Policy Wonking

Dan Managan and Bob Kronbauer - Hockey Day In Canada Photo by KrisKrug

Wojceich Gryc has an interesting post on the policies that he’d like to see the federal government implement to improve the startup ecosystem. The 5 key points are:

  1. Market Access Tax Credits
  2. Legal/Tax Advice for Market Access
  3. Sales-Oriented Startup Accelerators
  4. Global Benchmarks
  5. Global Branding

Not a bad list of things that could improve the startup ecosystem. However, I’m not sure they are not all necessarily things for consideration as governmental policy. Specifically, I have issues with 2, 3 and 4.

Legal/Tax Advice for Market Access

Entering new markets, particularly foreign markets, can be daunting. There are legal, regulatory, tax and other questions. And I would argue that the Canadian government already has a Crown corporation, Export Development Corporation, dedicated at lead to helping manage the financial risk of accessing new markets. Is there a step-by-step guide for emerging technology companies? (Let me know if you find one). There are access to the Trade Commissioners who continue to have a strong presence in the Bay area, New York and Austin, Texas.

The remaining advice and guidance about legal, regulatory and tax risks on entering new markets is provided by third-party services firms. I’ve worked with the teams at KPMGDeloitte, PwC and others on Canadian/US tax law and the implications for my firm. Also advice from Canadian and US counsel including BennettJones, CognitionLLP, LabergeWeinstein, Fenwick & West, Wilson Sonsini and others. You need to find lawyers and accountants that have experience with the risks and solutions and can provide you cost-effective advice.

Sales-Oriented Startup Accelerators

An accelerator feels like a red herring to me. Wojceich is 100% correct, companies should focus on focus on key traction metrics (see Getting Traction and Funding, Valuation and Accretive Milestones) including sales/revenue. But the idea that an accelubator is going to help you focus on driving realistic forecasts, and achieving milestones or traction feels lazy/wrong/not the right approach.

A startup is a temporary organization used to search for a repeatable and scalable business model. – Steve Blank

Depending on the type of business model, it can be okay to delay monetization. But if your business model is to sell software or software-as-a-service you need to determine if people are willing to pay you for it. I would argue rather than giving up 7% of company to an accelubator, you’re probably better to read David Skok’s Building a Sales & Marketing Machine and try to recruit an advisor that has experience selling to your idealized target segment. There are a lot of great sales advisors/board members including: John MacDonald, Howard Gwin, Andy Aicklen, etc. Most are accessible. Are they interested in working with you? On your business? Maybe, you need to convince them you’ve built something worth their time and social capital.

Global Benchmarks

Who gives a shit about where we fall on global benchmarks? It’s probably relevant as part of the next point, Global Branding, but I just can’t imagine that an understanding of the global startup benchmarks matters. Larger investment, more successful companies and exits probably have a larger impact on the overall startup ecosystem. It would be more interesting to see the creation of a Kaufmann Foundation with a focus on entrepreneurship.

“we develop and support programs that provide entrepreneurs with the education, tools, skills and connections they need to start and grow businesses. We also work to create a more entrepreneur-friendly environment, including lowering barriers to success and raising awareness of the important role entrepreneurs play in the economy” – Kaufmann Foundation

I’m unclear why federal, provincial or municipal policy should be based on a set of rankings provided by a private corporation. It just feels ill-informed view of the role of government and policy in managing the lives of citizens. But I am not a policy wonk and my understanding on the creation and execution of policy in the administrative branches of government approximates zero. (Take this free opinion for what it is worth, or at least what you paid for it).

The Greener Grass

It’s great to see entrepreneurs in the trenches think about the system and the support they need. It’s a honest view of the things that would help entrepreneurs improve their corporate performance, reduce their expenditures and risks.

I love the idea of a similar SR&ED tax credit for market access. Supporting companies as they experiment with distribution and monetization models is a great idea. Plus improving the Canadian brand through Startup Visa, Maple Syrup Mafia, The C100, and other activities is an amazing activity. It builds on the efforts that we as individual founders to support the ecosystem. Focusing on traction including customer acquisition, revenue growth and building a scalable business., I love that too. Using global metrics as a baseline to evaluate your business (see StartupCompass’ Navigating your Startup to Success) should quickly give entrepreneurs both the measures and the desired outcomes to compare against.

I don’t think it is going to be government policy changes, it is going to be founders and startups building successful companies that will ultimately improve the ecosystem.

Photo Credit: Photo by Kris Krug AttributionShareAlike Some rights reserved by kriskrug

The first rule of real estate

Before you read this, go read Mark MacLeod’s post on Who not to take money from…. It’s not related to this post, but a great post for entrepreneurs to read when talking about investors.

RT @Cmdr_Hadfield Chris Hadfield 19 Jan With a long tradition of hockey on the shore of Lake Ontario, introducing Toronto - Go Leafs Go! @MapleLeafs pic.twitter.com/iZdN2yZb

If geography doesn’t matter, than why do plane tickets cost so much?

“When it comes to raising funds, I just don’t think the geography matters that much. Good solid product that solves an actual pain can find it’s way to investors any where in the world thanks to the internet.” – Adeel vanthaliwala

I read a lot of comments like Adeel’s. And I agree that geography might not be the most meaningful filter, it still impacts startups in raising capital. It is far easier to raise money from a broader range of sources today, than it was 10 years ago. Changes to Canadian Tax Act (Section 116) have helped open the border to outside capital. There has also been a rise of new Canadian funds that have all closed in the past 2-3 years including: OMERS Ventures, Relay Ventures, Rho Canada, BDC Venture Capital, Real Ventures, Version One Ventures, Golden Venture Partners, Tandem Expansion Fund , Georgian Partners, etc. I worry that comments don’t take into consideration the complexity and challenges of raising capital. The impact of geography on raising capital has been reduced, but geography does still affect startups raising money.

Fugetaboutit!

The best advice on geography is from Brad Feld in 2007:

  1. Don’t worry about it
  2. Be realistic about the available resources
  3. Find the local entrepreneurial ecosystem – now!
  4. Don’t try to get investors to do unnatural acts
  5. Don’t play the “we can be virtual” game

From the point of the investor, geography probably doesn’t matter that much. Unless of course there is a limitation in the partnership agreement that limits the geography where the capital can be invested. There are other more practical concerns about having remote startups including legal and or taxation concerns (see Section 116). Or the ability for a startup to leverage personal/professional networks for hiring, business development, etc. And none of this describes the challenges of having to spend 6 hours flying each direction to attend a board meeting. But beyond that, proximity is not a requirement from the investor side. Good startups can be located anywhere.

“Local brewers = geography matters. As macrobrew VCs are increasingly spending time in multiple geographies (separate from their HQs) there is real potential to differentiate along knowing that you can actually sit down and see your VC face to face. For some that’s important, but for some that’s a negative. Just as some people here in Boston prefer drinking Cambridge Brewing Company ale; others could care less it was brewed locally.” – David Beisel

I like David Beisel’s   model of the VC industry starting to become more similar to the beer industry. There are larger funds, local funds, specialized funds, and individual partners. They all matter differently to entrepreneurs depending on the company, stage of development, location, etc. Understanding the available resources and your ability to access them are key.

Traction trumps geography

Non Linear Growth

There is going to be the inevitable argument about companies raising money from foreign VCs. The great news is since the changes to the Tax Act and the fall of Section 116, we have a lot of examples:

Not to belabour the point, it is possible to raise capital from foreign investors in Canada. But the level of traction demonstrated by most of these companies was very high. For example:

“Since HootSuite’s Series A financing, we’ve grown from 200,000 users to almost 2.5 million! We’re proud of our progress and are looking forward to the future with more success on the roadmap.” – Andy Au, Hootsuite

According to my calculation that’s a 431,690% CAGR of the registered users between when they announced their Series A and Series B financing. Go big or stay home. Traction and growth trump geography. Paying customers, a scaleable business. Being able to demonstrate that for every dollar that goes into the business you understand how many (more) dollars come out. You need to be able to demonstrate appropriate milestones to mitigate risk.

Avoiding Unnatural Acts

“Don’t try to get investors to do unnatural acts: Assuming you are looking for capital, focus your energy on two categories: (1) local investors – either angel or VCs and (2) VCs that are interested in the specific business you are creating. In category #2, “software” is not a specific business – you need to be a lot more granular than that. Your chance of #2 is enhanced by a relationship / investment with someone in category #1, so make sure you focus enough energy on that early on.” – Brad Feld

The secret here is that social proof that VCs are doing deals north of the border is not enough on its own. You need to focus your efforts, and assuming that you’re doing everything you can to hit accretive milestones you still need or want to try to avoid doing unnatural things. A local investor is not required, but it can be a signalling risk about the team, market, product, or other, i.e., what am I missing if local investors are cold? (There are situations where you can imagine an entrepreneur choosing to avoid local investors, particularly if they have had a deal go sour in the past, but usually the entrepreneur discloses this very early).

What to do about location?

  1. Fugetaboutit!
  2. Start nailing concrete milestones that demonstrate traction and mitigate the risk associated with your business.
  3. Get connected to your local community. Look for events like Founders & Funders, Elevator Tour or GrowTalks to have initiate low risk conversations with both local investors and entrepreneurs that have raised capital.
  4. Do your research! Use AngelList, Google, Bing, LinkedIn, portfolio pages, etc.  to find partners following and investing in companies in your very specific vertical.
  5. Figure out who locally is investing locally and figure out how to get a warm introduction and find 30 minutes to meet.
  6. Listen, ask questions, try to figure out what is missing, what is the biggest risk factor and how you might mitigate the risk.
  7. Rinse and repeat with non-local investors aka get your ass on a plane and keep hustlin’ (go re-read Mark Suster’s Never ask a Busy Person to Lunch).

Call us when you have traction

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

CC-BY-NC-ND  Some rights reserved by Raymond Larose
AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by Raymond Larose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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