It’s that time again – to bringing together the people that start emerging technology businesses and the people that fund them, early.
Who should attend?
Uhm, yeah. Founders & Funders.
Founders
You are a founder of a emerging technology company or a technology-enabled company. You are actively raising a round of capital or starting to think about raising your next round. Feels like we’re leaning to Seed and Series A – basically if you’re name is Tobi or Ryan most investors know who you are đ
Funders
Space for funders will be limited. We have room for approximately 60 people. And we like to keep the ratio of 3:1 founders to funders. This means we roughly have room for 15 funders. We’re going to be picky, the target will be Seed and Series A.
Why should you attend?
Relatively small and intimate gathering of other emerging technology company founders and the people that fund them. The funder mix ranges from individuals that write first and very small cheques to larger institutional funds.
Social event – no formal pitches
Community is the framework – chance to talk to other founders about the current fundraising climate
What to expect?
It is a chance to have a bite to eat and a drink with other founders and investors that are actively investing in Toronto companies. It’s a chance to figure what has worked for others, to figure out which investors you want to spend more time with, and just connect.
Last chance to get your tickets to this incredible event!
We don’t build a lot of empires around here.
Empires are big, they grow fast, and they use momentum to determine where to apply resources. Empires don’t respond, they set the new rules.
Carnegie. Rockefeller. Gates. Zuckerberg.
Lutke. McDerment. Baker.
We’ve had empires come and go, but we haven’t built the sort that stick around for 100 or 1,000 years.
We need to startup building empires.
In 2008 we held a conference in Toronto. Some of you might remember it. We were going to call it something like StartupNation, StartupConf or something else,. but we decided to call it StartupEmpire. Why?
We thought it was important to put a stake in the ground about the kinds of companies Toronto startups needed to think about building: Bigger, badder and more resilient.
Next week we are re-doing it. StartupEmpire is taking place in Halifax this time, a startup community that is in much the state that Toronto’s was 5+ years ago. It’s time to focus our gaze out in to the world and to say ‘”I’m coming for you.”
You can hear from some of the most ambitious and experienced entrepreneurs in Canada right now including April Dunford, John Baker, Dan Martell, Bala Kamallakharan and a lot more.
It has been 9 months since PG announced the YC SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity). The Winter 14 batch included Canadians: Taplytics, Send With Us, Piinpoint, Minuum, Gbatteries and others. (There have been an increasing number of Canadian companies since Chris Golda and Michael Montano headed down in 2008. Maybe there should be a new drinking game: how many Canadian YC companies can you name?). This usually means a trickle down effect of culture, term sheets and deal structure. But I haven’t seen a SAFE used in the wild.
I have also seen angel deals using Laberge Weinstein and Cognition LLP that are using the SAFE as the starting points Canadian companies (h/t @ddebow). It seems like we might have a functional alternative to convertible debt.
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:
Market Access Tax Credits
Legal/Tax Advice for Market Access
Sales-Oriented Startup Accelerators
Global Benchmarks
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 KPMG, Deloitte, 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.
[Editor’s Note: This is a guest post from Thomas Rankin. It is subset of his original post, which is a collection of thoughts and research compiled during some of the earliest exploration into the Dash Hudson business model. ]
The Set-up
E-commerce is on a rocketship, with clothing retailers and brands using technology to create new ways to engage with customers online. In fact, clothing and accessories is the fastest growing segment of e-commerce. A study done by Emarketer projects that online sales of clothing and accessories will continue to grow year over year at a rate faster than even the electronics and books segment, with sales reaching $73 billion by 2016.
Donât Forget the Dudes
Despite the trope of women as fashion-obsessed shopaholics, men also have a desire to buy things they know theyâll look good in. However, most department stores and shopping malls are designed with the female shopper in mind, leaving men to fewer clothing options, particularly for those who are sartorially-inclined. This void, combined with growing presence of internet and mobile technology in fashion e-commerce, creates a perfect storm of opportunity for online brands and retailers that offer affordable, convenient, and fashionable options for men. According to research from Rakuten Linkshare, 83% of men surveyed prefer to shop online. Not only are men flocking to online retailers to get their new threads, but according to Chris Ventry, the general manager of Gilt Groupeâs GiltMan, men are out-shopping women by 20-30% in all areas of online shopping.
Where the Boys Are: Menâs E-Commerce Companies
A number of menâs e-commerce companies are cashing in on menâs interest in buying fashionable and trendy clothes online. Companies such as Frank & Oak, Bombfell and Trunk Club are at the forefront of offering a curated subscription service that makes shopping efficient for guys. Subscription commerce has proven popular with men who wish to avoid the complex decision making involved with shopping. Other online-exclusive fashion companies like Bonobos, Jack Threads, and Mr. Porter offer quality menâs fashion at various prices. Bonobos is for the guy who likes the crusts cut off his peanut butter sandwich, Jack Threads for the guy who likes crusty dive bars and Mr. Porter for the socialite upper crust. J.Crew is a well-known traditional unisex offline retailer that offers an expansive online selection for men. H&M, Uniqlo and Zara compete for the disposable fashion market at a lower pricepoint. Streetwear companies like Superdry, Saturdays Surf NYC, Need Supply Co., Union Made Goods, and Stussy offer casual and weekend wear for dudes that take their looks seriously. For the slightly avant garde, itâs all about the Nordic brands: Matinique, Norse Projects and Selected Homme are doing some of the best work in menâs fashion today.
Beautiful people  from Mantinique 2010 catalog.
Just Show me the Good Stuff
Clearly the world has changed, as there are a growing number of fashion options for men. So many that it is easy for guys to get overwhelmed, like a child lost at Nordstrom. According to research from Rakuten LinkShare, 48% of young male shoppers between the ages of 18-25 are overwhelmed by the plethora of choices with online shopping. Refinement of those options is a serious challenge. A survey conducted by Dash Hudson indicated that more than 60% of guys aged 18-24 want social validation and recommendations before buying. This contrasts with women, where over 75% want to discover content on their own. Guys readily admit that they need help looking good, and want guidance on what to buy. For the sartorially interested male, the growth in popularity of social commerce sites has been a mixed blessing. Pinterest launched in 2010, giving consumers the ability to take part in a taste-based community that curates photos of fashion, food, architecture, hairstyles and many other things. Now social shopping companies like Wanelo, Fancy, Svpply, and Fab are making it easier for fashion-conscious shoppers to curate their style, draw inspiration from other users, and connect to their favourite stores and brands. A review of Alexa data shows that each of these shopping sites is much more likely to be frequented by female shoppers, something that is evidenced in their communities and user experiences.
Mind the Gaps in the Market
Despite the growth of menâs fashion e-commerce, there remains a great deal of room for innovation. Although social shopping companies like Wanelo and Pinterest allow users to curate their style, the plethora of available products can be overwhelming for the male shopper. Our research at Dash Hudson indicates that over 80% of men come to a shopping platform with the intent to buy as opposed to create content. The prevalence of dead and broken links in social shopping sites often interrupts the demonstrated intent. I am Jackâs complete frustration.
So close.
New social marketplaces must solve the problem of enabling the customer to search great content and then convert intent into purchase. This is especially important in the case of the need and immediacy-driven male shopper.
The Future of E-Commerce Is In Your Hands â Literally
The trend of men shopping online will continue to grow with mobile shopping becoming the newest way to efficiently discover and purchase clothing. Mobile technology can capitalize on menâs desire to shop on the go, making the fashion e-commerce experience more efficient than ever. According to Forrester, mobile currently accounts for 5 percent to 10 percent of all retail transactions. Yet for most online retailers, the big story is that mobile commerce is increasing at a rate of up to 185 percent. For menâs retailers who have caught the mobile wave (ahem, Jack Threads) this is great news. The DDB Lifestyle Survey in 2013 indicated, of men aged 18-34, 30% use shopping apps on their phone and 24% typically shop for and buy items on their smartphones. In the age of the digital urban lifestyle, convenience wins.
Final Thoughts
Experiences need to become tailored to how men shop by getting the best, most validated clothing in front of the shopper for their final purchasing decision. As more social shopping experiences become tailored for men, and as better retail products are built for mobile devices, male shoppers will start to feel the warmth of a market that finally understands them. At the end of the day, itâs all about being the coolest version of yourself. Finally, guys are being given the tools that make it fun and easy for this to happen.
It starts like a joke, did you hear the one about the marketer, the lawyer, the journalist, the founder and travel guy? These guys are all successful in their own right. And they continue to bring together a unique viewpoint that is different than the corporate marketing events and tradeshows. This is something about the underlying currents at the intersection of technology, marketing, politics and culture. I’m hoping they continue to bring people who challenge  existing ideas and frameworks. (My keynote invite would go to Shanley Kane of Model View Culture.)
One of the interesting additions to the program has been a separate startup track. I’d like to see a little more overlap in the participating startups with the audience and attendees interest. It is great to see early-stage companies getting local support to reach the Mesh audience. The Mesh 14 Hosted Startup Program provides:
In 2013, Angel List launched its syndicates feature, a way for angel investors to pool their funds. By turning syndicates into a turn-key process, Angel List has made this fundraising option broadly available and drastically lowered the barrier to entry for individual investors. Unfortunately, this feature is only available to startups that have a US entity as part of their structure. Can we kick off the process of having more syndicates in Canada? (more…)
Zombie Startup of the Year Award â Recognizing a Canadian startup that continues to live on the brains of its’ founders, but not customers.
The Snapchat Award â Recognizing a Canadian startup that won’t sell to Facebook, even if the offer was for more than $4B.
Stop the Gravy Train Award â Recognizing sketchiest use of tax payer money in our burgeoning startup ecosystem.
The Twerk It Award â Recognizing the media accomplishments of an exemplanary Canadian entrepreneur, who is getting as much coverage  as Miley Cyrus in 2013.
Keeping up with the Kanadians Award â Recognizing the startup that has watched previous episodes of startup reality TV but failed to comprehend the complex plot lines.
We’ll be announcing the awards before Christmas…And we need your help. Send us a tweet, leave a comment, or just drop us an email with a suggestion for the awards. Or just leave an anonymous nomination.
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 ârisk toleranceâ of VCs here. When I was on the operational side of things I didnât know many Canadian VCs so I couldnât 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.
Lastly, there is a level of talent, experience and excellence in the Silicon Valley that canât 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 iNoviaâs 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.
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 isnât 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 â 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 â 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 ârisk tolerance.â I canât 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 shouldnât do is talk to the local VCs and then complain about risk tolerance â 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 â 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 â 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 âWhatâs so great about being the best hockey player in Kuwait?â
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.]
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 âtoo busy building and getting customers!â
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 canât 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. Donât 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 isnât 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 â compare this to Debbieâs other hugely successful conference, Under the Radar, that focuses on the enterprise and attracts many top CIOs and CMOs â 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 wouldnât 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 canât 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 canât 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 donât 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]
 
Apply Now | 60 days left
