« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
June 20, 2007
The Name Game
From appearances, one of the most difficult decisions that a set of founders make about their early stage company is what to call the company and/or first product (often one in the same). The name game appears to be so difficult because, at the end of the day, the rationale for each choice is largely subjective. For this reason, the process often becomes one that antagonizes the company for too long. But it shouldn’t be that way.
It is one thing to have a couple people involved generating and filtering options, and then it’s whole other when too many other constituents (investors, advisors, employees, marketing vendors) are sharing (read: strongly lobbying for) their disparate opinions as well. The last situation you want is a board meeting with bunch of VCs brainstorming name ideas. Ugh. (The only thing worse is asking that group for their thoughts on how the logo should look and what colors to use.) The situation is only exasperated by the limitations of .com domain names available these days or the willingness of everyone to pay up for one that’s parked.
In thinking about this post, I tried to come up with a solid list of go-to rules of thumb to guide in this exercise (e.g. "the name should describe/evoke what the company does," "it should have five letters or less for simplicity sake," "there should no mistake on how the name is pronounced”, etc., etc.). But then I realized not only are these rules broken occasionally, they’re broken often… and very successfully. I think the only rule that matters in a naming process is that founder(s) should listen to all advice but then absolutely trust their own gut as to what runs parallel to their vision. And then everyone should quickly move on. The hurt feelings will fade over time, and if the decision turns out to be the wrong one, it can always be changes later (with costs, of course).
June 6, 2007
Sharing Space... and More
I’ve posted in the past how I enjoy visiting entrepreneurs in their own offices, as you can learn a lot about a startup in the way it expresses itself through the space which it occupies and uses. Over the past few weeks, it feels like I’ve been talking to about an increasing number of very early-stage startups which are choosing shared space situations – everything from formal shared office space environments, to looser arrangements, to spending time within VC firm’s offices. I think that this decision really reflects how the founders feel about communication and collaboration.
In a great post, Nabeel Hyatt calls Cambridge "the new hub of Northeast startups" with which I agree (non-coincidentally, it’s home to both the Web Innovators Group and Venrock’s local office here). In this area, we of course have the structured Cambridge Innovation Center, but other less formal arrangements are popping up as well. For example, I visited the gang over at the 13 Magazine Street outside Central Sq. last week, and loved the layout and composition. There is an intangible quality about joint-occupied spaces with other early stage startups surrounding you, and you can see it there.
Of course, pooling shared fixed-cost resources diminishes expenses vs. individual office locations, which is essential for any bootstrapping startup. But beyond that, I am of the opinion that there is real value in the "hallway effect" of sharing ideas, experiences, and frustrations with others embarking on similar (but separate) endeavors. Virtual teams do work, and because of communication technology, are increasingly effective. But there is something to be said about sharing a space with others participating in a community of similar pursuits. Eventually a startup grows up and does needs more – more desks, more conference rooms, more resources. But very early on in company formation, a startup can truly benefit from more ideas, more feedback, and more community.