An Interview with Adeo Ressi (and why Founder Institute should be in Canada)

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about incubators. Creating one, mentoring at others, visiting lots and being skeptical of several (I’m not saying which). You can decide for yourself if you think there is an incubator bandwagon being jumped on, but one incubator that marches to its own distinct drumbeat is The Founder Institute.

Here are two examples: 1) they don’t give you money and charge a nominal tuition fee, and 2) all founders who go through The Founder Institute get a share in a common equity pool. That’s pretty innovative.

Entrepreneurs already know Adeo Ressi, who is the founder of The Founder Insitute, as the man behind TheFunded.com. He’s also behind a bunch of other successful startups and is a bit of a renaissance man.

I spoke to Adeo recently about what makes The Founder Institute so different, why it works, and why Canada needs the Founder Institute. I think it’s a great model for talented Canadian entrepreneurs who don’t necessarily fit the ‘mould’ of the TechStars/YC genome. At the end of the post I’m going to ask for people to step forward if they would be interested in talking about getting The Founder Institute in their Canadian city. I know Adeo is interested, and so am I.

Here’s the interview:

You’ve built 8 startups, 4 of which were acquired. What’s the secret to your success?
Perseverance. No matter how bad things appeared, we struggled through the adversity to find the magic. Building a company from nothing to a few hundred or a thousand employees in a few years time is an immense challenge. The moment that you master one phase of growth, you are already onto the next. It takes a high degree of self awareness and perseverance to succeed. There is this meme that failure is acceptable. I prefer to triumph over adversity.

Your last two startups, TheFunded.com and Founder Institute, are about helping entrepreneurs. Is this philanthropy or business (or both)?
Entreprenurship is becoming harder, and I want to give back to the craft of entrepreneurship. A strong philanthropic mission can only endure with a solid business underpinning, so the Founder Institute is a for profit entity. I am turning over the for profit company stock to a long-term trust to guarantee the philanthropic mission for at least 100 years.

As I became more successful as an entrepreneur over the last 18 years, it became easier to build amazing products and harder to build great companies. When I started in 1994, about 1 in 100 companies were successful. Now, less than 1 in 1,000 companies are meaningful. The Founder Institute was designed to invert the startup failure rate, and our goal is to create 1,000 meaningful and enduring technology companies per year. We expect to hit this goal in 2012, less than 3 years after being incorporated ourselves.
There are a lot of incubators out there. What is different about the Founder Institute?
I am a huge fan of the programs being launched to help entrepreneurs. There is a renaissance going on. Most other programs help entrepreneurs that have a company, a team and traction. The Founder Institute looks for passionate people with a dream, and we help them create a meaningful and enduring technology company. I like to say that we mine diamonds, while others make jewelry.

We have chosen the most challenging segment, inception. Everyone involved in the Institute is a founder, and we create an equity pool that shares the upside created from the companies among everyone. So, if you graduate from the program and fail while a peer goes on to succeed, you will also see a return from your peer’s success.

Who should (and who should not) attend Founder Institute?
Everyone who has a dream to start a company should apply. We have absolutely no gender, race or idea biases, which also separates us from various other programs. The average age of applicants is 34 years old, and we have a 21% female graduation rate. Just due to our scale, the Institute is the largest female incubator in the world. I would eventually like to see our graduation demographics resemble the demographics of the working population.

What’s the greatest success of the Founder Institute to date, and why?
The greatest success of the Founder Institute is are helping thousands of people pursue their dream. We survey all enrolled Founders around the world, and nearly everyone would proactively recommend the Founder Institute. Some semesters are better than others and some locations have a stronger ecosystem, but the survey results are universally consistent.

What do you think Founder institute can do for Canadian startups?
The Founder Institute is a great asset for a burgeoning entrepreneurial ecosystem, like in Canada. We encourage successful entrepreneurs to help the next generation of companies and give them economic upside from the results. We help local Founders to launch meaningful and enduring companies. We provide a high quality stream of companies for other incubators, for investors and for various vendors. Ultimately, we are a value added player in the ecosystem, and we get along with everyone else.

You’re on the Board of the X Prize. Why are you so passionate about private space travel?
I am passionate about models to inspire innovation, and I believe that prizes are effective. As Chairman of the Strategic Committee when the Ansari X Prize was won in 2004, I pushed the foundation to expand the prize model into other categories, such as genomics, automative, medicine, etc.

There’s a great picture of you with President Clinton (http://www.adeoressi.com/about/). Seriously, how cool is he? What about Hillary?
In the photo, I am standing next Jeff Dachis as well, the Co-founder of Razorfish. I find that Founders are a much better bunch of people to spend time with than politicians, and I look forward to traveling around the world to meet aspiring Founders.

THE ASK

I think The Founder Institute would work really well in Canada. I think there are a lot more entrepreneurs than available spots at incubators and Adeo has really focused on what’s important for idea-stage startups. They’ve launched 415 companies in 20+ cities around the world.

I’m looking for interested parties to step forward if you’re interested in starting, running, mentoring or hosting The Founder Institute in Canada. Leave a comment or contact me directly.

There are two types of startup incubators in the world: YCombinator or TechStars

Note: This is a guest post by Jesse Rodgers who is a cofounder of TribeHR. Jesse specializes in product design, web application development and emerging web technologies in higher education. He has been a key member of the Waterloo startup community hosting StartupCampWaterloo and other events to bring together and engage local entrepreneurs. Follow him on Twitter @jrodgers or WhoYouCallingAJesse.com.

Some rights reserved by µµ

Incubators and accelerators [Eds note: and cyclotrons] have but one purpose: move startups along in their life cycle at a faster pace than they would normally and increase the likelihood of a return by providing that service. If you are a startup looking at applying to an incubator you need to understand that the differences in how these programs differ go beyond the money they give you in exchange for equity.

An oversimplification of the incubator/accelerator space is to classify them as either a Y-Combinator (YC) or a TechStars (TS). If you really look at the booming world of incubators for high tech startups you see a model that either based on education and peers that is driven by a strong personality (YC) or a model that is more institutional, follows a script, and feels less personal but is more in line with how VC’s work (TS) (I would place 500 Startups right in the middle between YC & TS which is arguably representative of a third type). There is plenty to be found about the differences but here is a bit of a deeper exploration into the differences.

Startup lifecycle

Startups have a number of key phases in development that is best outlined in Fred Destin’s presentation on startup lifecycle.

Start
Launch
Build
Chasm
Scale

With the 12-14 week cohort models, like YCombinator and TechStars, the focus should be on moving through starting and on to launch phase. There may be some that get into a build phase. The incubator or accelerator hopes that once they are done a 12-14 week program the startup will be in a much better position to move quickly through the build stage and at least take on the chasm phase.

Where I see the key difference between YC and TS is that YC seems to be able to get companies to go through stage 1 to 3 and they accept companies mainly in the start phase. TS seems to not attract a cluster of companies in a particular phase or not care about what phase a company is in.

The basics of an incubator/accelerator (whatever you want to call it)

Within the execution of any incubator or accelerator program there are, in my mind, 4 core stages in a typical cycle:

Recruitment
Onboarding
In the program
After the program

Within each of these of these stages there are a number of specific activities that all incubators do but in general they aren’t all that different.

Recruitment

YC currently leads the thought leadership with Hacker News, Paul Graham’s (PG) blog, and it’s success. Applicants fill out a form and once told they have an interview, travel to YC in Mountain View for an interview. They get just 15 min with a small panel and the panel does a bunch of tricks to the founders like carrying on side conversations – there are a lot of blog posts about that.

TechStars has adopted a more consistent process over it’s many affiliated programs (it appears) but they lack YC’s Hacker News or thought leadership (although they would claim otherwise). With Techstars there appears to be an affiliation with the Kauffman Foundation and the role they are taking in promoting the incubator model in general they have made themselves an authority in the space. From people I know that have been in the program it is a fairly standard process similar to raising Angel capital.

Onboarding

I am not sure on TS on-boarding but YC has a very short interview to decision to start of program window. YC has a little book that is like a long Wikipedia article written by Paul Graham that offers insights and baseline knowledge. From what I have been told the YC machine is pretty much immediately available to you when they say “you are in” — startups decide when to tell others. What is really interesting is that YC doesn’t announce it. They generally let a company know they are YC funded on the interview day but they don’t make a big announcement or anything.
Not having a big incubator announcement is a key difference here though. I will assume that with TS it is just like YC in that they have decided to fund you, they are now available to you. However, TechStars (it appears) doesn’t approach announcing the cohort in the same way as YC — they announce them ahead of the program.

In the program: peer mentorship, startup culture

Each program runs for roughly 3 months, 12-14 weeks, where mentorship, various events, and a demo day to close it off normally occur. Each week is important given that each team only has 3 months. Over three months there are phases you can generally identify:

Teams becoming familiar with each other, their mentors, and what they need to do (first 2 weeks).
The heads down getting stuff done phase (8-10 weeks).
Funding mode going into Demo Day (2 weeks).

Other incubator programs are fairly similar with any given week involving office hours (optional or required) and a speaker/dinner. The office hours are used to check in and place goals on the teams. Throughout the term there are demo nights, which are used by YC as a way to put peer pressure on other teams that might not be moving as fast as others.
Where they differ here is in the education of the founder(s). From everyone I have talked to that has gone through YC it seems to me it is a very challenging but rewarding relationship for a certain type of founder. That would make sense as a certain personality type will work best with Paul Graham’s way of doing things and will excel. I am not entirely sure it is simply a hacker/coder persona as most assume. I think it is a personality and learning style that goes a bit deeper.
TechStars has a co-working model with parts very similar to YC. The key difference is that TS doesn’t have the Paul Graham approach to educating founders so you will get very different details depending on who is running the program. TS also gives the startups a place to work where YC leaves them to find a house and work out of it.

After the program: Alumni network

The key value any incubator or accelerator provides after the program is the alumni network of companies that are now a few steps ahead (depending on the age of the incubator there could be alumni with very large companies) of the current cohort in the program. Over time these alumni are your best mentors and connectors.

It is at this phase where the greatest value is for the startup, I believe. You now have access to what the old folks call a big rolodex (social graph) that will open many doors which essentially leaves it up to the entrepreneur whether their company will succeed or not. There are few to no barriers, generally speaking.

Any alumni of YC or Techstars still have contact with the folks in their cohort and all cohorts along with Hacker News. Techstars Network is so big they have a conference just for alumni while YC taps its alumni for all kinds of things. Also, founders seems to find going through the program a second time is different but just as valuable. These massive networks of successful alumni with a flock of high profile admirers is very similar to that of Higher Education alumni networks, so much so it convinces me that this entire process is a form of higher education.

Programs that work copy YCombinator, even TechStars did

Some rights reserved by andi.vs.zf

The current culture of education focused incubators started in my mind with YCombinator (started in 2005). I believe what we are seeing with the success of YC and TS is new take on graduate school. Both are different, both work, and people can have strong opinions either way. They feed a need that I don’t think people outside of incubators quite understand yet, learning to be a founder is really hard. Being a successful founder is even harder. The bet is that if you help young founders focus on what is important they will see success earlier or just simply see what success looks like.
If you are looking at an incubator anywhere (there are lots of great programs out there) you need to understand that the money is secondary. You need to find a program that will fit with the way you learn and has companies that you want to work with. It is just like how you picked your University or College except this time it can cost you a lot more (in equity) if you are successful.

Five-tool Players

I loved Moneyball (the movie). I also especially love sports analogies as they relate to technology and startups. While well-blogged about (Fred Wilson, Dave McClure, Dharmesh Shah), I believe these analogies are representative of what it takes to create and build a successful startup. While the premise of the book is to evaluate players based on data and metrics, I couldn’t help but tie back to the old school style of scouting in baseball to the current process we’re going through in selecting our cohort.

According to Wikipedia, in baseball, a five-tool player is one who excels at (1) hitting for average, (2) hitting for power, (3) baserunning skills and speed, (4) throwing ability, and (5) fielding abilities. I believe the same can be said for entrepreneurs.

Hitting for Average : Selling to Customers

In Moneyball, Billy Beane and his sidekick focus their team (the Oakland A’s) on one thing – getting on base – because getting on base equates to scoring runs, which equates to wins. In the startup world, scoring runs is the equivalent of getting cash, and this cash comes from customers.

Every entrepreneur needs to sell to customers. They need to generate revenue aka cash. It doesn’t matter if its enterprise customers, direct to consumer, professional services, white labeling, etc. Ultimately, if the startup is successful, they will sell to customers (which could also mean acquiring users). Effective hitters know where to hit the ball – pulling the ball, going opposite field, hitting gaps. Effective entrepreneurs know the gaps in the market amongst their competition and capitalize.

Hitting for Power : Selling to Investors

Chicks dig the longball. So how do you generate a huge amount of cash for your startup in one shot? You sell to investors. Entrepreneurs should also be able to successfully pitch VCs, angels, and other shareholders. This gives their companies cash in normally larger amounts than when selling to customers. It takes a special person to be able to raise from VCs. It takes a lot of time, energy, and follow-through.

A note on specialists here. In baseball, there are power hitters that specialize in hitting homeruns. Traditionally, these are the most popular and most sought after players because they have a halo effect around them. They fill seats, sell jerseys and advertising. They are the top billers and they usually can do no wrong (unless they cheat). In startups, this is also true because some franchises (VCs) want their own cleanup hitters at the top for the same halo effect.

Baserunning Skills & Speed : Hustle, Agility, and Speed

Running the bases in baseball is critical. If you can’t run the bases effectively, you’ll hinder your ability to score runs.

In startups, it’s critical to have that hustle and agility. This is all about opportunity maximization once the ball is in play. This means stretching a single into a double (crosssell / upsell, bigger contracts), stealing when possible (customers from your competition), and generally reading your competition in real-time (intuition and nuances of selling to both customers and investors).

Throwing Ability : Teamwork

This relates to the internal aspects of a startup. Can you lead and work within a team? Can you hit the cutoff man e.g. delegate when is the right time to do so?. This is about being affective with players on your own team to maximize the position you play. The most effective early stage startups I’ve come across have a good team rapport and play to each others’ strengths. Especially early when there is generally chaos, playing the position you’re best at (product, sales, marketing, customer services, QA, IT, etc.) and knowing your limits is critical.

Fielding Abilities : GTD

Every entrepreneur can get things done, and similarly every baseball player can catch a flyball or field a grounder. But the gold glove entrepreneurs are the ones that excel at cranking things out and simply getting things done across a broad range of domains. JFDI (thanks @msuster)! To borrow an American football analogy, this is the blocking and tackling that is the unglamorous and often overlooked aspect of entrepreneurialism.

Intangibles

There are definitely other things that make a successful baseball player and entrepreneur – experience, drive, fire, luck, durability, clutch ability, personal circumstances. Most things have to align for someone to be in the big leagues in baseball and technology.

Scouting

Over the last year as a VC, I’ve seen a lot of entrepreneurs with different combinations of these tools. Some were very effective at selling to customers, but just could not raise a round from VCs. Their pitches were too technical, they got into the weeds too much. They needed more sizzle. They were great at selling to customers, hitting their singles and doubles. But when it came to closing a round, they only had warning track power and process became that much more drawn out and painful.

On the flipside, there were companies where the only thing the CEO could do effectively was raise VC money. This left their companies with a lot of cash in the bank and a high valuation. Now they need to execute and build a product that would attract and acquire customers. Stay off the roids and start bunting if you need.

We are currently scouting players for our franchise. Are you a five-tool entrepreneur? If so, APPLY and come see us at Sprouter today. We’d love to help you develop into an MVP.