Prospective acquirers will often pursue potential targets simultaneously and, if they go silent on you, this may have little or nothing to do with whether you followed up diligently or not. In my experience, when an acquiring company wants to move, they know how to do so quickly, at least to engage in sufficient due diligence to see whether they might want to do the deal. Thus, when you do get in a situation where you are getting slow or evasive responses after an initial expression of interest, or where things go silent after an initial set of exchanges, I am not sure there is much you can practically do about it unless you have options to sell to others and use this as a lever to speed the process. You can be as aggressive as you like in such cases but, if the acquirer is simply trying to keep options open, you won't be able to force things absent a credible threat of going elsewhere.
That said, this one may have simply fallen through the cracks owing to the early failures to follow up more aggressively. Only the Google people can know for sure.
It does look like apart from building a great product in an exciting space Jay may not have done a bunch of things required for making an acquisition happen. Things like being on the radar of a clearly articulated internal champion in the acquiring company, getting multiple outside sources to recommend the acquisition, getting all the stakeholders on board and committed, getting personal and professional growth arrows of stakeholders aligned, getting a stalking horse to create competition for the acquiring company, etc
One thing I have learnt since joining Google: everyone inside Google is always infernally busy.
I'm British, so my concepts of bothering people, being a nuisance, and being impolite are already vastly out of skew with the American work culture -- I've had to relearn a lot of that behaviour since coming to the USA and Google.
IMO it's not really specifically a Google thing. I think the lesson to be learned from this post (and as a founder, I'm wincing along with you jayro) is simple: when dealing with a big company, keep yourself in the radar or you'll vanish altogether.
But please don't be too crazy or in your face. I administered Summer of Code for our open source project this year, and one very keen applicant kept IMing me for status updates. Unfortunately, he was based in India, and so this meant my phone buzzing at 3am. Suffice it to say (and for mostly unrelated reasons), he didn't get accepted.
Be sensitive, be fresh, be relevant, be interesting.
You have a good point- but I really don't agree with your IM/phone etiquette. If you don't want to be woken up at 3am, then have your phone on alarm-only or don't have the IM go to your phone.
Telling your counterparty that you're about to get on a plane to meet them is one way to qualify a deal: they may tell you not to.
A bizdev friend of mine taught me another: reschedule a call to a Saturday (make up a reason). If it's a serious deal... like, "you're going to be Powerpoint in our office suite"... they'll bitch, but do it.
Sometimes these things are about followup, but a lot of times they're really about qualification; they may just not be into you. It can be important to know that if you're otherwise going to spin your wheels.
Yeah, we were trying to coordinate that. Jonathan was anxious to get me up there and thought I'd be a big hit with the Writely guys who he seemed to hold in very high regard. But he had to fly back to New York (we were in SF at the time for the conference), then he had some other trip and then it just got complicated. That's why he just decided to pass me up the ladder, but in the end that clearly didn't work to my advantage.
A great read about politeness (though it had some negotiating impacts) causing a missed opportunity. I too err on the side of politeness when it comes to business interactions and I've learned that more often than not, when I'm dealing with someone remotely whether it be a colleague or a point of contact, that the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I think it was a mistake to let it ride for so long. A few weeks, maybe two months, and I would have called them up and followed up. Even a short email positioning myself as asking more out of curiosity than need for an acquisition, etc.
My natural tendency would be towards patience, I think, so I would be in danger of letting things slide. Realizing that, though, I'd be in a position to do something about it. If the goal is to keep your name on the radar, it seems like you just need to get something into the contact's inbox. What about a note detailing new features or improvements you'd implemented in the past week or two? It could be a way to indicate continued interest without feeling like you're badgering. Hopefully the contact would reply and provide some insight into the progress. If not, a more direct approach would probably be warranted.
Agreed. As a starter upper, I'm always the little guy who's chasing the bigger guy (investor, client). I try not to be pushy, but if 1-2 weeks go by, I'll write a friendly what's up email and that usually works.
There was a no-holds-barred discussion of the realities of being acquired by s soulless megacorp at Business of Software 2010, by Eric Sink, who sold a product to MS. He had a similar hot cold hot cold reception, and the deal was totally dead twice, prior to it working out. It appears to be the nature of the beast.
If BOS publishes the video of that, I'll post it -- it was one of the most eyeopening talks at the conference for me (and that is saying something, since they were virtually without exception outstanding).
P.S. Google is a soulless megacorp with above average PR.
Preezo sounds like it was built to be acquired from day one. I think that mindset makes it a lot more difficult to deal with missed opportunities and can really make the entire experience of building a product unenjoyable. This is probably why so many people suggest building something you want instead of what you think others will want; at least you can enjoy the fruits of your labor in the process.
You're absolutely correct. I started to write about my lessons learned and "don't build to flip" was one of them, but the article started to get a bit long. I'll summarize the lessons learned from Preezo in another article as there are a lot ... unfortunately. ;)
And because building something people want instead of what you think some company wants makes you less dependent on a lottery and more dependent on your own skills.
Definitely a frustrating story to read. That said, two things stand out:
1) Deals fall through. PG et all write about this all the time. It's probably easy to figure why they fail in hindsight, but that doesn't make them any easier to manage in the future.
2) It seems like the main premise of the idea was to get bought by google/yahoo/microsoft. That is a dangerous strategy to employ out of the gates (although back in 2005 there was no hacker news and a whole let less general knowledge about the black art of startups).
The "get on a plane" advice is crucial. Product managers lead acquisitions at Google and are the hardest to reach. If you get any interest expressed from them, try to get in person w/ them within a couple weeks max, even if just for coffee. From there, it's helpful to send them a monthly or bi-monthly ping just to keep them abreast of any developments. They might not be ready to acquire now, but it's very helpful to remind them of you when they're ready or thinking of an acquisition
I think the moral here applies to more than just dealing with big companies, but anything in general. Persistence can pay off big time.
Quick example: I interviewed with a company back in August and was told I'd hear from them in a week. I didn't so I began emailing the CEO (who I'd interviewed with) at least once a week for almost three months (never got a yes/no, so I kept "checking in"). Because I kept myself on the radar and kept pursuing it, when something finally opened up, I got the job and was told that they admired my persistence. Don't be afraid of annoying people -- if the answer isn't final yet, keep trying.
A somewhat similar story: around the same time I was working on Numbler, a collaborative spreadsheet that I launched (unluckily) a couple of months before google spreadsheet went live. Numbler had some cool features that would enable you to see real time changes from other collaborators, see dynamic updates when someone else changed cell formulas, integration with internet data sources, etc.
I got the attention of Google and was flown into NYC for an interview / talk with the spreadsheet team. Similarly, I was also a one man shop since my founder had bailed on me and left for Google 3 months prior! Things went pear shaped when I failed to get through the algorithm gristmill. I had one poor interview with a beaver/rat ringed kid who was eager to demonstrate his intellectual superiority (or so it felt at the time).
The frustrating part is that as an entrepreneur your thoughts are ranging from how to make money/business model to UI design to backend engineering. I was expecting that the googlers would at least show some interest in Numbler - but that wasn't how the meetings were structured. The google PM (Fuzzy was his name) was interested, but seemed hamstrung by the google process. Google never asked me about any of the tricks I used work to build the UI, COMET style networking for responsiveness, etc.
In retrospect, Numbler was an acquisition play and needed a much better strategy and larger vision to succeed. I did end up with a google NYC t-shirt...
Yeah, I remember Numbler! It sounds like a very similar story except that you just got a little further down the road. If you'd be willing to tell it in more detail it would be fun to interview you on the podcast I co-host - TechZing (www.techzinglive.com). If you think you might be interested then please send me an email.
I don't have any relevant experience, but this sounds odd. If the product was good (better than Zenter), than why didn't they acquire Preezo at that later point in time?
I (a UK developer) just dealt with a company who were interested in my Pretext software, which finds text in images. I rang at 2PM their time when I rang, and when his development committee finally rejected me after a month of waiting, he said "You have written very capable and useful software - however, we want to develop in-house", I was polite and said goodbye, etc.
Everything to gain. Nothing lost but a couple transatlantic phone calls.
You should ping them again once some time has passed, just to inquire as to how things are going. It will only take you a moment, and there's a non-zero chance they may have grappled with the problem enough to have changed their mind and be eager to speak with you.
I didnt realise there was a market for that sort of software. I wrote a pile of it some time ago for my thesis and never did anything with it. Perhaps I should dust it off like you and try selling it.
I gotta say hearing about things not going one's way is more informative and educational than hearing about when things all go peachy and a founder walks out with $X million. If you only read TC you'd think every startup in the world is cashing in.
No, Jonathan Rochelle was a really nice guy. I think he just knew that that demo was going to be a big deal for me and that it was probably something I had been hoping and waiting for. He was right.
The lesson for me here is that even if Barack Obama or Bill Gates approaches you - you should act calmly and politely (and alertly as inner state) but as if you know or presume nothing of the opposite side's intentions, power, possible usefulness to you, etc.
Some kind of mental aikido stance combined with polite poker face that seems to leave off the initiative of first action but disarms the other side of certain ways to influence you.
Seems to me that your analysis suffers from a fundamental attribution error (blaming you rather than circumstances). While it is possible that you could have done a few things better (with the help of the ever so omni-potent captain hindsight), my experience is that such deals are complicated and involve a lot of people. So I think it is much more likely that the final outcome was more out of your control than your essay implies.
I know I've had experiences in life where I look back and say 'what was I thinking?!?'
As difficult as it is, nicely done on recognizing the situation, holding yourself accountable and chalking it up as a lesson learned. No doubt about it, this experience will help you somewhere down the line...
I'm really impressed with your articulate re-cap of the story.
Thanks, I really do appreciate that. It was more difficult than I thought to actually write the story down once and for all. I'm still sitting here wondering what my mental block was at the time because it's not like I'm at all introverted or uncomfortable contacting people. Hell, listen to my podcast (TechZing) all I do is run my mouth. ;) Maybe the insight will come to me after some deep thinking or maybe even some regression hypnosis and I'll write a follow up. The post will have to be entitled something like - The Real Reason I Completely Choked. Ugh. ;)
not sure why there's downvotes, maybe I worded the above too strongly.
He clearly mentions how he discusses how he routed around browser editing/DOM manipulation to Google, and then a similar approach was taken by Google later in their product.
[+] [-] grellas|15 years ago|reply
That said, this one may have simply fallen through the cracks owing to the early failures to follow up more aggressively. Only the Google people can know for sure.
[+] [-] encoderer|15 years ago|reply
Sometimes you're the acquirer, sometimes you're the acquired, and sometimes you're the one sitting there wondering why it went dark :)
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sundars|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlees|15 years ago|reply
I'm British, so my concepts of bothering people, being a nuisance, and being impolite are already vastly out of skew with the American work culture -- I've had to relearn a lot of that behaviour since coming to the USA and Google.
IMO it's not really specifically a Google thing. I think the lesson to be learned from this post (and as a founder, I'm wincing along with you jayro) is simple: when dealing with a big company, keep yourself in the radar or you'll vanish altogether.
But please don't be too crazy or in your face. I administered Summer of Code for our open source project this year, and one very keen applicant kept IMing me for status updates. Unfortunately, he was based in India, and so this meant my phone buzzing at 3am. Suffice it to say (and for mostly unrelated reasons), he didn't get accepted.
Be sensitive, be fresh, be relevant, be interesting.
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|15 years ago|reply
Maybe it's more of an American idiom, but usually when we say "suffice it to say", we mean it was for related reasons :)
[+] [-] civilian|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshu|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
A bizdev friend of mine taught me another: reschedule a call to a Saturday (make up a reason). If it's a serious deal... like, "you're going to be Powerpoint in our office suite"... they'll bitch, but do it.
Sometimes these things are about followup, but a lot of times they're really about qualification; they may just not be into you. It can be important to know that if you're otherwise going to spin your wheels.
[+] [-] rokhayakebe|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trickjarrett|15 years ago|reply
I think it was a mistake to let it ride for so long. A few weeks, maybe two months, and I would have called them up and followed up. Even a short email positioning myself as asking more out of curiosity than need for an acquisition, etc.
Anyone else agree? Would you have followed up?
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Archaeum|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rythie|15 years ago|reply
If the acquisition process takes too long, they are not saving time (they could have coded it internally) and they have plenty of engineers already.
[+] [-] sundars|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patio11|15 years ago|reply
If BOS publishes the video of that, I'll post it -- it was one of the most eyeopening talks at the conference for me (and that is saying something, since they were virtually without exception outstanding).
P.S. Google is a soulless megacorp with above average PR.
[+] [-] jordanmessina|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jules|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnrob|15 years ago|reply
1) Deals fall through. PG et all write about this all the time. It's probably easy to figure why they fail in hindsight, but that doesn't make them any easier to manage in the future.
2) It seems like the main premise of the idea was to get bought by google/yahoo/microsoft. That is a dangerous strategy to employ out of the gates (although back in 2005 there was no hacker news and a whole let less general knowledge about the black art of startups).
[+] [-] robk|15 years ago|reply
*disclaimer - ex-Google PM
[+] [-] bherms|15 years ago|reply
Quick example: I interviewed with a company back in August and was told I'd hear from them in a week. I didn't so I began emailing the CEO (who I'd interviewed with) at least once a week for almost three months (never got a yes/no, so I kept "checking in"). Because I kept myself on the radar and kept pursuing it, when something finally opened up, I got the job and was told that they admired my persistence. Don't be afraid of annoying people -- if the answer isn't final yet, keep trying.
[+] [-] harshaw|15 years ago|reply
I got the attention of Google and was flown into NYC for an interview / talk with the spreadsheet team. Similarly, I was also a one man shop since my founder had bailed on me and left for Google 3 months prior! Things went pear shaped when I failed to get through the algorithm gristmill. I had one poor interview with a beaver/rat ringed kid who was eager to demonstrate his intellectual superiority (or so it felt at the time).
The frustrating part is that as an entrepreneur your thoughts are ranging from how to make money/business model to UI design to backend engineering. I was expecting that the googlers would at least show some interest in Numbler - but that wasn't how the meetings were structured. The google PM (Fuzzy was his name) was interested, but seemed hamstrung by the google process. Google never asked me about any of the tricks I used work to build the UI, COMET style networking for responsiveness, etc.
In retrospect, Numbler was an acquisition play and needed a much better strategy and larger vision to succeed. I did end up with a google NYC t-shirt...
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zandorg|15 years ago|reply
Everything to gain. Nothing lost but a couple transatlantic phone calls.
[+] [-] megrimlock|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boyter|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StavrosK|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waterside81|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] splatcollision|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kenjackson|15 years ago|reply
WTF? Is Google the mob or something? Almost seems like the next line should have been, "And I was never seen or heard from again."
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kds|15 years ago|reply
Some kind of mental aikido stance combined with polite poker face that seems to leave off the initiative of first action but disarms the other side of certain ways to influence you.
[+] [-] deyan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sportsTAKES|15 years ago|reply
As difficult as it is, nicely done on recognizing the situation, holding yourself accountable and chalking it up as a lesson learned. No doubt about it, this experience will help you somewhere down the line...
I'm really impressed with your articulate re-cap of the story.
[+] [-] jayro|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] seltzered|15 years ago|reply
While keeping the line of communication is important, it's also important to ensure it's worth your time.
[+] [-] seltzered|15 years ago|reply
He clearly mentions how he discusses how he routed around browser editing/DOM manipulation to Google, and then a similar approach was taken by Google later in their product.