I am continually amazed at the horror stories I hear from entrepreneurs about finding mentors. About mentors taking large pieces of the company and not providing any value in return. It was great to see David Cohen’s The Mentor Manifesto this morning. It is great to see David take the time from his 11 cohorts at TechStars and try to explain “What does it mean to be a great mentor?”. This is an extension of his tips for entrepreneurs that includes how to Find and Engage Great Mentors as part of his top twelve startup tips.
The Mentor Manifesto
Be socratic.
Expect nothing in return (you’ll be delighted with what you do get back).
Be authentic / practice what you preach.
Be direct. Tell the truth, however hard.
Listen too.
The best mentor relationships eventually become two-way.
Be responsive.
Adopt at least one company every single year. Experience counts.
Clearly separate opinion from fact.
Hold information in confidence.
Clearly commit to mentor or do not. Either is fine.
Know what you don’t know. Say I don’t know when you don’t know. “I don’t know” is preferable to bravado.
Guide, don’t control. Teams must make their own decisions. Guide but never tell them what to do. Understand that it’s their company, not yours.
Accept and communicate with other mentors that get involved.
Be optimistic.
Provide specific actionable advice, don’t be vague.
Be challenging/robust but never destructive.
Have empathy. Remember that startups are hard.
I hope that I can live up to the manifesto for the companies I mentor at UW VeloCity, FounderFuel and those I’ve been working with in Toronto and Waterloo.
Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Jesse Rodgers who is currently the Director of Student Innovation at the University of Waterloo responsible for the VeloCity Residence & he is also the 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.
Incubators are not a new addition to the financing and support for startups and entrepreneurs. On the surface, incubators and accelerators seem like a low cost way for VCs and government support organizations to cluster entrepreneurs and determine the top-notch talent out the accepted cohort. The opportunity to investing in real estate and services that enable companies where the winners are chosen by the merits of the businesses being built. It feels like a straight-forward, relatively safe bet to ensure a crop of companies that are set to require additional growth capital where part of the products and personalities have been derisked through process.
However, its not as simple as putting small amounts of investment into a high potential company. An incubator is a business and it’s sole purpose should be to make money.
What are the basics of an incubator?
The basic variables in setting up an incubator business are:
Cost of the expertise, facilities, services and other overhead
Amount of $ to be invested/deployed
Number of startups
Equity being given in exchange for cash
Return on the total investment
There are cost of operations: real estate, connectivity, marketing, programs and services for the entrepreneurs, and the salaries of the individuals to find the startups, provide the services and build successes. These costs are often covered by governments, in exchange for the impact in job creation and taxation base. We’ve seen a rise in incubators that are funded on an investment thesis, where an individual or a set of “limited partners” provide the initial investment in exchange for an investment in the companies being incubated.
How much do incubators cost?
The goal is to efficiently deploy capital to produce successful investments. I’m going to explore how incubators make money by making a few assumptions based on the incubator/accelerator models we’ve seen in Toronto, Montreal, Palo Alto and New York.
Basic assumptions:
Capital Investments: 10 startups x 20k = 200k invested with an assumed ‘post-money valuation’ of $2.2MM
This means you now own 9.1% in 10 startups each with a post-money valuation of $220k
Support Costs: 10 startups x $10k = $100k
This is the cost of real estate, furniture, telecommunications, internet connectivity, etc.
Alright, we’re planning to deploy $200k and it need to provide approximately $100k in services just to provide the basics for the startups. We’ve spent $300k for the first cohort and and that is before you pay any salaries, host an event, etc.
Additional costs:
People:
$100k per year salary for one person to rule them all. Call them executive director or dean or something.
Assuming you’re not doing this to deploy your own capital, the person or people in charge probably need to collect a salary to pay their mortgages, food, etc.
Events – Following the model set forth by YCombinator or TechStars we have 2 main types of events. Mentoring events where the cohort is exposed to the mentors and other industry luminaries to help them make connections and learn from the experience of others. The other event is a Demo Day, designed to bring outside investors and press together to drive investment and attention in the current cohort, plus attract the next cohort of startups.
Mentoring event: $1k for food costs with 25 founders
Demo Day: approximately $5k
Assumption: 10 mentoring events plus a demo day per cohort adds $40k.
The estimated costs are approximately $340,000/cohort. Assuming 2 cohorts/year plus the staffing salary costs, an incubator is looking at $780,000 that includes 40 investments and a total of $4.4MM post-money valuation. If we assume that I’m a little off on the total capital outlay, and we build in a 30% margin of error this brings the annual budget to appromimately $1MM/year to operate.
How do incubators make money?
Incubators make money when the startups they take an equity stake in get big and successful. The best exits for an incubator come when one of their startups is acquired. Why acquired? Because the path to getting acquired path is shorter than the path to going public which would also allow the incubator to divest of their investment.
Let’s do the math. If your running an incubator hoping to get respectable returns on the $1,000,000 you’ve laid out above, let’s say it’s not the mythical 10 bagger but a more conservative 3x, the incubator needs one of the companies to exit at near $30,000,000. It can be one at $30MM or any combination smaller than that totalling $30MM. This needs to happen before any dilution and follow-on funding for your cadre of companies. You have to assuming that they can make it to acquisition on the $10,000 and services you’ve provided. For more on incubator math, check out there’s an incubator bubble and it will pop.
The bad news is that it isn’t as simple as that. Startups are not just something that exist in a vacum. There are a lot of unknown variables that can make or break an incubator.
percentage of startups that fail (or turn into zombies) in the first two years after investment
time frame return is expected
how many startups currently produce that kind of return annually
total number of startups that receive investment in any given year
total number of acquisitions in any given year
avg. number of years a startup takes to get to acquisition (because they aren’t going public)
avg. price a startup sells for (I bet those talent acquisitions drag the average way down)
what do VC’s currently spend on their deal pipeline?
It is the unknowns that are where the gamble exists. You can tweak the numbers all you would like but assume startups have a no better fail rate then any small business. The common thinking on that is 25% of businesses fail in the first year, 70% in the first five years? If just more than half of those companies are alive in one year you are doing well. If one out of those 20 is acquired in 5 years and you get 3x return do you succeed? Do you have to run the incubator for the 5 years at $1MM/year to be able to play the odds?
Maybe this is why so many incubators focus on office space, it’s easy to show LPs what they are getting for their $5MM for 5 year investment, plus an impressive number of “new” startups that have been touched by the program (often without an exit, you know the way incubators make money).
What am I missing?
Editor’s note: This is a guest post by Jesse Rodgers who is currently the Director of Student Innovation at the University of Waterloo responsible for the VeloCity Residence & he is also the 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.
One of the great things about the number of exits (be they big or small) since 2010, is that they are enabling a new class of veteran, serial entrepreneurs. The knowledge, the contacts, the street cred, the capital – the second time around can be easier than the first. And it should be good for investors, hopefully some of the returning class will go for building big companies with $100mm+ exits instead of “getting paid” with a $20-$30mm exit.
Take for instance Blu Trumpet, who launched a few days back. Led by Nina Sodhi, former COO of Bumptop – who were acquired by Google in 2010, Blu Trumpet is the first company to launch out of IAC’s Hatch Labs mobile incubator.
Hatch Labs, a joint venture with IAC and Xtreme Labs, today introduce Blu Trumpet, an app discovery wall that lets advertisers reach millions of devices with clean, user-friendly ads. Blu Trumpet uses sophisticated design to provide publishers a non-intrusive app discovery tool that users actually enjoy, an alternative to banners, and a more creative way to monetize any app.
“At Hatch Labs, we know the mobile space and we really saw a need for a new type of mobile ad platform that caters to the new app economy,” said Nina Sodhi, CEO at Blu Trumpet. “That’s why we aren’t focusing on display or pop ups. Blu Trumpet gets integrated into an app’s tab bar, allowing users to find us when they are curious and interested. The consumer is happy — and the publishers and advertisers benefit from that.”
Blu Trumpet offers consumers a new, non-intrusive way to find cool apps without searching through lists of a million apps through Blu Trumpet’s in-app ad platform, “the app wall.” While in a favorite app, consumers can view the Blu Trumpet app wall to discover new recommended apps based on those they’re currently using.
“It’s like getting a tip from a friend,” said Karthik Ramakrishnan, Blu Trumpet Product Director. “Consumers avoid intrusive pop up and banner ads, and get to discover recommended apps they’d probably never find otherwise.”
I think Nina Sodhi becoming a GM at IAC and CEO of BluTrumpet, along with her amazing bio (UW Elec Eng, Harvard MBA, VP at Merril Lynch, COO Bumptop, etc, etc), puts her up there in the elite rank of Canadian entrepreneurs. And hopefully her results at IAC and with BluTrumpet will push some of the other recent “exitees” to come back and fight the entrepreneurial good fight. For instance, Jeson Patel, Anish Acharya, Anand Agarawala – aren’t you guys all coming up to 1 or 2 years at Google.. isn’t that enough time to claim your prize and start something new??
We start companies for a number of different reasons. We want to change the world. We want to solve problems. We are unemployable. We are crazy. And we stay up at night worrying about taking care of our employees, our customers, our investors.
So it is hard to understand how well regarded funds wind down companies without providing information to employees.
Investor immorality: The strange case of Blue Noodle
Start-ups fail all the time. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. This is an example of the wrong way.
On Monday, most employees of social media startup Blue Noodle didn’t get paid. They called their lead venture capital firm, which wouldn’t discuss the situation with them. They called their former CEO, who refused to pick up the phone. They called their lender, who said to call the venture capital firm. And thus the circle began anew.
“In my more than 20 years of working in Silicon Valley, I’ve been involved on more failed companies than I’d like to admit, but there is always an orderly win-down process,” says John Montgomery, chairman of law firm Montgomery & Hansen. “It sounds like the VCs in this case are treating the company like a car they abandon in a parking lot with the keys in the ignition.”
I love when entrepreneurs tell me that raising capital in Canada is hard (it is). I love it even more when they tell me that they think “they should move to Silicon Valley” because raising money will be easier (it isn’t). It helps me determine which entrepreneurs are too egotistical, too delusional, too uninformed to really be effective raising money.
There is a venture capital scene in Canada. It’s different than the scene in Silicon Valley or New York City. But there are people making investments in entrepreneurs. According to the CVCA in 2010, there was $484MM invested in IT in Canada (2010 Q4 VC Data Deck from CVCA [PDF]) with $271MM going to software & internet companies. There are issues like US Funds making larger investments than Canadian funds (looks like $2.5MM vs $1.1MM average deal size) or that US companies raise more ($8.2MM vs $3.6MM). But these are just the nature of the game. There are structural issues. It could be better. But to say it is nonexistent, that’s just wrong or lazy. And both are bad qualities in early stage entrepreneurs.
I was asked by an entrepreneur about who where the funders in Canada. Here is my short list of companies that are writing cheques or are in the process of doing diligence on companies, i.e., prepared to write a cheque. There are a lot of companies like OMERS that are stage agnostic, but I’ve put them in the growth side given their deal history (in the case of OMERS it’s $1.5MM in WaveAccounting).
So if you think it’s easier raising money in NYC, Boston or California. My advice is get your ass on a plane and try. Because it isn’t as easy as you might think.
But don’t say that there is no Canadian VCs or venture capital money. Because that just makes you look like a moron.
Suck it up, it’s hard raising money. Maybe you should talk to the Canadian investors and figure out why they don’t want to write you a cheque!
Who else is actively placing money with Canadian startups? No grant money, we’ll do that in a separate post, but who else is actively doing convertible debt or equity placements? How to define active? Either >3 deals in diligence or has deployed more than $50,000 ($25,000/placement * 2 placements). That seems fair.
I am a bit of a shrinking violet. And I hate expressing my opinion about things. Like most Canadians I’d rather apologies for things and be polite. But I hate when I get asked by journalists, policy makers and others about how do we make Toronto (or Waterloo, or Ottawa, or where ever), the next Silicon Valley. This is just such an asinine view of how macroeconomics works and the historical development of the ecosystem in Silicon Valley.
We should not try to be the next Silicon Valley or New York City or Shenzen or anything. We are Toronto. We are Montreal. We are Vancouver. We are Waterloo. We are something different. We should reject the label because it makes us look like fools. But we should learn from Silicon Valley as entrepreneurs and policy makers to create an environment that helps stimulate a similar environment.
This is an old conversation. Joey and I have talked about it in the past:
Let’s start by removing the first myth that Toronto, and you can substitute in anywhere, can be the next Silicon Valley. Toronto does not exist in a valley. Sure there are valleys, like the Don River Valley in Toronto but the concentration of technology startups in this location is fairly low due in part to the conservation and provincial protections.
Silicon Valley was quoted in 1971 to describe the number of emerging semiconductor companies and the surrounding computing companies that were concentrated in the Santa Clara Valley between San Francisco and San Jose, California. As far as I’m aware there are a few companies in the GTA working in silicon like AMD. Ottawa might have been able to make a claim in the 1990s for the Silicon Valley North with companies like Nortel Networks, JDS Uniphase, Tundra Semiconductor, Newbridge Networks and others. But for Toronto, just not going to happen. Waterloo might also have a claim with Pixstream, Rapid Mind, MKS, Arise Technologies, Research in Motion, and others working in semiconductors, wireless, hardware and software.
Silicon Valley might at best be a concept for the concentration of new economic wealth creation. It is hard to argue about the amount of wealth created in the Silicon Valley region. It has been called “The Greatest Creation of Wealth in the History of the Planet”. The number of companies and the rise of modern venture capital has created a circuitous loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy, of companies and entrepreneurs that can generate more wealth. It has created the Traitorous Eight, the PayPal Mafia, Xooglers, the Facebook Mafia, the Netscape mafia that created Opsware & Andressen/Horowitz, etc. There are lots of reasons that regions should want to emulate the economic development that is present in Silicon Valley.
But the desire to emulate a region, does not mean that we should expropriate a label like “Silicon Valley” when in fact it has very little to do with the people, the environment, the economy that we are trying to build. I’m sure if we personified “Silicon Valley” it would be flattered, but we should be trying to be something different. We are something else.
“The entire world is now a rival to Silicon Valley. No country, state, region, nor city has a lock on innovation in technology anymore.
The Internet has made this so, and there’s no going back. We will see Apples and Facebooks get built in China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and plenty of other places.”
We are competing globally. Don’t believe me, look at the firefight that our most recent billion dollar Canadian technology company is in for customers, brand, and it’s own survival. We need to build global companies. There are a great number of advantages to living in Canada, but we seem to be lead to by organizations that are interested in fighting for government dollars to build innovation clusters rather than creating new entrepreneurs and new wealth. Instead we’re happy to build a zombie-economy of companies around programs like SR&ED that are often used and abused by consultants and companies to sustain companies when there are no markets, no profits, no brains, no future. All things considered, free money is free money and as an entrepreneur in Canada I would/do apply for SR&ED credits and encourage others not to leave this on the table. But from a policy perspective, it drives me crazy! I hear about academics that run mediocre companies with <$2MM in revenue but sustain because of SR&ED. They’d rather raise 50 cents of government tax credits than “pivot” and get to “product-market fit” because that would require getting customers and actually understanding that we’re in this to build successful, sustainable companies.
SR&ED and credits from other programs (OMDC, New Media Funds, etc.) are economic realities of our ecosystem. It is capital that is available to entrepreneurs. It is potentially non-dilutive capital that can be leveraged for growth and operational efficiencies. It should be embraced and explored, but it should be understood in the context that every dollar of customer revenue is infinitely more valuable than any tax credit or government grant. We are in business. The role of a startup is to find a scaleable business model, you might not find it the first time and the freedom/flexibility that programs like SR&ED offer you is the ability to get it wrong, to pivot and to try again. These programs are not a life support system for a bunch of non-businesses (or the people that can’t find a scaleable business model).
The Next Silicon Valley
Who knows where it will be? Fred Wilson assumes that “we will see Apples and Facebooks get built in China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and plenty of other places”. This is great news for Canada and Toronto. Toronto is a diverse immigration hub:
Between 2001 and 2006, Canada received 1,109,980 international immigrants. The City of Toronto welcomed about one quarter of all immigrants (267,855) to Canada during this period of about 55,000 annually.
Half of Toronto’s population (1,237,720) was born outside of Canada, up from 48 per cent in 1996.
Much of what we think of as innovation, is really just the creative tension between differing viewpoints. Toronto is diverse. We are home to many different cultures, peoples, ideas and ideologies. We have the basis to be a gateway to the rest of the world as we transition out of the American Century into something new. We are an excellent breeding ground for the mashup of culture’s, people, and ideas. The next Silicon Valley might not be in Canada, but we could become the bridge between cultures.
There have been some changes to the Canadian startup scene in the past few years that are critical to continuing to help Canadian entrepreneurs:
Stop referring to any part of Canada as Silicon Valley North.
Set your expectations high! Don’t aim to be the Facebook for Canada. Why? Because the Facebook for Canada is Facebook! You need to be trying to build global companies, and you might validate it locally first. You want to play in the sandbox with the big kids, you need to act like you can play with the big kids.
Stop thinking it will be easier if you move to the Valley. If you really feel that your only solution or course of action is to move to the Valley, then go, and show me that you can make it there. Otherwise it is just hot air, and a regurgitation of some rhetoric you read on TechCrunch or VentureBeat. If you can make it Silicon Valley or Hollywood, you should go try and stop telling me that it is easier to make it there than here.
Start talking about all of the other great companies in Canada. We can all be coopetition. Help your friends. Make frenemies. The more people talking about activities, startups and people in Canada the better. There are a tonne of great startups and we all need to be ambassadors for the community as a whole. End your pitch deck with: 5 most recent fundings of Canadian companies and 5 other startups in Canada any potential investor might be interested in.
Support legislation that makes it easier for entrepreneurs to immigrate to Canada. Support Startup Visa Canada. This can’t and won’t hurt any of your chances of making it. To be protectionary or isolationist is silly. Embrace one of the things that makes Canada great.
I keep wondering about some entrepreneurs living in a bubble.
Not the usual doom and gloom startup bubble or a Incubator Accelerator Bubble but a reality distorting bubble that causes them to completely forget about why people (VCs, angels, banks, others) make investments in early stage companies. They seem to read TechCrunch and think that raising capital is easy. Investors are tripping over each other to make angel and seed investments in any Tom, Dick, or Harriet that can use Keynote and string together enough words to make buzzword bingo. And, of course, with nothing more than a PowerPoint presentation and hired developer these entrepreneurs figure that they should get a $4MM pre-money valuation and be able to raise $500-$1MM, just like any of the companies coming out of YC or Techstars.
I get emails with quotes like:
“I am tour de force, the type of person people want to invest in. Driven, smart, visionary, able to build a tech team and an excellent communicator.”
All I can say is, you need to wake up and smell the sweat. It’s time for me to be the harbinger of brutal honesty. The wrecker of unfettered dreams. The resetter of expectations.
Ideas require execution.
Your track record may not allow you to raise any capital without demonstrating traction.
Ideas are a Multiplier of Execution
“Same exact idea. Better execution. Big winner.” Fred Wilson.
The section is borrowed from Derek Sivers post. Ideas are part of it, but it’s execution that differentiates. It’s execution that is the massive multiplier. Stop thinking that ideas alone will differentiate. You need to demonstrate your ability to execute on the idea as a scalable business.
Execution = Demonstrate Traction
Before raising money, entrepreneurs must read The Capital Raising Ladder. This article is more than 2 years old but the key principles have not changed. Make a good guess which rung you are at? Do not pass go, do not collect $1MM on a pre of $4MM. You need to figure out where on the proverbial Ladder you fall and then figure out how to demonstrate traction. Just because you observe high tech startups and you think you can do better, this isn’t a reason that anyone should give you capital. You actually need to DO better. Go do the smallest thing to get the most bang for the buck. Call it lean. Call it customer development. Call it something. It doesn’t matter. You need to go do it.
What is traction?
It depends (go read Getting Traction). It can be revenue growth. But since many startups are too early for revenue, or are working on Dave McClure’s Startup Metrics for Pirates gives examples of consumer web applications metrics that can be measure to show growth and serve as a proxy for future revenue. Not building a consumer facing web application? Look at David Skok’s SaaS Metrics or Designing Startup Metrics to drive Successful Behaviour. It is your job to figure out how to demonstrate traction. These are starting points.
It might be as simple as demonstrating that you’re able to hire/build a team of committed developers. If you can’t convince a developer to work for sweaty equity, then you might have a hard time convincing others you are the right person to invest. If your expertise is unique and critical to the success of the venture but you can’t design the product and you can’t write code. And you can’t convince a technical cofounder or others that they should be able to work for sweat equity on the idea. Hmmm, it doesn’t lead me to think that you can convince a sophisticated (probably even an unsophisticated) investor that they should invest in you.
Start kicking butts and taking names
The goal is not to stop entrepreneurs from trying. The goal is to reset expectations about fundraising and to build world-class market changing companies. You want a $4MM pre-money valuation, go earn it! Get users! Get customers! Get big numbers on $0. What are big numbers? In true wishy washy manner, it depends. But I’ll tell you a for a startup aimed at cracking mobile for neighbourhoods in Toronto, the number of users better not be in the 100s. I’ll be impressed if the numbers are in the 10,000s, knocked over in the 100,000s and blown away in the millions. Are these number high? Are they outrageous? Maybe. But if you want a spectacular valuation, go prove to me that you deserve it.
Want to get $150,000 from Yuri Milner? Maybe you should figure out how apply to YCombinator. If you think it is so easy, prove me wrong and go do it. Maybe I’ll start a StartupNorth Fund, that all it does is bet against entrepreneurs. If you loose the bet you owe me a token amount of money, $100-500. If you win we’d invest in the next round at the negotiated price (we don’t actually have a fund to do this, but I’d be willing to stake $10-25k for matching).
Stop trying to get people to lower their expectations. Set you goals high. Figure out ways to hustle and be relentlessly resourceful, and make the metrics happen. I know we can build world-class companies (it was a busy funding week last week for Canadian startups). But we need to stop the charade that funding is flippant, easy, etc. Raising money is hard. Building a great company is hard. But it’s worth the effort. Let’s go show the world that we can build bigger, better, badder startups.
Once upon a time @jevon wrote a vision on how to rebuild the startup scene in Canada (below). Its relatively amazing how spot-on Jevon proved to be in hindsight, and how much the Canadian eco-system moved in that direction – more smaller funds with a incubator/accelerator look and feel, and lots more community.
But, anecdotaly, despite some great new sources of funding, we aren’t quite there yet. When I get asked about the latest, greatest startups in Toronto (here or abroad) I end up pointing at a lot of companies that are yesterday’s news, 1-2 year old companies now. Partly my fault as I need to get out and network a bit more, but regardless – we need more. More companies being founded. I know some great folks who are still sitting on their asses getting underpaid at their shit job full of bad office politics. Well the time is NOW. You gots to do what the late Michael Ignatieff told you to do – RISE UP:
Great – you are motivated. Watching Michael Ignatieff will do that to you. So now what? How do you approach the super early days of starting a company?
I’d like to pass on a framework that I picked up from founders I’ve worked with over the years. Its not quite as thorough as anything Steve Blank has written on the topic. But it also doesn’t need a 2 hour lecture and/or a $50 purchase of his (very good) book – Four Steps To the Epiphany.
Basically divide your idea into 4 big areas – product, people, market, financing. Each of these has a burden of proof for you to iteratively solve as the founder. You keep iterating, from baby steps, through to giant steps. Ta da – that is it, the whole framework in two sentences! Taking that framework, the below is how I’d start to tackle the first 90 days of my brand new idea.
The Baby Steps – Day 1 through 90
Things will feel messy, you won’t even have realized that you took the heroic step to do a startup. If you’re a coder, you’ll start hacking away at something new at night. If you are not, you’re probably talking to folks and sussing out how to get it done. The biggest goal here is taking the big emotional leap of “doing a startup”. You have to start telling people you are doing a startup, even if you haven’t quite left your current job. And you need to get yourself personally ready for the leap.
In the four areas I mentioned above, here is what you need to get done:
1. (Finance/Product/Market) Start putting a pitch deck together – principally put together three things:
-The Problem Statement: what is the problem you are trying to solve?
-The Customer: who has this problem and needs it solved?
-The Market Size: try and take an approximate guess at the size of the market you are chasing.
2. (Product) Start on a very raw prototype. For a web app I’d usually get the single core feature done + some lightweight graphic design. For hardware, I’d buy a MakerBot and get a 3D printing done. NOTE – if you are a not a technical co-founder, pay somebody to build the prototype. You don’t need to have a full engineering team in place to get a prototype built.
3. (Finance) Figure out if you need financing, how much financing you need to get to a certain stage ($50k to build a prototype, $400k to launch for instance), and then list who can finance this idea. Light manufacturing & SaaS web businesses are going to have very different funders. Figure out that list, do some deep digging and find out who the angels are for a given category.
4. (Finance) Get your personal financial situation under wraps. Most of your initial costs are going to be the cost of your own time, so make that time cheap. Also, make sure you have ample time. If you are getting married, renovating a house, planning to climb Everest… you probably shouldn’t do a startup.
5. (Market) Think about who your customer will be and talk to some of them. Email them a survey and get some quantative feedback. Hang out with them and ask them to use your newly awesome prototype (which probably sucks, but don’t worry, get them to use it anyways). Ask them how they solve “problem x” and get some qualitative feedback/notes.
6. (Market) Do some really quick tests of the idea in the market. This is called Minimum Viable Product. Setup a Google Adwords and a landing page website. See how much click through you get for a given idea/wording and see how many get to some sort of “commitment form”. You could go as far as letting folks sign up for beta access for your product.
7. (PEOPLE) THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE – network, network, network. Email anybody at startupnorth, we have good networks, especially David Crow, (@davidcrow). Go to every startup event possible in your area. If you live in Moose Jaw and there is no Startup Drinks event, create one. You may have to drink alone for a few weeks, but drinking alone is GREAT PRACTICE for your upcoming startup.
8. (People) From the above, you need to build a solid list of mentors, advisors and folks you can talk to about building your own business. Meet with them as often as you need.
This is the list. I’m not even telling you “go get a co-founder, go get $20k in funding, hire a great engineering team, etc”. No, start with baby steps. Get yourself motivated, get networked, prove to yourself that you can build something and meet influential people… these are the baby steps to get over the emotional hurdle.
Let us know what your first steps were and how you got your business going.
PS This note is doubly intended for all the RIM employees who just got laid off. Please go start something new, don’t join Manulife.
Last night, my 1 and half year old didn’t fall asleep sleep until 11pm (normal bed time = 7:30pm) and then woke up at 2am and screamed till 5am. He is cutting his eye teeth. On top of that I have worked 16 hour days almost the entire week, I am on heavy coding deadline(s) and working constantly with guys in Indonesia & China all night long. It sucks, I’m super sleep deprived. But. I will make it all happen and still be there for my family.
You see, there is this weird meme in the startup world that says “families” + “startups” don’t work. Dave McClure doesn’t help with his family life mocking “Don’t do a startup, you will fail”.
I, in fact, also got an up-close look at this “anti-family-ism” recently at a young startup office where the mid-20s founders insinuated that “you can’t have kids and a startup”. It drove me nuts (to the point that I felt obliged to write this article).
First off there is a whole range of great entrepreneurs locally here who have successfully done both. David Crow (@davidcrow), Tara Hunt (@missrogue), Shyam Sheth (@shyamsheth), Michael Garrity (@mgarrity), myself (@dpmorel) and many others manage this struggle. It is definitely difficult but it is do-able. I’m sure lots of them have good tips (like… work after your kids go to bed… also when single folks are out at the bar).
In fact, this week I am here in New York at the Peek office. We split our offices with another startup, who have several young single founders. My new theory is this – YOU SHOULD NOT BE SINGLE AND FOUNDING A COMPANY.
Why?
Startup founders are not sexy. They constantly look tired (and are constantly tired). Most entrepreneurs who have been in business for a few years have this disheveled, haggard look to them and wear the same clothes near every day (men and women alike). I have not had my hair cut in about 3 months and my sideburns may be a living creature. I am staring at a female founder in the office who has the classic entrepreneur red, weary eyes with giant bags under them.
Your mind will flick over to some business problem on a dime, which makes you a boring date, and you’ll have a hard time keeping relationships going.
You likely won’t have much time for other hobbies, so nobody will really be interested in you in the first place. “oh you work 18 hour days, yeah, very exciting”
Entrepreneurs are basically living Zombies. They have no emotions. You keep hitting them with stuff and they won’t stay down or react. They just get up mindlessly and keep going forward with arms out. They also maybe eat brainz.
When you have sex, you’ll probably get interrupted constantly by emergencies and “important people”
You can’t get drunk – you don’t sleep enough for your body to handle it properly, you don’t have time to drink that much, and you probably have an important meeting first thing in the morning. And we all know how hard it is to find a new mate without the social lubricant of drinking.
I could go on. But generally new relationships take so much time… you have to keep this veneer of your “perfect self” and do things for the other person all the time and spend time with them on weeknights. No, no, no… its an impossible work-life balance.
Startup relationships + startup jobs = NO.
It feels like its a lot easier to do a startup with a long standing relationship and understanding partner who will support you emotionally and mentally. Having kids adds to this – all your problems melt away and disappear as you chase your kids around or play some silly game, a wonderful reprieve from the constant stresses and to-dos of your under-resourced, over-leveraged business.
How about the rest of you? How do you find balancing your startup gig + your current life stage? Other family folks – I’d love to hear how you balance your busy family + busy job in the comments?
About 5 years ago I was asked to teach a 4th year undergrad software engineering course at the University of Toronto. The course had been previously cancelled due to low enrollment; in an era dubbed the “Software Gold Rush” a cancelled course indicated something was wrong…
Software engineering is difficult to teach
Students are expected to learn how to avoid mistakes they never made. A great divide results from the instructor talking about concepts suitable for a mature organization when students are all about working their ass off and getting things done the night before. We borrowed several lessons from startups, having been personally involved with two startups over a dozen years. The way startups work are much closer to students ways of doing things. Since launch, course enrolment has tripled and two Y Combinator applications have been submitted based on class projects. Here is what we have learned so far:
1. Use a startup software process
Students are all about getting things done the night before; similar to how startups work. Teaching a heavyweight process feels foreign because students haven’t made the mistakes to understand reasons for the overhead!
2. Change the project every year
There is nothing more of a turnoff than a make-work project with antiquated technology. Instructors that use the same project over and over are sleepwalking. A new project each year puts the instructor and students on equal footing, solving problems together. Make the class goal to have someone apply to Y Combinator. Discuss the non-technical issues of software such has how people are going to use the product, how are you going to sell it, what is the competition like, what is the business plan. One big class project brings issues into the classroom better resembling the real world. This also allows non-trivial projects to be developed and students to test-out roles (e.g. project management) that would not otherwise exist.
3. Allow controlled crashes
Let the students make mistakes. For example, let them avoid source control. A student who looses code because of clobbered checkins will be a lesson learned for the entire class. However, when crashes occur, it is the instructor’s responsibility to manage and fix it. After the mistakes have been made, teach them about process. Keep things light and give them references for their future travels. During lectures on process, tie them into the mistakes that were made. Make process real.
4. Demo early and often Create a culture where the principal deliverable is working software rather than documentation. Use early demos to correct mistakes and give guidance rather than having them worry about their grades.
5. Instructors should code
The instructor-student relationship changes dramatically if the instructor contributes code. Everyone becomes a peer instantly. This improve communication and follows the startup philosophy that even managers should write code.
Next steps
The course has been well received by the students at UofT. I have much more regular contract with students from this class than the other courses I have taught at UofT and UofW. I am interested in hearing from anyone who is interested in providing continuity to the students; a partner that would provide input on the project at the beginning, stay involved with it during the course, and offer a path forward for interested students ready to commit to a startup.
Some rights reserved by pasukaru76
