Dear Founder

Writings on starting and running companies from one founder to another.

CEO, Pipewise, Inc. (http://www.pipewise.com).

Four-time entrepreneur (Vontu, Kana, I/PRO) and EIR at Benchmark Capital twice.

Father of two, San Francisco-dweller, triathlete, ultra runner, startup geek, fanboy.

http://www.quora.com/Michael-Wolfe
https://twitter.com/#!/michaelrwolfe

Archive
2012 (6)
2010 (4)
Obox Signature Series

If you want to be Big Time don't act like Mr. Big Time

Images

Last month a venture capitalist I haven't met reached out to me asking for a meeting.

  • He sent me a one-line email that said, I'd like to meet you.
  • He didn't ask me if I wanted to meet him. He didn't tell me what meeting was about.
  • He cc'd his admin and dropped off the thread. She sent me two available times. 
  • She didn't say where the meeting would be ... it was just assumed I'd travel to his office in Menlo Park.

Uh oh! I was being "big timed!"

Being "big timed" is when a very busy and important Mr. Big Time summons you for a meeting. It is assumed you will show up at his office when he has a free slot since he is too busy and important to come to your place. You get plopped in a conference room with a bottled water by a comely assistant. Mr. Big Time breezes in, gives you 45 minutes of distracted partial attention (his Blackberry gets the rest). His admin then comes and whisks him away for his next big time meeting.

(Thanks for my friend Greg Gretsch, who actually *is* a VC (@greggretsch) for explaining the phrase "big timed" to me.)

I decided to give Mr. Big Time another chance. I sent a follow up message to his admin asking for clarity on the meeting. It got worse:

  • She explained to me that he is a very very busy guy. (Uh, have you met a startup CEO? We're kinda busy, too).
  • She said BUT he'd be willing to meet anywhere that was directly along his commute from his house to his office (he lives in the south bay, I'm in SF....thanks, very helpful).
  • She explained that he just assumes people he schedules must be local to Menlo Park. (Big Timers are *always* in the center of their world). I guess when half the industry moved to San Francisco, it forgot to send a change of address.
  • I found out that the meeting would have been a waste anyway - he was looking for someone available for a full-time gig, and I kinda have one of those already (big timers have associates do their LinkedIn searches for them).

Now, of course if I were out raising money and asked a VC for a meeting, I'd expect to go to his office. I asked for the meeting, after all. That's basic business etiquette. And even in this instance I would have been happy to stop by his office next time I was in Menlo. All I needed was a, "hey Mike, would you mind coming over here if it is convenient?" 

VCs have always been prone to big timing. They sat on big piles of money, the entrepreneurs needed it to get their company started, a line would form out the door, and the VC could pick and choose. They got to feel big time, even if it were really their big pile of money doing the talking.

We all know how that is working out: new startups now need less money to start, can get traction earlier, have a long list of friendly seed funds and angels they can approach, and are increasingly only seeing a short list of top tier firms as relevant to them.

And those top tier firms, who actually *are* big time, usually don't *act* big time.

My investors are respectful of entrepreneurs, meet them on their terms, and are willing to travel and hustle and seek them out. The give credit to the company at every possible turn and don't go to the press to speak on behalf of the company. They defer to the CEO and founders to be the face of the company.

They want big time returns, and they know that all of the industry's returns are generated by big time entrepreneurs, so they see them as peers and treat them with respect.

Big timers don't get to work with other big timers if they treat them as small time.

And we've all seen it work the other way: a startup gains some traction, and the founders start to act big time. They get on the conference circuit, get arrogant, boss their teams around, treat interview candidates shabbily, and start big timing everyone who comes to visit.

They often build weak teams of small timers. Folks who act big time often don't really want to be around other big timers...they want to be top dog. Then when they hit a bump and their team abandons them, they quickly find out it was their potential big pile of money they were sitting on, not they, who were big time. 

The entrepreners who are legitimately big time are humble, respectful, and helpful. Sure they are assertive, opinionated, and say no a lot, but they are respectful, give back to the next generation of entrepreneurs, treat their employees like family, and treat customers like partners.

So, if you want to be a big timer and spend your time with other big timers, don't act like Mr. Big Time.

 

Are you willing to chop holes in the floor?

Roger Ebert is one of my idols, and I follow him on Twitter religously. Ebert knows more about filmmaking than just about anyone, so when he tweets something like this, I pay attention:

"The best video about filmmaking I tweet this year. Gregg Toland rehearsing 'Citizen Kane.' Incredible."

He links to a mini-documentary on cinematographer Gregg Toland, Orson Welles, and the making of Citizen Kane. I was blown away by how much there is for a startup team to learn from just that seven minutes.

Toland was one of the top cinematographers in the world at the time, having just won an Oscar for "Wuthering Heights." Welles was a Hollywood newcomer who had never worked on a film. Yet Greg sought Welles out. From the documentary:

Toland: "Mr. Welles, I want to shoot your picture."

Welles: "Mr Toland, you are the finest cinematographer in Hollywood, why would you want to work with a stumbling neophyte like me?"

Toland: "The only way to learn anything new is to work with someone who doesn't know a damn thing."

This kicked off one of the most productive collaborations in Hollywood history.

The documentary focuses on one of most significant scenes of the movie, a low-angle shot of Kane and his best friend Jebediah Leland arguing after Kane decisively loses the New York gubernatorial election. A fictionalized account of the making of the scene follows, as Welles and Toland attempt to place the camera as low as possible:

Screen_shot_2012-01-21_at_1

Welles: "Look, Gregg, it has to be lower.  This is the scene.  We have to look up at these two men as pillars soaring to the sky. Towering virtues in combat."

Toland: "Look!  We've been through this.  We can't get the camera any lower, so find another goddamn shot."

At that point, Welles grabs an axe off of the wall and starts chopping a hole in the floor. Nothing is going to keep him from getting the shot he wants. 

Screen_shot_2012-01-21_at_1

From actress Ruth Warrick:

"I never saw anyone (Welles) more focused. He knew exactly what he wanted. They (Wells and Toland) were on a completely single wavelength. I'll never forget the day that I came in, and they had sawed a hole out of the board floor, and they were both on their hands and knees throwing out the dirt like children in a sandbox.

Screen_shot_2012-01-21_at_1

The result is one of the most groundbreaking scenes in a movie full of them:

Screen_shot_2012-01-21_at_1

At age 25 and having never worked on a film before, Welles wrote, directed, produced, and starred in what is still often called the best movie ever made.

And four years after the making of Citizen Kane, Greg Toland died in his sleep at age 44. Toland said that working on Citizen Kane was the most exciting adventure in his professional career.

This will resonate for anyone who has worked on a software product. Moments arise in every project where a team needs to decide between the "easy" implementation of a feature vs. implementing a version that best reflects your vision of what you can offer your users. We've all been in this discussion:
  • "This is going to be way harder."
  • "That implementation doesn't work with our framework."
  • "Is anyone going to notice?"
  • "It can't really make that big of a difference."

You may not be Orson Welles, and your product may not be Citizen Kane. But not being willing to cut holes in the floor may guarantee that it never will be.

So, when the time comes, will you grab the axe?

 

Don't "Hire by Keyword"

"You have all these rules, and you think they'll save you." - The Joker, The Dark Knight

I’ve recently followed a few discussions about "Hiring by Keyword:"

  • A Quora post from a startup founder looking for a co-founder, but that co-founder must know Erlang  -- thus making an already hard-to-hire-for position impossible.
  • A posting for a VP of Marketing for a company “pioneering mobile video conferencing.” The candidate must have previous experience as VP of Marketing at a “mobile video conferencing company” -- uh, if this company is the "pioneer," doesn't that mean no one has ever done this before?
  • An article stating the industry is in a bubble because companies who need Ruby on Rails developers were hiring developers that did not have Ruby on Rails experience -- even though great developers can learn it quickly, and a great developer learning it for the first time will greatly outperform an average developers who knows it but is weak otherwise.
  • A large public technology company (HP) hiring a CEO who has experience as a CEO of a large public technology company (SAP) -- which looked like a "safe" choice on paper, at least until the company ran off the rails in less than a year.
  • A thread on Quora mocking a job posting from an HR department looking for people with “five years experience working in social media” -- social media is barely five years old, so good luck with that one.

These reminded me of our recruiting strategy at Vontu, my last company, where we made a very deliberate effort to keep our keywords straight.

We were a security company that built security software and sold it to security professionals. So you'd think we should have gone out and hired people with security in their resume and experience with products like firewalls, intrusion detection, and from companies like McAfee and Symantec?

But we structured our recruiting, onboarding, and employee evaluation process to focus on more impactful keywords: great team players, communication and leadership skills, entrepreneurial enthusiasm, customer focus, cultural fit, and functional expertise.

When we focused too much on security keywords, the hire was often gone within a year. Some were from dysfunctional startups and had lousy teamwork skills. Some were good big company people but were not entrepreneurial. Some were used to low-level technical buyers but couldn't communicate with executives. Some just didn't like us: they chose us because we were a security company, not because they especially liked the people or culture. They used the wrong keywords of their own.

When we stuck to the more fundamental keywords, we built a great team and were off to the races. We ran circles around competitors who had teams of B and C players with security expertise but little else going for them. And many of the folks who did not work out for us ended up, guess where, at our competitors, because they had the keyword Vontu on their resume. I'm sure they were able to draw on some product knowledge and call on a few Vontu customers their first week at their new job, but after that they had little to offer.

Why is "Hire by Keyword" so damaging?

  • Industry experience is often a negative, not a positive, for a new company. Could Hollywood execs have started Netflix? Would a book publisher had started Amazon? Jack Dorsey, not Visa execs, started Square. He admitted, when asked how he learned about the world of payments, "We Googled 'accepting credit cards.'"  http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2011/07/start/plug-and-pay?page=all
  • Usually the best employees are doing a job they have never done before. Had Mark Zuckerberg ever been a CEO before? Had Jony Ives run design for a tech company? A motivated Director getting a chance to prove herself by taking her first VP job will usually outperform a jaded veteran who is doing the job for the third time because he couldn't get a CEO gig.
  • Keyword-friendly folks can do a lot of damage in a company. They have a disproportionate level of influence ("he's from Microsoft - he must know what he is doing") and can be hard to fire.
  • You can attract the wrong candidates - ones who don't define themselves by the type of people they like to work with or problems they like to solve or stage of company, but ones who define themselves more narrowly. I can't prove it, but I've found a high correlation of failure with people who seek the safety of markets and products they already know vs. seeking out newer, high-growth areas and challenging themselves.
  • It drastically shrinks the pool you can hire from, so you have to lower your standards to get the keyword match you are looking for.

So why does Hiring by Keyword happen?

  • The best keywords are hard to interview for and to evaluate. It is easy to know if someone worked at Google. They either did or they didn't. It is much harder to know if they are dedicated, agile, or a great team catalyst. That requires judgement and intuition.
  • It seems safe to pick the “obvious” keywords.  Contrast the HP board who chose a seasoned software exec as their last CEO (Leo) vs. the IBM board who chose Lou Gerstner in 1994 and was soundly criticized for picking a guy with no tech experience. If Lou hadn’t worked out, how would the board have fared for picking a guy who was “obviously” the wrong choice?  Well, Lou was a huge success, and that board is now legendary for taking a risk, where the HP board is on the outs for picking a lousy CEO, but one who probably had the best resume "on paper" of any candidate.
  • Boards and bosses like the keywords. If you run a saas company, it is much easier to tell your board you just hired a VP of Marketing from Salesforce than a guy who was a Director at a failed startup but who you know will run the world someday.

The industry is dynamic. Tools change. Skillsets wither. Networks get stale. Companies pivot. But the fundamentals never go out of style - pick your keywords carefully, and you can't go too far wrong.

 

 

It is "all about the people." But do you act like it?

Chris Dixon wrote an excellent post that I believe will be influential:

http://cdixon.posterous.com/things-id-do-if-i-ran-a-big-vc-firm

One item Chris touches on is investors making more of an effort to know and help the teams in their portfolios so they can work with them later and keep them in the family.  He also mentions being respectful and responsive to anyone they deal with.  Bingo.

Every VC will say that what drives their returns is backing the best people, having access to the best deals, and adding value to their companies, especially through recruiting.  Their business is almost completely a people business.  Almost nothing else matters.  You'd assume then, that:

  • They would treat everyone they meet with with respect, knowing that even if they passed on a deal, that entrepreneur still may go onto something great they want to back and will have friends doing the same thing.
  • They would make an effort to get to know all of the key people at their investments, knowing that many of them would go on to start companies or would at least be looking for jobs someday.
  • They would protect their professional reputation like gold.

But are they doing these things?   Let me tell a tale of three firms:


Firm A backed my second company, Kana.  We were one of firm A's all time best outcomes ($10B market cap at the peak). They liked us.   We liked them.  All good, right?  So what happened?

  • The partner from the firm had a relationship with our CEO but not much of a relationship with the rest of the executive team.  We'd only see him at board meetings.
  • Our only interaction with the firm was through that single partner.  We did not meet or see any of the other partners.  They never once stopped by and said hi...I met one recently, and he still didn't know who I was.
  • When all of us went our separate ways in 2001, I never heard from anyone at the firm again.

Result: I have not worked with them again, and I don't think any of the Kana alums have either, despite Kana being a monster outcome for them.  I like them and have nothing against them, but it is almost like the investment never happened.


Firm B is one of the top in the world.  We pitched them for the Vontu Series A, did very well, and got an invite to the partner meeting.  But:

  • In some of the meetings we encountered partners who were dismissive or disrespectful and even criticized the other firm we were working with.
  • Our invite to the partner meeting was yanked at the last minute, we believe because one of the aforementioned partners overruled our supporters.  
  • They came back to us in the Series B, we did get a term sheet from them, but we didn't take it.  And again, once that pitch was over, I went seven years without hearing from anyone at the firm.

Result: They missed a great investment.   Recently, I got some feelers from the firm to come in as an EIR or interview for a Venture Partner position, but since my relationship with them was completely cold, I didn't pursue either.  I like the firm and would work with them again, but there just wasn't any kind of "hook" to pull me in.


Firm C backed Kana in 1997.  Our partner, who came from a recruiting background, made an effort to build a relationship with the entire executive team and even some of our Director-level folks.  Once people started to leave Kana, he helped put several of them into other firms he had backed.  He invited me to come into the firm as an EIR, which led to their leading the Series A in Vontu, which was a great outcome for them ($350M acquisition).  He retired during Vontu, so my relationship with the firm was picked up by another partner, who invited me to come back into the firm as an EIR for a second time, which then led to their leading the investment into my next company.

Result:  two big wins, hopefully another on the way, good relationships with the other partners at the firm that have led to other projects, and a great long term relationship.

Firm C is, of course, Benchmark.  The partners were Dave Beirne and Kevin Harvey.

Other good firms and angels do a great job networking and building relationships with folks across the valley, even folks they have not funded and non-CEOs.  They are also respectful and responsive to entrepreneurs, even when they are saying "no."

But unfortunately too many firms simply think they can sit back, wait, and the great people will show up at their doorstep and pitch.  They won't.  And with the increased competition with the seed funds and angels, it becomes less likely every day.

Think about your business.  Do you believe that people are the most important part of it?  If "yes," list out the things you would be doing to act on that conviction.

Are you doing them?

 

 

It is not just luck and talent. Think about "positioning"!

"90 percent of life is just showing up"
- Woody Allen


A debate always rages in the startup community: "are the successful people more talented than others, or have they just been luckier?"

Successful people usually point to talent...they tell stories of unbelievable execution, insight, and clever pivots from great entrepreneurs who they feel would have succeeded under any circumstances.  Many of those founders go on to multiple successes.

Team Luck points to people they know who are wealthy and successful but just can't seem to get anything done.  They must have stumbled onto the right idea at the right time, caught a wave, got someone to overpay for their company, and laughed all of the way to the bank.  People say, "geez, if he could have done that, I could have."

In a debate like this you can either pick a side or split the difference with an "it depends."  Instead of doing that, I'll propose a third option:  I'll call it "positioning."  I will illustrate by changing the topic to cyclocross.

Cyclocross is an awesome sport.  The races take place on short, technical, off-road loops.  A hundred riders crowd onto the course elbow-to-elbow.  They navigate turns, drops, grass, dirt, rocks, sand, hills, stairs, and hurdles where one must jump off of the bike, throw it over your shoulder, jump the barrier, then jump back on.  The races are a blast:  you have to be alert every second to avoid wrecks, plan your lines, focus on passing other riders, and put down the gas when you have an opportunity to gain position.  Here's a pretty good video:

I'm a triathlete, so I'm best at riding a time trial bike fast, alone, on the road, in a straight line.  Technique is an afterthought.  But in cyclocross, skill is as important as power.  A "power" rider may gain position on a hill or open straightaway, but as soon as they hit the mud, single track, sand, gravel, and barriers, the "skill" riders pass and are never to be seen again  

Last year in my first few races, I finished near the back of the pack, working up to mid pack by the end of the season (in the lowest division).  I did well on courses that rewarded strength, but I'd lose time on the technical stuff, where I'd watch less fit riders work their way around the course, never seeming to miss a turn, brake, crash, or lose momentum at all. 

"Are the winners stronger than us, or more skilled?" is the question in cyclocross.  My lack of skill put me at the back of the pack last year, but this year, the season just ended, and I placed fifth overall in the same series!  How did I do it?  My strength did not change from last year, so I must have increased my skill, right?  Or maybe it was something else.  Consider this:

  • The Bay Area Super Prestige series gives points for each of 5 races.  You need to show up at each race in the series to have a chance to finish near the top for the series.
  • Starting near the front of the pack is a huge advantage since riders start to pile up when you hit the turns and single track.  I showed up early for my wave, got near the front, and stayed there.  And after you rise up high in the season rankings, the race organizers seed you at the front to start the race.
  • Getting to know the course before the race can shave valuable seconds.  I showed up early most race days and got several practice laps in, even doing multiple passes over tricky sections.
  • I positioned myself near the top riders, remembered their numbers, and tried to keep them in sight and track them during the race.
  • I focused on my positioning on the bike, around corners, and relative to other riders to minimize crashes and increase speed.
  • I showed up in my garage early each race day to get my bike tuned up and in top shape for the day.
  • I showed up in the park or Marin headlands at least three times a week for tough rides and practicing technique.
  • I joined a team of great guys: we learned a ton from each other, had fun, and enjoyed the camaraderie.
So, I showed up, and the results came.  Sure, there are some better riders out there who could have beat me if they showed up.  But you know what?  They didn't.  And did some of these things help build strength and speed?  Yes.  But the point is that anyone could have done them.  (Note: next year I'll move up to the next division, be down in the pack, and the showing-up cycle will begin again!)

Let's translate this to startups.  The successful folks I know can say this:

  • They showed up...they started a company or joined a company early in their career.  Then did it again.  And again.  
  • They were always positioned with great teams.  They found and followed great people and looked for opportunities to work with them.  
  • They worked hard on their professional reputation: ensuring they performed well and built great relationships with anyone they worked with...they ended up positioned with many of the same people again and again.
  • They took pay cuts and lateral moves when necessarily to get positioned into a great company, knowing that title and comp would work themselves out eventually.
  • If they found themselves in companies with weak management or poor market positions, they wrapped up their commitments then moved onto better positions.
  • They positioned into sectors that were ready for growth.  At the next company, they often picked a new one given that most sectors are not "hot" for more than a few years. 
In other words, they showed up and positioned themselves in great companies, great markets, with other great entrepreneurs, built relationships, learned, and ran like crazy.
The positioning helped them build skills.  And yes it put them into a better position to benefit from luck.  But the skills and luck would not have mattered without the positioning.

Not everyone has equal skills nor equal luck.  But anyone can show up and get into position.

 

What should I do with my life?

I did a talk at the Computer Forum at Stanford a couple of weeks ago that I thought went well:  it was a seminar for engineering grads and undergrads about career paths and how to navigate them.  I thought I'd post the slides here.

Speaking at Stanford is unique in that these folks are not stressed about finding a job and avoiding moving in with their parents.  They know they will have many great opportunities, and choosing between them is daunting.  

I had some fascinating conversations after class.  Many of the folks, even the undergrads, are already involved in several startups and are also juggling offers from Google, Facebook, and the other big folks.

A few themes that we covered that I hope come out in the slides:

  • There are no set career paths any more.  There are simply a set of decisions you make along the way, each of which need to be made with the best available information but also with the best effort to stay true to who you are and what you want to do.
  • Even if you are strictly an engineer, don't be intimidated by "business stuff."  In fact, given how few counter examples there are, many non-technical MBAs over in the business school are just as intimidated if they want to start a company and see few non-technical folks doing the same.
  • You can be good at more than one thing (big company or small company.  management track or technical track). 
  • Make choices that teach you what you want to learn, introduce you to people you want to work with, and let you do things you like.  Don't worry about what your teachers, friends, parents, or some "future employer" will judge you on.
  • Focus on foundational skills that will serve you in any situation, and be wary about developing connections and skills that will only serve you inside of a single bureaucracy.  Once you get laid off from that situation, you will be left high and dry.
  • Be wary of "seeking job security."  Seek "career security."  If you seek "job security," you may get neither "job" nor "career" security.

Enjoy! 

What do I read?

"Those who know, don't say.
And those who say, don't know."

- Da Mayor, Do the Right Thing, Spike Lee

Folks have come to me lately who are fleeing sinking ships strategically assessing career opportunities.  Many ask me what my "required reading" is on industry stuff.  I owe several of them a reply.  I was also doing a lecture at a business school recently on "startup 101" topics, and I was asked by a student "how come none of this stuff is written down?"  A good question being that she was carrying tomes of books on accounting, marketing, and strategy, but startup tips and tricks were being shared as if this was some kind of artisan craft.

I said that, yes, historically successful entrepreneurs were too busy running their companies, and you probably didn't want to listen to the unsuccessful ones who had more time on their hands.  But this has changed a lot recently.  There is a wealth of information out there:  books, blogs, converences, discussion groups.  And many of those who "know" are also taking the time to "say."  But there is still good and bad, so I'll take my time to point out what I think is "good:"

 

Early stage startups

I love the writings of Andreessen and Horowitz.  The guys have experience, perspective, and are able to comment both on early stage startup stuff as well as large company operational issues.  Perhaps my favorite blog entry of all time is this post by Marc on product/market fit:

http://pmarca-archive.posterous.com/the-pmarca-guide-to-startups-part-4-the-only

If you start a company, it is all you should think about.  If you are joining a company, you need to know if they have it and, if they don't, do they know they don't, are they asking for your help to find it, and are they giving you equity comensurate with the (huge) risk of not yet having it!

Steve Blank also did a brilliant job breaking down this phase of startup development as well as the company-building phases that come after.   You can see a great one-hour version of Steve's take on "customer development" here:

http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2048

And his book, "Four Steps to the Epiphany" is required reading if you at an early stage company.  There is so much good stuff here I won't attempt to summarize, but startups are not just miniature big companies! is a pretty good place to start.

http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Steven-Blank/dp/0976470705

 

The software-as-a-service business

Because I have a enterprise software background, I'm hearing from a lot of folks who want to make the transition from tradition, on-premise, large deal, long sales cycle software deals to a more web-based model.  My favorite resource here is a set of articles that Bessemer wrote on Saas.  Below is a "top 10" list of Saas laws:

http://www.bvp.com/saas/default.aspx

They do a great job driving home the point that Saas is a completely different model, requiring an entirely different set of metrics and competencies.   

I also highly recommend Sean Ellis' "Startup Marketing" blog.  It is worth going back and reading all of the way from the beginning.  Sean has already lived through a few of the most successful Saas marketing efforts in history:

http://startup-marketing.com/

(Note that I'm just now learning this stuff myself, so stay tuned for more good links).

 

Management and scaling

Although most startups never have to deal with this problem, I still think you need to be versed in problems that arise with scale.  Then you'll be ready to face them as they come, you can put the groundwork in place early to avoid them, and you can more easily manage your investors by showing them you understand what challenges you will face.

(OK, just read their whole blog.)

And, although "Four Steps to the Epiphany" gets the most attention for its chapters on "Customer Development," I find the chapters on "Company Building" to be just as valid and compelling.

 

Investors

Venture Hacks (http://venturehacks.com/) is great one-stop-shopping for lots of great information about VC.  You'll find links to lots of great resources, sample docs, calculators, and many good things.

Many VCs or angels have blogs now.  A few that I like:

And you can subscribe to Twitter feeds from most of the firms (@benchmark, @accel_partners, @svangel, @sequoia_capital, etc.)

 

And other good resources

  • http://www.quora.com.  I guarantee that any industry questions you have have been asked and answered, often by the folks best positioned to answer them.  (And if a question is missing, you can add it!)
  • http://www.techcrunch.com, http://www.news.com, http://www.zdnet.com, http://www.eweek.com - Love them or hate them, if you follow their coverage, you probably will keep up with at least the basics of what is going on in the industry.
  • And, whatever your focus (enterprise, media, socal) you'll certainly find blogs or publications worth following that go deeper.

 

But how do you keep up with all of this?

This is what I do:

  • I find RSS readers that I like (Google Reader in the browser and Reeder for the iPad).
  • I subscribe to the RSS feeds from all of the above, including folks I follow on Twitter (just type the Twitter handle in Google Reader to read via RSS).
  • I learn all of the keyboard shortcuts on the products so I can blow through everything quickly.
  • Every morning after I read my email I scan the feeds and read what I want, then I mark the rest as read.
  • As I see new things I like, I subscribe, and as others disappoint me, I unsubscribe.

 

Happy reading!