What follows builds upon my previous post, Fixing the VC Industry, and will act as a foundation for future posts. The conversation that my last post generated was incredible. I’m humbled and inspired by the kind words and the amount of interest it generated. Thank you.
________________
The life of a start-up, from brilliant thought to the point where the company scales (thus ending the “start-up†period of the company), consists of three distinct periods. In each period, the start-up finds itself requiring different help and support from VCs. An innovative venture capitalist can obtain a competitive advantage by providing the start-up, in the first two stages, with assistance that doesn’t come from traditional VCs. The third stage mainly requires ‘traditional’ VC services (access to large funds, …) and offers less opportunity for innovation.
Stage 1
Innovation: Incubating Ideas
Innovation, from the perspective of a start-up, consists of two phases and starts with a brainwave, kicking off Phase I innovation, and ends with a product, signaling the conclusion of Phase II innovation.
Phase I innovation is the process of taking that something that wakes you up in the middle of the night – a moment of insight, a brainwave, … – and turning it into a well rounded idea. Phase II innovation is the process of taking the idea and turning it into a product.
Innovative thoughts and great ideas are not a scarce commodity. Brilliant people have brilliant thoughts all of the time. The cost to the entrepreneur, in Phase I innovation, is time – time to fully think through a thought. This step rarely limits innovation.
Innovation starts to become limited when the entrepreneur is asked to spend more than just their time. Phase II innovation generally requires money to develop the product and this is the step that limits innovation.
Unfortunately for the entrepreneur, this is the time when raising funds is the most “expensiveâ€. In terms of the cost of exchanging their currency (ownership) for what they need (money) the entrepreneur will never find a more expensive time. I briefly touched on this idea in my “Less & More†post:
Less Initial Funding. The business plan is untested, the market is unproven. Is money ever more expensive?
The aim during this stage should be to help the entrepreneur decrease the amount of money that will be needed. There has been an attempt to “fix†this innovation roadblock over the past few years: Incubators.
A VC not happy simply being an ATM should create an incubation-like atmosphere to help support the innovation.
There is a lot of assistance that the entrepreneur could use during this period and creating an incubation-like atmosphere is probably the best way for a VC to structure the support network. Let’s examine a number of services that the VC could (should?) provide:
IT: There is a true cost (time and money) associated with setting up the proper IT infrastructure. Having an infrastructure in place and simply allowing the entrepreneur access to it helps lower the cost.
Graphic Design: As the product develops the start-up needs to establish a corporate identity. Finding the right way to communicate with graphic designers is a task and takes time. Having someone who can be a conduit between the entrepreneur and the graphic design company will definitely speed up the process, and the relationship will help depress costs.
Bookkeeping/Accounting: The entrepreneur should not spend time sorting the receipts stuffed in the shoebox. The entrepreneur can’t justify a high priced accountant, but would surly benefit by having access to one.
Engineering support, relationships with machine shops, IP support, R&D tax credit expertise, and on and on and on. This is by no means even close to a complete list of services that an incubator-like atmosphere could offer an entrepreneur. The benefits are huge. Too huge to ignore. This idea is already being practiced and will only increase in occurrence in the years to come.
These incubator-like services add incredible value to a start-up. They significantly lower the requirement for funds at a time when raising cash is the most expensive. They also take tedious but necessary tasks away from the entrepreneur – allowing him/her to focus exclusively on the most important thing during this stage… creating an incredible product.
Once the product is made - and is believed to be incredible - the start-up enters the next stage.
Stage 2
Commercialization: Providing Proof
With a newly complete product many would argue it’s time to scale. It’s not. It’s time to validate. This stage is about proving value propositions, ironing out positioning statements, and figuring out the right foothold to use for market penetration.
Why? Because of the high level of uncertainty it’s expensive to fund the company at this point. An innovative VC should help the entrepreneur (and their investment) by helping to lower the price of money. This can be done by validating value statements, finding initial product users, and locating the correct penetration point. An entrepreneur doesn’t have the skills, resources, or time to successfully complete these tasks, but a VC team does.
Prior to scaling it’s critical to test the various value propositions on potential (small) customers. The testing of value propositions will help find and refine the best one. This will mean that when it’s time to scale, the product is launched with its best benefit(s) forward. It’s crucial that the testing of the various value propositions occur on small customers because the cost of screwing up potential future business – if the tested value proposition is wrong - is small.
This is where a lot of entrepreneurs fall into the faulty logic of: “Why are we focusing on small_company? We should be spending all of our time on large_company. Small_company isn’t worth our time, we need the home runâ€.
You can swing for the fences and miss. You can chase good money after bad and buy yourself another trip to the plate. And you can swing for the fences and miss again.
Why not load the bases with a number of small singles and then hit the grand slam?
That’s what validating the value proposition is all about.
Finding the foothold is different, yet equally important. When the product launches it needs a group of customers to give it some traction. Why leave it up to the customers to search the product out when it scales?
Here’s what I mean: there are products that are launched and then languish. After some time a small group of customers start using the product in a unique way, getting (potentially different) value from it, and this new market segment causes the product to become a success. Why leave this “discoveryâ€, by what should have been the proper market segment, up to chance? Don’t. Go out and identify that small group of users in the right market segment.
This group of users will be the foothold market. It may be an entirely different group than first thought of when the initial brainwave occurred. But the right value proposition(s) have now been identified and there will be a market segment that will benefit greatly from one of the value propositions. Identifying the proper market segment will help lower the price of money.
What can an innovative VC do to help in this stage? Lots. This is where a VC team that is filled with skilled players, from a number of disciplines, can really create a competitive advantage.
First of all, there is significant skill behind identifying potential value propositions, testing them out with potential customers, outlining possible foothold markets, and validating these hypotheses. A VC team, doing this on a regular basis, can develop an expertise at these processes (practice makes perfect) and can assist, or lead, the entrepreneur through these steps. Also, this is where the VCs rolodex becomes very handy. Testing out value statements on friendly small businesses is much better than testing out value statements on random small businesses. The VC can mine their rolodex and leverage it to produce friendly test sites.
Second of all, this is the stage where the company would benefit from various experts assuming roles within the company for short periods of time. A diverse VC team could, uniquely, parachute support in for a temporary basis and provide world-class skill at a time when the start-up needs it but can’t justify it.
Part of “providing proof†is creating financial forecasts that are as accurate as possible. The start-up better not have a CFO at this stage, but an individual with CFO skills would definitely add value. The VC team could provide a CFO-like individual on an as-needed basis. 2 hours a week. 2 weeks. 2 months. Whatever is necessary.
The same is true of high-level managers, skilled operations individuals, and marketers. The company can’t justify hiring world-class experts in these roles but would benefit by having access to one. The innovative VC team can provide this team of support and earn a competitive advantage.
After identifying the right foothold segment and the proper value statements, the company is ready to scale – the price of money is falling. Lots has been proven, and the VC has provided key support along the way.
Stage 3
Scale: Making Money
You’ve created a beautiful product, you’ve proven its value and validated the market size. Now is the time to scale. This is the stage when it’s time “to make boatloads of moneyâ€. My brief comment from my “LESS & MORE†post sums up this stage nicely:
More Funding Later on. You’ve tested your business plan. You’ve proven your market. Will money ever be less expensive?
This is where the ‘traditional’ VC comes in. They’ve spent the post bubble years raising funds that are atrociously large. They’re looking to make incredibly large investments. They need to – the size of their fund dictates this. These are the people to go to when it’s time to scale.
To scale fast, efficiently, and with the required capital the venture is going to need significant cash. Sounds like a match made in heaven. The cost to the entrepreneur and the early venture capitalists? Very little, thanks to the commercialization stage. With a proven product, value, and market the start-up will find that this is the cheapest stage - equity exchanged for cash – of the process.
And isn’t that what the goal should be? Raise the most cash not only when it’s the most needed, but when it’s the cheapest.
Two of the three stages provide areas where an innovative VC can uniquely offer support to the entrepreneur. And this support helps the start-up out when it reaches the third stage and needs to raise the largest amount of money from the traditional venture capitalists. By offering a diversified support team to the entrepreneur and assisting with the commercialization phase, the VC can disrupt the traditional players and gain a significant competitive advantage.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Fixing the VC Industry: An Industry Ready to be Disrupted
- » Pandora:Blink as Last.FM:?
- BROWSE / IN Startup Strategy
- « Fixing the VC Industry: An Industry Ready to be Disrupted
- » VentureWeek - I’ve been podcasted
COMMENTS / 20 COMMENTS
Advisory Capital? Not When VCs Do It Better at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Feb 25 06 at 3:06 am[…] Why can’t an innovative VC firm compete, and gain a competitive advantage by realizing this trend in tech start-ups and adjust their service offering to fill the gap? […]
Incubating Ideas: Yes, and… at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Mar 01 06 at 3:16 am[…] In the first stage of a start-up, Phase I Innovation is an ideal place to implement “Yes, and…” idea incubation. […]
Moving From Geek to Consumer: Fixing Web 2.0 Start-up Woes at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Aug 19 06 at 12:14 am[…] When the problem is geek the solution is simple: down-geek. How does a Web 2.0 venture do this? By paying attention to, and executing in, all three stages of a start-up: innovation, commercialization, and scale. Many companies, especially Web 2.0 plays, pay little-to-no attention to the second stage - commercialization. It’s this lack of focus, at a critical stage, that leads to failure. By refocusing attention and properly executing throughout this vital stage, Web 2.0 companies can avoid the problems that plague, and ultimately doom, Web 2.0s. […]
Bridging the Equity Gap Faced By Early-Stage Companies at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Sep 16 06 at 2:43 pm[…] If you’ve read Disruptive Thoughts for a while you know that this equity gap, and the opportunity it has created for early-stage invesetors, has been an area of interest for a number of months. In January I outlined a few reasons for the growing gap and the opportunity for investors who brought value to companies bridging the equity gap. […]
What Riya Did Wrong (or, Why Companies Should Respect The Commercialization Phase; or, How To Make Expensive Funding Cheap) at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Sep 17 06 at 6:31 pm[…] What Peter is describing is Riya working through the second stage for start-ups - commercialization: providing proof. […]
Required Reading (or, Revisiting a Favourite Topic) at Disruptive Thoughts added these pithy words on Mar 13 07 at 7:54 pm[…] time readers will recognize the idea from earlier Disruptive Thoughts discussions on said topic (and in advice to […]
are medical insurance contributions added these pithy words on Oct 03 08 at 6:55 pmare medical insurance contributions…
alumna Eskimo Laredo Banks …
bingo hall graceville florida added these pithy words on Oct 05 08 at 6:00 pmbingo hall graceville florida…
derail swans maternity!long calcium.Haag …
Chad Sakonchick added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 8:23 amFantastic followup! While reading, I kept comparing your suggestions to what my needs were during different stages of my development. I couldn’t agree with you more. This “incubator” style of VCing would allow many many more small businesses to come to fruition. During the early stages they can innovate and develop while someone else takes care of the business aspect. The VC’s can keep tabs on whether the trepps are going in the right direction with focus groups and testing. Once the product has gone through the gauntlet, they’re ready for the big money to take them to the market. Spending less money on IF’s and more money on WILL’s will prevent another bubble and give the economy the stability it needs.
DK added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 8:54 amGreat follow-up! It sounds like what you’re describing is along the lines of what Fred Wilson is doing: more rational valuations, more niche, full understanding of the product, etc. As for incubators, I will try and find some literature but my understanding is that formal incubators (ie government funded geographical ones) are unsuccessful, likely for many reasons. However, a model based on the principles above is being used by Y Combinator and seems to have early success. It is interesting for me to consider how it would work in healthcare. The VC generalist will be pushed out by the VC niche. How can a VC firm realistically support accurate valuations, good due diligence, strong commercial networks across health IT/pharma/biotech/device in their portfolio companies? I will give this some more thought, but I bet that the Family Doctor VC fund (”life sciences fund”) will be pushed out by the Specialist (”oncology VC, cardiology VC, radiology VC”). The Family Doctor will move up the chain to later stage investing where their generalist skills are more appropriate. Another VC value-added I’m trying to wrap around is the bundling effect. I think it was alluded to in the book Starting Something, where KP created communities of startups that would drive the adoption of the others’ products. I’m trying to think of that equivalent in healthcare VC. Would it be VC partnering with hospitals? I’ve found hospitals are brutally slow in considering new products, thus hindering their development phase for a startup. Will have to give it some thought… back to work!
Chad Sakonchick added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 11:23 amFantastic followup! While reading, I kept comparing your suggestions to what my needs were during different stages of my development. I couldn’t agree with you more. This “incubator” style of VCing would allow many many more small businesses to come to fruition. During the early stages they can innovate and develop while someone else takes care of the business aspect. The VC’s can keep tabs on whether the trepps are going in the right direction with focus groups and testing. Once the product has gone through the gauntlet, they’re ready for the big money to take them to the market.
Spending less money on IF’s and more money on WILL’s will prevent another bubble and give the economy the stability it needs.
Daniel Popov added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 11:53 amI just posted a long piece on the earlier post by Fraser. His post today is an excellent elucidation of the earlier idea. In light of what I argue in my response to the earlier piece - is there not an over-focus on ‘marketing’ as opposed to ‘technological innovation’? This goes to the core of what we consider ‘innovation’ - constructing new ways for the consumer to utilize the internet is extremely important. Yet it remains only one of the many different forms of innovation and it may not be the one that is the most ‘productivity enhancing’ or, simply put, ‘profitable’. Why are we ignoring the sort of innovation where the bulk of effort goes to the programming at the beginning and the marketing is secondary? My earlier post noted that ’security, firewalls and encryption software’ is a major and growing segment of the US software start-up industry. Here, a startup would need much more of the ‘incubator support’ at the first stage rather than the verification and scaling of product. Not to belabour the point, but isnt this where the subject of offshoring may come in again? If the startup process is ‘labour intensive’, with large code-writing requirements, then this is where part of the incubator function for the VC could be to facilitate linking the US startup with a (propriotary?) offshoring center thus significantly reducing the development costs (if this break-up of the development process is carefully managed)
DK added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 11:54 amGreat follow-up!
It sounds like what you’re describing is along the lines of what Fred Wilson is doing: more rational valuations, more niche, full understanding of the product, etc.
As for incubators, I will try and find some literature but my understanding is that formal incubators (ie government funded geographical ones) are unsuccessful, likely for many reasons. However, a model based on the principles above is being used by Y Combinator and seems to have early success.It is interesting for me to consider how it would work in healthcare. The VC generalist will be pushed out by the VC niche. How can a VC firm realistically support accurate valuations, good due diligence, strong commercial networks across health IT/pharma/biotech/device in their portfolio companies? I will give this some more thought, but I bet that the Family Doctor VC fund (”life sciences fund”) will be pushed out by the Specialist (”oncology VC, cardiology VC, radiology VC”). The Family Doctor will move up the chain to later stage investing where their generalist skills are more appropriate.
Another VC value-added I’m trying to wrap around is the bundling effect. I think it was alluded to in the book Starting Something, where KP created communities of startups that would drive the adoption of the others’ products. I’m trying to think of that equivalent in healthcare VC. Would it be VC partnering with hospitals? I’ve found hospitals are brutally slow in considering new products, thus hindering their development phase for a startup. Will have to give it some thought…
back to work!
Daniel Popov added these pithy words on Jan 31 06 at 2:53 pmI just posted a long piece on the earlier post by Fraser. His post today is an excellent elucidation of the earlier idea. In light of what I argue in my response to the earlier piece - is there not an over-focus on ‘marketing’ as opposed to ‘technological innovation’? This goes to the core of what we consider ‘innovation’ - constructing new ways for the consumer to utilize the internet is extremely important. Yet it remains only one of the many different forms of innovation and it may not be the one that is the most ‘productivity enhancing’ or, simply put, ‘profitable’.
Why are we ignoring the sort of innovation where the bulk of effort goes to the programming at the beginning and the marketing is secondary? My earlier post noted that ’security, firewalls and encryption software’ is a major and growing segment of the US software start-up industry. Here, a startup would need much more of the ‘incubator support’ at the first stage rather than the verification and scaling of product.
Not to belabour the point, but isnt this where the subject of offshoring may come in again? If the startup process is ‘labour intensive’, with large code-writing requirements, then this is where part of the incubator function for the VC could be to facilitate linking the US startup with a (propriotary?) offshoring center thus significantly reducing the development costs (if this break-up of the development process is carefully managed)
Fraser added these pithy words on Feb 01 06 at 5:59 pmHi Daniel, Your two comments have had me thinking over the past few days - thank you for sharing your views and insights. I appreciate the amount of thought you’ve provided me with. I’m going to talk about your other comment in a future post but I want to touch on a few things with respect to the comment you left above. To clarify, these two posts weren’t focused solely on consumer-centric internet applications. The ideas presented throughout them are intended to address venture capital, innovation, and commercialization across a wide range of industry. (It just happens that a lot of discussion occurs online around web applications, and the sources were easier to find. If anything the arguement is not faulty. At fault is a lazy author who was too excited to get an evolving thought out of his head and into a presentable form — I should have spent more time finding examples in a variety of industry) You’re right that there needs to be a balance between technological innovation and marketing. I don’t believe that one is of a higher importance than the other. You can’t get very far broadcasting a great message about a lousy product. You can’t get very far hiding a great technological innovation in your closet. The two need to go hand in hand and are of equal importance. Innovation, commercialization, and marketing are all critical when introducing a new product. A big aim of the incubator-like atmosphere should be finding solutions for labour intensive processes. Whether through outsourcing to offshore centres or a local shop down the street, a VC could provide a well managed relationship that can easily be tapped into.
Fraser added these pithy words on Feb 01 06 at 6:06 pmLooking forward: DK, you touch on it a bit with your “incubators are unsuccessful, likely for many reasons” thought. I’ll explore that when my brain finishes cycling on it, but that’s exactly why I’ve used “incubator-like” throughout my post/comments.
Fraser added these pithy words on Feb 01 06 at 8:59 pmHi Daniel,
Your two comments have had me thinking over the past few days - thank you for sharing your views and insights. I appreciate the amount of thought you’ve provided me with.
I’m going to talk about your other comment in a future post but I want to touch on a few things with respect to the comment you left above.
To clarify, these two posts weren’t focused solely on consumer-centric internet applications. The ideas presented throughout them are intended to address venture capital, innovation, and commercialization across a wide range of industry. (It just happens that a lot of discussion occurs online around web applications, and the sources were easier to find. If anything the arguement is not faulty. At fault is a lazy author who was too excited to get an evolving thought out of his head and into a presentable form — I should have spent more time finding examples in a variety of industry)
You’re right that there needs to be a balance between technological innovation and marketing. I don’t believe that one is of a higher importance than the other. You can’t get very far broadcasting a great message about a lousy product. You can’t get very far hiding a great technological innovation in your closet. The two need to go hand in hand and are of equal importance. Innovation, commercialization, and marketing are all critical when introducing a new product.
A big aim of the incubator-like atmosphere should be finding solutions for labour intensive processes. Whether through outsourcing to offshore centres or a local shop down the street, a VC could provide a well managed relationship that can easily be tapped into.
Fraser added these pithy words on Feb 01 06 at 9:06 pmLooking forward: DK, you touch on it a bit with your “incubators are unsuccessful, likely for many reasons” thought. I’ll explore that when my brain finishes cycling on it, but that’s exactly why I’ve used “incubator-like” throughout my post/comments.
Daniel Popov added these pithy words on Feb 06 06 at 2:39 pmFraser, sorry for the long pause - was swamped at work. what you say is true, no doubt. What makes me think is not the relative importance of marketing vs. development (crudely put) but rather whether some sectors/IT products demand a tightly-knit development team and the attempts to ‘de-knit’ such a team, be it through the use of outsourcing, offshoring or using open-source software, may be deleterious on the innovative capacity of these firms. I am curious to find out whether startups really feel a competitive pressure to get their costs further down and are thus embracing new product development (and potentially business) models. An ‘incubator-VC’ may be important here - but has that not happened already? We know that there is a lot of money chasing few deals (a lot of e-buzz about that) - in that case we should see the VCs trying to differentiate themselves and providing a more hands-on help to startups would be just the answer. Has that happened? I do not know enough (comments welcome here) but if it has not then it is b/c the VC does not see value in that (nor the startup, for that matter, or else there would be a demand)
Daniel Popov added these pithy words on Feb 06 06 at 5:39 pmFraser, sorry for the long pause - was swamped at work.
what you say is true, no doubt. What makes me think is not the relative importance of marketing vs. development (crudely put) but rather whether some sectors/IT products demand a tightly-knit development team and the attempts to ‘de-knit’ such a team, be it through the use of outsourcing, offshoring or using open-source software, may be deleterious on the innovative capacity of these firms. I am curious to find out whether startups really feel a competitive pressure to get their costs further down and are thus embracing new product development (and potentially business) models. An ‘incubator-VC’ may be important here - but has that not happened already? We know that there is a lot of money chasing few deals (a lot of e-buzz about that) - in that case we should see the VCs trying to differentiate themselves and providing a more hands-on help to startups would be just the answer. Has that happened? I do not know enough (comments welcome here) but if it has not then it is b/c the VC does not see value in that (nor the startup, for that matter, or else there would be a demand)
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.







