Our client is tearing down the walls of the pixel landscape.  The Company has developed proprietary breakthrough software that functions as a pixels operating system, moving video display from one source projecting one visual, to infinite sources projecting virtually unlimited visuals.  And all of this is at a pixel-density that can go beyond high-definition quality, at commodity projection device cost, with no manual calibration or image “stitching” required.  The Company’’s technology is used in various applications ranging from simulation and training to museum displays and digital signage.  The company serves corporate, government, and academic organizations.

Market Opportunity

Industry Outlook (software-enabled displays):

• •    Visual simulation and Large Venue Display – $1.4B and $22.2B
• •    Growing rapidly – 14.1% and 23.3% CAGR
• •    Incumbent companies expensive, inflexible, and manually aligned – the bottleneck to widespread use of advanced display
• •    Commercial public venue display increased from $16.5B to $22.2B from 2005-2007
• •    iSuppli (major research firm) predicts $51B by 2011
• •    Multiple options for use: API for large, seamless displays and computing clusters with over 6xHD resolutions displays; or seamless displays up to 6xHD with no application integration.

A single Company server can calibrate multiple displays and is not limited by projection hardware type or resolution.

The Position

The CEO’s core responsibilities will include:

Marketing direction:

Marketing strategy & product marketing– Establishing a short and long-term business direction the drives the company to become an industry leader and maximize the penetration of the markets served.

Business development, including channel sales, OEM & relationships, and all distribution agreements

Operations– Product delivery, deployment, fulfillment and post-sales customer relationship management.

Manufacturing & Operations:

Oversight of manufacturing and production teams responsible for commercializing the technology, establishing build/buy/outsource decisions, etcetera. Working with the rest of the team, oversight of quality assurance, working with the CTO to ensure that product development meets various international multi-regional market-driven specifications and is “rolled out” smoothly and on schedule.

Staff- team building, development, mentorship:  The CEO is responsible for human capital planning and hiring.  As important, the position will actively be responsible for developing new and existing staff to help prepare them for company growth and increased leadership responsibilities at all levels.  Finally, the new CEO will serve as leader and mentor to the founding team and as a complement to their existing skills.

Investors/shareholders & board - milestone management, follow-on fundraising, liquidity strategy: The new CEO is primary liaison to the board and will aggressively manage milestone deliverables, be a key contributor at board meetings and to board/investor communications.  The CEO will be responsible for developing and managing against an annual operating plan and in addition to possible follow-on fundraising, will be accountable for optimizing the harvest for all shareholders.

Ideal Candidate Profile

The diagram below illustrates the intersection of competencies critical in the new CEO:

Compensation

Compensation is competitive with the position’s requirements.  In a performance-based environment, this will include base salary, milestone/incentive bonus structure, and a stakeholder position in the company.

We’re often asked how to establish fair market compensation when it comes to CEOs of privately held companies, often with venture capital or private equity backing.

Below is one method that can be employed as a jumping off point for this calculus:

1)     “De-risked,” how much is a CEO worth?  Is  $500 -$1M a year too much?  For our purposes here, we’re talking about a talented CEO.  Not someone below average, but above the average, one that a retained executive search firm, venture or private equity investor, or board of directors would be proud to put in the role.   Rather than pick some arbitrary number, this should be  ”market set,” by looking at what someone working for any global 2000 company (i.e. General Electric or other similar) earns annually.  From our executive search experience and database of compensation comparables in these companies, base salary is usually between 250K and 400K, depending upon how big the divisional P&L responsibility is, there is usually a bonus that is between 50-100% of base, and an LTIP (long term incentive plan) that-once partial vesting begins-can generate from 100K up to 250K or more a year in cash.

2)     So, the cash component of a comparable, including average base, annual average bonus, and yearly LTIP pay-out looks something like this:

Base ~ 300K

Bonus ~250K

LTIP (cash only) ~ 200K

TOTAL: 750K

* This does not include any meaningful RSUs (restricted stock units) that are usually also part of that package, which could add another 200K or more per year in value to a general manager’s package with true P&L responsibility for their division, group, or sector/segment.

* This is also not indexed to geography/cost of living.  If the position is in New York City tri-state area (New York, northern New Jersey, southern Connecticut), San Francisco, Boston, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Tokyo, a multiplier factor needs to be used to level-set for cost of living increase required for those metropolitan areas.

3)      Now, back out the cash portion of a CEO’s compensation for the company that they’re stepping into (say 250K a year in cash in smaller companies as all base, or combination of base + cash bonus).  So you’re left with say 500K that needs to be made up in equity, on a per anum basis.

4)      Over how many years is the liquidity horizon (and/or vesting rate, 3, 4 ,5 years)? Let’s say it’s 4 years, at net 500K, equals ~$2 million

5)      Now, this is with ZERO beta risk factor.  Add back the beta risk of an earlier stage company.  Let’s assume a global 200 company equals “1.”  A CEO role in a privately held, externally backed company is not “1″.  It’s probably a multiplier of 1.5, or 2.  For a pre-revenue, VC-backed company with high burn rate, it could be as much as in the 3 to 5 range.  Note that any illiquid company is inherently risky in terms of cashing in any equity at a reasonable price.  Let’s pick a beta risk multiplier of 2.5 times riskier than “average.” So, 2M * 2.5 = 5M.  Note that when there are preferences for the investors that create an exit hurdle rate before any common shareholders get paid, beta risk goes up accordingly unless the CEO participates in any exit event via cash carve out or other instrument.   As mentioned above, a recent IPO that represents a reasonable market comparable netted a CEO who joined the company 4 years ago $20M.  Using this number, the CEO’s compensation was $5M a year, or a beta multiplier of approximately 5.

6)     Then, are there any combat pay provisions you need to add in (warts that a CEO or executive team member is required to overcome and vanquish in their role that are above and beyond the normal call of duty)-reconstituting the executive team, or raising an outside round of capital because existing investors are tapped out, or starting up an Asia manufacturing capability that will require the CEO to take a dozen 15-hour flights one-way to get up and running.

7)      Finally, you have to look at what likely dilution there is going to be to an initial options grant for the CEO.  If you start with a 6% stake in an early stage company in a Series A funding, and you then raise a series B and C, depending upon valuation for those rounds, the CEO will likely end up below 3% as a “fully diluted” stakeholder.  There is an argument to be made that any of the management team critical to the success of the company will be “topped off” at later funding events in order to keep them motivated.  However, there is no guarantee that this happens.  It’s only good business sense to do it.  For the CEO, it is more important what s/he ends up with, not how much with which they start.

8)     Add water, and stir…

Notes & disclaimers:

• * This is not intended to be biased in any direction, to any party, neither CEO candidate, nor company and/or investor.
• * This is only one way of calculating compensation, indeed there are many others.
• * There is no way an earl- stage emerging/growth company will be able to compensate a CEO in all cash, nor truly be able to offset the risks inherent in this stage of venture.  The CEO either accepts this, or is not truly capable of working successfully in this milieu.
• * Other than the impact of cost of living  adjustments to base compensation, each CEO candidate comes with what we refer to as their own subjective “keep the lights on” cash needs.  We calculate this simply as the amount of cash required on a yearly basis to cover their living/family obligations without having to write checks out of savings to cover it.  Some CEO candidates may have 3 children in private school or college, while others may have no children and no mortgage.  Cash needs therefore may range widely, and need to be adjusted for using equity as a “leveler” (less cash-needy, higher the equity, and vice versa)
• * Alternatives to paying bonuses in cash might be to pay bonuses in equity, upon achievement of key milestones for the company
• * This same calculus can be applied to the Vice President level as well, subject to appropriate adjustments downward in cash and equity
• * In a circumstance where there is a “turn-around” required, equity may not be enough of a certainly to attract a competent CEO for the challenge ahead.  In these circumstances, a cash carve-out may be warranted in addition and/or in substitution for a stakeholder role.  The cash carve-out may be just for the CEO, or for the key management team required to achieve the turn-around.  Often, the cash-carve out structure is a percentage of total sale price over a certain amount, with the possibility for an accelerator depending upon exit/liquidity circumstances/outcome.
• * Often the question of anti-dilution comes up in an effort to assure a CEO of a certain percentage of equity upon liquidity.  Granting 5% equity to a CEO at a Series A financing with anti-dilution would ensure that the CEO retained his or her stake across the growth and additional funding needs of the company.  However, this is rarely a good mechanism, as the CEO becomes less interested in new company valuations at subsequent funding events, and becomes misaligned with the company’s investors.

There’s a lot written about the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and what ingredients make for success over failure in the industry of business venturing.  Much of it is pretty shallow, pop psych fodder, meant to be read in a short trip to the commode, and disposed of similarly.

Books like Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers takes a much more thoughtful approach, one of myth-busting versus myth-making.

Another similarly thoughtful deconstruction of entrepreneurship was brought to my attention via Babson College’s new president, Len Schlesinger, and his efforts to better match entrepreneurship’s leading institution for  higher education and its curriculum with a more effective toolbox for start-up success [full disclosure, Babson is my MBA alma mater].

Dr. Saras Sarasvathy, Professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business, is the author of this piece, written back in the dark corners of the 2001 post-Bubble recession, when entrepreneurship was the worst nightmare of those smart enough to avoid its allure while clinging to safety in their day jobs.    The full piece can be found at www.effectuation.org/ftp/effectua.pdf.

As a foundation for the suppositions Sarasvathy makes in her article, she interviewed 30 founders of U.S. companies ranging in size from $200M to $6.5B across the spectrum of industries.  She also had them each tackle the same case study to see how each founder approached the problem-solving required.  Her goal was to try to determine whether there was a common denominator in the way entrepreneurs thought, and if so, could it be distilled to several core nuggets of “teaching wisdom” to help aspiring entrepreneurs.

After Sarasvathy completed her interviews, she transcribed the tapes in search of a common set of principles each entrepreneur operated from in problem-solving.  Sarasvathy strings the principles she identified together into what she terms “effectual reasoning” of the entrepreneur.  Effectual reasoning is a different approach to problem solving than what is used in large corporations, or already successful and established enterprises.  She refers to the mature company’s approach to problem solving as the inverse, or predictive, “causal reasoning” -

Causal rationality begins with a pre-determined goal and a given set of means, and seeks to identify the optimal – fastest, cheapest, most efficient, etc. – alternative to achieve the given goal.

However, effectual reasoning takes a very different approach, and the metaphor Sarasvathy uses paints an evocative image of the difference-

It does not begin with a specific goal.  Instead, it begins with a given set of means and allows goals to emerge contingently over time from the varied imagination and diverse aspirations of the founders and the people they interact with. While causal thinkers are like great generals seeking to conquer fertile lands (Genghis Khan conquering two thirds of the known world), effectual thinkers are like explorers setting out on voyages into uncharted waters (Columbus discovering the new world).

Sarasvathy identified that there is no question that creativity is the cornerstone of effectual reasoning.  Another metaphor she uses is that of cooking – a chef given a recipe, versus a chef given the ingredients.  The chef given the recipe can go out and shop for what they need, compare cost versus quality versus convenience given the time allowed to prepare the meal, and create a very “causal” approach to the preparation.  However, the chef given the ingredients must use his or her creativity and invent a dish out of a combination of what raw materials they were given, and the background and experience they have had in cooking across their career.  Sarasvathy refers to this creative chef as having three categories of means:

1.      Who they are – their traits, tastes and abilities

2.      What they know – their education, training, expertise, and experience; and

3.      Whom they know – their social and professional networks.

From these means, they start to cook up their idea, be it a product, service or invention.  More…

Location:         Mountain View, CA. USA.
Website:          www.google.com

Head of Product Management

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
In September of 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin set up their first workspace in Susan Wojcicki’s garage in Palo Alto, and over the last 10 years Google grew to being one of the world’s best known companies. Susan was employee number 18, and currently is responsible for managing Google’s monetization and measurement platform products including AdWords, AdSense and Google Analytics.

One of the most visible members of the senior management team is Marissa Mayer. Hired as employee number 20 and the first female engineer after receiving her Masters in Computer Science, Marissa is responsible for the consumer-facing (UI) side of Google, and has been called the Chief Experience Officer.
The opportunities for Directors of Product Management will report directly into Marissa Mayer or Susan Wojcicki , and will be responsible for working across Google in the innovation, creation, management, release, and lifecycle of new products that extend the improve the quality and measurability of search and advertisement monetization. They will establish short and long term product goals and strategies to build and manage a product roadmap to support Google’s goals and strategies. They will initiate and prioritize projects within engineering; track product development; develop product launch plan, and also engage closely with the engineering team to help determine the best technical implementation methods and reasonable execution schedules.

Product Management at Google is an engineering and deeply technically focused organization that is full of visionaries and entrepreneurs. They apply their core technical abilities to understand the capabilities and possibilities of computers, and then leverage insight and imagination to create new products that will allow users to gain better, faster, and more accurate access to information. They are fascinated with new products, and obsessed with making the best possible product for the largest possible audience serving the most important needs. They represent the visionary, the communicator, the leader, and the technologist all-in-one. Essentially, the Product Management team ensures that Google has the best worldwide product offerings by analyzing, positioning, packaging, and promoting their solutions
across a variety of countries and markets where Google does business.

Areas of core expertise for this PM role: More…

Every few months we survey the innovation-stage community of CEOs with the goal of leveraging our C-level relationships as executive recruiters to generate collective wisdom to share back.    We hope below you find insights that help to run your companies more strategically.

In August, we surveyed our CEO community and had more than 60 CEOs participate.  Thanks to all who contributed.   The theme of this survey was centered around whether a different strategy is required to succeed post-recovery than that which was in place pre-recession.  These CEOs came from those practice areas in which we focus, and included broad based technology companies in the media, software, mobile and telecom sectors, Biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech / renewable energy.

The 60-plus participating companies were spread across the growth-stage spectrum, ranging from pre-revenue through profitable/shipping product, most being seed-funded through post-Series C, as well as private equity-backed–

To set the stage for the survey questions, when asked when CEOs were expecting the recovery to materially reach their companies, the results were still quite bearish, with more than 50% responding Q2 2010 or later–

Although entrepreneurs are supposed to be eternal optimists, when asked what sort of recovery CEOS expected, again, the majority picked the worst of the alternatives, with more than half opting for a “W” recovery (in graphical terms, a double dip, with the last year starting September 2008 to now equalling the first “u” of the “W,” and another anticipated dip between now and Q2 2010 or later.  Almost as bearish, 28% of CEOs chose an “L” recovery, indicating that they felt “recovery” was really better defined as a flatting out of the downward trendline, but no corresponding upward rebound–

The next several survey questions focused on business strategy.  58% of CEOs indicated that they were not planning on pursuing the same strategy after the recession than before–

In executing on their strategies, CEOs responded somewhat intuitively that sales & business development functions would be two of the most important executive level functions that would help them in executing successfully post-recovery.  Somewhat less intuitively, the third most important functional area ranked was product development–

The last strategy question posed to CEOs was whether - if a majority of the CEOs were executing on a different strategy in post-recovery than pre-recession – did CEOs feel that the same executive team they had could execute effectively on both.  More than a third of CEOs surveyed indicated, no, their current executive teams were not the right teams for their new post-recovery strategies.

As for their companies’ financial condition, 60% CEOs responding indicated they were still burning cash, 15% were cash flow break-even, and 25% were running their companies in cash positive position–

And answering the perennial question as to whether CEOs were planning on raising equity capital in the near future, slightly more than half responded in the affirmative–

In conclusion, the survey pointed up the fact that innovation-stage companies are still very cautious around the economic forecast, have recast their strategies as different from pre-recession in preparation for the recovery, but still have some retooling to do within their executive teams to optimize the chances of outstripping their competitors in 2010.

Thanks again to the CEOs who participated.  Knowledge is power.  Collective knowledge is actionable.

We are often asked to do some executive compensation “ciphering” on behalf of our clients.  Getting an accurate read on market compensation is always a bit of fuzzy math.  You can call around to those you think may know or are in those positions now, you can commission a survey, or dig into some of the executive compensation databases that pre-exist.  We often do all three on behalf of our clients.  However, the below numbers are based on the Dow Jones executive compensation data collected several times a year, targeting venture-capital backed companies in the U.S.  The companies surveyed cover early stage seed-round and Series A, through later funding stages, and companies that are pre-revenue through shipping product and profitable.  From an industry perspective, the below data is an amalgam of all venture-backed industry sectors in the U.S., including technology (software, hardware, services, interactive media, etc.), sciences (biotech specifically), medical devices, cleantech / renewable energy, and other related fundable venture sectors.

For this bit of ciphering, we’ve focused on three executive compensation comparisons involving CEO compensation–

1)     West Coast versus East Coast, and the differences that may exist between them

2)     “Founder CEO” vs “non-founder CEO”

3)     and early stage CEO compensation vs. later stage companies and associated CEO compensation within

This is always an interesting analysis.  Each category of CEO always feels as if the other is getting a “better deal”-CEOs on one coast think it’s likely better on the other, and founders and non-founders often feel the other has a better package.  Similarly, early-stage CEOs are often jealous of the “rich cash packages” that they seem to hear about in later stage companies, and late-stage CEOs always feel that early-stage CEOs get so much more meaningful an equity position than they as “hired guns” seem to be able to garner.

Note that below we’ve only included the analysis of the executive compensation data, in other words the deltas.  If you’d like more detail and the information on which we based the analysis, please email damador@bsgtv.com with your name, title, company and business email address, and we can provide you with the baseline full report.

Do keep in mind that this is only one set of data.  To draw the best comparables, it’s important to do all three data-grabs listed above.  Also, this is a “blended” sample set of all venture-backed industry sectors.  Some industry sub-segments may pay more or less than others with further parsing.

Highlights of the analysis

In the first “delta” table, we took a look at West versus East for early stage start-up/product development focused companies.   What was apparent in this earlier stage company setting was most recently, West Coast early-stage CEOs  on the whole have lower cash packages in both base and bonus. In addition, an equity analysis also returns 1-2% less on the West Coast than East in this data set in the lower quartile and median.  However, in the top quartile compensation range (those CEOs who have compensation in the top 25% of all CEOs surveyed), West Coast CEOs outearned East Coast in both cash (by only $13,000) and equity (a full 1% more).  Another interesting data point is that West Coast CEO’s have more upside in terms of bonuses (an average of 27% of their base compensation) than East Coast CEO’s whose bonuses are an average of 16% of their base compensation.

In later-stage companies where they are already shipping product, West Coast founder CEOs are paid less cash and ultimately hold less equity than East Coast founder-CEOs, except again for the top equity quartile, where West Coast founder-CEOs make up for less cash with +4% more equity on average than East Coast founders.  However,  West Coast bonuses for CEO are 29% of their base compensation while on the East Coast, CEO bonuses are 22% of base compensation.

West Coast non-founder CEOs (hired guns) make more than East Coast in cash only.  Equity is about the same, East vs. West.

On the East Coast in later-stage companies professional president/CEOs are paid less cash and hold less equity vs. similar founder CEOs.

On the West Coast, the pattern that Noam Wasserman at HBS has observed does prove out–  that non-founder CEOs get paid less cash compensation, but hold much more equity than their non-founder CEO counterparts (see http://founderresearch.blogspot.com/)

Below is the hyperlink to our latest CEO peers “speed-survey,” exclusively for growth-stage CEOs.  Topic– “Preparing for Recovery?”

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/D3642F14267CCC14/

We at BSG Team Ventures periodically take the temperature of the markets we serve. This speed survey is no more than 10 questions, simple multiple-choice.

Knowledge is power.  Aggregated peer-provided knowledge is “actionable power.”

We make an effort to survey only those who fit the category (in this case, sitting CEOs or board member/founders of technology/science-driven growth-stage companies). [Note, if you don't fit the aforementioned description, please refrain from responding.]

Feel free to forward to the qualified CEOs in your sphere of influence.  The more data generated, the more accurate the trend lines.

All responses are anonymous due to the web-based survey technology employed.

We will forward the survey results within the next two weeks to the email address on file.  Please let us know if there is another email address you wish us to send the results to as well.

A little bit of South Beach, FL in our socially conservative Commonwealth of Massachusetts?  No, impossible.

Yet Partners Roy Hirshland, Greg Hoffmeister, and Mark Cote of T3 Realty Advisors just hosted an invite-only “Pool Party” on one of the few gorgeous days in June here.  The venue you ask? Being the social miscreant, I’d of course never heard of it–  the Hotel Indigo, in Newton, MA.   Incredible but true, it’s a 9-iron from the Riverside T station if you wanted to be “green” in getting there.   However, valets hovered about ever solicitous and helpful in stowing away the private transport.

The pool deck behind the hotel was the networking platform, and the restaurant just off the pool I’m told is where the cool make the scene after hours these days.

Prism Ventures, Polaris Venture Partners, Grand Banks Capital and a number of others made the scene, hobnobbing with the successful digirati and tech influencers in the greater Boston area.

There’s clearly a new watering hole for investors in Newton as an alternative to Johnny’s Luncheonette, Flat Top Johnny’s in Kendall Square Cambridge, Waltham’s Naked Fish, or breakfast at Clio at the Elliot Hotel in Back Bay.

Hats off to T3 for throwing an edgy party, and rounding up a sizable group of Boston’s innovation sector to catch up, do some scotch tasting or cigar sampling, and try to counterbalance the Vitamin D deficits we Bostonians have suffered so mightily from thus far this summer.   For those who had to go to South Beach, Florida (or downtown Boston) finally there’s a bit of hip on Route 128.   For those less hip, the tip I got from someone at our firm before leaving the office was, “Well…. (frown, with a look-up-and-down at me)  Take your socks off and just wear the loafers, and that’ll have to do (eye-roll, sigh of exasperation at the meager assets they were being asked to work with).”

[Note: no request was made to write this as some sort of nefarious blog marketing ploy.  Just a simple observer's kudo to the venue and organizers]

Although only preliminary, below are the early returns on the February 2009 growth-stage CEO survey for technology & science-driven companies.  The majority of the CEOs surveyed are from venture capital-backed or institutionally funded companies.   The theme remained the economy for the February survey.  The first question was around what the prevailing sentiments were for a recovery.  Unfortunately, although perhaps not unexpectedly, less than 25% of CEOs surveyed expect the economy to improve before Q4 2009, and more than half the CEOs don’t expect the economy to shows significant signs of recovery until 2010.

When CEOs were asked whether they were still seriously considering cuts in Q2, 2009, more than 25% of the early respondents answered affirmatively.

We will post the rest of the survey responses in the next 10 days or so, and will include updates in the interim.

We periodically bring small groups in to our conference room to brainstorm over lunch on a new disruptive technology that has yet to find its market. As executive recruiters focused on the innovation sector, it’s an informal matchmaking that looks a lot like a focus group of sorts, or a technology version of “lunch dates.” In this case, it was a new robotics related technology out of MIT that behaves like “smart skin.” What resulted was a set of free-flowing observations that highlighted possible markets and applications ranging from clinical medical diagnostics, to medical therapeutics surrounding rehabilitation and injury prevention, to consumer applications like in-home health and even consumer gaming applications. All were great observations from a veteran group of a half-dozen venture capitalists, innovation catalysts, and serial entrepreneurs in technology, healthcare IT, medical devices, and software. One of the serendipitous outputs of the brainstorming session was how best to go to market in this economic climate with a new innovation. The opinion that was almost universally held amongst the group was the following:

• Developing a component is really difficult. Developing an end user complete solution is by far the better way to go.
• Components are often harder to visualize as displacing current technologies or sciences. In particular, VERY hard for consumers to visualize.
• Those who may be most interested in the innovation may be so interested because they stand the most to lose. Therefore, to get control of the technology might be important, but to further develop and deploy it may be exactly the opposite of what they had in mind.
• Kevin Johnson, CEO of Manifold Products, mechanical engineer and serial entrepreneur, had one of the best sports metaphors for it-

“It’s not enough to be the Harlem Globe Trotters and show off fancy ball tricks in the back court, expecting that others will notice and say, ‘Hey pass me the ball and I’ll take it to the basket.’ Instead, you have to take it all the way to the hoop yourself and demonstrate the value/viability/feasibility before anyone else will sign on….”