Clear announced last night that they had shut down. The note on their website says the following:

Clear Lanes Are No Longer Available.

At 11:00 p.m. PST on June 22, 2009, Clear will cease operations.

Clear’s parent company, Verified Identity Pass, Inc. has been

unable to negotiate an agreement with its senior creditor

to continue operations.

It goes on further to say that customers will not be able to receive a refund “because of it’s financial condition”. With over 250,000 customers (each paying between $100 and $200 annually) it’s a little surprising to me that they couldn’t figure out a way to make this work. I suspect (as does my partner Jason Mendelson). that the airports were charging more than I would have realized to make Clear lanes available.

Whatever happened it’s a real bummer. I know many people thought that Clear lanes were somehow elitist (pay more and get through security faster) but as someone who travels constantly, it was an extremely small price to pay (both monetarily and in loss of privacy) to ensure not just faster entry into airports but consistency in the time it took to get to my gate. I’ll miss it and hope someone will pick up the assets and get the program up and running again.

One of the companies I work with recently sent the following email to the CEO’s of a number of similar companies (I’ve redacted the email a bit to preserve the privacy of the company):

I’m the CEO of [really cool portfolio company]. We’re a [insert company attribute/industry here] company as well I have been talking to a number of other [attribute/industry] players and I think we all are facing some similar issues as we try and both mature our businesses and the [attribute/industry] industry at the same time. I’m pulling together a private discussion group for a select set of these businesses where we can have open conversations with each other about issues we face and how we are dealing with them. I feel like we’re all treading a lot of the same ground right now. For example, how do you [list of things that we’re dealing with].. I feel like CS industry is a bit where the Open Source industry was 5 years ago. Lots of standards to learn still.

I’m focusing on high level members of these companies (CEO, a CTO, your community manager, or some combination that makes sense) to participate in this group. It will be informal but have basic no-blog rules as a backdrop to it.

The result has been amazing. There are over 30 participants now in this email discussion group (that has only been up and running now for about 10 days) and the pace and depth of the discussion has been remarkable. My favorite email started with "I’ve never taken longer to reply to an email" – this group is extremely engaged and is tackling topics that are similar across all of their companies and sharing the results of their respective efforts. We’ve taken some of the topics off-line at our portfolio company and had in depth discussions about how what we’re learning from the group is changing our thinking about certain product features and informing how we’re tackling a handful of sticky problems, etc.

There’s no magic to doing this. It just took the initiative of one company to start to pull together a core group (which has now expanded as the initial participants have brought additional people into the fold).

Fred Wilson had a great post recently on the problem of analysis paralysis. I completely agree. One of the challenges of business (and entrepreneurship) is that companies constantly have to make decisions based on incomplete information. That’s just part of the game. Successful entrepreneurs recognize that, take in as much information as makes sense, make a decision and then move on. While it’s helpful to look back at these decisions, I completely agree with Fred’s assertion that it’s not really fair to second guess them (although its important to learn from them). So, how do you avoid the analysis paralysis trap? Here are a couple of thoughts

1. on subjects that you are deeply familiar with, your first or gut instinct is often the best

2. set a finite amount of time to gather information and stick to that time frame

3. the amount of time and energy you spend gathering information on a decision should be proportionate to the importance of the decision you are making

4. recognize what is in your control and what is not (and don’t try to change the latter)

5. don’t sweat the small stuff

6. see number 3

7. be convicted in your decision making – don’t keep rehashing your logic

8. information gathering typically follows the 80/20 rule – learn to recognize that inflection point which is the point of diminishing returns where the incremental time you spend gathering more information about something is greater than the benefit you are getting from that information. 9. re-read number 3 one more time (heck – just post it at your desk)

I’ve been thinking about the ways that I interface with feeds that I read. Specifically, how I parse through information, how I figure out what I want to read and subscribe to and how I’d like view different types of information.
I see a couple of problems with the proliferation of information brought upon by the explosion of RSS. Specifically, with so much noise, how does one cut through all the chatter to focus on what you really want to hear? The issue is not just how do I figure out what blogs or news feeds to subscribe to (that’s actually pretty easy) – it’s the broader question of how do I manage those feeds; how do I capture information on topics I care about that are published in feeds I don’t care about; and how can I organize my information capture so I spend more time reading what I want to read vs. figuring out what I want to read.
I’ve read the attention.xml spec (and a bunch of related posts on the topic). I’ve played around with del.icio.us and read Fred’s post on why it’s cool (I’m still working on understanding that). I’ve set up keyword searches in Technorati. I’ve sort of played around with tagging in Technorati. None is getting me there (yet).
This is a real problem in the RSS world. With the number of blogs and feeds proliferating (Technorati says they now track almost 9m weblogs and over 1bn links; and that doesn’t even include all of the feeds from newspapers, magazines, on-line news, etc) there’s a lot of info to parse through. This is just too much information to get through and technology is behind the curve on figuring out how to help us deal with this volume.
Without jumping into the debate on things like attention.xml, tagging, etc and assuming that this broader solution will eventually get figured out (lots has already been said on the subject and frankly my opinions are biased – in both directions – based on my firm’s investments in Technorati, Newsgator and Feedburner) here are a few things that I’d like to see changed/developed RIGHT NOW to make my RSS life easier:
– Data formatting: I wrote a post about this recently. I’d like to have some ability to view large amounts of data (i.e., what a lot of people are writing) in an easily digestible format. Sometimes you don’t want to read specific feeds – just know what a group of people are talking about.
– Subject level subscriptions part 1: Why can’t I subscribe to just some subject areas of certain blogs? Some of the blogs I read have 50% or higher waste – topics I don’t really care about. I should be able to subscribe to specific topics only.
– Subject level subscriptions part II: Ditto the above concept, but for key-word searches. I’d like to be able to point a filter at only certain feeds – say InfoWorld – and return only their stories from only their feeds that I’m interested in.
– Subject level subscriptions part III: Why can’t publishers get better at this? I love Slate, for instance; but I hate the fact that I need to subscribe to their entire site to get their feed (as opposed to certain authors or even just specific sections of their site) – I shouldn’t need to parse through 100 Slate posts a day to get the 3 subjects I care about.
– Feed Sharing: This one seems like it should be simple. My version of attention.xml is called Brad Feld. He has the capacity to sort through more information than I can and he sends me stuff that’s interesting. That works well for me and, importantly, it cuts down on the feeds I need to read, but the process should 1) be simpler and 2) be broader. Brad (or anyone else) should be able to easily set up a ‘favorites’ list that I can subscribe to. When Brad is reading something in his RSS reader that he likes he should be able to hit a button and publish that post (not the whole feed – just the single post) to a “Feld Favorites” feed which I
can subscribe to.
Sounds easy enough. Lets get on it.
(more…)

I receive a large number of “check out my new cool bright shiny web thing” emails. I’m amazed at how crappy the user experience is on many of these new tools. Sure – if I spent 20 minutes setting it up and clicking through a bunch of different layers of the application I might find out how great it is, but honestly, if the site doesn’t grab me in the first 30 to 60 seconds I typically close the browser tab and move on.

I understand that it’s a challenge for application designers to figure out how to move a user through their system and many designers have a big vision about what their app can do. But often what’s lost is basic design and a logical progression. Many of these apps lack basic user experience common sense.

Below are a few thoughts on how to accomplish a strong first impression:

• My username should be my email. I have too many usernames as it is and unless I’m transacting financial information I want my log-in to be relatively basic. Plus you can likely pre-populate this if you’re using an invite code or something similar and already know my email address.
• Don’t force me to use a funky password (symbols, etc.) – again, too much work unless you’re collecting secure information from me (in which case I probably won’t sign up in the first place….).
• The sign/up should gather the absolute minimum information acceptable – don’t collect more than you need and lose users interest in the process.
• Once I do the sign-up I should be in the app – please don’t take me back to the sign-up page and make me fill in the information I just gave you.
• The first time I log into an app I should be taken to some kind of set-up wizard that helps me get started. Don’t dump me into some dashboard and force me to figure out what to do to get started.
• Leverage existing sing-up infrastructure (Google, Facebook, etc).
• Let me put in an amount of information that’s comfortable to me and then show me how you’re going to make my experience fun/interesting/valuable (for example don’t force me to upload my contact list on my first visit – I’m not going to do it; think incremental information collection for incremental benefit – don’t overreach.
• Do something useful for me right away. This is the 30 second logic. If what you do is a cool as you think it is, I should get a glimpse of that in the first 30-60 seconds of interacting with your application.
• Once you have me interested, give me a clear, but relatively unobtrusive nudge to put more information in to take it to the next level
• If your application is social in nature, give me an easy way to integrate my social graph (twitter, Facebook, etc.) and then show me who else I know is using your service.
• Your dashboard/home page should be well laid out and everything you can think of should have a link to the next page (don’t force me to use only the top nav bar to get around your site; if you’re showing me a table on the home page, for example, the table headers, cells, etc should be live links to a place to enter more data into the site for example.
• If you ask users for feedback and they send it to you, be sure to keep them in the loop about what changes you’re making (and acknowledge their email; I can’t tell you the number of times I sent a few ideas to a company who asked me to check out their site never to hear back).

I’d love to hear some more ideas on how to accomplish a good first experience for users. It’s on my mind in particular right now because I feel like in the last month I’ve tried to engage with a large number of new applications that completely failed to capture my attention (one in particular stuck me on a homepage where I spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to input the data that the system was supposedly designed to track; I failed completely and haven’t been back).

I’ve had this running debate with a handful of friends – I’d love to throw it out there for comment. The questions at hand are 1) whether companies should offer a “free trial” period for their software/web service; 2) if they do, how long should it last; and 3) what information should you ask for before starting a trial (specifically should you ask for credit card information up front).

Here are a few thoughts. I’d love to hear your opinion.

While you know that your web service is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it’s really really hard to convey the chocolaty goodness that is your product to the average consumer. You have to pull them in and offering a dry run of what you do is a good way to do this (maybe you have a free version of the service as well, but even so, you’re saving the best features for your paid users and you need to show them what can do).

Now on to the question of how long your trial should last. While avoiding the obvious cliche answer (“as short as possible”) I’d point out that many (most) companies default to 30 days. I think this is a mistake. If you can’t show value in a week or two you’re doing something wrong. And by waiting 30 days you’re just extending the number of people in your trial funnel and making more work for everyone involved (not to mention stretching out the trial and potentially losing customers). Your product should be designed to quickly get people up and running and to show value right away (see some ideas on that here). I believe your trial period should have three parts: 1) onboarding – quick and as painless as possible; 2) show value – make sure you’ve designed what you do in a way that you’re in front of your customers immediately after they input information; 3) ask for the conversion to paid – once you’ve shown them what great value you add, ask them to fork over the dough. Most companies err in all of these categories. Onboarding is too difficult. Value comes over time, not right away and the product forces users to remember to come back to it rather than the other way around. The “ask” comes too late, after people have forgotten what the service did in the first place.

Lastly open for debate is the question of how much information you should collect up front. On the one hand are people who believe that you should collect as little as possible – probably just and email – and get people into the system and up and running. On the other are people who believe that since you have their attention you should grab their credit card information up front so you can start charging if they don’t opt out. I’m in the former camp. I couldn’t find any scientific study on this, but in my experience asking for a credit card (or even having a two page sign-up form) significantly drops the number of people who get from the beginning to the end of the sign-up process. In one case, asking for credit card information resulted in 9 out of 10 people who started the free trial process dropping out.  That’s not worth the back-end trade-off of having the information to charge them later (plus the opt out thing isn’t cool in my opinion).

Your thoughts are welcome/encouraged!

Humans are, as a general rule, poor at changing their minds once they’ve developed a view about something. This can be the cause of plenty of arguments and I suspect is a significant reason we’ve become so much more polarized as a country in recent decades (that, and it’s ancillary effect of causing us to seek out only information and data that  support our unbending view).

But in the case of dealing with a pandemic like Covid-19 it can be downright dangerous. I thought it would be helpful – perhaps even important – to talk about why being open to new and evolving information is so critically important in a time when what we know about Covid-19 is changing so rapidly.

I’ve certainly been through this journey myself. My views continue to change as I learn more. An hour ago I posted about the need to dramatically change how our society is approaching the virus and specifically some radical changes that we need to make now to slow the spread of the disease. People reading it will have various world views about the virus, bring varied biases about just how severe it is and as a result what we should do about it. I’d encourage you to keep an open mind.

My own views on this have evolved quite a bit and very rapidly. My very first reaction to hearing about a novel virus effecting an area of China was one of skepticism. The data I saw suggested that it wasn’t particularly dangerous for most people and it was pretty far away so it didn’t feel like something that was emergent. Even as it started to spread in Asia and Europe, I dismissed some of what I was seeing. As it got to the US I spent a lot of time talking about the “denominator problem” and just how little we really knew about how dangerous the virus really was because we didn’t really know how many people actually had it. Last Monday (that’s not even a week ago, for those of you playing at home), when we were trying to decide if we should go ahead and host our annual CEO Summit that was due to take place Wed evening through Friday of last week, I argued with my partners that we should continue with the event (fortunately I lost that vote). By Thursday we decided to close our office and ask everyone to work from home. By Friday I had pulled all in person meetings off my calendar and cancelled all non-critical meetings generally to free up some time. Last night I joined a growing group of colleagues calling for essentially closing down all social gatherings (bars, restaurants, churches, etc.).

Once views get entrenched it’s hard to change them (we’re watching as an entire major new network deals with this – or really fails to deal with this – in real time; it’s agonizing). I’d encourage everyone to step back from whatever their initial impressions were of the now unfolding crisis and view it with a fresh lease.

Networking – To interact or engage in informal communication with other for mutual assistance or support (from Dictionary.com) I talked about networking in my recent post on How to become a venture capitalist. In it I said that I’d put up a separate post with more detailed thoughts on the subject. I don’t pretend to be the final source on the matter, but I do regularly engage in the art of networking – on both the network-ing and network-ed side of the equation. As with all my posts, comments are welcomed (and appreciated). Sorry in advance for the length of this one – I tried cutting it down, but couldn’t get it to work that way . . . Step 1: Make your list. Good networking starts with knowing who you want to meet – or at least what type of people you want to get in touch with. This can be specific (for example all of the VC’s in town when you are trying to land a VC job) or more general (your peers at other local businesses; CEOs of businesses in a certain industry; all of the patent attorney’s in some market; etc). Either way do some research and make yourself a list of people you want to meet. WRITE IT DOWN. This isn’t a mental list – this is a real list of people you want to get in touch with. Step 2: Exercise your existing network. You know people. They all know people. There is an entire industry that is trying to take advantage of this on-line. Here’s where you need a second list – write down all of the people that you know (i.e., who would return an e-mail and could vouch for you to someone else) who you think could put you either directly in touch with, or one step closer to the people on your first list. Now contact them in a personal and relevant way and ask for their help. Be specific about what you are asking for (i.e., give them names if possible andplenty of background on why you are asking for help and what you are trying to accomplish). As you get introductions, track where they came from. Your lists should start to merge and you should develop something that looks like a network map showing linkages between the people you know and the people you are trying to meet (the more linkages the better). TRACK INFORMATION. This isn’t a time to rely on your memory. Be anal about writing down who is introducing you to whom, any contextual information you gather and any background you have on the people you are trying to meet with. Step 3: Be specific & structure your meetings. Most people generally manage some form of Steps 1 and 2 in their networking efforts – even if they are not being as careful as I’d like about documenting their work. Step 3 is where people make what I think is the second most common mistake in networking: when they finally get a meeting with someone they are looking to network with they aren’t specific about what they want. I hate meetings like this. They generally include statements like “I’m not really sure what I’m looking to do,” or “I’ve got a very broad background and could fit in a bunch of different places,” or “What kind of investments does Mobius make,” or my personal favorite: “I’d like to do something more entrepreneurial.” Not helpful. At all. Do your homework on who you are meeting with. Be specific about what you are looking to do. Have a story to tell and make sure it’s relevant to the person you are talking with. If you are asking for help/advice on something open ended make sure that is part of the context of setting up the meeting (its ok to network for the purpose of figuring out what you want to do with your life, but be clear about your intent and be specific about the ways in which the person you are talking with can be helpful). The corollary to being specific is structuring your networking interactions well. Good networkers are adept at guiding networking meetings in a way that drives the results they are looking for. Whether you are talking to someone at a cocktail party or sitting in their office – know how you want the interaction to go and guide the discussion. Step 4: Take good notes. This is pretty obvious, but I’m amazed at how often I meet with people who don’t write anything down in our meetings. When I’m networking with someone I take careful notes – first, because it shows that I’m interested in and respect what the other person is saying and second because I want to keep a record of what we talked about and specific ideas for follow-up. When its awkward to take notes directly (for instance at a social event), I try to write down information after a conversation has ended – preferably on the back of the business card I just received, but at least on a notepad (which you should always carry along with a pen to any networking event). Steps 5 & 6: Plan your follow up . . . and actually follow up. These next two steps are where people really fall down – they would make for a lengthy post by themselves. By follow-up I’m not talking about the e-mail you send out the day after meeting with someone thanking them for the meeting, telling them how much you enjoyed talking with them and appreciate their perspective, attaching your CV (or pointing them to your blog <g>), etc. I’m talking about the ongoing communication you have with people. If you’re driving for a specific outcome this can be very structured (i.e., putting reminders in your calendar with specific things you plan to follow up with) – less so if you are engaging in more general networking. Either way, you need to make a plan for how you want to follow up with people and do so. It starts with Step 4 and the natural follow-up to step 4, which is putting this information in some form that is searchable and usable (perhaps a spreadsheet or database if you are networking for a specific outcome, since you’ll be referencing it often, but also potentially notes in your contacts or somewhere else that you store information, but in a way that you can easily separate out people that you are trying to stay in touch with in this way). Remember that networking is a two way street. Good networking is about staying in touch in a relevant way. Sending an e-mail every month asking if any new positions have come open is a bad example of this. Seeing something in the news or an article of interest that you send along to someone with your thoughts is a good example of this. See a person you know in the news – send a note congratulating them on their recent success. Notice that a VC you’ve talked with has just made a new investment – send a note. Find an article that you think would be relevant to that CEO you met with a few months ago – send it along. The idea is to stay top of mind, but in a way that is relevant to the people you are interacting with. Don’t forget to give context in your e-mail (i.e., “Sally – We met two months ago at the xyz event – John Smith introduced us . . . ). I can’t emphasize these steps enough. I can’t believe the number of meetings I have that end with the end of the meeting or a short follow-up note. Even if there were specific follow-up items. People fall down on follow-up and I think expect that they can pop in and out of someone’s network as the need arises. You just accomplished what may be the hardest part of networking (getting a meeting in the first place; grabbing someone’s attention at a party; etc.) – don’t waste your hard work by just entering their contact info in Outlook.

Good networking is definitely an art – and something I’m always trying to get better at myself. I think these suggestions are relevant no matter what stage of the network game you are playing – I hope you find them helpful. Ultimately it’s all about making personal connections and keeping up with those connections in a way that is both relevant to you and to the people in your network.

One of the great trends we’ve been witnessing over the past decade, and in particular the past 5 years, has been what you might call the “democratization” of entrepreneurship”. It’s a powerful trend and one that I think will have a huge impact not just on the US economy and workforce, but perhaps even more intensely on other areas of the world – particularly developing economies.

There are several underlying factors that I think underpin this sift that are worth noting:

– The breaking down of geographic boundaries that confined entrepreneurial communities. Fundamentally entrepreneurial communities are networks (not hierarchies). And as such they thrive best in open environments that lack artificial restrictions. They also thrive best when information sharing is free and when entrepreneurs have access to other entrepreneurs (in this way entrepreneurial communities follow Metcalfe’s law of networks which states that the power of a network increases exponentially with the number of nodes on that network; entrepreneurial communities are exponentially stronger as they add more entrepreneurs to their “network”). The globalization of economies combined with the free flow of information fostered by the internet and other media has enabled entrepreneurs to establish connections that extend beyond traditional geographic boundaries and create virtual communities of peers where they once couldn’t exist.

– Entrepreneurship is becoming more highly valued. While many societies have thought of themselves as “entrepreneurial” it’s really only been in the past 10 years or so that entrepreneurs, as members of the creative class, have been truly celebrated. Where once striking out on one’s own was considered overly risky and either big companies (or in some countries state enterprise) was the path to job security and economic independence, now in many parts of the world entrepreneurship is embraced (think of the emphasis both candidates in the recent US election put on entrepreneurs as the growth engine of the US economy, for example). This acceptance (even celebration) of entrepreneurship is opening doors for many people around the world that were until recently closed due to cultural and economic pressures.

– Entrepreneurs don’t care about pedigree. I referenced above a belief that entrepreneurial communities are networks, not hierarchies. Openness, the free flow of information, the lack of community gatekeepers and entrepreneurs as leaders are hallmarks of these networks (vs. hierarchies which are closed, tend to have a small number of people who control access to the system and where information flow is controlled and limited). As a result the fundamental tenants that underpin these networks there is a decreased emphasis on pedigree, background and connections. While this hasn’t completely taken hold in all countries, in many places entrepreneurs are rightly judged by the strength of their ideas, the value they bring to the community and the success of their past efforts and not on their family name or where they attended school. This has opened the door for many entrepreneurs who 10 or 20 years ago would have found themselves cut off from the opportunities they have today.

– A focus on mentorship and giving first. One of the most powerful trends in support of the democratization of entrepreneurship has been the establishment of broad mentor networks that support entrepreneurial communities. These networks are aided by the trends noted above and stem from the fundamental belief that a larger and larger number of experienced entrepreneurs are embracing of giving first, getting later. Ultimately the best mentor relationships become two way but the going in expectation of the mentor needs to be that they’re participating first to give with no expectation of anything they’ll personally take away other than the satisfaction of helping out. The development of these mentor ecosystems – bolstered by the rise around the world of accelerator programs (the Unreasonable Institute being a great example) – has allowed entrepreneurs greater access to advice and counsel and I think helps create better entrepreneurs and more vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystems.

Fundamentally the world benefits from the democratization of entrepreneurship as more people look to themselves as the engine to grow beyond their circumstances. And importantly this phrase works in reverse as well – entrepreneurship promotes democratization. Entrepreneurs value the stable systems that democracy tends to bring, they see themselves and not government as the answer to their societies challenges, they provide jobs and economic stability that promote stable society and they work in networks that by their nature are fundamentally more democratic than hierarchical regimes. I don’t have a crystal ball and I don’t know exactly what the next 20 or 50 years will bring. But I do believe that the global trend towards entrepreneurship will continue and that the world will be much better for it.

Elizabeth Macbride and I wrote an OpEd piece that was posted on CNBC this morning addressing what we believe to be significant shortcomings of the CARES Act and the SBA’s Payroll Protection Program (PPP). Specifically how the stimulus is failing to meet the needs of small businesses around America in this time of crisis. This is urgent and needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I’d encourage you to click through to read the full piece, but below I’ve outlined the key recommendations we make at the end of the OpEd:

1. Set up individual loan funds

2. Urge big business to pay receivables faster

3. Appoint a clear leader

4. Provide more clarity

5. Expand the program