Ken Robinson on Passion and Creativity

Tonight Sir Ken Robinson addressed a crowd of over 1,000 parents that spilled out into the parking lots surrounding the auditorium at Sacred Heart in Atherton. In a performance that topped even his 10-balloon TED Talk, he delivered a lecture with equal parts inspiration and humor.

I was bummed that "Sir" Ken showed up with no sword and without any armor AT ALL. But he does wield a mighty pen that has inked two books on the importance of helping kids find their passions (The Element) and of adapting our educational system to prize creativity over conformity (Out of our Minds: Learning to be Creative).

Here's the basic arc of his message: most people are miserable in their jobs, drudging through work in anticipation of the weekend. Only those of us who have found our passions love to work. Everyone has talents and interests to ignite, but usually schools have pushed them aside in favor of standardized academic curricula and tests. At a time when our economy has moved beyond factory jobs, we need creative, entrepreneurial citizens. That all happens only in personalized programs, where kids are encouraged to follow dreams. As Steve Jobs liked to say, people change the world by following their dreams, not a standard formula for success.

Sir Ken cited many examples, like Paul McCartney and George Harrison, who went to school together and loved music but didn't enjoy music class. Their music teacher never thought they had potential as musicians. "He had half the Beatles in his class and missed it. That was a bit of an oversight, if you don't mind my saying."

Here are some snippets from the talk:

"It's a mistake to confuse standardizing with raising standards."


"I asked the girl what she got out of her dancing class. 'I got a B' she answered."

"We should be teaching students, not subjects... Schools are more like organisms than mechanisms. Teaching is more like gardening than engineering."

"We cannot predict what will happen, where people will go and how they will develop. We have to let them find their way, and encourage them to trust that they can follow their passions. If we do this we may not be able to predict the future, but we will create a future that we all want to live in."

In the audience I saw nearly every school principal in town nodding along with Sir Ken's talk, as though they already follow his advice in their schools! I know some who do, but if they all did, then where's the problem?

Meanwhile, Ken sets an example of great teaching by keeping his audience in stitches. For example:

"I was shocked to hear that my TED Talk was downloaded 10 million times. But then I learned that two cats jumping around on YouTube was downloaded 50 million times."

“I started my dissertation in the 70;s and finished it in the 80’ s largely because of what happened in the 70’s. it was a great decade, or so I’m told.”

"I’m now working on the sequel to The Element, called Finding your Element. People keep asking me how to find it. Now I wish I had never started this whole thing. How do I know? YOU find it, leave me alone. No, seriously it’s coming out next year and it’s going to be terrific." 

Dinner with Mork

Thanks to the invitation of an old friend, two weeks ago I had the great pleasure of a 2 hour dinner with Robin Williams, who IMHO ranks among the greatest comedic actors of my lifetime, alongside Richard Pryor, Woody Allen, Steve Martin, Bill Murray and Gene Wilder.

I think I expected to meet someone much more frenetic and, frankly, obnoxious. But Williams is gracious, and listens sincerely to the people around him. He came with his gorgeous fiancé Susan whom he married last week.

Williams shared some stories about his career, starting with his high school years studying drama at Juilliard. His big screen break was a cameo on Happy Days as Mork the alien, which later spun off. Perhaps his best known and appreciated film is Good Morning Vietnam.

As I enjoyed the Cornish Hen at Jardiniere, we talked about some of his films, like my favorite Dead Poets Society, where he learned from the director that listening can be as expressive as speaking. (My wife has told me the same thing.)  It surprised me that Williams cited the creepy One Hour Photo as one of his favorites.  He told us a lot about making Awakenings, including the challenge of acting alongside actual mental patients. We also talked about Cadillac Man, The World According to Garp, and Mrs. Doubtfire, which my kids were back home watching at the time.

I learned that Williams has gone to Afghanistan three times to perform for the troops, and heard about many other international trips to raise money for charity. He's an active advocate of gay rights, and an atheist, though he was reluctant to say so (there are some things so shocking that even Robin Williams won't say them).

Often Williams broke into character, spinning up hysterical and poignant characters in the middle of conversation. "I'm so hairy," he improvised, " Coco the Gorilla tried to take me out back. She actually signed, Let's you and me go back and get busy."

On Pseudonyms: Transparency and Free Expression are Not Mutually Exclusive

I originally wrote this as a guest post for TechCrunch, but based on some good comments, I have modified the proposal. So here is my improved version of that post...

The debate on pseudonyms persists today in the NY Times, as Google continues to eject pseudonymous accounts from Google Plus. Google crafted its Common Names Policy in order to promote trust and transparency, hoping to mitigate spam and flame wars. But the backlash has been strong from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (in this eloquent statement) and others as they advocate for those who need pseudonyms to express themselves without fear of being ostracized, fired, arrested or physically targeted.

Google has promised to review its policy and develop new ways of addressing these concerns. Until then, Google Plus remains irrelevant not only to Arab Spring revolutionaries but to anyone whose life is not completely an open book. Google's policy stifles gay teens, victims of workplace harassment, medical patients seeking information and compassion, and any others who challenge the politics or religion around them.

However, the debate need not dwell on the relative importances of transparency and free expression. We must have both, and I believe we can. If Google seizes the opportunity to get this right, it will further distinguish Google Plus from Facebook as the safe, intelligent platform for sharing.

So Brad and Vic, if you're listening, please consider that you can enable free and transparent expression on the Internet by establishing Google as the source of authenticity for all profile names. I shouldn't pretend that I have thought through all the product ramifications, but roughly speaking here's what I would suggest you do...

Classify each profile name as either: Private for self-proclaimed pseudonyms; Unverified, for new profiles with allegedly "real" names; People Verified for those profiles that reach a certain degree of social activity without any indications of fraud or other reputational issues; Bank Verified for those profiles linked to an active credit card in that same name; and Google Verified for those "celebrity" profiles for whom Google vouches through their manual authentication procedures, as Twitter does.

Once Google does that, I can decide how to interact with Google Plus profiles of varying verification. Furthermore, if you allowed other web sites to also discriminate based on type of profile name, I expect that "Google Verified" would quickly leapfrog Facebook Connect and Twitter 0Auth as the preferred Login replacement.

For example, any community that reaches out to the disenfranchised can be liberal in their policy of expression, while others can exclude, or at least moderate, content from Private and Unverified users. Any statement or request from a Private profile can be considered in light of the person's anonymity. Commercial standards would develop around escalated levels of authentication; for example, commerce sites and banks might accept only Bank Verified logins.

Having cracked the code on how to share intelligently among my different Circles, Google Plus is the perfect platform for bridging transparency and free expression. Let me craft a different profile for each Circle, so I can use my Bank Verified profile at work, and my Private profile as I publicly criticize scary fundamentalists.

There is nothing dishonest about a pseudonym, so long as it's presented as one. Rather than fight anonymity, Google should simply help us recognize it - not only on Google Plus, but across the web.

EarlyBird Hatches the Term "European Comeback"

The following was originally published as a guest post for TechCrunch.


I just couldn’t keep my big Tweeter shut. When I publicly dismissed the soundness of his widely hailed report on European VC, Jason Whitmire of Earlybird Venture Capital challenged me to openly discuss the facts in a dialogue exceeding 140 characters. So I guess I owe him a response.

Based on the work of their summer intern, Jason and his partner Hendrik Brandis have published a “report” (actually, a slide deck) on Earlybird’s web site exposing a scandalous cover-up: the European VC asset class is actually on fire, far outpacing VC returns in the US.  And lest you think I exaggerate the conspiratorial, us-versus-them tone of their presentation, the headline on slide 28 reads:

Reprehensible

...that you are only now reading about the Comeback, but then again: Visibility on European VC Funds for investors is highly limited and prejudiced…

Now unlike Earlybird, my firm Bessemer Venture Partners has no agenda here. We’re a global, $3 billion VC that invests most of our capital outside the US – anywhere we find great opportunities for startups.  Indeed, we have found it compelling to fund several European startups – Skype, Criteo, Intego, Axis Network, Intego, several others – and hope to find many more.  To inform our geographic allocation of capital, we constantly seek and compile sound data; so I was naturally intrigued to read Earlybird’s report, and just as disappointed to find instead a glossy brochure.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the authors are wrong about Europe’s fertility for venture investment. I’m just saying that I can’t possibly draw a conclusion from this presentation, which has clearly been crafted to pitch a message, rather than discover one through critical analysis.

The reports presents data on slides 3 through 7 to back up the claim that European VCs outperform US VC’s.  The authors latch on to a few allegedly favorable metrics, such as the multiple returned on exits over $100m, the growing number of European exits, and the ratio of distributions to new commitments in venture capital.

But like an investment bank crafting the competitive slide of its pitch deck, they limit the data to a narrow slice of history – specifically 2009 and 2010, the aftermath of the catastrophic, US-centered financial crisis. During this time, US IPO markets seized up. (I’d bet that contrarily in 2011 the data will not reflect favorably on Europe’s financial markets.) Measuring venture capital returns requires a longer period of assessment than two years – every VC cycle is characterized by long periods of investment punctuated by bursts of liquidity. The US finds itself on the cusp of such a burst, with monster IPOs coming (Facebook, Zynga, GroupOn…) that will eclipse their Continental counterparts. The $15 billion of European capital gains touted in this report  - as well as the $30b of US gains – will be relatively immaterial as LP’s in 2013 review their managers’ performance over periods of time consistent with the life of a VC fund.

Indeed, home run outcomes play a critical role in venture returns. And yet Earlybird reports the median exit multiples to compare performance. The median outcome of any venture portfolio is irrelevant – what matters is the capital-weighted arithmetic mean, driven invariably by a handful of winners.  

The report even goes so far as to celebrate Europe’s lower home-run stats:

”Germany has a unique model where, in a different twist to the hugely successful VC-funded start-up ecosystem of Silicon Valley, the industry is not as much reliant on a handful of blockbusters or even a closely networked startup environment, but rather one where a high number of regionally diversified quality opportunities correspond to increasing levels of entrepreneurial activity.”

I’m not sure what the last part means, but the spin on Silicon Valley suggests that outcomes like Google and Facebook create some kind of unhealthy dependency, as though no one else can thrive. (Tell that to Redpoint.) It reminds me of the Airborne tagline “Created by a Second Grade Schoolteacher!” that turned lemons into lemonade.

Other problems with the numbers presented in this report:

• Incomplete data – the authors have no performance data on 85% of Europe’s VC industry.

• The report talks only of multiples without any mention anywhere of IRR. If the US exits (which included more internet companies) grew faster, a lower multiple may have easily yielded a higher IRR. 

•  Other comparisons in the report between Europe and the US are even less relevant, such as the post-IPO performance of venture-backed companies.

•  Several slides in the report (e.g. 38) imply or explicitly assert that Europe’s metrics outperform others without showing any non-European data. Slide 12 claims that “Europe today has the largest inequilibrium of venture capital availability on the planet,” without any comparative data at all.  Slides 20 and 21 also lack any data on the US venture industry, as if US-based VCs haven’t also seen increased deal flow in the last two years.

The presentation also makes bold generalizations that better fit an infomercial than an analytical study:

•          “Forget the charts!”

•       “What has emerged from the post-bubble struggle for existence is nothing less than some of the strongest Venture Capital firms in the world.”

•       “Just one example: German Venture Capital…” (except that Germany is not just one example – it’s by far Europe’s best performing country)

•       "In addition to highly misleading published historical industry data for European VC which lead to a negative bias in official statistics, there is almost no reported performance of post-bubble vintages (which effectively started only 2004/2005) – these funds are significantly better performing and, as evidenced by recent exits across top- tier funds, are now at the inflection point”

 That last statement, from slide 30, actually accompanies a chart showing almost no liquidity for European funds since 2005. As far as I can tell, the report offers this as proof that based on some anecdotal exits, Europe’s funds are doing much better than what THEY are telling us.

Well if there is a conspiracy, I’m not a part of it. I actually share Earlybird’s hopes and intuition that Europe’s entrepreneurs will generate attractive VC returns even in these turbulent times for the continent, and I look forward to seeing some compelling data.  It’s too bad that Earlybird’s report wasn’t more balanced, because I’m open to the argument that European startups are under-funded.

I only hope that when Europe does make its comeback, Jason will still invite me to co-invest with Earlybird!

Here's what comes from sending my kid to summer camp in L.A....

 

Buying an Electric Car

This is a reprint of my recent guest post to TechCrunch / Washington Post.


After 3.5 years, I’ve finally re-joined the community of car owners.

Between February 2008 and last week, I was car-less. I borrowed and rented cars, took taxis and Zip cars, and occasionally biked. I also bummed a lot of rides (thank you very much – you know who you are).  It had started when the warranty on my fancy German gas guzzler expired; I sold the thing, and never really found the time to shop around for a replacement - Who Has Time For This?

I felt a lot more excited about the prospect of driving an electric sedan, which should be greener, potentially faster, simpler to operate, and cheaper to fuel.  Most importantly, I’d never have to kill ten minutes stopping for gas - Who Has Time For This? So I put my name down on the lists for a Tesla Model S, Fisker Karma, Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt, deciding to wait for one to be built.  Three years later, I got calls from Fisker, Nissan and Chevy, and it was time to decide.

After examining the options and driving the cars, it was a pretty easy decision to buy the Leaf for these eight reasons:

    1. Compared to the others, the Leaf gets twice the range from a battery charge: 100 miles, or 85 miles with the AC cranking. (Plugging the car in and out adds about 15 seconds a day to your daily routine, or 5 minutes a month - about half the time we spend at gas pumps.)


    2. With a pure electric motor (not a hybrid gasoline engine) the Leaf is nimbler, less fragile, and legal to drive in California’s carpool lanes so I can bypass the Highway 101 traffic jams - WHTFT?


    3. Driving in electric mode (without the help of a hybrid gasoline engine) is wonderfully quiet and smooth (no transmission). Even at 80 miles per hour the acceleration is immediate and impressive.


    4. The Leaf steers as smoothly as a Lexus, and the small wheels turn on a dime.


    5. Only the Leaf has open, comfortable seats with ample head room in front and leg room in back (a must if you have kids)


    6. Only the Leaf carries 5 passengers (a must if you have THREE kids!)


    7. The Leaf has the largest trunk, and the back seats fold down for more cargo space.


    8. The Leaf costs 3/4 as much as the Volt, and 1/3 as much as the Karma. You get at least $7500 in tax credits, offset by the $2,000 expense of a home 220 volt charging station.




These reasons explain why the Nissan Leaf now the outsells the pack. I can think of only three good reasons why you might wish to buy one of the other cars:

1.        The Leaf’s pure electric motor is not a problem for two car families – on that rare day once a month when you drive more than 100 miles, you can always take the gas guzzler instead (Honda Odysseys are awesome). But without that fallback, one-car households will find the Volt more practical (albeit expensive and cramped).

2.        If you love driving enormous, heavy sports cars that sit low to the ground and you’ve got $100k to burn (like these guys), then you might prefer the gorgeous design of the Karma. It has the look and feel of a luxury muscle car with a growling engine, bucket seats, and beautiful wood/leather interiors. (The Leaf is all plastic.) Having said that, the Karma performs like a sports car at lower speeds but on the highway I found it downright sluggish compared to the Leaf. The Karma handled highway acceleration nearly as well as the Leaf only when in Stealth Mode which means that the gasoline engine is off. (You may be as disappointed as I was to learn that people can still see you in Stealth Mode.)

3.         Stephen Colbert will mock you for driving a Leaf.

All three cars come chock full of gizmos we all love (rear view camera, navigation, keyless entry, XM radio, Bluetooth, heated seats…) so there’s no reason to stick with gasoline. The Leaf even comes with a cool iPhone app for remote operation of the charger and climate control.

So I’ve been zipping around in my Leaf for a week now and absolutely loving it.  Even after three years, it was worth the wait.

A Logic Puzzle

My son passed the time today on the Chunnel crafting a logic puzzle. He has graciously offered it to me as blog content...

Alice, Bob, Charlie, Diana and Ed live in 5 one-garage homes on a street, each numbered 1 through 5 (but not necessarily in that order). They drive a Ford, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and Mercedes – also not necessarily in that order. Based on the following clues, who drives which car?

The women drive only Japanese cars.

The Honda is not in Garage 2.

Edward and Alice have adjacent garages.

Even-numbered homes contain only Japanese cars.

Ed and Bob live next door to each other, and Diana’s address is higher than theirs.

Charlie doesn’t like Japanese cars.

The addresses of the Toyota, Ford and Honda are prime numbers.

Alice’s address is more than twice Charlie’s.

The Ford and Nissan belong to next door neighbors.

Having shared logic puzzles before, I know the following disclaimer is necessary: this is a logic puzzle, and not a social or economic statement relating to what women drive or the quality of Japanese cars, so don't bother commenting on off-topic elements. (For the sake of this puzzle, Nissan, Toyota and Honda are the Japanese car manufacturers.) 

Enjoy, and try to be the first to submit the right answer!


Update: evan submitted the first right answer. Hemang Gadhia, Boomer, judic and Harit also submitted correct answers before I published any correct answers in the comments section. Don't read the comments if you wish to still solve this yourself.