I don’t have the deal terms, but my hunch is that no cash is involved, and that AOL’s compensation could come in the form of equity in privately held Outbrain, or a tax benefit, or both.

“In keeping with the AOL strategy, any place where we are not a leader in the category or profitable, we are going to look at partnerships or other alternatives. This is one of those businesses. We are pleased we found a great home for the Surphace technology and its employees,” AOL venture and local head Jon Brod said in a statement.

Outbrain CEO Yaron Galai declined to comment.

AOL acquired Surphace for something north of  $25 million in 2008, when it was called Sphere, and Armstrong was still running ad sales at Google. Co-founder Tony Conrad left AOL in 2009, but has since come back as part of the About.me acquisition late last year.

Both Surphace and Outbrain do roughly the same thing: They allow publishers to automatically present related pieces of content to Web surfers, based on the very straightforward theory that a visitor interested in a certain kind of story would stick around if offered similar stuff. (All Things D is a Surphace customer, so you can see it in action at the bottom of this post).

AOL reports earnings early tomorrow morning.

And with 9.2 million Google shares, it’s not like he needs the money, though his stake has suffered a significant decline in value since the company’s executive office shake-up. Prior to the announcement, Google shares were trading at around $641, making Schmidt’s stake worth about $5.9 billion. Today, they’re hovering around $608, making that stake worth $5.6 billion–down $300 million on news he’s stepping down as CEO. That’s a nasty little drop any way you look at it, though I’m sure the obscene size of the remaining sum makes it a bit easier to stomach. Perhaps the residuals from that new Eric Schmidt talk show reportedly in the offing will make up for it….

PREVIOUSLY:

• Talking Schmidt: Google’s CEO in His Own Words
• A Big Quarter From Google, and Shake-Up at the Top–Larry Page to Become CEO

But as we (and others) pointed out at the time, a large chunk of that money wasn’t going to the company. Instead, hundreds of millions of dollars would go straight to shareholders to give them liquidity.

Now we know exactly how much, thanks to a new regulatory filing from Groupon that shows $573 million is devoted to buy stock from existing shareholders. That means Groupon only raised $377 million in new equity.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Fast-forward to today, and the most successful Web video* doesn’t look anything like TV. It looks like Web video, and it’s usually made for very little money, featuring people who don’t get work doing anything else. (See: YouTube’s Partner Program, an increasingly important part of Google’s video site.)

Which is why it’s interesting to see what DBG is up to. The video ad network is finishing up production on a new series that’s sort of back-to-the-future: A 10-part dramatic serial, featuring real actors, cameras and even a script.

It’s called “The Confession,” and it will star Kiefer Sutherland, last seen on “24,” and John Hurt, who has been seen in lots and lots of stuff.

I’m unclear about the plot, but I’m pretty sure that it will be some sort of thriller. If you were putting Kiefer Sutherland in a Web serial, it would pretty much have to be a thriller, right? In any case, you’ll be able to see it in March, most likely via an initial exclusive run on Hulu.

DBG won’t cough up the financial details, but the company does tell me that its actors and crew are being paid real money and aren’t donating their time or exchanging it for revenue/equity/good karma.

And for now, at least, DBG is on the hook for all of that: Unlike almost all Web video that gets made today, the show was made without a sponsor’s buy-in. But the company is confident it will land advertisers soon.

We’ll get a better sense of whether the bet was a good one over the next few months, as the company releases teaser trailers. For now, it’s giving us a clip of Sutherland talking. Still, interesting:

Kiefer Sutherland on The Confession from Peter Kafka on Vimeo.

*We’re talking about stuff created for the Web. People are also quite content to watch “real” TV shows and movies on the Web, via sites and services like YouTube, Hulu and Netflix. And at some point–not yet, but eventually–those distinctions are going to get much blurrier.

In 2010 CEO Steve Jobs retained his $1 annual salary and some 5.5 million shares of Apple stock as well. “Since rejoining the company in 1997, Mr. Jobs has not sold any of his shares of the Company’s stock,” the filing reads. “Mr. Jobs holds no unvested equity awards. The Company recognizes that Mr. Jobs’s level of stock ownership significantly aligns his interests with shareholders’ interests.”

COO Tim Cook earned $59.1 million for the fiscal year, thanks to a $5 million bonus and $52.3 million in stock awards. Quite a spike from the $1.64 million he earned in 2009, but well-deserved given his performance, particularly when he filled in for Jobs during his medical leave of absence.

Included in the proxy statement is a shareholder proposal asking Apple to adopt a CEO-succession-planning policy and appended beneath it is a strongly worded statement from the company opposing it. “The Company recognizes that a highly talented and experienced management team, not just the CEO, is critical to Apple’s success,” it reads. “Accordingly, the Board already implements many of the proposed actions and maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization. While the Board strongly supports the concept of succession planning, it recommends a vote against [the proposal].”

Why?

Evidently, the board feels a written succession plan would give Apple’s rivals unfair advantage by publicizing its objectives and plans. It also fears that identifying potential successors to Jobs would invite other companies to recruit those people away from Apple. Finally, the board feels that its directors and Apple’s leadership can handle succession planning on their own. “The Company takes succession planning seriously, and the board has adopted a comprehensive process to ensure continuity and maintain the superior quality of its management team,” Apple said in the filing. “This process also allows flexibility to adjust to unanticipated changes in the market.”

Plus, Steve doesn’t like talking about it.

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!

Things have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued.

And that includes the introduction of a new character into the drama: Former News Corp. President Peter Chernin.

Let’s be very clear–there is no active plan for Chernin to join Yahoo or its board, nor is he currently part of any possible takeover plan related to the Silicon Valley Internet giant.

But multiple sources from a variety of sides said that Chernin, a well-liked and deeply experienced media and entertainment exec, has been contacted by a number of private equity firms and other investors about his interest in becoming involved should any of the various and sundry scenarios around the Internet giant pan out.

And Chernin, many sources said, has expressed a definite interest in the situation, perhaps because he was deeply involved in a previous deal when running News Corp.

At the time, it involved combining the media giant’s Myspace social networking site with Yahoo and also Microsoft’s portal MSN and creating a new company, code-named “TrafficCo.”

“He is asking a lot of questions and is nosing around, but there is not a plan,” said one source. “Yahoo has always been an interesting opportunity to him.”

Indeed, especially since Chernin has had a longtime interest in being more involved in digital business after a long career in traditional media.

He currently has a Santa Monica, Calif.-based media company, called Chernin Entertainment, which has a lucrative first-look production film and television deal with News Corp.–as well as the Chernin Group, which “pursues strategic opportunities in media, technology, and entertainment.”

And, in recent weeks, Chernin (pictured here) has also unveiled a new media venture in Asia called CA Media, which will “focus on a broad range of opportunities in content creation (specifically, film and TV production), television networks, sports, education, advertising, and digital media.”

But so far, since he left News Corp. in early 2009, Chernin has done very little in the digital arena.

In contrast, at News Corp., he was a key exec behind its co-founding of the Hulu premium video site, for example, among other digital initiatives.

And when Microsoft was vying to acquire Yahoo several years ago, Chernin and News Corp. CEO and Chairman Rupert Murdoch were actively trying to forge some solution that involved the company.

One possibility floated by numerous sources was that Chernin could once again work with Microsoft on settling all the turmoil around Yahoo of late.

In a related matter, sources said he had been in very early talks with the company about doing a subscription original-content channel on its Xbox–a kind of digital-only HBO–aimed at young men. Those discussions have not resulted in any project.

And, in fact, Chernin was a guest speaker at a Microsoft board retreat just yesterday in the Seattle area, where the theme was “Three Screens.”

He reportedly addressed television, the other two screen being the computer and the mobile phone.

A tighter relationship between Chernin and Microsoft would be interesting and possibly helpful to both.

“Microsoft is very worried about making sure there is a stable Yahoo,” said a source close to the situation, who noted the software giant has been quietly eyeing the situation and considering options. “Involving a well-regarded executive like Chernin makes a lot of sense.”

That makes sense given the key online search and advertising partnership Microsoft and Yahoo are now in, which tightly ties their fates together.

Of course, much about the Yahoo situation and any scenario being thought of–from spinning off its Asian assets in China’s Alibaba Group and Yahoo Japan, to taking it private, to replacing its management and board–is, as BoomTown has frequently noted, a lot of shadows and dust at this point.

But–as a longtime admirer of Chernin’s curiosity about the digital realm, refreshingly minus the requisite horror over its growth that is so characteristic of much of Hollywood–his interest is a welcome one into the debate over what Yahoo needs to do to reinvigorate itself going forward.

Asking his thoughts might be a good question at the Web 2.0 Summit conference, where Chernin is being interviewed later today on the topic of content.

Amy Banse, currently the president of Comcast Interactive Media, is shifting into a job as head of a new Silicon Valley-based equity fund aimed at making digital investments for the television cable giant, as well as its new NBC Universal unit, according to sources with knowledge of the plans.

While most of the attention related to the soon-to-be-completed merger of Comcast with NBC U has been on the musical chairs of its high-profile news and entertainment divisions, this move is potentially significant for the companies by putting a stake in the ground–and a presence–for it on the West Coast.

As part of the shift, sources said, Banse will be charged with combining two existing corporate investment funds: NBC U’s Peacock Equity and Comcast Interactive Capital.

The New York-based Peacock Equity is a $250 million fund that was founded as a joint venture in 2007 by GE Capital and NBC U.

Its investments have ranged from $3 million to $25 million each, including a lot of online advertising start-ups such as Adify and the Rubicon Project.

Comcast Interactive Capital–founded in 1999 and based in Philadelphia, where Comcast’s HQ is–has $500 million under management.

It has focused on broadband, interactive and enterprise businesses.

According to its Web site, “early successful investments” include About.com, CitySearch, Half.com, TiVo, and VeriSign.”

Current investments include SB Nation, BlackArrow and JiWire.

It is not clear how much more money the new still-unnamed equity fund will raise, but it will be aimed at early-stage companies, said sources.

The combined fund will debut by the end of the year or early next year.

Banse’s shift to become a VC comes after many years of leading Comcast’s online strategy, which has included the acquisition of the Fandango movie ticketing site and Daily Candy, an email newsletter.

She has also been in charge of the development and management of Comcast’s many Web sites, including Comcast.net, Xfinity.com and Fancast.

MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka recently reported that the high-profile Banse was moving out of her post, which was being split up into two jobs.

Many thought she would likely depart the company, but it appears she will stay for a while longer at least.

As it happens, Banse will be in San Francisco this week for the Web 2.0 conference, so please be sure to give her a warm welcome and explain “Fear the Beard” to a likely Phillies fan-atic.

And just to get acquainted in advance, here is her bio from the Comcast Web site:

Amy Banse serves as President of Comcast Interactive Media (CIM), a division of Comcast Corporation that is responsible for developing and operating online tools and businesses focused on entertainment, information and communication.

Since founding CIM in December of 2005, Ms. Banse has led Comcast’s online strategy, overseeing the acquisition of Fandango (the movie ticketing site), Daily Candy (the popular email newsletter), Plaxo (the smart contacts site), and thePlatform (the industry-leading provider of digital media publishing solutions) as well as the in-house development and management of, Comcast.net and xFinity.com(Comcast’s portals), Fancast, (a leading tv entertainment site), xFinitytv (Comcast ‘s online video portal), and Swirl (Daily Candy’s sample sales site). In this role, she has grown CIM into an 800 person team with significant digital capabilities and has played a key part in the industry’s development of its TV Everywhere strategy and in Comcast’s execution of that strategy, Fancast/xFinitytv.

Ms. Banse joined Comcast in 1991 as an in-house attorney responsible for programming acquisition. Most recently she served as Executive Vice President of Content Development where she oversaw the development of Comcast’s cable network portfolio including the company’s investments in E! Entertainment Television, The Golf Channel, and VERSUS and the development and launch of G4, PBS KIDS Sprout, TV One and Comcast’s sports networks.

Ms. Banse has represented CIM and Comcast as a featured speaker in venues around the country discussing the rapid evolution of content consumption in a digital world and the opportunities and challenges facing the cable and entertainment industries. She has been named among the “Most Powerful Women in Cable” and the “Top Programmers to Watch” by CableWorld magazine. She has also been named among the Cable 100 by Multichannel News and the Digital Power list, by The Hollywood Reporter. She was honored as a “Wonder Woman” by Multichannel News and Women in Cable Telecommunications (WICT) in 2004, received WICT’s Geraldine B. Laybourne Fearless Award in 2009 and ProMax’s Brand Builder Award in 2010 Ms. Banse sits on the Board of The Morris Arboretum and Springside School for Girls. In 2007 she received “The Distinguished Alumni Award” from Springside School, and in 2006 she was honored by Girls, Inc. as an outstanding role model for girls during their annual Celebration Luncheon. Ms. Banse is also a member of The Forum of Executive Women, the Philadelphia region’s premier women’s organization.

Ms. Banse received a BA from Harvard University and a JD from Temple University Law School. She and her husband and their four children live in Philadelphia.

As BoomTown reported yesterday as likely, Yahoo has finally hired former News Corp. digital exec Ross Levinsohn.

He replaces Hilary Schneider as EVP of the Americas region, the Silicon Valley Internet giant’s most critical unit.

That means Levinsohn will be in charge of both Yahoo’s powerful media properties and also its massive advertising business.

Levinsohn will report directly to CEO Carol Bartz, but will not be primarily located at its Sunnyvale HQ. Instead, he will remain in Los Angeles and work out of the company’s offices in Santa Monica.

One bright note: Bartz has finally hired an exec on her own whose prime expertise is in digital media and not related to enterprise and software.

Giant sigh of relief from ATD HQ, since Levinsohn actually realizes that things need to move a lot faster inside the giant bubble of Yahoo.

Today’s hiring had a few snafus. Levinsohn’s plane to Silicon Valley from his home base in the southland was delayed and he could not sign his contract until just now.

In addition, there had been a number of outstanding negotiating issues that were just resolved earlier this afternoon.

Thus, Levinsohn just signed moments ago and here is the official press release from Yahoo:

Yahoo! Appoints Ross Levinsohn as Executive Vice President of Americas

SUNNYVALE, Calif., October 27, 2010–Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO) announced today that the company has appointed Ross Levinsohn as executive vice president of the Americas region. As one of the direct reports of CEO Carol Bartz, Levinsohn will join the executive staff of Yahoo! in November and will be responsible for the company’s media group, advertising sales, and partnerships for the Americas region.

“Ross has a phenomenal track record of executing digital media strategies that increase user engagement and, most importantly, accelerate topline growth,” said Bartz. “I am confident that Ross’s strategic vision, in addition to his deep industry experience, will allow us to solidify our position as the largest digital media, content and communications business around the globe.”

Levinsohn has long been on the forefront of digital media innovation. Prior to joining Yahoo!, he was the co-founder and managing director of Fuse Capital, an investment and strategic equity management firm focused on investing in and building digital media and communications companies. Levinsohn previously served as the president of News Corporation’s Fox Interactive Media, where he was responsible for running the day-to-day business, designing the overall strategy and leading investments that helped transform the company into a leader in digital media.

Levinsohn also held senior management positions with AltaVista, an early pioneer and leader in search, CBS Sportsline where he oversaw all content and development for the top rated sports site, and HBO where he launched and oversaw a unit developing new programming and revenue streams.

“Yahoo! is one of the premier Internet companies in the world,” said Levinsohn. “Having this opportunity to work with a group of immensely talented people to enhance Yahoo!’s leadership position is a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

Today, the execs at kaChing, a social investing site, are ringing the closing bell at the Nasdaq–actually, it is more of a button-pushing–to herald in a complete shift for the Palo Alto, Calif., start-up.

That includes a new name for the year-old company–it is now officially called Wealthfront–which signals a focus on linking professional money managers to customers and a move away from the “American Idol” investor talent discovery approach that kaChing had been founded on.

Now, Wealthfront is trying to solve the thorny problem of delivering good investment advice and actionable tools online.

Using a “methodology of the Ivy League endowments, to identify which money managers will outperform”–sounds fancy!–Wealthfront has vetted 25 investor options to be offered on its platform for anyone with a minimum of $10,000 to sink into equities (no bonds for now).

It’s certainly an interesting, if risky, move, for kaChing/Wealthfront, which has garnered $10.5 million in funding from a range of big Silicon Valley names, such as Marc Andreessen and OpenTable CEO Jeff Jordan.

Thus, here is a video interview I did yesterday with CEO Andy Rachleff and founder Dan Carroll explaining it all:

And here is the official press release on the switcheroo:

KACHING BECOMES WEALTHFRONT, APPEAL OF PERFORMANCE ATTRACTS MORE THAN $100M TO INVESTING SITE IN FIRST YEAR

Wealthfront Introduces Manager Recommendations, Makes it Even Easier for
33 Million American Households to Invest Well

Palo Alto, Calif., October 20, 2010–One-year after launching its investing platform, the company known as kaChing formally announced today that it has changed its name to Wealthfront and unveiled a host of new product features as the company continues to deliver on its promise to make it easy to invest well. An SEC Registered Investment Advisor, Wealthfront also announced more than 25 registered money managers have qualified and joined Wealthfront, and that it has attracted more than $100 million in assets to its investing platform.

Average American investors, made up of 33 million American households with a net worth of between $100,000 and $1.5 million, have collectively invested $7 trillion in the stock market. Yet the average American with a net worth of less than $1.5 million has long been conditioned to believe it is impossible to outperform the market. A recent study, commissioned by Wealthfront and conducted by telephone by Harris Interactive confirmed this attitude, finding that only 6% of all U.S. adults, and only 3% of those with a financial advisor, “strongly agree” that financial advisors know how to consistently outperform the market. This finding is unsurprising since access to quality money managers has been traditionally limited to wealthy individuals with a net worth of at least $1.5 million who can afford the high minimum investment requirements.

“People have been conditioned to believe outstanding performance is impossible, but we think it IS possible,” said Andy Rachleff, CEO of Wealthfront. “Everyone deserves a better way to invest, and with our ability to vet, select and recommend outstanding money managers for investors, we believe Wealthfront can meet this need.”

Wealthfront Managers Outperformed the Market in Last Twelve Months

Wealthfront has built its business on the fundamental belief that it is not only possible to consistently outperform the market, but that it is also possible, using the methodology of the Ivy League endowments, to identify which money managers will outperform.

Since launching as an SEC registered investment advisor one year ago, Wealthfront has applied its rigorous vetting process, for which an average of only one in ten managers qualify, to add 25 top professional money managers to its investing platform and make them accessible to anyone with a minimum of $10,000 to invest. Together over the past year, Wealthfront’s managers have collectively outperformed the S&P 500 by more than 6% net of fees.

Today’s announcement, that Wealthfront has attracted more than $100 million in assets to its platform, further demonstrates the company’s appeal to both average investors looking for a better way to invest and to top professional money managers looking to scale their business through cost-effective distribution.

“With Wealthfront, we can easily and cost-effectively access a new segment of investors by taking on accounts well below our historic minimums,” said Colin Higgins, president of The Golub Group, an investment management firm with more than $600 million under management. “There’s no reason average investors with a net worth of less than $1 million shouldn’t have more options to invest their money. Now with Wealthfront–they do.”

Recommendations Make Finding the Best Money Managers for You Easy

According to the Harris Interactive survey, about one in two U.S. adults believe they know how to evaluate financial advisors. Responding to the need to make it easier for the average investor to invest well, Wealthfront also unveiled today its new recommendation engine to match investors with the most appropriate money managers for them. Taking an algorithmic approach, Wealthfront first vets managers to qualify for its platform. Investors then answer a few short questions about their investing goals, and Wealthfront recommends the best money managers to suit their goals.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20101019/presto-chango-kaching-becomes-wealthfront/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100928/exclusive-myspace-and-rubicon-project-in-fan-swap-deal/ http://allthingsd.com/20100928/exclusive-myspace-and-rubicon-project-in-fan-swap-deal/#comments Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:48:47 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=34319

MySpace is trading most of the assets of its Fox Audience Network to the Rubicon Project in exchange for a significant equity minority stake, according to sources close to the situation.

Under the deal, which is nearly complete with a signed term sheet, MySpace will hand over a number of parts of FAN, including most of its 300 employees.

FAN–after a number of attempts to spin off from News Corp. (NWS), which owns the advertising network and MySpace–was recently spun into the social networking site after the departure of its top exec, Adam Bain, to Twitter.

But News Corp. and MySpace management decided it made less sense to keep most of FAN within MySpace, which is in the midst of a massive overhaul of the troubled service that will debut in a few weeks. MySpace will keep parts of FAN related to user data, said sources.

Both companies are based in the Los Angeles area. Rubicon is one of three big “yield optimizers,” which aim to help publishers manage their relationship with advertising networks so they get the highest possible dollar for the ad space. It competes with PubMatic and AdMeld.

A variety of rumors have swirled around FAN and a number of ad companies over the last several months. One recently in AdExchanger.com had Rubicon being folded into MySpace.

Not so. Instead, this deal is similar to one that News Corp. did in January of this year with Flixster, spinning its Rotten Tomatoes movie-review unit into the San Francisco social movie site for a large minority stake in the combined entity.

Several companies were looking at the pieces of FAN, sources said, but Rubicon was the cleanest option.

It’s a save all around. Sources said Rubicon had hired boutique investment bank Allen & Co. to look at a variety of alternatives for it and also had been reshuffling its staff.

BoomTown has calls in to both companies and am awaiting official comment.

(Full disclosure: News Corp. owns Dow Jones, which owns this site.)

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100928/exclusive-myspace-and-rubicon-project-in-fan-swap-deal/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100317/the-case-for-the-fat-startup/ http://allthingsd.com/20100317/the-case-for-the-fat-startup/#comments Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:00:09 +0000 Ben Horowitz http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=22721 Much has been written and said about the current economic downturn and the resulting lessons on how to run high-technology companies. Quite famously, Sequoia Capital, the premier venture capital firm in Silicon Valley, held a mandatory all-CEO meeting in fall 2008 during which it advised them to “Cut spending. Cut fat. Preserve capital.” (You can see the presentation here.)

The presentation catalyzed a movement. Start-ups everywhere adopted a lean, low-burn, low-investment model. To this day, companies seeking funding at our venture firm, Andreessen Horowitz, proudly proclaim in their pitch decks that they are raising tiny amounts of capital so they can run lean.

On the one hand, it is a fact that capital invested is negatively correlated with returns in the venture capital industry. Pumping too much money into a small start-up is unhealthy for both the company and the investor. On the other hand, Facebook has raised several hundred million dollars and is on track to produce fantastic returns for all of its investors.

So what’s a start-up to do? Much of what has been written and said about lean start-ups makes good sense. However, that advice is often incomplete, and some of the things left unsaid are the least intuitive. In this article, I will articulate some of those things left unsaid in arguing the case for the Fat Start-up.

Here is my central argument. There are only two priorities for a start-up:
Winning the market and not running out of cash. Running lean is not an end. For that matter, neither is running fat. Both are tactics that you use to win the market and not run out of cash before you do so. By making “running lean” an end, you may lose your opportunity to win the market, either because you fail to fund the R&D necessary to find product/market fit or you let a competitor out-execute you in taking the market. Sometimes running fat is the right thing to do.

What the hell do I know?

“Al Pacino couldn’t be no gangsta, DeNiro in ‘Casino’ he no gangsta
Wanna be, wanna see, wan’ get a shovel
dig Tookie up n*&%^!, cause he know gangstas”

–The Game

At this point, some of you are asking yourselves, “What the hell does Ben know? If he were really smart, then he’d know that thin is in.” It turns out that I have some experience in managing a fat start-up through the dot-com implosion of the early 2000s. This chart offers a brief summary of equity market history when I was CEO of Loudcloud and Opsware (click to enlarge):

Note that the Nasdaq index is very highly correlated to the start-up funding environment. During the two years I was CEO of Opsware, the Nasdaq fell 80 percent, far more than it has fallen during the current 2008-10 downturn. So the 2000-02 environment was at least as traumatic as this one for Silicon Valley companies–and arguably much worse.

Here is a brief summary of Loudcloud/Opsware’s fund-raising history during that time:

• September 1999: Loudcloud founded
• November 1999: Loudcloud raises $21 million at a $45 million pre-money valuation (Benchmark Capital is the lead investor)
• January 2000: Loudcloud borrows $45 million from Morgan Stanley (MS)
• June 2000: Loudcloud raises $120M at a $700M pre-money valuation
• March 2001: Loudcloud goes public on Nasdaq, raises $160 million and is valued in the public markets at approximately $480 million. Total funds raised to this point: $346 million.
• August 2002: Loudcloud sells the managed services business to EDS (this was the only actual business we had at the time) for $63.5 million and becomes a software company (and changes its name to Opsware).
• September 2002: Opsware trades for 35 cents per share or approximately a $28 million market cap.
• September 2007: Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) acquires Opsware for $1.6 billion

During this period, Loudcloud/Opsware had over 20 direct competitors. Almost all the competitors from the Loudcloud era went bankrupt, including MFN/SiteSmith, Exodus, LogicTier, Williams Communication, Global Crossing, WorldCom/Digex and Storage Networks. Those that survived got bought with valuations of less than $100 million (e.g., Totality) or still have very low valuations (e.g., Navisite).

How did we do it?

“I had a dream I could buy my way to heaven
When I awoke, I spent that on a necklace”

–Kanye West

So how did we navigate through the great dot-com crash, crush the competition, emerge as the No. 1 company in our space and sell the company to HP for $1.6 billion? Did we “cut spending, cut now, and preserve capital?” Did we make cash preservation our No. 1 priority?

No, we didn’t. To underscore the point, here are Loudcloud’s average monthly cash burn figures for the quarters ending in:

• Apr 2001:  $39 million
• Jul 2001:  $35 million
• Oct 2001:  $29 million
• Jan 2002:  $25 million
• Apr 2002:  $22 million
• Jul 2002:  $19.4 million

As you can see, we were aggressively investing in the business throughout 2001 and 2002. While we did reduce our cash burn, we did not make cash preservation our No. 1 priority. As it was, over the course of the transition from Loudcloud to EDS, we sadly laid off 400 employees and transferred another 150 to EDS. However, we didn’t scrimp and save our way to a $1.6 billion acquisition: Instead, it’s what we chose not to cut that ultimately got us there.

Loudcloud was a Web-hosting business. Today, we’d call it a “cloud services” business, but people weren’t quite ready for the “cloud” in 2001. We supercharged our hosting business with software (called Opsware) that automated our Web-hosting operations. The other cloud services businesses of our day also had software investments. However, as the macroeconomic climate changed, they all “cut deep and cut now.” In the end, they ended up putting their software in maintenance mode and stopped building new features.

As we weighed a decision to make the same deep cuts in our own software R&D efforts (a move advocated by the intelligentsia of the day, as well as nearly every MBA we had working in the company), I faced a hard decision: Cut deep and get to cash flow break-even quickly or continue to invest heavily in software?

In the end, I decided to run fat so that we could continue to invest in the Opsware software. At the end of the day, I realized that much larger companies like IBM (IBM) could hire smart people and train them. But without a lasting technology-based advantage, it would be increasingly hard for us to defeat them and build our customer base despite early wins with Ford (F), Fox Sports, and the U.K. government (to name just three of our early customers).

Running fat meant that I laid off zero software engineers so that we could keep on investing in our technology, find our product/market fit, and build a lasting technological advantage.

Still, we had to reduce costs or we would clearly go bankrupt. With this new view of the world, I decided that rather than divesting our intellectual property, I would divest our business. Now, that may sound logical the way I’ve described it, but consider these facts:

• We were generating $65 million/year from the Web-hosting business.
• We were a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of close to $200 million.
• All of our investors (pubic and private) believed in and invested in the Web-hosting business.
• We had close to 500 employees at the time. Nearly all of them were supporting the Web-hosting business.
• We had no other business. We had software, but we did not have a software product and certainly did not have a software business.

Despite all of this, we sold the Loudcloud hosting business to EDS and became Opsware the software company. It was not clear that this was a good idea at the time. In fact, the market thought it was a terrible idea: Our stock promptly lost 80 percent of its value, putting our market cap at about $28 million. It’s worth pointing out that this was about $40 million less than the cash that we had in the bank.

During the transition, we shrank our payroll from 450 employees to fewer than 100. Even with this massive reduction in expenses, it would take another three quarters to reach cash-flow break-even, a milestone we finally reached in Q2 of 2003.

One could argue–and many did–that we should have cut a lot deeper than we did given that we only had one customer. Although EDS was a very large customer (it generated $20 million/year in revenue), a brand new software company doesn’t need 100 people. We could have taken steps to reach cash-flow break-even immediately (clearly, that might have helped us get above 35 cents per share). In other words, we could have “gone lean” by cutting deep, cutting now, and preserving capital.

But rather than do what seemed obvious, I decided to keep on investing. Here’s why: In an economic boom, cash is great, but not necessarily a meaningful competitive advantage. If every company is well funded, being super-well funded doesn’t help you win. In fact, being super-well funded can actually screw you.

But in a bust (like the one we were in), having a lot of cash can be a huge competitive advantage because you can use that cash to put enormous pressure on your underfunded competitors. And that’s what we did.

We spent aggressively to match our best competitor’s product, feature for feature. And we used our public currency to acquire important adjacent functionality (network, process and storage management) that our competitors did not have and couldn’t acquire because they didn’t have the cash (or the equity).

In doing so, we were able to beat a really high-quality start-up (Bladelogic) that did not have the massive technical and cultural baggage that came from exiting the managed services business. Bladelogic was eventually sold to BMC (BMC) for $800 million. But I’m firmly convinced that had we not spent the money, Bladelogic would have emerged as the No. 1 company in the space and gotten the $1.6 billion exit instead of Opsware.

In the end, by continuing to invest aggressively in our technological advantage despite a hellacious funding environment, we were able to turn a doomed business into a winning one.

That is the very short version of how we won the market during the great tech recession of the early 2000s.

So did we learn?

“Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.”

–George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Every start-up is in a furious race against time. The start-up must find the product-market fit that leads to a great business and substantially take the market before running out of cash. As a result, the top two priorities are always to:

1. Find the product that 1,000 enterprise or 50 million consumers want to buy and grab those customers before your competitors do.
2. Raise enough cash and spend it intelligently so that you don’t go broke along the way.

Clearly, you can’t succeed if you don’t achieve both priority No. 1 and priority No. 2. So why is taking the market more important than not running out of cash? Because the only thing worse for an entrepreneur than start-up hell (bankruptcy) is start-up purgatory.

What is start-up purgatory, you ask? Start-up purgatory occurs when you don’t go bankrupt, but you fail to build the No. 1 product in the space. You have enough money with your conservative burn rate to last for many years. You may even be cash-flow positive. However, you have zero chance of becoming a high-growth company. You have zero chance of being anything but a very small technology business (see Navisite). From the entrepreneur’s point of view, this can be worse than start-up hell since you are stuck with the small company.

You recruited all the employees, you raised all the money and you made all the promises. You either see it through or leave–without your good reputation. No one wants to work for an entrepreneur who quits his or her own company. This is start-up purgatory, where you work just as hard, reap none of the rewards, and watch all your best people leave you. It sucks to be you.

The Bottom Line

Spending a little or spending a lot is a means, not an end. Choose the right strategy to win the market or you may end up going straight to purgatory.

As you listen to the virtues of the lean start-up–lightweight sales, light engineering, and so on–keep the following in mind:

• If you are a high-tech start-up, your value is in your intellectual property. Don’t stare at your spreadsheets so long that you get confused about that.
• You cannot save your way to winning the market.
• The best companies can raise money even in this market. If you are one of those, you should consider raising enough to wipe out your competition.

Thin is in, but sometimes you gotta eat.

Ben Horowitz is co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He co-founded Loudcloud, later renamed Opsware Inc., in 1999 and served as CEO of the company before it was acquired in 2007 by Hewlett-Packard. He was most recently vice president and general manager of Hewlett-Packard’s Business Technology Organization Unit.

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100317/the-case-for-the-fat-startup/feed/ 12 http://allthingsd.com/20100312/index-invests-25-million-in-sonos-plus-a-video-interview-with-vc-mike-volpi/ http://allthingsd.com/20100312/index-invests-25-million-in-sonos-plus-a-video-interview-with-vc-mike-volpi/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:00:57 +0000 Kara Swisher http://kara.allthingsd.com/?p=25424 Earlier this week, BoomTown had lunch with Michelangelo “Mike” Volpi, the high-profile tech exec who turned into a venture capitalist recently at Index Ventures.

We also did a video interview (see below) about his new life as an investor, based in London, although Volpi managed to leave out the big news.

That would be a just-inked $25 million investment by Index from its growth equity arm in wireless home music system maker Sonos, as well as a new board seat there for Volpi. (Sonos’s hot new S5 unit is pictured here.)

In an interview this morning, Sonos CEO John MacFarlane said the money would be used for expansion at Sonos, which is just about to introduce its products to China and Japan.

“This investment is going to help us grow,” said MacFarlane. “We have wind at our back and this will help us a lot in keeping up that momentum.”

MacFarlane said the focus for Sonos, which has garnered $65 million–from BV Capital and mostly angel investors–with the Index investment included, is growth. He declined to give Sonos’s valuation in the new round.

The private company has been profitable, MacFarlane said, but its goal is to break even as it takes advantage of interest in its devices globally. Only about 35 percent of its business is now in the United States.

While running a small independent consumer electronics company is a dicey proposition, MacFarlane said Sonos is not interested in selling, as Pure Digital–maker of the Flip digital camera–did to Cisco (CSCO) a year ago for $590 million in stock.

In fact, Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Sonos, which is well known for its innovative top-line (and high-priced) music players, recently moved its business more mainstream with the introduction of the S5 unit in November.

The S5 allows control of the system via an Apple (AAPL) iPhone and only costs $399. (Here is a review of it by The Mossberg Solution’s Katie Boehret.)

The basic idea? A smart speaker paired with a smartphone.

The S5 has been a big seller and has increased product registration–when the software is activated by a user–by five times previous numbers so far, according to the company.

That could get a further boost with the April launch of the iPad, which seems perfect for controller software apps.

“The popularity of the iPhone is great for us,” said MacFarlane. “And we’ll do something great with the iPad.”

It will be nice to have a big score for Volpi, the former Cisco wunderkind. In fact, he invested in one of MacFarlane’s previous start-ups, Software.com, in 1995 when he was in charge of a variety of businesses there.

But the affable Volpi hit a bad patch recently while CEO of a much hyped but ultimately failed video service called Joost. It was that job that landed him in even hotter water.

In the wake of the decline of Joost, which he left to join Index, he was personally sued, along with Index, by its litigious co-founders over Index’s planned investment in Skype, the online telephony service they also co-founded.

Confused? Well, it was confusing.

And not the best start in the investment business for Volpi, after Index pulled out of the high-profile deal in a settlement of the lawsuits.

But, that’s “ancient history,” as Volpi said in the video interview below, which focuses on what’s next.

(News of the Index involvement in Sonos was first reported by TechCrunch earlier this week, though it did not have any details on the amount of funding.)

Although he did not mention the $25 million Sonos funding specifically in the video, Volpi does discuss his bullishness for consumer electronics.

Volpi presumably hopes others share his enthusiasm.

Here’s the video of my interview with him:

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100312/index-invests-25-million-in-sonos-plus-a-video-interview-with-vc-mike-volpi/feed/ 1 http://allthingsd.com/20100312/is-betaworks-building-a-mountain-or-digging-a-hole/ http://allthingsd.com/20100312/is-betaworks-building-a-mountain-or-digging-a-hole/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:00:22 +0000 Peter Kafka http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/?p=17321 Want to invest in Twitter but don’t have the money to play in $100 million funding rounds?

Try Betaworks instead. That’s my translation of the holding company’s pitch, which seems to be effective. Yesterday, it announced that it had raised another $20 million in funding led by RRE Ventures and Intel (INTC); other new investors include AOL (AOL) and the New York Times (NYT).

Betaworks previously raised about $8 million from the likes of the Pilot Group, Ron Conway, Huffington Post co-founder Ken Lerer and AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, who bought in when he was still selling ads for Google (GOOG).

Betaworks is essentially a bet on “real time” companies in general and Twitter specifically. The New York-based outfit has invested in or built a couple dozen companies, almost all of which have something to do with social media. And many of them have direct links to Twitter.

The biggest Betaworks hit to date is an investment in Twitter itself: The company helped fund Summize, a real-time search engine Twitter bought in July 2008, back when the microblogging service was valued at a mere $100 million. Betaworks took its payment in Twitter equity, and that decision has worked out very nicely so far.

Other prominent Betaworks projects are Twitter plays as well. Twitter uses Bit.ly, the URL shortener Betaworks built and then spun off. And Betaworks funded TweetDeck, the most popular Twitter client, which also uses Bit.ly as its default URL shortener.

The risk, of course, is that there isn’t enough there there to support all these companies, which are very much in the Web 2.0 “users first, revenue later” model. As CEO John Borthwick puts it: “We’re either building a mountain or digging a hole.”

But Borthwick has an excellent pitch–the accent helps–which I got to hear when I dropped by his office yesterday. Co-founder Andy Weissman, alas, was AWOL. But if you want to hear his take, he maintains an excellent Tumblr (another Betaworks investment).

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100312/is-betaworks-building-a-mountain-or-digging-a-hole/feed/ 0 http://allthingsd.com/20100219/bringing-y-combinators-incubator-model-to-india/ http://allthingsd.com/20100219/bringing-y-combinators-incubator-model-to-india/#comments Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:00:23 +0000 Tomio Geron http://voices.allthingsd.com/?p=21492 What works in the U.S. can work here, too–it’s a tenet held by many entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in India and other emerging regions of innovation. While not everything should be duplicated, one small Indian firm believes it can apply the model employed by Y Combinator, a Mountain View, Calif.-based business accelerator and seed fund.

Founded in 2007, Morpheus holds four-month business accelerator programs where it works with 20 very early-stage companies, taking a four to eight percent equity stake in exchange for advice, mentoring and business connections.

Now the firm, made up of three partners with entrepreneurial experience, will also invest capital in these start-up companies, the same way that Y Combinator does. The firm has raised a small fund of about $250,000 from unnamed high-net-worth individuals for the next two incubator sessions and will seek to add on further funding.

Read the rest of this post on the original site

]]> http://allthingsd.com/20100219/bringing-y-combinators-incubator-model-to-india/feed/ 0