The new round comes entirely from existing investors Foundry Group, True Ventures, SoftTech VC and Felicis Ventures.

The company said it plans to use the funding mainly for hiring and for aggressive product development. Fitbit declined to elaborate further on what type of new product or products it has up its sleeve, except to say that it is now looking ahead to other connected and affordable health-and-fitness devices for the year, and is hiring top engineers to get the company there.

But Fitbit’s next steps — no pun intended — probably need to be very strategic ones.

The funding round comes amid increasing competition from other makers of wear-’em-and-forget-’em data-tracking devices. While Fitbit has been a leader in this area of health-and-fitness tracking, Jawbone, a maker of audio products, launched the $99 UP wristband tracker late last year, which was initially received with enthusiasm. And Nike just introduced its version of a polymer-encased wristband, the FuelBand.

The Jawbone UP has since suffered technical difficulties, forcing the company to refund unhappy customers and temporarily pause production.

But with the $149 FuelBand, Nike has brought big-brand cachet to activity tracking. And Nike isn’t just targeting the serious athlete or runner anymore — it’s going after the casual athlete and the desk jockey, too.

While some fitness devices involve the use of pedometers, accelerometers or galvanic skin-response sensors, Nike’s band promises to combine oxygen uptake with the activity tracked through the device’s tri-axis accelerometer for a high-tech reading. To be fair, it’s not entirely clear yet how that differentiates the FuelBand, and we won’t be able to gauge how well it works until we can get our hands on one and test it.

The Fitbit also uses a three-dimensional accelerometer to measure users’ steps and activity levels. When the $100 Fitbit device launched in 2008, it punched up the idea of the average pedometer, and offered hassle-free, wireless uploading of 24-7 personal analytics and activity data. Fitbit also created a Web dashboard through which users can monitor their activity levels; for $50 a year, Fitbit users can view even more detailed analytics.

In October 2011, the company introduced the Fitbit Ultra, which added a digital clock, a stopwatch and an altimeter that measures elevation gain; a Fitbit iPhone app was launched, too.

San Francisco-based Fitbit, which recently started selling Fitbits in Canada and the U.K., declined to say how many units have been sold to date. In the U.S., the Fitbit recently became available in Target stores through a retail partnership.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas earlier this month, Fitbit also unveiled the Fitbit Aria, a Wi-Fi-enabled “smart” scale, as Forbes reported here. The company plans to ship the scale starting in April.

(Fitbit photo courtesy of Redefinery/Flickr)

The company, which was previously called Answerly and which has made various online Q&A products over the last two years, has now moved its focus to figuring out who expert tweeters are and helping other Twitter users find them.

InboxQ co-founder CEO Joe Fahrner called the new InboxQ Profile tool the inverse of his company’s previous product, which helped companies find tweeted questions about their products.

It does seem logical that people with questions are easier to come by than people who want to install a browser extension to go answer other people’s tweeted questions.

Some 100,000 questions are asked per day on Twitter, with the majority of them going unanswered, according to InboxQ. (Maybe some of them are rhetorical?) With the new tool, users can find others who are qualified to answer their questions and compose @mentions to ask them directly on Twitter.

The top categories of questions asked on Twitter are product advice, tech support and local recommendations, according to Fahrner. His team of five has worked to identify one million subject experts — see for instance the InboxQ listings for Amazon AWS and Bikram yoga.

A start-up called PeerPong recently tried to do something very similar, but ended up shutting down and being talent-acquired by Formspring. Fahrner contended that PeerPong was too much of a black box — it took user questions into its system and then tweeted them via company accounts to identified experts. By contrast, InboxQ connects the questioner and answerer, and then let’s things happen from there.

San Francisco-based InboxQ was a Y Combinator start-up, and raised angel funding a year ago from investors including SoftTech VC, Lowercase Capital and Trinity Ventures.

Boulder-based Gnip (the name is “ping” spelled backward) is a middleman between social media sites and social media monitoring companies. The company has raised about $5 million from Foundry Group, SoftTech VC and First Round Capital. Customers include Alterian, Next Big Sound and Attensity.

“The various levels from Twitter have always been confusing and scattered and unofficial, and it’s always been real shaky ground when you work with them,” said Gnip CEO Jud Valeski in a phone interview today. “Nothing against Twitter, it’s just the realities of growing a service that strong and that fast.”

To date, Twitter has offered a paid level (Firehose), a 10 percent sample level to approved developers (Gardenhose) and a 1 percent level to everybody (Spritzer). It doesn’t publicly disclose pricing for the Firehose, but charges different amounts based on how big a company is and what it’s doing with the data.

The new Gnip feeds are only for a certain type of data usage: Analytics and monitoring. Customers must not display the data publicly, but rather use it internally for their own customers–for example, to measure how social media users respond to a Coca-Cola advertising campaign.

Gnip will offer the Halfhose (50 percent of Tweets at a cost of $30,000 per month), the Decahose (10 percent of Tweets for $5,000 per month) and the Mentionhose (all mentions of a user including @replies and re-Tweets for $20,000 per month). All feeds are available in original JSON and Activity Streams JSON formats.

Analytics providers who were previously using Twitter’s Gardenhose for free will now have to start paying Gnip for the Decahose. Twitter has also said it’s planning its own free lightweight analytics product, but that’s not out yet.

Some more background from my previous story:

What does it cost to drink from the Firehose? That depends. Twitter’s pricing plans appear to vary wildly, from the big search companies on down to folks prototyping a brainstorm. Multiple Twitter developers told me they felt Twitter’s pricing seemed to be totally arbitrary, and based on whatever Twitter thought they’d be able to pay.

Twitter business development guy Doug Williams said it’s true that Twitter has no structured way to price access between the 10 percent of the Gardenhose and the 100 percent of the Firehose, though the company is likely to develop more levels of pricing.

“Twitter is focused on creating consumer products and we’re not built to license data,” Williams said, adding, “Twitter has always invested in the ecosystem and startups and we believe that a lot of innovation can happen on top of the data. Pricing and terms definitely vary by where you are from a corporate perspective.”

It’s not only how big you are, but what you do with the data. According to a developer, analytics players are asked to pay the most, because they take Twitter content but don’t contribute it or drive content to Twitter. Those who display and process content in a way that drives traffic pay less, and those who help generate content pay the least. As I understand it, some developers who make Twitter clients don’t pay anything at all for streaming API access.

Image courtesy Minnesota National Guard on Picasa.

The purchase price, I’m told, is something in the $12 million to $15 million range, including earnouts provisions.

Sportgenic claims it reaches 35 million uniques, and Glam, which is primarily geared toward women and advertisers who want to reach them, is interested in some of that business. But the real driver in the deal is AdPortal, an ad management platform for publishers that Sportgenic created and spun out into a separate unit.

Glam’s plan, as described in the release below, is to merge AdPortal into its “GlamAdapt Platform,” which it launched earlier this summer and which is supposed to be a rival to Google’s (GOOG) DoubleClick display advertising unit. If you follow ad tech, you’ll understand what the following means: Glam already had its version of DoubleClick for Advertisers; now it has its own version of DoubleClick for Publishers, too.

Sportgenic raised at least $10 million over its five-year lifespan, so the deal, paid out in cash and stock, isn’t a great one for its investors, who include GreyCroft and SoftTechVC. But Glam is moving toward an IPO–that’s why it brought on Microsoft (MSFT) deal guy Bruce Jaffe as CFO in May– and if that comes to fruition, it’s possible that equity in the company could become a nice thing to own.

Sportgenic CEO Robert Tas told me he would call me back earlier this morning but I’m still waiting on the call. In the meantime, we can assume that he was talking about the deal when he sent out the following tweet three days ago:

Release:

GLAM MEDIA TO ACQUIRE ADPORTAL—INNOVATIVE SILICON VALLEY
MEDIA TECHNOLOGY STARTUP

Launches “GlamAdapt for Publishers” Offering a Fully-Automated Publisher-Side Platform For Premium Brand-Ad Inventory

Used By Major Internet Publishers Such as Time, Inc. and CBS, AdPortal Web-Enables the Packaging of Premium Advertising Solutions to Manage Advertising Sales to Agencies, Demand-Side Platforms, Direct, and Self-Serve for Local Ads

Silicon Valley, California and New York, New York—July 23, 2010—Glam Media, Inc. (www.GlamMedia.com), the number one vertical media company for women online and one of the top display global media web properties, today announced that it is going to acquire AdPortal (www.Adportal.net), a leading publisher advertising-technology startup based in San Francisco and New York, and also announced the launch of “GlamAdapt for Publishers,” a fully automated publisher-side platform for seamlessly packaging digital advertising solutions across multiple ad sales channels–Agencies, Demand-Side Platforms, Direct, and Self-Serve for Local Advertisers and Resellers– designed for super premium brand advertising.

“Glam Media’s heart and soul is about publishers and professional social media content,” said Samir Arora, chairman and CEO of Glam Media. “With the acquisition of AdPortal, we are launching ‘GlamAdapt for Publishers,’ a one-stop solution to web- enable all digital inventory for existing and emerging demand sales channels. AdPortal will bring one of the most advanced technology products to the recently announced next generation GlamAdapt Platform designed for Brand Advertising.”

GlamAdapt for Publishers (GFP) helps publishers sell more of their valuable premium inventory through the creation, marketing, and measuring of high impact sales packages across multiple demand channels. Publishers can take advantage of GlamAdapt’s creative, targeting, network management, and measurement services to deliver comprehensive brand solutions for advertisers. Leveraging GlamAdapt’s open “Advertising Apps Platform,” GFP comes with built-in support for leading third-party data, measurement, and creative providers. Publishers also gain access to sales management and efficiency tools that can create client-ready media plans in a matter of minutes. This combination provides greater access to brand dollars—enabling publishers to drive higher value deals with more efficient sales forces.

“Our goal with AdPortal has always been to empower publishers to make the most use of their premium inventory, while making it easy for advertisers to get their message in front of the people they want to target,” said Robert Tas, CEO and Founder of AdPortal, a former SVP of Media & Technology at 24/7 and one of the founders of Tacoda. “We
are thrilled to be a part of Glam Media and integrate AdPortal into GlamAdapt, now a full alternative ad-tech platform for premium brand advertising.”

Tas will be joining Glam Media as Vice President of GlamAdapt Platform. “Linden Lab has had success with AdPortal, allowing us to drive greater value for our premium inventory,” said Robin Ducot, VP of Web Development at Linden Lab. “We are pleased that AdPortal is becoming part of GlamAdapt, and look forward to working with Glam Media to drive innovation around audience packages, brand-focused analytics, and advanced ad formats.”

Glam is also announcing today GlamAdapt is now running at scale delivering 100% of Glam’s premium business, with over 1,500 publishers and 500 brand advertisers running over 1,000 campaigns since launch worldwide.

AdPortal is a Silicon Valley venture-funded spinoff of Sportgenic, with investors including top-tier VC firms SoftTechVC and Greycroft Partners, key Silicon Valley startup investors and a list of premium publishers. AdPortal’s San Francisco-based employees will join the Glam Media ad products team in Silicon Valley.

Bleacher Report is a two-year old company roughly similar to the better-known SB Nation. The start-up employs lots of writers and stringers to produce lots of local content, claiming it is now churning out more than 500 stories a day.

The company is trying to make money by selling ads on its core site, which Quantcast says draws eight million monthly uniques. And it’s doing syndication deals with the likes of USAToday.com and some of Hearst’s newspapers; last I heard, it was also trying to get a deal with Tribune’s Los Angeles Times.

Bleacher Report has raised $8 million in two rounds; investments include Series A financing completed in February 2008 from Hillsven Capital, Gordon Crawford, SoftTech VC and, sort-of oddly, Vimeo founder Jakob Lodwick.

One answer: Several million dollars.

Oh, and did I mention there’s no business model attached to said Web service?

Still with me?

OK. Here are the details: Betaworks, the incubator/start-up platform best known for selling Twitter a search engine for $15 million last year, is taking in-house project bit.ly and spinning it out as a separate company. A group of new investors, led by O’Reilly AlphaTech Ventures, has poured about $2 million into the company, which implies a valuation in the midseven figure range.

Other investors include Howard Lindzon’s Social Leverage group, Jeff Clavier’s SoftTech VC, and uber-angel Ron Conway. O’Reilly’s Bryce Roberts will join the board of the four-man company.

bit.ly is one of roughly a gazillion url-shorteners, all of which do the same thing. They take an unwieldy Web address like, say, this one: “http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090330/huffington-post-pays-for-content-after-all-via-175-million-investigative-fund/” and turn it into something concise like this: “http://bit.ly/14WdlB.”

If you spend much time on Facebook, Twitter or any other Web service where brevity is useful, you’ve encountered a shortened URL, and you’re likely seeing more and more of them all the time. The bit.ly guys say people clicked on 20 million of their shortened Web addresses last week, and that the number is increasing by about 10 percent a week.

Great. So where’s the money? Many of bit.ly’s competitors, like the aptly named tinyurl.com, generate modest revenue by running Google (GOOG) ads against the many eyeballs that come to the site to use the service. But bit.ly won’t sell ads, and it plans on distinguishing itself by tracking all the clicks and streams that come through the service and using the data to provide interesting analytics and insights into who’s looking at what on the Web, in real time.

The logic: If you’re impressed with the possibilities of Twitter’s real-time search capabilities (see above), you’ll love bit.ly.

Great. So where’s the money? bit.ly is free to users, and the company says it doesn’t plan on selling its analytics or other tools to publishers. Team bit.ly says revenue will come sometime down the road, from something else–when they figure out what that is.

That kind of shrugging was par for the course during Boom 2.0 days. But in the dark days of last fall, even the sunniest Web optimists, including Betaworks founder John Borthwick himself, were telling start-ups that they had to face reality and start making money.

So either things have gotten much better than we realized or the bit.ly investors think it’s still worth betting on fast-growing, revenue-free start-ups. It’d be nice if both things are true.

(Quick aside: Before the panel begins, the woman sitting next to me is investigating the contents of the TechCrunch40 schwag bags, which apparently include AOL CD cases recovered from an intern-led archaeological dig at the company’s Dulles, Md.Va., campus.)

After introductions, Calacanis poses the first question to the VCs on the panel: How does somebody best get into your office?

Mandel: A referral or introduction from a colleague.

Zachary: An introduction or a very simple email.

Clavier: Introductions, but he admits–perhaps foolishly–that being mobbed at conferences does sometimes work. (Start-up pig-pile on Jeff in the Demo Pit everyone!)

Botha: Likes the simple email idea as well.

Calacanis asks Adelson about his approach to raising capital. “Do you just call the same people and ask for money?” Adelson says you seek out capital from the people most likely to offer it in support of the business you’re pitching.

Same question asked of Sacks. He says Geni did its series A round as an idea and its series B as an actual product. Suggests aspiring entrepreneurs focus their early efforts on the refinement of your idea and your vision. That’s the best way to guarantee a good VC valuation.

Question: How do you determine valuations? Is it all based on your perception of a start-up as bankable and the idea of owning the next five years of its life?

Mandel seems to agree that there’s a logical aspect to these decisions, but insists that there’s also an emotional one as well.

Botha agrees and notes the recent insanity around Facebook’s valuations.

Clavier, a long-time angel investor, then announces a $12 million seed fund. Its focus will be the consumer side of the Internet, with a few dozen deals, ranging from $100,000 to $500,000, over the next 3 years.

Question from TechCrunch40 co-host Michael Arrington: Wonders if VCs are peeved that the angels are swooping in and taking companies that they would have liked to fund away from them.

Botha says of course. But adds that this all contributes to the ecosystem of innovation, yadda, yadda … competition is desirable. ….

Panel descends into pure VC 101 tedium. And then ….

What’s the stupidest thing an entrepreneur has done to get your attention?

Clavier: Clipping your nails during a meeting.

Clearly the high point of the panel. Time to find coffee.