The New York Exit, The Soft Underbelly of NY Tech's Ecosystem, and IAC's Saving Grace

Last month, the idea that Foursquare could exit to Yahoo! for $120+ million had everyone abuzz.

“This means NY tech has come to its own!” people exclaimed. Finally, we had a major player in the social web space. It was a company born here and grown here. Now it was on the brink of being sold for big money. It was a proof point that NYC could breed a serious batch of startups post-Web 1.0.

But if anything, the “Fourhoo episode” was also a scary wake-up call for those of us invested in the future of the NY tech ecosystem. If Foursquare sold — to Yahoo!, to Facebook, or to anyone else in the space — they’d undoubtedly end up in the hands of a Silicon Valley company, and its IP and (probably) leadership would be shipped out of town, taking any future value creation with it. (Sure, they may keep the jobs here, but the profit and reinvestment? Future product integrations?)

As it turns out, this whole exit scenario is a sham for the local environment, and here I thought exits were a good thing. What’s the matter with New York?! Here we are producing a fleet of World Class startups, and an exit for our startup scene means depleting its resources?

This sounds bad. And it is.

Despite the massive amount of progress in the NY early stage scene, one sadness remains: the closest thing to a big local tech company which can acquire our startups is IAC — and IAC is decidedly an “Internet Media” company, not an Internet technology company.

And we need a big ol’ Internet Technology company here.

Does that mean its time, as a City, to embrace IAC and convince it to become a tech company? Perhaps.

Is there a snowball’s chance in hell that the right series of acquisitions and leaderships changes would turn IAC into a major tech (rather than media) player? Yes, there is — and I think this would be a good thing for the company and for the City.

While tech is not in Barry Diller’s wheelhouse, now is the time for him to invest in tech. Looking at his revenue sources, a whole lot is tied up in Ask.com Search revenue, a share of which I think we all know will decline in the long-run for him. After that, he has a sturdy position in Match.com, but this is an area I think is prime for major disruption.

So will IAC be NYC’s saving grace here? I don’t know. As I’ve said, they could be. But either way this problem must be solved. Undoubtedly, our startups need liquidity events, and undoubtedly those will come in the form of M&A 9 times out of 10. Right now it seems those M&A event only exist outside of the City, leaving us in a highly vulnerable place.

Does anyone have an idea how this is going to play out? If not IAC, who will save us?

UPDATE: My friend, and astute industry observer, Caroline McCarthy points out to me the obvious, that AOL could also the “savior” I’m looking for. That’s true, but I don’t see it. AOL has doubled down to BE media company even more than IAC IS a media company. I think they can turn themselves into a great company, but AOL is not going to be a tech company.

This entry was posted in Entrepreneurship, New York City, Web Startup, nextNY and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • While AOL has a presence in NYC, thanks to their old merger with Time Warner, at their core they're still a mid-Atlantic firm. Most of their operations are still down there, and I don't think they even see themselves as a "NYC" firm.

    The successful NYC firms from web 1.0 (About.com, Razorfish, etc) have all faded greatly, and web 2.0 never really happened here. Until there's a successful handoff from one generation to the next, it will be hard.
  • If you are looking for business start up capital or growth funding, an outstanding Business Plan is the key to success. Contact us reliable and affordable business plans for start-up business funding or to raise growth capital.
    http://www.investmentcapitalfinancingforyourbusiness.com/business-plans.htm
  • Google has a major office in NY, which is where some of the Foursquare team was after they sold Dodgeball. We didn't lose them then, and we got to claim Foursquare as a NY tech company as a result.

    Google was off the table as a potential acquirer of Foursquare given the history, but that doesn't mean they're off the table for other startups. Under different circumstances, don't you think Google NY is the most likely big tech company to acquire a NY Startup?
  • Google NY is just an office. Google is not an NY company.
  • Why does it matter that Google isn't a NY company? As long as the leadership stays here, a Google NY acquisition doesn't harm our startup ecosystem. Is there another concern besides having our talent, experience, and future Angel Investors shipped out of NY?
  • My point is that remaining with leadership is the short end of the stick. We get leadership, but that's what remains. The scraps left over after a startup (albeit high quality scraps). The point is that the core value is transferred out.
  • Google has a larger presence in NYC than IAC does. (They have double the office space and I believe almost double the employees in NYC than IAC does.)

    Let's not forget, Google NYC is not just a satellite office. There are over a 1000 people at Google NYC. Some of the most important engineering initiatives are completely run out of it. IMHO, Maps (which is run out of NYC) is more important than anything IAC does.

    Also, the important thing here is the general ecosystem for NY tech. Google acquires NY companies (and keeps them in NY.) Gilt Groupe was started by former Googlers. So was Foursquare. There are a ton of others. Google's influence on NYC tech is huge.

    Edit: Changed "1000s of people" to "over a 1000 people".
  • Again, for me its all about where the IP rests. Startups get acquired and serve the long-term purpose of a company, and a company is always headquartered somewhere. I want those acquiring companies to be dumping their acquired innovations back into the NY ecosystem...
  • zarzecks
    Nate, what exactly is your definition of a tech company? Not sure I agree that tech and media are opposites. Additionally, what's the benefit of being designated a "tech company?"
  • Google = Tech company
    AOL = Media company

    Google is powered by IP
    AOL is powered by cheap bloggers
  • ryanbrown
    Hahaha, WOW...

    Aren't media companies those that generate the majority of their revenue by placing advertising against valuable content? Doesn't google do that?

    Your distinction is so very confusing.
  • I know its confusing, so let's look at it another way.

    Google = Founder and run by engineers
    AOL = run by an ad exec

    I don't hate AOL. I think they can turn into the best media company around. I would love for them to. I've loved their brand since I was a teenager and have never stopped.

    However, they are not a tech company -- they use tech -- and I want a big tech company headquartered here in NYC.

    It's not too much to ask.
  • zarzecks
    But then how do you classify products like foursquare, and even AnyClip? I think there is much more than just tech and media. Additionally as a newish AOL staffer, who isn't a "cheap blogger," thinking the assessment might be a bit oversimplified.
  • Of course it's oversimplified, Matt! ;-)

    The day we signed our first studio deal AnyClip became a media company that leverages its SICK technology.
blog comments powered by Disqus