSN, even when the ads themselves will be seen by a less focussed and often an inappropriate audience. There are signs that this is changing, but the lack of brand advertising on sites like Hecklerspray and Unreality TV really is baffling.

3 Lack of UK media entrepreneurs – As someone who wasn’t involved in a start up in the first web boom largely because I spent all my working hours writing about it for magazines and newspapers, I can understand why there are so few media entrepreneurs in the UK. Many of the smarter journalists are way too busy to develop their own start up and there are very few entrepreneurs outside the media who have the capacity to develop media properties. Ironically many of the most successful, blogs and websites in the UK have been developed by freelance journalists who have worked on their sites in addition to writing for others, and in many instances rival media. This is ideal for slowly building an audience, but the emphasis is on the word slowly.

4 Lack of VC support – As a rule European VCs don’t tend to be too interested in media unless it is supported by a technological innovation. Other than Shiny I can’t think of a single online editorially based media play in the UK that has attracted any sizable investment in the last few years. Before Shiny it was Magicalia Publishing and that was many years ago.

Conversely organisations like Next New Networks , the closest US equivalent of Shiny, has several VCs on its board and has so far attracted over $23m in funding. Established US media has also worked with independent new media companies too. NBC has equity in Sugar Publishing, another Shiny rival, while The Discovery Channel acquired Treehugger the leading green blog.

5 Too much competition – Several commentators have suggested that the explosion in successful blogs occurred largely because Americans distrust established media and see it as being in the pockets of big business. I can’t really comment on the US, but I do know that this isn’t the case in the UK. On the surface Britons appear to be fairly loyal to their newspaper and magazine brands. There have been many examples of offline brands that have been a disaster when launched online, but there are some significant successes now too. Existing media companies have much larger budgets than independents and are now starting a serious land grab in building up their online properties. Just check how often you see a UK media company using a Google Adword. However the independents have in many instances a first mover advantage and often a keener understanding of how to work the web to market a site which has kept them one step ahead of big brands.

6 The omnipotent BBC – At the risk of sounding like a stuck record the existence of the BBC and its hugely impressive range of online services does make life even more tricky for the independents. Going back to point one there is only a certain number of UK web surfers and as the BBC hoovers up a large percentage of them the slice of the cake for the independents is even smaller. Secondly, the BBC’s reluctance to link to British blogs and smaller independent media organisations, while at the same time endlessly plugging established media groups (Five Live is one long plug for mainstream media brands) makes life even more difficult.

On a very basic level, if the BBC didn’t have its huge online football offering, then it is very likely that Shiny’s footy blog, whoateallthepies.tv, which is one of the most read football blogs in the world, would be significantly larger. What is even more galling for the founders of Shiny and other indie media groups is that they personally pay a small amount in the guise of the licence fee to fund what in reality are rival sites.

Were the BBC to take a more enlightened view of British independent and social media it could do a lot to encourage young talent to develop UK media properties thereby greatly enriching British media.

Conclusion

On the surface this probably reads like a fairly negative post. It isn’t meant to be.

I do think that British independent new media companies can develop businesses, Shiny is proof of that as are Trusted Reviews, The Register and Digital Spy, but they have to be so much smarter and work so much harder than their rivals in mainstream media. I think online video will provide an opportunity for UK companies to compete on a worldwide stage, however they will need access to fairly sizable funds to do this.

Finally it is worth adding that the economic downturn might actually provide some interesting opportunities for UK bloggers. Several of the most successful indie websites date from around 2002/2003, a time when mainstream media was pulling out of the web after the dot com crash. It is possible that 2009 will go down as the year in which the third wave of indie media started gaining momentum. Here’s hoping.

Hard times in Europe may be a startup’s advantage
8 Comments
by Guest Author on August 13, 2008

This guest post is written by Robleh Ali, founder of Zoinetworks.

Although the Internet’s killer application - the Web - was invented in Europe very few of the great consumer web businesses have come from here. The true giants, like Amazon, Google, Yahoo and eBay all rose to become profitable public companies, making billions for the Silicon Valley VCs who invested in them. And share options created hundreds of newly minted millionaires ready to seed the next generation of entrepreneurs in the way Andy Bechtolstein - employee number one at Sun - had for Google.

Europeans see the cash, the culture and dream of how much easier it is to start up in the Valley. Angels and VCs flock to promising founders hoping for a repeat of the last grand slam when Google began life 12 years ago. The following generation has produced some great services but not yet sustainable businesses. Including its most recent loan Facebook has so far taken $446m of external funds, Google needed $26m of outside investment between its launch and IPO. This ready availability of cash has tempted Facebook employees to start selling shares which led Sarah Lacy to wonder:

“It has become strikingly apparent to me in the last few months that this lauded culture of risk taking in Silicon Valley may not actually be so pronounced. In other words: Has our class of startup worker bees gotten soft and spoiled on us?”

Success is forged in adversity, all the great tech founders have been through the fire. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak’s first venture together, the blue box, was a failure. When Jobs left college he was reduced to sleeping on friends’ floors and reclaiming the 5 cents on recycled coke bottles. Wozniak showed the Apple I to Hewlett Packard and his bosses confidently predicted failure. In the 90s every big web company turned down Google because a great search engine would only take people away from their ad-laden portals. These founders carried on despite the setbacks.

The value of hardship

I know from founding a company that startups don’t have an easy ride in Europe. Our current environment is like the Valley of old when only visionary investors understood the Internet. Because there are fewer of those raising money is harder. Fortunately money is not the most important component of success - determination is. A few miles from me is Wimbledon. Every year the tournament produces vast sums which the Lawn Tennis Association pumps into the the best facilities, the best equipment and the best coaches. But British players still haven’t won Wimbledon in 30 years. Compare them with the current crop of outstanding Serbian tennis players. They had to train on cracked courts with old equipment. Current French Open champion Ana Ivanovic practised at the bottom of a drained swimming pool. Yet they win whilst the expensively trained British players languish in Futures tournaments.

Making do with less is actually an advantage. It keeps you focused on delivering products people want to use and imposes a discipline which evaporates when you have too much money. Cuil had $33m but it didn’t lead to a great product (so far) and made them think they could mask it with an expensive launch. At a similar stage Google had raised $1.1m and spent it all on perfecting the technology. Their “launch” was an email from Sergey Brin to his friends asking for feedback.

Europeans will continue to build up our own networks but we should play to our unique strengths and not always think “Valley knows best”. Right now we have fewer advantages and it is tougher, but easier is not necessarily better. Ultimately it is the hard times which make us.

Web analytics faux pas
10 Comments
by Guest Author on August 12, 2008

This is a guest post by Ed Freyfogle, co-founder of property search engine Nestoria.

It’s often claimed that the advantage of the internet versus traditional media is that
everything can be measured. Rarely mentioned though is the pain experienced by industry
insiders working in the fog of confusion caused by such a hyper-analytical environment.
In this rapidly evolving new medium fundamental misunderstandings are surprisingly common.

A few of the most striking, and common, examples:

  • Mistaking users for customers - Some people use the terms ‘users’ and ‘customers’ interchangeably. That’s nonsense. Customers are people who pay you. Users are people who use your service. There can certainly be overlap (ex: Amazon), but for most media sites customers means advertisers. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying users aren’t important. You should certainly focus on user experience, but mixing customers with users shows miscomprehension of the media business model. If the terms are interchanged, alarm bells should start ringing.
  • Using the term ‘hits’ - Before last.fm there were things called record companies. They produced hits. I have no idea what is meant when I hear someone say a website has a lot of “hits”. And evidently nor do they.
  • Belief in pageviews - Conceptually pageviews seem straightforward: a measure of the number of times users view your content. Sadly it’s not that simple. The interweb is swarming with bots querying servers for content that no human will ever see. Secondly, in the age of AJAX and widgets it’s hard to quantify what exactly a pageview is. Most importantly though, users are spending more time online, generating (or “consuming” as hip media exec likes to say) more and more pageviews. Facebook and Bebo are prime examples. As supply of pageview inventory rises, value (CPM) drops. None of this is news - see last year’s discussion re: Death of the Pageview - but it’s amazing how people still cling desperately to the pageview metric.
  • Rampant use of averages - any number worth knowing the average of is worth turning into a histogram. You don’t have ‘average’ users. Most likely your site is visited by power users, recurring visitors, and occasional passer-by’s. Using averages is a fast path to shaky conclusions.
  • Blind faith - There’s nothing worse than ‘true believers’ - those who never question the numbers put forth by their analytics system. Software has bugs, can be badly configured, garbage in still leads to garbage out, and different tools measure different things. As an example, Google Analytics often disagrees with Google Adwords. Tools just give you data, data needs to be analysed and understood to become information.

Things I haven’t covered: confusing correlation and causation, those who endlessly argue why comScore and Hitwise are all wrong, and (my personal favorite) flippantly tossing ‘it could be seasonality’ into any discussion of analytics. In short, the true potential of the mass of data the internet generates lies not in its quantity but in its thoughtful application.

BTW, in the three minutes it took to read this post, my RSS reader generated a few thousand pageviews.

(Photo from maisonbisson @ flickr)