Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Hey, you should link to this discussion down there at the bottom of
the page! 
  

    
Excellent idea!
  

    
I know *some* people worked those hours, and some people bought cars
on stock options they hadn't cashed yet.  But sometimes media attention
can make exceptional cases seem like the norm.  And, given the amount
of posturing going on, perhaps some of those sleeping bags were talked
about more than used?  That's what I'd like to get a handle on.
  

    

Of course I worked at a retail dotcom entity where people stayed up all
night but it was usually because they couldn't stop playing "Quake".
  

    
Brian,

I agree with you that as David Neuman, the ex-President of DEN so
acutely commented, (to paraphrase him) "the stories about people who
DIDN'T work all day and night at dotcoms aren't the stories that sell
magazines or books."  And, I couldn't agree with him more.  So, the
answer to your question is that we'll never know the exact % of those
that worked crazy hours to those that didn't, and how that % compared
to the % of hours at non-dotcoms.  However, we do know that the New
Economy shepherded in a new work culture and work environment.  One
that was probably exaggerated a fair amount, but one that did exist. 
We know the characteristics of that culture:  more "flexible" hours,
blurring of the lines between work and pleasure, alternative management
structures and techniques, unusual working environments.  Does that
mean every dotcom had all of those characteristics?  Absolutely not. 
But, we would be remiss to ignore the effect of the New Economy on
worklife.
  

    
If only I could figure out HOW to link this discussion to my site. 
I'm told I need to buy something called Dreamweaver...

Actually, that disconnect is something I point out in the book:  I
could barely figure out how to use my garden-variety word-processing
program, yet I was hired at a six-figure salary to become Vice
President and Editor-in-Chief at a Web-based company!  I didn't even
know what HTML was.  (And I still don't know HTML, just what it is.)

I mean, I was a journalist and med student.  What did I need to know
about technology and the Internet?

I'm realizing now how "behind" I am. I'm dependent on the Internet for
research, and given that it's 2002, I should really learn a thing or
two about creating a simple Web site and hyperlinking to the WELL.
  

    
Re: David's comment #79 about "Quake" (see, if I knew HTML, I'd know
how to copy his post in this very space).

Part of book's "Culture" chapter talks about the fact that for many
people, these companies became their surrogate families.  So people
worked long hours (or, I should say, "put in" long hours) for the
comaraderie.  You get stories in the book about how folks really spent
their time in the office.  I found it fascinating, because I was older
than the just-out-of-college crowd, so when my work was done, I
couldn't wait to leave, to get back to "my life."  But for many of my
colleagues, and those I knew at other startups, this WAS their life.

Even when people were laid off, someone in the book says that people
at his company volunteered to come in and work for free, because they
didn't know what to do with themselves outside of work!
  

    <hidden>
  

    
The hidden post is How To Link To This Topic from a Web page.
  

    
Lori, re. dotcom revival... maybe it's more appropriate to say 
'revivals,' plural. That article mentions companies that would have gone 
away, but were bought by former employees and 'revived.'

Re. the dotcom 'continuation'... I think there was clearly a point where 
you couldn't get funding for a 'dotcom' startup, and there were whole 
PILES of dotcoms that might as well have burned to the ground... I can't 
help thinking that survivors were more of an exception...
  

    
We definitely worked crazy hours at WebVan.  I typically started at 5
AM, but there were times that I started earlier - 4, 3 even 2 AM.  How
long the day would last would depend on how things went overall.  I
didn't have stock options because I was a contractor.  The upside of
that was that I was paid hourly.  I guess in the long run, I made out
better than many of the employees.   

Louis Borders was good about providing meals for eveyone, so you
didn't have to go off-site to eat.  At the corporate office in Redwood
City, they had plush offices with a lot of recreational stuff, such as
ping-pong tables, stationary bikes, games, etc.  But at the
Distribution Center, we worked in very shabby office space (inside a
trailer, actually), with anti-ergonomic furnishings, and nobody there
ever had a moment of leisure.  So there was definitely no Quake or
anything like that going on.  It was work-your-ass-off from start to
finish, with terrible working conditions.  You were constantly running
all over a warehouse the size of seven football fields, checking on
peripherials and scanners placed along 4 miles of conveyor belts. 
Having to service workstations and scanners in the freezer (-15°F) was
the pits.  
  

    
Whoa...I'm glad they paid you hourly, Gerry.  I hope you RAN to the
bank with those paychecks!

And Jon's right -- more the exception than the rule.  Did you read the
stories in the book about those people trying to get funding and what
they had to go through?  
  

    
Ah, Gail, my HTML mentor!  I will take a look and attempt to link. 
Fingers crossed, everyone!
  

    
just an opinion about the front page of the website.

there is a lot of text for the average reader there in fairly small print.
it might be better to edit the text a good bit or to put it on another page
and link to it from the front page.

i think site visitors might also be frustrated by the link to the public
radio interview that is dead dead dead. ditto the page about the link that
says it is a work in progress. maybe you could have your friend either fix
it or remove both references.
  

    

There's a Reuters article out today that discusses the failure rates of
dotcoms backed by venture capital firms and the dollars lost.  It claims
that in 1999, 22% of the 1,842 companies backed by VC dollars went under, as
compared to a 15% failure rates for similar companies started over the
previous 7 years.  Of the startups begun in the year 2000, the failure rate
was 18%.   This study was carried out by VentureOne.  What was *not* counted
were startups that made it to IPO and *then* failed.   The dollars lost
since 1999 in the failed companies amounts to $15.3 billion.

Strangely, my reaction is excitement and optimism that over that two year
period, it appears that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of the startups
WERE successful.  An enormous amount of money and time were *well* invested
and remained viable at least during that period.  A one in five or one in
six failure rate for a brand-new medium and a nascent market (as cold as
this may sound) are more likely chalked up to the growing pains and
necessary cost of experimentation.   The only way any new industry can find
success is through the inevitable risk that some trials won't work.

Jesse and Lori, what do you take away from this article?
Btw, my data came from the article at
http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/2002/09/20/dot_coms.html
  

    

Lori, Jesse, and David, our next interview has moved to center stage -- but
that's no reason forthis one to end.  Please carry on, and thank you for
joining us!
  

    
Before I sign off, I want to tell David that I wholeheartedly agree
--not bad stats for a nascent industry.  In fact, I find that a
shockingly successful rate, in anything.  

Also, thanks to all of you who joined the discussion, checked out the
book, gave me personal Web site tips, and generally made the whole
experience incredibly enjoyable :)

And thanks to David Gans, for moderating it all.  Who needs Charlie
Rose?
  

    
Hey, all I do is unlock the door in the morning and make sure there are fresh
towels in the green room.

And again, there's no need to sign off: please continue if you're so
inclined!
  

    
David,

That article certainly does illustrate that more dotcoms "succeeded"
than people think, but I'm a bit suspect of the assumptions:

1) Excluding firms that went to an IPO and then crashed skews the
numbers.
2) I know that we're comparing this number to the benchmark of 15%,
but I imagine that benchmark of 15%, but that 15% is over the last 7
years.  So, I imagine that the comparative %s for 1999 and 2000 are wel
below that.  So, the 22% and 18% in 99 and 2000 look a lot worse.
3) What does it mean to succeed?  Is DrudgeReport included in there? 
Probably not. Is a company hanging on as a shell of its former self
considered a success?  

I guess my point is that I, too, believe that the New Economy was more
of a success than people give it credit for.  Both, economically and
sociologically.   Numbers such as those are certainly helpful, but seem
a bit tainted to me.
  

    
Perhaps the 'new economy' succeeded where it wasn't 'new,' i.e. where 
models and assumptions were grounded in economic reality. And I agree 
that by some measures of success, we were wildly successful -ge.g. where 
innovation is a measure of success.
  

    

I think Jon's post makes a great deal of sense.
Thank you, Jesse and Lori, for your responses and for this wonderful work.
I'd also like to thank the Inkwell team (David, Jon and Cynthia) for setting
up the interview and asking me to participate.
  

    
It's been our pleasure to have y'all here. Thanks so much for joining us.
  

    
Yes, thanks much!
  

    
I got email from Lori, with some info on her book-reading/signing tour.

 *******************

FROM LORI GOTTLIEB

Just a reminder that I'll be on the San Francisco stop of the book tour
to celebrate the release of my (and co-writer Jesse Jacobs') "hilarious"
and "gossipy" (says Wired News) INSIDE THE CULT OF KIBU: AND OTHER TALES
OF THE MILLENNIAL GOLD RUSH, a very personal, "inside" collective memoir
of the New Economy.

Tuesday, October 8
7 p.m.
Borders Books, Palo Alto
University Avenue

Wednesday, October 9
7:30 p.m.
Books Inc., San Francisco
Chestnut Street



"Inside the Cult of Kibu deserves a place on the bookshelf right next to
that other classic of digital bubble-popping, Michael Lewis' The New New
Thing."   WIRED NEWS

Looking forward to seeing you!  (If you missed us on CNBC, "The Early
Show," "Marketplace," CNET Radio, etc., you can hear us talking about it
all live from San Francisco on KQED's "Forum" and NPR's "Tech Nation.")

 ********************
  

    
Thanks, Cynthia, for the shameless plug! 

I'll be curious to see who comes to the San Francisco and Palo Alto
signings...I've received emails from several of the book's contributors
saying they'll stop by.  All WELL folks are also welcome :)