As for the PDX issue, I can say from experience that it is possible to build technology-based companies in Portland, receive VC funding, and accomplish a positive exit. I’ve done it twice now. There are things about the local economy that are buggy (lack of sufficient local VC funding, lack of local political understanding or support of enterprise creation or growth, etc.), but there are also things that are unique and great (highly education populace, creativity, lifestyle). As with anything, to succeed here you have to pick a good industry, have a winning idea, work like crazy, find your lucky breaks, and build a revenue model that is both rooted in reality and supportive of a bigger picture.

Lots to fix in Portland, but plenty to celebrate too.

The truth is that we’re all still a little shell-shocked about this result, even though we’ve accepted it and are all moving on in good spirits.

That said, I still wake up at night thinking: “WTF, how could we not close the loop on our series B; we had so much going for us.” I run through the reasons in my head: worst economy in a lifetime, concerns about online display advertising, a late-evolving-revenue model, overly-diluted cap table, location, first-time CEO…

But perhaps most importantly: our difficulty in breaking through the noise. There is A LOT of noise in digital medial / social networking. Many (most?) VC’s are motivated by their gut as much as their intellect. Hype around a startup is a major “gut driver” for VC’s. Hype is driven, in large part, by being present and having a loud voice / strong personality. It has little to do with the actual business. In the case of SplashCast, we simply weren’t in the middle of it. This kinda brings us back to the PDX / location debate — but from a different angle.

This discussion around venture capital and Portland is material for a longer blog post… perhaps I will work on that over the next few weeks. I have a lot of thoughts to share.

Thanks again.

More to your point: You are absolutely right, technology startups, particularly with a media component, are high risk ventures and those require a financial community who understands risk and are willing to play in that zone.

That is not Portland.

The financial atmosphere here is too conservative. Sure, there is the rare exception every few years, but, not really in the consumer-facing space. B2B maybe, B2C, not here.

The notion of setting up a storefront in the Bay Area (@Furrier) is an attractive idea, even if the back office happens here. But, rarely do start ups have resources to manage two locations and also fracture the communication of Sr. Mgt. so early in the game.

I agree w/some of above comments, I think Splash Cast could have survived better elsewhere. They were an anomaly for PDX, but offered hope…for awhile….

Buyers are confused and the valuation of techniques employed by Splashcast are severerely undervalued. This isn’t a Splashcast issue. It’s the market. Sure some things on the execution side I’m sure Michael would want a mulligan for but that’s what its all about in business.

On Portland dont’ think that is an issue but what I would share with any companies out there thinking they have to move to Palo Alto . Don’t it’s expensive. Just hire someone here for presence and bus dev. Do it early in the process it might be a good investment.

Shameless plug: my new group blog SiliconANGLE is an open group so if anyone wants a presence here we would love to collaborate with you. The group is there to help entrepreneurs and companies.

Having a company go dark is sad especially a good one with people like Michael. Hopefully the market will turn and we can be in job creation mode verses job elimination. Where the hell is that stimulus …