

Songkick Secures Sequoia's First Ever UK Investment with a $10M B Round - cecileb
http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/08/songkick-secures-sequoias-first-ever-uk-investment-with-a-10m-b-round/

======
rdl
I love Songkick -- I've wished for exactly that service many times, especially
since I'm willing to see ok concerts in the Bay Area, or really great shows in
a few other cities, if I know about them in advance.

Counting the PhDs at Songkick is interesting. Excessively smart people who are
passionate about the problem domain (and luck) seems to be the only way to
make up for the structural problems in the music industry.

~~~
spindritf
I haven't heard about Songkick before, it looks great. I wish they enabled
favourite bands import from Last.fm. EDIT: And country-wide tracking, that's a
bummer.

~~~
iaskwhy
It used to be possible to import from last.fm (and pandora) but, true, cannot
find it anymore.

------
destraynor
Delighted for the guys, I met a couple of them while I was speaking in
Cambridge, smart team of fantastic and enthusiastic people. It's a really good
consumer play solving a very real problem. Funding makes perfect sense for
them, in my opinion.

I can't work out why jpdoctor is so down on this, but each to their own.

------
adrianwaj
I wonder how much of SongKick's data is sourced from ArtistData:
<http://www.artistdata.com/us/network> ?

------
amirmc
Off-topic: I'm curious. If a US VC invests outside the US do they have the
same tax issues getting returns back into the country as other companies? e.g.
Apple etc. Or does the money never leave in the first place?

------
jansen
Wow, this is awesome! Always been a big fan of London-based YC startups :)

------
andreasklinger
Congrats! Well deserved :)

------
staunch
Congrats. Since I saw it I've wished someone would do this for comedians. I
don't like live music, but I love live comedy. Get on that, someone!

------
johnndege
congrats ian and team.

------
jpdoctor
> _Something tells me there’ll be a few drinks sunk in Bar Music Hall
> tonight._

As I've said before: The fact that people "celebrate" a funding event is
really bass-ackwards when you think about it.

It says that the company couldn't figure out how to grow without bringing in a
bunch of financiers, who have a low hit rate (3 go north, 3 go south, 4 turn
into the living dead), who provided negative 10 yr returns even with Google in
the portfolio, and who take 2-3% + 20% of exit from their own investors.

Definitely an excuse to drink, but not for reasons of celebration.

~~~
pg
And as _I've_ said before, if you're going to say something nasty, you'd
better be right.

Practically all the most successful tech companies have raised outside
funding. If raising money is a sign of lameness, then for some strange reason
the most successful startups all seem to be the lame ones.

Honestly, you should be ashamed of yourself. The Songkicks have worked hard.
This is a big milestone for them. And you are pissing all over it without
knowing anything about them, just because this news happened to trip some
_idee fixe_ you're in the grip of.

~~~
jpdoctor
> _you'd better be right_

Did I get wrong 1. hit rate, 2. negative IRRs or 3. the take?

> _Practically all_

But not _all_.

~~~
pg
I don't know Sequoia's hit rate (and I doubt you do either) but you got 2 and
3 wrong, yes.

Practically all is enough to falsify your claim.

~~~
jpdoctor
Re 1: You have not heard that saying from Sequoia?

Re 2: Linked elsewhere, but again here wrt negative IRRs

<http://www.matrixpartners.com/site/press_detail/63/> And the lawsuit ISTR
that resulted from that article:
<http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9917>

Re 3: Please let us know the carry and take numbers.

~~~
pg
The first article doesn't talk about the final returns from any Sequoia fund
but merely points out one was down halfway through its 10 year life.

The second does talk about final returns and says "UC investments in
partnerships managed by Sequoia Capital (Funds III to X) have returned over
$508 million on an investment of about $110 million for a 4.6-fold return."

~~~
jpdoctor
Yes the second article is about the appeal. UCal did not wish to be kicked out
of Sequoia funds so they played up the internet bubble funds to present to the
judge.

It was the disclosure on negative IRRs that led to the first article that got
them disinvited from Sequoia iirc. UC was just obeying disclosure laws. Do you
remember differently?

Of course, VCs could just release their performance history numbers so that
investors and prospective entrepreneurs know what the percentages are. Who
does it serve that they don't release these numbers?

