It all started with a tweet: "Love Slack but $120M and $1B valuation at this point will almost certainly will lead to lack of focus and less than optimal decision making."
The tweet was posted by Charlie O'Donnell of Brooklyn Bridge Ventures regarding the recent funding news for Slack, an enterprise collaboration tool that we here at Streetwise have begun to use. Subsequently, O'Donnell took some flak from Jamie McGurk of Andreessen Horowitz for publicly criticizing the well-funded startup.
In response, O'Donnell posted this blog post claiming VCs are too thin-skinned when it comes to public criticism, citing examples outside of the Slack incident, which prompted comments from many—including Upfront Ventures' Mark Suster, who took issue with O'Donnell's handling of the whole situation. Yikes.
The issue here is not whether Slack is worth more than a billion dollars. The question is whether or not we— those that make up the often-cited "startup scene", tech media, entrepreneurs, investors—have done ourselves a disservice by developing a "rah rah" culture around anyone willing to create a website or app and call themselves a startup.
Have we created a culture that shuns freedom of speech when it comes to startups? And does this absence of critique ultimately help the overall startup ecosystem?
After spending 5+ years working on Streetwise, where we publish tech news in three cities, I can attest first hand that there is a great divide between people that want "rah rah" coverage and those that want us to basically keep it real on startups and declare them doomed before they even launch (since the sad fact is that most are doomed). As a news outlet, it is our responsibility to seek the truth. But as a local, community-oriented news outlet, it is within our mission to be a positive force for innovation in the regions we are in. Naturally, you would think there will be tension between these two aspects of our mission, but to be honest we're yet to see it.
If what one of our writers writes—or any writer, regardless of how big the publication is—can destroy your company, you were already dead.
If you've followed BostInno over the years, we've reported on pretty much every move HubSpot has made—both the good stuff and critical. I genuinely believe any press is good press, if you have a good company. If what one of our writers writes—or any writer, regardless of how big the publication is—can destroy your company, you were already dead.
The best ideas, products and teams can take the toughest tests and come out stronger. When Gomer wrote the piece questioning what HubSpot's product was several years ago, they turned the post into a customer testimonial in the comments section and somehow turned it into positive buzz. That's the difference between a company ready for the big leagues and one that is not.
But what about the earliest stage companies that are pre-funding and have a snowball's chance in hell of making it anywhere? Should we be tougher on them? Maybe. I'll even say probably. But we try to spend time on companies already having an impact on the innovation economies in Boston, D.C. and Chicago.
Where this issue becomes much more gray is with executives, founders and investors weighing in publicly on companies. As a media company, we need to be in the public discourse. But now that everyone is a publisher, should those literally in the game be calling out others like O'Donnell did?
One can make the argument that criticism is very valuable for any company big or small, as it gives you the opportunity to hear from an interested party on how you can improve. But if founders and VCs are criticizing in order to truly help the company, wouldn't they do it privately? The only reason to do it publicly is to gain recognition for yourself.
Love Slack, but $120mm and a $1B valuation at this point will almost certainly lead to lack of focus and less than optimal decision making. — Charlie O'Donnell (@ceonyc) November 1, 2014
Now to be clear, I have no problem with a founder or VC criticizing a company publicly. I agree that more open debate and discourse, regardless of the source, is a good thing in general for startups. However, if you're going to do it, let's be honest about the reason behind publicly criticizing a company.
Being relevant within the public discourse of your industry is nothing to be ashamed of in my opinion, and neither is trying to advance a cause you support (financial or otherwise). And to O'Donnell's point, look at folks like Carl Icahn in the financial industry. The guy certainly can give it out, and he can certainly take it. And no one is confused about why Icahn speaks up on a number of issues - to advance his agenda. So should we all be a bit tougher on startups and VCs? Probably. And for no other reason than that it will benefit the best startups. Image of cheerleaders via Shutterstock.
