Month: April 2014

  • Policy Wonking

    Wojceich Gryc has an interesting post on the policies that he’d like to see the federal government implement to improve the startup ecosystem. The 5 key points are:

    1. Market Access Tax Credits
    2. Legal/Tax Advice for Market Access
    3. Sales-Oriented Startup Accelerators
    4. Global Benchmarks
    5. Global Branding

    Not a bad list of things that could improve the startup ecosystem. However, I’m not sure they are not all necessarily things for consideration as governmental policy. Specifically, I have issues with 2, 3 and 4.

    Legal/Tax Advice for Market Access

    Entering new markets, particularly foreign markets, can be daunting. There are legal, regulatory, tax and other questions. And I would argue that the Canadian government already has a Crown corporation, Export Development Corporation, dedicated at lead to helping manage the financial risk of accessing new markets. Is there a step-by-step guide for emerging technology companies? (Let me know if you find one). There are access to the Trade Commissioners who continue to have a strong presence in the Bay area, New York and Austin, Texas.

    The remaining advice and guidance about legal, regulatory and tax risks on entering new markets is provided by third-party services firms. I’ve worked with the teams at KPMGDeloitte, PwC and others on Canadian/US tax law and the implications for my firm. Also advice from Canadian and US counsel including BennettJones, CognitionLLP, LabergeWeinstein, Fenwick & West, Wilson Sonsini and others. You need to find lawyers and accountants that have experience with the risks and solutions and can provide you cost-effective advice.

    Sales-Oriented Startup Accelerators

    An accelerator feels like a red herring to me. Wojceich is 100% correct, companies should focus on focus on key traction metrics (see Getting Traction and Funding, Valuation and Accretive Milestones) including sales/revenue. But the idea that an accelubator is going to help you focus on driving realistic forecasts, and achieving milestones or traction feels lazy/wrong/not the right approach.

    A startup is a temporary organization used to search for a repeatable and scalable business model. – Steve Blank

    Depending on the type of business model, it can be okay to delay monetization. But if your business model is to sell software or software-as-a-service you need to determine if people are willing to pay you for it. I would argue rather than giving up 7% of company to an accelubator, you’re probably better to read David Skok’s Building a Sales & Marketing Machine and try to recruit an advisor that has experience selling to your idealized target segment. There are a lot of great sales advisors/board members including: John MacDonald, Howard Gwin, Andy Aicklen, etc. Most are accessible. Are they interested in working with you? On your business? Maybe, you need to convince them you’ve built something worth their time and social capital.

    Global Benchmarks

    Who gives a shit about where we fall on global benchmarks? It’s probably relevant as part of the next point, Global Branding, but I just can’t imagine that an understanding of the global startup benchmarks matters. Larger investment, more successful companies and exits probably have a larger impact on the overall startup ecosystem. It would be more interesting to see the creation of a Kaufmann Foundation with a focus on entrepreneurship.

    “we develop and support programs that provide entrepreneurs with the education, tools, skills and connections they need to start and grow businesses. We also work to create a more entrepreneur-friendly environment, including lowering barriers to success and raising awareness of the important role entrepreneurs play in the economy” – Kaufmann Foundation

    I’m unclear why federal, provincial or municipal policy should be based on a set of rankings provided by a private corporation. It just feels ill-informed view of the role of government and policy in managing the lives of citizens. But I am not a policy wonk and my understanding on the creation and execution of policy in the administrative branches of government approximates zero. (Take this free opinion for what it is worth, or at least what you paid for it).

    The Greener Grass

    It’s great to see entrepreneurs in the trenches think about the system and the support they need. It’s a honest view of the things that would help entrepreneurs improve their corporate performance, reduce their expenditures and risks.

    I love the idea of a similar SR&ED tax credit for market access. Supporting companies as they experiment with distribution and monetization models is a great idea. Plus improving the Canadian brand through Startup Visa, Maple Syrup Mafia, The C100, and other activities is an amazing activity. It builds on the efforts that we as individual founders to support the ecosystem. Focusing on traction including customer acquisition, revenue growth and building a scalable business., I love that too. Using global metrics as a baseline to evaluate your business (see StartupCompass’ Navigating your Startup to Success) should quickly give entrepreneurs both the measures and the desired outcomes to compare against.

    I don’t think it is going to be government policy changes, it is going to be founders and startups building successful companies that will ultimately improve the ecosystem.

    Photo Credit: Photo by Kris Krug AttributionShareAlike Some rights reserved by kriskrug

  • Hardware Workshop: May 2-3

    Step 1. Start a hardware company.
    Step 2. ?
    Step 3. Profit.

    If it were only that easy. You can ask  PebbleInteraXonThalmic, Bionym, PUSH Strength, Kiwi WearablesClearPath Robotics among others about the challenges of designing, testing, manufacturing and distributing a hardware-based company. There are a lot of subtle , unexpected complexity in moving from bits to atoms. And one of the best ways to learn about complexity is from operators made mistakes and found a way to do it.

    There is a Toronto based event happening called the Hardware Workshop happening May 2-3, 2014. The event is hosted by Marc Barros (Moment) and organized locally by Katherine Hague (Shoplocket) and Zak Homuth (Upverter). It features an amazing set of people with real world experience in all aspects of building hardware-based businesses, including:

    It looks like a great workshop at an amazing price. Looks like the workshop costs are covering the out-of-pocket expense of the organizers for food to allow participants to focus on the content and learning opportunity. (Seriously, do the math $75 * 75 = $5,625 barely covers the catering costs).

    “What makes this workshop unique is the quality of the content, the deep operational experience of the teachers, and the long term connections you will make. Hand curated, each teacher covers a unique topic that falls within the startup’s life cycle from an idea to reaching market fit.”

    If you’re interested in learning about building a hardware startup and about the mistakes that others have made (so you can avoid them). This should be a fun 2 days. Apply to attend.

    [Disclosure: I am an investor in Upverter. ]

  • New job posted: Front End Developer / Juice Mobile…

    New job posted: Front End Developer / Juice Mobile / Toronto, ON, Canada bit.ly/1jveChk

  • When should startups pursue a patent strategy?

    [Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Bob Stratton and Andrew Currier of PCK IP  about patents and patent strategy for Canadian startups. And while “traction is the new IP”, this is one very cost effective strategy for startups, but is it the right one for you? ]

    Seriously, patents? Are patents really an effective strategy for startups? It’s an almost Shakespearean dilemma for founders, to patent or not to patent.

    There is a real tension between the long term benefit which must be balanced against the short term need to manage cash burn carefully and the management time required for a successful patent program and the immediate need for focus on getting product out the door.

    Understandably, early in the corporate development lifecycle most startups choose to focus on building and shipping product and growing traction and revenues. We’ve heard that traction is the new IP. There are unintended consequences to this decision, that founders need to be aware of that have impact on the business down the road.

    The refusal to even consider patents can be left for another conversation.

    We present an analytical approach for founders to consider performing an upfront analysis of: “Are patents an important part of my business plan?? and “When do I start pursuing a patent strategy?”. Here are some starting points.

    Timing is Critical

    There are a couple of unpleasant patent facts that we must be considered:

    1. If you disclose the invention before filing a patent application, you lose the ability to patent it in most of the world.  (A short list of countries, including Canada and the US, forgive your prior disclosure for as long as a year, and let you still file a patent application before the expiry of that year);Prior disclosure is an issue because you may have to disclose your invention to a variety of people such as investors, potential customers, suppliers, etc. – who refuse to sign a non-disclosure agreement.It is also an issue because your successful launch of your product/service is a disclosure.
    2. The first inventor who files an application at the patent office blocks any subsequent inventor who files for the same invention.First to file is an issue as someone else can beat you to the patent office, at best blocking you from filing your application and at worst blocking you from running your business.  It actually happens that two or more people independently invent the same thing at roughly the same time, especially in the tech space wherein technological advances may suddenly enable a new product or business.

    In view of (a) and (b), pretty clearly the correct answer is to file “as soon as possible”, but patents cost money and start ups, in particular, should defer expenditures as long as possible until their valuation has increased, to make raising money less expensive.  Again the short term and long term are at odds with each other.

    Patents Cost Money, Defer or Spend?

    So, what do you do?  It depends? Or there is no easy answer. It requires a founder to be able to use their experience and interpret the market signals to make informed decisions about spend.

    Our suggested set of analytic steps is:

    1. Determine which aspects of your product/device/system/business might be patentable.
    2. Determine which of those aspects might be worth patenting from a business perspective.
    3. Determine when those patentable aspects will be first disclosed.
    4. Determine when you can afford to file patents.
    5. Compare 1, 2, 3 and 4 to identify critical dates (disclosure of invention vs. available funding) and decide what to file and when.

    Unfortunately steps 1-5 sound simple, but of course there is a fair amount of dependency upon specific fact situations.

    For example, you may have several possible inventions identified at step 1, but whether they provide a commercially significant advantage to your business (step 2) will vary widely and can be hard to predict given that your goal is to create an entirely new market and how that market unfolds is not predictable with complete confidence.   You may also require some professional advice to help with step 1, as it is not always straightforward to identify developments which are patentable from those which are merely clever.

    For step 2, some inventions may have a limited useful lifetime: e.g. the first implementation is web-based, but you expect that most of your revenue will be generated from a custom mobile app – once you can build and deploy it.  So, you may forgo protecting the web-based version to save the expense, knowing that you are leaving the possibility of web-based competitors in the future. Other fact-specific scenarios abound.

    Depending on the outcomes of steps 1, 2, and 3, step 4 can be made somewhat easier by deciding upon an appropriate filing strategy to manage the trade-offs between expenditures and protections.  For example, you may decide to limit the countries in which you file for patent protection and/or you may decide to “beat” a disclosure by filing a provisional patent application, rather than a complete application, to reduce immediate costs.

    You may also identify, at step 2, different classes of inventions: i.e. – those which are fundamental to your business and which should be patented as broadly as possible/reasonable and those which are mere “nice to haves” which can be deferred or allowed to be lost to manage costs.

    Seek Informed Advice

    We believe that the patent analysis is really just an adjunct to the kind of big-picture business case analysis that is necessary to achieve long term success.  Founders must know their market and have the vision to see that their startup investment has a real potential of a long term payoff.

    Founders are already faced with complex crystal ball gazing business decisions such as: What is my product road map? What investment do I need? Who should be on my management team? How can I monetize my product? Who is my competition?  Where founders don’t know the answer to these questions they seek out a number of excellent, unbiased resources to help them.  A patent analysis can be added to the other analyses both at the outset and at each milestone, and the results fed back into the planning process to best manage the path to immediate and to long term success.

    Reach out to Andrew or Bob for a conversation about your startup.