[pron]

I don't think it's fraud, or anything like it. After all, there is something so-far sustainable here, and it's not the companies; it's the pattern (which is not quite new), and fraud is never sustainable. I have a theory about why we see this pattern, and it starts with how those companies are financed.

VCs fund many promising startups, often flooding them with money that can support the company for a long time, while maintaining a very active public image that perpetuates the sense that the company is successful. Not only is the actual business value hidden, VCs encourage the companies to not try to turn a profit, but to grow very, very quickly. This is, perhaps, what obscures the actual value the most.

Now, why do VCs do that? Because they hope for a good ROI, and some of them do quite well (the entire portfolio taken together, of course). Some say that VC's true desired goal for a company is an IPO, but IPOs are rare, and, I think a good IPO (for anyone who's not Facebook) is only about 10x that of a good acquisition. So I believe, that it is the acquisitions (that outnumber IPOs more than 10x) that really drive the VC investments, and, in turn, the whole industry.

But how can acquisitions be the bread-and-butter of the industry if so many of them fail (for the acquirer, that is)? Because, on the whole, acquisitions are still much cheaper for the acquirers than funding their own technology - or market - research. Instead of throwing a lot of money on large, money-hungry research departments, Big Tech would rather let a ton of entrepreneurs and VCs fight it out, and award the winners handsomely. The price they pay is far less than what they would have had to invest doing independent research.

So, who loses? I'm not sure anyone does. Entrepreneurs get the independence, excitement, and the possibility of huge payoffs of a winner-takes-all market; VCs - well, some of them - do alright, and Big Tech saves a ton of money on thousands of employees they don't need to directly employ and manage. Oh, and bloggers and industry insiders get a lot of juicy gossip and cautionary tales.

The one remaining question is, how come so many companies seem very promising, get good indications from the market, and then slowly (or quickly) declines. I don't have a good answer, but I do have a hypothesis. Web companies mostly compete in a global market. That means that in order for them to succeed, all relevant consumers must learn about them, and must learn about them quickly (fast growth, right?). But this is just not possible, because the average consumer can only keep in mind a bounded (and rather small) set of vendors. So, not only is, say, Groupon competing with uhmm, I dunno, Amazon, maybe for the purchase of some items, it is also competing with Zynga over my time. And not only that, it's even competing with Salesforce because there are only so many products I can even remember to use on a regular basis. And when new startups are funded, they are encouraged to very quickly get global attention, and - out with old, in with the new - novelty seeking consumers forget about yesterday's big thing.

So all of these companies are competing with one another for attention, so the question is, how many fast-growth, global companies can even prosper at the same time?

[jonnathanson]

"So, who loses? I'm not sure anyone is."

Well, if you factor in the opportunity costs of the capital and talent allocated to unsustainable companies, then there's a good argument that the US economy loses. Every dollar invested in Zynga or Color is a dollar that could have been invested in something productive over the long haul. Every talented programmer that goes to work at a flash-in-the-pan, overhyped startup creates opportunity costs and economic inefficiencies by not working at more productive enterprises, creating real value. The wage and equity inflation created in the job market by overhyped startups leads to similar inflation across the industry, raising operating costs for everyone in the business.

All that hype-based investing does is swap money around between a relatively tiny cohort of people. It doesn't create real value over the long run, and all the real value that is foregone is opportunity cost.

[pron]

Well, I don't know. Suppose all those engineers were working for a company like IBM or Google, doing research. Much of their work would go to waste, too, as most research does not turn into successful products.

I think this is an interesting cultural change rather than a loss. Engineers are willing to sacrifice job security for a small chance for a big payoff. The winner-takes-all approach has long been part of the American ethos, only now its working its way down from the capitalists to the workers. I just think it's interesting.

You could say, though, and I think I've written it before, that its the workers (i.e., startup employees) that lose. If the theory is correct, then Big Tech is exploiting the workers' naive preference for promises of big rewards over regular, secure, pay. But, again, I don't know if that desire is naive; most startup folks understand the chances well, and still choose as they do. Maybe the excitement and perceived freedom are worth more than money to them. They sure are to me.

[jonnathanson]

I don't think there's anything wrong, per se, with engineers wanting to gamble on bigger, riskier projects. Nor do I necessarily see the "productive vs. hypey" dichotomy as a strict dichotomy between startups and the IBMs and Googles of the world.

But I do think that there's a major opportunity cost incurred when dollars and talent get shuttled into hypey, bullshit-driven companies instead of legitimate ones. Including legitimate startups.

Of all the risky startups who could potentially get funded and attract talent, it's better for the good ones to get the money and the talent if possible.

To put it another way: the VC system should be selecting for the next Google, not the next Color. But to whatever extent it's selecting for the next Color, it is sub-optimized. That degree of sub-optimization is the opportunity cost / inefficiency inherent to the system.

[pron]

Yeah, well, every investor would rather invest in a "legitimate" startup, and every engineer would rather work for one. But telling which is which is the tricky part, isn't it? Some things are only obvious in retrospect.

[jonnathanson]

While true, that's beside the point at hand. The author is suggesting that the VC system is consciously selecting for the Colors of the world -- or, at the very least, that it has created conditions conducive to the next Color.

In other words: it's not simply betting at the track and ending up with the wrong horse. It's actively betting on what it knows to be the wrong horse, because the wrong horse pays off in the short term.