<![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, roger ehrenberg]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: valleywag, roger ehrenberg]]> http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/rogerehrenberg http://gawker.com/tag/valleywag/rogerehrenberg <![CDATA[Monitor110 investor snippily confirms Draper Fisher Jurvetson's backstabbing]]> Roger Ehrenberg wrote a popular post-mortem on Monitor110, a news aggregator for investors he'd backed. It burned through $20 million in funding before finally dying this summer. We'd learned that Ehrenberg had omitted a key detail from his history of the company — that it had sought a bridge loan from Draper Fisher Jurvetson, a VC which had invested in the company, gotten a promise of the money, spent it, and then seen DFJ renege on the loan and fund a competitor Skygrid instead. We contacted Ehrenberg for comment before running the story, and he passed up an opportunity to deny any of the facts. We ran the story. Now Ehrenberg writes: "Few things irk me more than shoddy journalism, lousy research and bad intentions, and these three neatly came together in a piece by Nicholas Carlson published today in Valleywag." He then proceeded to confirm everything we reported. "Here are the real facts," he writes:

Monitor110 was burning cash more quickly than expected due to revenues falling short of projections. We did have a disagreement with our VCs about a bridge. The contingencies they thought were baked into the commitment were different than those we perceived. Did this suck? Yes, it certainly did from management's side of things. But did it cause Monitor110's ultimate demise? No. Poor execution did. And I'm not sure simply adding more capital would have enabled us to grow out of our deeply-seated problems.

Ehrenberg does contest one bit of speculation in our post, on why he omitted the tale of DFJ's treachery: "Most likely explanation is that he knows he might do business with Draper Fisher Jurvetson again, and he doesn't want to be blackballed."

In today's rebuttal, Ehrenberg made it very clear that he will not need Draper Fisher's money ever again:

I don't need DFJ to do my next deal or any other deal and the issue of being "blackballed" is beyond a red herring. It's moronic. I have money. I have access to lots of money. I have access to plenty of non-VC money.

It's settled: Draper Fisher Jurvetson and Roger Ehrenberg have no plans to do business again — you heard it from Ehrenberg.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5034889&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[What actually happened to Monitor110? Its VCs killed it]]> Why did investor-news aggregator Monitor110 go under, taking $20 million in funding with it? Read early investor Roger Ehrenberg's surprisingly humble and informative blog post about the ordeal, titled "Monitor110: A Post Mortem," and it sounds like the startup fell prey to the usual pratfalls — too much PR, weak leadership, and a confused product vision. Probably all that's true. But what's also true, a source tells us, is that Monitor110's own investors, specifically Draper Fisher Jurvetson, which invested most of that $20 million, ensured Monitor110's failure during its final months.

A source familiar with the venture capitalists tell us that after Monitor110's last funding round, the company began to burn through cash faster than expected. Fortunately for Monitor110 CEO Brennan Carley, the company's primary investors at DFJ were very understanding. They promised — "truly promised," our source tells us — Monitor110 a bridge loan to get the startup through until its next funding round. Monitor110 went ahead and spent the money, "with DFW's "assurance the bridge was coming," our source says. But it never came.

Instead, DFJ killed the bridge loan and — as is being reported today — funded Monitor110's direct competitor Skygrid instead, leaving Monitor110's other investors, like Ehrenberg, with nothing better to do than write humble postmortems. Ehrenberg, reached for comments, did not deny any of the particulars of this story.

The real lesson of Monitor110, then, is this: Never trust a venture capitalist. Why isn't Ehrenberg telling us this story? He wouldn't say, but the most likely explanation is that he knows he might do business with Draper Fisher Jurvetson again, and he doesn't want to be blackballed. Far easier to play the humble martyr, and gain popularity by licking his wounds and sharing anodyne lessons learned.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5034255&view=rss&microfeed=true