Another piece of advice (equally for live or non-live TV): Keep mentioning your company name in your answers, even if in a normal conversation you wouldn't. This means if your conversation gets edited heavily (which it will if it's recorded TV) you'll make sure to get your company name in there at least once.
This article is not 100% clear on whether it means "true" investment or just paying for a service, which is not the same thing at all.
But regarding "true" investment, It's something we looked at 18 months ago when raising our Series A. At the time it was impossible due to SEC regs around accredited investors and max number of investors (deeper analysis here: http://www.startupcompanylawyer.com/2012/05/26/is-crowdfundi...) so we gave up. But it would be great to have simple ways of getting it done.
I just wish someone had edited Will.i.am's quote though... I think he thinks 'reading code' is like reading music or something...
“Here we are, 2013, we ALL depend on technology to communicate, to bank, and none of us know how to read and write code. It's important for these kids, right now, starting at 8 years old, to read and write code.“
I don't know qz.com's financials, but the ad:content ratio of a profitable publication is normally a lot higher than what they have. Which suggests they're either strategically de-prioritizing advertising for the short term in order to build up audience, or they are struggling to sell space.
In the long-term, I would expect that for you to continue to enjoy quality content on qz.com, you'll probably be disappointed by an increasing amount of advertising. Whether it's in-between scrolling articles, or in the form of advertorial, or a banner at the top of the screen, it will come :( Such is the way of the world.
You're right to ask the question. But (a) the site isn't optimized for you, and (b) Forbes is trying to make money. So your blog post comes across as (I'm sorry to say) naive.
If you want to find out these kinds of answers for yourself, try running an advertising-supported website for a few months — it could be genuinely interesting.
I was imagining a combination of metrics (and a heavy use of the Crunchbase API) that would allow you to guess their burn rate and cash remaining. Could be pretty cool. Maybe someone wants to build it?
I've been shocked since I moved to Japan about this. The most in-your-face example for me, was visiting Japanese real estate agents, looking for apartments. They'll often literally hand you a book of fax papers compiled together, four inches thick.
We've managed to survive mostly fax free at our startup and at home — but we own faxes in both places.
But my sense is, until there's something "ten times better" for the aging demographic who loves to fax, it ain't gonna change for the population at large (and it is, uh, large). Tablets (and the ability to write by hand) are one piece of the equation, but the paper-trail piece is harder.
No I guess you are right actually. I think I should have said "the government for allowing Adobe to take complete monopolistic control of an industry".
I have both a grudging respect and an intense dislike of Adobe for their complete ownership of the creative software space. It's kind of amazing, and it's the clearest example of a monopoly that I experience in my everyday life. Well done, I guess?
One of the more interesting things about this article, for me, was the fact that it's one of the few places where the author's [I assume unintentionally incorrect] use of the phrase "affect change" actually kind of makes sense. It's very common to make this mistake (http://grammarist.com/usage/affect-effect/), but it's very rare for it to make sense.
As in, architects may be able to "change" change. And that's maybe more interesting than the idea that they can create change.
"Planned and curated by dissident artist Ai Wei Wei, each pavilion represents a new path forward for architecture, at least in the mind of the designer." — Surely that's affecting change (changing "change").
You have a number of negotiation points here:
- Percentage ownership
- Vesting length
- Vesting cliff
- Hours you expect him to work
- Cash salary
- Bonus
- Title
And some questions to ask yourselves:
- How long have you been working on the project before he got involved?
- How much ownership in the idea/IP does he have?
- Do you all have the same definition of success? (e.g. does he want a long-term business or an acquisition? what does a 'successful exit' look like for you all)
- Is this going to be his only job or is he consulting on the side?
When you're all very clear about the above, it will be easier to come to a reasonable agreement. The "What does success look like?" question is the most important, and something that many startup founders are afraid to ask until it's too late.
A 2-year vesting schedule is not insane, but it begs the question of whether the guy thinks he is key to the business. It is certainly something that seed or A-round investors will want to increase if he is vital, and if he's not vital he shouldn't get 24% :)
As I recall we did something like...
if price < x, commission = y%
price > x, commission = y-5%
Regardless, hard to have a perfect transaction in this kind of thing from a buyer's point of view because by default you have imperfect information. Such is life.
Good post by Mark Suster here: http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2012/09/08/should-investo...