Comments on: IVP’s Chaffee: Why I Invested In Twitter

By: logan

logan — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:06:04 +0000

anything with technology is a good investment, investing in companies is good too. i invested in small electronics companies a few years ago and that worked. i started mine, http://www.gsmallover.com and i know that will flourish eventually because it’s in the right market, cell phones. not to mention anything that the baby boomers will affect soon… group home business’, nursing home, storage units, depends! lol. just gotta see where the demand is going.

By: What was Twitter’s Biz Stone smoking? « On Product Management

What was Twitter’s Biz Stone smoking? « On Product Management — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:08:48 +0000

[...] Huh???? Biz, could you just be a little more specific? And, hey VCs who’ve invested MILLIONS into Twitter….is this what passes for intelligent business speak from the founder of one of your portfolio [...]

By: Warum gibt es so Sachen wie Twitter? « Mareikemareike’s Blog

Warum gibt es so Sachen wie Twitter? « Mareikemareike’s Blog — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:42:46 +0000

[...] nehmen. Twitter ist weniger als drei Jahre alt – für ein Unternehmen mit revolutionärem Charakter ist das nichts. Die Frage nach dem Geschäftsmodell muss gestellt werden, ja. Eile gibt es jedoch [...]

By: Tit for Tat on Twitter | Hallicious

Tit for Tat on Twitter | Hallicious — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:18:30 +0000

[...] The idea of Twitter as a platform [...]

By: Happy Valentine’s Day | entrepreMusings

Happy Valentine’s Day | entrepreMusings — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 02:58:13 +0000

[...] You can follow me on twitter @aruni. Currently I have about 1,700 followers. There’s another article on TechCrunch about the investment too which is an interview with one of the new [...]

By: A Twitter Mosaic mug — NevilleHobson.com

A Twitter Mosaic mug — NevilleHobson.com — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:56:34 +0000

[...] industry has sprung up around Twitter, the microblogging service that attracts lots of money but isn’t yet too concerned with making any [...]

By: Don't try to Monetize Twitter | Odd Ramblings from a Superfly Gaming 3.0 Start-Up

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:01:42 +0000

[...] many bloggers, pundits and evidently investors have recently resonated, monetizing Twitter will be a piece of cake as long as they see growth and have loyal users. I beg to differ. I truly believe that Twitter has [...]

By: Philipp Mueller » Blog Archive » Search, Discovery, and Mining the Global Thought Stream (Real-Time Mindreading)

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:41:21 +0000

[...] Translated into the frameworks of the venture capitalists, Twitter is an interesting proposition, because it is: [...]

By: Matthew

Matthew — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:52:47 +0000

Well said, and I happen to agree with you.

By: “All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again.” « ginsudo

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:41:48 +0000

[...] Is Twitter really even in the same game as Facebook? There’s a hint in the #1 reason that Todd Chaffee invested in Twitter: because it’s [...]

By: adam

adam — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:39:04 +0000

hmm think ev and the gang have anything to do with the investments?

By: Ian M.

Ian M. — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:29:58 +0000

What do you guys think Twitter’s overhead looks like? How do you think they spend $35MM?

By: Porque o Twitter conseguiu mais US$ 35 milhões de investimento « Miguel da Rocha Cavalcanti

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:02:23 +0000

[...] O link original do artigo do Techcrunch é IVP’s Chaffee: Why I Invested In Twitter. [...]

By: Evgeni Makarov

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:34:35 +0000

Yes, twitter is a great tool. I’ve started a geotter – simple location sharing tool for twitter
http://www.geotter.com please test it

By: lazysupper

lazysupper — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:02:13 +0000

Advertising.
Advertising.
Advertising.

I guess that’s the business model for everything nowadays?

Screw tangible products… just come up with some scheme to funnel online advertising dollars through the Googlepire and into your pockets.

By: fotoflo

fotoflo — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:12:32 +0000

Twitter will make money. The business model is obvious: mine data to find out who is interested in what and place targeted advertising.

By: Las razones para invertir en Twitter |

Las razones para invertir en Twitter | — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:14:34 +0000

[...] En plena crisis económica, Twitter vuelve a salir al mercado de capitales por tercera vez y levanta sin despeinarse treinta y cinco millones de dólares más. Parece que esa “frivolidad sin modelo de negocio” que decían algunos no lo es tanto. Por supuesto, alguno seguirá pensando que en realidad, Twitter consigue el dinero gracias a que los asesores de los fondos de inversión están todos completamente locos o son todos completamente idiotas, pero seguramente sería interesante ver en TechCrunch las razones que da uno de ellos, Todd Chaffee, el socio de IVP que ha estado detrás de la última i…: [...]

By: Invertir en Twitter??? | SindicatoHQ

Invertir en Twitter??? | SindicatoHQ — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:25:46 +0000

By: mal

mal — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:01:00 +0000

i couldn’t bear to read all these replies

but i estimate twitter to be worth 10 and a hundred billion dollars.

thx,

mal

By: Revenue-Generating Products In the Mix for Twitter | InfoBen

Revenue-Generating Products In the Mix for Twitter | InfoBen — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:56:24 +0000

[...] IVP’s Chaffee: Why I Invested In Twitter [...]

By: Las razones para invertir en Twitter - blog de jesus

Las razones para invertir en Twitter - blog de jesus — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:01:02 +0000

By: Twitter: stai su Twitter o … - Stalkk.ed

Twitter: stai su Twitter o … - Stalkk.ed — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:26:50 +0000

[...] Venture Partners (IVP) e da Benchmark Capital su una base di valutazione di 250 milioni di dollari (un articolo di TechCrunch riporta i motivi dell’investimento da parte di [...]

By: George Reese

George Reese — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:25:42 +0000

You’d think the dot com era would have taught people that business models matter. I would not put a dime in Twitter until the Twitter value paradox was solved:

http://broadcas...ue-paradox.html

In short, the more this company grows, the worse it is for investors. Eyeballs aren’t worth that much money, and Twitter is one of the worst-positioned social media companies to capitalize on eyeballs.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:53:19 +0000

If you read between the lines you’ll see that twitter is building an advertising database. Their customer is not the consumer. Think about what Chaffee said:

“The reality is that it is a network/platform which has millions of users and thousands of applications.”

So it’s eyeballs and distribution channels.

If you take a look further and look at the list of 5 that Chaffee rattled off – 1,2, and 5 are repeats:

1. Open. That makes it easy for others to build on top of Twitter and it also makes it searchable.
2. Real time. It is a huge database of what is happening right now.
5. Persistent. It allows for an archive of what is happening and what has happened, which is searchable (see No. 1).

It’s all about the searchable database. They’re building a database in which they will sell to advertisers.

Finally let’s take a look at another quote from Chaffee:

“These newer media properties that have emerged are massive compared to older media properties. ”

So older media properties(TV, radio, newspapers, etc) don’t have the eyeballs that newer media properties have.

What is clearly happening is that Twitter is not being built upon microblogging rather their trying to build a new advertising model – micro-advertising.

This is what Chaffee means by the one to many model.

Congratulations to Twitter for raising that type of money.

In order to generate the revenue that Twitter needs to return profit to pay back and self sustain, there’s going to be a need for them to create MASSIVE value.

Let’s see if they can do it.

By: Hype mit Substanz: Warum Twitter nicht Second Life ist » netzwertig.com

Hype mit Substanz: Warum Twitter nicht Second Life ist » netzwertig.com — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:46:47 +0000