[UPDATE: Twitter confirmed our post in a statement:

"Bijan Sabet and Fred Wilson both played important and greatly appreciated roles in our success. Both saw what Twitter could become before most anyone else. We look forward to their continued input as both investors in the company and passionate users of the product."]

Wilson, a high-profile principal at Union Square Ventures, was one of Twitter’s earliest backers, and for a long period helped to steer the company’s direction. Sabet’s Spark Capital was also an early investor.

Both funds have sold some of their Twitter holdings via secondary market sales. But people familiar with the companies say both continue to hold a majority of their stake in Twitter, now valued at $8.4 billion.

If there’s a backstory here, it will be hard to tease out. People familiar with all three companies tell me there’s no bad blood behind the move. The one thing that’s easy to understand — for now, at least — is that Twitter’s board is a little less unwieldy.

It has been swelling over time, and last year got even bigger when Flipboard’s Mike McCue, former DoubleClick CEO David Rosenblatt and Silicon Valley advisor-to-many Peter Currie all joined. Other board members include Benchmark’s Peter Fenton and CEO Dick Costolo.

And, for a relatively young company, Twitter’s corporate history is full of twists and turns. The most recent and prominent ones were Costolo’s ascension from COO to CEO a year ago, when he replaced co-founder Evan Williams; and co-founder Jack Dorsey’s return to the company last spring to head its product efforts, after being pushed out in 2008.

I’ve asked Wilson, Sabet and Twitter for comment.

[Image credit: Lachlan Hardy]

In one memorable episode of the famous old short films “The Little Rascals,” after not getting invited to a party, the Our Gang little dudes decided to form their own group, comically called “The He-Man Woman-Haters Club.”

In other words: No girls allowed!

While it was wink-wink cute when Spanky, Alfalfa and Buckwheat huffed and puffed about keeping out Darla–which they never ever could do–back in the last century, it’s not quite as adorkable when it comes to the boards of all the major Web 2.0 hotshots these days.

That would be Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, Groupon and Foursquare, none of which have any women as directors.

As in zero.

What’s most remarkable is that most of these start-ups are run by what I consider enlightened and open-minded entrepreneurs, mostly young enough to be part of a generation more inclined to value equality and diversity in the workplace.

In addition, each of these companies has a massive base of women consumers, in some cases well over 50 percent of its audience.

Thus, it would seem logical that in casting about for those to help guide these companies, one or two women leaders might slip in.

To be fair, it’s not for lack of trying, but of completion, as was the case with Twitter’s recent addition of three new board members.

They were longtime Silicon Valley exec Peter Currie, Flipboard CEO and co-founder Mike McCue and former DoubleClick leader David Rosenblatt.

All are deeply qualified for the Twitter board, which is obviously prepping for its next stage of growth and maturity.

But in its search, the San Francisco microblogging site did not manage to cast the net quite wide enough.

While sources said at least one prominent online woman exec was considered, there were some legitimate issues with her appointment, and it was not completed.

Still, one might imagine Twitter could have tried harder to find other workable choices.

Currently, the Twitter board is made up of the new trio, as well as Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, CEO Dick Costolo and co-founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey.

Things are not any better over at Facebook, which has several prominent women execs running the show, most especially its high-profile COO Sheryl Sandberg.

But, inexplicably, though she does attend board meetings, she is not yet a director of Facebook, nor is any other woman.

In fact, here is Sandberg on topic at a recent TED event for women, in an eloquent speech titled “Why We Have So Few Women Leaders”:

Instead, the Facebook board is all men, all the time, composed of CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, prominent techie and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, investor Peter Thiel, Accel Partners’ Jim Breyer and Washington Post head Don Graham.

It is no better at three of the most prominent recent Web 2.0 start-ups, which one source attributes to the lack of woman VCs, who are often the first board members after major investment rounds.

At Zynga, the hot social gaming company in San Francisco, it continues, with an all-male board, despite a very heavily female audience for its casual social games.

That would be co-founder and CEO Mark Pincus, COO Owen Van Natta, investor Bing Gordon of Kleiner Perkins, investor Reid Hoffman and Brad Feld of the Foundry Group.

The same is true at woman-targeted–spas, spas and more spas–social buying site Groupon, which has an unusually large board for a start-up and made up of–as per usual–all men.

The list: Co-founder and CEO Andrew Mason, Accel Partners’ Kevin Efrusy, former AT&T President and COO John Walter, New Enterprise Associates’ Harry Weller and Peter Barris, former AOL exec Ted Leonsis, 37Signals co-founder Jason Fried and early investors Eric Lefkofsky and Brad Keywell.

And, much smaller, is Foursquare’s board, which is the trio of co-founder and CEO Dennis Crowley, co-founder Naveen Selvadurai and Union Square Ventures’ Albert Wenger.

New investors–Ben Horowitz of Andreessen Horowitz and O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures’ Bryce Roberts–have observer status and both are, needless to say, dudes.

There is no question it is tough to make sure there is a good balance of qualified women leaders to men in tech–it is an issue we wrestle with every single year for the program of speakers at our own All Things Digital conference, although we are most excellent on this issue on our Web site and conference staff.

But it can be done, especially at public tech companies. Google has two women on its board of nine directors; Yahoo has three of 10; even Oracle has two of a dozen.

But a grand total of zero at the leading companies of Web 2.0 is not just a coincidence.

It’s a shame.

Tomorrow, BoomTown will post a list of great women who would be superb directors for any of these companies, but until then, let’s not follow in Spanky’s steps:

Yesterday, star venture capitalist John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins forked over $150 million in funding to Twitter.

At at $3.7 billion valuation, that got him a big chunk of the San Francisco microblogging site.

But what it didn’t get him was a seat on the board of Twitter, which many figured he would be given for after handing over so much moolah.

According to sources familiar with the situation, that’s due to Doerr’s being a director on another board: Google.

Several sources who BoomTown spoke to, after breaking news of the massive funding, said that his being on the board of the search giant was seen as too much of a conflict of interest.

A conflict because Google has plans to wade deeply into the social space. And also, of course, because it is the No. 1 potential acquirer of Twitter, as the Silicon Valley company seeks to gather more tools to fight its latest rival, Facebook.

Doerr has very deep ties at Google, having been on its board since mid-1999.

He got that seat, along with Sequoia Capital’s Mike Moritz, after he ponied up a critical $25 million equity round for Google in June of that year.

Interestingly, no other Kleiner partner was named to a Twitter board seat either.

But, some speculate, it might make sense for Mary Meeker–who just joined Kleiner to head up digital investing efforts, after a long-time stint as a Wall Street analyst for Morgan Stanley–to eventually become a Twitter director.

Meeker has, of course, deep IPO and M&A experience.

And, frankly, after adding Flipboard’s Mike McCue and former DoubleClick exec David Rosenblatt yesterday and former Netscape exec Peter Currie recently to its all-boy board band, a woman director might be a good idea to consider.

Other directors at Twitter include Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, Union Square Venture’s Fred Wilson, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, Co-founders Evan Williams and Jack Dorsey and CEO Dick Costolo.

I reached out to Doerr for a comment, but he has not yet replied; Twitter declined to comment.

Even more interesting to consider is what Kleiner will invest in next after this mega-funding, given how aggressively many sources said Doerr had pushed to lead the Twitter round.

And, in fact, sources said that Kleiner is looking closely at new funding rounds for both the Spotify music streaming service and Groupon, the social buying start-up that recently decided to turn down a $6 billion acquisition offer from Google and an earlier $3 billion one from Yahoo.

Groupon is now seeking more funds to remain independent and hold onto its lead in the fast-growing local discounting market, sources said.

(Bloomberg also reported on Groupon’s new fundraising efforts, although it was written about after it turned down the Google offer.)

And Spotify, which is hugely popular outside the U.S., is trying to enter this market, but needs more funding to expand and perhaps strike better deals with music labels.

Both are the just the kind of companies Doerr has targeted in what looks like a serious effort to compete with other firms–especially Andreessen Horowitz and Russia’s DST Global.

They have garnered the heat Kleiner used to have, largely by backing more of the top entrepreneurs recently.

Doerr has already put money into social gaming phenom Zynga and also started an sFund for social-focused investments.

Add Twitter to the pile and you can see where this is headed: Except for the board seat, John Doerr will no longer be denied.

According to sources close to the situation, well-known Silicon Valley power player Peter Currie is joining the board of directors of Twitter.

It’s an interesting choice to bring the well-regarded moneyman to the microblogging start-up, and could indicate an intent to push to an IPO eventually.

As first reported by NetworkEffect’s Liz Gannes earlier this week, Twitter is now considering funding offers from big venture funds, specifically Russia’s DST Global and Silicon Valley’s Kleiner Perkins, as well as fielding incoming acquisition interest from Google and Facebook.

Currie should know about this kind of noisy swirl around a hot start-up.

Back in the heyday of Web 1.0, as the CFO of Netscape Communications, he led the iconic browser software company into history, as the first great Internet rocket ship, when it went public on August 9, 1995.

While the Netscape experience ended in tears, Currie’s career has not, and he has become a kind of go-to elder statesman in the Web 2.0 era.

A year ago, for example, he joined Facebook as its temporary CFO.

That move came after the social networking site, in a bit of turmoil, parted ways with its then CFO, Gideon Yu, following mutual disagreements.

Indeed, Currie plays the calm, collected wise man well.

Unusually tall, aggressively avuncular and laid-back, he loves Elvis and enjoys pranking reporters like BoomTown.

(Case in point: Back in the day, he spread the rumor around Silicon Valley that I was short due to a medical condition.)

Now the president of Currie Capital, a private investment firm, he had previously worked at General Atlantic in private equity.

After Netscape, he was a partner and co-founder of the Barksdale Group, an early-stage (and ill-fated) venture capital firm.

Before Netscape, he was CFO of McCaw Cellular Communications and also worked at Morgan Stanley.

Currie is also board-happy, serving as a director of a variety of tech firms, private and public, which have had varying degrees of success.

They have included CNET, Critical Path, Clearwire, Safeco, Ofoto, Tellme Networks and Zantaz, as well as Sun Microsystems.

He has an MBA from Stanford University and went to Williams College.

In other words, just the kind of pedigree needed to give some additional burnish to the Twitter board, which now includes Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, Spark Capital’s Bijan Sabet, Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton, co-founder and former CEO Evan Williams, co-founder Jack Dorsey and CEO Dick Costolo.

Apparently, it’s time to toss another dude in there!

Fortune.com’s Dan Primack reports that Sequoia is leading a round that will add “between $25 million and $30 million” in funding at a valuation “in the ballpark of $135 million.”

Someone familiar with the transaction tells me that Primack’s numbers are “not a bad guess.” And it’s possible the numbers will end up somewhere higher than his report. Another source tells me that the round will end up bringing in between $20 million and $30 million, at a pre-money valuation of $120 million. That would put Tumblr’s value at $140 million or more.

In any case, it’s a lot of money. And as wise Om Malik says, “Investors are never the story.” (Except when they are. And what’s really relevant here is that at these prices, the list of potential Tumblr acquirers gets much smaller: Google, sure. Facebook, perhaps. Yahoo, theoretically, etc.)

The real story for Tumblr remains the one we’ve asked every other time the company has raised money ($4.5 million in 2008; $5 million earlier this year): How’s it going to make money? Founder David Karp has offered several different ideas in the past, but as far as I can tell, none of them have really taken off (the fact that big publishers like Newsweek now maintain Tumblr sites, which are free to set up, does not constitute a business).

Best I can tell, the real appeal for Tumblr is its go-go growth, and the fact that it’s doing it on a very light footprint. But don’t take my word for it: Ask Spark Capital’s Bijan Sabet and Union Square Ventures’ Fred Wilson, who have been the primary investors in the company to date and who both wrote glowingly about the company in recent days.

Presumably, the company’s pitch to investors went something like this: “Look at our hockey stick! Hockey sticks like this only come around a few times a lifetime–perhaps you’ve heard of Twitter?” That is: Buy now, and we’ll figure out money later.

And it looks like it worked.

But let’s be clear about what the Boxee Box is, and what it’s not:

• It’s not going to generate any significant revenue for the Web video company.
• It’s not the way that Boxee imagines most people will end up using its software.
• It is a starting point for the company.

Boxee’s real plan is both clear and a bit undefined: It wants to get its software on as many devices as possible–not just the Boxee Box but everything from Sony’s TVs to Microsoft’s Xbox 360s to Samsung’s Blu-ray players. And then it wants to build some kind of business based on advertising, consumer payments or both.

So Boxee isn’t trying to make money by licensing its software to hardware companies, any more than Netflix or Pandora is when they get their apps installed on different gadgets. It’s giving D-Link, the company that’s actually making the Boxee Box, its software for free. And it will do the same for other hardware companies.

Or put another way: Boxee competitor Roku is all about selling the Roku box. Boxee is all about getting its software in between video owners/distributors and video viewers, just like Google TV wants to do. The Boxee Box is important because, if it works, it will help Boxee convince other hardware companies that they need its software, too. (It might also help the company close its funding round, though I get the feeling it has investors ready to cut checks right now.)

For whatever reason, some of Boxee’s legion of fans–this is a company that packs concert halls for product rollouts–seem unclear about what the company is trying to do. So do some non-fans outside the company, like über-blogger Om Malik.

So yesterday, after Twittering about the topic with Malik, and then with Boxee investor Bijan Sabet, I got Boxee CEO Avner Ronen to stand in front of a Flip cam so he could explain the plan to all of you at the same time. We also touched briefly on Boxee’s relationship with Hulu. Ronen confirmed what I’d reported on Wednesday: Hulu Plus will come to the Boxee Box, but the free Hulu service won’t be available.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101112/why-boxees-box-doesnt-matter-and-why-it-does/feed/ 2 http://allthingsd.com/20100420/tumblr-raises-another-5-million-from-spark-and-union-square-now-it-wants-your-money/ http://allthingsd.com/20100420/tumblr-raises-another-5-million-from-spark-and-union-square-now-it-wants-your-money/#comments Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:00:16 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=18688

Who wants to bet on a Web company with lots of users but very little revenue? The same people who bet on it before. Spark Capital and Union Square Ventures have poured another $5 million into Tumblr, which lets people quickly and easily set up lightweight blogs.

Three-year-old Tumblr doesn’t charge its 4.5 million users for the service. It doesn’t sell advertising on the page views they generate. And it is only now beginning to generate “meaningful” revenue, says founder David Karp. (That’s Karp, flanked by two employees, engaged in some kind of new-fangled xtreme sport, on the cover of this week’s New York Magazine)

But this hasn’t dissuaded Spark and Union Square, the sole investors in the company’s C round, as well as its B round in 2008.* The company has raised $10.2 million to date.

So now what?

Karp, who turns 24 this summer, says his company has “carved out a real and substantial niche” in the last year, and he brandishes numbers to bolster his case. The service, for instance, is now generating one billion page views a month. Here’s a chart! (Click to enlarge.)

But until recently, Tumblr’s growing popularity hasn’t done much beyond racking up big infrastructure bills. Now Karp says the company is changing this by rolling out a series of paid services.

The Los Angeles Times has a nice summary of new services, and Karp says there are a “dozen more in the pipeline.” But the short version is that these are primarily bells and whistles–like digital “stickers” you buy for your friends at a buck a pop–that passionate Tumblr users may like, but don’t need.

This is a switch from the company’s earlier plan to bundle lots of must-have features into a “Tumblr Plus” subscription service aimed at its most passionate users.

The new strategy is a little more seat-of-the pants, but the bet is that it may be easier to coax money out of people a couple dollars at a time.

Not coincidentally, this is the same model that’s working out very well for social gaming companies like Zynga, which is also funded by Union Square Ventures (and to a lesser degree OMGPOP, which is backed by Spark).

Zynga is reportedly profitable, and many have it pegged for an IPO in the near future. I don’t see that in Tumblr’s cards, but if Karp and crew were interested, I can see them attracting interest from the likes of Google (GOOG) and Yahoo (YHOO) sooner than later.

Maybe sooner in Yahoo’s case, if it can’t snap up another company whose CEO also graces New York Magazine’s cover this week.

*“Inside rounds” like these are supposed to be no-nos in the VC world because existing investors traditionally want to find new money to validate their wagers. For the counterargument, consult Tumblr investor Bijan Sabet’s blog (hosted by Tumblr, of course).

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100420/tumblr-raises-another-5-million-from-spark-and-union-square-now-it-wants-your-money/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100415/some-twits-chirp-from-twitter-conference-ev-biz-and-more/ http://allthingsd.com/20100415/some-twits-chirp-from-twitter-conference-ev-biz-and-more/#comments Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:13:38 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=26740

Here’s a video BoomTown did yesterday at the Twitter Chirp conference, where a lot of noise was made about a lot of things.

Like: Twitter has a Google (GOOG) Android app; Twitter has a link shortener; Twitter does more searches than you think; Twitter has 105.8 million registered users and is adding 300,000 a day; Twitter users write 55 million posts a day; Twitter is being archived at the Library of Congress.

Also more blah-blah-blah on geolocation, metadata called Annotations and, of course, @anywhere, which is essentially Facebook Connect for Twitter.

And–oh, yes–making money. That.

Apparently, according to the execs in attendance, I will have to stop making fun of Twitter co-founder Biz Stone’s name, calling him things like: No-Biz-Here Stone, Ain’t-Nobody’s-Biz-Ness-If-We-Don’t-Have-a-Business-Plan Stone and Biz Stone-Cold-Profits.

Now, given that the San Francisco microblogging service is introducing a number of advertising-related efforts in a quest to make some bank, I will have to change the name to Hey-Zuckerberg-We-Have-a-Biz-Too Stone.

Or, given some of the tensions with third-party developers over Twitter moving into their space in core development areas: Pardon-Us-While-We-Stomp-on-Your-Biz Stone.

In fact, that issue was the main focus of a panel I moderated yesterday afternoon at Twitter’s Chirp, titled “Investing in the Ecosystem.”

My dudes-only panelists included Polaris Ventures’ Mike Hirshland, Venrock’s David Pakman, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, and Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton.

Mostly, they took my guff about the state of the Twitterverse, in what turned out to be a lively discussion.

While yesterday was all talk, from COO Dick Costolo (who mistakenly thinks he is as funny as I am), Twitter CEO and co-founder Evan Williams, Stone and others, Chirp today is 24-hour hackathon.

Here’s a video I did of interviews with a wide range of Twitter staff, investors and advisers–and blogger Robert Scoble, of course, who is as inevitable at an event like this as air:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100415/some-twits-chirp-from-twitter-conference-ev-biz-and-more/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20100414/what-shall-boomtown-ask-the-twits-oops-i-mean-twitter-loving-vcs-at-chirp-today/ http://allthingsd.com/20100414/what-shall-boomtown-ask-the-twits-oops-i-mean-twitter-loving-vcs-at-chirp-today/#comments Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:21:08 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=26701

Later today at Twitter’s Chirp conference in San Francisco, BoomTown is moderating a panel titled “Investing in the Ecosystem.”

Or as I like to call it, “How Do You VCs Come Up With Those Crazy Valuations: Magic 8 Ball? Ouiji Board? Darts?”

I have a choice group of dudes–of course, they are all dudes–for the panel, all of whom have invested in a range of start-ups, including Twitter.

They include: Polaris Ventures’ Mike Hirshland, Venrock’s David Pakman, Bijan Sabet of Spark Capital, and Benchmark Capital’s Peter Fenton.

Presumably, the group of venture capitalists will give the audience the 411 on what goes into finding, feeding and nurturing the many innovative start-ups that populate the Twitterverse.

That is, until you actually try to compete with Twitter or make some dough without its sanction, wherein all the nice Whos-down-in-Whoville sweetness of the folks who run Twitter turns into the backroom at the Bada Bing with Tony Soprano and the boys.

(You can see Twitter COO Dick Costolo here, in fact, giving us his best Don Corleone in this video interview with MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka.)

The tensions of late between Twitter and the many third-party developers circling it are perhaps going to add some frisson to the two-day event at the Palace of Fine Arts, which costs $469 to attend. Twitter also just announced its advertising platform plan.

The first day is all talk, from Costolo, Twitter CEO and co-founder Evan Williams, co-founder Biz Stone and others. The second day is 24-hour hackathon.

For those not there, Twitter will be streaming the event live with the help of Justin.tv.

And, of course, there will be tweets–lots and lots of tweets.

[Sticker image courtesy of Zazzle.com]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100414/what-shall-boomtown-ask-the-twits-oops-i-mean-twitter-loving-vcs-at-chirp-today/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090604/twitter-investor-business-plan-comingby-2011/ http://allthingsd.com/20090604/twitter-investor-business-plan-comingby-2011/#comments Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:17:57 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=7924 Give the Twitter guys credit for honesty: Asked to explain how their big-hype, zero-revenue company will make money, as we did at last week’s All Things Digital conference, and they’ll cheerfully admit that they’re not sure.

If you’re a perspective buyer, whether that’s Microsoft (MSFT) or Google (GOOG), that has to be unsettling.Then again, the Twitter guys insist they’re not selling the company in the next five years. And their investors, who have plowed more than $50 million into the company, seem to be equally sanguine.

Or at least one is. Spark Capital’s Bijan Sabet says the company isn’t in a rush to start generating money — in large part because it’s raised so much money.

Here’s an excerpt from an interview I conducted with Sabet Wednesday night, at a party his Boston-based company threw in conjunction with Internet Week in New York (note to Spark partner/cruise director Mo Koyfman: More women, please):

Originally we were thinking that in the first half of 2009 we were going to start testing things out… and so… we decided not to do that that soon, because we raised a lot of money just a few months ago. And they still had a lot of money that Fred [Wilson, principal at twitter investor Union Square Ventures] and I put in from the last round. So we’re just now, instead of rushing and trying to launch new monetization products and get it out the door, we have a little time to do it right and to think it through and refine it, and hopefully do a good job.”

When I asked Sabet when that might be, he demurred, but my dogged interrogation eventually got him to cough up a very broad timeline. Twitter should be generating revenue, or at least understanding how that will happen, by 2011, he said.

There’s (a little) more there, in this brief Q&A.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090604/twitter-investor-business-plan-comingby-2011/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20090526/biz-stone-and-evan-williams/ http://allthingsd.com/20090526/biz-stone-and-evan-williams/#comments Wed, 27 May 2009 01:49:55 +0000 Peter Kafka http://d7.allthingsd.com/?p=274

Meet the Internet’s It Boys: Twitter co-founders Evan Williams and Biz Stone. A year ago their “micromessaging” platform was unknown outside of a small circle of digerati. Now the service has broken through to the mainstream, or at least to the mainstream media (thanks, Oprah!). But while Twitter has no problem generating attention, it’s still unclear how the company will actually generate revenue. Or maybe it doesn’t need to do that: Last year Facebook offered to buy Twitter for $500 million in cash and stock, and the service could presumably garner a much higher price today–perhaps from Microsoft (MSFT) or Google (GOOG). Or at least that’s what its investors may be hoping for.

Session Highlights

Live Blog

• After Kara Swisher assists Jill Sobule with a song penned for (and about) Rupert Murdoch, Walt Mossberg joins her on the stage and they thank the audience. “We double-mean it this year,” says Walt.
• Walt and Kara explain their “Web 3.0″ thesis, which you can find explained in detail here. They also plug the new All Things Digital iphone app (which is excellent!) and run through a series of less helpful iPhone apps–less helpful because they don’t exist. The Carol Bartz app gets some applause.
• Walt: It’s all about apps. Apple (AAPL) dominates that business but we will show some other great stuff at this conference. Kara: Normally we start out with big-company CEOs, but instead, we’re going to bring out the company that everyone is talking about. Here are Biz Stone and Evan Williams of Twitter.
• Kara shows off a video that depicts her mother’s low opinion of Twitter. Well worth watching.
• Walt: We also have real data about people’s opinions re: digital media, commissioned by an actual polling firm–Penn, Schoen & Berland. For instance, only 51 percent of Twitter users are on the service once a month. What’s the deal with that?

• Evan: That’s fair. We know it’s in its infancy. There are lots of ways to fix the adoption curve that we know how to do.
• Evan explains the history of Twitter. He sold Blogger to Google, hired Biz, started Odeo, a podcasting company. Walt: “Which got crushed by Apple.”
• Biz: I followed Evan to Odeo, and we started working with Jack Dorsey, who had this idea that just involved IM-like status updates that could update via mobile. To Ev’s credit, as CEO of Odeo, he sent us off to work on that.
• Evan: A few months later, at Odeo, we just didn’t see a bright future for that. Generally, if I’m not personally invested in the product, and don’t use it myself…
• Biz: I started playing with Twitter and I started laughing at Evan’s posts and thought that was a good sign.

• Evan: It was so simple. “It didn’t look like a real thing. The simplicity turned off some of our engineers. It wasn’t obvious at all.
• Walt: How many users do you have? Biz and Ev won’t comment.
• Evan: We wound down Odeo, returned the money to investors and made them whole and went off to focus on Twitter.
• Walt points out that most users don’t use the Twitter.com interface. Biz: We have at least twice as much usage via the open API and other clients as we do via Twitter.com.
• Walt: Is that good thing? Evan: Yes. Very much so. We’ve never built an iPhone app, but there are at least a dozen of them. You can’t win by trying to corral everything in. We have all these people adding value. We can’t build all the stuff people want with 45 people.

• Biz: Openness, open platforms are a big deal. We’re seeing lots of this. And people communicating on these open platforms is a big deal. It’s not just with communication. It’s with open-source software, transparency at companies, etc. People are building a ton of value this way.
• Evan: This openness helped create Summize, the search engine we bought a year ago. That couldn’t have happened if we weren’t open with our data. Turns out there’s a huge opportunity with search, and we hadn’t foreseen that.
• Walt: Will future projects and developments happen on Web pages or on clients/apps?
• Evan: We’re interface-agnostic. We’re more concerned about what the data is and that it should flow to all clients. I don’t think we’ll build a desktop app, but we will tweak the Web site a bit.
• Kara: Everyone’s talking about real-time search. But what kind of real business opportunity is available there?
• Evan: Real-time search means different things on different platforms. On Google, it’s Web search. On Twitter, it’s Twitter search. It’s different from what other people are talking about when they’re talking about real-time search. One of Twitter’s properties is that it’s low-latency, and speed is important in information dissemination.
• Kara: So what’s the value in that? What’s the advertising premise for that?
• Biz: When I think about search, I think about a box and a button. When I think about Twitter, I zoom out a bit, and I think of discovery.

• Walt: Is there a way to sell that?
• Biz: Pfft….There’s a way to make introductions to people, to tell them that things and people are available on Twitter, and there’s certainly money in that.
• Walt cites another piece of polling data: 30 percent say they’d be willing to see banner advertising on Twitter. Does that work for you guys?
• Evan: I think it’s probably the least interesting thing we can do.
• Kara: So you’re least interested in doing it?
• Evan: Yeah.
• Walt: 24 percent say they’d pay for power accounts. Do you think that’s a good idea?
• Evan: Yes, I think it’s a good idea. We’ve talked about it for a long time. Here’s how it might work: Lots of commercial users are on Twitter already. That’s not odd, and it’s happening successfully already. But we could give those users tools to make it better. For instance, here’s how P&G (PG) might sell Tide…Wait that’s a bad idea. How about The Wall Street Journal? No, they’re a media company; that won’t work either. How about Dunkin’ Donuts? People like Dunkin’ Donuts. They have an affinity for that, and they’re already following Dunkin’ Donuts. So one thing we can do is tell new users that the Dunkin’ Donuts account on Twitter is actually Dunkin’ Donuts. To verify that.
• Walt: OK, what else could you do with that?

• Evan: There’s a million ways, if you’re doing this in real time, to make this useful, and it won’t be annoying to people because if they don’t want that information, they won’t subscribe to a particular account.
• Biz on hype: We realize that this constant stream of attention will eventually go away. We have to keep concentrating on the company. “We’re one percent into Twitter.”
• Kara: You’ve raised a lot of money. You’ve had a lot of interest from acquirers. Why didn’t you sell to Facebook?
• Evan: I have a big thing about building sustainable companies. And I think that’s what Twitter should be.
• Walt: So in five years you won’t have sold this? You’ll still be running it?
• Evan: Yes. I didn’t expect to be working on this when I spun Twitter out of Odeo. But I came back to it because it was the most interesting thing I could work on.
• Kara: Do you have Zuckerberg-like control of your company, where you have the ability to control your fate and turn down a $1 billion offer from the likes of Microsoft?
• Evan. Yes. And the board feels the same way.
• Walt: You sure your board doesn’t want to sell the company within five years?
• Evan: Sequoia likes to brag about YouTube. But they also aspire to start companies like Apple and other cool companies. I think VCs like to brag about starting big awesome companies.
• Biz: When we met Bijan Sabet at Spark, I remember telling Ev that I liked him a lot. And Ev met him and said “he’s a little too nice.” Then we met the rest of the guys. [Pause]. And then we were in.
• Kara: What’s next big delta for you, the next big innovation?
• Evan. We’re not doing a TV show. We look at that like an iPhone platform that can have apps on it, but we’re not doing a show ourselves.
• Biz: I think the next big thing is scaling this company.
• Evan: Definitely scaling the company. We’re 45 people. We need to make the product better, we need to solve the awareness-to-engagement ramp. We also want to deepen the value proposition. There are lots of head-slapping things we can do to improve the product.
• Walt: I was Twitter skeptic. But I really go into it when my colleague Katie told me that this was an interesting way to keep up with news. Is that something you can build on?
• Evan: That’s the big secret for people like Kara’s mom, and we can do a better job of explaining that. Twitter disseminates information and it builds relationships. You can do one or both of those things.
• Kara: Do you need to raise more money?
• Evan: Well, we need to start building a monetizable business.
• Kara: When does that begin?
• Evan: There will be a moment when we turn something on.

• Time for Q&A: Roger McNamee from Elevation Partners begs the guys not to do midday planned maintenance outages. He also asks them to scale faster and to hire more than 45 people.
• Evan: Go to Twitter.com, and you’ll see that we’re hiring. We’re not planning on staying at 45 people.
• Q: What do you think will be key way you bring in money in a couple of years?
• Biz: You need to leave room for emergence to take place. We’re doing that in the way we structure the company and the way we hire people, etc. I’ve always said that if we described Twitter in three sentences, the first two would be about not putting too much fidelity on it, and the last sentence would be “we don’t know.”
• Q: What about an Apple-like App Store for Twitter, where you guys could sort and authenticate apps?
• Biz: I think exposing apps to people would be a good idea. I don’t know about charging for it. We know that certain apps make Twitter work much better for people, and we should promote them and point people to them. “I would like to do that right now. I don’t know how soon we’ll get to it.”
• Q: Not really a question, but a plea to not abuse the access to personal data that Twitter already has.
• Evan: We know not kill the goose. There are things that we could do that would be really stupid, and that would be dangerous, but those aren’t even the most tempting things to do.
• Q: In traditional media and marketing, we have tools to prove the value of different tools. How to tell marketing clients that they’re reaching the right audience, etc.?
• Biz: Start by typing their name in Twitter search and showing them how many people are talking about their product. They’ll immediately want to respond. That’s the easy answer.
• Q: What about looking at Nielsen-like partners to help refine metrics and tell marketers who’s looking at what?
• Biz: There are lots of interesting things we could do. I think that it will be more compelling when you’re not just following a set list of people. Twitter will be more interesting when it starts telling you things like “You go to Whole Foods a lot…maybe you’d like to know that this is on sale today, etc.”
• Evan: But it will always be recipient-driven.
• Walt: Biz, please tell me about your name.
• Biz: I couldn’t pronounce my name, which was Christopher Isaac Stone, and I said “bzzz” and that was that.

A note about our coverage: This liveblog is not an official transcript of the conversation that occurred onstage. Rather, it is a compilation of quotes, paraphrased statements and ad-lib observations written and posted to the Web as quickly as we were able. It was not intended as a transcript and should not be interpreted as one.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090526/biz-stone-and-evan-williams/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20090306/twitter-business-plan-count-up-snuggie-tweet/ http://allthingsd.com/20090306/twitter-business-plan-count-up-snuggie-tweet/#comments Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:46:58 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=10729

Yesterday, BoomTown decided to start a new “Twitter Business Plan Count-Up” because the fine folks over at the hot-as-Alabama-in-July start-up were taking too long to do so.

Oh, they’ve been promising for a while to deliver the financial goods, but Twitter still has a devil-may-care attitude toward its lack of revenues.

(Who do they think they are? General Motors?)

My first idea was simple, taking advantage of the excessive hype around Twitter in the media by charging pundits, television anchors, bloggers and anyone else, a small microfee every time they mention Twitter in the vain hope of seeming hip, happening and relevant.

Last night, I was lucky enough to grab drinks with two of Twitter’s major venture investors and board members: Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures and Spark Capital’s Bijan Sabet.

While we had a lively discussion about a lot of stuff, they had just come from a Twitter board meeting, but would tell me bupkis about their money-making ideas.

Thus, I foisted my next one on them: A wearable Twitter-branded device and fleece blanket outfit that vibrates every time you get tweeted.

Bear with me.

First, it links two completely overhyped trends: Twitter and a Snuggie. Enough said.

Second, Snuggies get boring after a few wears–I have one, so I speak from experience. But one that lets you know you are being bombarded by meaningless online chatter in real-time translates to endless fun.

Third, it’s a little naughty. A few days ago, watching “The View,” the group was chattering about Twitter and could not get through a three-minute segment without making wink-wink-nudge-nudge comments about “getting tweeted” or declaring, “Careful or I might twitter you.”

Combined with a Snuggie and vibrating, it’s a multimedia experience everyone can make giggly jokes about.

Lastly, imagine the extensions that are possible of a whole line of Twitter devices. A George Foreman grill that tweets everyone about how much fat you are cooking off your burger. A twit-on-twit-off light switch called the Tweeter.

And, of course, the Chia-Twit.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090306/twitter-business-plan-count-up-snuggie-tweet/feed/ 3 http://allthingsd.com/20090209/yahoo-buying-tumblr-categorically-untrue/ http://allthingsd.com/20090209/yahoo-buying-tumblr-categorically-untrue/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:41:21 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=4102 Dear Owen Thomas,

You owe me. I had to get off my sickbed today to call David Karp, the CEO of Tumblr, and ask him if he really was in talks to sell his company to Yahoo (YHOO), as you reported today on Gawker/Valleywag. For the record, David says your report is “categorically untrue.”

I’d spend more time discussing it, but, as I said, I’m feeling under the weather. And your story is not true. So here’s what Karp has to say via his Tumblr account.

And here’s what Marco Arment, who helped start Tumblr with Karp a couple of years ago, says:

And here’s what venture capitalist Bijan Sabet, whose Spark Capital helped raise a $4.5 million round for Tumblr last year, says via his Twitter account:

Now I’m going to return to my convalescing. Please give me a break for another day or so.

[Image Credit: Library of Congress via Flickr]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20090209/yahoo-buying-tumblr-categorically-untrue/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20081124/mark-zuckerberg-talks-twitter-with-john-battelle-when-he-was-talking-to-twitter-about-buying-it/ http://allthingsd.com/20081124/mark-zuckerberg-talks-twitter-with-john-battelle-when-he-was-talking-to-twitter-about-buying-it/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:41:09 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=6971

Here’s the video of Web 2.0 Summit host John Battelle interviewing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg a few weeks ago, in which Battelle floated a rumor that the social-networking site might be interested in buying Twitter.

If you want to see the exchange, it starts at 22:15 minutes, when Battelle asks: “Is Twitter just a feature of Facebook?”

Awkwardness ensues from there until 23:07 minutes, with no direct question about an actual acquisition effort asked.

Thus, Zuckerberg does not have to fib in front of the Web 2.0 crowd about talks that were just then winding down between Twitter and Facebook, which offered $500 million in its stock to buy the popular microblogging site.

Actually, sources said, while Zuckerberg and Twitter Co-Founder and CEO Evan Williams did meet and get along well, the deal was primarily negotiated by Spark Capital partner Bijan Sabet (Spark is a Twitter investor) and Facebook deal guy Dan Rose.

But, in the end, as BoomTown reported earlier today in a detailed report on the failed deal, Twitter rejected that bid.

As is usually the case, the deal broke down over price–was $500 million worth of Facebook stock actually worth $500 million?–and the typical concerns about integration and costs. Also, Twitter wanted an all-cash deal.

But, more important was a feeling among Twitter investors and execs that the start-up should still take a shot at building its revenues–there are none right now–as well as it had done at building its growth.

In fact, Twitter’s fast growth in the “status update” arena has been a frustration to Facebook, some sources said, although Zuckerberg goes out of his way to compliment Twitter in the video below:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081124/mark-zuckerberg-talks-twitter-with-john-battelle-when-he-was-talking-to-twitter-about-buying-it/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/ http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:45:09 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=6883

[Updated with new details about deal, including who worked on it and info on a cash component.]

About three weeks ago, Facebook and Twitter ended several weeks of serious talks, in which Facebook was offering to acquire Twitter for $500 million of its stock, which also included a cash component.

While rumors of Facebook’s interest were brought up in an interview with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg at the Web 2.0 Summit a few weeks ago, some shot down the idea as silly.

Quite incorrectly, as it turns out, since top execs at both Facebook and Twitter were right then at the tail end of discussions, which were initiated by the privately held Facebook in mid-October, about bringing the two together.

Those talks, sources on both sides said, are now over.

So why did the deal break down?

Well, as is usually the case, over price–was $500 million worth of Facebook stock actually worth $500 million?–and the typical concerns about integration and costs.

But, more important, it seems, was a feeling among Twitter investors and execs that the start-up should still take a shot at building its revenues–there are none right now–as well as it had done at building its growth.

“It’s more about timing,” said one person familiar with Twitter’s motivations. “There is a strong feeling that there is still an opportunity–even with the economic downturn–to blow this thing out.”

Still, combining the world’s fastest-growing social-networking site with what is quickly becoming the best-known microblogging service is actually a natural fit.

That’s especially true given that Facebook–for all its powerful online social connections–has seen Twitter race past it in innovating in the “status update” arena.

While some sources at Facebook said Zuckerberg was becoming frustrated by the buzz Twitter was getting–a market that should have been dominated by Facebook–others at the company said he was interested in buying Twitter because of his respect for its progress.

Indeed, at the Web 2.0 interview, Zuckerberg called Twitter an “elegant model” and said that he was “really impressed by what they’ve done.”

Indeed, with about six million registrations, as reported in October, up 600 percent over the last year, the San Francisco-based Twitter–launched in 2006–has had impressive growth.

(It has also been plagued by technical issues, which are–to be fair–decreasing.)

In any case, for those not familiar with it, the premise of Twitter is dead simple: A registered user logs in via the Internet or a mobile phone and answers the “What are you doing?” question the service asks in only 140 characters or fewer.

It’s quite a clever idea, although–so far–not a money-making one.

To try to goose that, Twitter’s board replaced the engineer who created Twitter, Jack Dorsey, with another founder, Evan Williams, who had served as its chairman and chief product officer.

The more experienced Williams (pictured here) had already built one company–Pyra Labs, which created the Blogger blogging service–that he sold to Google in 2003. He also started the audio and video search site Odeo, where Twitter was actually born.

Still, its investors have not come down on Twitter to hold back its growth efforts, and have handed over $20 million to the start-up so far. In its last round, Twitter was valued at $98 million.

Its funders include: Union Square Ventures, Charles River Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital and Bezos Expeditions, backed by Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos.

In addition, well-known Silicon Valley figures, such as Marc Andreessen and Ron Conway, have also invested. Interestingly, Andreessen is also on Facebook’s board.

Other private investors include FeedBurner Co-Founder (and now Googler) Dick Costolo, former Epinions Co-Founder Naval Ravikant and former Googler Chris Sacca.

Twitter needs all the investors it can get, since it has no revenue, although it has been exploring things like charging business customers and adding advertising into the consumer service.

Lack of revenues was an issue for Facebook, said sources, especially related to fees Twitter pays for delivery of its messages to cellphones.

While the issue has been manageable in the U.S., Twitter cut off its SMS support in some international markets this summer because of too-high costs.

But, if Twitter was offered to Facebook’s 120 million users, Facebook execs estimated that it might have to deal with huge SMS fees–up to $75 million annually.

“Facebook has its own revenue-generating challenges,” said one person close to the company. “As much as Twitter would give them a lift in the status area, it was still a worry.”

Not enough, said several sources, to stop Facebook from making another approach at some point in the future. “We’d hate to see Twitter go to another company,” said one source.

Indeed, while all are even more price-conscious than Facebook, large companies that could also be interested include: Google (GOOG), Yahoo (YHOO), Microsoft (MSFT) or a large telecom company, such as Verizon (VZ).

If it had completed the deal to buy Twitter, it would have been Facebook’s most significant acquisition by far.

Zuckerberg and Williams did meet and get along well, but the deal was primarily negotiated by Spark Capital partner Bijan Sabet (Spark is a Twitter investor) and Facebook deal guy Dan Rose.

But in this time, at least, the Twitter side was still not interested in selling at the price Facebook had offered.

The $500 million offered was in an all-stock form, said sources on both sides, at the $15 billion valuation that came from the Microsoft’s investment in the company last October.

The Twitter side felt that figure was inflated and the shares should be valued at the lower figures that have also been reported for Facebook’s true valuation, more in the $5 billion range.

That would have given the deal a $150 million price tag, which was seen as too low, especially since it was in Facebook stock and not cash initially.

In fact, Twitter wanted cash, which some sources say was offered by Facebook in the $50 to $100 million range, in addition to stock, but taking too much stock was still a major issue.

There are other ways the pair could have approximated a safer choice for Twitter, via warrants, of course, or other methods.

But, said several sources close to Twitter, the primary reason for not selling was because its board simply did not want to yet or perhaps ever.

Said one source: “The question is, is it really a good idea to sell on the first chance you get?”

Well, for Twitter, we’ll just have to wait and see about that, of course.

[Photo of Evan Williams by Joi Ito. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 By-Attribution license.]

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20081124/when-twitter-met-facebook-the-acquisition-deal-that-fail-whaled/feed/ 31 http://allthingsd.com/20080624/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-takes-a-stake-in-twitter/ http://allthingsd.com/20080624/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-takes-a-stake-in-twitter/#comments Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:06:32 +0000 Eric Savitz http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=1720 Amazon.com (AMZN) CEO Jeff Bezos has taken a stake in Twitter, the red-hot microblogging service. Twitter announced the move in a blog post Tuesday. Bezos made the investment through Bezos Expeditions, a vehicle for his personal investments. Also investing in the company is venture firm Spark Capital; partner Bijan Sabet will take a seat on the Twitter board.

Read the rest of this post

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20080624/amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-takes-a-stake-in-twitter/feed/ 0