Want to know what the fight over net neutrality is really about? Please check it out here.

(Spoiler:  it's ad money.)

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Who is EIG?

EIG (Endurance International Group) is a behemoth in the hosting industry that has amassed a portfolio of over 80 web hosting companies. Of the brands you're more likely to have heard of, they bought BlueHost in 2011 and HostGator in 2012. Chances are if you have ever used a web host, EIG has since bought them. The problem is that EIG is notorious for buying web hosting providers that people like and ruining them.

Take A Small Orange ("ASO") for example. EIG bought ASO in 2012. Kevin Ohashi, the founder of Review Signal wrote a great piece about this acquisition and its aftermath, titled "The Rise and Fall of A Small Orange". He explains far better than I can why EIG has developed such a bad reputation in the hosting industry, and he provides some great data to support it (showing how average user reviews tumble post-acquisition).

He also explains why A Small Orange didn't see significant declines in customer satisfaction until 2015 despite the acquisition taking place in 2012 (it has to do with ASO maintaining some autonomy and keeping its CEO around for a few years).

Some Good Years with A Small Orange

I started using A Small Orange in 2013. It was a small company with a weird name, but at the time it was receiving a lot of rave reviews. They were known for having excellent support, and part of their brand was being eco-friendly, with 100% of the electricity used by their servers coming from wind power (a claim that I believe was true at the time).

In my experience, their support staff was indeed friendly and helpful (the few times I reached out). They had fair pricing and good documentation. They also had a special sense of community that you don't normally find with hosting companies. I was a happy customer, especially when they announced support for Node.js and the relatively new Ghost blogging platform in late 2013. I had some bad experiences with WordPress⁽¹⁾ and had been wanting to try Ghost. Their "getting started" documentation didn't disappoint, and thus this blog was up and running.

Why I Left A Small Orange

Through 2015, I was generally happy with ASO. I do remember once not being able to access my site. It turns out they were experiencing an outage, but everything was back up in 10-15 mins and technically it fell within their 99.9% uptime guarantee. Fair enough, but since these instances weren't reported to users I wondered how frequently they occurred without my knowledge.

In 2016, it was as if ASO had completely forgotten about Node.js and Ghost. The auto-updater for Ghost stopped running. My blog got stuck at Ghost version 0.7.8, which was released in February 2016. For a while this didn't bother me too much; I would check the release notes for new Ghost versions and it didn't seem like I was missing out on much. Of course I eventually wanted to upgrade, and in late 2016 I attempted to do so. That's when I discovered that ASO was (and to my knowledge still is) running Node.js v0.10, which reached end-of-life in October 2016. The newer versions of Ghost available at the time (rightfully) didn't support Node.js v0.10, because it was past its end-of-life.

I chatted with ASO's support team (a few times, actually) and opened a ticket urging them to upgrade Node.js. They refused. I proclaimed "but it's past end-of-life!". Didn't matter.

I also asked about Let's Encrypt support (which provides an easy way to get free SSL/TLS certificates). Let's Encrypt was maturing and gaining significant popularity during this time, and I wanted a Let's Encrypt certificate of my own. Many hosting providers have added this as a feature, including cPanel integration. ASO to this day does not offer it, and a support rep told me they have no plans to do so on shared plans.

I planned to move off of ASO since they weren't updating their shit, but I kept putting it off. That was until I encountered a MySQL error that had nothing to do with my instance that took my site offline for I don't know how long. That was the last straw. I couldn't update core, out-dated services (Node.js), couldn't use Let's Encrypt, and had to suffer through random errors and downtime due to things that were preventable but completely out of my control.

Oh, I almost forgot. They also significantly raised their prices earlier this year (I think) without so much as an email to their existing customers. Oops.

So long, A Small Orange. It was fun while it lasted.

⁽¹⁾ A WordPress site of mine was once hacked and defaced, likely because I was running an out-of-date version. At the time (pre-automatic updates) I didn't realize the importance of frequently updating WordPress and the propensity for script kiddies to scan for vulnerable deployments. I also didn't like PHP much.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Here's what's new:

• Now hosted on DigitalOcean (moved from A Small Orange)
• Now running Ghost version 0.11 LTS (up from 0.7.8)
• SSL certificate from Let's Encrypt w/ automatic HTTPS redirection
• chris.lol:  a nifty new domain to access the site (redirects)
• Support buttons:  a win-win way for readers to support my writing

I will follow-up this post with an explanation of why I switched hosting providers as well as a guide on migrating to DigitalOcean.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

In May, co-founder and CEO of Automattic (WordPress) Matt Mullenweg announced that his company had won the auction to become the registry for the new .blog TLD:

I’m excited we won and think that it will be both an amazing business going forward and give lots of folks an opportunity to have a fantastic domain name in a new namespace and with an easy-to-say TLD. You can sign up to be first in line to reserve a domain here.

At the time the link led to a WordPress.com page where you could sign up for updates (the full get.blog website was not up yet). Thinking that chris.blog had a nice to ring to it, I signed up immediately.

Accepting Applications

On August 18th, I received this email:

Ok, let's do this! The site listed chris.blog for $30/year. But when you clicked through you discovered that they require a $220 application fee (plus the $30 for the first year; a total of $250). I was ok with this price point as long as it would be refunded if I didn't get the domain.

The site made no mention of whether the application fee was refundable, so I emailed the support team and they confirmed that it was indeed refundable. The next day I completed my application for chris.blog.

The Auction Process

Prior to this point, it wasn't clear how the process worked (first-come, first-served, etc.), but at checkout it was explained:  you get the domain if no one else applies; if there are multiple applications then the domain will go to auction. I didn't take a screenshot, but the language very closely matched what is found here:

How does the auction process work?

If someone else wants the same domain name that you’ve requested, you’ll get invited to participate in an auction for the domain name, taking place between November 14 and November 17. If you lose the auction, you’ll get your application fee back.

Alright, I guess that's fair. If multiple Chrises (or Chris's? whatever) apply then it goes to auction. I'd still have a chance to secure it, and Automattic maximizes their revenue by auctioning it off. Win-win.

Knowing this, I was prepared to bid in an auction come November. On November 11th I hadn't received any information regarding the upcoming November 14th auction, so I emailed support again:

This explanation was confusing to the say the least. I asked for clarification regarding the upcoming auctions and Ran said "I'm afraid I don't have all the answers yet... We will both have to wait for the final results." Ok...

Your Refund

November 14th came and went. Then on November 15th I received this email:

Wait, what? What happened to the auction?

Obviously I had questions, so I contacted support again. First I received a vague response stating that "the domain was no longer available when early applications were processed". Then I pried some more and got the real answer:

My interpretation is this:  we yanked your domain and aren't going to let you have it or bid on it until we find a way to make more money from it. After all, we have to recoup the $19M we spent to buy the TLD.

Warning Signs

A few weeks back, before I had inquired about the auctions, I thought to check get.blog to see if anything had changed. chris.blog was still $30/year, but christopher.blog was $2,000/year! I tried some other common first names and many had annual fees in the thousands, while a few were still pegged at $30/year. My guess is that the cheap ones already had applications, then Automattic panicked and raised the prices on the rest.

Not Cool, Man

I had no problem with the $250 fee. I also had no problem with the likely scenario of paying more at auction (I appreciate a good name and might have gone as high as $1,000). But telling your customers one thing and then doing another is a dick move.

Perhaps it's not fair to call this bait & switch. Really it was bait & refund, and certainly the situation would be far worse had they chosen to not make the application fee refundable.

But still, I thought I had chance at securing the domain. That was the logical conclusion given the terms they outlined (via successful application or winning an auction). Even Matt himself said this was the case:

The namespace is wide open, and if you’re interested in reserving or bidding on your favorite name you can go to get.blog.

Well, now I know this isn't the case.

I suspect that Automattic had planned to do it this way but got greedy. Had they been greedy from the start and charged, say, $2,000 for every remotely popular name then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. I respect the right of a company to set their prices how they see fit.

But you don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

p.s. – chris.blog might have been set aside for an Automattic employee or friend of the company. This possibility occurred to me early on, and they did this with matt.blog, dave.blog, and others before opening up applications. But chris.blog was available at that time. They took my money and told me I'd have a shot at it.

Alas, this will never be chris.blog.

But chris.lol has a pretty nice ring to it as well, don't you think? I just bought it and will probably redirect here soon.

Laugh on loudly.
(And tweet at me @cschidle.)

UPDATE 11/17 5pm PST:  Knock Knock Whois There LLC, the subsidiary of Automattic behind the .blog TLD, has responded with this post regarding reserved domains.

We do realise that some users were disappointed when they discovered that the domain names they had applied for were in fact attributed as part of the Founder’s program, or reserved, and wouldn’t be possible to register or auction at the end of Landrush.

We would like to apologise to these users, but as the lists of Founder domains and Reserved ones weren’t final until just before Landrush, we couldn’t communicate them to registrars in advance (there is nothing registrars hate more than ever-changing lists of reserved domains).

It's unfortunate that their reserved domain list wasn't finalized prior to accepting applications, and that affected applicants like myself weren't notified sooner (auctions were scheduled to begin on November 14th). But I think they realize their mistake in handling that communication and their apology is appreciated.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Ready to act? Close your Yahoo account here.

A Rocky Few Months

In case you somehow missed it, Yahoo was in the news a number of times in recent months.

In July, Verizon agreed to buy the mismanaged remains of Yahoo's core internet business.

Then in August, there was speculation that 200 million Yahoo accounts were hacked, but the legitimacy of the hack was questioned and Yahoo didn't own up to it.

In September, Yahoo confirmed that information on at least 500 million accounts was actually stolen. Yikes.

In October, Reuters discovered that Yahoo willingly assisted U.S. intelligence agencies with custom software designed to search all of its customers' incoming emails.

Yahoo Mail has Always Sucked

Even if all of these privacy concerns don't bother you (in which case, I'd beg you to reconsider your priorities), there are still plenty of reasons not to use Yahoo.

Anecdote time. I had a Yahoo account. The only reason I had it was that someone invited me to play in a Yahoo fantasy football league. And it sucked. I've used Hotmail/Outlook, Gmail, and a few others, but Yahoo was by far the worst.

Yahoo Mail was buggy; it would sometimes give me weird log in and redirection errors. I'd get tons of spam, despite the fact that I gave the address out to literally no one. It had one of the clunkiest interfaces for mail. It had the most obnoxious and obtrusive ads of the free email providers I've seen by far. And upon logout, I'd be subjected to the rest of the Yahoo media ecosystem, which is definitely one of the worst bullshit clickbait factories in existence.

Yahoo's services are well past their ’90s prime. Now you can find better options in every category in which they operate.

Webmail Recommendation:  Zoho Mail

Zoho Mail is awesome. It's free, there are no ads, it has a smooth & intuitive interface, and Zoho has a great privacy track record.

Zoho Mail screenshot.

I had an old Hotmail account that was becoming unbearable to use. With every UI update it got laggier and laggier. I switched to Zoho and haven't looked back.

Like many free email providers, Zoho required an existing email address at signup for validation and recovery purposes. I have always found this annoying. What if I don't plan to continue using that secondary account? What if this my first email account ever? Fortunately, it seems they have since done away with this requirement and instead now ask for a valid phone number, which I view as an improvement.

Since Zoho is one of the smaller providers of free email service, you might actually be able to snag a nice, clean variation of your name with a personal @zoho.com account. So instead of something like michaelgscott6969@yahoo.com, maybe you can find mscott@zoho.com or michaelscott@zoho.com.

Seriously, Dump Yahoo

Yahoo has proven that they don't deserve your business (and yes, you are a customer, as you are using their service in exchange for constantly having ads shoved in your face).

Even if Verizon can clean things up, it is going to take years, and Verizon is known for having a worse privacy track record than Yahoo. Unfortunately this 2015 report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation gives Yahoo high marks, as it was published last year before these revelations came to light.

What are you waiting for? Close your Yahoo account here.

As always, you can reach me on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

I quit my job because I wanted to see what I could accomplish on my own. But for two and a half years, I have been nothing but a wantrepreneur. If you haven't heard of that term or can't piece it together, a "wantrepreneur" is someone who wants to be an entrepreneur, but generally isn't there yet. While I have learned a ton about software development through self-directed study, as an entrepreneur I am still a failure.

In my experience as a wantrepreneur I have jumped from project to project, looking for that perfect idea that's going to lead to complete fulfillment and sustainable income for years to come. Apparently I'm very good at starting things and utterly terrible at finishing them. Here is a list of just some of the projects I started that are sitting idle.

• VizPoint, a consultancy that specializes in quick-start business intelligence engagements (I actually had some clients and revenue from this).
• Neato, a cloudless data analysis and visualization tool (my main project).
• Turnout, a mobile-first event ticketing solution for managing sign-ups, payments, and check-in.
• txxt or Shorthand (I never settled on a name), a markdown-like text editor with customizable syntax.
• TinyPolls, tiny embeddable polls for web, social, email, and more.
• LazySQL, a graphical interface for creating, managing, and analyzing SQLite databases.
• Yak.email, an ad-free subscription email service that doesn't invade your privacy.
• Emoji Tale, create and share personalized stories made from emojis.

Seriously, this isn't even half of the projects in my "Projects" folder. But to be fair, many of them were just vague, half-baked ideas that often didn't make it past a quick mock-up (if even that).

Trial and Error

Other than the fact that they all sit unfinished, these projects have surprisingly little in common. This illustrates how difficult it has been for me to find a project that checks all the boxes:

1. It's fun and fulfilling (aka, a passion)
2. It's economically viable
3. It has the right level of complexity
4. It has the right amount of competition
5. It's unique enough

A couple of my projects came close to meeting these criteria, but after devoting a few months to each one I realized they weren't quite right. I thought it would be constructive to write postmortems on these projects. You can find these in separate posts:

• Why it's Dead #1: Turnout
• Why it's Dead #2: Neato

But to briefly summarize, the problem with Turnout was that I wasn't passionate enough about it (criterion #1). I also lack experience in third party payment aggregation, which is a risky business model that makes me nervous.

With Neato, I had the passion but was overwhelmed by the complexity (#3), the ever-growing competition (#4), and I wasn't sure if it would be a unique enough product (#5).

Next Steps

It's risk taking time. Put up or shut up. Go big or go home.

I am officially retiring all of the projects mentioned in this post and focusing all of my energy on one project, lowercase.

Lowercase is an intuitive interface for the web. It is a general purpose content management system, similar to WordPress or Ghost. It's well suited for blogs, small business websites, or any site with a need for data collection (polls, applications, etc.).

For the nerds:  lowercase is written in JavaScript on Node.js and Express. For storage we use SQLite, as it offers everything we need and nothing more.

While my old projects are being retired, many of them may have a chance at a new life somewhere in the lowercase ecosystem. For example, it's very likely that lowercase could have an official plug-in for polls (formerly TinyPolls). It also may have a plug-in for event registration (formerly Turnout). And, like txxt, lowercase's editor will use customizable markdown-like syntax.

So rather than starting from scratch, I see lowercase as an opportunity to consolidate my earlier web app efforts. I believe it will be far easier to integrate these as small, functional pieces in a larger ecosystem than building them as completely stand-alone products.

Anticipating Success

I feel good about working on a content management system. I'll explain why by touching on the criteria I outlined earlier:

1. It's fun and fulfilling (aka, a passion)
   I really enjoy working on web applications, but there is added appeal to building something that serves as its own platform. It combines all of the geeky things I love:  data, design, branding, organization, and productivity.

2. It's economically viable
   Automattic, the company behind WordPress, has raised money at a valuation over $1.1B. They are undoubtedly the largest player in the space (Wordpress powers something close to 25% of all websites). They had about $45M in annual revenue in 2012, and while there is no public data since then, I imagine they're now easily over $100M.

   Ghost is a relative newcomer with a very nice product that caters to professional bloggers (while I'm not a professional, this blog currently runs on Ghost). They're doing about $600K in revenue annually going into their 4th year, which is a good target to aspire to. Honestly though, if lowercase caters to businesses (which I'm leaning towards), then it could conceivably generate more money.

3. It has the right level of complexity
   Building your own CMS isn't easy, but it's doable. What's notably appealing is that building a CMS can be very iterative, which is ideal for any new product.

4. It has the right amount of competition
   There are a lot of content management systems out there, but many of them aren't very good. They're often unintuitive and not very accessible for non-technical users, requiring extensive training or hand-holding from the administrator. There is room for better products.

5. It's unique enough
   It's too early to define exactly what lowercase is, but currently I'm envisioning a product that functions like a general purpose CMS, but also caters to businesses with features that focus on collecting and using data. This would be an excellent fit for companies that use their website to schedule appointments, collect applications, run polls, conduct surveys, etc. It could also be a good fit for real-time community-driven sites (like Rotten Tomatoes, RetailMeNot, and GasBuddy).

Clean-up

I have been using the name "Neato Software" since last year. Going forward it will officially be the name of the software business that oversees development of lowercase.

I will dissolve my consulting company, VizPoint LLC, by the end of the year and transfer all assets (domain names, equipment, furniture) to Neato Software. Neato Software will be a sole proprietorship until the point where I meet the right cofounders.

Seeking Cofounders

Which brings me to the most important part. I'm seeking cofounders who are passionate about the web and can get excited about building a new, intuitive content management system. Ideally, I would like to find partners in Las Vegas who are interested in doing this full-time. I want to equally share ownership of Neato Software and am willing to fund a good portion of our early expenses. I prefer not to take any outside investment.

To potential cofounders, here's my commitment to you:

1. It will be fun (what's the point of starting your own company if it's not fun?)
2. I will be fair and practical
3. I will keep to the values that I outlined here, which I'll repeat:
   
   • Integrity. We do the right thing.
   • Transparency. We share as much as possible.
   • Progress. We take every opportunity to learn.
   • Balance. We value personal time as much as work time.

If this sounds good to you, please reach out.

Anyone interested in being a cofounder can reach me anytime on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Neato was to be a data analysis and visualization (aka, business intelligence) tool. There were a few features that I had in mind that would (hopefully) make it a unique product offering:

• A browser-based (or Electron-based) tool built on modern web standards
• In-memory or direct-connect only; data would never be copied or moved (aka, "cloudless")
• SQL, AWK, and R support
• A lower price point than other BI tools

A very rough early version of Neato running in Electron on Linux.

Neato became my core project because data visualization is something I am very passionate about; it's in my wheelhouse. At my last job, I developed and led an initiative to vastly improve data-based decision making by creating a data warehouse and introducing business intelligence tools (we adopted Tableau back when it was fairly new; we were probably one of the first companies to deploy their server product.)

So like I said, Neato has been my core project, at least in theory. On the one hand, it's the project I keep coming back to. But on the other hand, I only keep "coming back" to it because I keep getting distracted with other ideas. That's a red flag.

There have been other issues as well. I've had a hard time finding a co-founder who shares my passion for data and data visualization. Working on my own, I soon realized that the task was simply too big for just me. I'm comfortable with the database side and getting better at UI design, but the JavaScript that drives the visualizations is complex. I would have been completely lost without D3.js, but I still struggled and never truly understood exactly how the pieces fit together.

The nail in the coffin has been a wave of competition in the space. Frankly, I'm extremely jealous. Many of these tools look awesome, and a few even have features that align with what I conceived. But make no mistake, there are a ton of these tools now. Here's a taste:

Older, Established Companies

• Tableau (founded in 2003)
• Microstrategy (1989)
• Qlik (1993, acquired by Thoma Bravo in 2016)
• Tibco Spotfire (2007)
• Microsoft Power BI (released in 2014)
• Pentaho (2004, acquired by Hitachi Data Systems in 2015)

Newcomers

• Chartio (founded in 2010)
• Looker (2011)
• DataHero (2011, acquired by Cloudability in 2016)
• BIME Analytics (2009, acquired by Zendesk in 2015)
• Wagon (2014)
• Reflect (2015)
• ReportPlus (by Infragistics, 1989; product recently released)
• GoodData (2007)
• Sisense (2010)
• datapine (2012)
• Platfora (2011)
• Dundas (BI product released in 2014)

There are plenty more, and this doesn't even include JavaScript charting libraries or online chart creation tools. Sure, every market has competition, but this one has exploded recently and is ripe for consolidation, which will make it even harder to release new products that can hold their own.

Not Completely Dead

Given that my company is "Neato Software", the name obviously lives on. There just won't be a core data visualization product named "Neato". However, as development progresses on lowercase, perhaps it makes a comeback as a feature, a theme, a plug-in, or something.

Have thoughts on the BI and data visualization market? Let me hear them on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Turnout was this brilliant idea I had (sense the sarcasm) to be a small but relevant player in the online ticketing space. Basically, I came across Eventbrite when registering for a local fun run and had a typical "hey, I could do that" moment.

Eventbrite is one of those obnoxious startups you've probably never heard of that is valued at over $1 billion (by someone, at least). At one point I estimated their 2014 revenue (true revenue, net of what they pay out in credit card processing fees) at $50 million, but I guess now it could be as high as $100 million. If that's accurate then the valuation is a 10X-20X multiple on sales, which is absolutely absurd. I digress.

Anyway, if they do $50 million in revenue (and keep in mind they are just one player) my thinking was that another upstart ticketing company, with some effort, could achieve 10% of that. $5 million annually is nothing to sneeze it; a nice lifestyle business (this is the term the startup community uses to refer to a typical small business with ambitions more modest than a $1 billion valuation).

Here were the key differentiators I had in mind for the product, specifically compared to Eventbrite:

I spent a couple of months working on the concept, but eventually decided not to move forward. A big concern was my uneasiness with a key part of the business model, third party payment aggregation. A lot can go wrong when you're the middle-man collecting payments from one party to give to another party (chargebacks, fraud, etc.). This isn't something I really have experience with, and it's not as appealing as directly selling a product or a service. I'm also fairly sure I underestimated both the development and marketing efforts.

Some mobile UI screenshots.

I realize that these screenshots don't look like much, but I was exploring the idea of making most of the interface an embeddable JavaScript widget, so the design had to be fairly simple. Plus, a good bit of of the back-end was actually working.

While this was a failed experiment, it was still a valuable learning experience. I got a lot of things working that I had never really done before, including:

• local authentication with bcrypt password encryption
• the Google Maps API w/ Places and autocomplete
• QR code generation and scanning via the browser with the HTML5 Camera API
• custom date and time pickers
• dynamic routing with randomly generated codes

This was also my first real experience with Node.js, which is now my development platform of choice.

Have thoughts on the online ticketing space? Notice something I missed in my project plan? Let me know on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Last year I wrote about why I think venture capital valuations are out of control, using a recent investment round in Dollar Shave Club to make a point. I argued that their $615 million valuation was absurd, and that they were the poster child for over-valued "tech-enabled" startups everywhere.

I guess I was wrong. Last week Unilever bought Dollar Shave Club for $1 billion. Those investors that I mocked made a 63% return on their money in just one year.

Well, now I'm back to double down and defend my position. I still think that valuations are too high and that Unilever paid too much. Here's why:

A 6x-7x multiple on sales is very high

Regardless of the industry, a sales multiple that high is almost unheard of, and the 5x forward multiple on sales that was often quoted by the media doesn't make it much better.

Dollar Shave club is not a tech company and shouldn't be valued like one

Dollar Shave Club is a subscription box service. They were originally just a middleman selling cheap Korean razors. Now they have some of their own products, and ultimately their success will be tied to the success of those products. Which makes them no different than any other consumer goods company. So why are they being valued like a tech company?

Yes, they use the internet to sell their product. But so does everyone else. Don't mistake "tech-enabled" companies for technology companies. Technology companies receive higher valuations because they often produce products that didn't exist and, in doing so, create new markets. Dollar Shave Club sells razors and cosmetic products; this is not a new market.

Dollar Shave Club is still unprofitable

Yes, yes, I know. Many young, fast-growing companies are unprofitable. And if you assume that a company is investing wisely into future growth, then being unprofitable can be okay.

But I don't think Dollar Shave Club is necessarily investing wisely in the future. Assuming they are operationally profitable (which I'm not even sure of), they're spending close to $200 million annually. Where's it going? Here's a few possibilities:

1. People. No doubt they've hired more people. But unfortunately, this doesn't have the same impact as it would for a tech company, where talent and intellectual property are key drivers of value.
2. Manufacturing. To my knowledge, they haven't built their own manufacturing facilities (unlike their competitors), but I could be wrong.
3. Marketing. I'm sure a lot of it is marketing expense, but this is the company that supposedly "pioneered" cheap viral video marketing, so it's counter-intuitive that they'd be spending a ton of money on ads.
4. Product R&D. Perhaps they are putting a lot of money into developing new products. But once again, this would make them no different from any other consumer goods company. And those companies don't receive valuation multiples this high.

Profits may not be viewed as essential in a company's early years, but Unilever needs Dollar Shave Club to eventually turn a large enough profit to justify the purchase price. I just don't see how that happens without fundamentally changing their business model.

A Prediction

M&A activity is at its highest level since before the crash in 2007. While there isn't a direct cause and effect, it's certainly something to be cognizant of and cautious about.

It seems to me like the influence of tech M&A is spilling over into other industries, leading to a pattern of over-valuation. You can liken this to back in 1998 when anything remotely tech-related (i.e., pets.com) received crazy high valuations.

If I'm right, then at some point within the next few years valuations will come crashing back down to Earth.

If I'm wrong, well then who cares? That's the beauty about apocalyptic predictions like this.

Do you think the VC-driven, "tech-enabled" startup apocalypse is coming? Think the bubble will burst? Let me know on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

I just updated my resume. I'm proud to say I cut it down from 450 words to about 325 words, so it's now about 28% shorter.

When someone looks at your resume they are trying to quickly get an idea of who you are and what you can offer. Often hiring managers will simply skim resumes and separate them into "yes" and "no" piles. I know because I've done it, and I've witnessed others do it.

To have the best shot of landing an interview, keep your resume concise. It's meant to be a brief summary of your recent career accomplishments and skills, not a full account of your entire life's work.

Ok, maybe not this concise. Pam's resume from NBC's The Office.

Guide to Resume Length

If you need more specific advice, here you go:

1. For printed or electronic file resumes, never break the one page rule. It's called the one page rule because it's not optional. It's a rule. Don't listen to what anyone else says—there is no reason for a multi-page resume. None. Ever.
2. Also, only use one of these 7 fonts (these are the only fonts widely installed on both Windows and Mac computers):
   
   • Arial
   • Tahoma
   • Trebuchet MS
   • Verdana
   • Georgia
   • Palatino
   • Times New Roman
3. For font sizes, don't go below:
   
   • 10.5pt (14px) for the body
   • 12pt (16px) for headers
   • 18pt (24px) for your name at the top
4. For online resumes, keep it under 500 words at a minimum. 400 words is better. 300 words is probably best. Keep in mind that with an online resume you can always link to other pages for context.

You can chat with me on Twitter @cschidle, just don't try to convince me that a three page resume is ok.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Companies who respect their customers make the email unsubscribe process easy (usually a single click). Companies who don't respect their customers force them to jump through hoops. Allegiant Air is one of these companies.

Allegiant's unsubscribe process is not the worst I've seen (looking at you, Sears), but it is the only one I've come across where you are forced to watch a video and enter a secret code in order to unsubscribe. The video is a few seconds long, featuring some text about why Allegiant is so great. At the end you're forced to type in "travel is our deal" to complete the unsubscribe (see below).




I'm sure Allegiant probably thinks this is reasonable. They want the customer to reconsider unsubscribing, so they think something like "Hey, let's remind them that we're a great option for budget travel. We can do it with a video. It's really short so they won't mind."

What really happens is this:

1. I'm getting these newsletters and they're kind of annoying, so I'm going to unsubscribe.
   Annoyance level: Low
2. Damn, instead of "unsubscribe" the link says "manage your subscriptions here". This probably won't be as straight-forward as it should be.
   Annoyance level: "Grrr..."
3. Now I have to scroll to the bottom of the page and click another link to unsubscribe...
   Annoyance level: Medium
4. Now I have to watch a video?! Are you kidding me?
   Annoyance level: HIGH
5. I have to type 18 characters to end this. This shit better not be case-sensitive.
   Annoyance level: "WTF?!"
6. Phew, I'm done. Now I kind of don't want to fly Allegiant ever again.
   Annoyance level: Still pretty high

I won't even get into why this is poorly thought out from an accessibility or technological prospective, the point is that making your customers jump through stupid, time-wasting hoops that are far from the procedural standard is a mistake.

(Continue reading if you like, but just FYI the following devolves into a different rant about why I just don't like Allegiant.)

For the record, I won't fly Allegiant again, but it's not because of their unsubscribe tactics. It's because Allegiant has one the most poorly conceived business models I've ever seen.

They think they are offering a budget-friendly, no frills, à la carte air travel service where you only pay for what you want.

But instead, what they're really doing is taking air travel, something that is already an incredibly stressful and anxiety-inducing activity (thanks a lot, TSA), and making it much worse. Take the booking process for example:

• Oh, you want to know where you're going to sit on the plane? $38.
• Oh, you actually want to bring stuff with you? $72.
• Oh, you want to print out a boarding pass at the airport? $5.
• Oh, you want to get on the plane before everyone else despite the fact that you have an assigned seat which is hard as a brick and what you should really be doing is limiting your time in it instead of extending it? Ok, you're an idiot. $12.

Allegiant is consistently ranked the worst or next-to-worst domestic airline for customer satisfaction. Smart companies know that when your customers tell you that you suck, you change your business model to not suck so hard.

Allegiant, here's an idea for you. Become the opposite of what you are now. Become the easiest airline to fly in the U.S. Keep it simple, stupid; flat fares inclusive of everything related travel. That means seats, bags, boarding passes. You can still be "no frills" when it comes to the non-travel related things, like food and drink and digital entertainment. In fact, why not come up with the simplest food and drink menu in the business. Offer, let's say, 4 items to choose from. Done. Maybe even pioneer a "rent an iPad" service on flights. The point is that everything related to the trip before you get on and after you get off the plane is taken care of with the all-inclusive fare, and everything that takes place on the plane is paid on demand. Make your customers feel like you are actually taking care of them.

I know that you want to point out that you currently have some of the best profit margins in the business. Well, I don't give a shit about your margins. Focusing on maximizing profit margins instead of actual profit is what foolish businesses do, and I guarantee that an overhaul of your business model and improving customer satisfaction would yield higher profits. Currently you're driving customers away.

It also doesn't help that you are late all of the time (seriously, fix that).

Oh yeah, and how the hell do you not have a loyalty program? This is absurd. In the airline industry loyalty programs are huge. They give customers an incentive to pick you even when your prices are higher than the competition. Let's say I'm flying to Cincinnati and Delta is $70 more expensive than you. I earn miles (or points or whatever) with them so I'm immediately incentivized to choose them despite the higher price because I might get something for it later. Did you know that at least 25% of airline miles go unredeemed? (I actually believe it's much higher than that but I can't find the data to prove it.) The extra revenue generated by your loyalty program should more than cover eliminating the super annoying up-sells in your current business model.

So you've got some work to do. But first, get rid of that stupid unsubscribe video.

Hey Allegiant, I live in town. If you want some help implementing a new loyalty program you can hit me up on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

Zuck's closet.

Steve Jobs always wore the same black mock turtleneck, jeans, and New Balance sneakers. Zuckerberg wears grey t-shirts and hoodies with jeans.

For years now, nearly every day, I have worn a solid-color polo shirt, khaki shorts, and white tennis shoes. It's easy and I love it.

A common argument for the unchanging wardrobe is that it's "one less decision each day". Very true, but there's more to it than that.

For me, the best part is the simplified shopping experience. I know exactly what I'm looking for when I go shopping. Plus I shop at the outlet mall, so it's cheap. I've bought the exact same Reebok's three times in a row. It couldn't be easier.

Wearing the same (or a very similar) outfit every day, year-in and year-out, shows that you don't really give a shit. As with the billionaires noted above, it's a way of saying "I have more important things to worry about".

The unchanging wardrobe is also a rejection of what you probably went through as a teenager:  regularly changing your clothing style to keep up with trends, fit in with social groups, make a point about your personal identity, etc. It shows that you've matured to the point where you just don't care. Not that you're a complete robot; your clothes always say something about your personal identity, or as some would say, your personal "brand". For me, polo shirts and khaki shorts say "casual, but not sloppy".

It's also a matter of comfort. I live in the desert. Do you know what it's like to wear a wool suit in the summertime? It sucks. If you're a business that insists on "professional" attire in a hot climate, I beg you to reconsider.

A final note:  some people enjoy "fashion". I get it, but I think it's fair to look at fashion as more of a hobby and less of a social requirement. Having a hobby often means that you have something you enjoy that you spend money on; fashion is no different. If you enjoy fashion, knock yourself out, but don't knock us efficiency-minded folks for our unchanging wardrobes. (We have a lot more closet space than you.)

How have you simplified your wardrobe? Tell me about it on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

What I think I've learned:

1. Question everything
2. Favor long-term goals (over short-term deadlines)
3. Success takes time; accept it
4. Don't be a perfectionist

#1:  Go to college. Get a job. Work 40 hours a week. Retire at 65. You should question every bit of conventional wisdom regarding what you are "supposed to do" with your life. I had always kept strictly to the straight and narrow. Quitting my job for no good reason was by far the most reckless, irresponsible thing I have ever done. It was also one of the best decisions of my life.

#2:  I hate setting deadlines for tasks, because often I have no idea how long something should take (see #3). And then, when I miss the deadline, I feel like a failure. This can be disheartening and might make you question what you're doing, which can slow you down further or cause you to completely derail.

A better option is to set long-term goals and track your progress. There is an awesome presentation by Ryan Allis titled "Lessons from my 20s". This guy started a software company when he was a teenager, grew it to $1M in sales by the time he was 21, then to $50M in sales when he was 26, then sold it for $170M when he was 27. He attributes his success to something he did when was 16. He started writing down his goals. The first goal he wrote down:  "build a company to $1M in sales by age 21". And he did it.

#3:  You know, sometimes shit just takes time. I'm notoriously hard on myself, but I've started to accept that sometimes shit just takes time. Don't become disenchanted when something is taking longer than you expected. Just don't lose sight of your goal and keep making progress.

#4:  There is one enemy you constantly have to watch out for, and that is perfection. I have always been a bit of a perfectionist and now I am really seeing the danger in this. In the world of software development, being a perfectionist is a death sentence. It can really break you, constantly trying to perfect things and never shipping. Seriously, if your work involves making progress on long-term projects then you really need to look out for this one.

Tweet at me at @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

The Beginning

Two years ago I quit my job. The first couple months were hard. Not because I second-guessed my decision (I didn't) or because I was anxious about the future (I wasn't really), but because I missed people. When you go from being around people every day to being by yourself it can be a bit of a shock. There is so much interaction with other people when you have a job. Coffee chats, phone calls, meetings, after-work beers, lunch! Boy, did I miss those lunches. But when you make a decision to quit your job and work at home all day everyday, well, you have to understand that there are fewer people there.

It's a good thing I'm an introvert! Seriously though, finding peace in solitude comes naturally to some people, and before long I found comfort, even happiness, in working alone at my home office desk all day. This certainly isn't for everyone, but it's probably pretty easy to tell if it's for you. How does the idea of working at a desk in your house everyday sound to you? Assume your "work" doesn't require talking to other people. At all. Does this sound like bliss, or a nightmare? There's your answer.

What Are You Doing?

I sometimes get tripped up by the simplest question, "What are you doing these days?" Early on I did a little consulting, so sometimes I would just say that. But I also had some real ambitions to "start a startup", and occasionally I would have the guts to say it even though it can sound overly ambitious or even downright silly (more on this later). Other times I would take the more modest approach and say, "I'm on a learning sabbatical, which is kind of like going to grad school, but, you know, entirely self-directed and without all the pesky tuition". This is probably the most accurate response, especially you when you consider that I would never have made this much progress if I had a day job to distract me.

But perhaps the best response is this:  I'm building stuff.

This was the real reason I decided to quit my job. I just wanted to build stuff. In my previous career I never got to build anything. Well, I mean we built teams, and reports, and models, and processes, and culture, and... well, whatever. But we never built anything tangible. I wanted to build stuff. That stuff happens to be software. So that's what I'm doing now.

How Are You Doing This?

This is something I often gloss over, but it's important. I worked for 10 years and saved as much money as possible. Thanks to my awesome parents I had no student loans when I started out, which certainly helped, though I don't think this was crucial. What's more important is that my parents taught me how to save and not be wasteful. With persistence and smart financial decisions, I truly think a sabbatical like mine is attainable by anyone.

And another thing, do you really want to wait until you are 65 to enjoy some free time? I decided that taking a few years off in my 30s would be a much better option.

Self Identity

I'd be lying if I said I haven't struggled with some self identity issues these past two years. It's interesting when your identity is no longer tied to a company and a job title; you have a bit more free rein.

For example, I've called myself a freelance software developer, even though I have not yet developed software for anyone, on a freelance basis or otherwise. I've also referred to myself as a consultant. This is closer to the truth, as I actually did some paid consulting work, but it was only for one month out of 24.

My Nevada business license says that I am the Managing Director of a consulting company. Yet I haven't taken a consulting gig this year, in order to focus on software projects.

My business cards say that I'm the CEO of a software company. That company doesn't yet have a product nor any revenue. While I certainly hope that the projects I'm working on now lead to something, now it's hard to say if they constitute a business or justify the CEO title.

One thing I know for sure:  I'm now a software developer. That's an important first step, and I'm happy with it.

Progress

To be honest, I thought I would be farther along at the two-year mark than I am. It's really the classic problem when you are learning something new:  you don't know what you don't know. You take it one step at a time, and as your understanding of a subject grows, the world gets bigger and you have a clearer picture of the path forward.

I do think I have come a long way. While I'm certainly no expert, I now have a very serviceable understanding of several programming languages, most notably JavaScript and Python. I am now very comfortable with web technology. I love tweaking designs with CSS, and I feel I have an above-average knowledge of HTML, including many important new HTML5 technologies and APIs. The web has become my primary focus because I believe it is the most unstoppable force in modern-day programming. I love that I can now build a decent website in a day or two when it used to take weeks. I'm also thrilled that I can now tie together my love of data with my newly found passion for web design by building data-driven web applications.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I feel that if I continue to focus on building software, eventually money will happen. I feel like I'm on the cusp. The next project could be the one.

Lessons Learned

I'm going to spin this off into a separate post:  Lessons I Think I've Learned.

Next Steps

I need to find a partner. This has been very top-of-mind, but honestly after an initial push to seek out like-minded people to build software with, things kind of fizzled out. It's very similar to dating—I sought out people through various channels, reviewed dozens if not hundreds of profiles, and met with 4 or 5 individuals to try to see if there was a fit. It's very draining, but I need to kickstart this effort again, because working alone kind of sucks. Well, as I said before I am comfortable working alone, but it's not a long-term solution. Having a team is crucial.

I have come to one important conclusion on something I mentioned earlier, "starting a startup". I want to start a company. I don't want to start a "startup".

It's weird to think that these are notably different things, but in recent years being a "startup company" implies certain things. I think "startups" typically share the following traits:

1. Their existence is tied to raising money, typically from venture capitalists
2. They often join "accelerators" to get attention from these VCs
3. They target extremely high growth rates (the VCs demand it)
4. They have a goal to reach a $1B valuation (they call this being a unicorn for some stupid reason)

To me, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. What is the old saying, four out of every five new companies fails? Well, if you're a "startup" aiming for $1B then you are setting yourself up for a >99.99% chance of failure. Yikes.

I don't want to be a "startup". I don't want to raise money. Boy, I can't emphasize enough how much I don't want to raise money. At least not at the "startup" phase. Taking other people's money when you only have a vague product or idea just seems wrong.

No, I think I'd rather start a company the old fashioned way. I think they call this "bootstrapping". Those in the Silicon Valley startup world call companies with goals that are more modest than $1B "lifestyle" companies. Whatever. I'm just going to call it starting a company and be done with it.

To Summarize

No income, but no regrets. Here's to another year of building things.

Like what you read? I'm seeking cofounders in Las Vegas! If you're interested you can reach me anytime on Twitter @cschidle to discuss.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »

I have been thinking a lot about the absurdity of recent startup and "early stage" company valuations. Yesterday, I finally found the catalyst I needed to write about it, which was this article in the Wall Street Journal about a recent venture capital investment in Dollar Shave Club, Inc. The article states that DSC was "valued at $615 million after closing a new $75 million funding round led by Technology Crossover Ventures".

On the surface there is nothing surprising about this particular announcement; new venture capital deals like this one are announced every day. And like many VC funding announcements, this one provides some top-level stats:  the company has 2 million subscribers and had $65 million in revenue last year (representing 300% growth over the previous year) but "is not yet profitable".

Wait.., what? Yep, you read that correctly. The article goes on to quote an insider who says that DSC is burning through “low single digit millions” of dollars each month.

Aren't a lot of growth companies unprofitable?

In recent years the idea of valuing unprofitable companies based on their high growth rate of revenue (or, for many "pre-revenue" companies, simply number of users) has become popular. This is particularly common among very early stage tech companies when the product is new and perceivably monetizable but not yet monetized. In some cases this makes sense and is a necessary stretch if you need to place a value on something new.

But Dollar Shave Club does not fit this category. The concept of subscription box services is not new, nor do they have a new product. Worse, they sell what could be considered a commodity product. Certainly others have found ways to sell razors and blades at a profit; if DSC hasn't figured it out in 3 years, what's to make investors believe they will ever get it right?

What about the upside?

I would love to hear the logic behind this $75 million investment decision. Let's consider some hopeful outcomes, in which DSC:

1. experiences a significant growth in market share
2. expands its product offering with higher margin products
3. magically comes up with a new, innovative product

Let's address market share. Using some very crude math, I am estimating DSC's market share at roughly 2.5%. (How I arrived at this figure:  DSC markets to men in the USA, Canada, and Australia, where there are ~185 million males, ~75% of which are old enough to shave and ~60% of which buy disposable razors [source]. That's a market of 83 million men, of which DSC has 2 million subscribers.)

What's the best case scenario here? Doubling to 5% market share? Quadrupling to 10%? I would say that neither is very likely, considering the presence of the very strong competing brands of Gillette and Schick and new competitors in the razor "subscription box" space (and more that could pop up any day). Plus improving market share is nothing without margins; 2 times zero is still zero.

Sure, DSC could introduce new, higher-margin product offerings—they have already begun to do so and could always launch more. But now we are just talking about retail, and retail companies typically don't get these kind of valuations.

As for magically coming up with a new and innovative product, well, I'll just say that I doubt their investment is going into any sort of serious R&D effort.

Isn't that just how venture capital works?

Look, I understand the general concept of venture capital:  take a shit-ton of money and spread it across dozens of investments, wait for one to blow up, take profits, repeat.

I am just saying this is a particularly bad bet, and I have been seeing a lot of bad bets recently (which is a bad sign of things to come).

Ridiculous valuations are toxic

A valuation of $615 million for an unprofitable subscription box company is absurd. But so what? Why does any of this matter? Who cares if some random VC firms make a bad $75 million bet?

The simple reason is that bad valuations like this one are viral. They influence the next deal in that space, which in turn influences the next, which inevitably leads to a bubble. Everyone knows that bubbles are bad; when they pop, they do so with significant collateral damage, affecting not only venture capitalists but every person with any ties to the economy as a whole (which is to say, all of us).

Think I'm missing something? Yell at me on Twitter @cschidle.

This is an ad-free site. Please consider supporting my writing with one of the support buttons below.

More about support buttons »