Which startup’s collapse will end the Web 2.0 era?

The Silicon Valley machine is still going, for now
Here in Palo Alto, the Silicon Valley machine is still going strong – entrepreneurs are still starting companies, angels and VCs are still investing, and engineers are still coding. In the last 3 months, I’ve had half a dozen friends get their companies financed, which is great. Certainly things are more difficult, but deals are still happening, and there’s still a lot of companies growing.

But I’ll say that I’m still quote worried, because of my belief that the worst has yet to come. There is a large group of 2004-2007 self-described Web 2.0 companies which haven’t hit bottom yet, and I’d like to discuss this possibility in this post. I hope this blog will spawn off useful discussions for entrepreneurs thinking about where we are in the boom-bust cycle.

So first, some thoughts about Web 2.0 and how that category has played out:

Web 2.0 isn’t cool anymore
In the 2004-2007 era, many companies in the “Web 2.0″ space received a tremendous amount of funding. You can debate what the term means, but generally I would classify them as companies having some of the following qualities:

Consumer internet destinations (or widgets!)
User generated content and activities
Advertising-based revenue models
Appealed strongly to the early adopter audience

Yet ultimately, it turned out that most of these startups didn’t work out as real businesses. The reasons hinged primarily on the difficulties of monetizing user-generated content based on ads that I’ve written about. As a result, to be a VC-backable business, you either need to be a top 50 internet property (good luck on that!) or have a well-defined monetization backend that probably wasn’t advertising.

My guess is that the # of companies describing themselves as Web 2.0 has dramatically decreased over the last year, as these business model problems have been rapidly discovered and popularized.

And yet, now the difficulty of course, is that there are dozens of Web 2.0 startups funded in the 2004-2007 timeframe that have a meaningful amount of cost, and not enough revenue. It’s these startups that I’m worried about.

Venture financings as a lagging indicator for the economy
The problem is, VC financings tend to be a lagging indicator for the economy. We haven’t seen the established startups who are trying to raise Series B or C rounds get turned down by the market. The reason is that it’s too early, and these companies failures will lag the downturn in the economy by a year or possibly more.

Lots of smart companies and entrepreneurs did a great job of getting their financings done last year before the economy really fell apart. As a result, these lucky ones have cash in the bank right now and can continue iterating on their model to hopefully figure things out. But if they haven’t figured things out and the economy is still bad, then ruh-roh, that’s no good. But we’re unlikely to see the effects of these sick companies with dysfunctional business models until later this year.

Who are these startups that might be in trouble? Let’s discuss:

Characteristics of startups in danger
I’m not going to call anyone out But I think that there are several startups out there which are now in the precarious position of either finding their model ASAP, or collapsing.

These companies might include the following characteristics:

Started in 2004-2007, and self-described as Web 2.0 startups
Have grown to lots of headcount, let’s say >40 people, which can burn through a $5M Series A in under a year
Substantial traffic, let’s say >5 million uniques per month, which drives up the cost structure
Ad-based business models, which rely on big sales teams calling up agencies (whose pockets are now reduced, if not closed)
Low-context advertising inventory, with low CPM in sectors like communication and entertainment
Mature internet sectors, where the upside is now established, and acquirers are less likely to pay up as a result
Not a leader in their category, where they may be #5 or higher, and investors may be unlikely to keep supporting their growth
Media content hosting, where they allow users to upload, host, and stream content without charging a dime, which also drives down the cost structure

I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to pick out companies that might fit the bill.

The point is, I think this cycle is going to get a lot worse, and a downslide will likely be caused by one or a number of 2004-2007 vintage classically Web 2.0 companies hitting the skids. I am hoping that the slope down will be gentle.

Want more?
If you liked this post, please subscribe or follow me on Twitter.

Written by Andrew Chen

February 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 am

Posted in Uncategorized

View Comments to 'Which startup’s collapse will end the Web 2.0 era?'

Subscribe to comments with RSS

Well said. When are people going to realize that funding is not a goal, it's a milestone. The real goal is to solve a customer problem and create sustainable, measurable, profitable revenue from volume. Three key words all MIA from 99% of web 2.0 start up's.

Peter Cranstone

23 Feb 09 at 9:14 am
I'm hoping that the correct answer would be Twitter, but it is neither a Web 2.0 thing much, nor is it going to collapse any time soon. People just have too much free time on their hands.

reg4c

23 Feb 09 at 10:56 am
Bebo and Slide seem to fit the bill. If you take out the >5 million uniques criteria a lot more “Web 2.0 press darlings” become apparent.

Bebo and Slide are pretty strong though, and I expect both to survive because of their deep pockets. Bebo, which is huge in the UK, is an AOL company and Slide has Paypal founder money.

Thanks for the food for thought. I am recommending your blog to my clients.

Barce

23 Feb 09 at 11:13 am
So if I understand your implied formula for future success in this space:
1. A start-up network should present a monetizing solution that has at its core a proven and efficient system based upon the sale of tangible products.
2. Be less reliant on huge numbers of unique visitors to pay the bills and drive up the costs.
3. Have an appeal to the next generation of internet adopters. Possibly the Baby Boomers huge mass?
4. Present a business model first; then deliver the social conversations.

bruce christensen

23 Feb 09 at 12:02 pm
very Interesting!

sincitykitty

23 Feb 09 at 12:57 pm
Digg

dotcoma

23 Feb 09 at 1:08 pm
An interesting difference between this wave and the experience we went through in 99-01 is that most of them will not collapse in big ways. Think about watching a 2 story building versus a collapsing old Vegas casino.

1. They are smaller, and even ones that are bigger can operate very small. I wonder what a 200 person Facebook looks like financially.
2. The ad revenue is alot of the time being done with ad networks that did not exist in 99, including Google so there is less fixed costs.
3. I don't know anyone who has bought an EMC box in this wave, infrastructure is much less of a fixed cost
4. Not alot of Oracle licenses that have to be paid up each year anymore either.
5. And most importantly, I think we all learned something last time and things just did not get as crazy in the start up world.

So maybe just like there weren't any big exits, there might not be any massive failures. But I guess we all know there will be some. Who will be the pets.com of Web 2.0 ?

BTS

23 Feb 09 at 2:28 pm
Digg meets many of your criteria. If Digg was run on a budget closer to HackerNews' it might have a shot at waiting this recession out, but their burn rate is astronomical. Plus, they are a tricky property to sell (hence the fact that they couldn't get out at the top of the bubble) because of the questionable content and unruly users.

neekolas

23 Feb 09 at 8:00 pm
Oh boy are the kids at six apart hang going to be ok?

andrew korf

23 Feb 09 at 8:37 pm
If not advertising, then what would be the base source of revenue from new startups launching into the web technology field?

The only other source, beside advertisers and affiliates, are the people who read the website. But in today's economy, how many of these people will spend a dime on things located in cyberspace?

Not many I think.

This could pose a huge detriment to the growth of social networks.. the problem of monetization.

Leland

23 Feb 09 at 11:02 pm
Not sure slide or digg will collapse any time soon as people are commenting on. Both are well backed and whilst I doubt either is profitable at the moment, both companies are quoted as forecasting profitability in the near future.

It's hard to predict really who might get into trouble, especially as the really big companies that are stagnating e.g MySpace, are backed by huge companies like Newscorp. We're seeing plenty of smaller companies being acquired or closing down though.

Alex MacGregor

24 Feb 09 at 3:13 am
Insightful post Andrew.

On a lighter note – do you really have to use this picture

brijsingh

24 Feb 09 at 3:23 am
think so

Vidar

24 Feb 09 at 3:37 am
it's still ad based duh…

quality content. (the trickiest issue) made cheaply. but there are a handful out there of ex studio ex union people who can do this.

ad/product placement is not hard and NO you obviously have not spoken or tried to talk to companies about using their placement because you woul not have put the statement out there that they don't want to talk (hint: try not talking to the internet ad agencies…or the ad buyers for television…neither understands the new model and likes to act like they do…talk to the marketing branch)

oy I still can't get over you would print something that is obviously never been tried by yourself. The companies are dying for new cheap ad models… and they are learnign their traditional agencies are fighting amongst themselves to look like they know what is best…avoid the agencies until you have to).

You don't need big ad sales teams… you need good content and two or three people that know film production, branding and a little sales.

and it is based on small (miniscule) cost for the initial placement and click based to purchase…not marketing to another advertisement.

every show has a brand …and every brand has a company wanting that brand for marketing… the rest is purchase activation without damage to story and character. easy if you have been doing it…hard if you have never.
How do I know all this …because we are already doing it.

dl

24 Feb 09 at 4:08 am
Good post that includes a lot of common sense. I am currently self-financing a start up and we purposely identified certain sectors and modelled the concept in a way that would enable us to avoid relying on an advertising only revenue model.

However I think there is a bigger issue here and that is the perceived value of products and services by the consumer. Look at the problems the IPhone has thrown up in terms of getting your price point right. Any app that has utility and looks beyond release one requires investment and therefore subsequently an ROI – but the demand is to drive the price down and focus on volume. The same applies with some of the sites being mentioned. Whilst Twitter, Facebook, Google and a load of others provide consumers FREE access then the demand and more importantly, expectation, will be that comparable experiences should also be free. I experienced this myself yesterday whilst chatting to potential business angels interested in providing seed funding for our business. The concern is that by creating a model based around micropayments, as is the case with ours, you are creating an 'unnecessary barrier to entry' (not my words) which will affect volume. The attitude still seems to be seed and get the volume and worry about how you monetize later, by which time the expectation has been set and you will struggle longer term -in my opinion.

When some political and financial experts say as a society we need to learn from the mistakes that lead to the current global recession and should avoid propping up those mistakes, the same could be said for our industry. Years and years of FREE services has led each and everyone one of us to question why we should pay for stuff and I can’t see how that is sustainable long term. The answer, especially for new start ups, is to break the mould, be brave and look at charging for great utility and user experience. If we focus on the basics and get it right then high volume will hopefully follow. If it doesn’t at least you have a revenue model you can adjust.

Andy Thomas

24 Feb 09 at 4:51 am
I'd like to know the companies you are talking about- it would make this post must more interesting. Why are you refraining?

Kurt Jarchow

24 Feb 09 at 4:53 am
When more and more people get jobless, they might increase their amount of time spend on social websites. Seems great at first, until the advertisers find out they are addressing those who don't have the money to spend on the goods or services advertised.
Then next advertisers will withdraw their advertising even more, leading to even less revenue whereas the number of concurrent users has increased: driving up the operations costs.
Example: If you get fired you will probably spend a lot of time on LinkedIn. However the advertising present could not relate to your problem.

This seems to be a no way out for ad-supported Web 2.0 start-ups (or grown-ups).

Engago team

24 Feb 09 at 6:14 am
Hi Andrew…

Was trying to email you, but Gmail is DOWN. And its free. And it was started in 2004-2007. And it is ad based. And it has social networking (ie Web 2.0).

So…it should fail right?

So why are you still using Gmail?!!!

Just Say No

24 Feb 09 at 6:27 am
It's funny your put user generated content sites in that list. We run a series of sites that feature user generated content. We monetize in a variety of ways. For us we are in the black and business is booming as companies are finding serialized user generated content is working very well in advertising campaigns. Don't count the user generated content sites out yet.

Ohh an we did not need any venture funding we are profitable and growing without someone's hooks in us.

Todd Cochrane

24 Feb 09 at 7:52 am
My own two cents from having started and run one of these, Activeweave's BlogRovR, is that you're close to spot on. But, you're missing a fundamental aspect of many of the Web 2.0 companies, which is very important and which is in peril as a result of the kinds of monetization models we use: value to the consumer.

Many web 2.0 company's fundamental mission is to remix information consumption to provide their users with tools that could not have been available. Not new physical products, but new information or communications navigation and consumption technologies and metaphors. The dire straits these kinds of companies are in, as you so well describe, is due to the ineffectiveness of their being monetized by advertising, not their lack of value.

What web 2.0, or whatever the next moniker ends up being for this kind of endeavour, needs is a more direct monetization scheme. One has to admit that what we currently do is far-fetched and complex–imagine giving someone ice cream in exchange for their agreeing to reading advertising flyers while eating the ice cream, and then tithing the sales generated thereby. Heck, if your ice cream is good, people ought to be willing to pay directly for it.

We've all become accustomed to free ice cream, and the process of “web2 death” you describe here may well be the one in which the ice cream sellers go away and work on something else, and no one gets ice cream anymore. Then, perhaps, the cycle will begin again, and consumers will be more willing to by ice cream directly. I hope this happens soon, cause I for one don't want to lose The New York Times (trad media is undergoing the same issues as is well documented), or digg, bebo, slideshare, or any of these other great companies.

Marc Meyer
ex-CEO Activeweave

marqueymarc

24 Feb 09 at 8:10 am
Nice post Andrew. It will be a sad thing users of the web 2.0 companies fitting your criteria. I have just finished a series of article under the topic of “web 2.0 hall of fame”. I think you might like to read about the forty people and forty websites that made web 2.0. http://bighow.com/halloffame

Pramit SIngh

24 Feb 09 at 10:26 am
I am 100% convinced that DocStoc will be be done within 12 months, ending a small portion of web 2.0, but significant nonetheless.

JerryKnows

24 Feb 09 at 10:57 am
Andrew,

You are talking about what I call Web2.0 chasm. I always saw only two types of viable web2.0 companies. Either you have the critical mass like youtubes, facebooks and linkedins to be viable on advertising revenue or you need to a very low cost structure (5 or fewer people in inexpensive geographies) and very targetted niche communities that monetize well.

I have lot of thouhgts on this topic on what comanies need to do to get out of the chasm, so wrote a blog post on it on my blog.

Raja

Raja

24 Feb 09 at 11:39 am
Do Web 2.0 startups have purpose? Some experiments evolve a purpose and that's perhaps the correct role of VC funding. Facebook is really useful as a communication tool, but it required

Market making will be the next big thing. Especially since we're switching out of a disposable consumption economy to a repair, service, Do-It-Yourself economy that will need a lot of information to support tricky transactions of used goods and expertise.

Sure beats advertising. Weren't search engines suppose to help us find things?

Jeffrey Wong

24 Feb 09 at 10:00 pm
Makes me fear for Vimeo…

Stefano J. Attardi

25 Feb 09 at 1:04 am
Great post. The repetitious calls to 'join the conversation' are becoming increasingly vacuous unless companies work out ways of doing it in meaningful ways which drive revenue and solutions. I just wrote a post on how Barack Obama, and, less obviously, Kraft Foods have done just that!

Tom

tom hoy

25 Feb 09 at 1:38 am
I was in a startup (in 1999) that had an ad based revenue model. I was the only early team member who felt, long term, that we would never be sustainable, because the competition for ad dollars would be too intense (we had a good idea, but I was sure we would never be a dominant online property). I had spent 7 years in media / advertising, had carried a bag and I had direct experience with the unfathomable number of ways that marketers get propositioned to 'invest' their budgets.

Now, 10 years later, the shakeout looks to be arriving. The inventory of online impressions available (outside of search) is, in practical terms, unlimited. How will anyone other than the Top Tier (100, 500?) properties, ever carry an impression / CPM mixture that sustains? Only small firms with contributing founders (i.e., who create a personal brand – Perez Hilton – or who can code and run operations) will be viable, without charging the user somehow. Be huge or be without outside investors

Obviously, there are some exceptions, one-off firms that are huge, with small teams and unique technical founders (for instance, Plentyoffish, who readily admits that the majority of his revenue comes from his competitors and whose industry is one of the exceptions to the 'people don't pay to join a website maxim ' used in the next paragraph.)

The biggest hurdle is the perception hurdle. People pay for a delivered paper but not access to a web site. People pay for an app to show up on the deck of their iPhone, but not to join a web site. People pay for newsletters, but not to join a web site. Make your service fit this profile and I think you will have an answer.

However, I don't think any angels will bite, though. That will be your biggest issue – access to capital when your model does not fit pre-established norms (even if the accepted model turns out, eventually, to be invalid for most startups, as Andrew has cogently demonstrated).

James

25 Feb 09 at 2:32 pm
I think another critical difference between 99-01 and now, though, is also the source of the problem: like you said, those of us who were around last time learned some valuable lessons. Not the least of which is that back then, the tech industry insanity (and hubris) was what led to the problem in general. This go around, the problem is much, much broader than just the tech industry. We may not have done a very good job of bracing ourselves for the inevitable impact of what is happening now, but the roots go much deeper than a single industry.

Sure, there will still be large-scale tech meltdowns (Facebook is probably the prime candidate for the #1 slot). But in the scheme of things, an imploding financial services industry, an auto manufacturing industry that is DOA, and a crumbling (and vastly over-extended) retail industry still all get bigger headlines and have bigger large-scale economic impacts. Your size point is very, very valid. While the collapse of Facebook would be high profile, it would not have the same type of massive economic impact that we would have to face if Ford shut its doors once and for all.

Web 2.0 is a problematic (and misleading term). In a world where virtual services are easier to get and more affordable than ever, even if Facebook shut down tomorrow, by next week there would be a dozen new solutions ready to take its place (and that's not counting the ones that are already up and running). Some would have more viable business models; others wouldn't.

In the end, the idea that “2.0″ is going to die is a bit nonsensical. It's just going to stop being trendy – which means that it'll no longer be a REASON for a VC to hand someone a check. It'll have to come off the list of 'selling points' and founders will have to go back to the drawing board and make an actual business case. And when that happens, hopefully the dumb moniker will be what actually kicks the bucket.

Alora

26 Feb 09 at 1:58 pm
I doubt digg is going away anytime soon…too much visibility

AdamSinger

26 Feb 09 at 6:54 pm
I like that list of criteria. If I had to put one first, I would have “grown to lots of headcount” – the classic cause of business failure (raising the breakeven point).

We (http://www.tutor2u.net) started out in 2000, at the end of the original Web 1.0 bust. Years on, the staff has grown to…2.5 fte's. That two and a half people (I'm the half) serving >0.8m uniques p/m and making $1.2m net income. It is all about keeping costs low and value added high

Jim

http://www.twitter.com/tutor2u

Jim Riley

1 Mar 09 at 4:41 am
Very interesting as usual. But, like other comments said, many companies match the characteristics presented as at-risk factor. The lost of a large part of them is not a good news for employees but also for users. Moreover, the web is based on the free access of many applications for many people. For them, paid for service online are unbelievable.

So, is the right time to change mind ?

andryrabiaza

1 Mar 09 at 2:07 pm
zivity… doesn't meet all the criteria, but still, doesn't seem to be that much traffic there

Gabe

1 Mar 09 at 7:14 pm
Andry, I think that we are on the verge of seeing a new boom directly tapping the collective manpower of website users.

The CPM supported startup model of “Start free -> get huge traffic -> monetize through advertising”. Is crashing faster then the economy.

However, there is one resource that people who use the internet have, and are used to spending.

Their time.

If we can successfully convert this time into manpower doing something useful for various companies… (filling out forms, helping with problems(??), giving feedback, filling out surveys) , then we can create an entirely new business model.

For example, if you could simply fill out a feedback form (truthfully), and in return, you would get a twinkie (or insert any other low cost snack food that you love here), would you do it?

If the time used to complete the task is fair and reasonable… I think you would!

Leland

1 Mar 09 at 11:03 pm
Lots of visibility, but their burn rate is enormous and they are losing much of their agility.

Leland

1 Mar 09 at 11:03 pm
I don't know if they are revenue positive….but both Yelp and Urban Spoon seem to be doing well. I think they both tapped use value well. And despite some iffy press backlash, I think Yelp has done community and the mysterious “fun” factor.

The user created content vs. community (ie content I can care about because its related to me/my social graph).

Nathan Ketsdever

9 Apr 09 at 6:40 am
ed hardy

veronic

30 Jul 09 at 1:29 am
ugg boots
ed hardy

buy ed hardy

cheap ed hardy

ed hardy

buy ed hardy

cheap ed hardy

xiapiao

19 Aug 09 at 2:40 am
http://www.uggboots-zone.com
ugg boots

xiapiao

19 Aug 09 at 2:42 am
http://www.ed-hardy.cc/ed-hardy-women-apparel/e...
ed hardy tanks

xiapiao

25 Aug 09 at 2:16 am
Andrew,

Check out my start up! MobileTrainer at http://www.FitnessFulfillment.com:8080. Its Beta right now…

MobileTrainer is a Progressive, Fitness Training Service that is available for any web enabled device or PC. The system develops a Personalized, Evolving Exercise Routine that works whether or not you have fitness equipment and you don’t even have to have a gym to use MobileTrainer, use it at home or in the office. No other application out on the market even comes close to what MobileTrainer does. The database consists of over 1,100 exercises according to the users Exercise Skill Level and Equipment Available (Currently over 100 Different Types of Equipment) which are used in over 40,000 different Workout Scenarios. The database contains over 100 different Exercise Routines used in nearly 1,400 Unique Exercise Programs.

MobileTrainer

26 Aug 09 at 6:01 am
I have a start-up that I probably should have launched a couple years ago when analytics was a hot topic. Nevertheless, you can find my service at http://www.site-pulse.com. It is a real-time analytics service that allows you to watch your traffic as your visitors crawl your site. It provides all kinds of useful data about your visitors as well as a few charts. Your first month is free and you can cancel at anytime.

Kent

26 Aug 09 at 7:40 am
Freesi said Before the update, staking stands as one of the most awesome income in the game (seems better than 91rc), with this income, stakers could afford rares so they constitute a major portion of the demand on rares, now that staking is down, will rares drop?

chiflatironrepair

8 Sep 09 at 5:42 am
baidu
[url=http://www.sina.com]sina[/url]
[url="http://www.baidu.com"]baidu[/url]
[url=www.google.com]google[/url]
[link=http://www.yahoo.com]yahoo[/link]

rsload

8 Sep 09 at 6:46 pm
As there are number of ways by which chi camo collection Blue your hair, but you will find using hair straightener easy. Today something that no person will be without is his or her chi camo collection Pink .

rsload

8 Sep 09 at 6:47 pm
ugg tasman
ugg tasmina

xiapiao

10 Sep 09 at 2:28 am
http://www.uggbootstore.net/Ugg_Tasman.html
ugg tasman

xiapiao

10 Sep 09 at 2:29 am
Ugsell,Inc provides all kinds of discount uggs. Go for your ugg Bailey Button boots classic ugg Boots now.You will find something great such as UGG size and UGG care information for you.

kobeliu

20 Sep 09 at 7:23 am
oh, just so that.
thank you for sharing

http://www.usa-jordan.com

airjordanshoes

21 Sep 09 at 6:22 pm
[url=http://www.superuggshop.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.superuggshop.com/]classic cardy[/url]
[url=http://www.superuggshop.com/]ugg cardy[/url]
[url=http://www.superuggshop.com/]ugg store[/url]

ugg sale
classic cardy
ugg cardy
ugg.store

majianfeng

22 Sep 09 at 12:36 am
http://www.uggca.com : ugg boots sale the UGG Classic short,ugg classic tall,ugg classic mini,ugg ultra tall ,ugg sundance,ugg sundance boots,ugg cardy,ugg cardy boots,ugg classic cardy,ugg boots

uggcardy

5 Oct 09 at 10:10 am
http://www.uggca.com : ugg boots sale the UGG Classic short,ugg classic tall,ugg classic mini,ugg ultra tall ,ugg sundance,ugg sundance boots,ugg cardy,ugg cardy boots,ugg classic cardy,ugg boots

http://www.fbib2b.com : Sale the nike air max 90,nike air force one,nike dunk SB,high dunk sb,mens gucci shoes,ugg classic cardy,gucci boots sale ,LV boots sale.

http://www.b2bec21.com : nike air max 90,air max shoes,nike air max,Nike air force one,NBA shoes,NBA basketball shoes,Nike Shox shoes,nike airforce boots,ugg nightfall,ugg cardy boots,ugg boots, High dunk sb,nike dunk sb.

uggcardy

5 Oct 09 at 10:11 am
Thanks for the food for thought.

jiontata

3 Nov 09 at 1:47 am
Thanks for the food for thought.

jiontata

3 Nov 09 at 1:47 am
Air Max shoes

linhanyi

9 Nov 09 at 11:55 pm
closely at the rates for high cholesterol cheap coach with a history of heart disease chest pain.

nikehandbags

2 Dec 09 at 8:58 am
Well writing. UGGS On Sale
Thank you for sharing this good idea.UGGS Boots

nikehandbags

9 Dec 09 at 11:56 pm
An eye-opener and good post, Mr. Chen. Greetings from Guadalajara, Mexico.

Alejandro Ochoa G.

3 Jan 10 at 9:21 am
I have posted something about the possibilities of instant, auto-generated, automatic databases, at: http://databasing.blog.com

Alejandro Ochoa G.

3 Jan 10 at 9:24 am
UGG Classic Short boots
ugg classic tall boots on sale
UGG Sundance II

ytwlgs8

13 Jan 10 at 10:47 pm
Sheepskin and ugg boots are a casual type of boot. Ugg boots are exceptionally warm and are great for cold weather (up to -30 degrees Fahrenheit)If you are looking for warmth while trudging around the house or the city, a sheepskin or ugg boot will be ideal.For girls and women, ugg boots look fantastic with tight-legged jeans tucked into them, or with short skirts paired with opaque tights or bare legs. For guys, ugg boots work great with jeans, and give a very casual, or rugged look, depending on the jeans or the shirt you wear with your ugg boots.

Do you have a pair of UGG Boots?If not,you must will buy a piar in our website.As we offer the best sevice and favourable price.what's more,we charge the shipping fee.So,you just need to pay the fee of boots,and will receive our UGG boots in one week.It is very easy to have your own UGG Boots.Come on!

Our UGG Boots are all with top quality:
*features genuine twin-face sheepskin
*our signature UGG woven label
*feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
*have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for refreshing comfort with every step
welcome to http://www.findugg.com

bootscardy

17 Jan 10 at 1:10 am
Well said. When are people going to realize that funding is not a goal, it's a milestone. The real goal is to solve a customer problem and create sustainable, measurable, profitable revenue from volume. Three key words all MIA from 99% of web 2.0 start up's.

Puma shoes

16 Mar 10 at 12:55 am