you are listening to the 20 minute VC in a very special absolute stairs. We welcome back a previous guest and long term friend of the show. Therefore, I'm thrilled to be joined in The Hot Seat State by Jonathan Abrams, found on CEO at Nuzzle, his start up that offers personalized news, discovery and curated newsletters for busy professionals. I do have to put our hands up here and say it is one of our favorites and they have backing from some of the investing grace of the day, including more countries in Navarre, Ravic and Homebrew, Soft tech and Lower case, just to name a few prior to nuzzle. Johnson was the founder of early social media machine Friendster, attaining funding from benchmark Kleiner and Reid Hoffman. Jonathan's also a prolific angel investor, counting Angel list, Docker front insta court and slide share amongst his incredible portfolio.

I'd also want their big thank you to Matt Massey over the entrance. Jonathan Stay. It was a long time ago, but so appreciated in the start of a great friendship so huge thanks for that, Matt. But before we head into today's absolute Penda helps companies create products that customers love. It was founded when a loony from rally Google, Cisco and Red Hat combined their heads on their hearts to build something they wanted but never had as product managers. A complete platform for product teams With Panda, you can understand product usage and rapidly make data driven decisions. Survey users inapt and PS and feedback deliver contextual help to improve U. S news on boarding. Promote new features in product to Dr Adoption without requiring any engineering resource is Panda is a proven choice of innovative product leaders that Salesforce optimized Lee Citrix and many more leading companies. Learn more today at go dot pando dot io slash harry that's go dot pando dot io slash harry. But what if you're starting out in the industry and want to learn to code like I was four years ago? I went to Treehouse the online school way.

You can learn how to build websites and APS. Their course library has thousands of hours of content where you can learn all sorts of topics, including Java script, IOS, Android and Maur, with high quality video instructions from riel industry experts teaching you all you need to know and quizzes and co challenge is keeping you engaged in on track, learn on your own schedule and go from beginning to pro to simply had over the team treehouse dot com to start your free trial. But enough of my nerdy British accent. So I'm how thrilled to hand over to Jonathan Abrams, founder and CEO at Nuzzle, You have now arrived at your destination, Jonathan, and such a pleasure to have you on the show for the second time. What can I say? I enjoyed it so much the first time that I have to have you back. So thank you so much for joining me.

Stay great to be back, happy to do it. And hopefully the next time we talk, it'll be in person so we can get those mojitos that we've

been talking about, how I would love that. And I'm 21. I can finally drink in the U. S. After four years of waiting, but move perfect beyond from mojitos for those who've been living under a rock and missed your first show, talk to me. How did you make your way into the world of tech and come to be founder of my personal favorite I think most used app being nuzzle.

Well, first of all, thank you for the kind words, and it's it's always fun to hear your guests on your show talking about how they use nuzzle. As you know, I yes, I listen to most of your episodes, Big Fan, and it's always fun to hear in a distant to the interesting conversations about DC did also hear people's talking about loving nuzzle. That's always a bonus in my case. You know, I think everything I've done and started even founders Dan has been the result of years of thinking about something and usually a personal problem I'm trying to solve. So in the case of nuzzle, I was just like a lot of people having trouble keeping up. I was overwhelmed and overloaded with content and with the social sharing, and I really didn't have time to keep up and click on every single link that my friends were sharing on Facebook and Twitter. So I needed something to manage and tame that chaos for me and tell me this is the most important content you need to know about and pay attention to. So that's really how it got started

said, That's your route into nozzle on. We discussed the show that and you very kindly said, You listen another gas on the show You have said they fell into V. C. And you said in a conversation before that you're surprised by the amount of these that say they fell into V. C. So why is this and why he surprised?

I am surprised about it, especially surprised that they're actually saying that. And I actually welcome months ago. I think I actually tweeted on. I said, You know, my advice is a founder is That's probably not the way you want to position it. And since then people, you know, still say it. And it does surprise me because first of all, you when you hear venture capital famous VC, sometimes in the media, talking about the lack of diversity in their firms and being challenged about it and saying that they can't relax their standards and fair enough. But when then you hear people saying that they fell into it, It sort of makes you think there's a bit of a contradiction between people who just somehow miraculously fall into the venture world, and then the lack of diversity.

And the other thing is that it's just a weird way. I think of positioning it. Even if early in your career you weren't planning to become a venture capital investor. I think their ways that it could be portrayed the path that probably going to sound more appealing to entrepreneurs listening on as an entrepreneur. It It just doesn't resonate with me to say you fell into it because entrepreneurship you really fell into it. I mean, usually it's a lot of risks, a lot of hard work, a lot of proactive effort in, you know, creating something out of nothing. So I just think it's it's a weird thing to say, even if you did get that lucky break. But it seems like some of these people have. Then, really,

it does sound like the benefit of privilege. When a family member or a former college roommate or somebody gives you this lucky break, that is an entree into that world. It's a weird way of saying that you fell into it. It just doesn't sound like something I think is gonna excite entrepreneurs that it might be listening.

Can I ask what would resonate with you If I told you that I had strategically planned my path into V C from the age of 13 and the show was a strategic maneuver to get into V C. And to become the central motive an ecosystem. Would that would that resonate with the

Well, It isn't president, Of course I know Carrie, that daddy's That's the truth. I know that's your story for anybody else. I don't think they need to have been planning their career in venture capital since they were 10 like you, But but they still don't need to say they fell into it. They can say, Look early in my career, always doing this. Then later, I did learn about venture capital, and I thought it would be really cool way for me to get to work with entrepreneurs. And I got this opportunity and I was excited to take it, and it's been really great. And I love working with entrepreneurs, and you can sail that without making it sound.

So yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, even, you know, I'm not saying that you have to have planned your career from early childhood, but I think there's there's ways of expressing your gratitude that you had a lucky break that you got into that industry without making it sound like was

so accidental. No, I I do agree. And speaking of the backgrounds, there's often a lot of debate surrounding but the background being operator or founder. So I'm intrigued. How do you view whether operators or founders make good investors?

Well, you know, that's that's a question that, obviously I I have opinions about. Of course I'm an entrepreneur for me, an investor that has an ENTRE Met with background that has been in my shoes. That's a big advantage to me because I think they're gonna be able to understand my side of things better and contrary to somebody who's been recently in the news, I actually think that empathy is a good thing and an advantage, and, I think usually want the people you're working with tow have empathy. And I think if you have done it before, if you've been ah, founder and CEO of a venture back company, that's probably going to be an advantage. The funny thing is, I'm a nice that people are still debating this so much, you know?

When did Josh compliment start. First Round Capital 2008 dozen. Eight. So that's nine years ago. When did Paul Graham start y Combinator? When did market research have been horrid start and recent? Horowitz. I mean these these air, not recent things. So the funny thing is, I hear sometimes people on podcast stilled recently sort of reacting to this. The idea that that some people are saying on Lee Founders can be good, B C's or that anybody with operational experience is gonna make a great investor. And I don't think anybody saying that. I'm not saying that on Lee. Founders would make good investors.

Nobody. I don't think anybody saying that there's lots of fantastic venture capital investors who have not been founders, and I don't think anybody is saying that anybody who makes the transition from being an entrepreneur or an operator into investment is gonna be successful. So I don't think anybody is saying those things. But people are sort of reacting to those things in, you know, pushing back. I think sometimes people who are not former founders and they're sort of maybe I don't want to be to hear the suggestion that maybe that's an advantage. If you look at fund performance, which I have, everybody talks about three x and five x and 10 x and there's all this great stuff on podcasting in the press. But the reality is, most funds have pretty mediocre performance between one and two t v p i. So most investors are not doing that great. So whether you're a former investment banker, a former lawyer for corporate executive of report,

former founder most veces air not necessarily killing it. And thats not a shock. But I would say that if you have been a founder and CEO of the venture back company, then you're gonna have a certain perspective that others are not. And people who haven't been in my shoes as a founder probably don't even know what they don't know.

Speaking of killing, I'm sure one person will agree have killed it over the past two years. Is Peter Fenton a benchmark one that you made the intro to so cute? Thank you to that, because without that, the interview we have with him wouldn't have happened. But he said in all episode never turned down a company based on valuation because it's a mental trap. So tell me what you've used towards valuation sensitivity.

Yeah, Peter's great. I actually met Peter when he was actually still in Excel before benchmark. It even poached him a while back. And big fan. He's also a nuzzle user, and I tend to agree with Peter. It's an interesting question. I've heard you talk about this with a lot of guests on your show, and the funny thing is, you know, I'm an entrepreneur and an engineer, so I lot of times try to break things down and understand it analytically. And when it comes to this idea of what he should be, price sensitive or not, there's a lot of different opinions, and none of them really seem to be backed up by data.

So it be interesting if if the venture capital's came on the show and said, Look, we analyzed our data, and over the last three funds with this many different companies, we took the bottom half in terms of our entry price and the T V P I, on average, was this versus this for the more expensive deals and therefore that proves that we should or should not be price sensitive. But I don't really hear people coming on the show and really using data. It usually just seems to be sort of personal religion almost about these things. In my case, the angel investments that I've made that were a little high and price have been ones that I was glad that I've made. And when I see ones that are sort of below market are really on the cheaper side. Usually they're not the deals

I want to. D'oh! No, I definitely agree. The attempts that signaling. Do you think, though I have to us that one can afford to be evaluation? Sensitive in stays, frothy market We often see anywhere between 10 and 30 pre on or Moise companies. Do you think you can afford to be price sensitive

today? Well, I guess that depends on if you're talking about Can you? Ford, in terms of missing out on the company's really want invest in or if you think that it's going to decrease your returns, and I think the idea that if you invested in all fairly of companies and your average price is eight pre versus 16 pre that, you're gonna have half the return. I don't think that's really mathematically correct, because it's not gonna be this Nestle the same companies. So I really think at the seed or Angel or even a M, and it is all about the out liars. It is all about trying to find cos we're gonna get 10 or 20 or 50 or more in return, and it really matters about just getting into those companies. So I think that it's about picking the right cos. And if you're going to say OK, this company is an exciting company. I believe in these entrepreneurs.

I think they're shooting for something crazy. This could end up being a huge win in my portfolio, but I would invest if it was a $10 million evaluation, but not 20. You know, I'm not sure if that really works. And like I said, I'd love to see the math. I'd love to see people proving whether this is right or wrong,

but I do want awesome cause the frothy more he is often at due to the increased number of vengeance. Specifically, it ceded micro VC. So I have to ask that too many seed or micro V. C's in your opinion today

Well, first of all, I think seed funding is actually going down, not up. I think that's been the data that I've that I've seen from bunch of folks in terms evaluations. I think those might have already hit their peak in 2000 maybe 15. So the idea that the valuations of just, you know as they went up throughout 2000 maybe 10 2015. I don't think they've continued to go up in 16 and 17 so I don't think it's quite the crisis of seed over finding and overvaluation. I think the biggest problem with valuation was the later stage valuations of so called unicorns. That was, I think, a bigger problem. And it's that still, to some extend sitting around in some companies, some overvalued company's having raised hundreds of millions of dollars. That's a whole other thing.

Then you know the world I playing as an angel investor in terms of the seed and micro VC world, there is a lot of noise about. There's so many new entrance into micro VC. There's so many new funds and all this kind of stuff. I actually kind of think it's a good thing is I think a lot of these new funds have been fantastic and a lot of great stuff is going on. I think it's sort of the next generation of the venture world. But the reality from most entrepreneurs is there's not 300 micro VC funds that they're actually pitching. If you near the list down into geography and focus on specific industries and the ones that are really active and all this kind of stuff, there's not, like, really 300 that somebody's pitching. There are ones that I think you're going to go away because I think there are some folks in the in the so I don't even like the term micro VC is. It's really just early stage venture capital back to the roots. There's some that are gonna be really permanent institutions, and there's some where it's a couple people who already made a bunch of easy money and I don't know how serious they're gonna be about it or there's not, you know,

really cohesive team or they're also trying to do five other things while they're also doing a fund. So some of these are gonna sort of fade away, which is totally okay, But I also think that the amount of capital going into the Cedar Micro BC is still pretty small compared to some of the money that's been flowing into really huge venture capital firms, where it's still much harder to get a good return.

You spoke about the huge valuations. Can't Goldman states on the show before that you should use valuation is a litmus test of the term in your level of conviction, focusing on the word convention there because you've said to me before that you're tired of hearing about conviction. So why are you hiding a hearing about conviction when it seems to be the foundation of all decision making?

Well, I'm tired of hearing the word conviction, and I don't know when exactly this became the sort of word did jeweler, but I don't know. Five years ago, eight years ago, I don't remember everybody constantly talking about conviction, and now it seems like when I'm listening to a veces pitch their funds to LP events or going on podcasts, everybody's talking about that. They like to invest with conviction and conviction keeps coming up in terms of their follow on strategy and their portfolio construction and all these kinds of things. And if you're not investing in conviction, what are you doing?

A spray and pray

well, spray and pray is also like a pejorative when the reality is there people who've actually done the math. I've actually seen a bunch of people who've done the math and proven that a portfolio that has certain size statistically can be correlated with decent returns. I think spray and pay can be a bit sometimes ah, productive by folks who want to say, OK, we lead our deals because they're looking to get a certain and minimum ownership or whatever the looking for. But I think most investors hopefully are investing with conviction. I don't otherwise, I don't know what you're doing because many B C's look at 200 to 1000 opportunities a year and invest in 1 to 10 a year. So, of course, you're hoping that people are investing in a conviction. I just find it strange that people are using the word so much because it's one of those things. When people are using the word almost makes me think that why do they feel the need to say that

so you would not say I'm genuinely untreated from a personal perspective, Would you know, said, Just use an alternative means of saying

Well, I think it's just one of those terms right now that's being getting kind of tried and cliche. I've been hearing people use it too much, and it's just become a really trendy word. And I just kind of think it's interesting, because when I hear everybody talking about how they're investing a conviction, it makes me wonder. Why do they feel the need to say that? Is that there really the opposite going on? Is it that people internally, really are having some insecurity? But the locket conviction and therefore they feel necessary to talk about conviction, or is everybody feel that somehow conviction is a differentiator? I guess I'm just wondering, why is everybody using this word so much lately? And it is getting to the point where, where I hear it, I just start sort of chuckling inside.

But we've discussed Pete Fenson earlier that undoubtedly one of the most successful of our generation, so I have to ask, and this is a really intriguing one for me. Do you agree that top veces have this almost repeatable playbook or process the success that they can apply to new startups within

their portfolio. That's a great question. And in, actually, I don't I kind of think it's it's the opposite and I've actually heard people also say that they don't think you can learn much from the failures. And I don't think that's true either. I think there's more in common with the way that startups can fail the cases where company goes through a whole series of CEOs in a row, which we've seen over and over again these kind of sort of self imposed mismanagement and governance challenges. These things do happen again and again and again. But when startups become out liars and have huge success, it's often in a very unique way, and I think that it's very difficult to take that and apply that to later company and try to a copycat that success that just don't think that's really the way it works. And in fact, I think trying to take what worked for one successful company and then apply it to Ah later startup is in fact one of those patterns of failure that can be imposed and I've just seen that happen. It's happened to me. So I actually think that's sort of a myth that there's some sort of playbook for startup success that the top feces have that they can do again and again. And, you know, that was kind of the thinking that I had in 2003 which didn't work out so great for me thinking that. So that's one of the things that I think is not really the case.

How much roller did you think? That's just the backing from the brand of a sequoia or a benchmark for lightspeed gives in terms of social validity? I mean, for enterprise company's. Having secured behind you could mean a huge amount of recognition from enterprise customers,

does it not? Well, it's a great question, and I like to talk about the fantastic investors backing nuzzle. I mean, we have increasing Hauritz and CR V and lower case and soft tech and homebrewing. They're fantastic, fantastic investors, and of course, we brag about it. But the reality is, almost everybody can brag about their investors because there's a lot of top feces. And so in terms of the entrepreneur thinking, Oh, I'm a Sequoia company. Therefore, this is gonna give me some huge advantage.

Well, you may have five other competitors, and that one's back by Greylock and that one's a Y c company. And that one is backed by, you know, soft check in first round Capital. And then there's a new entrance. There's Founders Fund and Social Capital. And so the idea that that being a Sequoia company is going to be this huge advantage in terms of the brandy There's a lot of great investors these days that have great reputations. So chances are if you have a bunch of competitors, they probably have great names, too, and all. And all in all, I think all of that just matters less than we like to pretend it does. My experience has been that ultimately, if the company is well managed next gene well and the technology works in, the product works there doing the right things and all that kind of stuff, I mean, that's what really matters.

Way mentioned about the playbook to successor. One thing that I think I've really seen just Pathan matching in the most successful B C's I've interviewed. It's how they think about board seats and also how they've personally developed as a board member over their career. Having having, you know, manage many boards before from the operations perspective, How do you analyze the best board members? I'm intrigued.

That's a tough one because, you know, this is an unpopular opinion, but I think most boards or just not very successful. And you look at some of the things that you read in the press about very famous companies sometimes that some of these companies have some of those famous venture capitalists behind them. And then you see lawsuits. You see them going through multiple CEOs and quick succession. It's it's really tough. I think a lot of boards air just not very successful. I think a lot of people are on too many boards, so even if you are a fantastic board member, I don't know how you can be a fantastic board member at at 10 companies or 15 companies at once, and I just think that are sort of a superhuman attributes. Andi. I think a lot of boards have the wrong composition. Sometimes I think they have too many investors, and some boards are sort of staffed with sort of like famous celebrity types.

People like former politicians and stuff like that. I think more boards should probably have more nerdy choices like more CFO's more CEO Seo's CM owes. I think there should be just more boring operational people on on some of these boards than this. You know, quite as many celebrities and investors. But ultimately it's pretty tough. I think managing aboard is something that most entrepreneurs probably don't quite understand how to do. Probably not even in their second company, because they're not on. As you know, they don't have the same experience an investor. If you're on 10 boards after even just a couple of years, you're seeing a lot of what's working, what's not working. And even if you're a serial entrepreneur and you you know you're on your second company, you just have not seen quite a CZ much about that. So I think it's a tough one. I think most boards just actually not as successful

as they should be. I might decline to comment matches for sake of me continuing the show and getting future veces on. But I do want to finish today by discussing the future Andi, like Gil, has said before on the show that many veces is searching for the next big thing on our embassy in frontier attack. They maybe don't understand instead of software. So I'm intrigued to hear your thoughts on this, and you think that's a fair summary, and you think that it it could cause almost the mirroring of the green and nanotech days of 2001?

Yeah, I think collide it. First of all, it's a very smart guy and a very great blogger. He's not. He runs the company so he doesn't have time to pump out a lot of stock. But what he does right is very high quality, and I think that the parallels he's making between nanotech and green tech or accurate I think that there may be a lot of pain that happens from people investing in areas they're not familiar with. A lot also points out that some of these other areas just don't have the same economics of software. Another interesting Blawg is from next view, which I think is in Boston, and I actually don't even know those guys. They're not investor and nuzzle, but I found that they've written some really interesting stuff, and they just wrote about their new fund and said that contrary to some people, they don't think the Internet and software and all this kind of stuff it's over. They don't think it's over it all.

And I think they're right. I think Cloud and social in Mobile that stuff is not over. There's gonna be more great cos there's gonna be more innovation. So the idea that it's all over and you need to sort of jump into some biotech or or some other frontier science thing I don't think that's actually true. And I think if you're gonna jump into those areas, you really need to know what you're doing. I'm an LP and data collective, which was started by Zach Boat, who cofounded founders in With Me. They're investing all sorts of crazy stuff and doing a fantastic job, and they're they're doing great and they're probably going to continue to do great on that. But I think every so enterprise software VC all sudden tries to start doing autonomous vehicles and drones and B R and biotech and genomics and whatever you know, I'm not sure if that's really going to go well for

everybody, but I do have to give a special shout out. Here's a map because he's one of my true favorites. But, yeah, level leading a day's

collective. Yeah, you should have Matt back again. Probably he's got a lot

to say. He's got a lot to say and he's awake for many hours of the day, so I mean that I'm sure we could fit into the schedule when he's awake for 20 hours of the day. But hard luck to finish today with the quick fire round S o I c. A short statement, as you know, immediate thoughts. How does that sound? Great. So your favorite book and why has it changed?

Well, I'm gonna go with something. I think hopefully that I haven't said before on your show. And then, hopefully is not one of those books that you've heard many times before. I'm going to try to be a little different. Gonna say beggars in Spain by Nancy CREss.

I've never had that before. I'm wise that your

favorite So this is one of my favorite books. This is an award winning science fiction book, and it's a great book and it also I think, is very timely. It really at the root of it is really talking about sort of income disparity. And I think it's actually would that book talks about is still very

relevant today. On what do you believe that most around you disbelieve?

Well, we've already probably talked a bunch of stuff about the repeatable playbook of success. You know, I think one of the things that I think is overhyped now is a I and or really may be talking about a I because I'm sure a lot of the you know, I've invested as an angel in over 50 startups. I'm sure plenty of them are using a I. But when I hear everybody talking about it, you know, and they're startup pitch in V I. V c saying they're looking for it. That's when I start to get a little nervous when everybody's talking about the same stuff. So I can I think it may be a

bit overhyped, but towards me favorite global news that one of the must trees

I'm gonna give this showed out to strictly B C by Kanellos Choice. That's definitely one of my must reads each day and I really enjoy that one. I know Connie for a long time, she's been sort of a veteran. Covering the venture industry

is the musty specialization of the future. V. C M boy.

Wow, that's an interesting one. I don't know if I could get a quick answer to that. I think I'd have to say yes and no. Everybody's trying tow talk about their differentiation and sometimes maybe manufacturer differentiation. And I think that that you could go in two directions either way. I mean, they're they're soft, wavy seas were investing in a mattress companies and coffee and things like that. And, you know, I've learned my lesson to try to stick to things I know. But on the other hand, they're they're beasties now, you know, only want toe invest in these very niche frontier tech areas. And I think that may be incorrect as well. I think you have to be a little bit more opportunistic and see what entrepreneurs air doing. So I think you have to sort of do the happy medium in between.

No, I completely agree. And I'm gonna be controlling here, and I think the massive specialization needs to a brilliant LP product, but not always the best returns person,

you know. I think sometimes these things are more for pitching it. Tell peas in the R for reality, and I've actually met. You know, as you know, I'm an LP in a few funds, and I recently met with some other really institutional appease just chatting about things going on in the venture world. And some of them have complained to me that a lot of managers GPS air, coming to them and pitching a certain strategy for their fund that is not at all what they've actually been doing or not what they end up doing. And they're they're pitching that they're gonna have a certain specific type of strategy and how they're going to do. They're patrolling construction or their thematic focus or whatever, and then the reality of what they do after that or have done in the past doesn't match it

dramatically different. But then that's finished. Now, on the next five years for you and for nozzle, I read it every day. How's the product gonna change? What's the road up

ahead? Wow. So that's a great question. So, as you know in a nuzzle. Our vision has been all about connecting people with the content they really need to know about. And I think that's not what people are getting from publishers news, other new zaps that I don't think that's what people are getting from the big social networks, and everybody is trying to do stuff in this area now. But what people are getting on Facebook, you know, it's a lot fake news. It's a lot of Clickbait news. I think that nobody still has solved this problem. I think it's still a huge problem, so we're continuing to innovate in this area. We have created an email newsletter platform where people can see Leslie Curate email newsletters We've built a Facebook messenger bought So the 1,000,000,000 plus people are active on Facebook.

Messenger now can get nuzzle newsletters actually sent to them right in Facebook Messenger so they don't necessarily need to install a separate news app. We're now looking at ways that we can take the data and technology behind, nuzzle and also apply it in other ways for in sort of intelligence briefings, within needing to get in, you know, information on topics. I mean, we're still hearing from people that people are overloaded. And, for example, you were asking about what newsletters I get when we're hearing from a lot of people, especially sort of business executive types. A lot of, you know and, you know, nuzzles used by a lot of CEOs.

NBC's We're hearing from a lot of people that they need to subscribe to seven newsletters every morning to cover their industry, and it's too much, and they want to figure out some way to get it in one rather than seven. And so we're continuing to to figure out how can those will help people save time and find the stuff that they really need to know about so they don't miss it, but that they can actually cope with with the amount of content that's coming at them and

save time. Well, Jonathan, I look very forward to you continuing to solve my content. Discovery problems aside, I said, Huge fan here, recommend it to everyone on. I can't thank you enough coming on the show again. It's been such a pleasure.

My pleasure, Harry.

And as I said at the start, such a great pleasure tap Jonathan back on the show such a good friend of the show, and I can't thank him enough for what he's done. He really has been a tremendous support, and you can follow him on Twitter at Abrams, and I must insist that you download nozzle. As we said, it really is a must for me every single day, and you can also follow us on Snapchat at eight. Stabbings with two B's would be fantastic. See there where you can see all things behind the scenes from 20 minute VC. But before we leave you today, Penda helps companies create products that customers love. It was founded when a loony from rally Google, Cisco and Red Hat combined their heads on their hearts to build something they wanted but never had as product managers. A complete platform for product teams With Panda, you can understand product usage and rapidly make data driven decisions.

Survey users inapt and PS and feedback deliver contextual help to improve U. S news on boarding Promote new features in product to Dr Adoption without requiring any engineering resource is. Pender is a proven choice of innovative product leaders that Salesforce optimized Lee Citrix and many more leading companies learn more today at go dot pando dot io slash harry. That's go dot pando dot io slash harry. But what if you're starting out in the industry and want to learn to code like I was four years ago, I went to Treehouse the online school way. You can learn how to build websites and APS. Their course library has thousands of hours of content where you can learn all sorts of topics, including Java script, IOS, Android and Maur, with high quality video instructions from riel. Industry experts teaching you all you need to know. And quizzes and co challenge is keeping you engaged in on track, learn on your own schedule and go from beginning to pro to simply had over the team treehouse dot com to start your free trial. As always, I so appreciate your sport, and I cannot wait to bring you a very special surprise week on the show next week.