Tag Archives: percent

Rosina Samadani: Hope Springs for Women Entrepreneurs in Healthcare

I walked into the Soho-based offices of Blueprint Health, a co-work space and accelerator for the healthcare technology companies, last month to meet with one of their interns. The office is a dynamic, somewhat noisy loft space with the normal activity you’d expect in any open work environment. A meeting occurring over there between three animated people, a demo going on over here with another two people hunched over a screen while a third mans the controls, others strolling around seemingly having conversations with themselves, but in reality, engaged in some intense conversation via their mobile phone’s headset.

After about a 45-minute stint in our own intense conversation, I noticed something. There wasn’t a woman in sight, other than myself. All the people in meetings, working away at their desks, conversing on their headsets, were men. Here I was, in mid-2012, in a NYC-based gathering place for healthcare-focused startups, and of the 40 or so people I’d seen or encountered… not a single female. I got back to my desk and out of curiosity visited the Blueprint Health website. I wanted to learn more this odd place that I had visited. Scanning through all the photos, I saw one woman among several dozen men.

Perhaps most people wouldn’t find this odd. After all, this is a work space for technology startups, two domains that do not necessarily have a natural proclivity for attracting women. However, this is also a healthcare startup space, and the healthcare industry has a healthy percentage of women in its ranks — across hospitals, payers, and industry players. Entering classes at medical schools hover around 50 percent women, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges. In 2005 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the percent of women in Pharmaceutical and Medical Manufacturing was close to equal at 48.8 percent vs. 52.1 percent male. (This does change when one looks at higher-ranking positions, where the percent of women decreases to 36.4 percent, and even more so if one looks at minority women, who only comprise 7.2% percent.) Even taking healthcare out of the analysis and looking at data on women in science and engineering, the NY Times in an article published on February 23, 2012, cited the Census Bureau’s annual Current Population Survey, stating that “Among college graduates 65 or older, only 23 percent of those with degrees in science or engineering majors are women; among people 40 to 64, the proportion of women rises to 36 percent; among those 25 to 39, 45.9 percent are women.” The argument could be made that there should be a better representation of women than I had witnessed that afternoon, i.e., that it was, indeed, odd.

Following that experience, I decided to talk to a few women in the healthcare startup ecosystem — three entrepreneurs in healthcare accelerator programs and the Chief Evangelist at health tech incubator Rock Health. Despite the odd dearth of women in the loft that day, these women give me hope for women entrepreneurs in healthcare.

Catherine Montgomery is in Blueprint Health’s current accelerator group of nine companies. Her company, daisyBill, is co-founded with Sarah Moray. They are the only women in the Blueprint’s group of 23 founders. Ms. Montgomery owned a medical billing company for nine years and founded daisyBill, a workers’ compensation billing company, last year. It is in beta currently and will be launching on October 18th, timed to take advantage of the California law requiring workers compensation claims to be submitted electronically.

Startup Health is an accelerator focused on healthcare technology startups, based in New York. One of the ten companies in its inaugural group has a female founder and another has a female on its founding team. Bronwyn Spira is the founder of FORCE Therapeutics, which has created a physical therapy app by which patients can view exercises, and progress is tracked via visually appealing charts. She describes the development as an “evangelical move” for her field because in her opinion physical therapists are not very tech-savvy. They launch their iPad and iPhone apps in a few months.

Cora Scott is part of the husband-and-wife team that started Brainpaint, a software program that has automated evidence-based protocols to provide Electroencephalography (EEG) feedback to participants in real time. The core to their technology is that the brain can be trained to change a person’s behavior, for example with ADD or addiction. They are currently being used at a handful of institutions and are building their case.

(The next group of entrepreneurs entering Startup Health were just announced. The group has three female founders, including this author.)

Leslie Ziegler is Chief Evangelist (love the title) of Rock Health and is one of the six women behind the hip health-tech accelerator that officially began in 2010. Rock Health, the brainchild of Halle Tecco, has a noticeably better ratio of women to men than other health tech accelerators and incubators, perhaps in part due to its all female management team. Five of the thirteen teams in its current group in Silicon Valley are women-led (only one of the seven founders in its Boston group is a woman, reflecting a different set of attitudes on the east coast). Rock Health has also started, as Ms. Ziegler calls it, a “monthly dinner that is now really a movement,” xxinhealth, a group of women at the intersection of entrepreneurship and healthcare.

I asked these entrepreneurs why they thought there were so few women in these programs. They, as I, didn’t understand it — or perhaps don’t care to think about it too deeply as the reasons are unnerving in these times. Claire Cain Miller for the New York Times wrote on July 18, 2012 that in the technology startup ecosystem, “There remain distressingly few women… for reasons including the tech industry’s girl-repelling image problem, the tiny number of powerful women role models and the insular Silicon Valley deal-making boys’ club.” With a lack of role models, women need to be a little bolder than the average entrepreneur. Catherine Montgomery of daisyBill has two daughters, one of whom is a computer science major at NYU, and hopes that other parents like herself will “raise women to be bold in this field, to take steps forward without inhibitions.”

There is a great opportunity for the healthcare startup ecosystem to be a role model for other industries. Just as Ms. Miller argues in the aforementioned article that “With some effort, [the Valley] could become a model for other places,” so does the healthcare startup ecosystem have an opportunity to be a role model for other industry verticals — with its representation of women. Healthcare is an industry where women are reasonably well represented in established companies. It can also be an industry where women entrepreneurs thrive.

To that end — or really I prefer to say beginning — I’d like to suggest three things that could be done to mitigate the odd dearth of women entrepreneurs in healthcare:

1. Select outward. The next time you’re in a position to make a decision about who will fill a seat, take a look at the type of person who has never filled this seat before. Look sideways for a different type of face. For example, wouldn’t it be great to have a woman as the next Health and Human Services Chief Technology Officer? Role models matter. All else being equal, for this and other key roles, let’s encourage/suggest/nominate the selection of a woman.

2. Connect. The next time you see an effort to make women more visible, think about the next practical step needed to help that effort stick. For example, let’s connect the women who answered Dave McClure’s (a San Francisco-based entrepreneur and angel investor, who founded and runs the incubator 500 Startups) issued a Challenge on July 18th on TechCrunch to make three investments of $5,000 or more to a female founder of a startup. The Challenge site is difficult to find even if you try to Google it. I’d love to see a link to it front and center on the AngelList’s home page and have it easy to search the site for female founders.

3. Notice. This requires the least amount of effort but could have the greatest effect. If you do one thing, this is the one I ask of you. The next time you’re listening to a panel, attending a conference, walking into an incubator space, browsing a website (maybe even your own website), take a moment and notice if it feels diverse. There isn’t necessarily a need to dwell on it too much, to raise a cry right then and there, to take a stand at the expense of working with an organization or a group, but noticing it is fundamental, will become second nature, will acknowledge the oddness at a personal level — and that is the first step to a meaningful change.

Apple Reports Staggering iPhone 5 Sales

NEW YORK (AP) — Apple Inc. said Monday that it sold more than 5 million units of the iPhone 5 in the three days since its launch, less than analysts had expected.

Apple shares were down $6.60, or 0.9 percent, at $693.49 in morning trading. The shares are still close to their all-time high of $705.07, hit Friday as the phone went on sale in the U.S., Germany, France, Japan and five other countries.

The sales tally is a record for any phone, but it beats last year’s iPhone 4S launch only by a small margin. Apple said then that it sold 4 million phones in the first three days.

Topeka Capital Markets analyst Brian White expected Apple to sell 6 million to 6.5 million iPhone 5s in the first three days. He said the shortfall was largely due to limited supply. White said the phone was sold out at 80 to 85 percent of the U.S. Apple stores he and his team contacted Sunday evening, and the ones that were still available were mostly Sprint models.

Online delivery times have stretched to three to four weeks.

The phone will go on sale in 22 more countries on Friday and in more than 100 countries by the end of the year.

Apple Reports Staggering iPhone 5 Sales

NEW YORK (AP) — Apple Inc. said Monday that it sold more than 5 million units of the iPhone 5 in the three days since its launch, less than analysts had expected.

Apple shares were down $6.60, or 0.9 percent, at $693.49 in morning trading. The shares are still close to their all-time high of $705.07, hit Friday as the phone went on sale in the U.S., Germany, France, Japan and five other countries.

The sales tally is a record for any phone, but it beats last year’s iPhone 4S launch only by a small margin. Apple said then that it sold 4 million phones in the first three days.

Topeka Capital Markets analyst Brian White expected Apple to sell 6 million to 6.5 million iPhone 5s in the first three days. He said the shortfall was largely due to limited supply. White said the phone was sold out at 80 to 85 percent of the U.S. Apple stores he and his team contacted Sunday evening, and the ones that were still available were mostly Sprint models.

Online delivery times have stretched to three to four weeks.

The phone will go on sale in 22 more countries on Friday and in more than 100 countries by the end of the year.

Hugh Evans: Technology to End Extreme Poverty

Using an iPhone in downtown New York, or typing at a keyboard in suburban Houston, you’re a long way, physically and emotionally, from the more than one billion people on our planet who live on less than $1.50 each day.

The world’s extreme poor — concentrated largely in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia — are out of sight and out of mind, except for the occasional pang of guilt we feel when glimpsing their lives on TV.

Increasingly though, these barriers are breaking down, and the world’s poor are becoming visible in our lives. Technology is changing the way we interact with people on the other side of the world who, though we may never meet, are impacted every day by our actions.

From the bananas we buy in the supermarkets, to the clothes we pick up at the mall, or the investments that grow our pension funds, the world’s poor are part of the same supply chains and systems as us. Their livelihoods are directly impacted by the decisions we make each day.

They’re using technology that was pioneered in countries like the U.S. to fight poverty themselves. M-Pesa, a mobile money transfer service for people without bank accounts, has more than 17 million customers across sub-Saharan Africa. Ipaidabribe.com has crowd-sourced more than 20,000 reports of officials who demanded bribes in India, and has now expanded to Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

Closer to home charities, campaigners and fundraisers are using technology to create a generation of global citizens, who alongside being American, Cubs fans and New Yorkers, also see themselves as part of the wider world, and people who will stand up and use their money, their networks, and their voices to ensure that we create a world without extreme poverty.

It’s in this vein that we recently launched Global Citizen, a new platform for people here in the U.S. and around the world to learn more about the progress that’s being made in international development and take action to build the movement to end extreme poverty forever. Combining articles, videos and infographics about the issues with actions like signing petitions, sharing to social networks and donating, Global Citizens can earn points for taking action, and, over time, get access to rewards that recognize their contributions.

Since the launch of Global Citizen 42 days ago, it is clear that the issue of global poverty resonates with everyday Americans. More than 70,000 users have signed up to take action and earn tickets to the Global Citizen Festival on September 29. There have been more than 61,000 tweets using the hash-tag #GlobalCitizen in the past three weeks.

For us, Global Citizen is about giving people the opportunity to go on a journey. Fighting extreme poverty is a complex and messy process, and it’s going to take a lot more than just signing a petition to end it. But, when we give people the opportunity to learn about the issues, see how they connect together, navigate their own way to action, and then take it to scale, we have a tool that can and is already starting to shift attitudes and actions.

As one user, Patrick, wrote on our Facebook wall recently, “At first it was really a lot about winning. But after watching these videos it became a lot more than that. It became about awareness and inspiration!” And anther Sharon Singleton wrote “Such an incredible cause and reality is if I hadn’t had the website handed to me, I wouldn’t have done so much research. This has opened my eyes.”

Awareness by itself isn’t much use, but linked into a broader story with clear actions, it’s vital. Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation recently found that the American public think that 27 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, it’s around 1 percent. Public awareness about foreign aid shapes what our politicians say and do, and combined with actions to make our voices heard, it can have a big impact.

By itself technology doesn’t end poverty, but it allows us to create the connections and relationships that together can break down the systems that keep people poor.

Hugh Evans and Simon Ross are the Co-founders of the Global Poverty Project and Executive Producers of the Global Citizen Festival

Hugh Evans: Technology to End Extreme Poverty

Using an iPhone in downtown New York, or typing at a keyboard in suburban Houston, you’re a long way, physically and emotionally, from the more than one billion people on our planet who live on less than $1.50 each day.

The world’s extreme poor — concentrated largely in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia — are out of sight and out of mind, except for the occasional pang of guilt we feel when glimpsing their lives on TV.

Increasingly though, these barriers are breaking down, and the world’s poor are becoming visible in our lives. Technology is changing the way we interact with people on the other side of the world who, though we may never meet, are impacted every day by our actions.

From the bananas we buy in the supermarkets, to the clothes we pick up at the mall, or the investments that grow our pension funds, the world’s poor are part of the same supply chains and systems as us. Their livelihoods are directly impacted by the decisions we make each day.

They’re using technology that was pioneered in countries like the U.S. to fight poverty themselves. M-Pesa, a mobile money transfer service for people without bank accounts, has more than 17 million customers across sub-Saharan Africa. Ipaidabribe.com has crowd-sourced more than 20,000 reports of officials who demanded bribes in India, and has now expanded to Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan and Zimbabwe.

Closer to home charities, campaigners and fundraisers are using technology to create a generation of global citizens, who alongside being American, Cubs fans and New Yorkers, also see themselves as part of the wider world, and people who will stand up and use their money, their networks, and their voices to ensure that we create a world without extreme poverty.

It’s in this vein that we recently launched Global Citizen, a new platform for people here in the U.S. and around the world to learn more about the progress that’s being made in international development and take action to build the movement to end extreme poverty forever. Combining articles, videos and infographics about the issues with actions like signing petitions, sharing to social networks and donating, Global Citizens can earn points for taking action, and, over time, get access to rewards that recognize their contributions.

Since the launch of Global Citizen 42 days ago, it is clear that the issue of global poverty resonates with everyday Americans. More than 70,000 users have signed up to take action and earn tickets to the Global Citizen Festival on September 29. There have been more than 61,000 tweets using the hash-tag #GlobalCitizen in the past three weeks.

For us, Global Citizen is about giving people the opportunity to go on a journey. Fighting extreme poverty is a complex and messy process, and it’s going to take a lot more than just signing a petition to end it. But, when we give people the opportunity to learn about the issues, see how they connect together, navigate their own way to action, and then take it to scale, we have a tool that can and is already starting to shift attitudes and actions.

As one user, Patrick, wrote on our Facebook wall recently, “At first it was really a lot about winning. But after watching these videos it became a lot more than that. It became about awareness and inspiration!” And anther Sharon Singleton wrote “Such an incredible cause and reality is if I hadn’t had the website handed to me, I wouldn’t have done so much research. This has opened my eyes.”

Awareness by itself isn’t much use, but linked into a broader story with clear actions, it’s vital. Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation recently found that the American public think that 27 percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid. In reality, it’s around 1 percent. Public awareness about foreign aid shapes what our politicians say and do, and combined with actions to make our voices heard, it can have a big impact.

By itself technology doesn’t end poverty, but it allows us to create the connections and relationships that together can break down the systems that keep people poor.

Hugh Evans and Simon Ross are the Co-founders of the Global Poverty Project and Executive Producers of the Global Citizen Festival

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Data Centers Waste Vast Amounts Of Energy, Belying Industry Image

Most data centers, by design, consume vast amounts of energy in an incongruously wasteful manner, interviews and documents show. Online companies typically run their facilities at maximum capacity around the clock, whatever the demand. As a result, data centers can waste 90 percent or more of the electricity they pull off the grid, The Times found.

Jeffrey Tinsley: FOMO Trumps FOPL With American Adults

It seems like the whole world has been swept into the social media vortex in recent years — after all, when both your Grandma and your neighbor’s Cocker Spaniel have Facebook pages, you know that connectivity has reached an all-time high. And, ask any young professional pursuing a new business opportunity or overall career change — in order to stay current in today’s job market, social media connectedness is paramount to success. While we are definitely seeing “app overload,” staying current on popular apps and social media tools are essential to establishing industry thought leadership, finding new personal and business opportunities, driving awareness around a company and its products, and building rapport with a company’s customer-base. Add to the mix the proliferation of new platforms, networks and apps.

For all the different ways we connect, well, ‘there’s an app for that.’ So it is interesting that a recent study from Pew Internet & American Life suggesting that a fear of the loss of digital privacy was strong enough to prevent American adults from installing and utilizing many applications on their mobile phones (the study suggested about one-half of those surveyed opted not to install an application if it asked for too much personal information). The reality, however, is that the fear of missing out (“FOMO”) is a much stronger deciding factor than the fear of privacy loss (“FOPL”) when it comes to plugging in.

We have become used to staying up-to -date in real-time, with news being delivered and received instantaneously via e-mail, Facebook, Twitter and myriad other apps. Connectivity and interactivity is at the point where it’s not official until it’s “Facebook Official” (“FBO,” if you will). Plain and simple — while people may be averse to a loss of privacy, they are even more averse to being left on the sidelines while the rest of their network happily rides off into the social sunset, tweeting and sharing along the way.

A recent study by MyLife.com conducted by Harris Interactive showed nearly two-thirds of American adults (62 percent) are afraid of missing something (be it news, an important event or status update) if they don’t keep an eye on their social networks (and this shoots up to 74 percent for those who are single). In fact, respondents were willing to put up with some pretty terrible trade-offs in order to keep their access to social media- nearly 40 percent of respondents said they would rather do their taxes, get a root canal, or spend a night in jail before they’d delete their social media accounts.

Part of the reason for the reliance on social media is the sense of pleasure and connectedness we find when posting our thoughts and experiences online. A recent Harvard study found that roughly 80 percent percent of posts to social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are announcements about one’s own immediate experience, finding that “disclosing information about oneself activates the same sensation of pleasure in the brain that we get from eating food, getting money or having sex.” (LA Times). And yet another study, conducted by the University of Chicago, suggested the ‘addiction’ to social media, or the desire to check your email or social networks, was stronger than addiction to alcohol or cigarettes — when it comes to willpower, resistance to social media desires measured the weakest (Science News).

One thing’s for sure, however: not all platforms and applications are created equal (and this will unlikely come as a surprise to anyone…(What? People are more loyal to Facebook than Place My Face?). The Harris study showed users much more reliant on mega-networks like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn: 84 percent of users can’t go a week without logging into Facebook — and 61 percent of users can’t go even one day. There is a source of frustration, however, when it comes to managing all these networks and platforms — one-third of respondents struggled with remembering different passwords, while other respondents cited keeping track of their multiple accounts and maintaining each account as a burden of social networking. So while it may be true that consumers have some concerns about privacy control, it seems the more overwhelming issue is finding a solution to managing and consolidating our networks into something manageable and protected — once those apps are downloaded. So, people may report favoring privacy over plugging-in but my bet is that — between the fear of missing out, the rush that comes with oversharing online, and the overwhelming desire to log on — social media and the apps that enable us to do consume and share right from our pockets aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

$21 Million Pay Raise?

BOSTON (Reuters) – Technology company Oracle Corp increased billionaire CEO Larry Ellison’s compensation for last year by 24 percent.

Ellison, one of the most highly paid chief executive officers in the United States, and the world’s sixth-richest man, according to Forbes, received total compensation for the year ended May 31 of $96.2 million, almost all of it in stock options. That compared with 77.6 million in the prior year.

His compensation rose during a period in which the company’s shares fell 23 percent, underperforming the Nasdaq Composite Index, which was little changed during the same period.

Company spokeswoman Deborah Hellinger declined comment on the compensation package, which was disclosed in an annual filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The board’s executive compensation committee said in that disclosure that its long-standing approach has been to “provide total compensation opportunities that are significantly above the average of our peer group.”

That group includes Apple Inc, Cisco Systems Inc, International Business Machines Corp and Microsoft Corp.

Ellison, 68, has been CEO since he co-founded the company 35 years ago, making him the longest-running chief executive at a major Silicon Valley firm.

(Reporting By Jim Finkle; editing by Carol Bishopric)

You’re Going To Fail

Failure is a big part of the startup game. When investors bet on fledgling companies, most of them know that the risk is high — but few knew it was this high.

Shikhar Ghosh, a Harvard Business School lecturer, has released research that shows venture-backed startups fail at much higher rates than previously thought, The Wall Street Journal reports.

About 75 percent of new firms that take venture capital leave their backers in the red, Ghosh told the WSJ. That means three out of four new firms will fail. That figure, the Journal notes, dwarfs the 30 percent startup failure rate previously estimated by the National Venture Capital Association.

The notion that startups frequently fail to deliver investment returns has prompted some to say the venture-capital model is broken. It has also created tension between founders and their backers as both groups question whether they actually need each other.

David McClure, a former PayPal executive and founder of the Silicon Valley accelerator 500 Startups, lashed out at venture capitalists during a tech conference in Canada last month. “The last 10 to 20 years you’d think that it has been all about VCs making money, because that’s all we hear about,” said McClure. “But it’s really about VCs failing and failing to return capital and being fucking idiots. VCs are stupid. They are absolutely stupid.”

As McClure’s outburst shows, there’s a growing stigma in Silicon Valley attached to taking institutional money. Entrepreneurs praise peers who avoid VCs and instead tap into revenue they’re generating when they need cash to expand.

Adding to the souring relationship between founders and venture investors, the VC industry as a whole has not produced its promised returns for more than ten years, according to a recent report by the Kauffman Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based entrepreneurship advocacy group.

“Over the past decade, public stock markets have outperformed the average venture capital fund,” the Kauffman report said. “For 15 years, VC funds have failed to return to investors the significant amounts of cash invested, despite high-profile successes, including Google, Groupon and LinkedIn.”

But it is those Zuckerberg-style success stories that keep entrepreneurs and investors coming back to the startup game. And while they are few and far between, recent research shows that average successful startups raise $25.3 million, sell for $196.8 million and give shareholders a whopping 676 percent return.

You’re Going To Fail

Failure is a big part of the startup game. When investors bet on fledgling companies, most of them know that the risk is high — but few knew it was this high.

Shikhar Ghosh, a Harvard Business School lecturer, has released research that shows venture-backed startups fail at much higher rates than previously thought, The Wall Street Journal reports.

About 75 percent of new firms that take venture capital leave their backers in the red, Ghosh told the WSJ. That means three out of four new firms will fail. That figure, the Journal notes, dwarfs the 30 percent startup failure rate previously estimated by the National Venture Capital Association.

The notion that startups frequently fail to deliver investment returns has prompted some to say the venture-capital model is broken. It has also created tension between founders and their backers as both groups question whether they actually need each other.

David McClure, a former PayPal executive and founder of the Silicon Valley accelerator 500 Startups, lashed out at venture capitalists during a tech conference in Canada last month. “The last 10 to 20 years you’d think that it has been all about VCs making money, because that’s all we hear about,” said McClure. “But it’s really about VCs failing and failing to return capital and being fucking idiots. VCs are stupid. They are absolutely stupid.”

As McClure’s outburst shows, there’s a growing stigma in Silicon Valley attached to taking institutional money. Entrepreneurs praise peers who avoid VCs and instead tap into revenue they’re generating when they need cash to expand.

Adding to the souring relationship between founders and venture investors, the VC industry as a whole has not produced its promised returns for more than ten years, according to a recent report by the Kauffman Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based entrepreneurship advocacy group.

“Over the past decade, public stock markets have outperformed the average venture capital fund,” the Kauffman report said. “For 15 years, VC funds have failed to return to investors the significant amounts of cash invested, despite high-profile successes, including Google, Groupon and LinkedIn.”

But it is those Zuckerberg-style success stories that keep entrepreneurs and investors coming back to the startup game. And while they are few and far between, recent research shows that average successful startups raise $25.3 million, sell for $196.8 million and give shareholders a whopping 676 percent return.

‘Texts From Mitt Romney’

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might need a good laugh after the week he’s had, but there’s also a chance he’s so out of touch that he might not get the humor behind “Texts From Mitt Romney.” In fact, that’s the root of the joke.

Posted by Nick Douglas of Slacktory, these humorous — and most definitely fictitious — texts attack Romney for his elitist attitudes. They’re like “Texts From Bennett” from the perspective of the 1 percent.

SCROLL FOR “TEXTS”

The messages may lack the hilarious visual cues of “Texts From Hillary,” in which an unimpressed U.S. Secretary of State stoically dispenses judgment from her BlackBerry, but “Texts From Mitt Romney” rings true, especially in light of Romney’s “47 percent” remark.

For more “Texts From Mitt Romney” visit Slacktory.

LOOK:

texts from mitt 1

texts from mitt romney 2

texts from mitt romney 5

Brian_Kelly: How Presidential Candidates Can Use Online Video to Run an Effective Campaign

With the presidential election in less than two months, both sides are revving up their campaign efforts by visiting key states, hosting pivotal conventions and conferences, and releasing their ideas for the future of America. However, there is one tool that can help candidates to get their message across and run a more effective campaign: online video.

What makes online video so different from other communication tools? According to comScore, 85.5 percent of the U.S. Internet audience viewed at least one online video in July 2012. That same month, 184 million U.S. Internet users watched 36.9 billion online videos, meaning incorporating the tool within existing campaign strategies would surely get candidates seen by more people.

Typically, we see online video incorporated into political campaigns as advertisements and recordings of speeches. However, it can be much more — a gateway to communication, a campaign management tool, and a tool to build a positive image for the candidate. Here’s how:

Share timely information
Political figures like Hillary Clinton have used internal memos in the past to share timely information with their staff. However, internal memos can be and have been leaked to the press or the general public, which can damage a campaign. Instead, sharing timely information with campaign staff through online means can be a safer alternative.

When using online video internally, it’s important to require user authentication for your videos to ensure they can only be viewed by staff members with the required permissions. For external video viewing with voters, campaigns can utilize public or non-restricted viewing. Find a video platform that will allow both viewing options and metrics tracking, allowing you to see who has viewed your information and for how long. Also, with video platforms that enable real-time discussions, viewers are able to post comments and questions. Collaboration tools can ensure your entire staff — and only your staff — stays on the same page.

Manage campaign staff
Staying organized is the key to a successful campaign, and video enables organizations by communicating updates and key execution plans on a timely basis. Video can be delivered quickly and is easily accessible, especially for those on the campaign trail.

It can be time-consuming and expensive to reach every member of a campaign staff, but video allows you to reach your staff in a cost-effective manner. Training via online video is a sensible alternative to more traditional training methods for a variety of reasons. It’s simple to create whether you’re using pre-recorded material or clips recorded from a webcam. You can also add collaborative elements, like discussion features. Video provides an easy way to update your audience no matter where they are.

Reach your audience
Overall, viewing for online video is up, while TV viewing is down, which indicates the way we seek and receive current information is changing. Barack Obama used online video heavily during the 2008 election, which proved a successful way to “meet” young voters on their preferred medium of communication, the Internet.

Young voters preferred Obama over John McCain by 68 percent to 30 percent, and his Web presence likely caused that. By November 2008, 50 million viewers had spent 14 million hours watching Obama’s campaign-related videos on YouTube, four times McCain’s viewers. The YouTube channel for the Republican National Convention (RNC) has received 2.8 million video views during this year’s event. And the Democratic National Convention’s (DNC) YouTube channel garnered more than 1.6 million views.

From these examples, it’s clear video can be used as a way to communicate with your audience where they’re already seeking information: online. Video provides information in a fast and user-friendly way, and it’s cost-effective. Video can also be updated more easily than hard copies of campaign information, meaning you can quickly swap out clips if there’s a campaign update or change.

In addition, video allows for collaboration with an audience in real-time (assuming your video platform offers this feature). It also provides direct communication, meaning it doesn’t leave room for interpretation or “spinning” from political journalists — your message is clear to voters.

Build a positive persona
President Obama knows reputation is an important aspect of a presidential campaign. During his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama released nearly 2,000 official YouTube videos, which were watched over 80 million times. He also had 135,000 subscribers and 442,000 instances of user-generated content. Online video can often be less formal than TV or radio spots and can serve to connect a candidate to their audience. Video offered Obama a medium through which he could humanize his campaign and show young voters he wasn’t a disconnected politician.

Online video also gives you a lot more freedom to further understand a candidate — from their personal lives to issues that are important to viewers. For instance, Obama started a fundraising campaign through online video, which featured powerful stories of real people.

More than 1,800 videos were viewed over 110 million times during the last presidential election, according to Steve Grove, head of YouTube politics. “Tech President did a calculation that YouTube was worth $47 million to the Obama campaign if they had bought TV dollars and they didn’t spend a penny on it,” he said. This goes to show that video can not only be an effective medium to build a positive persona, but it can also do so in a cost-effective way.

As more and more voters move online, it’s clear that video is one aspect of communication political figures can use to their advantage. From managing campaign staff to sharing ideas with voters, online video is an effective tool for all candidates and those running political campaigns would be ill-advised to ignore this trend.

Brian Kelly is the Vice President of Sales at KZO Innovations, a video software company that provides an on-demand video platform for small to large enterprises and government customers. Connect with Brian and KZO Innovations on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Adam Levin: 94 Million Exposed: The Government’s Epic Fail on Privacy

When you hear a number like “94 million” in the news, it’s usually because somebody won the lottery. This time around, no such luck. This 94 million is the number of Americans’ files in which personal information has been exposed, since 2009, to potential identity theft through data breaches at government agencies. Go ahead, count the zeroes: 94,000,000. That’s like releasing the personal data of every man, woman and child in California, Texas, New York, and Ohio.

Believe it or not, this number — which was just revealed in the latest report from tech security firm Rapid7 — is only the most conservative estimate. When you take into account the difference between reported data breaches, which is what this report measures, and actual incidents, you are talking about a much, much bigger number. As bad as the numbers are, it gets worse. Much worse. Indeed, the biggest threat doesn’t come from smart hackers — it comes from dumb politicians and bureaucrats.

First, let’s consider the scope: The newly released Rapid7 report is based on the list of data breaches compiled by the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit privacy advocacy group (and remember, we’re only talking about the last three years). According to Rapid7′s analysis, government agencies at the local, state and federal level are becoming infinitely more proficient at exposing our personal data, putting more and more of it at risk with each passing year. Government agencies reported that they exposed 1.5 million records containing personally identifiable information (you know, the sensitive stuff: your name, your address, your phone number… ) in all of 2010. The following year that total more than doubled, to 4 million. (If you’re worried that you’re a victim, read this.)

So far this year, government agencies have more than doubled their totals from last year, reaching 9.6 million in just the first five months of 2012. Who knows where we’ll be by the end of the year — or how many innocent people will be exposed to fraud and identity theft due to the negligence of government employees or third-party vendors?

And remember, these are just the breaches we know about. In some states, government agencies are not legally required to publicly report data breaches, or to notify potential victims that their personal information has been exposed. To take one little-known example, local governments in California are exempted from that state’s breach notification law — “a big exception, in my opinion,” as Clearinghouse founder and director Beth Givens told us, since local governments “compile a great deal of personal information.” Furthermore, out of 268 breach incidents reported since 2009, the 67 of the public agencies responsible (and I use that term loosely) couldn’t even figure out how many records were lost. That fact alone will tell anyone with basic math skills and a lick of common sense that this epidemic is much worse than we know.

What’s even more astonishing than the total number of personal records breached is how the databases were compromised in the first place. Despite what news reports, urban legend, and simple logic might lead you to believe, sophisticated, premeditated attacks by hackers accounted for only 40 breaches since 2009, a mere 15 percent of the total.

Plain and simple stupidity and negligence caused most of the rest. In 78 of the breach incidents, government employees inadvertently disclosed citizens’ private information by posting it on a public website or sending it to the wrong people. Loss of physical, paper documents — not digital ones — accounted for another 46 data breaches. In 51 of the cases, government bureaucrats lost our private data by losing track of a portable device such as a laptop, smartphone, hard drive or back-up tape. A few of the breaches took place after these rocket scientists left a device filled with our PII inside an unlocked car.

Of the many screw-ups detailed in this report, that last one is the one that lights my fire. What Neanderthal (with all due respect to the GEICO cavemen) leaves a laptop sitting in the back of an unlocked car — especially a laptop containing the private records of thousands of citizens? What form of bureaucratic insanity allows this to keep happening, over and over and over again?

While the Rapid7 report phrases its description in less incendiary terms, the facts are still damning: “Government agencies are facing an increase in data breaches as a result of cyber attacks, weaknesses in federal information security controls, and poor best practices for protecting data on portable devices.”

“Poor best practices,” indeed.

Meanwhile, other branches of government are busy exacerbating the problem. Based on all the grandstanding by Republican officials about the need to rein in an unaccountable federal bureaucracy and get tough on national security, I expected GOP lawmakers to quickly pass the 2012 Cybersecurity bill, which would have required all organizations that run the nation’s critical infrastructure (think nuclear power plants, water supply systems and roads) to meet certain basic standards that would help defend them against hacker attacks. But Republicans were so myopically focused on preventing President Obama from achieving even the slightest legislative victory in this do-or-die election year that they almost unanimously opposed the bill, even after the Democrats caved entirely by offering to make the bill’s provisions voluntary.

How are we ever going to convince government agencies to take information security seriously when their own bosses in Congress treat our data and our most valuable infrastructure like just another pawn in a never-ending chess match for power?

Here’s the bottom line. We hear a lot of genuine, well-grounded concern about the growing number and sophistication of hacker attacks. But based on the information contained in this report, while hackers are partially to blame, the sad truth is that our own government’s security policies — or lack thereof — have put us all at risk.

Too many bureaucrats are losing track of too much of our data, and their oops! moments are being magnified by civil servants who consistently fail to implement the necessary access controls, encryption, physical security, and performance audits required to comply with the law and keep citizens’ private data private, according to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office.

We’ve known for quite some time that government agencies have turned their horrible privacy practices into an art form. The GAO’s report found that out of 24 major government agencies, 18 had inadequate information security controls. Of those, eight federal agencies got failing grades when it came to implementing the 2002 Federal Information Security Management Act. (Ah well, a decade is on par with Congressional Standard Time.) Those agencies included the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Health and Human Services, each of which have met just over 50 percent of the law’s requirements.

Terrified yet? As the agencies responsible for running some of the government’s largest entitlement programs, the VA and Health and Human Services retain deeply private, unspeakably sensitive information on millions of Americans. The VA’s terrible performance shows that so far it has failed to learn its lesson on privacy, since this is the agency responsible for one of the largest government data breaches in history — a 2009 incident in which the VA lost a hard drive containing the names and Social Security numbers of tens of millions of veterans.

Combine that with the fact that hacking is on the rise. Only four government data breaches were caused by hackers in 2009, according to the Rapid7 report. By 2011, the total had grown to 18, and there were another 11 breaches perpetrated by hackers in the first five months of 2012. Those numbers will continue to increase — and why wouldn’t they? The government’s own metrics show that the “sophisticated” computer defenses of many federal agencies are on a par with the blundering army of archers defending the fictional European country in the 1959 Peter Sellers movie, “The Mouse That Roared.” Judging by appearances, mining those computers for all the private data they hold is about as daunting to a professional hacker as a child’s piggy bank would be to a professional safe cracker.

Mailing a USB drive brimming with names and Social Security numbers to the wrong person, failing to delete data from discarded drives — the list of governmental idiocies is long. And all of these unforced errors by incompetent or untrained pencil-pushers are like waving a red flag at a herd of very aggressive bulls — in this case, a herd of hackers. The difference is, when those bulls charge, it’s not the bureaucrats who get skewered. It’s you and me: American taxpayers who have been forced to hand over to the government all of our private information — names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers — just to take care of the basics (pay our taxes, receive our Medicare benefits, even register to vote).

Unfortunately, the bureaucrats seem to be unable to fix this mess. That means it’s up to us. What should we do?

First, let’s put some teeth into the law. The Information Security Management Act is ridiculous. Agencies are reviewed regularly for compliance, but what happens when they fail to comply? They receive a very stern talking-to from the GAO. They might even get written up in a report using words like “vulnerable” and “weak.”

Give me a break. We need nationally mandated security protocols, backed by a law that imposes serious sanctions on offending agencies and the bureaucrats who run them.

Low-level bureaucrats who leave unencrypted laptops in unlocked cars should be suspended without pay for meaningful periods of time. High-level bureaucrats who fail to improve their computer security safeguards in compliance with the law should at the very least be fired. In the case of actual data breaches, firing isn’t enough. Depending on the level of negligence, it’s not unreasonable that the bureaucrat should stand trial; if they are convicted of negligence and enabling fraud, they should arguably go to jail.

Second, instead of simply playing defense on data security, we need government to aggressively play offense. The federal government already spends $13.3 billion a year to secure its computer systems and bring federal agencies into compliance with the 2002 Information Security Management Act, according to a report published in March by the Office of Management and Budget. That’s 18 percent of everything those agencies spend on information technology.

However, a security system is only as good as its weakest link — people. Among a host of other initiatives, the government needs to better monitor the systems they have in place, develop effective breach response programs, and pro-actively train people to think security 24/7.

Here’s the point: It’s not just about punishing bad behavior. We must incentivize good behavior and inculcate best practices. Many Federal agencies have good rules in place, unfortunately, not enough are striving to meet them and several could strive a whole lot harder.

Finally, we, the people — the ones government is supposed to protect — need to get fired up and take action. While Federal agencies tend to ignore complaints from individual citizens, they do take complaints from members of Congress very seriously (since enough angry senators could cause an agency major tsouris when budget season comes around). If you are one of the millions of citizens whose information was improperly exposed, and received a notice from a federal agency to that effect, don’t just stand there, do something about it.

Letters to senators — good old fashioned snail-mail, handwritten missives — get noticed. Groups of seniors or veterans or Medicare patients showing up on a Congressman’s office doorstep get noticed. Blog articles that help track identity-related fraud get noticed.

Whatever your skill and whatever your interest, you have something to add to this fight. And if you’re an American taxpayer, you probably have something to gain from it. Rapid7′s report shows that federal bureaucrats still don’t take seriously their responsibility to protect our privacy. It’s high time for us to target the things they do take seriously: their budgets, their jobs, and their freedom.

This article originally appeared on Credit.com. Follow Credit.com on Twitter @creditexperts.

Groupon’s Latest Move To Challenge PayPal

NEW YORK — Groupon launched a new payment service Wednesday that allows businesses to run credit cards using an iPhone or iPod Touch, the latest company to seek a portion of that growing market.

The announcement sent shares of the Chicago company soaring nearly 7 percent in early trading.

Groupon Payments is aimed mainly at businesses that offer deals through the company. A test program allows other merchants to use the service, but at higher rates.

The technology has been tested in the San Francisco Bay Area and will go up against EBay Inc.’s PayPal unit and Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey’s Square. Those services also allow merchants swipe credit cards on their phones using a small card-reader attachment.

Groupon is charging MasterCard, Visa and Discover swipes at a 1.8 percent rate plus 15 cents for each transaction done by a Groupon merchant. American Express will be 3 percent plus 15 cents.

In comparison, Square charges 2.75 percent per swipe, or $275 per month. PayPal charges 2.7 percent.

The online deals company has seen a sharp decline in its stock price since going public late last year. With Groupon Payments, the company is trying to broaden the array of services it offers to merchants.

Groupon says merchants can use its payments service to add tips, taxes and email receipts.

Groupon’s stock climbed 31 cents to $5 in early trading.

2012-09-19-groupon.jpg

This undated image provided by Groupon shows the company’s new payment service launched Wednesday, Sept. 19, 2012, that allows businesses to run credit cards using an iPhone or iPod Touch. The announcement sent shares of the Chicago company 7 percent higher in morning trading on Wednesday. (AP Photo/Groupon)

What Time Can You Download iOS 6?

It’s here! Apple’s iOS 6 is finally available to iPhone and iPad users.

The iOS 6 release is slated for Wednesday, Sept. 19, with a scheduled download time of 1 p.m. EST and 10 a.m. PST, according to CNN Money.

Absinthe Jailbreak’s Gamal Sabry created a timetable for the iOS 6 release times around the world, covering everywhere from Athens to Lagos to Seoul to Boston.

ios 6 release time date download apple new softwar

Click here to see the complete iOS 6 release timetable, courtesy of Absinthe Jailbreak.

iOS 6 is not just for Apple’s iPhone 5 users. The software upgrade will provide updates for older phones released since 2009, including a new mapping system, Passbook and Facebook integration.

The new software will feature more than 200 new features, according to the Associated Press, but not all features will be available on older phones. The update will be available for iPad 2 and the new iPad as well as the new iPod Touch.

Apple’s stock hit a new high on Tuesday morning in the wake of the release of the iPhone 5. It soared to $701.44 a share, the Wall Street Journal reports. The stock is up 5 percent this month, and 73 percent on a year-to-date basis. Analysts believe that it will stay above the $700 mark and possibly rocket even higher.

Pre-order sales, which opened Sept. 14, hit a record 2 million in just 24 hours.

The iPhone 5 is priced at $199 for a 16GB version of the phone, $299 for a 32GB version and $399 for a 64GB. It will hit store shelves Sept. 21. Pre-sales opened on Sept. 14.

Click here to learn how to download the new operating system.