They were neck and neck with @YouTube until about 70M UU per month.
2/ DailyMotion was started by two brilliant creative minds: @robertderosny and @Olivier_Poitrey. The guys were blazing new features at speed and leading the way. A real grassroots story.
3/ The product was great, users loved it and we were growing fast.
One of the early good decisions we made was to delay monetisation. We didn’t want to burden a company whose success was predicated on achieving massive scale.
So what happened? Why didn't we become YT?
4/ Let's look structural advantages did YouTube have that allowed them to break away from us
First, they didn’t have to worry so much about being capital efficient. Sequoia backed them early, and Google was around the corner waiting to acquire them. We didn’t have that luxury.
5/ Lack of available capital for a play like this in Europe forced discipline on the infrastructure side. Uniquely amongst video sharing plays, we built our own CDN early, which allowed us to keep bandwidth costs low.
6/ This is one the key reasons we ended surviving, unlike Veoh or Metacafe who got crushed by bandwidth costs. YouTube themselves never got there; but they didn’t have to - Google bought them early and absorbed that cost.
7/ Secondly, YouTube was able to piggy-back MySpace and became their video engine.
The moment adoption on MySpace took off, we saw their numbers improve dramatically
... whereas we kept growing mostly organically, stuck doing deals with MSN or Yahoo :-(
8/ Thirdly, proximity to the big content owners made deal negotiations easier. Whilst we built a strong team in the US over time led by @JoyMarcus , but this was a much more arduous process for us.
9/ Don’t get me wrong - there were also a lot of self-inflicted wounds here which I have written about before. Rough ride.
The company found its footing under the leadership pf @CedricTournay, who built a real business.
10/ You can see the structural advantages YouTube enjoyed.
Building a great social media company in Europe will take excellence on product, a willingness to release our cultural orthodoxy around monetisation, and a lot of ambition.
1/ Is your board becoming unwieldy as you scale past Series B?
That's probably because you're trying to fit too much into the same format. Some ideas on how to solve that.
2/ Problems: you don't know who to invite. Exec team benefits from being involved but investors hesitate to be direct. A number of issues can't be discussed openly. Engagement isn't great and it all feels a bit theatrical. Takes too long to prep and most comments are generic.
3/ Diagnostic: you're running too many meetings as one. In a COVID world with everyone in remote locations, there's no need for that. Break it up!
1/ By definition, VC partnership are only as good a their decision making.
Let’s explore 👇
2/ In venture as in startups, there are only decisions, never any certainties. It is the nature of our game that good decisions combined with good execution can lead to poor outcomes. In other words, a poor outcome does not mean you took the wrong decision. What to do?
3/ The first step is to collectively get as close to the truth as you can.
This means gathering opinions and facts until you have built a mental model of the decision you are taking and assessing the nature of the risks you are taking.
Numbers you committed to your board are not your strategy.
Numbers you think next round investors want to see are not your strategy.
2/ You produce objectives because it's good to have measurable targets, usually ambitious ones. You know it's really hard to forecast so early ... but suddenly your fairly random attempt at predicting the future because the yardstick against which you are measured.
3/ Once these numbers are communicated to the board and across the company, these become the goal everyone is working towards. This many paying customers, suppliers on the platform, whatever the KPI may be.
Your wise investors tell you "disciplined companies hit their numbers"!
1/ Let me distill the Stride investment strategy in fifteen tweets. Yes, fifteen 😘.
2/ To be able to make money, you need some form of edge. The edge does not need to be complex of over-intellectualised, but it needs to be real and drive returns.
3/ Some funds are vertical specialists (say @anthemis ), some leverage network assets (say @ycombinator ) or build large portfolios (say @seedcamp), some funds leverage dominant execution capability (say @sequoia or @IndexVentures ) etc.