Are Search Unicorns Sub Prime Unicorns?
January 4, 2016
The question is a baffler. Navigate to “Sorting Truth from Myth at Technology Unicorns.” If the link is bad or you have to pay to read the article in the Financial Times, pony up, go to the library, or buy hard copy. Don’t complain to me, gentle reader. Publishers are in need of revenue. Now the write up:
The assumption is that a unicorn exists. What exists are firms with massive amounts of venture funding and billion dollar valuations. I know the money is or was real, but the “sub prime unicorn” is a confection from a money thought leader Michael Moritz. A subprime unicorn is a co9mpany “built on the flimsiest of edifices.” Does this mean fairy dust or something more substantial?
According to the write up:
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. But the way in which private market valuations have become skewed and inflated as start-ups have delayed IPOs raises questions about the financing of innovation. Despite the excitement, venture capital has produced weak returns in recent decades — only a minority of funds have produced rewards high enough to compensate investors for illiquidity and opacity.
Why would funding start ups perform better than a start up financed by mom, dad, and one’s slightly addled, but friendly, great aunt?
The article then makes a reasonably sane point:
With the rise in US interest rates, the era of ultra-cheap financing is ending. As it does, Silicon Valley’s unicorns are losing their mystique and having to work to raise equity, sometimes at valuations below those they achieved before. The promise of private financing is being tested, and there will be disappointments. It does not pay to be dazzled by mythical beasts.
Let’s think a moment about search and content processing. The mid tier consulting firms—the outfits I call azure chip outfits—have generated some pretty crazy estimates about the market size for search and content processing solutions.
The reality is at odds with these speculative, marketing fueled prognostications. Yep, I would include the wizards at IDC who wanted $3,500 to sell an eight page document with my name on it without my permission. Refresh yourself on the IDC Schubmehl maneuver at this link.
Based on my research, two enterprise search outfits broke $150 million in revenues prior to 2011: Endeca tallied an estimated $150 million in revenues and Autonomy reported $700 million in revenues. Both outfits were sold.
Since 2012 exactly zero enterprise search firms have generated more than $700 million in revenues. Now the wild and crazy funding of search vendors has continued apace since 2012. There are a number of search and retrieval companies and some next generation content processing outfits which have ingested tens of millions of dollars.
How many of these outfits have gone public in the zero cost money environment? Based on my records, zero. Why haven’t Attivio, BA Insight, Coveo, Palantir and others cashed in on their technology, surging revenues, and market demand?
There are three reasons:
- The revenues are simply acceptable, not stunning. In the post Fast Search & Transfer era, twiddling the finances carries considerable risks. Think about a guilty decision for a search wizard. Yep, bad.
- The technology is a rehash gilded with new jargon. Take a look at the search and content processing systems, and you find the same methods and functions that have been known and in use for more than 30 years. The flashy interfaces are new, but the plumbing still delivers precision and recall which has hit a glass ceiling at 80 to 90 percent accuracy for the top performing systems. Looking for a recipe with good enough relevance is acceptable. Looking for a bad actor with a significant margin for error is not so good.
- The smart software performs certain functions at a level comparable to the performance of a subject matter index when certain criteria are met. The notion of human editors riding herd on entity and synonym dictionaries is not one that makes customers weep with joy. Smart software helps with some functions, but today’s systems remain anchored in human operators, and the work these folks have to perform to keep the systems in tip top share is expensive. Think about this human aspect in terms of how Palantir explains architects’ changes to type operators or the role of content intake specialists using the revisioning and similar field operations.
Why do I make this point in the context of unicorns? Search has one or two unicorns. I would suggest Palantir is a unicorn. When I think of Palantir, I consider this item:
To summarize, only a small number of companies reach the IPO stage.
Also, the HP Autonomy “deal” is a quasi unicorn. IBM’s investment in Watson is a potential unicorn if and when IBM releases financial data about his TV show champion.
Then there are a number of search and content processing creatures which could be hybrids of a horse and a donkey. The investors are breeders who hope that the offspring become champions. Long shots all.
The Financial Times’s article expresses a broad concept. The activities of the search and content processing vendors in the next 12 to 18 months will provide useful data about the genetic make up of some technology lab creations.
Stephen E Arnold, January 4, 2015
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
