Wow. One well placed post and my readership increases 6x. There has been a lot of interest in my Type I/Type II characterization, and some interesting comments.
Some of the things that I've seen from the discussions I've recently had relate to competition. Type II companies may have a lot more competition than a Type I company would, and this is seen in the case of scripped.com, and various social networking sites. However, the key to making a Type II company work is to find other means, other than technological, to lock in a barrier to entry. Since there is bound to be lots of competition, other means can still establish a single market leader.
For example, there was a time that Hotmail ruled the roost. While there was no barrier to switching, Hotmail's viral marketing established them as the dominant web-based email solution by far. Had Hotmail continued to provide good quality service (rather than getting suffocated by ads and spam, as what happened), they could have held that position for some time. Nevertheless, the position of a Type II company can be precarious. Hotmail lost to Yahoo and GMail, Friendster lost to Facebook, etc. It does appear, though, that a Type II company that has succeeded in being the market leader, only relinquishes the title when they stumble. Otherwise, the market is happy, and actually prefers, to reward a dominant leader. I can't say that eBay has yet to stumble, and barring Craigslist (which, I believe has some relation to eBay anyway), there isn't another trading/auction site that has similar reach.
At any rate, thank you all who contacted me. Interesting discussions.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Type I vs Type II companies
I've spent a reasonable amount of time thinking, over the Christmas break, of what types of startup companies succeed, what types raise funding, what types are capital intensive. It's also been interesting to compare cleantech companies to IT companies, because in some ways there are similarities, and in other ways, the two sectors fall in distinct camps.
So, without further ado, here are my two categores:
Type I Companies - Value based on a technological breakthrough (Technology Push)
ie: "cure for cancer" type companies.
Examples (based on my observations):
NanoH2O
Various Biofuels companies
Sunpower (and other solar companies)
Ballard Power Systems
Viagra
X1
Google
I call these companies "cure for cancer" companies, because the main importance is the technology, not the marketing. If someone shows up with a cure for cancer, investors aren't necessarily going to say, "wait a minute...what's your marketing strategy?". The market is huge and obvious and the marketing plan isn't as important. I have to put a small caveat here - because X1 struggled due to marketing reasons, and Google only became a money machine once they figured out how to monatize search. But the main point is that the technology drives the value and thus the company.
Type II Companies - Value based on a marketing breakthrough (Market Pull)
Examples (based on my observations):
Facebook
YouTube
Dell
Scripped.com
Most internet companies
Here, the value of the company is not based on discovering a technological breakthrough, but rather it is from developing a clever business plan. Dell didn't really do much more than assemble commodity computer parts, but it does so with very low supply chain costs. Facebook is "nothing more" than a large database with various pointers, but it's genius has been how it has executed brilliant viral growth and user lock-in. YouTube has some technology in its video compression through Flash, but mostly it succeeded through opening up its comments, allowing videos to be posted on blogs, and basically out-marketing, virally, any other video site.
These companies are started by looking at the market and saying "what is the market need here", and then building the software. I recently came across Scripped.com. It's a great idea - take Screenwriting software (which has existed for ages), put in on the web with a SAAS model (a la Google Docs), charge nothing for it, and try to monetize the community. This idea didn't come about because of a technological breakthrough - heck Google Docs and Desktop screenwriting software proved it could be done. This idea came out by seeing a need and building a business to meet it.
So, which is better? Well, back in my days in the auto industry at Visteon, they would have said Type II is better. Visteon was forever inventing technology looking for a home, and was wanting to assess the market need and create products to meet it. True enough...however, technology push companies tend to be easier to get funding for (walk into any VC with a technology proven to produced zero-carbon energy at a lower cost than coal and you will almost certainly get a check). A type II company can be harder to sell the vision for (can you imagine the initial pitches for eBay? - "So...people are going to be selling used Smurf dolls and old socks online and you think that's a business?") Type II companies can be easier, technologically, to start, but can have a harder time getting traction and funding.
In my opinion, neither is better. Facebook is on one list - Viagra is on the other. While Type II might be easier to start; if you are finishing your PhD with a killer area of research, Type I might be an obvious fit. I'm now putting serious effort into seeking out fantastic opportunities, and I noticed that this framework seemed to be an interesting way of categorizing where your business falls.
So, without further ado, here are my two categores:
Type I Companies - Value based on a technological breakthrough (Technology Push)
ie: "cure for cancer" type companies.
Examples (based on my observations):
NanoH2O
Various Biofuels companies
Sunpower (and other solar companies)
Ballard Power Systems
Viagra
X1
I call these companies "cure for cancer" companies, because the main importance is the technology, not the marketing. If someone shows up with a cure for cancer, investors aren't necessarily going to say, "wait a minute...what's your marketing strategy?". The market is huge and obvious and the marketing plan isn't as important. I have to put a small caveat here - because X1 struggled due to marketing reasons, and Google only became a money machine once they figured out how to monatize search. But the main point is that the technology drives the value and thus the company.
Type II Companies - Value based on a marketing breakthrough (Market Pull)
Examples (based on my observations):
YouTube
Dell
Scripped.com
Most internet companies
Here, the value of the company is not based on discovering a technological breakthrough, but rather it is from developing a clever business plan. Dell didn't really do much more than assemble commodity computer parts, but it does so with very low supply chain costs. Facebook is "nothing more" than a large database with various pointers, but it's genius has been how it has executed brilliant viral growth and user lock-in. YouTube has some technology in its video compression through Flash, but mostly it succeeded through opening up its comments, allowing videos to be posted on blogs, and basically out-marketing, virally, any other video site.
These companies are started by looking at the market and saying "what is the market need here", and then building the software. I recently came across Scripped.com. It's a great idea - take Screenwriting software (which has existed for ages), put in on the web with a SAAS model (a la Google Docs), charge nothing for it, and try to monetize the community. This idea didn't come about because of a technological breakthrough - heck Google Docs and Desktop screenwriting software proved it could be done. This idea came out by seeing a need and building a business to meet it.
So, which is better? Well, back in my days in the auto industry at Visteon, they would have said Type II is better. Visteon was forever inventing technology looking for a home, and was wanting to assess the market need and create products to meet it. True enough...however, technology push companies tend to be easier to get funding for (walk into any VC with a technology proven to produced zero-carbon energy at a lower cost than coal and you will almost certainly get a check). A type II company can be harder to sell the vision for (can you imagine the initial pitches for eBay? - "So...people are going to be selling used Smurf dolls and old socks online and you think that's a business?") Type II companies can be easier, technologically, to start, but can have a harder time getting traction and funding.
In my opinion, neither is better. Facebook is on one list - Viagra is on the other. While Type II might be easier to start; if you are finishing your PhD with a killer area of research, Type I might be an obvious fit. I'm now putting serious effort into seeking out fantastic opportunities, and I noticed that this framework seemed to be an interesting way of categorizing where your business falls.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Stateside!
I'm going to have to rename this blog as I am no longer "Down Under". I've had a great two years supporting the entrepreneurial and venture communities in Australia, but now I'm back home in Pasadena, California. I'm going to continue to search for world-changing businesses in the Cleantech sphere, and I'll continue to provide updates here on useful tidbits that I come across. I'll probably take a break over the holidays, but I'll be back in January. Merry Christmas all!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Short segue
I thought this was a great quote from David Landers, of Allen & Buckeridge (Sydney-based VC):
There’s no shortage of quality management talent in Australia. The problem is that they are working for Australia’s best organisations and corporations. It’s very hard to lure them into the shaky, ‘maybe if’ world of early-stage venture.It can be very hard to find good management depth in entrepreneurial teams, but I think the quote is spot-on. It's not that Australia has a shortage of talent (at least, on a per-capita basis). What is a problem (and this is similar to what I experienced when I was living in Canada) is that the large companies (particularly resources and finance) are where good, stable careers are forged. The allure of the start-up hasn't got the same cache as in the US. The good news is that this is a classic virtuous cycle, and the Australian tech community and startup successes of late is changing that mentality.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Solar - Part 1a, Ausra switches on new power plant
Ausra switches on new power plant
From the San Jose Business Journal:
Speaking for me personally, I'm really proud of the progress that Ausra has made in commercializing their technology. Many technology founders underestimate the difficulty of scaling up a technology, and when it comes to bending metal and pouring concrete, meeting budget and schedule can be pretty harrowing, and numerous companies have stumbled trying.
I'll return with a detailed discussion of solar next time, but I thought this announcement fit well right here.
From the San Jose Business Journal:
[Ausra] switched on the first solar thermal power plant built in the country in nearly 20 years today at an event in Bakersfield.
This is the first plant Ausra has constructed in the U.S. and is crucial to Ausra’s ability to raise financing beyond the venture capital it already has, its executives said. The demonstration today was important for Ausra to showcase its technology, said CEO Bob Fishman.
“We do this to prove to PG&E and the rest of the world and to customers that we’re for real and that it works and that we’re not just talking about doing solar power, we’re doing it,” Fishman said. “And to get them to accept the technology and purchase it, I think requires a demonstration that can actually do what we say it will do.”
Ausra’s 5 megawatt system is a test facility and produces enough electricity to power about 3,500 average homes. It includes 720 mirrors that are 8 by 50 feet long that direct the sun’s rays to a solar thermal tower. The heat from the sun heats water inside the tower turning it to steam and that steam. The steam runs a turbine that produces electricity. And that electricity will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Ausra’s investors include Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers and Khosla Ventures as well as KERN Partners, Generation Investment Management and Starfish Ventures.
Speaking for me personally, I'm really proud of the progress that Ausra has made in commercializing their technology. Many technology founders underestimate the difficulty of scaling up a technology, and when it comes to bending metal and pouring concrete, meeting budget and schedule can be pretty harrowing, and numerous companies have stumbled trying.
I'll return with a detailed discussion of solar next time, but I thought this announcement fit well right here.
Solar Energy - Part I
Let's start this discussion with Solar Energy. Solar is the 800lb gorilla in terms of investments right now. The last six years' of VC investments are shown on the chart below. Solar clearly dominates. I thought it would be worthwhile to use this chart as a means of prioritizing these posts - so solar clearly is first.
There are a few reasons that solar energy has attracted so much funding, but the main ones include the fact that solar is such a broad field, solar has already proven successes, and that solar has a pretty clear path to a pretty big market.
Solar Energy technology pretty much is any technology that extracts energy from the sun. This includes solar PV, concentrating solar PV, solar thermal, and concentrating solar thermal. Within each of these are multiple subsets. Solar PV consists of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, thin film, triple-junction, and dye-based cells. Concentrating solar PV can be low (3x concentration), medium (10~100x concentration) and high (~1000x concentration). Solar thermal for heating can be simple 1x roof-top water heaters. Solar thermal for utility scale power generation can be tower configurations, trough design, linear Fresnel, or dish designs.
And, it doesn't stop there. Companies which lower the amount of silicon used and companies which allow for cheaper silicon to be used have been funded. Companies which improve the production yield, or better improve manufacturing processes have been funded. Companies which lower the cost of installation, or improve the tracking of solar modules have been funded. In short, anything that can lower the cost of electricity, anywhere along the solar value chain is of interest.
Why is this? Well, basically energy is a commodity. Barring any kind of "feel good" attributes of green-energy, most people don't have any clue what energy turns their lights on. In a hyper-rational, non-subsidized world that has no clue about external factors like global warming, the day that solar is 1 cent/kWh more expensive than the cheapest form of power, nobody wants it. The day that it is 1 cent/kWh less expensive than the cheapest form of power, everyone wants it. And by "everyone", we mean all 6 billion people on the planet. This is the ultimate tipping point.
So, VCs understand that there is a big market, and this market will crack open if solar power can be made cheaply enough. A lot of the cost of solar PV modules has been their silicon content, which has driven investment into anything that will use less silicon. Concentrating solar PV assumes that by replacing the expensive silicon part within a module with cheaper lenses and mirrors, the overall cost of solar energy will drop. Thin-film solar modules attempt to drastically reduce the silicon content (or eliminate it entirely) by using different materials. Solar thermal, in whatever form, expects that, for utility-scale electricity generation, the best approach is to generate steam and spin a turbine - benefiting from a lot of the work done in the past on thermal power plants.
It's an interesting situation, and one that is encouraging. Back in my Ballard days, when fuel cells were going to change the world, Ballard's mantra was that "we'll make the fuel cells, other suppliers will solve all the other problems". Those "other problems" included hydrogen storage, hydrogen infrastructure, and vehicle manufacturing. There was a huge chicken-and-egg problem which Ballard struggled to overcome. Yet, in the solar industry, there seems to be room for many of these innovations and business models, and the single-mindedness of "decrease cost per watt" has focussed the entrepreneurial community in an extremely positive way.
Next time - more specifics on the technology and path to market.
I actually took this from PBS here, which credits the Cleantech Group.
There are a few reasons that solar energy has attracted so much funding, but the main ones include the fact that solar is such a broad field, solar has already proven successes, and that solar has a pretty clear path to a pretty big market.
Solar Energy technology pretty much is any technology that extracts energy from the sun. This includes solar PV, concentrating solar PV, solar thermal, and concentrating solar thermal. Within each of these are multiple subsets. Solar PV consists of monocrystalline, polycrystalline, thin film, triple-junction, and dye-based cells. Concentrating solar PV can be low (3x concentration), medium (10~100x concentration) and high (~1000x concentration). Solar thermal for heating can be simple 1x roof-top water heaters. Solar thermal for utility scale power generation can be tower configurations, trough design, linear Fresnel, or dish designs.
And, it doesn't stop there. Companies which lower the amount of silicon used and companies which allow for cheaper silicon to be used have been funded. Companies which improve the production yield, or better improve manufacturing processes have been funded. Companies which lower the cost of installation, or improve the tracking of solar modules have been funded. In short, anything that can lower the cost of electricity, anywhere along the solar value chain is of interest.
Why is this? Well, basically energy is a commodity. Barring any kind of "feel good" attributes of green-energy, most people don't have any clue what energy turns their lights on. In a hyper-rational, non-subsidized world that has no clue about external factors like global warming, the day that solar is 1 cent/kWh more expensive than the cheapest form of power, nobody wants it. The day that it is 1 cent/kWh less expensive than the cheapest form of power, everyone wants it. And by "everyone", we mean all 6 billion people on the planet. This is the ultimate tipping point.
So, VCs understand that there is a big market, and this market will crack open if solar power can be made cheaply enough. A lot of the cost of solar PV modules has been their silicon content, which has driven investment into anything that will use less silicon. Concentrating solar PV assumes that by replacing the expensive silicon part within a module with cheaper lenses and mirrors, the overall cost of solar energy will drop. Thin-film solar modules attempt to drastically reduce the silicon content (or eliminate it entirely) by using different materials. Solar thermal, in whatever form, expects that, for utility-scale electricity generation, the best approach is to generate steam and spin a turbine - benefiting from a lot of the work done in the past on thermal power plants.
It's an interesting situation, and one that is encouraging. Back in my Ballard days, when fuel cells were going to change the world, Ballard's mantra was that "we'll make the fuel cells, other suppliers will solve all the other problems". Those "other problems" included hydrogen storage, hydrogen infrastructure, and vehicle manufacturing. There was a huge chicken-and-egg problem which Ballard struggled to overcome. Yet, in the solar industry, there seems to be room for many of these innovations and business models, and the single-mindedness of "decrease cost per watt" has focussed the entrepreneurial community in an extremely positive way.
Next time - more specifics on the technology and path to market.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ocean Power and the Cleantech Universe
Well, there has been a lot of interest in the Ausra investment. Some samples of press releases are here, here, here, and here, plus others.
It's great to see the interest in solar thermal technology. However, recently I've started an exercise examining the entire spectrum of all that fits within the cleantech universe. Rob Day had an excellent article on ocean power and it got me thinking about posting my thoughts on the other technologies (wind, solar, fuel cells, biofuels, water recycling, demand management software, hybrid vehicles, batteries, large-scale energy storage, etc. etc. etc.)
So, I'll let Rob's post lead off for ocean power, and I'll be following up in subsequent posts on other technologies. Stay tuned!
It's great to see the interest in solar thermal technology. However, recently I've started an exercise examining the entire spectrum of all that fits within the cleantech universe. Rob Day had an excellent article on ocean power and it got me thinking about posting my thoughts on the other technologies (wind, solar, fuel cells, biofuels, water recycling, demand management software, hybrid vehicles, batteries, large-scale energy storage, etc. etc. etc.)
So, I'll let Rob's post lead off for ocean power, and I'll be following up in subsequent posts on other technologies. Stay tuned!
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Australian Solar Potential
As I mentioned on Rob Day's blog, Australia has fantastic solar resources, and the political climate has changed dramatically to be more embracing of renewable and low-carbon technology. Australia is racing towards an emission trading scheme by 2010. However, the preponderance of coal-fired power plants provides an additional opportunity for solar thermal technology. By augmenting the power production of coal-fired power plants (of which Australia has many), solar thermal technology can lower the carbon footprint of these plants in an extremely economical way.
One particular solar thermal company which found its origins in Australia has raised a $60m Series C round. It's worth checking out.
One particular solar thermal company which found its origins in Australia has raised a $60m Series C round. It's worth checking out.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Fundraising Survival Guide
Paul Graham (of Y Combinator fame) has recently posted a great essay on how to survive the difficult task of fundraising.
I particularly like this because it talks about the pressures experienced by the entrepreneur and the behaviour witnessed by both parties - investor and entrepreneur. There are very rational reasons that lead VCs to act the way they do. One of my favourite quotes from him was the following:
We don't like to call ourselves incompetent - but the truth is that being good at being a VC involves learning a lot about something new very quickly. Even with a certain degree of specialization, the entrepreneur will know more about the particular business than the VC. Of our areas of focus (life sciences, IT, and cleantech), I primarily focus on cleantech. However, within cleantech there are still a huge range of subsectors - solar, wind, fuel cells, batteries, smart meters, biofuels, grey water, black water, carbon storage, synfuels, etc. While I've had the privilege of being involved in startups in a number of these areas, if you come to me with a new material that dramatically improves the energy efficiency in some market somewhere, I'll need to understand how much value the market will place on your offering, the technical feasibility of what you've done, the difficulty it will be to ramp up manufacturing, the cost sensitivity of the inputs, the competitive landscape, etc. So, we get good at learning quickly.
However, all of this dance of information exchange can seem, to the entrepreneur, to be frustrating. The entrepreneur has been living this vision for the past "x" months/years and can't understand why everyone else doesn't see what they do. We try to recognize the situation from the entrepreneur's point of view. and this is why, if we aren't going to progress an investment, we strive to provide companies with a quick "no" rather than a slow "no", and this is why we try to give feedback where we can - although often it is difficult for us to provide feedback because the reasons for us progressing an investment can often be intertwined with other investments we are considering. Nevertheless, the road to funding can be a long one, and Paul's post I think helps chart the course.
I particularly like this because it talks about the pressures experienced by the entrepreneur and the behaviour witnessed by both parties - investor and entrepreneur. There are very rational reasons that lead VCs to act the way they do. One of my favourite quotes from him was the following:
Problem number 3: investors are very random. All investors, including us, are by ordinary standards incompetent. We constantly have to make decisions about things we don't understand, and more often than not we're wrong.
We don't like to call ourselves incompetent - but the truth is that being good at being a VC involves learning a lot about something new very quickly. Even with a certain degree of specialization, the entrepreneur will know more about the particular business than the VC. Of our areas of focus (life sciences, IT, and cleantech), I primarily focus on cleantech. However, within cleantech there are still a huge range of subsectors - solar, wind, fuel cells, batteries, smart meters, biofuels, grey water, black water, carbon storage, synfuels, etc. While I've had the privilege of being involved in startups in a number of these areas, if you come to me with a new material that dramatically improves the energy efficiency in some market somewhere, I'll need to understand how much value the market will place on your offering, the technical feasibility of what you've done, the difficulty it will be to ramp up manufacturing, the cost sensitivity of the inputs, the competitive landscape, etc. So, we get good at learning quickly.
However, all of this dance of information exchange can seem, to the entrepreneur, to be frustrating. The entrepreneur has been living this vision for the past "x" months/years and can't understand why everyone else doesn't see what they do. We try to recognize the situation from the entrepreneur's point of view. and this is why, if we aren't going to progress an investment, we strive to provide companies with a quick "no" rather than a slow "no", and this is why we try to give feedback where we can - although often it is difficult for us to provide feedback because the reasons for us progressing an investment can often be intertwined with other investments we are considering. Nevertheless, the road to funding can be a long one, and Paul's post I think helps chart the course.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
VC Fund Economics
I wanted to link to this great post by Fred Wilson - Venture Fund Economics.
I thought a number of my readers may be interested in the drivers of VC returns. Note that these returns are also the aggregate of the entire fund. Each individual company invested in needs to be able to return a much higher amount to get this overall performance. I delve into that a little bit here.
"When I write about venture fund returns, there are always comments and questions that lead me to believe that the economics of a venture fund are not well understood. And since most of the readers and commenters on this blog are people who work in the startup ecosystem, I think its important that the economics are better understood. So I am planning on some posts on this topic in the coming weeks."
I thought a number of my readers may be interested in the drivers of VC returns. Note that these returns are also the aggregate of the entire fund. Each individual company invested in needs to be able to return a much higher amount to get this overall performance. I delve into that a little bit here.
Historic Oil Prices - Peak Oil Phenomenon
I think this link from Forbes is really interesting. It shows that the oil industry had pretty spectacular prices at the beginning of the industry (1861) that were driven down by efficiency and productivity improvements. This happened remarkably quickly because by 1880, the real price of oil hit the low where it would remain for almost 100 years.
1978 was understandably a pretty shocking time - oil prices shot up to the levels only seen more than 100 years previously, near the start of the oil industry. Fortunately, prices plummeted, and we all convinced ourselves everything was going to be ok. It's clear that that was only a fifteen year reprieve. Oil prices now are once again at spectacular prices. However, this time they are higher than ever seen previously in the history of the industry.
Given the concept of peak oil, which I wholly believe - in part due to what I learned during my stint at Esso (Exxon) as a reservoir engineer, we're going to continue to see price increases until substitutes can be obtained. While oil prices are often discussed, I think this graph really puts an interesting historical perspective on things.
1978 was understandably a pretty shocking time - oil prices shot up to the levels only seen more than 100 years previously, near the start of the oil industry. Fortunately, prices plummeted, and we all convinced ourselves everything was going to be ok. It's clear that that was only a fifteen year reprieve. Oil prices now are once again at spectacular prices. However, this time they are higher than ever seen previously in the history of the industry.
Given the concept of peak oil, which I wholly believe - in part due to what I learned during my stint at Esso (Exxon) as a reservoir engineer, we're going to continue to see price increases until substitutes can be obtained. While oil prices are often discussed, I think this graph really puts an interesting historical perspective on things.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Rob Day, Seed Stage Capital, and Government Labs
Rob Day writes one of my favourite cleantech blogs. I think today's post is particularly compelling. In it he describes the harsh reality of why many early stage companies are too "early-stage" for an early-stage VC. This is very, very useful to understand if you are pitching to a VC, or if you are interested in government policy to support innovation. Are you listening Dr. Terry Cutler?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Chinese Soft Drink
Please do not use the Chinese soft drink argument:
"If I sell only ONE can of soft-drink to everyone in China, I'll have $1billion in revenue!"
or, its cousin:
If we get 0.05% of the marketplace, we'll make billions!
This sounds like you are being conservative, but it obscures the issue. If you are talking about home PCs and the market for operating systems, you could say, "I just need 0.05% of PCs to buy my operating system, and I'll be rich!" Ask Apple how that's working out for them competing with Microsoft. On the other hand, if you are in a field of gold bars and you've only got enough time to grab 0.05% of the field, you'll probably do great (or, at least have one shiny gold bar).
As always, the difference comes down to the actual competitive situation in the market - and THAT'S what matters. If you want to sell a compelling story, don't talk about getting miniscule slivers of the market. Instead, talk about HOW you will get the revenues you are projecting, who you will target, etc. It's much more compelling to say you'll get 80% of a certain addressable market (and list the reasons) than say you'll get .05% of a HUGE market, but not say how.
"If I sell only ONE can of soft-drink to everyone in China, I'll have $1billion in revenue!"
or, its cousin:
If we get 0.05% of the marketplace, we'll make billions!
This sounds like you are being conservative, but it obscures the issue. If you are talking about home PCs and the market for operating systems, you could say, "I just need 0.05% of PCs to buy my operating system, and I'll be rich!" Ask Apple how that's working out for them competing with Microsoft. On the other hand, if you are in a field of gold bars and you've only got enough time to grab 0.05% of the field, you'll probably do great (or, at least have one shiny gold bar).
As always, the difference comes down to the actual competitive situation in the market - and THAT'S what matters. If you want to sell a compelling story, don't talk about getting miniscule slivers of the market. Instead, talk about HOW you will get the revenues you are projecting, who you will target, etc. It's much more compelling to say you'll get 80% of a certain addressable market (and list the reasons) than say you'll get .05% of a HUGE market, but not say how.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Allow time for funding - show how great you are
Back in 2005 Jeff Bussgang of Flybridge wrote a great post on why some companies get funded on his blog here.
I particularly liked item #2:
2. VCs invest in movies, not snapshots
When you see a deal as a VC, you see it at a point in time. If the entrepreneur tells you that you have only three weeks to make a decision, the decision is almost always an easy, "no". No VC nowadays likes to be rushed into a decision, and people prefer to see the company and team evolve over time (like a movie) as opposed to at a discrete point in time (like a photo snapshot). If a team walks into the first meeting and outlines what they plan on achieving in the next two months, and then walks in two months later having achieved each of the milestones plus two others, it's very impressive and gives the VC confidence that the milestones they've laid out for the next two years will be achieved as easily.
This is very relevant because some entrepreneurs don't understand the relationship-building aspect of raising capital. Raising funding is not an issue of showing up, applying for money, and getting a cheque 30 days later. We hate being rushed into a decision, because each deal is very different and we want to feel confident that we've truly seen all the issues and can feel comfortable that the company and team is one that we can place one of our very limited bets on.
Do not underestimate how long it can take to raise money. The answer is months. If you leave time to build a relationship with a VC, time to show your successes, time to let the VC fall in love with your business, then you are far more likely to raise money. If you rush the process, or make the investor feel rushed, then it is much less likely that he/she will get to that "happy comfort point" where they want to pursue a deal.
I would love it if someone came to me and said, "Here's where we are - here's what we are planning on accomplishing in the next two months. We don't need money now, but we will on this date. We'd like to introduce ourselves and start talking, and then we'll come back when we've made some more progress to show you we're serious. We can continue to talk at that time about our funding plans." Hands down, this would be more impressive than a lot of the "We need money in 3 weeks; why do you need to do due diligence? - Australian investors have no risk tolerance!" refrains that we can occasionally have the privilege to see.
A VC investment is a marriage - be sure to give time to let the relationship develop. The advantage to you (the entrepreneur) is strong as well. Over time, you get a much better look at the VC and will then be better able to decide whether you want them to be on your board for the next five years.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Happy Fourth of July
To all my readers - Happy Fourth of July!
While it is a bit weird to be celebrating a typically summer holiday in the dead of the Australian winter, it's a nice reminder of home all the same.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Happy Canada Day
To all my readers - Happy Canada Day!
While it is a bit weird to be celebrating a typically summer holiday in the dead of the Australian winter, it's a nice reminder of home all the same.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Australia's Per Capita Excellence - #2 on Internet Spend!
I don't know why, but Australia has an amazing amount of "per-capita" excellence. Now, part of scoring high on any "per-capita" ranking is to have very few people (the Vatican always seems to do well), but with 21m people Australia is big enough that some very real factors come into play. An example of both of this is the fact that, on a per-capita basis, Australia came in 3rd in the 2004 Olympics (with 49 medals - the US was 34th with 103 medals); however, it was behind the Bahamas (with 2 medals) and Norway (with 6).
However, in another very real way Australia has shown itself to dominate the world stage, and this is on internet spend per capita. A really interesting post on Techcrunch discusses potential valuations of social networking sites (the few comments on DCF are especially entertaining). But the part that I found particularly interesting was the following bit, showing the average internet spend per person for a given country:
The U.S. (at $132 per person), by the way, is only the 4th most valuable market per Internet user, trailing The UK ($213), Australia ($148) and Denmark ($144).
So, Australia has the second highest per-capita internet spend in the world. This is interesting. The time that I've spent here has given me some insights to why this may be. First off, the power of the internet is as the great market leveler. The more inefficient a market, the more likely the impact of the internet can be. Due to Australia's size and distance from major markets, it has been my experience that price competition in Australia between retailers is, shall we say, far from fierce (the car I purchased in Australia cost almost 2x what it would have in the US, for example). Being savvy people, this turns many Australians, where they can, to purchase products off the internet in larger numbers than would be the case when retailers would be more price competitive. That's at least my current theory. There may be other factors, but it's certainly interesting to discover that this country, which is a huge adopter of other types of technologies (internet penetration, mobile phone use, etc) is #2 on per-capita Internet spend.
However, in another very real way Australia has shown itself to dominate the world stage, and this is on internet spend per capita. A really interesting post on Techcrunch discusses potential valuations of social networking sites (the few comments on DCF are especially entertaining). But the part that I found particularly interesting was the following bit, showing the average internet spend per person for a given country:
The U.S. (at $132 per person), by the way, is only the 4th most valuable market per Internet user, trailing The UK ($213), Australia ($148) and Denmark ($144).
So, Australia has the second highest per-capita internet spend in the world. This is interesting. The time that I've spent here has given me some insights to why this may be. First off, the power of the internet is as the great market leveler. The more inefficient a market, the more likely the impact of the internet can be. Due to Australia's size and distance from major markets, it has been my experience that price competition in Australia between retailers is, shall we say, far from fierce (the car I purchased in Australia cost almost 2x what it would have in the US, for example). Being savvy people, this turns many Australians, where they can, to purchase products off the internet in larger numbers than would be the case when retailers would be more price competitive. That's at least my current theory. There may be other factors, but it's certainly interesting to discover that this country, which is a huge adopter of other types of technologies (internet penetration, mobile phone use, etc) is #2 on per-capita Internet spend.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Hatch That!
Hey! My friend Ross Hill's online entrepreneurship magazine, HatchThat, published a discussion with me recently. I'm impressed with the breadth of people that Ross has spoken with, especially in such a short period of time. Check it out!
Non-Disclosure Agreements
Bill Snow has a great summary of why venture capital firms do not sign NDAs (non-disclosure agreements).
Here's his introductory paragraph:
Let’s take a look at one of the most common miscalculations made by early stage entrepreneurs: Asking potential investors to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In the pantheon of entrepreneurial mistakes, the NDA is right up there with the infamous line, “these projections are conservative.” Simply put, if you hope to raise money from VCs, you increase your chances of success by eschewing the NDA request. Most (if not all) VCs will not sign the darn things. There are bound to be some exceptions to this rule, but not many.
The rest of the article goes into why that is the case. However, the gist of the reasoning is that venture capitalists see a vast number of deals, and it is simply not feasible to enter into non-disclosure agreements with each of them. The liability and the potential conflicts are enormous.
It is the policy of most VCs not to sign NDAs for the business plans that they are sent. A simple poll of angel investors and VCs in Australia shows that many firms have similar policies. Yet, a large number of entrepreneurs approach me, and are adamant about having an NDA signed. Why is this?
I believe that this is due to cultural factors, bad advice, and ignorance of how the industry works. The cultural factors stem from, what I have perceived is an Australian bias that assumes that "people" (banks, investors, business partners, the government, etc.) have it in for the company. Rather than looking at what a business partner, such as a venture investor, can bring to a business (ie, maximizing the upside), an entrepreneur may be more likely to be suspicious on how the business partner can hurt the business (ie, minimizing the downside).
The second factor is bad advice. Entrepreneurs look to their advisors, such as their lawyers, or investment advisor (intermediaries) for guidance. I have been impressed by far too few of these professionals that I have seen. Most do not seem to understand the position that the venture/angel industry takes because they are ignorant to the industry's requirements. The entrepreneur then approaches the investor demanding an NDA, "because my lawyer said I needed one", and this can prevent things from moving forward.
The third factor is ignorance of the industry. This is, in part, what this blog hopes to correct. However, similar to point #2, there are few sources for Australian entrepreneurs to learn what the industry requirements are. When told that an investment firm will not sign an NDA, the entrepreneur does not have the background to understand why. However, I am optimistic that this is changing because a) entrepreneurs are becoming more sophisticated all of the time, and b) the number of sources of information for entrepreneurs is growing all of the time.
So, why the AVCAL NDA then? This comes from a difference between venture capital and later stage private equity. Although our friends in private equity have their own issues, discussed here and here.
So, to close I'd like to loop back to Bill Snow's article above. While asking for an NDA is not the kiss of death, starting an early stage raise with that discussion is not the way to lure in an investor. You control the information you release - keep the super proprietary details to yourself and only worry about disclosures once the deal has progressed sufficiently. I can pitch Google's value as an investment without disclosing their algorithm, and you should be able to do the same for you business as well.
Here's his introductory paragraph:
Let’s take a look at one of the most common miscalculations made by early stage entrepreneurs: Asking potential investors to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). In the pantheon of entrepreneurial mistakes, the NDA is right up there with the infamous line, “these projections are conservative.” Simply put, if you hope to raise money from VCs, you increase your chances of success by eschewing the NDA request. Most (if not all) VCs will not sign the darn things. There are bound to be some exceptions to this rule, but not many.
The rest of the article goes into why that is the case. However, the gist of the reasoning is that venture capitalists see a vast number of deals, and it is simply not feasible to enter into non-disclosure agreements with each of them. The liability and the potential conflicts are enormous.
It is the policy of most VCs not to sign NDAs for the business plans that they are sent. A simple poll of angel investors and VCs in Australia shows that many firms have similar policies. Yet, a large number of entrepreneurs approach me, and are adamant about having an NDA signed. Why is this?
I believe that this is due to cultural factors, bad advice, and ignorance of how the industry works. The cultural factors stem from, what I have perceived is an Australian bias that assumes that "people" (banks, investors, business partners, the government, etc.) have it in for the company. Rather than looking at what a business partner, such as a venture investor, can bring to a business (ie, maximizing the upside), an entrepreneur may be more likely to be suspicious on how the business partner can hurt the business (ie, minimizing the downside).
The second factor is bad advice. Entrepreneurs look to their advisors, such as their lawyers, or investment advisor (intermediaries) for guidance. I have been impressed by far too few of these professionals that I have seen. Most do not seem to understand the position that the venture/angel industry takes because they are ignorant to the industry's requirements. The entrepreneur then approaches the investor demanding an NDA, "because my lawyer said I needed one", and this can prevent things from moving forward.
The third factor is ignorance of the industry. This is, in part, what this blog hopes to correct. However, similar to point #2, there are few sources for Australian entrepreneurs to learn what the industry requirements are. When told that an investment firm will not sign an NDA, the entrepreneur does not have the background to understand why. However, I am optimistic that this is changing because a) entrepreneurs are becoming more sophisticated all of the time, and b) the number of sources of information for entrepreneurs is growing all of the time.
So, why the AVCAL NDA then? This comes from a difference between venture capital and later stage private equity. Although our friends in private equity have their own issues, discussed here and here.
So, to close I'd like to loop back to Bill Snow's article above. While asking for an NDA is not the kiss of death, starting an early stage raise with that discussion is not the way to lure in an investor. You control the information you release - keep the super proprietary details to yourself and only worry about disclosures once the deal has progressed sufficiently. I can pitch Google's value as an investment without disclosing their algorithm, and you should be able to do the same for you business as well.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Hive networking event
Earlier this week I spoke at a networking event for entrepreneurs called The Hive . I was extremely impressed by the organization of the event, and I think it's a great opportunity for Melbourne based entreprenuers.
I have been looking for events like this to meet new entrepreneurs and to talk about my investment interests and there haven't been many well targeted events. There are various conferences about Cleantech and business financing, and there are various lunchtime seminars put on by government organizations (which can be quite good - especially Innovic's), however, my experiences at MIT have taught me that the most exciting startup activity happens when a bunch of really smart, really motivated people get together over a beer. This is what The Hive offers.
About 100 people were on hand to listen to me give some of my thoughts on the industry (I'll boil these down to a few blog posts in the future), but more importantly, I felt that this gave a really good cross section of those interested in starting their own companies. There was a lot of passion in the room, and that's something that I think fills me with the most optimism about the future of the Australian startup scene. If you are based in Melbourne be sure to check out future events!
I have been looking for events like this to meet new entrepreneurs and to talk about my investment interests and there haven't been many well targeted events. There are various conferences about Cleantech and business financing, and there are various lunchtime seminars put on by government organizations (which can be quite good - especially Innovic's), however, my experiences at MIT have taught me that the most exciting startup activity happens when a bunch of really smart, really motivated people get together over a beer. This is what The Hive offers.
About 100 people were on hand to listen to me give some of my thoughts on the industry (I'll boil these down to a few blog posts in the future), but more importantly, I felt that this gave a really good cross section of those interested in starting their own companies. There was a lot of passion in the room, and that's something that I think fills me with the most optimism about the future of the Australian startup scene. If you are based in Melbourne be sure to check out future events!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)