Over the past 48 hours, movie enthusiasts stormed my front door with pitchforks, demanding my head. I responded to the first 100 comments to my post about rethinking the movie theater experience, but was then overwhelmed by another 300, not to mention the tweets. So. many. tweets. To catch folks up:

• On Saturday I jotted a quick blog post about how for some movies, I’d love a theater experience that was separate from the traditional viewing experience and catered to people who wanted to talk, multitask, use the internet while watching.
• I expected a few “awesomes” and a few “horribles” from the people who normally read my blog. Instead it got picked up by several sites and RTed with commentary by some film lovers and creative professionals. The result was 20k+ pageviews and strong feelings that were pretty unexpected in their intensity. I received a number of private messages – from friends, strangers and industry executives – in support but clearly those were dwarfed.
• There were three categories of commentary, which I’ll summarize below as part of trying to understand the reaction.

1. This Shouldn’t Exist, You’ll Ruin My Movie Experience

To be honest, two days later, I still don’t understand this comment. I’m suggesting a separate theater within a multiplex that has an alternative viewing atmosphere for certain types of movies. If anything, this would get the rude people out of your theater and into mine. The traditional viewing experience – dark theater, no cell phone, no talking, no getting up in the middle of the movie, etc – I agree with that. I think I’d watch the majority of my movies that way too. So I don’t understand how a different, opt-in experiment ruins your experience. My best guess is that it became a flashpoint for frustration with behaviors people currently experience when they go to the movies, assuming I was the type of person who thinks it’s ok for me to do whatever I want in a theater.

Some folks made secondary arguments: that permitting this in some theaters would create new social norms in the existing ones. That it would be one less theater screen to exhibit films the traditional way despite there being thousands and thousands of screens already. Those are pretty nuanced assumptions.

Other folks told me to stay home and watch by myself where I can fully control the environment. The rise in home systems suggests this is a very popular option but it’s not a substitute for (a) first run movies that are (b) watched in a theater setting with a (c) critical mass of people. There’s a social, communal event that I still desire, not just to bend the way the world works to my will.

2. You Are Disrespectful to the Movie Industry

Let me start with a statement: I love movies and greatly value the creative professionals who work on them. I subscribed to Film Threat as a kid, am not embarrassed to go to the theater by myself, and frequently support film projects on Kickstarter (eg: Graffiti Rock, Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary).

So what happened – why did this post become about my hatred of movies instead my love of them? Two reasons:

1. My post crossed over to an audience that doesn’t know me
2. I wrote too glibly and put a portion of my foot in my mouth

First, the crossover. As I said in the intro, I expected my normal blog readership to weigh in and tell me whether this was a good idea. These folks mostly have context for who I am beyond this single post. If they think I’m wrong, they tell me, but generally don’t consider me the antichrist. However with social media, you can sometimes crossover to an audience unfamiliar with you. On Twitter, there was almost no mention of my post from the 500+ people I follow, but my @ tab was filled with people I didn’t know, wishing horrible things would befall me. On the internet, a statement becomes contextless, curated and summarized. So to thousands of people I became “an asshole investor taking a dump on the altar of film.”

With regards to the glibness – I didn’t make clear that I value the creative and physical sweat of making movies. And my very suggestion – one which I still stand by (more on that at the bottom) – broke movies into two classes of films: those ‘worth’ paying attention to and those ‘not worthy’ of my full attention. Some folks assumed that I would want to multitask during their favorite films – Chinatown being one example (saw it, loved it, would not want to watch it in a social theater). So I wish I was more clear about respecting the medium.

That said, I’ve always felt voting with your wallet is the best way to support the creative arts. Get painters, musicians, actors, filmmakers, etc PAID. My sentiment was “boy there are some films that I don’t watch today, which I’d love to pay for if they gave me a different way to view them.” I saw it no different than the windowing choice consumers make on theatrical vs VOD vs cable etc. Especially given the tentpole, highly commercial movies I was using as examples – with merch tie-ins, etc – I don’t think you can separate art + commerce.

3. You Literally Represent Everything Wrong With The World

Both with and without proper context my idea became a lightning rod for three larger issues:

• Arts Being Commercialized: Sequels, 3D, tentpole movies, declining theater audience in the US, Spielberg/Lucas predicting the ‘implosion‘ of the movie industry — my experimental suggestion was another hack at an institution many people value and hold dear.
• Attention Spans Shortening, Technology Controlling Our Lives: “If you can’t pay attention for two hours I feel sorry for you” – I heard this a lot. I’ve experimented with different types of attention modification, even going to a week long silent meditation retreat. For many the movie theater is a sanctuary where they can withdraw from connectivity and immerse themselves in an alternate reality. My suggestion was a pin to that bubble.
• Technology Community Wants The World to Cater to Them: Especially in the posts which emphasized I am a Venture Capitalist, this was indicative of asshole techies being at best, out of touch with the rest of the world, and at worst, making the world more exclusionary. Not my intent. I believe the tech community actually needs to often get its head out of its ass and realize there are some things we think are problems that aren’t generally considered by others to be priorities.

I don’t expect this follow-up post to be read by nearly the # of people who read the original but the resulting reaction caused me to pause and consider my words. I’m sure some will still say “you just wrote another 1,000 words proving you’re an asshole.” So be it.

As for my idea about a separate, social, connected viewing experience – maybe something which feels like the modern day equivalent of the participatory midnight movie Rocky Horror showing – I still want to try it out. Maybe I’ll hate it. Maybe enough people won’t like it to make it commercially viable, but I’m really interested. So I’m looking for a place in San Francisco. Maybe sell tickets as a charitable donation to a film preservation society or digital divide organization like Ghetto Film School. Like most experiments, you don’t know until you try…..

Update 8/5: Wrote a response to the unexpected interest & negativity to my proposal

Update 8/8: Thanks to actor Elijah Wood for explaining why he disagrees with this idea; also to Anil Dash who takes a broader look at the feedback this post has received in the context of cultural norms.

Update 8/10: Thanks to @mike_ftw for hosting an extended chat on his podcast Let’s Make Mistakes. 

In my 20s I went to a lot of movies. Now, not so much. Over the past two years becoming a parent has been the main cause but really my lack of interest in the theater experience started way before that. Some people dislike going to the movies because of price or crowds, but for me it was more of a lifestyle decision. Increasingly I wanted my media experiences plugged in and with the ability to multitask. Look up the cast list online, tweet out a comment, talk to others while watching or just work on something else while Superman played in the background. Of course these activities are discouraged and/or impossible in a movie theater.

But why? Instead of driving people like me away from the theater, why not just segregate us into environments which meet our needs. I’d love to watch Pacific Rim in a theater with a bit more light, wifi, electricity outlets and a second screen experience. Don’t tell me I’d miss major plot points while scrolling on my ipad – it’s a movie about robots vs monsters. I can follow along just fine.

If you took a theater or two in a multiplex and showed the types of films which lend themselves to this experience I bet you’d sell tickets. Maybe even improve attendance during the day since I could bang out emails with a 50 foot screen in front of me. My epic out of office message could read “away from desk – watching Iron Man 3.”

Having spent 9+ years at Google/YouTube before leaving to raise our Homebrew seed fund, I know a little bit about ‘golden handcuffs.’ And the truth is, if you’re a high performer focused on maximizing wealth, you’d be unlikely to ever quit Google, Facebook, Apple, etc (unless you want to roll the dice and found a company. side note: if you do, pls email me). Even if you prize intellectual challenge in addition to your handsome paycheck, these companies (decide if you want to add Twitter, Amazon, etc to the mix) will always have a new opportunity for you which magically appears just as you’re about to quit. “Oh, before you accept that job at Square, how’d you like to work on Google X?” I see this happen all the time – a valued employee prepares to leave and a very attractive comp bump and/or new role makes it easy for them to stay.

BUT WAIT, there’s one question to ask yourself periodically, especially when considering a new assignment over an external opportunity, and that question is:

Imagine you were at a different job you loved and a recruiter from [Google/Apple/Facebook] called you to offer you your current job at [Google/Apple/Facebook], would you chase it? Or in other words, would you re-apply today for the job you currently have?

It’s a rather simplistic question but one which I believe gets to the heart of whether you’re just comfortable, well-compensated, doing something familiar or really pursuing something personally meaningful. The reality is, there’s nothing wrong with not leaving, just don’t play this game with yourself or other companies about “ooh maybe I want to leave, maybe I don’t.”

But if you do answer “no, I wouldn’t fight hard for the job I have” then you owe it to yourself to find something that you can be excited about. This was one of the fundamental questions I asked myself when leaving Google/YouTube. There were several other really compelling opportunities being presented to me within the company and that vesting schedule was nice, but it would have meant professional cardiac arrest. No heartbeat. Not passionate. And I needed to create something that got me pumping 200 bpm.

Here’s what I want: a simple way to look up any celebrity/politician/athlete/public figure and see which social media sites they have accounts on with links to their official accounts. I want to be able to meta-follow a celebrity via this site to be alerted when they create a new account (eg “Rihanna just joined Vine at acct <link>”). And I’d like to see in the listing their last publish date for the site in order to tell whether they are active.

Pretty sure you could crowdsource this list via superfans. If not as a standalone site, it would be a good addition to IMDB or Wikipedia. I’d prefer it to not be part of TMZ, etc because those pages are so heavy with images, ads and bulky site templates.

Does this exist yet? Why not?

Is the American political system a 250 year old OS, filled with bugs and patched so many times that it can barely function? We’ve all experienced frustration of one sort or another at local, state and federal level. While government seems to move slowly, the tech industry professes to be all about speed and disruption. Given these opposing natural rhythms it’s all too easy for our community to say “fuck it” and lean away from getting involved in the political system. Up until a few years ago, this was certainly my reaction. But recently through grassroots involvement in the SOPA/PIPA movement and a chance to spend time assisting the Obama For America tech team, I’ve realized we instead must educate. Out of both opportunity to bring our collective voices to bear and out of necessity given the numerous ways our startups are impacted by legislation.

Josh Mendelsohn has given me the opportunity to join the Advisory Board of Engine, a research group and policy coalition he co-founded to help bring startups and government closer together. Alongside a great staff and fellow Advisors such as Ron Conway, Brad Feld, John Lilly, we’re using data and ideas, not paid lobbying, in order drive future legislation. For example, Engine was behind the Keep Us Here immigration reform campaign this past May, bringing the tech community together to tell the Senate how vital high quality global talent is to US entrepreneurship. Engine is also funding an increasing amount of economic research, beginning in 2012 with their first Technology Works Study [pdf] and continuing to provide hard evidence that technology companies and technical efficiencies are the drivers of job growth and wealth creations for Americans. Engine also plays an ongoing role working to expose politicians to key startups and thought leaders during their trips to Silicon Valley and other tech hubs.

My newly launched seed stage venture fund Homebrew is focused on the Bottom Up Economy, where SMBs and individuals are driving economic growth and innovation. This is in contrast to a Top Down Economy where only large corporations had access to the resources and marketplaces needed to succeed. A hallmark of the Top Down Economy is using politics as a weapon to maintain status quo. I’m excited to use my new position at Engine to help provide lawmakers with very tangible examples of innovation and introduce them to not just the businesses we’ve invested in, but our community as a whole.

Learn more about Engine and opportunities to get involved by visiting their website.

There’s a growing trove of info to help startups raise their rounds but if you’re looking to raise a venture fund, the advice is pretty sparse. Now that we’ve publicly announced Homebrew, I’m able to share some of the details which went into its creation. My goals are threefold:

1. Pay it forward being transparent  for future first-time fund managers
   
2. Close the investor < > entrepreneur perception gap – Satya and I believe Homebrew is a startup which writes checks instead of code. You can see our fundraising experience wasn’t that different than two startup founders might have.
   
3. Journal it for myself
   

To begin, here’s a short summary and timeline.

• January 2013: Homebrew starts fundraising from institutional LPs
  
• February 2013: Fundraising leaks via Fortune (yes, potential investors blab to press)
  
• March 2013: First lead institutional commitment is secured
  
• April 2013: We agree to terms with three other institutional LPs, several smaller LPs and a few individuals to round out the fund. The four lead institutions contributed ~92% of the fund and the other investors rounded out the total.
  

With that context let’s cover (a) how to find fund investors, (b) why we got to “yes” and (c) what a “no” looks like.

How to Find Fund Investors

While there are plenty of sources of money (individuals/family offices, strategics, venture funds being three of the most common), we hoped to build Homebrew’s base with top institutional investors (fund of funds, foundations, endowments). Institutional LPs were desirable for Homebrew because of their goal to build a longterm platform with us across multiple funds, their ability to bring additional capital to bear in special situations and their broad perspective on the marketplace.

In general finding fund investors – esp institutional LPs – is more difficult than identifying startup investors – there’s no AngelList equivalent and these investors don’t blog or have websites with detailed information about their firms and investment strategies. We were fortunate to have some existing relationships via Satya’s time at Battery Ventures but what really helped were warm introductions from other early stage funds.

So what did our funnel look like?

• ~40 initial emails all via warm intro to investors familiar with early stage tech
  
• ~20 of which converted into phone calls or meetings
  
• 10 of those 20 turned into multiple conversations
  
• 5 said yes within our timeframe, of which four became part of the fund
  

Startup Lessons

• Don’t pitch strangers -> introductions to investors from their existing portfolio is best
  
• Research their current portfolios and biases
  
• It’s always mutual -> ask questions to qualify fit, interest
  
• Your pitch might leak to press so decide beforehand what to do if it becomes public
  

Why We Got to Yes

One thing you can’t control in fundraising is perception of your marketspace. The success of first generation early stage firms was of great benefit in raising Homebrew. If folks like Baseline, Harrison Metal, Floodgate, Lowercase, First Round, Freestyle, SoftTech, Felicis, K9 and others hadn’t shown early success it would have been much more difficult. Ok, enough about them, let’s go back to patting ourselves on the back 😉

In hindsight there were three questions our investors needed to get comfortable with in order to commit.

1. Can these guys be great professional investors?
   
2. WIll entrepreneurs and co-investors want to work with them?
   
3. How strong is their partnership?
   

We had the benefit of Satya’s Battery track record to establish credibility on our quality of professional investing. My angel track record was less extensive and also monetary return wasn’t always the primary goal (although with a relatively young portfolio it looks like I’m at 2.75x). One potential LP asked me my rationale behind a 2010 angel investment. I told him the truth: that I was friends with the founder, we were drinking together and Google stock had gone up like $10 that day so I was feeling flush.

What we also had was a point of view as to where we’d be investing: the Bottom Up Economy. This set us apart from other funds with broader or non-descriptive investment principles. We also had given extensive thought to our portfolio construction strategy around playing lead roles in rounds, the number of deals we would do each year, how much capital we’d hold back for follow-on, etc. The combination of these two meant that a fund could see how we’d be differentiated in the marketplace and where we’d fit against their current exposure.

As the LPs sought to learn more about us it became clear they spelled Due Diligence as DO DILIGENCE. Each investor went extensively into our backgrounds and asked around about us quite a bit. Having the trust of the investing and startup community was essential and we were thrilled that our references came back so positive.

Finally there were a number of questions about the partnership. How well do we work together? How do we reconcile disagreements? Did we have the same vision for Homebrew? Would we be dividing work in any specific way? I think Satya even got asked what my favorite food was (not kidding). As with any relationship which has formed over the greater part of a decade, we sought to convey not just current synchronicity but having something dynamic and strong enough to spend many years building Homebrew together. As I told every investor, I wouldn’t be doing this with anyone but Satya. It wasn’t a line, just the plain truth, and I’ve gotta believe it resonated.

Startup Lessons

• Investor perception of your marketspace matters
  
• Don’t be afraid to have a strong point of view
  
• Team, team, team
  
• Play the long game in building relationships, helping others

Anatomy of a “No”

We accomplished what we had hoped during our fundraising but certainly had our share of rejection as well. The rejections can be classified into three buckets

1. Process Issues Largely Out of Our Control – Fund of funds that were between their own fundraising cycles and thus had no more money to invest; institutions in the midst of reviewing their VC allocations vis a vis other private equity sectors; our process moving too quickly; their check size being larger than our entire fund!
   
2. Satya is a Good Investor, Hunter We Don’t Know Yet – This was totally fair given my smaller history. My answer was always “look how I voted with my time, not just my dollars,” being very willing to stand on my operational track record. For some this was fine but others didn’t want to bet on me yet (the ole’ “let’s build a relationship”). One investor even commended me on my ability to “prevent losses” in my angel portfolio which I think is like saying “he has a nice personality.”
   
3. We Don’t Buy Your Thesis and/or Your Ability to Execute Against It – We only had a couple of these rejections and to be honest, that was fine because not everyone is going to see the world the same way. I would worry if every investor nodded enthusiastically at us. I want some smart people to challenge our assumptions. It makes us think about their feedback, refine our thinking and charge ahead. To these potential LPs I’ll only say, maybe we’ll let you into Fund 2 🙂
   

Startup Lessons

• Expect to hear No
  
• Practice objection handling – what are the common concerns you hear and how to counter
  
• Today’s rejections could be tomorrow’s investors so make sure to honor the time together and stay in touch
  

The Road Ahead

Whew, this had been pent up inside me for a while, waiting until we put up the website. Although we’re “done” with fundraising for Fund I, building relationships with investors is an ongoing responsibility for founders. Besides advisory board calls and LP letters to our current group, we intend to stay in touch with the other investors we met over the first half of the year. Whether for future funds or to just share market data, it never hurts to follow the money. Looking forward to taking the journey and sharing as much as we can with you.