Comments on: The VC Olympics

By: VC Speak: Thoughts on Advisory Capital - The bridge between VC’s and Advisory Boards | VentureFiles

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:57:03 +0000

[...] There have been other opinions on the subject here, here, here, here and yes, here. [...]

By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Advisory Capital

BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Advisory Capital — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:25:02 +0000

[...] Tom Evslin contributes to the discussion about advisory capital with a suggestion — give ACs equity, not options — and a question: How will startups meet the right ACs? Should there be AC firms? Good question. [...]

By: Markus

Markus — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:03:10 +0000

This idea isn’t all that new, and has been happening in the industry for a long time. The only difference now is that VC’s are being completely cut out of the picture, and “leading industry” experts want to replace them.

By: Marina Architect

Marina Architect — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:35:12 +0000

Two live case studies: 37 Signals versus Six Apart. Have at it. Marketing veneer equals Six Apart. Stripped down utilty is 37 Signals.

VC’s have a way of imposing marketing veneer. If WordPress had a marketing veneer with the requisite lifestyle photos (it works despite the noise you make), Six Apart would be patronized only for?

Google should be providing the products 37 Signals. Cheers. Time to break out for the night West Coast.

By: kenjimori.com » More knowledge than money

kenjimori.com » More knowledge than money — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:32:02 +0000

[...] Incidentally, the new alternative to VC-model, “advisory capital” (knowledge investment) isÂ being proposed by Â Stowe Boyd,Â the model alsoÂ well examinedÂ by Jeff Jarvis. [...]

By: John Gauntt

John Gauntt — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:40:07 +0000

I’ve been to both Syndicate shows to take a hard close look at blogs, social media and other stuff associated with web 2.0 As far as I can see it’s still a faith-based economy. The predominant strategy seems to eek out enough to pay the rent through an ad network or build enough noise around a product, feature, or point-of-view to be flipped to a Yahoo or Google. I hear a lot of the same stuff as I did 98-2000 when all these big behemouths didn’t “get” the Internet just as they now don’t “get” citizen or social media. At the same time, the big guys are making the same mistake of falling all over themselves in an attempt to avoid looking dowdy.

Last time I checked it was profits, not revenue, not impressions, not feature/function, or dare I say it “buzz” that insured longevity for companies. I’m no reactionary like a Nick Carr or that Brit in SF who fancies himself to be young curmudgeon. There is something to social media in terms of creating value for people. But creating the kind of value in use that can be converted into value as exchange (remember your Marx) is something I don’t yet see and Mr. Boyd’s emphasis on advisory capital confirms for me that no one has cracked a sustainable cash-oriented scalable business model for citizen media—yet. But these are early days.

By: Tom Evslin

Tom Evslin — Fri, 24 Feb 2006 00:06:52 +0000

I think venture capital can be horizontally delaminated just like any other industry. Companies shouldn’t raise capital before they need it just because they also need advice and connections.

So Stowe’s idea is a good one. Have blogged on it here.