Category Archives: Entrepreneurship

Build Yourself a Compatible Goals Filter

Suggestion: on any kind of business relationship, take a step back, open your eyes, and look for compatible goals.

For example, one variety of hell is a startup with founders and investors having different goals. Differences on how to achieve goals are hard enough. You can talk out those differences. But when investors want one thing, and founders something else entirely, there’s trouble brewing. Companies can aim for growth, profits, or cash flow independence. Everybody involved should agree.

Use the framework of compatible goals to look at small business team members and compensation. That can be as simple as targets for gross margin (price less direct cost) instead of just sales. Years ago I hired an honest, ambitious, hard-working salesman with a compensation package tied to sales. He hit the sales targets by pricing deals so close to below cost that we didn’t have enough money to cover overhead. That was my fault, not his.

Use creative compensation schemes and bonuses. How can you make the goals of the customer service people compatible with the overall company goals? What do you do about targets, metrics, and bonuses? What about product development, as in programming? Editing? The more thought to compatible goals, the more likely to succeed.

You should also use the framework of compatible goals to look at business alliances. Do you want the same thing as those people from the other company? Can you both find a win? Are your goals for this deal compatible with theirs? Asking deeper questions about goals can lead to better, more useful negotiations.

Beware of the Myth of Persistence

I worry a lot about the myth of persistence. Persistence won’t necessarily make your business successful unless a lot of other things are also right. And persistence alone can turn failure into disaster. But still, people who should know better—people who succeeded—still talk about it all the time.

brick wall

There’s a logical trick to it. Almost everybody who made it through hard times while building a business can credit persistence because they stuck through it, and, eventually, made it. But what we forget or ignore is all those people who didn’t make it, persisted, and still went under, losing more money, and sometimes even important relationships, and people they care about, because they persisted.

Persistence is only relevant if the rest of it is right. There’s no virtue to persistence when it means running your head into walls forever. Before you worry about persistence, that startup has to have some real value to offer, something that people want to buy, something they want or need. And it has to get the offer to enough people. It has to survive competition. It has to know when to stick to consistency, and when to pivot.

So persistence is simply what’s left over when all the other reasons for failure have been ruled out. Those successful entrepreneurs who talk about their experience? They’re not lying. They look back on it, and it was persistence that saw them through. Because every startup is a lot of work, a lot of mistakes, a lot of failures. So a lot of startups that might have made it otherwise fail because it’s just too damn hard to stay with it.

This is one of several phenomena related to the problem of survivor bias. We hear way more from people who made it, and not nearly enough from the people who didn’t.

And then, if everything else is right, persistence matters.

What Business to Start? Look in the Mirror. Depends on You.

I’ve always said that what business is right for you depends not on the market, or what’s hot, but on who you are. So look in the mirror. I get a steady flow of questions about what business to start, and I see them almost every day on Quora.com, my favorite question-answer platform. With this in mind, I always say…

look in the mirror. What business is best to start depends on who you are, where you are, what you do well, what you like to do, and what you can do that other people need, want, and will pay for.

Balance_at_sunset_bigstock_3393994.jpg

I also refer to two now-classic posts by others that sum this up very well.

First, What Kind of Startup is Right for You, a post by Nellie Akalp on Mashable in 2012. Nellie goes right to the heart of an often misunderstood core concept of small business, which is that the best business for you depends almost entirely on who your are, what you want, and what you do.

The best business is always a matter of context. You look in the mirror and figure out who you are, then you apply that to business. Here’s just a quick piece, two paragraphs:

Create a list of skills that covers what you’re good at and areas where you’re a subject matter expert. Then list out the things you like to do. Compare these two lists and see if any patterns emerge, or point to any business type that aligns both your strengths and passions.

Imagine yourself at a cocktail party, Tweetup or other networking event, and you’re asked that inevitable question: “So, what do you do?” Think about how you’ll respond with each potential business option. Are you proud and excited to describe your new business? Or a little embarrassed and looking to steer the conversation elsewhere?

This is really good advice. She has five points in the post, all of them worth reading.

The second one is called How to Fit Freelancing Into the Rest of Your Life, on freelance folder, written by Laura Spencer. It’s another reminder that what’s best for each individual you depends on your specific needs and nature.

For example, one of her points is “Know Yourself:”

What enables you to do your best work? Do you need quiet, or do you thrive in the midst of chaos? Are you your most creative first thing in the morning, or are you best late at night? What inspires you? Some freelancers are inspired by music, others by art or nature. Does clutter bother you, or can you work just about anywhere? Once you understand what enables you to do your best work, you can make sure that your work environment fits the bill.

Two very good posts. Conclusion: generalizations are dangerous. Every startup entrepreneur, ever solopreneur and freelancer, is a different case.

(image: bigstockphoto.com)

Angel Investment vs. Bootstrap: Startup Sweet Spot

Successful angel investment is a win-win for both sides, the startup founders and the investors. And I mean win-win right at the beginning, at the time of the investment, not the obvious win-win later when years have gone by and the business succeeds and investors exit. The win-win sweet spot exists from the beginning, when both sides agree that there’s an opportunity for deficit spending to produce dramatically accelerated growth. Simply put, it’s when the startup has an exciting use for other people’s money; it’s going to grow much faster with that money than without it. So much faster, in fact, that it’s a great way for investors to spend their money, and a great way for startup founders to spend (share) their ownership. Otherwise, bootstrap (build your startup with your own resources, not outside investors) is better.

Understanding the sweet spot for angel investment vs. bootstrap

Investment-Sweet-Spot.jpg

At the sweet spot, years before failure or exit, investors have spent their money on a good risk-return ratio, and founders have given up ownership for good prospects of much better growth and much better end value than they’d get if they kept their ownership and didn’t spend the extra money.

It’s about milestones and inflection points. Inflection points are when a business is suddenly worth more than it was, in a short time, because of factors like risks reduced, milestones met, assumptions validated, and so forth. In my simple chart here, the sweet spot shows up after startup founders have met some initial milestones to make their valuation better before they talk to investors. Those milestones are things like recruiting the team, testing the concept, developing the website, gaining traction, gaining users, registering the intellectual property. Then they turn to investors to get money they will use to meet new milestones which will produce another inflection point, when valuation pops up even more. Milestones depend on the specifics, but it might be getting the key people on board, developing the prototype, getting the first critical mass of users, going through some critical regulatory step, and so forth. In my chart here, we can see the first inflection point when the founders get going, the second inflection point when the investment money is put to good use, and the sweet spot, for both sides, in the middle.

In my illustration, valuation is that theoretical agreed-upon value that determines how much equity is exchanged for how much money. That’s a critical concept I explained in setting an initial valuation, an articles here on bplans.com.

There’s plenty of information about angel investors here on my blog, and elsewhere here at bplans.com,  about what investors want, how to approach them, and so forth. But I think we miss the essential, fundamental concept of what makes a startup investment a win-win situation for startup founders and investors. It’s about both sides wanting the same thing, seeing the same opportunity, and betting, together, on the outcome. Win-win is easy to say afterwards, years later, when and if the business was successful. This sweet spot win-win is for beforehand, when the investment is made.

If you’re not in the sweet spot, don’t seek angel investment. Bootstrap.

What’s also important about the investment sweet spot is what to do if it doesn’t apply. For startup founders, if you don’t need the outsiders’ money to generate more growth than otherwise, then don’t seek investment. Never seek investment money unless you really need it. Other people’s money comes at a high cost in ownership, so you should only even consider it when it’s going to give you a much bigger value.

If you can do it yourself, and get there alone, do. Then you own the whole thing.

There’s a classic analogy that’s often used wrong. People will ask, “which is better, a piece of a watermelon, or a grape?” The rhetorical question is supposed to lead to a rhetorical answer in favor of the watermelon. That’s because it comes up in the context of startup founders sharing ownership with investors.  But what if the better analogy is you have grapevine (your own business, entirely yours) vs. a piece of a watermelon?

Good angel investors don’t want to invest in a business that doesn’t need the money. And startup founders should not seek angel investment unless they need the money.

 

The CBD Ingredient of Marijuana Offers New Business Opportunities

As states move toward legalized marijuana, most of the fuss so far is about pot as recreational drug, all of which has to do with the THC ingredient, the key to the marijuana high. But marijuana also contains another ingredient, CBD, which doesn’t generate a high, but may offer interesting health benefits as a happy byproduct of marijuana becoming more readily available.

Research on benefits of CBD extracts has been severely limited because of the legal issues around marijuana. The US Drug Policy Alliance says (In a paper published last year):

Emerging research on CBD is quite promising. Evidence of varying quality supports the use of CBD for a wide range of serious medical conditions, including Alzheimer’s, anorexia, anxiety, atherosclerosis, arthritis cancer, colitis/Crohn’s, depression, diabetes, epilepsy/seizure, fibromyalgia, glaucoma, irritable bowel, multiplesclerosis, neurodegeneration, obesity, osteoporosis, Parkinson’s, PTSD, schizophrenia, substance dependence/addiction, and stroke/traumatic brain injury.

That piece is published by an organization with an agenda; but the source document cites specific research for each word of it. And then there’s Why I changed my mind on weed, in which respected MD, neurosurgeon Sanjay Gupta, a familiar face of CNN, recognizes the health benefits already verified, and calls for legalization as well as more research. He wrote:

We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that. When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to fill a “void in our knowledge.” In the United States, that has been challenging because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an illegal substance, with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the approval process. And yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable progress that continues today. Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana and its components. I’m intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Raphael Meschoulam in Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on whether the drug might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD. I promise to do my part to help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining void in our knowledge.

You can click on the image here for a three-minute video summary.

Dr. Gupta on Benefits of Weed

There are still hurdles. Where I live, in Oregon, I can buy old-fashioned pot legally and with relative ease. And finally, as of just this month, I can also buy an ointment to treat joint pains, based on CBD oil primarily, which has no high or buzz whatsoever. Oregon legalized Marijuana last year, but regulations for oils, extracts, and edibles took a few months longer.

I’m optimistic, and thinking this is a good opportunity waiting in the wings, with the final legal changes likely to come soon. I became interested because I know some people who are already gearing up for CBD businesses here in Oregon. Given the likelihood of verifiable health benefits, and the way things are changing, I think that’s a good bet.

Friday Video: Kauffman Center on Myths of Entrepreneurship

Several things that many people take for granted about entrepreneurship aren’t really true, according to this three-minute video offered by the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurship. It starts with a reminder that it isn’t small business that drives the US economy’s growth of jobs, but rather new business. Startups. And my personal favorite, around 1:40, the myth of entrepreneurs being very young.

You can also click here for the source video on YouTube.

How Can I Get Startup Funding Without Giving Away Half the Company?

I’m surprised how often I get asked the question in the title, or variations of it, from people in startups. And you will hear discussions in which experts recommend ways to get investors who take less equity and demand less control. That seems short-sighted or worse.  I posted here years ago dumb investors is a dumb idea. But this question keeps coming up.A Bad Idea

If you’re working on a startup, understand the tradeoffs. Don’t try to find investors who don’t take ownership. Asking that question is like asking “how can I get somebody to spend their money without giving them anything?”

Ask yourself why somebody, anybody, would spend their money to build your business instead of to build their own, buy a house, car, or go on vacation? What do they get out of that? They aren’t the government. They can spend their money any way they like. So what – besides a share in ownership – can you give them for their money?

“Giving away” is the wrong way to say it. You share, in return for money; and, if you do it right, help, contacts, and collaboration (if you find the right investors). It’s like a marriage.

How much ownership your investors get is a matter of agreeing on how much your business is worth, and then dividing how much money you get into that. For example, if you can convince your investors that your business is worth $1 million, and they spend $500K, then yes, in that case, you gave up half. And it’s not that easy, either. If investors aren’t convinced you have a good team, good product-market fit, scalability, defensibility, and a reasonable chance at exit, then don’t worry about what you share with them, because they won’t want any part of it, for any amount of shared ownership.

If you worry about giving up ownership, that’s valid, but instead of complaining about investors, look up Bootstrapping here on this blog. Most startups bootstrap because few have what it takes to attract investors. It’s harder, but if you make it, then you own it all yourself. Or, if you have a startup that needs more money than you have, and offers a good business opportunity for that money, then think of investors as partners and find investors you can work with, and respect. Or bootstrap.

This question came up again on Quora over the weekend. If you’d like some alternative answers, here’s the link: How can I get funding for my startup without forfeiting half my ownership in the business?

(Image: Flickr cc, by snail_race)

Video: Startup Funding. Bootstrap. Then “Be So Good They Can’t Ignore You.”

I stumbled on this brilliant video of an after-hours startup funding event at the Stanford business school, a panel discussion putting two of the best-known, most influential, and most successful investors (Marc Andreessen and Ron Conway) together with another successful entrepreneur (Parker Conrad, founder of Zenefits), a moderator, and a group of interested entrepreneurs. The video format is perhaps less than optimal, unless you like the rapid-access panel on the left (I do, actually) … but the content is outstanding.

Make sure, please, that you hear Ron Conway suggesting “bootstrap as long as you can.” You can find that with the navigation on the left.

And also, what both investors say about how they choose investments, what makes them successful, and valuation. And Marc Andreeson quoting Steve Martin on “be so good they can’t ignore you, and then, adding:

“Focus on making your business better, not making your pitch better.”

The original for this is on Sam Altman’s online course. Click here for that.

Some excellent quotes:

Marc Andreessen on startup funding as hit or miss:

The venture capital business is one hundred percent a game of outliers, it is extreme outliers. So the conventional statistics are in the order of four thousand venture fundable companies a year that want to raise venture capital. About two hundred of those will get funded by what is considered a top tier VC. About fifteen of those will, someday, get to a hundred million dollars in revenue. And those fifteen, for that year, will generate something on the order of 97% of the returns for the entire category of venture capital in that year. So venture capital is such an extreme feast or famine business. You are either in one of the fifteen or you’re not. Or you are in one of the two hundred, or you are not. And so the big thing that we’re looking for, no matter which sort of particular criteria we talked about, they all have the characteristics that you are looking for the extreme outlier.

Ron Conway on bootstrapping before startup funding:

Bootstrap for as long as you can. I met with one of the best founders in tech who’s starting a new company and I said to her “Well, when are you going to raise money?” “I might not,” and I go, “That is awesome.” Never forget the bootstrap.

Reality Check on Startup Dreams and Clichés

My Friday video for today is another TED talk, one of the best from 2015, targeting entrepreneurs, dreams, and getting things done. I call it a reality check on startup dreams, and she (Bel Pesce, from Brazil, successful entrepreneur) calls it 5 way to kill your dreams. How to kill dreams? Expect overnight success. Believe the fault is someone else’s. She reminds us about work, steps, and the journey.  Nicely done talk, only six minutes.

The link directly to the talk on the TED site is: 5 Ways to Kill Your Dreams.

My Fish Bowl Story of Marketing Mistakes

Here’s a mistake I made that taught me a lot and helped me teach others.

The Mistake

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Many years ago, I took a new product – early business planning software – to its first trade show. We did the standard booth thing, brought along products, and sell sheets, business cards, and so forth. And we put a plastic fishbowl on top of our main table, in front of a large sign that said “Free Drawing. Drop your business card here for a free business planning software.”

Each of the three days, at the end of the day, we drew a card from the bowl. Later we sent the winners their software. And when the trade show was done, we ended up with four fishbowls full of business cards; in fact we had more than 500 cards.

And those cards were completely useless to us. The people who left them weren’t really leads for us. They didn’t actually want business planning software. They had brought cards to the trade show and they dropped those cards into every box, hat, or bowl that offered them something free. The leads were way more expensive to follow up than what they yielded in sales when we did. Thank heavens we had the sense to test a few dozen first, before we went to the expense of getting them all typed into an accessible list.

The Correction

The following year we took the same product to the same trade show and the same fish bowl too. That second year, however, we put a sign by the bowl that said: “For more information about Business Plan Pro, drop your business card here.”

After that trade show we ended up with a few dozen good leads – dozens, not hundreds. Those people were actually interested in what we were selling. Calling them back was worth the effort.

The Lesson

I’ve used this story often in teaching and seminars and managing my own company because to me it illustrates the importance of target marketing and focus. In this example, quality of leads is much more important than quantity. Hundreds of bad leads are worth nothing, while a few dozen good leads have real value.

What distinguishes the good leads from the bad leads is their interest. People walking the aisles at a trade show drop their business cards in any fish bowl offering something free, whether they are interested or not in what that exhibitor is selling. We didn’t want a lot of cards. We wanted cards from people interested in our specific product, business planning software, and not cards from anybody (via lucica at dress head).  The marketing follow-up was expensive , whether it was inputting data from business cards or mailing information, and the marketing yield was good with well-targeted prospects and bad with generalized prospects.

Some businesses depend more on targeting than others. Think about that for your business. Do you sell to everybody? Or do you sell to a specialized group? What kind of fishbowl do you want?