Skip to content

Silicon Valley VC Disease vs. TechCrunch Echochamber Disease

July 28, 2008

vcmike

Robert Scoble had a good and provocative post on what he calls “Silicon Valley VC Disease.”  In response to a comment by David Hornik that he wouldn’t invest in an iPhone app company because the iPhone doesn’t have a large enough market share, Scoble argues that Hornik’s comment illustrates a “disease” in which VCs’ insistence on large market share leads them to overlook important new platforms.

(Hornik has a good response here).

Scoble has a point.  If VCs only invested in startups that had dominant market share in markets that were already well established, then by definition we’d miss most if not all important platform shifts, which is precisely where the greatest disruption, and greatest returns, usually come from.

Scoble also goes on to argue the merit in backing new innovations that have captured the attention of early adopters and influencers, including the absence of competition, the ease of targetting this audience, and the brand and revenue value in winning influential early adopters.

With all respect, I think Scoble misses the mark, and in doing so does a great job of illustrating what I call the “TechCrunch Echochamber Disease.”  Actually, to be more current, I’ll call this the “FriendFeed Echochamber Disease,” but you get the idea.  Silicon Valley’s early adopters, like the influencers in any of our country’s major power centers (think Wall Street, Hollywood, D.C., Silicon Valley) are so consumed with their own echoes in the chamber that they forget there is life outside the chamber. Sure, Scoble and his 100k or so pals on FriendFeed are early adopters, and frequently anoint new startups as the cool new thing. Sure, FriendFeed and Twitter are cool, just as Digg, Flickr and del.icio.us were a couple years ago.  All are interesting new services that quickly garnered rabid following amongst the web 2.0 crowd. And that is worth something.  But it does not make them investable, valuable, or in some way important in the real world outside the chamber.  In fact, most web 2.0 darlings anointed in the echochamber will (and should) end up as small-ish acquisitions by a portal, which are great outcomes for the entrepreneur, good outcomes for angel investors, and almost always bad to fair outcomes for VCs.

So while Scoble has pointed out an interesting paradox in looking for dominant market share, the answer is not simply to argue that it makes sense to back companies who have won the early adopters. At least for me, the decision whether to back an emerging technology which lacks meaningful share in an existing market, should turn on whether the combination of idea, technology and entrepreneur convinces me that the startup has a realistic shot at creating a new, valuable platform of its own.

And to me, “valuable” means valuable to the broader market, not just to the EchoChamber…

2 Comments

Post a comment
  1. July 29, 2008

    Agreed. I believe the original credit for describing the Techcrunch 50k crowd goes to Josh Kopelman (http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html). Having previously been a Silicon Valley startup guy and now an east-coast based VC, my belief is that the Valley’s culture is a huge benefit in trend spotting, but the same culture can be a potential drawback when manifested as the “echo chamber”.

    That said it’s still a pretty useful mechanism if you can try to view it within an objective framework. Lots of things that are “hot” in SV at one point or other remain niche products or services. But if one drew up a list of all the consumer-facing technology that’s emerged as mass market in the last decade or so, chances are it was first adopted in large numbers by the SV set. Think Tivo, Netflix, online social networking (originally Friendster & LI especially, MySpace less so), most Apple gear (original iPod, OSX Macs, etc), and the like. There are obviously early adopters everywhere, but all of these things first got critical mass in SV first. If one relies on SV trend spotting as merely the list of *potential* next big things, as opposed to taking it as gospel that they all are, we can still glean a lot of value from the dynamic.

  2. July 29, 2008

    amen

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s