My #1 tip for startup founders: no ROFR

I’m asked for a lot of advice from early stage founders. The trouble with generic advice is that it’s rarely the right advice for everyone. But when I’m forced to give just one golden tip for early stage startup founders, there’s one point, slightly exotic but hugely important, which I think is universally sound advice:

Don’t give your early stage investors a Right of First Refusal (ROFR) on later investments.

A ROFR means that your early investors get the right to do the future investments in the company, if you decide to ever raise another round. It’s usually packaged as a very benign, even positive!, term – “We’ll know the company better than anyone at that point, and it’ll make your life easier to get an investment offer from us rather than be forced to figure out new investors!”

In the words of Admiral Ackbar: “It’s a Trap!”. There is *nothing* benign about this, and founders should avoid the ROFR like the plague. I’d even say – if an investor included a ROFR in their agreement, re-consider whether that’s even a trustworthy investor you wish to engage with at all.

The reason this is so poisonous: Giving someone a ROFR basically means that they are de-facto the *only* potential investor you’ll have in the next rounds. You won’t have any other options, and the ROFR-holding investor will be able to set whatever terms s/he wants for the next investment. If they’re asking for a ROFR in their investment, they’re not really investing in you. Rather – they are buying a very cheap and well-hidden PUT option on your next investments.

The reason for this is that any future potential investor will ask you a very simple question when they start the process: “Does anyone have a ROFR?”. The last thing any investor wants to do is waste time and effort figuring out a company, doing due-diligence, engaging lawyers, etc, etc, to only learn at the last minute that someone with a ROFR is exercising it and taking the round from them. The early investor knows this – No serious investor will even engage a company that has given someone a ROFR. Which means that the early investor got de-facto exclusive rights to do future rounds, without even having to work hard for that or pay for that option.

The only compromise which makes sense, is giving early investors pro-rata rights to invest in the next rounds. So if they own 10% of the company, they have the right to invest 10% of the next round. Even that has some hidden downsides, but it’s a fair compromise to those who took the risk and invested early. For a full round, your existing investors should need to compete on equal footing with any new investors.

If there’s a ROFR in the term sheet – run away!

Share this post!

Outbrain paid publishers 4x what Facebook is

Image credit: Thought Catalog

Facebook announced this week that they’ll be spending $300M over the next 3 years to support journalism. Google made a similar announcement last year.

As Peter Kafka over at Recode writes, a bunch of this is actually going towards helping publishers contribute content to Facebook’s Watch product:

Facebook will keep spending money on its previously announced program to bring news videos to its Facebook Watch hub, which launched last year. Facebook is paying news outlets like Fox, ABC, and the BBC to produce programming for its site — but those payments aren’t guaranteed

Peter Kafka, Recode

As Jason Calacanis points out, Facebook is committing 0.3% of it’s annual revenue towards this:

Right on cue, Facebook does the most misguided, heavy-handed and unsustainable version of sharing the wealth, by sharing $100m a year — .3% of their yearly revenue — in a series of grants.

The cynical take is that these kinds of one-time payoffs, to highly influential media organizations, are designed to silence and tamper criticism — they’re buying off influential people for a pittance.

Jason Calacanis

Outbrain has paid out to publishers over 4x this amount (more than $1.3 Billion) over the *past* 3 years. And this is money that went directly to publishers, with no strings attached. Don’t let Facebook’s PR confuse the story – their core business is a direct competition to publishers, both in ad $$’s and users’ attention. Unlike Facebook, Outbrain has a truly enormous impact on publishers’ ability to create journalism sustainably.

Share this post!

My 2c about ad blockers

I’m always surprised when smart people, especially those working in ad supported industries, advocate the use of ad blockers. When new folks join the Outbrain team, I ask them during their on-boarding how many of them use ad blockers. About 50% of people say they do, and are quite casual about it.

Then I ask them how many of them steal books at Barnes & Noble, and the response is usually a bunch of horrified faces at the mere suggestion. I’m not sure why. Both are very similar forms of stealing content without paying the content owner.

The idea that ad blockers are OK to use because ads are annoying or interruptive, is absolutely ridiculous. The ads aren’t some optional thing you choose to turn on or off – the ads are how you pay for the content you consume and enjoy.

The ads might be annoying, but so is the cashier at your bookstore. But you probably never told yourself: “I want these books and magazines, but that payment part is really annoying… It’s an interruption in my day to stand in line and take out my credit card. And the paying piece – that is really annoying! So I’ll just take all the books I wanted and walk out the store without the annoying part!”.

The form of payment for the content is determined by the seller, not the consumer. Barnes & Noble might set the price in dollars. A publisher might set the price in the form of advertising. If you don’t like the form of payment, or the price, the only recourse is to not consume that content.

Share this post!