Fanboy Fascination: Is Andreessen Horowitz Overhyped?
Social psychologist Amy Cuddy of Harvard Business School recently produced some interesting research suggesting that people are highly likely to see someone as competent if they’ve demonstrated expertise in just one area, even if they later display incompetence elsewhere. Think of the star attorney who sails his boat into some rocks.
It’s not hard to draw a line from Cuddy’s research to the media frenzy surrounding Andreessen Horowitz, the year-and-a-half old Sand Hill Road firm that almost always garners glowing reviews from the media. When Andreessen Horowitz announced last week that it had just raised a $650 million second fund — in three weeks, no less — dozens of news outlets published splashy features about the young firm, which is now managing nearly one billion dollars. One property, VentureBeat, has already anointed Andreessen “the King of Silicon Valley.”
But there’s not much to praise – yet. It’s wildly enthusiastic by even Silicon Valley standards to place them in the “top ranks of venture capital firms,” as the New York Times did last week.
I’m not arguing that the pair isn’t as brilliant as they’re often portrayed. But great competence as technologists doesn’t always translate into success as investors. Even Andreessen and Horowitz would probably concede that they don’t have enough exits to warrant the kind of fanboy fascination that so many esteemed pubs have afforded them.
Andreessen admits he fumbled the opportunity to invest in Facebook. (As a member of Facebook’s board, which he was asked to join in 2008, he now holds a small ownership position.) While he and Horowitz were able to acquire small stakes in both LinkedIn and Twitter as angel investors, so did a long line of other angels. And of the other 43 startups they backed together, just three have been acquired for modest amounts, including Chai Labs, which sold this year to Facebook for a reported $10 million.
It’s also not yet clear that it was smart of the partnership — which closed its inaugural $300 million fund in July 2009 — to invest it with such breathtaking speed. Earlier this year, the firm was part of a consortium that spun out Skype from eBay, paying $50 million for a roughly 2% stake in the Internet calling service. Andreesen Horowitz also invested $30 million in Kno, a company that’s producing $899 dual-screen tablets for textbooks.
One can debate whether the calling service or an also-ran iPad are good investments, but very few venture firms have succeeded over time by investing nearly a third of their first fund in just two deals.
RockMelt – the recently launched social browser – seems to embody the media’s adoration of Andreessen. Not a few summaries of the product noted that Andreessen Horowitz’s lead investment in the company was tantamount to a blessing by the father of the browser. The fact that Google Chrome, which has been backed to stupefying extremes by its rich parent, still accounts for just 8 percent of the market receives much less attention.
Even Andressen’s uneven track record as an entrepreneur is rarely acknowledged anymore. Yet his next endeavor after Netscape, the infrastructure company LoudCloud, hobbled to a 2001 IPO. (Andreessen credits Horowitz, who was LoudCloud’s CEO, for eventually refocusing the business, renaming it Opsware, and selling it to Hewlett Packard for $1.6 billion six years later.) His third company, the late-to-the-game social networking company Ning, looks like a disastrous investment for VCs, who’ve now poured a stunning $120 million into it.
Cuddy’s research suggests it’s our human nature to think that because Andreessen and Horowitz are famous entrepreneurs, they’re also highly competent investors, but at this point, they’ve done little beyond inject some excitement into a once plodding industry. Though everyone wants to pick “the next king of Silicon Valley,” the reality is that it’s too soon to give away that crown. Maybe it will someday go to Andreessen and Horowitz, but they’ll have to generate cash-on-cash returns first – just like everybody else.
Related posts:





Ted C, New York, New York said on November 10, 2010
Cash-on-cash returns are just so yesterday. My LP’s hired me for my comforting smile.
Ronald C. Pruett, Jr. said on November 10, 2010
Good post but old finding – it’s like adoring a PhD despite the individual being in a distinct field. Or, someone assuming a great tennis player qualifies as a great squash player because both sports use rackets. Still, expertise does show rigor and that is a quality often lacking especially in investors.
Eric Di Benedetto said on November 10, 2010
Describing Kno as an “also ran iPad” definitely is inaccurate. Not only is the company not an “also ran” – it will start running in December when its products are commercially available -, but also it does not compete against the iPad. Kno is a tablet targeted 100% at the education market. It is positioned as a digital platform for education based on student learning behavior. It enjoys tremendous support from the publishing industry.
As you are trying to apply critical thinking to understand the magnitude of the fame earned so suddenly by Andreessen Horowitz, you may want to apply the same journalistic integrity to the premature judgments you pass on start-up companies. Nothing qualifies you as a start-up investor, a domain expert or anybody with a proven track-record in building start-ups. You still have some serious homework to do…
Disclosure: I am an angel investor in Kno (and Chegg, Osman’s earlier company) – I have no tie to Andreessen Horowitz whatsoever.
Owen Thomas said on November 10, 2010
Connie, I’ll take the shot for my role in Andreessen’s coronation. But if you actually read my piece, you’d instantly grasp that I awarded him the crown for his director roles at important Valley companies, like HP, where he played a crucial role in Mark Hurd’s ouster; eBay; Skype; and Facebook — and rather pointedly not for his venture-capital investments.
regular reader said on November 10, 2010
The first thoughtful piece of PEHub’s own creation in the last few months. Put Connie in charge of the column.
Eric said on November 10, 2010
Nice balanced article, Connie. It’s good to have at least one rational voice out there willing to do their own thinking, rather than simply serving up the pre-packaged PR flak that we seem to be getting from others.
Kudos to Andreessen Horowitz for the savvy to tap the LP’s while they are enthusiastic for the unproven product, rather than waiting for the (possibly good, possibly bad) performance to manifest itself.
Lawrence Aragon said on November 10, 2010
Regular Reader: Dan, is that you?
Siddharth Shah said on November 10, 2010
I can understand why Andreeson Horowitz are media darlings. I did not know Ben Horowitz until someone pointed me to his blog. On reading it, I realized this was one of the best blogs on the Internet when it comes to start up related topics. He comes across as someone who knows how to run a start up, take very very educated risks and identifying good VC opportunities. As result, I have a very favorable opinion of him.
Investing in new companies is inherently risky due to the lack of information and the uncertainty about the business’ future. Hence when it comes to VCs, it is natural for us to form our perception based on their track record and their communication (spoken and written).
I understand the writer’s concern of seeing real returns of the Andreesen Horowitz venture before we formulate our opinions. However, given their track record and their perceived domain knowledge (Evidenced by their blogs and speeches), it is understandable why they are media darlings.
gregorylent said on November 10, 2010
to them that hath, all shall be given … etc
Fred said on November 10, 2010
Connie, this is a very well thought out, excellent piece of reporting. Please PLEASE, PLEASE do more of these types of stories. The web is full of too much cheerleading and puff-pieces. Your story reads like it was written by somebody with an engaged brain.
Sincerely, Fred Woolsey
Les said on November 10, 2010
Ditto to Fred Woolsey’s comments.
Connie, thanks for this thoughtful, courageous piece. Your article also starts to consider the most fundamental question: what are the qualities of a good/great investor?
Please serve up more articles like this one!
Steven said on November 10, 2010
Can you post a pointer to the research you mention? In looking at her list of publications I wasn’t sure which one (of they many) was specifically relevant to the thesis proposed. Thanks.
Connie said on November 10, 2010
hi, steven, i actually found it in this month’s harvard alumni magazine (husband’s), but i’m talking with amy about it next week, so more to come.
eric, good luck w that investment. (really; i’m not being facetious.)
owen, i read your piece; i say simply that you anointed marc “the king of silicon valley,” which is the case (and that i thought much, as you can see). still friends i hope.
pb9 said on November 10, 2010
Sorry, Eric, Kno is knot going anywhere. Why wouldn’t they just make iPad or Android software? Doing both the hardware and software makes no sense. They already made a huge, expensive mistake with the two page tablet.
original insider said on November 10, 2010
Thank you for this piece.
Finally someone peers thru the fog
Andreesen deserves credit for the browser, for sure. But its never noted anymore that he was basically born on third base yet gets credit for a home run — Jim Clark, perhaps one of the most successful and connected and revered figures in the history of silicon valley, imagined/invented Netscape (based on his experience with the TimeWarner iTV project) and adopted andreesen and his browser nd raised ungodly amounts of capital and got an IPO done with lightning speed. netscape never did have a viable business model, just a helium filled stock for a while. then the morons at AOL bought the company for a huge sum… and did nothing with it then shut it all down
LoudCloud was a disaster. Until horowitz oulled a dr frankenstein and reanimated the corpse. kudos to him, for sure.
Ning? Tee hee hee.
Now andreesen pontificates and bloviates at every opportunity and sprays LP money around like drunken sailor.
This firm is the IdeaLab of web 2.0
The crater will be just a huge and deep and full of litigation
JFM said on November 10, 2010
Aren’t they all?