Kevin Durant, Tesla, Brexit ...takeaways para startups

El mes de junio ha sido rico en acontecimientos de muy diverso tipo. Y varios de ellos, muy distintos entre sí, me han dado algunas ideas para este post. A priori, pensar que podemos aplicar algunas enseñanzas del Brexit, del reciente accidente de Tesla o del flamante fichaje de Kevin Durant por los Golden State Warriors al universo startup resulta una quimera. Pero ya veréis como tiene sentido.

1. Kevin Durant...o la importancia de contagiar una mentalidad ganadora

Esta portada de Sports Illustrated que vi ayer resume perfectamente cómo se ha venido sintiendo Kevin Durant en su exitosa carrera. Y supongo que esto llegó a su máxima expresión estando 3-1 arriba contra los Warriors en la final de la conferencia oeste de la NBA de este año.

Su marcha a los Warriors anunciada ayer se puede interpretar de dos formas. Como la decisión fácil de irse a un equipo que le da probablemente más posibilidades que ningún otro de ganar el anillo el año próximo, abandonando el proyecto de los Thunder, bastante sólido pero no tanto. O bien como una decisión en la que está dispuesto a renunciar en cierta medida a su condición de mega estrella en Oklahoma en aras de un bien mayor: ganar el anillo.

En el plan de convencer a Durant se ha volcado toda la organización de los Warriors, desde Steph Curry hasta los dueños y director deportivo. Todo el mundo ha empujado en la misma dirección, como una sola fuerza. 

Y es ese querer alcanzar un sueño (exit) dándolo todo, ese aglutinar y alinear los intereses comunes para que todos los "estamentos" (empleados, management, accionistas) de la startup renuncien en parte y de forma razonable a su interés propio en aras de un objetivo superior lo que constituye la fuerza motriz, el viento de cola para un proyecto emprendedor. Y no es que sea recomendable, es que para mí es condición sine qua non.

2. El accidente mortal de un Tesla... o la importancia del día a día

Si hay una empresa (y un líder) que en los últimos tiempos ha despertado admiración - la cual profeso personalmente - esa es Tesla (y ese es Elon Musk). Tras la presentación el pasado mes de marzo de su más reciente modelo, el Model 3, Tesla consiguió 400.000 pedidos (valorados en unos $14.000 millones) en una semana. Si a eso unimos las continuas noticias sobre su mega fábrica de baterías en Las Vegas, rumores de adquisiciones corporativas, los éxitos de SpaceX (que ayudan sin duda, siquiera por asociación con Musk)... Días de vino y rosas, vaya. Y de repente, cuando todo iba rodado, llega el primer accidente mortal de un Tesla con piloto automático. Imposible estar a salvo del día a día.


Para una startup en proceso de crecimiento y eventual consolidación el día a día es fundamental. El mercado pronto olvida un gran partnership entablado con una gran empresa, o una potente ronda de financiación suscrita por inversores con pedigree, o el lanzamiento de un nuevo esperanzador producto. Los cambios en las dinámicas del mercado, la presión de los competidores, los intereses de los distintos stakeholders alrededor de la empresa. Cualquier circunstancia puede hacer en cualquier momento que se tuerza un camino que poco antes de preveía recto y despejado. 

3. Brexit...o la importancia del liderazgo

Semanas antes de que se celebrase el referendum en Reino Unido, un buen amigo que vive y trabaja en Londres ya apuntaba que era éste un lío en el que el otrora flamante primer ministro Cameron se había metido solito. Exceso de confianza? Asunciones erróneas? Desconexión con la realidad? Probablemente una mezcla de todo derivada de éxitos pasados (i.e. las últimas elecciones que ganó holgadamente). 

Más allá de las consecuencias "macro" para el ecosistema emprendedor europeo del Brexit, que bien resumía Gary Stewart (Director de Wayra UK & Telefonica Open Future en Reino Unido), a mí me parece que Mr. Cameron y su gente de confianza midieron horriblemente. Y esto es algo que puede suceder, y de hecho sucede a menudo en las startups. 

No seré yo quien descubra que la importancia de los equipos es capital en las startups. Un equipo puede hacer muy bueno a unos líderes mediocres. Y unos líderes mediocres pueden hacer malo a un buen equipo. Y un buen equipo y unos buenos líderes muy probablemente se harán mutuamente muy buenos. Pero para que esta ecuación funcione debe fluir la comunicación, deben conocerse las inquietudes, temores y aspiraciones de cada lado, deben todos ser capaces de ponerse en los zapatos del otro, deben todos comprender y empatizar con los intereses del otro. No valen las asunciones ni los puntos de vista unilaterales. Porque un día te despiertas y ha ganado el Brexit.


Food for thought. Hasta la próxima.

The digital media battlefield as ad blocking forces are deployed

I like technology, digital trends, the media landscape...and if I had to pick a hot topic affecting all of them lately my choice would be the ad blocking phenomenon. I guess I am a little biased after having worked at an adtech startup for the last 7 months, but still...

It is obvious that since the advent of the internet, traditional media have suffered declining advertising revenues as readers have shifted from paper to digital editions. Publishers have effortlessly (and not always successfully) tried to find business models (subscriptions, diverse freemium schemes, 100% ad-based, etc.) to rebalance their top lines.

Such eagerness to generate increasing digital revenue has in most cases led to a proliferation of advertising at the cost of the user experience. We have reached the point where such ad proliferation has caused many users to find their navigation experience increasingly disturbing, intrussive, annoying...in short, a perfect storm for ad blockers (and an opportunity for new non-intrussive advertising formats).

According to a report by PageFair and Adobe, ad blocking will result in almost $42bn in foregone revenues in 2016 globally (rising from $21bn in 2015). The same report points out double-digit YoY increases in users' ad blocker adoption.

Bad news for publishers as their already somewhat weak digital revenues are impacted by a tidal wave. Obviously, publishers are trying to react by forcing users to disable their ad blockers in order to navigate a site or by kindly asking them to do so...We have just known that, for instance, leading French publishers such as L'Equipe, Le Monde or Le Figaro are pushing together against ad blockers.

This is obviously bad news for advertisers as well. Along these lines, Fast Company reported in January that at the last Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) annual conference, Adblock Plus (one of the leading players worldwide) was kicked out.

It is probably easier said than done but at the end of the day the solution is about finding a balance between revenue and user experience. It sounds obvious, I know. As users, we have to understand that publishers have to pay salaries, premises, technology, etc (like any other business!), and that advertising plays a critical part in that. We cannot demand "free" quality content just like that and we should tolerate some reasonable degree of advertising. At the same time, publishers have to acknowledge that it does not make sense that any given user just wants - in a majority of cases - to close a pop-up as soon as it opens, or skip any pre-roll as soon as it kicks off.

And it is in this context that finding and implementing new advertising formats - native advertising, programmatic technology, etc. - that provide relevant (as opposed to general), quality (as opposed to junk) information to users may be the key to finding that balance. Happy, recurring users mean more traffic which, in turn, should translate in higher revenue. But finding the right formula for this equation is still something in the works.

Startup fundraising - some simple, yet practical, lessons (I)

Over the last few months I have been working on fundraising. It is a challenging process that takes time, effort and organization. At this point I can share some piece of advice based on my own experiences which will hopefully help entrepreneurs and/or startups going through this process for the first time.

There is a lot of thorough literature out there on this topic, which has been contributed by people way more experienced than I am and who for sure have many more war stories than I do. My goal is not to provide the definitive fundraising guide but to simplify things a little and just provide some easy steps for those who get involved in this process for the first time or so. These are a few:

(1) Invest time in research: there are hundreds of investors out there and each one of them is different.  Put in some good prep time to figure out who you can contact as a potential investor in your venture. Some things to look at are:

• investment stage: angel investors and investment clubs tend to focus on very early-stage investments (ie. seed), while venture capital funds range from seed stage to early, growth and later stage - follow the letters typically attached to post-seed financing rounds in which they have participated (A, B, C, etc... - moving along the alphabet means later stage);
• sector focus: venture capital investors typically target different sectors but that does not mean that everyone targets everything. Do not waste time and energy approaching those funds whose investment strategy lies outside of the sector where your startup operates; 
• geographic focus: make sure the investors you target typically fund companies from your continent / region / country;
• business model: leaving geography and vertical aside, some investors primarily or exclusively focus on specific business models. For instance, marketplaces are really hot these days. 
• who does what: funds' websites typically provide information on the team members, their backgrounds and areas of expertise (but not necessarily their respective emails). Identify who in each team is potentially best suited re: your company;
• Crunchbase is your best friend: it is the best free database out there to research for investors and to identify rather quickly - do not forget to check investors' websites too - who can be a potential good fir for you

(2) Get introductions from your network: VCs, in particular the most reputed ones, receive countless pitches, so being able to stand out from the crowd to get their attention is critical. You will hardly succeed if you go through their general "info@vc.com" inbox. Analyze your network (e.g. LinkedIn) and ask friends, colleagues, fellow startups and other contacts to make an introduction for you; this will certainly not guarantee any funding but it will at least give your pitch a better chance to be read.  Plus it may help that friend of yours to score a point with the VC if the latter decides to fund your project.

In the absence of an introduction, find ways to avoid the general inbox. Look for the right person's email (see last bullet above), reach out via Linkedin or Angelist, etc...

(3) Try to build rapport and credibility from the outset: you are not going to be given many opportunities (most likely you will just have one shot) to get any given investor's attention. Making a good impression from minute 1 may give you the chance to start a conversation. On the contrary, a bad first impression will shut the door in your face. Yet obvious, these are some things to take into consideration:

• avoid typos, both in your communications and in the pitch deck;
• write an effective email (in particular if you have not been able to secure an introduction): in addition to some general guidelines like these, try to build a connection (e.g. referring to the addressee's past investments or industry focus, following up from a previous event where you met) with your counterpart and do your best to capture her interest (e.g. the "magic" your product is bringing to the market, any awards or competitions your startup may have won);
• be professional in everything that you do: reply promptly, follow up timely, etc.

(4) Organize yourself: unless you are operating in a very niche space (in terms of sector and/or geography), the research mentioned in (1) above may result in multiple potential leads. This means that you are going to be communicating with a lot of people/organizations and that the flow of information (who and when you have contacted, outcomes from calls/email exchanges, follow up actions, contact details, etc.)  will be very significant. You may think that your amazing memory will be able to retain everything clearly, but that is wrong. Find ways - a CRM, spreadsheets, organization tools like Redbooth etc. - to keep your information organized; otherwise you will be wasting the precious time that you need for a whole lot of other things.


In subsequent chapters I will be touching on a number of other aspects to be accounted for during the fundraising process. But I hope this helps for the time being.

Musings on (changing) corporate cultures

I think that for the first time ever I am spending a relatively significant amount of time thinking about corporate culture. I am pretty sure that the main reason why this is happening is due to the fact that, after 10+ years working in "traditional" companies, a few months ago I started to experience what working in a startup environment means. It was a much sought after move but, leaving other considerations aside, I can acknowledge that the cultural change has been very significant.

When you join an established company with a long history and solid values behind it, you know (or think you know) the kind of game you are getting into. You may agree or disagree with all or some of those values but at the end of the day, it's typically been about getting the job that you want (or that you thought that you wanted). In addition, you realize over time - in particular if you look back at those jobs early in your career - how those values and cultures have shaped your own work ethos. And you realize that even more as you move into a brand new space that has little to do with what you were used to (and which in some instances you don't buy into in full).

I have attended the European E-Commerce Conference taking place in the city of Bilbao, Spain, which focuses on different aspects of the startup and digital ecosystems. Interestingly, I have ended up attending - driven more or less by my subconscious, I'd say - a couple of sessions focused on corporate culture and organization. I just wanted to share some thoughts that have caught my eye:

1. Design for uncertainty. The days where an organization was designed to fit and thrive in a peaceful, stable, quiet ecosystem are gone. Change is all over the place and it is here to stay. Companies need to be built to adapt to permanent change, to uncertainty. It is indeed a dramatic shift.
2. Culture mirrors founders. Several speakers in a panel agreed that in most cases a company's culture is (and should be) the result of its founders' values. But this is no guarantee of success as some founders may be willing to create and maintain a culture that is completely the opposite of that of the kind of talent they are willing to attract to build the company they want. 
3. In absence of a culture, build one. Sometimes there is no corporate culture as such in place and, in that case, it is central to build one. This is a process that needs to be implemented top-down with the CEO and management fully onboard. But a culture cannot be created overnight, it takes time and there are multiple levers to be used (e.g. recruiting, technology, practices)  
4. Bureaucracy vs. non-bureaucracy. People hate the idea of corporate bureaucracy. I dislike it too and it has traditionally driven me a bit crazy to "waste" my time in it. Ask anyone and they will assure that they would do anything to get rid of bureaucracy at the workplace. But as bad as it sounds, it is also true - in particular considering how quickly technology, work trends, markets, etc., are changing - that it may also be a bit of the glue that keeps things together.
5. Hiring vs. inspiring: Steve Cadigan pointed out during a round table that, increasingly, people do not want to be hired but be inspired. I can't think of a more powerful statement aiming at the very core of any given company's culture. You need to make your company appealing so you are able to both retain your employees and be able to attract valuable talent - this is the most powerful marketing tool within your reach.
6. Integrating the new stuff. There is technology out there that can help any company achieve a more cohesive culture. For instance, Slack was mentioned several times as a great way to foster communication, sharing and transparency. At the same time, it is necessary to integrate traditional ways of working (ie. 9-to-5) with increasingly popular trends such as remote work and freelancing. 

At one of the sessions reference was made to the "Netflix company culture deck". As most of the audience, I had no idea about what that was (all the speakers in the panel knew about it and now I understand why!). A simple google search has led me to it. It is from 2009 but it's great and still fully applicable today. It was once referred to as "Silicon's Valley most important document ever". It is a long one but I strongly recommend you to have a look.

This will do for now, yet I think I am going to continue thinking about all this stuff as I get used to the new variables in this game I am playing.

3 apuntes sobre el South Summit 2015

El pasado viernes 9 de octubre terminó el South Summit, la conferencia española más importante - y una de las más importantes de Europa - en el ámbito de la tecnología y el emprendimiento. Fueron dos días y medio intensos y productivos, si bien el balance final habrá que realizarlo dentro de unas semanas, una vez vayan madurando los diversos leads generados.

Algunas ideas que me vienen a la cabeza tras mi primer South Summit:

- necesitamos más South Summits en España: en líneas generales, se trata de un evento muy bien organizado y de calidad. Me parece una iniciativa muy buena y me quito el sombrero ante María Benjumea por impulsar este evento.

Lo importante es que esto no se convierta en simplemente algo de tres días al año, sino que cada vez más y en colaboración con otras iniciativas y con el apoyo de las grandes empresas y de los poderes públicos, vayamos poco a poco creando un ecosistema y cultura más favorecedores para las startups en España.

- ay, nuestro nivel de inglés...: me gustó que el idioma "oficial" de la conferencia fuese el inglés, me parece un paso interesante y valiente en la dirección de quitarnos esos complejos que tenemos desde pequeñitos los españoles a la hora de hablar idiomas.

Dicho lo cual, el nivel de inglés medio sigue siendo bajo (el presidente del gobierno fuese incapaz de dar su discurso en inglés) y eso es, sin duda, un problema muy importante a la hora de que inversores, sobre todo los extranjeros, decidan confiar en emprendedores españoles que quieren internacionalizar sus negocios.  En este sentido, me llamó en especial la atención y me sorprendió - para mal - el manejo del idioma de algunas personas con puestos de mucha responsabilidad en grandes multinacionales. No sé cómo serán capaces de defender su gestión cuando vayan a comités en EEUU, por ejemplo.

El gráfico muestra el English Proficiency Index realizado por la empresa EF. Si queremos competir en el ámbito internacional en igualdad de condiciones, tenemos que estar arriba en este ranking. Desafortunadamente, estamos en mitad de la tabla.


- el poder del networking: sin perjuicio de asistir a algunas charlas y aprender cosas nuevas, es evidente que a conferencias como estas se va fundamentalmente a conocer gente, ya sean inversores, partners, proveedores o potenciales clientes. Me resultó en este sentido inspiradora la charla que nos dio Alex Barrera en el bootcamp celebrado en el Google Campus un par de días antes del comienzo de South Summit.

Dado que uno de los objetivos primordiales del foro era poner en contacto a inversores y emprendedores, quizás eché de menos algo más de tiempo y recursos dirigidos a posibilitar dicha interacción. Aunque conseguimos algunos leads interesantes, creo que era una ocasión ideal para hacer muchísimo más.

También me resultó curiosa, y útil, la puesta a disposición de los asistentes de una app llamada Bizzabo que permite una gestión integral de eventos, incluido el contacto entre la comunidad de asistentes. Si bien sufrió algunos problemas técnicos en varias ocasiones, ofreció un valor añadido al networking tradicional en persona e improvisado.


En conclusión, un evento muy interesante que espero que perdure en el tiempo y siga creciendo. Será la mejor señal de que vamos por el buen camino.

Netflix as a paradigm...or it's the content, stupid!!

There is no doubt that the significance of content in the media and digital spaces is paramount, and that thousands of reports, articles, books and posts have been written about it. Even major corporate deals have been reportedly completed - Verizon's recent acquisition of AOL is a case in point - on the basis of content. 

Content is king and becoming more and more significant. And when speaking of content, Netflix is one of those names that comes to mind right away. I have had some sort of direct experience about this most recently. 

Netflix, HBONow, Sling, Hulu, Amazon Prime... it is amazing how quickly you can get used to the seamless experience of having all the shows, documentaries and movies (i.e. content) you want within your reach at any time, without neither ads nor schedule constrains. Today, I am all in when it comes to cutting the cable cord. And I was not aware that I felt so strongly about it until circumstances have forced me to change my adopted habits and get back to cable tv.

My entertainment menu while in the U.S. came from over-the-top services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and, more recently, HBONow. I have digested content like crazy, at my own pace, whenever I have wanted to. However, after landing in Spain I confirmed my fears: none of these services is available in Spain (well, Netflix just announced its forthcoming Spanish launch on October 20, thank god). That has led me to Telefonica's pay-tv offering which, in turn, has quickly discouraged me from watching tv at all. I can't stand the experience, I seldom find interesting content at a time that works for me.

Unfortunately, Spain has traditionally be at the very top in the global piracy rankings, both in relative and absolute terms. It is also often said that this is the result of a country culture. I am not gonna say that the latter is not partially true, but I am also pretty sure that the reality would be a very different one had Netflix or others been around for quite some time. Changing the existing mindset and making people pay monthly to get content is going to take a while.

Speaking of Netflix as a paradigm of good and relevant content, I couldn't help sharing their latest native advertising campaign - Cocainenomics, on the occasion of the premiere of "Narcos" - on the Wall Street Journal. It is jaw-dropping.

Native advertising is a growing trend in digital advertising: it is the practice of making an ad on a platform resemble the look and feel of whatever content the user is there to see or read. This a growing digital advertising segment has been forecasted to be worth $5-10 billion in 2016.  

All experts point out that, in order for native advertising to become the more engaging tool it is for the user, advertisers need to be able to tell stories, to connect with their audience, to address the later's needs. And content - more accurately, the meaningful and quality content - is the secret ingredient that guarantees success, for both publishers (more money) and brands (more brand awareness)...and readers (engagement). 

Tech (and others) talent vs immigration: the ultimate US fight

I am not a big boxing fan. In fact I have only watched one fight in my life (Pacquiao vs Mayweather a few months ago, of course) so I do not understand much about it. However, over the last months I have learnt a lot about fighting and related tactics. So far I have lost, but there are a couple of rounds still left.

A lot - see this article for illustration - has been written about the shortage of talent being a relevant challenge for the tech industry these days in the US. There is a real need to fill thousands of roles and no domestic talent is often available. This obviously harms growth and development, which is critical for startups. In this context, tech companies face a very complex legal environment when trying to fill that gap with qualified foreign workers. Obviously, I am sure that other industries feel similar pain and would also benefit from tapping foreign talent in an easier way.

Shortly after I graduated from b-school in New York in 2008, the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) was passed. Billions of dollars were funneled to troubled US banks (main MBA hirers at the time) which, in practice, were prohibited to hire foreign workers without tapping the American workers' pool first. As much as this hurt back then, I totally understand today that a government wants to be protective of its own citizens and put its domestic labor force to work after pouring so much money in. 

But today the situation is completely different in America. Unemployment in the US is at around 5% (which, once frictional unemployment is subtracted, results in almost "full employment") and lots of companies are unable to find what they need within the domestic labor workforce. A massive legal spider web makes it super hard to hire foreign workers: the universe and variety of visas is crazy, the calendar is crazy (e.g. why an H-1B visa that you get in April is not activated until October?), costs are crazy, etc...In short, regulation acts as a huge deterrent.

It is clear that living in a country that is not your own and where you live and work in a foreign language is tough and requires anyone in such situation to compete with local talent. At the same time, it is obvious that companies themselves want to hire the best and, if that means hiring non-national talent, it should happen at their own risk. Such behavior should not be prevented just because of administrative burdens, in particular at times when there is almost full employment, as I pointed out before.

I am a JD, have an MBA from a top US school, have worked for reputed employers, have lived in the country for almost 5 years during which I have significantly contributed to the US economy on a daily basis, have paid taxes deriving from pretty high salaries, have complied with my social security obligations and kept a clean criminal record. Today, that is not enough to get a work visa. I went one step farther and secured a signed offer with a thriving New York-based startup who was kind enough - I often pinched myself in disbelief for their amazing loyalty and care - to go through the pain of sponsoring me a visa. I quit my job and was ready to join. However, 3 months of paperwork and administrative fighting later, my visa was denied (it is in the appeal phase now) and I left (who knows if it will just be temporary) the country.

There is a lot of discussion these days around immigration in the US thanks in particular to pretty unfortunate comments by characters such as Donald Trump. It is a fact that there is a lot of illegal immigration in the US but it is not less true, in my view, that it would be hard for the economy to work as it does without having such illegal workforce contributing its long hours and effort as it does. But that is a different debate.

It's a bit of a paradox that illegal immigrants are in practice allowed to work in the country and that when you try to play by the book - having, supposedly, all the qualifications and a job offer in place - you face the risk of being kicked out. As I tell my friends, these are the rules of the game and you have to accept them from the outset and regardless of the final outcome. When you go into the ring you are going to be hit, whether you win the fight or not.

I'd advocate for a framework where more flexibility is given for hiring qualified foreign talent. It is bad for US companies trying to grow and thrive; it is bad for foreign companies that want to settle and generate wealth in the US but are not allowed in many cases to hire who they need; it is bad for the international candidates, many of which are US educated and committed to making an impact in the country; and, ultimately, it is bad for the US themselves, in terms of foregone taxes and significant contributions fueling the economy (salaries in tech are traditionally high), among others.

My "round 12" is about to start, let's see what happens - Ding!

Learning from tech leaders I admire

Today I have read a very interesting piece that Fast Company - one of my must-read publications -  has recently produced on Uber and its CEO Travis Kalanick. It is priceless to better understand the company's ethos and driving forces. This has led me to think a bit about some of the people in tech I admire.

When it comes to leaders in the technology space, a few names come to mind quickly to the general public. A simplified classification I have come up with - Forbes, for instance, has its own ranking of "The Richest People in Tech" - would break down such leaders in three groups:

(1) those who are no longer active or in executive roles but whose influence is still undoubted today (Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Bill Gates);

(2) those who have rather recently disrupted the world (and continue to do so) and have already significantly cashed out (Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Jeff Bezos, Mark Cuban); and then

(3) those whose companies are on the verge of becoming - to some extent they already are - the next big thing (Travis Kalanick, Elon Musk, Brian Chesky)

Week-in week-out I read a lot of stuff about many of them. And there is always stuff you can learn and try to apply to your more mundane existence. Some takeaways for my own sake are the following:

- long term vision vs. short term profit: I love Amazon's Jeff Bezos' approach to this and how he continues to drive innovation at Amazon by continuing to invest heavily in new services and products (Prime, Amazon Web Services, you name it...), instead of giving in to The Street's pressures for boosting the company's present stock price. At the end of the day, and as obvious as it sounds, the latter will be accomplished if things work out just fine - the last months' stock price evolution being a good example.

- challenge the statu quo: I am gonna go with Uber's Travis Kalanick. I love his strength to challenge what is widely perceived as a legally-protected dated monopoly (i.e. cab service) in pretty much all countries around the world. When customers love your service the regulators can do nothing but ultimately changing the rules of the game.

- dare to dream: nobody in my view is better at this than Elon Musk. From the hyperloop train to life in Mars; from space "tourist" travel to the perfect car. If I had to pick one guy as "the" visionary, I'd pick him. Such "visions" are sometimes broadly praised and some other times hammered. However, few people feel indifferent.

- learn, learn, learn: when Mark Zuckerberg started to take the stage as Facebook's CEO and main spokesperson he was widely criticized for his relative weakness with presentation and public speaking skills. He has invested time and effort in getting better and the results have been evident, his notorious recent presentation in Chinese being a great example. Just because one is at the top of the world does not mean that he knows it all. Be humble and never stop getting better.

- be generous: you can call tax planning...or you can call it giving back to the community. Or you can argue that it is a bit of both. But the huge contributions that the likes of Microsoft's founder Bill Gates continue to make to try to make the world a slightly better place should not be unnoticed.

These are just some ideas. There are a zillion others. But I do know that working for and/or with someone you admire and look up to makes your work more rewarding. Plus it commands an extra "something" that at the end of the day results in self-improvement, additional commitment and increased loyalty. 

A millenial trapped in a Gen Xer?

It is not easy to look back and self-assess one's career and progression. It is even harder - in particular in countries/societies that are rather traditional when it comes to what is considered "right" (college degree - job - wife - mortgage - kids = stability) - to take a detour in your career as you grow older. People, in particular those from older generations than mine, tend not to understand the rationale and motivations to abandon the "right" path.

It is obvious to me that such decisions are, to some extent, driven by your personal circumstances. If you have no financial (mortgage, student loans) and/or personal (spouse, partner, kids, sick relatives, etc.) obligations, there is more room to take chances and risks that otherwise you wouldn't. And a bit of common sense is always appreciated, as in any other area.

I can speak about all this based on my own experience. In my mid-late twenties I left a promising career as an attorney at one of the main global law firms to switch paths and to go on the once-in-a-lifetime experience of studying a top full-time MBA and living in New York. Now in my mid-late thirties I have quit a stable, very well paying job at a top firm, to (at least try to) pursue a career in technology/startups, and to even explore launching my own business. It is that time of my life where I need to feel passionate about what I do, experience a feeling of belonging and enjoy doing whatever it is that I do. For me, now is the right time. It is probably the only time in my life so far where my personal circumstances, my aspirations and my degree of risk aversion (whatever that is) are aligned.

Kleiner Perkins' view on millenials

Call it wishful thinking, call it dissatisfaction, call it not settling for just money... or simply call me a millenial in the body of a (late) Generation X guy. From a values standpoint, I feel much closer to the former than to the later (for whom the future is gloomy, according to Bloomberg), maybe I should have been born just a few years later...

Over the last 4 years I have continued following closely, becoming increasingly acquainted and further embracing my passion for technology and the startup scene (as I predicted in a post in 2011, I have for the most part been monitoring all this activity via Twitter instead of by blogging). All this has led me to work hard - reading, networking, interviewing... - to give one last try at making a professional move into such space.

A few months ago I signed an offer to join a great NY startup. All seemed to be ok until US Immigration Services came my way by denying a work visa - it is no relief (it is actually quite sad), though, to see that a lot of people in the startup world are facing similar issues in the U.S.. This is one for the next president to address.

This is the somewhat uncertain situation where I stand now, yet more energized, committed and optimistic than ever before.

Back to blogging 4 years later

Time does indeed fly. It's been 4 years since my last post and a lot of things have happened since then. I have now decided to resume my blogging activity as a new chapter of my life opens up. Big decisions have been made and I am eager to find out what is coming next.

In the coming months, I am counting on being able to use some time to write and it just feels right to get back to this.

Since 2011, even if my professional activity had little to do with it, I have continued following closely, becoming increasingly acquainted and further embracing my passion for technology and the startup scene. As I predicted in a post in 2011, I have for the most part been monitoring all this via Twitter. All this has led me to work hard - reading, networking, interviewing... - to give one last try at making a professional move into this scene.

Everything was flowing nicely until US Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) came my way by denying a new work visa. I see this as just a hurdle that has given rise to the somewhat uncertain situation where I stand now. However, I am confident to overcome this; in fact I feel more energized, committed and optimistic than ever before.

New stories coming soon. Stay tuned

Innovation against crisis

The latest unemployment figures in Spain have been disclosed this week. Sadly, there are more than 5 million people, equivalent to more than 21% of the Spanish population with working age. It is not a nightmare, but it could easily be. Not long ago we were talking about the doomed 4 million figure and now it is 5.

Not long ago some stats were also made public concerning the number of yearly working hours in OECD countries. Surprisingly, Spain came third, just trailing Greece and the US. Believe it or not, people - those who actually have a job - work in Spain. But seems like our productivity sucks.

But the main problem in my view is that we are still a country stuck in the past. Though we could be regarded as pioneers in areas such as renewable energies, the burden of the construction sector is still with us, we lack an entrepreneurial culture, many people would rather live from multiple public subsidies rather than from a real job, our GDP investment rate in R&D is poor at the very least... how can a country move away from what has been its core - and does not work any more?

A crisis like the one we are suffering should be the best stimulus for a change but I couldn't be more wrong. I'd expect a real an definitive push from public officials but considering our politicians from all colors - easily the worst in the world, more focused on the next election and on keeping their seats, rather than on bringing a new start to the country - we will need change to come from somewhere else. And if it is not the public sector, it will have to be the private one. And that means our larger and more international corporations and us average Joe's betting on new areas of work, new ideas, new products, new technologies, new ways of doing business... In a nutshell, innovation.

I am not a natural-born pessimistic but I would lie if I said that I see things happening as they should across the board shortly. Nonetheless, I'd love to be wrong.

Del blogging al twitting

Con la entrada en el 2011 mi forma de seguir la actualidad tmt ha variado. Sigo leyendo blogs y estando atento a lo que pasa pero hay una cosa que ha cambiado por encima de las demas, y esa es mi uso de Twitter.

Escribir un blog es duro, sobre todo cuando se tiene una trabajo full time al que se le dedica mucho tiempo todos los dias y que ademas nada tiene que ver con el contenido del blog. Yo soy de los que en mi blog me gusta escribir con calma y detalle, si bien encontrar tiempo para hacerlo con frecuencia es dificil. Y el numero de posts escritos claramente indica que, lo que se dice tiempo, no tengo.

En cambio, Twitter me permite opinar no solo sobre un tema, sino de varios cada dia. Mientras leo la prensa diaria, comiendo, en el aeropuerto... Inmediatez y facilidad para discriminar contenidos de interes.

Conozco Twitter desde hace bastante tiempo y aunque he tenido la cuenta abierta desde hace bastante tiempo, apenas la usaba. Eso ahora ha cambiado. Sigo a gente que me interesa y que tratan habitualmente temas que me interesan, y eso me permite centrarme y encontrar rapidamente lo que quiero. Ademas, como aquello de "los amigos de mis amigos son mis amigos", voy ampliando el universo de gente a la que sigo viendo a quienes siguen aquellos a quienes yo sigo (vaya trabalenguas!).

Si bien de vez en cuando plasmare algunas ideas aqui, tengo la sensacion de que Twitter ha venido para quedarse.

Spanish TV model

At the end of this week CNN+, the tv station partnered by CNN and Spanish media giant Sogecable will be shutting down after 12 years on the Spanish tv grid. The rumor is that it will be replaced by a 24-hour Big Brother show. Bad news, but a reality of the kind of crap that the average Spaniard watches on tv. The big bucks are on gossip.... really sad.

This decision comes in the context of the Telecinco-Cuatro (owned by troubled Sogecable) merger, a large corporate transaction that will be bringing some changes to tv in Spain. Telecinco has now significant decision power at Sogecable and the CNN+ shutdown is one of the first decisions so far.

A little over a year ago the Spanish tv migrated from analogue to digital. Following the analogue blackout, the new TDT model promised lots of new channels and more options for viewers. The reality, after a year, is that we have lots of shitty channels with virtually no content. Plus the big audiences - the ones driving the $$ - keep focusing for the most part on the Spanish networks, which are exactly the same thing they used to be (simply broadcasting in digital now) . The result is that there is no room for niche quality channels such as CNN+, which will say goodby with less that a 1% share.

Spaniards are not used to paying for tv content. Not even for high-quality one. In fact, some years ago the government passed a law declaring some events (mostly sporty ones) "of general interest", making it mandatory for them to be on free-to-air. Likewise, less than 10% of Spanish population is subscribed to some kind of pay-tv package. This prevents relevant international players (ESPN is the most obvious one) to enter the Spanish market.

The current model with just a handful of domestic players is here to stay. I virtually watch no tv. I can find 90% of the content I find relevant online. I could get rid of my tv tomorrow and nothing would change. Maybe some kind of disruption - to come from the online world - is needed to shake things up a little.

The power of regulation

A simple model will tell us that the media space is largely driven by three forces: regulation (what can and cannot be done at some point), consumer (what user want) and technology (how can users' wishes be better served).

Yesterday a couple of big legal events took place:

(1) in Spain, the so-called "Sinde Act" or "Ley Sinde" (named after the current Minister of Culture) was not passed by the Spanish parliament.

This legislation has been referred to as the "anti-piracy" one, since it would have allowed to shut down streaming/downloading sites - let's not forget that Spain tops the world rankings in piracy practices.

The parliament's decision has been widely celebrated among internet users, who regard the act as an instrument to limit users' freedom. On the other hand, content creators complain that their IP rights will continue to be breached and have stated that they will go to European instances to protect their rights.

It is obvious to me that piracy - not freedom - is what is at stake here. Piracy is a damaging problem to the Spanish media industry and measures must be taken to limit it. That being said, it would also be useful to re-regulate the way content creators' (writers, musicians, etc.) are compensated as it is a big "mafia" at present. And if the Spanish media industry acknowledged that it is a new era for content distribution and made a decisive move to become more up-to-date with the current state of play (i.e. changing or modifying traditional business models), that would also be beneficial and quite eye-opening.

(2) in the US, the FCC has voted in favor of net neutrality (subject to future actions by Congress and courts), which is a step towards an open and freer internet for all users, preventing big players from discriminating specific services and controlling "pipes" as they wish.

Regulation matters in any industry but in a fast-changing space such as TMT, its importance becomes exponential.

BBVA a explotar su patrocinio de la NBA

Alla por el mes de septiembre de 2010 BBVA anuncio a bombo y platillo su alianza como banco oficial de la NBA, por la nada desdenable suma de $75 millones por un periodo de 4 anhos.

Cifras las anteriores poco sorprendentes para las maquinas de hacer dinero que son las ligas profesionales americanas y para un experto como David Stern, comisionado de la NBA, acostumbrado a estirar al maximo los dolares para la liga. Tampoco se puede decir que la mareante cifra sea algo insolito en caso de BBVA, que ya es el patrocinador oficial de La Liga.

Parece que ahora es el momento de sacarle jugo al patrocinio y para ello BBVA ha preparado una campanha publicitaria importante - denominada "Team Works" - en colaboracion con la NBA, que ojala resulte tan espectacular como algunas de la liga tipo "where amazing happens".

EE.UU es un mercado clave para BBVA, sobre todo en la zona oeste y suroeste del pais, caracterizado por gran presencia hispana. La minoria hispana se ha convertido en la mayoritaria en EE.UU y se caracteriza por su mayor poder adquisitivo que otras minorias. Es un "demographic" con mucho potencial y de ahi que el intento de BBVA de ganar notoriedad parezca tener sentido.

Dicho esto, el hecho de ir adelante con una campanha tan potente, a nivel nacional, y en un deporte que la poblacion hispana que vive en EE.UU no sigue tan masivamente como el futbol, por ejemplo, me sugiere que pueda haber algun movimiento corporativo por parte de BBVA para ganar presencia en el pais, no solo entre la comunidad latina en todo EE.UU sino a todos los niveles. El tiempo dira...