The first big question that jumps out is: where are the profitable VC funded web ventures?

We heard from lots of gritty entrepreneurs building business the old fashioned way, keeping costs low and funding from revenue. I have done that and know how hard it is to do, so here is a big cheer of recognition for all who are going that route. I hope we can profile some in the future.

When you make it to profitability via bootstrapping, you have a wonderful independence and freedom. You have to keep clients happy every day, but you really do get to call the shots. You don't have a money guy in the boardroom. This is why many people become entrepreneurs.

But what we want to focus on here are VC funded web 2.0 ventures that got to profitability as standalone ventures.

Surely Jigsaw is not the only one?!

We chose Jigsaw to kick off this series because they were VC funded and profitable. (Many people don't like Jigsaw, it seems like a tool for spammers, but that is another story and a bit out of date from what we can see). The point here is, what other Web 2.0 companies have been funded by VC and have reached profitability? Surely there must be some more? Did all the 2003/2004 era Series A funded ventures either exit or fail? Or are some on the cusp of profitability, with enough investor cash to get them there? Even with revenue forecasts that may need to be to brought down as a result of a slowing economy?

Please tell us about any VC funded web 2.0 ventures that are profitable today standalone. Here are the hurdles:

1. "VC Funded". A minimum $3m Series A from a recognized VC fund.
2. "Web 2.0 venture". We will be as loose as possible in this definition. In fact, any web venture funded after 2002 is OK as any venture after that date is likely to have some features of user generated content, social media, SaaS or other 2.0ish characteristics. "Web 2.0" is like the definition of art "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it and I know what I like".
3. "Profitable". On this criteria we will be tight. We mean the Warren Buffet definition of profitable, which means "free cash flow", otherwise known as "owner earnings". It is really simple and you cannot fake it. You either get more cash from operations (cash from investors does NOT count) than you spend, or you don't. Accounting conventions like EBITDA don't count. More on this later.
4. "Today". That means this quarter. Even better last quarter. Or more than a few quarters.
5. "Standalone". Skype maybe profitable within EBay or YouTube within Google. That is a separate subject. We are looking for standalone ventures that have not exited. They made it to profitability on their own.

Why Free Cash Flow Is The Measure

EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest Taxation Depreciation and Amortization) is an accounting convention that is used a lot in the private equity business. "Private Equity" used to be known as "Leveraged Buyout". The L word is not in vogue today (Ed, using understatement as humor seldom works). Seriously, Private Equity deals have been based on their ability to raise debt at low cost. That game is over for a while.

EBITDA is supposed to be a measure of how much debt you can put on a company. It is usually applicable to well established businesses in traditional industries. Recently it has been used in relation to Facebook and other large web ventures. This is where it gets interesting for web entrepreneurs and their investors.

Is Facebook Profitable?

According to a report in BoomTown in January 2008, based on an interview with Mark Zuckerberg:

"Revenue for Facebook for 2007 will be $150 million, as has been widely reported. But for 2008, Zuckerberg projected revenue to be increased to $300 million to $350 million.

More interesting was the news that Facebook would spend $200 million next year on capital expenditures, which is a whole lot of servers.

By the way, more expenses, noted chatty Mark, those employee levels would rise to more than 1,000 in 2008 from 450 now.

And Zuckerberg also said the company's EBITDA-earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and a number widely used by Wall Street as an indication of operating performance-would be $50 million in 2008.

That means the company would have a negative cash flow of about $150 million (EBITDA minus CapEx), rather than break even, as it does now."

Is Facebook profitable today, in the last quarter of 2008? Well it is almost certainly EBITDA positive, butthat is not the true measure. The answer is "maybe". If Facebook is hitting $300m to $350m this year (2008) and their operating costs have doubled from $50m to $100m (which is reasonable assumption as they said they would more than double employees from 450 to 1,000), they would have EBITDA of $200m to $250m. That sounds pretty good. But after $200m in Capex for servers, they are only breaking even on free cash flow at the bottom of their revenue forecast range. And, given the failure of Beacon and declining CPM rates on social networks, my guess (it is only a guess) is that Facebook revenues will be at the lower end of their forecast or even below.

But enough about Faceboom. The more generally interesting business issue highlighted by their story is that Capital Expenditure ("Capex") does matter for web ventures. In fact, it is a mission critical issue, with good software design at the heart of the issue.

Servers Are An Operating Expense For Web 2.0 Ventures

With user generated content, you don't pay people to create content that you use to generate advertising revenues. So your operating costs are R&D (developers), advertising sales and all those senior management overhead lumped into the General & Administrative (G&A) cost bucket. I don't really understand what 1,000 people do at Facebook, but that is another story.

As you scale, people costs should not scale. Servers do need to scale. That is where Facebook must be suffering from some sloppy early software design. That is fine, the initial win is all about user traction and a scalable design is secondary. But today it is a critical issue for Facebook. It is also a critical issue for any venture starting out today. Spending a few bucks early on to get a scalable architecture seems sensible. This is not rocket science, any competent software architect knows how to do this.

Should Servers Be Outsourced Or Leased?

Capex sounds old-fashioned. Why buy servers when you can lease or rent? If Facebook leased rather than bought servers, they could have positive free cash flow even at the lower end of their revenue forecast. The credit crisis will make leasing a bit tougher. Renting via Hardware As A Service (HaaS) is the ideal route for startups you benefit from the scale of the HaaS vendor. But it is unclear how the economics scale for the buyer? It is unclear whether Amazon AWS or any other HaaS is a serious option at Facebook's scale (or the scale of any VC funded venture that is nudging profitability).

Scale Or Profits - The New Choice?

It seems that ventures that can see a fairly quick way to profitability, simply ignore the VC route. The feeling seems to be mutual. VC look at a lot of the businesses that got to profitability and say "too small".

So, you have to choose either big and unprofitable or small and profitable? That does not make sense. If that is true, is this an issue with Web 2.0 models? Some VCs have seen this as a failure of IPO markets, meaning that public market investors won't trust unprofitable ventures promising they will be profitable in future. This "won't get fooled again" view is natural after the Web 1.0 bubble burst.

Trade sales for unprofitable ventures are unlikely to be the solution in the next few years. Not good trade sales at any rate (fire sales are technically trade sales, but they are not a good result). The buyer will be much less willing to fund losses because their investors will be less willing to fund losses for an uncertain period of time. If the venture is close to profitability it does not need to exit and nobody wants to exit in a down market unless they have to. VC have plenty of cash so this is not a financing issue, if the path to profitability is clear.

Maybe profitability for a lot of Web 2.0 ventures is really close? Maybe it just takes longer for Web 2.0 ventures to get to profitable - but that they will be fantastic cash cows when they get there?

Image: mlitty

Dot Coms 2.0? Say it Ain't So...

Maybe we are all just fooling ourselves. When the Internet bubble started to burst in March 2000, most people were saying "that's them crazy Dot Coms, not us". Gradually, it was all of us who were in any way associated with technology.

After 18 months, in the summer of 2002, everybody had capitulated. You could buy shares of Rational Corp (the leading supplier of software tools after Microsoft, bought by IBM) for a valuation of $1 billion when they had $1 billion in the bank and $1 billion in revenues (oh, yes, and a couple of bad quarters which made it obvious that nobody would buy software ever again). You could walk into a VC with a patented machine to turn mud into gold and be greeted with a sceptical "but what if gold falls in value?". You could prove that your $50k software would have $500k savings to a company within 6 months and the response was still "we will get back to you". The technology nuclear winter was very, very cold.

So maybe it is coming again in the technology business. No more funding, no more deals, no more parties. Maybe the hangover is coming.

Innovation Economy Still Thriving

But it does not look that way from what I am seeing. VCs are saying that their companies are doing well (and not all are hyping their portfolio). It also coincides with what I am seeing from companies that I know well. Companies are either growing revenues or getting more funding or doing both. I have interviewed two founders at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York that have broken into profitability. Even if VCs run for the hills they will be fine. These upstarts are taking business from higher cost alternatives.

I have also heard first hand of big deals from large companies awarded to small, young ventures. And I have seen large enterprises that are working on large social media rollouts.

This is not good for big tech companies. But it does look good for small, low cost, agile upstarts. The smart companies have worked out how to reduce risk for clients. What's the risk of implementing Basecamp or Zoho?

I call this the "innovation economy" and that is a tad worrying. It sounds like "New Economy" and we all know where that ended up. I did not want to say the "technology industry" as huge parts of the tech industry now simply follow economic cycles. The fortunes of Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, HP, IBM, Cisco tend to rise and fall in line with global GDP. Bigco is not the heart of the innovation economy.

Shift in Power to Smallcos

It is more likely to do with a fundamental secular shift in power from large business to small business. The Internet and Coase's law would be the theoretical underpinning for that. Something dramatic may have quietly happened, making the playing field not just level for start-ups vs incumbents, but tilted in their favor. It might have something to do with the tools that enable you to run a global business with all virtual operations and almost no infrastructure cost. You can simply scale faster and cheaper than your incumbents.

Conclusion

The market mayhem this week has been unprecedented, far worse than even my worst imaginings and I was thinking it was going to be bad. So this is bad. It will spill over into everything. Many parts of the Web 2.0 industry will be in trouble, specifically those with dependency on consumer advertising or financial services.

But the gritty entrepreneurs are building value and getting profitable and have better opportunities than ever before to get their case heard. VCs who keep their nerve will do enormously well, just as they did from deals done in the 2002/2003 era.

What do you think? Is it tough times for all? Or tough times for the slow and good times for the fast?

Image credit: Thomas Hawk

Zynga is quite similar to SGN, in that both companies mostly focus on games for social networks. Kongregate takes a different approach and makes its games available on its own site only. While this makes playing a game as simple as going to the Kongregate homepage, it also means that Kongregate doesn't have a built-in word-of-mouth marketing network to profit from.

With almost $40 million in money raised, Zynga and its VCs must be looking for a very high valuation for the company. Its main income sources are advertising and selling virtual goods to its players.

It's probably worth speculating that Zynga is going to use quite a lot of this venture money to branch out of the social networks games market and start developing for other platforms (such as cell phones) as well.

Far from it. These are great times for entrepreneurs. Really. This is not our bubble. We had our bubble and it burst in March 2000.

This is a credit bubble, pure and simple. That has far, far bigger implications for the economy than a stock bubble. So the recession is real. It is only a question of how long and how deep and my guess would be on the side of long and deep.

But equity valuations are fine. A very conservative investor friend who manages money on an asset allocation basis - choosing between bonds and equities - is pushing into equities. There are of course pockets of excess - please don’t tell me all the stocks you see that are overvalued, I know thats true - but broad markets are in reasonable value shape.

Nor are VCs going hog wild; sadly, because those days were fun :-) Sure there is a bit too much money at work, but that's good. VCs sure as hell remember the bubble and the burst. It is their “cousins”, the Private Equity (PE) guys, who've just had their bubble - fueled by the credit markets. But while VC and PE may sound the same to an entrepreneur - hey they are all money guys right? - at a more fundamental level they are on opposite sides of what is a very big battle.

The battle is around something which few people like to talk about in start-up circles. It is the big unmentionable, like sex for Victorians. The unmentionable is zero sum game. Yes, in an economy growing at 3% if we are lucky and zero or less if we are not, the dollars you earn come from another business. Economists call it “creative destruction”. People who work at newspapers call it a “disaster”. Entrepreneurs coming in like barbarians at the gate call it “window of opportunity”. Established companies and - this is the point - their PE backers, call it a possible negative externality which might impact Q4 earnings to the extent that they go near their debt covenant ratios. Or in other words, “I missed that barbarian with my boiling oil and he is now over the wall and wreaking havoc and oh my god there are so many of them….”

The first wave of barbarians were bad enough. They at least talked the same language of margins and profits. It is firms such as Craigslist and Plenty of Fish that really worry the bejesus out of people, as they are happy to take massive volume at ridiculous prices; which in a digital world where additional users are virtually zero cost and all the rewards go to the firm that gets the network effect, is totally sensible, rational economic behavior. More rational than chanting phrases learned in MBA classes like a mantra to ward off evil spirits.

But we are in recession, and that does change the game for entrepreneurs. In particular it changes the game for entrepreneurs banking on consumer advertising dollars. Advertising gets cut in a recession. Always has in the past and will do so now. There is a strong belief in start-up circles that the shift from traditional media to online is such a huge shift that it opens up an opportunity that is “big enough to drive a truck through”. Yes we are still in the relatively early days of this massive shift. But recessions lead to irrational behavior as much as bubbles and that can mean some short term pain.

More importantly, recessions have a way of changing behavior that lasts into the recovery and next boom. From that change of behavior, new companies and new industries are born. Pay Per Click, a more cost effective form of advertising, and offshore outsourcing, a way to cut legacy costs, both got their momentum going in the last recession.

Online CPM is like traditional media advertising. It is a traditional media model grafted onto online services. Which is like the talking heads in the early days of TV mimicing Radio. CPM is “faith based advertising”, you cannot measure the return. We will always have CPM but the prices will crash. Facebook ads going for 12.5c per CPM is one straw in this wind. Those low prices are OK when it costs so little to acquire the eyeballs, so these low prices are sustainable and may become the “new normal”.

Think about that. Right now there are new companies and new models that are below the radar screen that will emerge as major powerhouses in a few years and they will be radically different from what's out there today. Thats kinda cool. Kinda scary too.

In a recession, the winners are able to make one of these two propositions:

1. I will get you new revenue for a variable cost that is lower than your current cost of revenue acquisition. Note, that does not mean invest a lot of money now in the belief that new revenue comes in. It means, your current cost of revenue is 30%, I will deliver you that revenue for 25%. Guaranteed, no revenue = no fee to us.
2. I will cut your costs now. Not, in 12 months, maybe, if it all works out. I will cut it now, this month, no investment needed. We are talking hard costs, external vendor costs, not fire a bunch of people to get the return; the latter is also popular in a recession but takes longer and is more painful and may also harm the business, who knows when it is muscles not fat that is being cut. But if you are replacing another vendor it is simple; “they cost you $100,000 per month, we cost $80,000 per month and I can prove that we are at least as good”.

Those are not easy things to deliver on, but if you can deliver on them you will win. If your start-up proposition is marginal, burning cash and the VCs are not calling, well it could get a bit messy. But if you have one of those propositions you can build a phenomenal business in a recession and there plenty of VCs willing to bankroll you to get there - if thats what you need.

Who do you see out there who can deliver what customers want in a recession?