Making Canada SAFE

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.

Until now.

Thanks to Aaron and Cobi at Taplytics, Dan Debow, Jesse Rodgers at Creative Destruction Lab and Tom Houston at Dentons for providing a working draft for Canadian companies of Cap, No Discount SAFE.

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.

The White North – It’s Great for Seed-Stage Startups

Some rights reserved by meddygarnet

Sit down with any Canadian entrepreneur and you’ll often hear similar grievances about the Canadian startup community. The consensus seems to be, “It’s getting significantly better, but we’re risk-averse, funding is hard to come by, and the US is a bigger market.” We are a a startup that decided to move from Silicon Valley (as part of the Y Combinator Summer 2012 cohort) to Toronto. We’ve seen a wider range of startups and startup hubs than most. We’ve been able to compare and contrast the communities, and have a lot of faith in the Canadian startup scene as a whole. We want to share why.

As Canadians, it’s easy to look South and feel overwhelmed. The United States is ten times bigger in terms of economy and population. It’s difficult to fault an ambitious entrepreneur for wanting to move South and capture a significant chunk of a significant market. Likewise, no maturing startup can avoid the US as a potential market…

The question for us was: what are the pros and cons of being a seed-stage startup in Toronto, or Canada as a whole?

Why Toronto? And Why Now?

Seed-stage startups rejoice — the Toronto/Waterloo community is a great place for seed-stage startups. Before I begin listing the benefits, I do want to iterate that it’s all one big place [Ed.: Can’t disagree here, when you fly in to SFO or SJC, it’s still the Bay area]. At times, it seems unfortunate to me that Toronto and Waterloo are treated as two separate entities in which a startup would operate. Sure, driving down Highway 401 isn’t the most enjoyable experience, but your startup will face bigger challenges than congestion during rush hour.

1. Talent Pools

The universities spanning the Greater Toronto Area and surrounding cities boast over 200,000 undergraduate students, many of which are studying engineering, computer science, or other technical fields. The Universities of Waterloo and Toronto both boast high quality math, computer science, and engineering departments, many of which are regularly hounded by big and small companies for potential recruits.

Hiring was a key factor for us when choosing our base of operations. Being able to pick from so many students, let alone professionals and developers working for large corporations, helped make this an easy choice. Better still, few startups actively approach this population — most of the keen, startup-oriented folks end up traveling to San Francisco to look for jobs. By bringing the opportunity to their doorsteps, we made the sometimes frightening decision of jumping into a startup significantly easier. Our recruits get all the joys of working for a Silicon Valley-funded startup without the hassle of immigration, relocation, and saying “goodbye” to towns they know and love.

2. Excited Customers

Few people realize that Toronto was the first city in North America to surpass 1 million Facebook users. Move over New York, and see you later, San Francisco! Not only are Canadians notoriously friendly (collecting feedback on your product will be easy!), they are also hungry and interested in innovative products. Others have argued that Canadian cities are good grounds for experimentation as well, citing the fact that we tend to focus on stable techological trends and avoid fads that might only survive in more stereotypically tech-crazy startup hubs.

While I wouldn’t go so far as to cite this as a reason for basing your startup in Toronto, it means that you don’t risk finding a product-market fit by being based here. Combined with our own strong network and following here, it was a safe bet for us to settle down and start experimenting with an initial set of corporate customers or pilots.

3. Low Cost of Operations

Compare your average salary, apartment rental, and parking spot in Toronto to those of US startup hubs like Silicon Valley or New York, and you’ll see a noticeable difference in pricing. The Toronto/Waterloo area enjoys a significantly lower cost of living than many other hubs, which often means that your own expenditures will be significantly lower — if you’ve already raised angel or seed funding, this essentially boils down to a longer runway for your company.

Pair the low cost of living with Canada’s many government-supported startup programs, and your cost of developing a product can be 40% of what it would cost in the US. Better still, basing your operations in Toronto/Waterloo mean you have a 90-minute flight to major American cities, which could easily become your next point of contact or expansion for your products. All the benefits of a large global city, and few of the costs!

4. A Changing Startup Landscape

Startup entrepreneurs are often goaded by their investors to ride waves of industrial changes and take advantage of major societal shifts. A quick look at AngelList valuations by city and startup hub shows startups in Toronto/Waterloo are holding their own, on a global scale. Our own seed-stage round had investors from both sides of the border, and many regularly told us they see Canada as a great opportunity to expand their market reach outside Silicon Valley (or the US as a whole).

As more Canadian companies have fantastic and successful exists — think Radian6, Eloqua, or BufferBox — we’ll see more investor interest in our region. If you’re an entrepeneur keen on surfing an investor wave, getting ready for what interest might come to Toronto is a great place to start.

Planning Ahead

As with any discussion on the benefits of a major and complex decision such as base of operations, one should not forget what they do give up by being based here. It’s important to plan ahead, and any startup choosing a base of operations in Toronto, particularly when planning to expand to the US, should plan around this.

1. Don’t forget your friends down South

It’s easy to limit yourself to your geography. Remember that expanding into a city or market in the US means you first need to develop a network there. Are you planning to raise a VC round in three months? Planning to expand from Toronto to the New York City market in six? Start building those networks now. It is amazing (or gloriously terrifying!) how important serendipity is to the success of some startups. Ensure you have a network in these cities, even if the connections are only digital.

In our case, we keep in touch by attending conferences on a regular basis, maintaining e-mail contact with the companies and VCs we admire, and constantly ask ourselves if it’s time for an in-person visit.

2. Use Global Benchmarks

One of the most important things a startup can do is to do is benchmark itself against its industry, or other startups. Know what valuations your competitors are getting, and what sorts of employees they are hiring. Most importantly, ensure you’re using global benchmarks. While being the best “Canadian” startup is nice, remember that to truly achieve global scale, you’re competing against the best startups in the US, China, Israel, and everywhere else. It’s easy to become complacent by forgetting about these massive centers of innovation.

Indeed, one of the biggest benefits of our being in the Y Combinator program has been seeing how our batchmates work, move quickly, and succeed at nearly any cost. Seeing this hunger and drive has left us with no excuse for avoiding success. We use our network of VCs, friends around the world, and startups we admire as a way to regularly benchmark ourselves and ensure we’re progressing at a decent pace. Case in point: the Big Data industry is growing over 40% every year — and we aim to outperform it.

3. Pay It Forward

And please, remember to pay it forward. If you choose to grow, develop, and succeed in these fine, frigid cities of ours, ensure you give back to the communities. As Brad Feld so eloquently wrote in “Startup Communities”, the only way to make a startup hub successful and grow is through having entrepreneurs leading the community, to have them involved for the long run, and to be inclusive.

Sometimes that’s easier said than done, as evidenced by Zak Homuth’s view on Toronto startups in the Startup Genome: “We have all been somewhere else, worked somewhere else, and got money somewhere else.” Success breeds success, and it is important that for those of us who grow and succeed through the benefits of our community also give back to it.

To us, building a successful community is as rewarding as building a successful startup. We aim to ensure that every single person passing through or working with Canopy Labs will leave with better career prospects, more ambition, and the necessary training to succeed in whatever they do. Not only does this make it easier to hire great, talented individuals, it also ensures we’re constantly developing as a team.

Conclusion

While the Toronto startup community is getting more attention in recent times, there is still a great deal of work to be done. Toronto is a fantastic place for startups and Canopy Labs is a case in point. We’re a six person startup with a significant runway and exciting customers, and all of this is enabled by our being in Toronto. At the same time, we’ve got a global mindset: we benchmark ourselves against all players in our industry, and are constantly building and growing our networks in new cities and countries.

We’re proudly Canadian, comfortably Toronto-based, and our office is on Richmond / Spadina in the heart of Toronto’s startup hub. We’re excited and happy to be here, and feel we’re growing faster here than we could hope to grow anywhere else. Drop by any time!

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

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

Some rights reserved by µµ

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

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

Startup lifecycle

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

Start
Launch
Build
Chasm
Scale

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

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

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

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

Recruitment
Onboarding
In the program
After the program

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

Recruitment

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

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

Onboarding

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

In the program: peer mentorship, startup culture

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

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

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

After the program: Alumni network

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

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

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

Programs that work copy YCombinator, even TechStars did

Some rights reserved by andi.vs.zf

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