Skip to main content

Tilt, Juicero And The Madness Of Silicon Valley

A couple of stories which caught my eye in the last week relate to the bizarre world of venture capital funding and the many strange business models which get funded as a result of funds desire to make a quick killing.

The first story centred around Tilt, a variation of crowd funding which tried to play the social element of fund management for students. The second Juicero, which sells $400 juicer machines that utilise a pre-packaged fruit pod to deliver fruit drinks.

Tilt raised close to $70m in VC funding before being sold to AirBnB for around $12m, whilst Juicero has sucked up around $120m so far.

Tilt never had a business model, nor did it ever have a chance of creating one. It seems to have burned through its investments on incentives to drive subscriber numbers up and make itself more attractive to potential buyers.

Juicero has a sales proposition which seems to have a very limited appeal. Overpay for the juicer and fruit packs in exchange for never again having to purchase fruit as part if your weekly shop.

Neither proposition was particularly viable from day one and the scrutiny which fund managers made of the offerings before handing over their cash has to be suspect.

Ultimately VCs back these startups in the hope that one of their long shots gets bought out by a larger company and they can exit with a profit. Something rather less likely now Marissa Meyer's access to Yahoo's chequebook has been removed.

It's a particularly crazy way for fund managers to behave, and reflects a level of craziness that seems to be endemic in Silicon Valley.

Capital should be available for ideas which have a solid basis in good business practice. That is to say, they address a customer need, do something better than currently available offerings and, most importantly, have a solid underpinning in a viable financial plan which points to a profit somewhere down the line.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…