SiliconBeat has
published a list of all “Web 2.0 companies” that received venture backing over 2005
and so far in 2006. The list was created by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National
Venture Capital Association. In the comments to SiliconBeat’s post, two prominent 2.0 VCs
have dissed the list. Peter Rip thinks it’s “ridiculous”, saying that “Web 2.0 is an
investment fad, for sure, but this classification is pointless in its generality.” Brad Feld agrees with Peter, noting that the classification is awful.
Be that as it may, the list is a useful resource – at least in terms of quantifying
certain things.
The most interesting analysis I can think to do on it right now is seeing which
companies have received the most funding. The resulting tables are below.
In 2005 Vonage got a staggering $200 Million in
VC backing, while a company called Datran Media Corporation (according to its website “a leading performance-based marketing
company”) garnered $60M.
Meanwhile in 2006 Sling Media (a TiVo competitor in the digital television space) has
raked in $46M so far this year, with advertising software company Claria Corp (formerly
Gator Corporation) pulling in $40M. ePrize, which bills itself as “an interactive
promotion agency” is third on the 2006 list. RazorGator is another which has received
over $20M in 2006 – they’re an event
ticket sales company.
While I haven’t digged deep into the spreadsheet that was kindly offered up by
SiliconBeat, it does seem noteworthy that the companies receiving the most funding are
media, advertising/marketing and e-commerce businesses. Indeed recently I noted
here on Read/WriteWeb that online advertising is hot in 2006 – and
that seems to be borne out in the VC investment list.
When it comes down to it, there aren’t many companies in the tables below that I’d
have immediately classified as “web 2.0”. Let’s see… definitely Riya, Zimbra and
Sharpcast – maybe a few others. But it seems the startups attracting VC dosh are in the
new media, marketing and business sectors. Is that really a surprise? I’d suggest a
little bit, but then a lot of so-called web 2.0 companies don’t require a lot of cash to
do business (one of the hallmarks of this current era).
On the other hand, it perhaps does suggest that the real money in this era will
be made not on the trendy web 2.0 companies – but on the new media and marketing
businesses. Thoughts anyone?
