« European growth equity coming of age? | Main | And then there was one: NewMedia SPARK »

Comments

Rene Griemens

I am not so convinced of the bubble theory in web 2.0. For me as somebody who lived in the heart of the bubble 1.0 ups and downs (running a start-up back then), there appears to be a major difference today (at least in the 2.0 companies that I've seen): people are much more focused on economic value to a/the customer and they start thinking about making money much earlier. Why would it be a problem to have a few hundred people trying to find the right angle for the youtube concept, if it REALLY becomes a substitute for TV? That market is so big (something like 1800 TV stations in Germany alone) and its succession so difficult to predict that to me it makes a lot of economic sense to put your money widely spread into the concepts that try to replace it.

Just a thought and because I'd really like discussing this a bit further...

maxbley

I don't disagree -- it's great that so many entrepreneurs are able to start new businesses and try out different approaches. But it does mean lower probabilities of success for each of them, which should concern the investors.

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures described this in the context of the Long Tail: http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2006/08/the_long_tail_o.html.

Most VCs can only back one company in a segment to avoid conflicts, so if there are 20, their chances are diluted. Perhaps what we need for these conditions is a blind fund (say: "mobile IM", or "online video") that holds shares in all 20 and allows investor to pick a segment but not a company?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Search this blog

  • Google

    WWW
    maxbley.typepad.com

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter