Author: CareyHouston

Risk Tolerance

If there is one thing in Canadian startup land I have heard repeatedly since moving back from California it is in regards to the lack of ‘risk tolerance’ of VCs here. When I was on the operational side of things I didn’t know many Canadian VCs so I couldn’t really comment, but I heard the stories. In fact, I will be completely honest that the idea of joining a Canadian VC fund was the furthest thing from my mind.

Before I share my thoughts on risk tolerance let me start with a few points. First, I think that we can all agree the landscape is improving. There is a new generation of entrepreneurs, investors and community leaders emerging. I am blown away at how different things are now compared to five years ago.

Second, we need to once again state that Canada is NOT the Silicon Valley. It is a silly comparison even from a geographical perspective as comparing a small region with critical mass to one of the largest countries in the world is insane. Vancouver, Toronto and Montréal are not the Silicon Valley in the same way that Boston, Austin, New York and Des Moines are not either. Anyone who sees Canada as its own insulated eco-system is completely out-of-tune with reality. Capital and technology knows no borders. Mark nailed this earlier this week.

Lastly, there is a level of talent, experience and excellence in the Silicon Valley that can’t be found anywhere else. There is a reason Facebook moved to Palo Alto in its early days. There were entrepreneurs and investors who had been exploring the potential of a social web for almost a decade beforehand. No where else in North America could you find this. Pinterest moved from Kansas City to San Francisco for the same reason. One of iNovia’s portfolio companies, AppDirect, started in the Silicon Valley as the founders (Canadian btw!) knew that the talent they needed to build a large-scale enterprise platform was there.

So what can Canada, or anywhere outside of the Silicon Valley for that matter, do well. I can both observe and predict to answer this question. In recent years it has become apparent that B2B SaaS companies can be built anywhere. Look at the thriving companies across Canada – HootSuite, Shopify, Freshbooks, Lightspeed, etc. All SaaS companies. This is not unique to Canada either. ExactTarget was built in Indianapolis. MailChimp in Atlanta. eCommerce companies have similar characteristics. Amazon is in Seattle. Wayfair is in Boston. Groupon is in Chicago. Beyond the Rack is in Montréal. However, it is hard to name large consumer Internet, enterprise platform, networking or hardware companies outside of the Silicon Valley. Of course, there are a few outliers – Tumblr in NYC for example.

The other thing that Canada, or any region, can do well is build critical mass in a brand new and emerging market. RIM (BlackBerry) did this in the Waterloo region by leading the emergence of smartphones. Calgary has been the hub of most stock photography and graphics companies over the last 20 years. Route 128 in Boston dominated the minicomputer industry back in the 70s and 80s.

All of this results in the eco-system we find ourselves in and behaviour of investors. It is less likely that a consumer application with no traction will get funded in Canada because there are not funds big enough to make a long bet on it and there isn’t the talent that improves the chance of success. We also lack senior management talent, especially in sales and marketing, as it generally resides were the majority of customers – in the US. This is why many Canadian startups build its sales and marketing teams in the States. We often proactively syndicate larger Canadian investments with US funds as they bring complimentary resources to the table and can significantly mitigate future financing risk as they have deeper pockets. All of these factors results in the eco-system we find ourselves in. Blame the system, not the players as David Crow would say.

One last factor in determining risk tolerance is rarely discussed and it is simple numbers. Investing very early in a company with no traction does require incredible intelligence, it requires incredible conviction. Savvy entrepreneurs know that to find the investor that has that conviction is going to be tough so the best approach is as a pure numbers game. This means they talk to a ton of funds. Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora, said that he had over 300 VC pitch meetings before getting funding. 300! In Canada there are not a lot of VCs, lets say 10. There are very high odds that you can talk to every fund in Canada and not find the conviction you are looking for in any of them. It is simple math – if you are looking for a needle in a haystack do you have better odds looking in 10 places or 300? Unfortunately, this is then chalked up to an issue with ‘risk tolerance.’ I can’t speak for every VC across the country, but I can report that approximately half of our initial investments are made before there is a dollar of revenue in the company.

My advice to entrepreneurs would be to start local as you may find the investor that has the same convictions you hold. They may be able to connect you to US investors to put a strong syndicate together as well. What you shouldn’t do is talk to the local VCs and then complain about risk tolerance – even if there is truth to it. The successful entrepreneurs get on their horse and find ways to get in front of investors from the Valley, New York and even overseas. Ryan found his first investors in the US. Yona found his first angel investor in Europe! Jack and Rian found their first investor in Germany!

We have seen a ton of US-led investments in Canada recently and this is great news. Often this is perceived as a problem in Canada. I disagree – it is great. In many of those cases local VCs passed or perhaps they lost out as the deal became competitive. That is completely fine as well. In the past Canadian investors were forced to be generalists, but I hope this recent trend drives more domain focus within Canadian VCs. As much as we need world-class entrepreneurs and startups we also need, to a lesser extent, world-class funds and investors. This is why I went against my initial instincts and joined a VC fund in Canada – the team was focused on becoming a leading North American fund and was actively investing in the US. I believed that this was the right approach and the only way we are going to be able to compete in the long run as capital becomes even more fluent across borders. Canada is a small player on the global tech stage and as a friend of mine used to always say “What’s so great about being the best hockey player in Kuwait?”

Lets all aim higher.

[Ed. note: This originally appeared on Kevin Swan’s Once A Beekeeper on August 12, 2013, it is republished with permission.]

August 12, 2013
The Tough Call on Startup Conferences
Some rights reserved by miketippett

A great dialog recently broke out on Twitter after this tweet from Debbie Landa calling out Alberta and Quebec startups to step up and have a presence at the upcoming GROW conference in Vancouver. Having my home in Alberta I immediately put the call out to a number of the great startups currently in the province. The consensus reply I got back was ‘too busy building and getting customers!’

We all know those entrepreneurs and investors (probably the worst offenders!) who find a conference to attend every week. I often wonder how they actually build a company when they devote so much time to the conference circuit. Even in my own life I have recently been making attempts to limit the number of conferences and events I attend as they can really get in the way of work and family. However, there are some that you just can’t miss. I would definitely put GROW into that bucket, but should startups as well?

GROW is unique as it has quickly become the top startup conference in Canada and almost half of attendees are from the US. This provides a great opportunity for entrepreneurs to connect, learn and move their companies forward. So why are some startups not taking advantage of this opportunity? Probably not a single answer to this question, but I want to share a few theories.

First, lets quickly review why an entrepreneur should attend a conference:
- Customers! Obviously if there is a conference that brings together the majority of your target customers you need to be there.
- Fundraising. Don’t expect to go to a conference, meet an investor and get a check. However, it is an opportunity to gain visibility for your company, initiate relationships with potential investors (or better yet, with the entrepreneurs they have invested in) and show them why they need to follow-up.
- Recruitment. Startup conferences attract a lot of talent and it can be a great opportunity for your company to gain visibility for the purpose of recruiting.
- Partnerships. Many conferences attract execs and corp dev people from large tech companies. This provides a great opportunity to meet with them and pursue that partnership that can take your company to the next level.
- Influencers. I have already mentioned the visibility a conference can give to your company. To compound this, there will likely be many bloggers, journalists and influencers present that may write about your company after the event.
- Learnings. Technically this isn’t a real word, but I love using it. Good conferences will have thought leaders speaking that will challenge your understanding of the market, technology and building a company. These experiences can be priceless.
- Community. There is nothing quite like the energy and camaraderie that an entrepreneur can experience at a great conference. Entrepreneurship is hard, can be depressive and often lonely. Being surrounded by peers rallying around defying the odds and building a successful company is sometimes needed to push through the hard times.
- What have I missed?!?
For a more general conference like GROW that are not focused on a particular industry – compare this to Debbie’s other hugely successful conference, Under the Radar, that focuses on the enterprise and attracts many top CIOs and CMOs – it is hard to justify attending to connect with customers unless you are a consumer company. If you fall into this category then you need to attend conferences like GROW to reach the influencers that can provide social proof for your product and provide quality feedback.

So, back to the original question. Why wouldn’t a company attend GROW? If you are a seed company it may be a financial issue. Debbie pointed this out as well. If you have raised a Series A finances should not be the issue. Travel time may be though. Canada is a big place. Coming from Quebec would require two additional days to travel plus the time for the conference. This is the similar challenge New York startups face in attending conferences in the Silicon Valley.

I believe a key factor in all this is the vertically-focused nature of many Canadian startups. I have long been of the belief that there are certain companies you just can’t build anywhere other than the Silicon Valley. They may start somewhere else, but need to end up there. Case in point, Pinterest, which started in Kansas City, but quickly moved to San Francisco. In Canada, it is a great place to build SaaS companies, specifically vertical SaaS companies. This includes great companies like Wave, Shopify, Clio, Hootsuite, Jobber, Top Hat, Freshbooks, TribeHR, Unbounce and the list goes on.

Lets quickly fly through my above list in the context of many of these SaaS companies:
- Customers. Very unlikely that Clio will find lawyers or Jobber find landscapers at GROW.
- Fundraising. These companies all have great investors behind them already.
- Recruitment. For local Vancouver companies this item makes a lot of sense. Tough for startups anywhere else in Canada though.
- Partnerships. Vertically-focused SaaS companies need to partner with industry specific organizations and companies (legal, accounting, transportation, etc.). Unlikely they will be attending a startup conference.
- Influencers. Unlikely that a big blog hit from Robert Scoble is going to reach SMB owners.
- Learnings. This is valuable, but not just for the CEO. My suggestion to the CEOs with companies farther along is to send someone from your management team if you can’t attend.
- Community. Definitely still a factor, but if you are a Series A company or beyond you may not be able to prioritize for this as much.
In conclusion, it appears that a vertically-focused SaaS company from outside of Vancouver would have to work harder to prioritize attending a conference like GROW. Personally, I think that there is a balance here and if these companies are going to attend at least one conference for the learnings and community it should be GROW. Or, as I mentioned above, at least send someone from your company.

Selfishly, I am a fan of what Debbie has built in GROW and it would be great to see every startup across the country there in addition to the many from the Pacific Northwest and California that attend. However, founders are faced with tough prioritization items everyday and I don’t feel it is my place to push them if they feel their time is better spent heads-down with their team building the company. What do you think the balance is?

Regardless, GROW is going to be a great event with a ton of top entrepreneurs, investors and startup people!

[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared on Kevin’s Once A Beekeeper blog on June 30, 2013]
July 3, 2013
Being a Hustler is Not Enough

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan LinkedIn Follow @kevin_swan. Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital. Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. This post was originally published on April 2, 2013.

Often the startup community attaches itself to buzzwords. We all know them. Growth hacker, lean, gamification, pivot, MVP, viral, ninja, disruptive, etc. I, and you, have been guilty of using them. These terms are not bad by nature and most have real meaning behind them. However, often they start becoming ubiquitous terms that lose their meaning and are sensualized by those using them. I have a new one to add to the list – Hustler.

We all know the Hustler. Relentless in connecting with people, customers, partners, investors, etc. Always at every event, following up on every lead and never taking no for an answer. You give them a lead and they turn it into ten new opportunities for their business. They will iterate through their MVP (whoops, I just used a buzzword) 20 times to reach product-market fit if they have to. They never give up and their tenacity is off the charts.

Like most buzzwords, they start off with good intentions. There is nothing wrong with the Hustler. In fact, I wouldn’t want to invest in, or work with, anyone that doesn’t hustle! But, being a Hustler is not necessarily going to lead to success on its own. In fact, it can have the counter effect of resulting in a very inefficient way of building a company.

The entrepreneurs that I have come to truly respect and admire have a characteristic that hustle can’t replace. The only problem is I don’t yet have a buzzword to describe so I will just use this:

savvy /?sav?/ : having or showing perception, comprehension, or shrewdness especially in practical matters

The best entrepreneurs have an amazing ability to navigate a startup through all the ups and downs, risks and opportunities and challenges it encounters. They are never caught off-guard by a development and always have a plan B. They can spot opportunities and paths to take that most can’t. Having an engineering background I often think about making things efficient. Savvy entrepreneurs are just that – efficient. Where a pure hustler is running around trying ten different approaches to a problem the savvy entrepreneur has a calculated plan that nails it in the first couple attempts. The savvy entrepreneur uses their time, relationships and public appearances very stringently. They don’t take a ‘throw it at the wall and see what sticks’ approach. They are thinking three steps ahead all the time. They know the next steps they have to take and aggressively push forward.

In my experiences these entrepreneurs are not that common. If the low costs, low barriers to entry and ability to iterate quickly have had one negative effect it is the belief that a successful startup can be the result of a bunch of experiments and hustle. Sure this works sometimes, the startup world is built on outliers. But, these are just that – outliers. The majority of successful companies are built by savvy entrepreneurs who know their domains, have an unfair advantage and are always three steps ahead of everyone else.

April 4, 2013
Call us when you have traction

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn, @kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital. Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on January 12, 2012 on OnceABeekeeper.com.

Some rights reserved by Raymond Larose

This is probably one of the most common phrases you hear from venture capitalists. It has become the de facto phrase from an investor that really isn’t interested in your startup, but wants to let you down easy. I make a conscious effort to avoid taking this backdoor, but I know that I have been guilty of it as well.

Recently, I was digging into a company and providing the entrepreneur with some feedback. After sharing a few thoughts I used the traction excuse – in this case it was legit. We liked the space, the entrepreneur and what he had accomplished so far. However, he didn’t have enough traction for it to be attractive as an investment yet. He quickly emailed me back with the question – “What do you mean by traction, specifically?”

Then it hit me – I have never actually been asked that! I think that investors are so used to using the term that they never put any quantifiable information behind it. I thought that it would be a good exercise to provide a quick overview of what traction looks like. Note that what follows is completely a generalization and their are many other factors that come into play in an investment decision. Also, traction looks very different depending on the type of company you are building and the market you are targeting. I will tackle three common ones in this post and try to estimate some figures that would be required for a Series A investment.

In consumer internet or mobile startups that does not have a transactional revenue model attached to it traction is all about the audience. The bar for what traction looks like in these companies has been significantly raised from 5-7 years ago when everyone was starting social networking and digital media companies. To be compelling to a VC you will need to show early signs of growth, 30%-50%+ month-over-month (MoM), and start to build an active user base of 100K+. Some VCs I have talked to say not to get your hopes up for a Series A investment unless you are around the 1,000,000 mark.

Lets take a look at one of the hottest companies in this space that just recently closed a round of financing, Pinterest. Don’t focus so much on the incredible growth they have recently experienced, but rather notice that they had it even when their user base was small.

A SaaS company will not experience the same kind of growth as a consumer internet company. It is, however, generally able to produce revenues from day one. The definition of traction for these companies looks more at the signs (or specifically, data) that the company is moving to a scalable and profitable model. In simple terms, the separation between the cost of customer acquisition (CCA) and the lifetime value of a customer (LTV) is shrinking and repeatable. This combined with a growth of 10%-30% MoM shows signs of traction.

An e-commerce company takes a longer time to show signs of traction that is attractive to investors. This stems from the fact that it requires a considerable scale to make an e-commerce company profitable in light of low margins and expensive infrastructure. The same key performance indicators (KPIs) apply – CCA and LTV. However, unlike SaaS companies there are going to be considerable capital and fixed costs in an e-commerce company to consider. In general, growth rates of 10%-30% MoM and a 12-month run rate of over $1 million are signs that the company has traction.

I want to re-iterate that this is a generalization and their are many other factors that come into play in an investment decision. However, I wanted to try and provide some quantitative numbers for context.

Another question that I know will come up is in relation to what kind of traction is required for seed/angel investments. That is a whole other post, but I will share a great comment from my colleague Karam. While a Series A is all about traction, seed investment is all about momentum. This momentum can take a lot of forms – traffic, sales, product development, recruitment of a team or even investors who have already stepped up to the plate.

Don’t wait until you have hit these metrics to reach out to investors either. In every case, an investment starts with a relationship that has to be built and investors want to see lines not dots. If you are moving in the right the direction and building traction make sure you reach out!

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn, @kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital. Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on January 12, 2012 on OnceABeekeeper.com.

January 13, 2012
The Changing Landscape of Venture Capital

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn, @kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital. Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on November 4, 2011 on OnceABeekeeper.com.

Some rights reserved by DanMaudsley

There has been a lot of discussion recently on the changing landscape of venture funding and what it is leading to. I thought that it would be worth digging into this a bit and, as most of the discussion and data is from the United States, put a Canadian spin on it as well.

There are two driving factors that are shaping the current startup landscape – the extremely low barriers and costs to start a tech company and the availability of seed or angel funding. Now, I am the last one to think that there should be any barriers to starting a company, but you need to make sure you are not just starting a company because you can. You need to know what you are getting into and, if you plan to raise any capital, know what is lying ahead.

The number of new startups we are seeing has been increasing at an alarming rate over the past couple of years across North America. Did you see Paul Graham’s recent tweet that Y Combinator was receiving an application a minute? All that starting a legitimate company takes these days is a couple of smart people with computers. Getting to the next stage is a different story though.

The seed and angel funding market has exploded with many new “super angels” as well as emerging seed funds entering the space. It was joked that a Google engineer could quit, walk onto the street and get a $500K angel investment to start a company. This is not far from the truth as anyone in the upper echelons of web development and design talent has a good chance of getting seed money these days.

So, what is starting to happen to all these companies? Well, like most startups, they need more money. Some need money to fuel massive growth – these rounds have turned into highly competitive financings and are attracting crazy valuations. However, most (~99%) are going to run out of money while showing some progress, but not enough to have VCs scrambling to write checks. To make matters even more challenging, VC fundraising continues to drop to levels not seen since before the dotcom boom. This scenario is even more alarming in Canada.

Despite all these changes one thing still remains – it costs a lot of money to scale a company. Sure getting started is cheap, and that is great, but you are eventually going to need money to build a big business. If you are really fortunate you will be able to do this through sales, but few have that opportunity. The result is a large demand of startups needing Series A and bridge funding and a smaller supply of available funds. Many believe that this is a healthier environment as the returns of venture capital since the dotcom boom have been less than desirable as the industry became bloated. It is important to know that most VC funds have a 10-13 year life so all that money raised in the late 90s and early 2000s is just now starting to wind up.

So what about Canada?

Well, whether you believe it or not the border is becoming much less relevant when it comes to venture funding so Canadian startups (and VCs) are all in pretty much the same boat. The complaint most commonly heard in Canada is that there is not enough early-stage funding. I disagree. Great companies in Canada are getting funded and acquired. However, with the increased competition for Series A funding there are a lot of good companies that won’t be able to raise money. This does not mean that they won’t be successful, but they are going to have to take a path that doesn’t rely on venture funding. Unfortunately many don’t plan for this reality.

With all that said I, like many, are concerned with the direction venture capital fundraising is going in Canada. While it is great that US funds are now starting to ramp up investing in Canada they usually do it alongside Canadian funds – such as the recent case of Union Square’s investment in Wattpad alongside Golden and W Media. Also, Canadian funds are valuable in actively recruiting US funds into local companies. While it is great having talented investors from the US active up here it does not replace the feet on the ground that are needed and Canadian investors fill.

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Kevin Swan (LinkedIn, @kevin_swan). Kevin has cut his chops doing product management at Nexopia.com before becoming it’s CEO. He moved to the dark side with Cardinal Venture Partners and is now a Principal at iNovia Capital. Thankfully he is an MBA dropout and that’s why we like him. Follow him on Twitter @kevin_swan or OnceABeekeeper.com. This post was originally published on November 4, 2011 on OnceABeekeeper.com.

November 7, 2011