I ask myself, why do I need to answer a question about why RPM is different? Why do I need to answer to the “Real Question?” More importantly, why do I need to answer it publicly? Frankly, who asked? Who cares? While I can justify this by saying, “Entrepreneurs ask, or should ask,” a truer answer is as a firm we need to answer it for ourselves. Asking the question of ourselves forces us to do some self-reflection, and keeps us honest with ourselves about how we are moving through both work and life.
So what makes RPM different? Until now we always focused externally on discussing how we were different based on the The Five Things (from prior post: Brand, Relationships, Work Ethic, Capital, and Experience), because everyone else did. In fact, I think our answers based on The Five Things, are really good answers. Let me give you some examples (and this list could have been a lot longer):
- “We’re entrepreneurs; we won’t invest in a company unless we’d work there ourselves”
- “If we can’t add value, it means we shouldn’t invest.”
- “We don’t choose entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs choose us, and we don’t forget that.”
- “The top priority in our firm is the CEOs of our portfolio companies. We’ll drop everything for them, that is the responsibility that we take on when we invest.”
- “Early Stage DNA is at the core of our RPM’s culture. We love working with entrepreneurs who are just starting up, because they have the same DNA.”
- “We grew up in this industry in Silicon Valley, and our networks there may even be stronger than even here in the Great Lakes.”
- “We don’t compete with the big firms, we are partners to them. That is why so many of our deals get follow on financing from brand names, and why so many of our deals come to us from those firms.”
I have no doubt that every single one of the CEOs of our portfolio companies would attest to these. The reason I have no doubt, is the answers are authentic, and rules we truly live by. Our DNA hasn’t changed, we are early stage entrepreneurs. Tony and I did start our own companies prior to becoming VCs. RPM itself is a startup, just a different kind of startup. Everyone in our firm has that DNA and always will. Even our analyst (@melemmer) started her own business at 15 (Iorio’s Italian Ice).
However, these answers still don’t answer the “Real Question” about what our core values are. To answer this, as I described in the prior post, it isn’t a question about the firm but about the partners. One of the things I think all entrepreneurs should do is answer this question before starting their company. It aligns the team and sets the tone for the culture from the beginning. Practicing what I preach, my partner Tony Grover and I spent a long time discussing this as we were starting RPM. While sitting next to the Huron River in Nicholas Arboretum (which feeds into Lake Erie) over 10 years ago we discovered the answer. I say discovered, because it always existed vs. being invented. We just never tried to answer it together. The answer was one we felt we could build our lives and our firm around over the next 25 years, and have stayed true to it since. It is at the core of our actions and is a true reflection of who we are as a firm. The answer is based on four pillars:
- A Duty to Our Family
- A Duty to Our Business
- A Duty to Our Community
- A Civic Duty
I’ll tackle each of these individually over time, and in doing so will try to balance our “philosophy” with real actions that reflect this. For now though, I want to conclude by making an observation that is the heart of all four pillars. There is one universal term in each of these, Duty. Why Duty? I think the definition from Wikipedia covers it nicely.
“Duty is a term that conveys a sense of moral commitment to someone or something. The moral commitment is the sort that results in action and it is not a matter of passive feeling or mere recognition. When someone recognizes a duty, that person commits himself/herself to the cause involved without considering the self-interested courses of actions that may have been relevant previously. This is not to suggest that living a life of duty precludes one of the best sorts of lives but duty does involve some sacrifice of immediate self-interest.”
What Makes RPM Different, or The Real Question to Ask a VC
I’m frequently asked by entrepreneurs and investors, what makes RPM different? Every Venture Capitalist has some canned answer to this question that generally falls into one of these five categories (from here on “The Five Things”):
- Our Brand, look at who we are and what we’ve invested in
- Our Relationships, look at who we know and what doors we can open for your company
- Our Work Ethic, we work as hard as you do for you (or, we’re entrepreneurs too)
- Our Capital, our fund has the money it will take and with more in reserve
- Our Experience, we have an outstanding track record of success
Brand, Relationships, Work Ethic, Capital, and Experience. If you were to diligence us on any of the Five Things I think you’d walk away pleased. Covering the Five Things myself, though, I believe would be puffery. I’m fond of saying that when someone is investigating us, “the story is not about us, it is about our companies.” I think the entrepreneurs we work with are better at telling our story than we are. They can give insight into each of the partners and their experience with us with respect to the Five Things.
So how different are firms based on the Five Things? If you look at even just a small set of firms, on the surface it would be pretty difficult to really differentiate if you are getting the answer from the VCs themselves. The answers are canned, and start to all sound the same. So what can make a firm different? It’s the partners. Every entrepreneur has heard this, and we always tell it to our CEOs when they are going to raise capital, “it is not the firm. It is the partner.” So if we all agree that this makes sense (and I hope we do), and if understanding the Five Things can be determined through diligence, then what is it that makes the firm and its partners different?
I think that is determined by asking the “Real Question.” The Real Question is tougher to diligence and the thoughtfulness of the response alone tells you a lot about what makes the firm and its partners different. It can be asked in a lot of different ways, but it comes down to this: core principles. It might be something like: What are your core values and principles that make you who you are? Do you live by a code? What do you stand for?
Whether it is investing in a fund or raising capital from a fund, the reality is you are about to get married in some ways, and don’t you really want to know what makes that person tick? If you have your back up against the wall for example, a VCs contacts, experience, capital, etc.. are the weapons they have at their disposal. However, what you really want to know is whether that person will be right there with you and in what form. That you can only find out by asking the Real Question and getting a sense of who that person is before you ever get to that point.
If someone can answer this, and more importantly if their behavior is consistent with their answer, it will give you far better insight into who you might actually be working with and what they would be like as a long-term partner versus just hearing and answer to one of The Five Things. Over the next several posts I’m going to dig into this in more depth. I hope that this discussion causes a few things: 1) For everyone to ask themselves the Real Question. 2) For entrepreneurs raising money to ask the Real Question of investors. 3) To give entrepreneurs and investors talking to RPM our answer to the Real Question.
This is NOT my New Year’s Resolution
This is NOT a New Year’s resolution. Tragically, while I’ve kept up my tweeting (as promised below) my blogging has fallen by the wayside. It isn’t a lack of topics, but time. So as promised, I will re-engage and start working on the 15 some topics I already have in mind to write about.
The next blog post, to be posted today, I think is appropriate to share on December 31, 2010…as it will give you an understanding into the core philosophy that drives us and makes RPM and its partners different from others. I don’t just mean some lame strategy that we use to try to convince the world that we are “differentiated from other firms and value add investors” (though I believe our strategy and execution on that strategy is truly differentiated), but rather the underpinning code that we live by and makes up our firm culture and core principles.
It affects who we bring into our firm, who we partner with as co-investors, and who we invest in. It dictates how we spend our time and in 30 years from now when I’m too old to be a VC anymore, will still dictate how l live my life. So, this should setup the next blog post nicely and help frame it. More to come……
Labeled: Venture Capitalist (part 2) – Seed Stage, Early Stage
Late last week the Venture Capital Dispatch did a brief article based on some excerpts of a discussion with VCs and how they feel about angels (http://bit.ly/cE2gQq). This week Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch put out a story about Super Angels colluding and working against VCs (http://tcrn.ch/b8z7CX). I’m not as concerned with the articles themselves as much as it reinforces for me the universal confusion around the labels attached to early stage investing.
Seed Investment. Series A. Gap Funding. Angel. Super Angel. Seed Stage Venture Capital. Early Stage Venture Capital. These labels are all used frequently and there is no consistent vernacular at all! I tend to find everyone has a slightly different definition. This phenomenon is exaggerated in the Great Lakes Region as we have a smaller community of angels and VCs and many use the same labels but do vastly different things.
How does one decode these labels and what do they really mean? Let me start with my firm, RPM which forms the basis of my vernacular:
- GROUP 1: We frequently invest in companies that come to us as two people and a trick duck (entrepreneurs with just an idea or maybe some basic product definition). We work with them to flesh out their business model and first product. These are deals we have sourced and lead, and provided their first capital. Sometimes their first office has been our own office. These are not just exclusively web 2.0 companies either: Mobius Microsystems (acquired by IDT), R4 Global Services (acquired by Verisign), BountyJobs, and Mojo Motors to name a few. Sometimes the investment is a note that converts into a preferred round that we lead, and sometimes the investment is preferred stock from the beginning.
- GROUP 2: We often have invested in companies that do not have a finished product or revenue, but have a team and a product roadmap. Often we are coming in to deepen the pockets at the table, and usually within the first 6 months after the company got its initial financing. These deals often come to us from an angel or other VCs. Examples of these include: Performix, Glyde, ShareThis, and TetraVitae.
- GROUP 3: Sometimes we have invested in companies that have a product, some revenue and are raising capital to scale. Most of these deals come to us from other VCs whom bring us in because of either our expertise or relationships. Some examples are Applimation (acquired by Infomatica), Entropic (Nasdaq: ENTR), Openlane and Xtime.
So how would you label my firm? If I asked 20 different entrepreneurs and VCs I guarantee I’d get 20 different answers. There is such a lack of consistency that unfortunately for us, entrepreneurs jump to conclusions about what we actually invest in because we are VCs. So which one are we? Honestly, I’ve gotten to the point I just tell people the range of what we’ll invest in (like above) and let them draw their own conclusion. However let me evaluate some of these labels:
Seed Investment, Series A investment– These are my favorite labels for confusion. Most people would say that a seed investment is the first money in. However someone just said to me, “the perception is as venture fund, you are Series A investor.” That’s true, but we are also frequently the first money in, sometime with angels. So are seed and Series A mutually exclusive? No, they aren’t. Seed is not a round, it is a stage. Series A is a classification for preferred stock. For some people, they define a seed round as having to be a small round too. Right….. What is a small round? In silicon valley a seed round may be a few million dollars. In the Great Lakes region it may be $50,000 – $100,000. Conclusion: RPM is a seed stage investor and a Series A investor, and they can be the same thing.
Gap Funding – Let me start by saying WTF is this one? I think there are a group of non-investors in the Great Lakes region who made this one up to make themselves seem important or needed. Universities use the phrase. Economic development agencies use it. Does it define a stage? I’m sure someone who claims they understand the life cycle of investments would say it’s the commercialization gap. What the heck is the commercialization gap? Money needed to take a product commercial? Really? Every university deal I’ve ever been involved with needs a $3-5M Series A and sometimes a larger Series B round before they can scale a product and sell it. Every web 2.0 seed stage deal often needs $500,000 – $1M (sometimes in the form of sweat equity) to get a product out. I often find that people try to define gap funding by size of the round. Is it $100,000 to $300,000? Okay so maybe I’ll relent and say it does define a size of a round. That size round will get very very few companies to commercial viability. However, a Series A could be that size, though that size is usually a convertible note. I think I just confused myself, because I’m still not sure what gap funding is! I challenge everyone in the Great Lakes region to find people who agree on what it is. Better yet, can tell me why we lack it, as I hear that one all the time in the Great Lakes “we lack gap funding!” How can you lack something that defines the size of a round? Do we not have people who do smaller rounds? Let me point something out…there is no Fund in the state of Michigan and most of the Great Lakes that is so big they can’t provide $100,000 – $300,000 round or at least make that amount part of a tranched larger round. So if what we are really saying is that we don’t have enough professional seed stage investors, that I will agree to. Conclusion: RPM is a gap funder, and gap funding defines the first $100,000 to $300,000 in a deal.
Angel and Super Angel – These are a little easier to decode. We have a fund, so we aren’t angels, but I have personally been an angel a number of times. What about the phrase Angel Round? Its it always first money in, sometimes a note and sometimes preferred stock? RPM will be the first money in a deal, may do a note, and then later put together a full round. Super Angels are typically a fund that does the same thing, so are we a Super Angel? Firms like SoftTech Ventures (I’ve known Jeff a long time, and he is a great guy) are Super Angels. Many will say a Super Angel is typically a single GP fund, has lighter diligence, and lower governance. That being said, Jeff was a traditional VC? He knows how to provide value and governance. RPM digs in on diligence to really understand the business so we can add value, and views governance even at the earliest stages as a necessary and good thing for companies (entrepreneur and investor alike). However we are a multiple GP fund. Conclusion: RPM is not a Super Angel, but invests at the same time, terms and size as many super angels.
Seed Stage and Early Stage Venture Fund – You’ll note that we are no longer using the term “Investment”, we are defining this by “Stage”. We’ve covered the Seed Stage well, and it is clear we are Seed Stage investors. What about Early Stage though? Seed Stage is early. So are all Seed Stage investors also Early Stage? Here is where the confusion comes in. Most people would say, no! I’ve heard the phrase Early Stage used to apply to firms that invest in Series A, B & C. As we know, from above though, Series does not represent stage. So is a company with $5 million in revenue early? $10 million? $20 million? Early relative to what? How old it is? Relative to its ultimate size? It can’t be related to profitability because I’ve seen plenty of “Late Stage” deals that are not profitable and Early Stage deals that are. However, we do some deals that aren’t Seed, so maybe everything that isn’t seed is Early, no matter what. Conclusion: From Group 1 and Group 2 above, RPM could be called Seed Stage. From Group 2 and Group 3 above, RPM could be called Early Stage.
So now that I laid out all the confusion and have again done a fantastic job at not really saying anything, let me provide the following advice to entrepreneurs: Figure out how much capital you need and what stage you are in, then go get the best investor you can find that matches the criteria. Don’t include or exclude a group because of a label, rather find out what they really do. Some VCs may provide what you are looking for, and others may not, but they may have exact same label.
For my part, on the next release of the RPM web site, it will say Seed and Early Stage Venture Fund. However, I will also include a page that tells people exactly what we invest in, and examples of amounts and stage so that there is never any confusion. What is clear is that in this industry, these labels are truly confusing.
Labeled: Venture Capitalist (part 1) – Midwest, Michigan, or Ann Arbor VC?
There is an old joke about a pushy guy who jumps a line at a check-out counter and the clerk tells him to go to the back of the line. The man retorts, “Do you know who I am?” The clerk responds by getting on the PA system and announcing “We have someone here who doesn’t know who he is. Can someone in the store help?”
A few weeks ago I was being interviewed and the reporter referred to me as an “Ann Arbor Venture Capitalist.” I corrected him, and suggested “Michigan Venture Capitalist.” Then I recalled a series of conversations I had recently around the Great Lakes region; In Chicago someone described me as a Midwest VC. In Grand Rapids another person described me as part of the East Side VCs. I just think of myself as VC. However, with all of these labels I begun to have an identity crisis of my own and was reflecting on the impact of these labels on the rest of the region.
The biggest question I asked myself is, do these labels create silos or segregation of the venture communities in the region? I would contend that it does, and worse yet I’ll make the case that it has effectively harmed the entire entrepreneurial culture in the region. Let us look at a couple of uncomfortable but real facts:
- Entrepreneurs in the region and every sub part of the region universally complain about a lack of capital locally.
- The region is viewed by Silicon Valley and New England as a fly over zone.
- The region does not have very many sustained stand-alone traditional venture funds at almost any stage.
- Every sub-market of the region has its own economic development, entrepreneurial fast start initiatives, and entrepreneur’s gatherings that have moved the needle, but not nearly enough.
For the most part all of these are a result of the little cross-boundary interaction. Economic development agencies in the region all have programs that don’t seem to be synchronized. Entrepreneurs in Chicago, for example, have no awareness of who are the VCs in Michigan or Ohio. I can count on one hand the number of venture funds in the entire Great Lakes region that has $100 million or more in their current fund. And, while none of us admit it, most VCs in the region don’t defend the region to our buddies on the coasts; we simply like to wear the “crazy for staying in the Midwest” badge like it is a special honor that they couldn’t hack.
Of course, everyone hates the person that just complains about problems, and doesn’t offer any solutions. Especially me. While these aren’t specific, here are some suggestions on ways to improve our community in the region:
1) Stop Viewing Other Venture Firms in the Region as Competition. VCs in the region need to share their best deals first with the other firms in the region, and need to do so aggressively. I’m the first to say it, even in Ann Arbor, in just one city it seems like there is little trust or cooperation and it extends across the region. We need to stop viewing each other as competitors and start actively trying to build syndicates for current and future rounds as much as possible here. This has the added bonus that when we do have a big win, institutional investors will take notice and realize that if they aren’t investing in Great Lakes funds they will miss out because the coastal funds aren’t getting access to the region’s best deals. For example, ShareThis (400M users, nearly 1 million sites) was a deal put together and owned primarily by 4 funds with operations in the region (Blue Chip, DFJ Merucry, Illinois Ventures, and us – RPM).
2) Entrepreneurs need to think Great Lakes, Not Just my City. Entrepreneurs in the Region need to familiarize themselves with every VC in the region, and get introductions to them. Getting in a car and driving from Ann Arbor to Cincinnati is easy to do. Know who writes first checks and who doesn’t. Make sure you go to networking events in multiple cities. The reality is, there isn’t a ton of capital here, but the entrepreneurial community isn’t that large either. If you are willing to look, there are enough firms in the region to support Seed, Series A, and Series B rounds for every type of company. You just have to be willing to go find them. The value? Someone in your own backyard who is active and hands on.
3) States must Partner to Compete. Every state in the region says they want to compete with Silicon Valley. Michigan alone can’t do it. Illinois alone can’t, etc… For any state in the region to compete effectively, it needs to be done as a region. MEDC (Michigan), DCEO (Illinois), Third Frontier (Ohio), and the other economic development organizations all need to find a way to cooperate and have some continuity between programs. If a Fund in Ohio invests in a Michigan deal that becomes a success, then we all win.
The good news is we are starting to see some of this movement. The Midwest Governors Association is having a small summit on this topic today. The Midwest Healthcare Investors Network has built some co-operation in the life science/med tech space. Michigan Growth Capital Symposium and Invest Midwest are gaining momentum and really beginning to pull VCs in the region together.
These are earnest beginnings, but they are just that. If the entire entrepreneurial and venture community in the region doesn’t adopt some of these ideals as a part of our core attributes, in 20 years we’ll look up and we’ll still see the planes flying over.
By the way, the answer from now on is a “Great Lakes Venture Capitalist.”
Labeled: Venture Capitalist (preface)
Labels can be a fantastic tool for recognizing who someone is, what they do, where they are from, and a host of other positive and useful references. Doctor. Governor. Professor. American. Goat Roper. Of course we also know that labels can be awful derogatory tools of bigots, classists, protectionists, and every other horrible thing mankind has been able to come up with. No examples necessary. I’m certain you already know this.
Of course, tongue in cheek as it may be, I’m not surprised that are many who have come up with derogatory terms for VCs. Vulture Capitalist. Venture Crapitalist. In fact I’d love to hear from others some good ones. There are VCs who behave badly and these modifications of the label Venture Capitalist are at times deserved, but I digress. However, I find that in the Great Lakes region the label Venture Capitalist has dozens of different meanings and modifications. Too often the label leads to confusion and assumptions that confound far too many interactions I have.
In Silicon Valley and Boston, it is probably pretty clear what someone means when the label Venture Capitalist is used, but those regions are dominated by an entrepreneurial culture and the venture industry. In the Great Lakes region our challenge is a little more complex. We are viewed as a fly over zone. We have entrepreneurs who are running for the coasts and entrepreneurs that complain about the region lacking any venture financing at all. While the reasons for this are numerous, and I will tackle some of them over time, there are three “labels” I want to address that I believe has contributed in no small way to our region’s problems:
- The label Venture Capitalist: While this seems basic, lots of people like to use this label, but shouldn’t. The number of real funds in the Great Lakes region is relatively small, and because of this it has created room for soothsayers to play at being at venture capitalists. At best this can confuse some entrepreneurs and at worst leave entrepreneurs with a negative experience.
- Early Stage Venture Capitalist: This label has far too many definitions and the vernacular for this label is inconsistent and confusing to entrepreneurs and other VCs alike. Entrepreneurs most often struggle to find their first capital and think that because someone is labeled early stage venture capitalist, they should be interested in investing in their just formed company. When it is just too early for that fund, entrepreneurs become bitter because of a bad label. Worse (for RPM in particular) is when an entrepreneur thinks their idea/business is too early and doesn’t even approach us.
- Midwest Venture Capitalist, Michigan Venture Capitalist, Ann Arbor Venture Capitalist: These labels have caused the Great Lakes Region to create dozens of silos that have fragmented the venture community in the region. With the rare exception, venture funds within the region have not pulled together and backed each other’s best deals. As an industry we perpetuate the notion that we are a fly over zone by not partnering with VCs in the region on deals as a first option.
Over the last month I’ve had a discussion on each one of these labels with other VCs and entrepreneurs alike and from those discussions it became clear to me that these labels are a real issue. Each label deserves its own independent post, which I’ll deliver in 3 additional parts. I believe that if entrepreneurs and VCs begin to rethink these labels it will improve the quality of our funds and companies in our region. Or at least improve the communication between all of us, which will be a good start.
Next up – Labeled: Venture Capitalist (part 1)
Breaking the Deafening Silence
So I was considering a conversation I had a few nights ago with Blair Garrou and Aziz Gilani (both of DFJ Mercury) on twittering and blogging. Should I get into this? Should I brand as a VC through tweeting and blogging? Seems like it should be a no brainer, right? I invest in web 2.0 companies; I’ve been an internet entrepreneur since the days of Andreesen; and I have a broad network of friends who have helped create many of the business models on the internet today.
The answer isn’t that easy for me, in fact it is a tough question for me to answer. Here is why I HAVE NOT blogged or tweeted to date:
- By nature I’m not a public person. I don’t find it compelling to check-in or shout out, or share every thought or activity!
- I am an old fashion network and relationship builder, my friends and colleagues know this about me. I’m not the type to post to the world to let everyone know I am riding an exercise bike because it is raining (which I am right now). I am the guy that will always help a friend and try to be generous in any way possible be it, advice, contacts, or sometimes money. To do that, I don’t need to blog about it.
- I’m a notoriously bad speller.
- I’m not inspired personally by the medium. For example I joined Facebook originally because I have some good friends who were early senior execs there and I wanted to support them. I use it sparingly today when I’m either experimenting, or have some very specific purpose for my post or pictures.
- As a VC, I have always said this industry is not about us! Publicity and notoriety should be for the entrepreneurs and companies in our portfolio. Entrepreneurs are the heroes, VCs are not. Blogging and tweeting struck me as a distraction from that message.
- I have little time at a real keyboard and a blackberry makes my spelling and writing worse.
- If you have something to say as a VC, it should be about a milestone achieved, not what you intend on doing. Your track record and actions are what matter and build you respect not your opinions and presence. Usually those are easy enough to see or find without crowing about it on your own.
- Like the prior comment, I’m annoyed by arm wavers; people who say look at me I’ve arrived. Worse are those that enter the conversation, positioning themselves as experts (and probably aren’t), but never actually do anything.
- Finally, some of the VCs I respect most in the industry, those whose guidance and counsel I have been honored to receive, don’t blog, tweet, show up in the press, and they have track records that leave any entrepreneur or VC in awe.
As I said though, the conversation with Blair and Aziz, made me think. Are there compelling reasons for me to build a public persona around my firm and investing? I thought about a variety of business and personal reasons, and came up with some compelling ones:
- I am a known ranter! I’ve never been blamed for not having an opinion, and if you engage me on a discussion on a topic I’m passionate about, look out. I’ve been on some 5-10 minute roles before where I will level all in front of me with my conviction and beliefs about a topic. The good news is my friends and colleagues also know this about me and have to date humored me about it. I have been this way for a long time. Blogging and tweeting provide me an outlet for this personality flaw/trait.
- I have worked on, participated in and built a lot of programs and resources that people aren’t aware of. I’m not looking to be patted on the back, but as a result of my extreme contempt for talkers/arm wavers I feel compelled to take action on the topics I care about. In other words, I don’t just rant, I try to turn that passion into action. From a personal reputation perspective, I want to make sure those that have just met me, can easily discover that I don’t just rant, that I take action. In today’s age, people immediate go to the web to check someone out, so it makes some sense to make sure I’m “out there.”
- Whether I like it or not, my previous activities and achievements have given me a voice, and maybe even one of authority. I’m allowed to be self-deprecating here and say things like I have an opinion, but no one actually listens. However, I’m aware enough of myself to know that it isn’t true. Maybe it isn’t a lot of people, but for better or worse people are listening.
- VC’s who I respect and do work with frequently blog, tweet, facebook, etc….so if those I respect are active then I certainly better be considering it.
- Most of the time the activities/stories I’m involved with are best told by someone else, but not always. Sometimes to be accurate and understood, the message has to be in your own voice.
- I’m not perfect and have self promoted. However, I believe it is okay to have some level of promotion around hard work and dedication, not puffery.
- According to some, I’m the “Kevin Bacon” of Ann Arbor, and apparently am supposed to know what is going on in the entrepreneurial and venture communities in Michigan. This makes me laugh, but VC is a small industry in the Midwest, and by being out there through blogging and tweeting, hopefully that leads to me becoming more informed by others sharing with me.
So as you can tell by reading this, it seems if I have made the decision to go ahead and enter the blogosphere and twitterdom. As I enter into this, though there are a few things I am going to try to avoid:
- Tell everyone I had a great meal, bottle of wine, or love the weather.
- Get into a Twitter Storm or flame war.
- Retweet form someone else unless it is something that has deep meaning to me.
- Engage in a debate via twitter or blog. If you want to do that, call me or e-mail me.
- Keep the rest of my posts pithy and to the point (unlike this one), using the tried and true 5 paragraph persuasive editorial. Which by the way, if people adhered to in their blogs and e-mails, would make us all better communicators.
So there we go, I will be breaking out of my mold (which is good from time to time), but still try to keep some rules. I’ve already built a list of over 20 topics, so no excuse for not knowing what to write about. I’m always open to feedback, so bring it on.
Also, next topic: On being labeled a VC, Midwest VC, Michigan VC, or Ann Arbor VC.
