I've been networking to identify prospective team members and funding. Twitter is helpful. But some blogs seem to attract more interesting people to me than others. To be honest the process is a little like groping in the dark. So when someone sends a signal, you probe to see if it is relevant to you. Here's one example. Look forward to updating this with what kind of reception we receive. . .
One blog with interesting people belongs to @FredWilson. In "Lead Investors, Dipshit Companies, and Funding Every Entrepreneur" Fred explains why he would have enjoyed being a part of a discussion at the Y Combinator Angel Conf with Paul Graham, Mike Arrington, and Ron Conway.
He ends the post by saying:
"Just like the entrepreneur needs to run the business, he or she should find an investor to run the investor group. I am someone who does that so if you are looking for a lead investor for your company come talk to me. If you don't want a lead investor, then don't knock on my door because I don't know any other way to be."
Sounds like he's looking for entrepreneurs who are looking for a lead investor so, I share some info about the kind of VC we're looking for:
2 questions: 1)Are there any VC's interested in alternatives to the Mass Media advertising business model? and 2)How do you find them?
I'm a marketing and media veteran who left the "inside" because I could see where things were going. In my opinion, mass media advertising is like wrinkle miracle ointments - some of the really expensive ones actually work. A lot of money is wasted on the rest finding this out.
I'm very excited about capitalizing on my knowledge of what would be a very competitive, superior alternative to mass media advertising. I've tried out some of my theories of what would be better. Admittedly, even when it works, it's hard to get on the radar. It's a chicken egg thing. It will take resources to disrupt that ambiguity.
In my experience, Venture money seems to be attracted exclusively to the Mass media advertising business model. I have wasted a lot of time in the past trying to educate those who weren't interested in learning. But, I hear things are changing.
Is that true?
Fred responds:
i would need to know more about what your approach is to give you an intelligent answer. /span>
So here's our response, which talks about the value of reception . . .
Fred, Crafting my response to you is like shooting in the dark. I think I have some receptivity here, but some commentators are anonymous or one-offs and I'm sure there are many "lurkers" (Yes you, hey there!).
A receptive audience is what everyone is looking for.
That's why everyone pays a premium to participate in live events. Individuals pay a premium to join others at live events. Sponsors pay a huge premium to be associated with these events. The premium paid for rights to broadcast these events is directly related to how full the stands are and how passionate the crowds.
Why do they pay more (and in advance)? A receptive audience delivers a reliable return on investment: Joe Blow can cheer and boo and (as long as he is civil) everyone else "gets him". Studies say sponsors of live events enjoy exponentially higher purchase intent and likeability ratings from those who participate. The broadcaster with live event coverage gets a premium share of monthly cable fees from MSO's (cable operators). ESPN gets the highest share of cable fees of any cable network. And cable fees are more important, 80%, than advertising, to ESPN's revenues.
The media market today has a reception problem. With few rare exceptions, everyone is wasting a lot of money and time trying to find a receptive "audience". An analogy is pre-cable television when we spent at least half the time adjusting the antenna and turning the knobs to get reception!
You wouldn't call that "interactive entertainment", would you? But aren't today's leaders in "interactive entertainment", Search (Google) and Social Networking (Facebook, Twitter), tools to improve reception?
To "leapfrog" today's standard for "interactive entertainment", our purpose is to help everyone who relates to a 'cultural community' spend less time and money finding reception and more participating - from anywhere and at different levels. We are designing our solution by reverse engineering how the gold standard of reception works - live event participation - to deliver something worth paying for by everyone.
When we succeed in increasing time spent participating, the door opens wide to grow demand and willingness to pay for technologies that make more nuanced, complex interactivity possible. That's why I think we offer value to a Venture investor on two levels. First by the return on an investment in our company. And by the receptivity we will create for other "premium" interactive technologies in their portfolio.
Fred, thanks for reading this. That goes for you too (even you "lurker"). If intrigued, drop me a line at katherine (at) comradity.com.
