It's About New Behaviors: A Proposed Playbook for Massachusetts Technology Companies

In 1988 six months after I started Avid Technology, Inc., I got a $500K first round investment from Bill Kaiser of Greylock Management. This began a long and successful business partnership between Bill and I. Recently we got together for a day at MIT to think about the local economy, and how to encourage new behaviors to increase success in the region.

This post is meant to be a starting point, and is the result of discussions with Bill Kaiser, Tom Hopcroft, Steve O'Leary, Colin Angle, Brad Feld, John Cullinane, Paul English, Don Dodge, Will Herman, Dharmesh Shah, Jeffrey Bussgang and Scott Kirsner.  

Play Big Playbook
Version 0.2 January 25, 2010

So let's say we agree on the baseball scorecard, and that we agree on being tough on ourselves that "winning" by making a good return and becoming a division of a bigger company isn't good enough for our region to maintain and increase its leadership. But we all know that within each company, once the great deal is on the table, lots of factors take hold that will lead to a sale. So how do we operate well in advance of these "final" moments so the outcomes are different? How do we change our key behaviors?

I propose that we need a new playbook. The idea is to simply encapsulate the behaviors we want to encourage. Here goes. (your input is most welcome!)

Company Playbook

1. Start Small
- Playing big doesn't mean huge capital early on or huge teams.
- Make things that work and test them quickly.
- Be curious, try things.

2. Hire Tough
-too often we hire our friends, people we know.
-we have to be WAY tougher.
- Not to be confused with "demand amazing background and experience."
- Rather, hire those who are ready to rise to new heights. Demand that.

3. Lead Here
- Stay here and lead here.
- Build a global company from here.
- We can't build our ecosystem by being an outsource shop for distant companies.

4. Buy Smart
- Do acquisitions, but do them right.
- Avoid the big swinging "industry changing" acquisitions that usually go so wrong. 
   (and have hurt many of our local companies)
- Know how you'll integrate, and move fast and aggressively

(Add more here...this is just flavor of the plays in the playbook.)

Regional Playbook

1. Fund First Timers
- The great breakthroughs come from people doing it for the first time
- The great breakthroughs often come from those in their 20's
- Stop focusing so much on experience. 

2. More Mixing
- Encourage job movement. It's good for the economy
- Move the talent around. Stealing talent is healthy. Changing jobs spreads the talent wealth.
- Voluntarily avoid non-competes. Create social pressure not to have non-competes.

3. Awesome Angels
- We must dramatically improve our angel environment.
- More angels that can do $25K-50K investments quickly
- Recruit some local "Super Angels" similar to Ron Conway and others from California.

4. New Blood
- We need new blood, new talent, to rebuild our region
- Aggressively recruit from outside, especially California.

5. Push Each Other
- Create pressure to Play Big, to avoid moves that diminish us locally.
- Expect higher performance from your peers, from your superiors, and from your team.

6. Execute, Execute
- Get tough with getting things done right.
- No company can become a global leader if its ideas are great, but it's execution is spotty
- We need to build our expertise in operations, in sales, and in marketing. (how?)

7. Spread Success
- Make sure people know what's working. Get the word out.
- Share real stories in small groups. Have the winners teach others how to win.

(Add more here...this is just flavor of the plays in the playbook.)

This post and the previous one boil down to having a common language and using it to let us push each other to greater heights. The baseball scoring approach gives us the simple idea of Home Runs and Grand Slams, and most importantly, the idea that we have Home Run Candidates and Grand Slam Candidates that we owe it to ourselves to nurture to greatness, from their inception to global domination.

The idea of a simply stated playbook gives us a common language on the individual plays that go into making a great company and a great region. It helps us push each other. For example, regarding hiring: When someone says "I worked with him at my previous company and he did a good job," perhaps the "Hire Tough" moniker will pop into the meeting, and someone will say "that's not good enough. We need someone who's going to amaze themselves and us. Lets look harder."

I believe that we indeed need to look harder. At new ways to measure success, and at new ways to spur success. The good news is, as our behaviors change, so will our fortunes.

Please add your Play Big Playbook additions, suggestions, and modifications as comments below. I'll pull them together into a new pass at the playbook.
26 responses
OK Bill I am going to add two things. First, work very hard to fund and support businesses that: uniquely attract talent; garner international and national press attention; retain students in the area; inspire rabid followings; are disruptive. Which companies have that powerful magic? Companies like Groupon, Facebook, Starbucks, SwapTree, etsy, Apple, Mint.com, Gilt Groupe, Zappos, and Johnny Cupcakes. Notice a theme? I am totally biased-- but I believe consumer products and services, and consumer internet companies, are those game-changing companies when it comes to amping up our local game. We can fund and build all the "plumbing" companies we want, but people engage more deeply around products they personally use. It's just simple human nature. And it translates into all the economic and resource and human capital benefits I mentioned at the top.

But here's the second point, and the rub...85% of consumer products and services are bought by women. There were no women in your thinktank, so the brainstorm ideas were, by definition, limited.

I have no axe to grind...but my experience (formed mainly in my life as an industrial designer) is that if you want creative answers, and real breakthrough ideas, you also have to ask people who aren't doing things in the same old ways and don't share similar life experiences.

Jules, you're right on both counts. Consumer-facing companies are often the ones that capture peoples imaginations. Historically our region has been focused on the products that operate behind the scenes. And you're also right that if you want creative answers, you need to ask people who aren't doing things in the same old ways and don't share similar life experiences. So I hope your comment will spur exactly that. New input. This post is meant simply as a starting point, and hopefully, the thinktank is what occurs from here on!
Thanks for starting the ball rolling (metaphorically speaking). I do find running a consumer internet company in Boston gives me huge advantages in recruiting the highest caliber talent. It's a true competitive advantage over West Coast consumer-facing companies who all fight over the same people. And Bostonians are more loyal, so more likely to stick around during the rough patches and see the business through.
I hear about a lot of cases out west where a start-up reaches a certain size and rather than sell-out, they raise a round that puts in some working capital, but also allows the founders to take some money off the table and stay at the table. Facebook is a great case of this, but there are many others. For some reason, I do not hear of this happening often at all back here among my peers. It seems like when Boston co's are out doing their Series D, they get an offer to get acquired and take it and the option to take money off the table and continue to run doesn't seem to be on the table. Does anyone have a sense for why that is or what we could do to make that practice more prevalent around these parts?
Brian - Good point. Establishing a way where insiders can get some money off the table while still playing for the big win sounds like an important option that needs to be available. Being faced with years more of work with no financial rewards, or with "sell now and your financial worries are over" is too stark a choice, but perhaps is the only two that end up being available.
I think #1 and #3 are really killing us. After watching tons of smart first-time entrepreneurs trying to raise seed rounds here, I'm pretty well convinced the only thing seed investors in Boston want to fund for someone under 40 is a Google AdWords campaign for an already complete product. And they only want to fund that if you can demonstrate that for every dollar you spend, you'll get $2 back.

That attitude toward seed investment is a dream killer. When I started TechStars, I wanted to grow a great company that would change the world. Now? I'm aiming much smaller. I realized I can't make a world-changing product with the $20k I have in the bank. Once I burn the rest of that, it's back to a 9-5 job. Forget the home-run, I'm swinging for an infield single.

I don't think the west coast shares the same attitude toward first timers. That's why virtually all the companies started by MIT'ers around the same age as me (Xobni, DropBox, etc.) are out there. I want to stay in Boston, but I see B/C teams out there raising funds while I watch INCREDIBLY STRONG teams here fail. I get why they're leaving.

We have to fix this. If I had money, I'd write checks. Since I don't, I'm happy to contribute time and effort.

By the way, part of why Amazon was able to swing for the fences and be successful is that Jeff Bezos had his seed round all taken care of on day one -- thanks for the $300k, Dad! Same for Bill Gates.

Alex - I take it you're referring to the "1. Fund First Timers" and "3. Awesome Angels" items. I think the angel environment is the SINGLE LARGEST issue we're facing. VC's can't fund companies at the extremely early stage. That's up to angels, and often up to family money. With Avid, I was able to provide seed money myself, with some help from my Dad. I ran it on $150K until the first VC round. But had I not been able to access that money, Avid probably wouldn't have happened.
I'm very interested in developing a few "super angels" here in Boston, as well as dramatically increasing the number and quality of our active angels. How best to do that. What you say here is depressing and crucial at the same time. We need to get to our core issues, and change them!
If you think about Boston as a funnel with at bats feeding a funnel that you ultimately want producing home runs and grand slams at the bottom, it seems like we have big problems at the top of the funnel, the middle of the funnel, and big problems at the bottom of the funnel.

At the top of the funnel, I keep hearing the sharp kids from Sloan/MIT/HBS in my world automatically moving to the west coast b/c of the lack of angels and the perception that vc's only want to back middle aged folks with lots of stripes. There are lots of rumours about folks who tried to get funding here, struck out, and got funded out west. This is a bit worrisome. I think it is important we somehow "wake up" more angels. For example, in Bill's email thread about this, he had John Cullinane -- it would be fantastic to get him at the table writing checks to promising kids graduating from our great universiting.

In the middle of the funnel, there are too many companies opting to sell to the west coast platform company at the Series C/D stage rather than having the entrepreneur take a few dollars off the table, align interests with investors to swing hard, and get back in the batters box.

In the bottom of the funnel, there are just not enough great tech companies around here for folks who are already triples and home runs to learn from and to steal execs from. At HubSpot, we have learned a ton from Constant Contact, iRobot, and others, but I worry that for those triples and home runs, it is hard for them to recruit and learn like companies from HubSpot b/c there are not enough people up their food chain around here. ...I am part of a CEO forum at HubSpot with Colin from iRobot, Russ Wilcox from eInk, and other folks who are up the food chain for me. I might challenge the Catlin & Cookman group to set up a CEO forum that is national in footprint for the CEO's of Constant Contact, iRobot, eInk, and other triples to join.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

@awmoore I understand your frustration.

The y-combinator/techstar style incubators are structured to light a match quickly. Thus, the criticism that these vehicles are churning out features, not empires. This isn't a bad thing, but the tool defines the outcome, and it does cater to a certain type of company more than others.
If you're working on something a little riskier, something that takes more work up front to get right and show value, it can be tough getting through that period.
I've been thinking a lot about ways to alleviate this (and solve some of the other problems being discussed here, like the talent drain, etc. I have a huge incentive to do so, afterall). Love to talk to anyone that wants to talk to a young-gun at the beginning of their career here in Boston.

Great playbook. I know some folks might be skeptical of the idea of recruiting from the West Coast. But I think it's definitely possible. I was at Ebay for a few years before coming back out to Boston. And a bunch of old colleagues who are now VP's of Product and CMO's at top tier venture funded companies have taken jobs on the East Coast recently (not Boston though)! I can be done for great companies.
Of course we can do it! We need to recognize that importing expertise is a great thing to do. After all, that's what California did for many decades! Now we need to reverse some of that flow. There are tons of people who have gone to school here, were raised here, or would prefer the lifestyle here (if not the weather!)
In fact, California might be one of the easier states from which to "import" talent because many companies there do not use non-compete agreements.

Interesting idea to create social pressure not to use non-competes. I recall that Ken Olsen's biography (The Ultimate Entrepreneur) said that he did not enforce non-competes against Castro etc when they left to form Data General even though he could have under Massachusetts law. Even given social pressure though there may still be many companies who continue to use them, especially those that enforce them vigorously.

One effect of non-competes is that they discourage workers from joining small companies. My research (http://www.mit.edu/~mmarx/) shows that non-competes steer ex-employees towards larger firms because they are scared that smaller ones won't be able to indemnify them against a lawsuit. Also, it's easier for large companies with diversified operations to give new employees something else to do for a year while waiting out the non-compete.

I love that we have a lot of people trying to address the many community problems. As Brian said, these issues exist at every level of the funnel. Of course given my circumstances I'm focused on that top of the funnel: Students/young entrepreneurs.

I think the statistic that definitely needs fixed is: of Massachusetts graduates that go on to start companies, only 26% start them in Massachusetts. Silicon Valley / California is around 68%, while the national average is 48%. We need to tap into these students! Hiring from other talent rich areas is great, but don't forget what we already have!

So how do we do this:
1) As mentioned already...take more chances on young entrepreneurs with seed funding, etc.
2) Hire young people to work at Startups!
There are many students who could be great interns or co-ops as well as potential full time hires. Find the right hungry student for the right role and they'll make up for their lack of knowledge with their passion and hunger to learn.
3) Provide creative employment opportunities for first time entrepreneurs.
I presently work part time for a startup while running Greenhorn Connect and recently becoming involved in another startup. It's not easy what I'm doing right now, but I'm providing value to the entrepreneur I work for and he's helping me make some money while learning for an experienced entrepreneur.
4) Mentorship
TechStars obviously gets it right with their program, but that's only 10 companies per year. Is there a way we can tap into more entrepreneurs engaging young startups...even just a few hours a month one on one with an entrepreneur can be huge.
5) More Role Models
Can anyone point out a very successful entrepreneur in the 28-35 age bracket in the Boston region? Young entrepreneurs like myself need to see good examples of people who have done it already. It would also be good to celebrate some of the entrepreneurs of any age who have built great companies (like the aforementioned E Ink, IRobot, etc of the area).

Those are a few ideas I have...I hope Greenhorn Connect can be part of the solution.

I agree conceptually, but it's hard to have sympathy about the talent fleeing West. Boston is still THE magnet for all East Coasters who want to stay somewhat near. My company's first 8 jobs were in VT...then we moved our next 100, plus headquarters, to Boston. When it was sold 3 years ago, the most aggressive and qualified PE firms were...in Boston. Now as an angel, I want to do business through a VT-based angel group, yet find myself visiting and investing through deals or funds via Walnut, CommonAngels, with 80% of those companies based in MA. The climate keeps getting better the further I go South, until I reach Cambridge. I dislike the RedSox, but for entrepreneurial opportunities I adore Boston.
Bill, VCs are becoming a lot more important to seed rounds, at least on the west coast. As of November, 6 Boulder TechStars '09 companies (and I think 7 as of today) closed seed rounds led by VC firms. I don't think any of them have closed seed rounds led by angels. Y Combinator companies have had a lot of VC-led seed rounds as well lately. Maybe that's because of the rotten economy shell-shocking angel investors, or maybe that's because western VCs are adopting a new attitude about seed funding.

For the Boston TechStars '09 class, I don't think any of us have closed rounds led by VCs. Most of us haven't been able to close rounds at all.

Paul Graham's attitude when Y Combinator was here was that they could mitigate the effect of Boston's broken early-stage investment community by making sure the Boston YC companies got plenty of exposure to west coast investors. When I started out, I thought he was firing a shot at Boston for personal reasons (I also thought, from reading his essays, that he was an arrogant jerk). Now, I think he's right.

Brian, I think the lack of home-run and grand-slam companies and the corresponding lack of a talent pipeline has a lot to do with the trickle-down effect of a lack of early-stage investment as well. For example, we should have Facebook here, but Boston investors passed. How many other companies are out west that should be on Rt. 128 providing that talent pipeline? I don't know anything about the problems during the middle stages; I hope I'll get to find out what that's like over the next few years!

Ty, it's great that you're actively doing something about the problem by angel investing. Thanks!

It looks like you fit the founder profile that Boston investors are comfortable with -- 20 years working in the industry, then starting your own company. What we're missing out on are the opportunities presented by companies founded by folks without 20 years of experience - which are an awful lot of them (like Google, Yahoo, Ebay, Paypal, Microsoft, Apple). Enrollment in EECS at MIT has dropped by about 30% (in large part due to MIT's efforts to create a 50-50 gender balance; biology enrollment has grown enormously during the last 5-10 years), and the tech entrepreneurs who are coming out are moving west to start their companies. If Boston doesn't retain more of these young entrepreneurs, there won't be any companies left here to produce 20 year veterans who the investors are comfortable funding. I'd hate to see that happen.

Great series of posts. I think the fact that we're admitting that this is an issue and pushing to continue discussing it is great. For too long people have avoided the issue or tried to pretend it wasn't there by highlighting some of Boston's strengths.

I agree with most of the points, especially the difficulty with angel funding. One key issue though, is that Boston just doesn't have the sheer volume of successful large tech companies (e.g. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PayPal) that have created young tech millionaires who invest that newfound cash into the ecosystem, creating new consumer companies and supporting the entire funnel. This helps bridge the funding gap to get new ideas off the ground. These large tech companies also serve as a great breeding ground and networking environment for young engineers who then go off and start new companies.

This issue can certainly be solved by letting the doubles and triples grow into home runs and grand slams, but it won't be solved overnight.

But at least we're admitting we have a problem . . .

There is some agreement that the early stage / new entrepreneur climate is Boston is not as good as it is in California. A young guy usually does have to move to California to get resources. I think it's true that having more big successful independent companies will change that. It's a great point. Those companies make acquisitions of local startups, which feeds money and energy down to the seed stage. If Boston investors are acting more conservatively, they must be facing different incentives than Californians - and having fewer acquisition exits is a likely cause. The fact that Silicon Valley has dozens of big local acquirors, and Boston has 3 (Bill's measure) or 5 (Scot Kirstner threw in some biotechs - Genzyme and Biogen Idec) does make a difference.

But, do we have to start from scratch and grow these acquirors? That takes a long time and lots of blind luck. Wouldn't it be faster just to import them with a regular investor relations program - something like an expanded, persistent version of the techstars/ycombinator investor demo day?

Does a focus on finding acquirors directly contradict Bill's recommendation to think big and not sell out? I don't think so. Acquiror interest gives you the confidence to invest your time and money, which might make it more likely that you would grow a stand-alone success.

I don't think that this list of business behaviors will make much of a difference. This is stuff that everyone knows they should do. Vowing to follow these practices is like trying to lose weight by vowing to skip dessert - sounds reasonable, but low probability. Two thoughts, though:

Awesome Angels) Angel investors are incredibly brave, because later stage investors are dedicated to pushing them out of the deal, and their stakes are exposed, and often don't survive to exit. If we could change this dynamic (deeply rooted in Boston) we would unlock a lot more angel investment.

New blood) Bill mentions the need to recruit from California, but what about from outside the US? The talent pool there is 200 times bigger. If we want those brains working for Massachusetts, we should work harder on immigration reform.

We are talking a lot about early stage companies. That wasn't the point of this post, though. The most important point, for me, is the admonition to think big. It might work. I'm in the "Capital efficient" camp. It's a good way to make money, and stay independent, but not such a great way to make big innovations, and it is a slow route to a Grand Slam. I might use a different approach if I had enough moral pressure or peer pressure. We can do more.

One way to get more home runs is with more at bats, and there are a number of suggestions along these lines (more angels to support more local entrepreneurs). A different problem is the startup that becomes a growth company and then loses steam. Companies often get stuck at around $25M in revenues for several reasons: initial growth market matures, new growth opportunities require a major investment in a new product or channel, existing investors are tapped out or reluctant to bet the company on new initiatives, the team and board may lack the skills to take the company from $25M to $100M. Role models and mentorships can help, but the role models are different at this stage. Of course the last thing we want to see is a knee jerk reaction to replace the founding team with 'professional management.'
You and the other great folks you mentioned at the very beginning of the article nutted it on so many points. Angel-funding is so very important; yet, it appears muted. I've had lots of at-bat entrepreneurs who are still charging down, what they hope, is the home stretch. Thanks for your leadership and best wishes.
very good blog, it gave very good info about the company development and success , and also small thing that help to get success. Thank you ....
You use the word "tough" a few times. You might want to try and define that since it is obviously taking the place of a whole personality profile. "Tough" is a boring fill-in word that doesn't have a lot of meaning. Plus, it would be hard to deny that there are plenty of people who aren't conventionally "tough" who contribute mightily to successful startups and daring innovations.

"Playbook" is somewhat problematic, too. It implies that there is a "way to do it," but there are so many exceptions, as well as people who nimbly improvise and scramble. They probably know the "playbook" as background, but leave it quickly.

You and the other great folks you mentioned at the very beginning of the article nutted it on so many points. Angel-funding is so very important; yet, it appears muted. I've had lots of at-bat entrepreneurs who are still charging down, what they hope, is the home stretch. Thanks for your leadership and best wishes.
4 visitors upvoted this post.