‘BDC’ Tags

Championship: A rising tide floats all ships

This is the 26th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Championship: A rising tide floats all shipsBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

When we spoke back in June with Jon Bradford of Springboard, he made the valid point that the vision and drive of a few dedicated people is more important to the success of a startup accelerator than its location. Ottawa entrepreneur and community champion Scott Annan lives and breathes this philosophy. The founder of Mercury Grove and Network Hippo has set out to prove that, while location doesn’t matter, Ottawa nonetheless has significant advantages that can be levered to its advantage.

Last week, we spoke with Scott about his efforts to launch in Ottawa this fall a startup accelerator with a number of other private and public sector stakeholders. He talked about what this program hopes to achieve, the unique strengths of the Ottawa market and how the accelerator’s “hyper-local” approach makes it unique. Today we conclude with his thoughts on how this kind of initiative benefits everyone involved, what else it needs to be successful, and the roles its various stakeholders must play.

How will the fund work? What benefit will startups gain from it and what return on investment will the fund’s supporters see?

There’s definitely a sharing in success with mentors and the broader community and just the benefit from having a stronger network here in Ottawa is huge … by creating a network that new entrepreneurs can benefit from, everyone within that network benefits. That’s a main objective of ours.

From an investor’s standpoint, there’s generally the same model as other accelerators where the benefit is they have the opportunity to be first in on a next round. They get the pick of the cream of the crop when companies finish the program and are looking to raise additional funding … often angels, but increasingly VCs, are saying they’re getting locked out on further rounds because they weren’t in early enough. It’s a fairly low-cost way for them to improve their deal flow. So I think everybody benefits from it.

The other thing that’s important … is that it’s not a black mark on you if you fail. What we’re giving is an opportunity for smart and talented people who are based in Ottawa to stay in Ottawa, learn a lot about entrepreneurship, build a great product and we also develop skills. It doesn’t mean that every one of them will be a billion-dollar company, but we’re helping people develop talent that can be leveraged in other types of businesses or in the government as well so there is a lower chance that people are just going to finish our program and leave Ottawa.

What do you think are the key ingredients any city must have to build a strong tech sector? What are the crucial roles that must be played by government and more seasoned entrepreneurs and executives?

For entrepreneurs and executives, being active in the community and supporting other entrepreneurs and programs that are happening is crucial. Really being able to develop that strong network and allocating time to share your thoughts and experience and expertise with other companies is critical. It helps not just the entrepreneurs, but creates an environment of collaboration. We’ve got to realize here in Ottawa that our opportunities from a client acquisition and business standpoint are largely outside of Ottawa and so there has to be less competition and more cooperation here. So, again, the idea of getting excited about all the different companies here and not being too myopic about our own businesses.

From a community standpoint there has to be access to capital. So that’s one of the critical things you’re seeing. Montreal is really growing right now because there’s access to funding … so having access to not just something like the accelerator, but to additional follow-on money, whether that’s local or not. Historically the difficulty has been that, where there is money in other areas, (those investors) felt that there isn’t a good strong local lead or a partner here that they can trust in order to watch over their investment. So the capital doesn’t necessarily need to be in Ottawa, but the entrepreneurs need to have access to capital …

From a government standpoint, I really think it is a partnership with private sector in being able to offer matching funds or ways of being able to support that access to funds, so I think they play a support role. What you are seeing with organizations such as BDC is that they’re trying to create an environment so that when the bigger funds like the Teachers fund and these bigger Canadian institutional investors come back to tech there’s going to be a landscape where they can play. The government doesn’t play a lead role in it, but a supportive role.

What would you say to other technology executives who could be, or should be, playing this role of incubator and champion for new venture creation?

I would say to give me a call, though there is a high likelihood that I have already called them. This is a community play, not a Mercury Grove play. My thought has been since the beginning that the only benefit for us is that a rising tide floats all ships. There is no financial gain in these kinds of programs for (the senior entrepreneurs and executives who take part). The benefit is creating an ecosystem in which everyone participates … just get more involved and participate in things that are going on around the city …

One question that always surprises me that no asks me, and you haven’t explicitly asked me either is “so why are you doing this? What’s in it for you?”

Ottawa is at a stage right now where we have the talent in the city, we’ve got some amazing growth companies, we’ve got access to extended networks in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and the Valley, and down in Boston and New York. If you take all of the entrepreneurs and active people in Ottawa we’ve got a pretty amazing extended network. There is this feeling in Ottawa that people are successful despite Ottawa and there’s no reason to have that kind of an attitude.

It’s an exciting time in Ottawa and I think it’s time to rally, not people in the tech sector but in the community as a whole … we should be proud of tech, we should get over this hangover from the late ’90s and 2000s or the feeling that we’re not Silicon Valley and you can’t build a business in Ottawa. It’s not true and there’s lots of examples to show that … the more that everyone pulls together and creates that ecosystem, the more that everybody benefits. It enables me to be able to live in as beautiful and awesome a place as Ottawa and still have a competitive and world-class business and I wish that for everybody who wants to build a great business – they don’t have to leave Ottawa in order to do it.

So the benefit to Mercury Grove and to me personally is that I get to spend more time, have more exposure, to world-class entrepreneurs, talented people who can help me lift my game and help me have the same energy I would have if I were living in San Francisco or the Valley.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Championship: Don’t count Ottawa out

This is the 25th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Championship: Don’t count Ottawa outBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

Scott Annan is no stranger to the Ottawa startup community. The founder of software development and web consultancy Mercury Grove and social utility Network Hippo fits the mould of what we describe as a champion. In addition to his regular involvement with various organizations and events around town that help nascent entrepreneurs get their technology to market, he hosts DemoCamp and opens up Mercury Grove’s HQ as a co-working space.

A couple of weeks ago, Scott announced that he and a host of other stakeholders in the Ottawa technology community will launch this fall a new incubator and accelerator fund that will provide up to $25,000 in seed financing to eligible participants. Five to 10 startups will be accepted into the first intake of the four-month program, which will operate out of the Mercury Grove office.

The accelerator is taking its inspiration from similar initiatives, such as Year One Labs in Montreal, Y Combinator in Silicon Valley and TechStars.( A few weeks back we got great insight into what makes TechStars tick in an interview with Nicole Glaros.) However, what makes this accelerator unique, according to Scott, is its “hyper local focus” in which participants must be located in this region.

We recently caught up with Scott to talk about why he is doing this, why Ottawa needs it and how the city once touted as Silicon Valley North has a lot more going for it than some might think.

What will you be doing with this new accelerator fund?

We’re creating a local accelerator fund where we’ll be providing mentorship, a strong network, seed funding and office space for eight to 10 startups per year. We’ll provide funding of up to $25,000 for startups in order to help them develop a minimum viable product or prototype that can be taken to market. The program lasts four months.

Mercury Grove has already been active in supporting the startup community. What made you decide to take it to this next level?

There were a couple of different things. First, we wanted to formalize some of the things we were already doing within the city. Second, there’re a lot of talented entrepreneurs, post-entrepreneurs in this city and we really wanted to create a strong local network where they can support each other as well as up-and-coming talent. Ottawa’s got a heritage of bootstrapping web and mobile startups and we think if we can get the rest of the larger community involved we can accelerate that initial process in order to take companies to, if not profitability, then the next stage a lot faster.

How did you go about validating this idea to ensure it was needed and will work in the Ottawa market?

I think it’s important to note that this isn’t a zero sum game. The more people who are doing anything for entrepreneurs is a benefit. So this isn’t a question of other things not working or there not already being a strong community …

There’s a terrible perception that we are not creating great products or companies in Ottawa, which just isn’t true, but there are islands of entrepreneurs in lots of different areas … we are seeing a large appetite for entrepreneurship within the city and that’s evidenced by things like DemoCamp, Fresh Founders, Gen Y, the Ottawa Network and OCRI. So this isn’t a question of saying there’s latent or nascent opportunity, but that there’s lots of energy right now and with a focus in this space I think we can have a really successful accelerator program.

We’ve got TechStars and Y Combinator, which has been around for a long time, and a number of other accelerators in North America as well as Europe and … all have a model similar to the one we’re proposing. The key difference is that we’re focusing exclusively on the Ottawa market. What you see with a lot of accelerators is more of a university model, where people are choosing the university they want to go to for their accelerated training. What we can attest to is that Ottawa has a very strong software heritage, a lot of experience in building world-class businesses and software in this city …. in a smaller ecosystem we have a lot of the things that other cities just don’t have.

So we are looking at more of a hyper-local model and saying you don’t have to leave Ottawa in order to get the same kinds of training and play on the world stage … so this is really a local play …

Entrepreneurs are not all born, they’re made and when you look at Silicon Valley, they’ve got an ecosystem that supports entrepreneurs, that supports entrepreneurship. People get excited about entrepreneurship and I think a lot of that success comes from that community. If we create that same kind of community here in Ottawa I think it can generate a lot more successes. It doesn’t mean that we have to be exporting our technology and our entrepreneurs.

I know you are not yet ready to name your partners, but can you tell me in general terms where the support for this is coming from?

We’ve got two different sides. From an involvement and making the program a success as far as operating it, finding the talent, supporting the talent, it’s strong with entrepreneurs and the service sector – people who are already actively involved in the community and they’re really excited to help ensure the program is successful.

From a financial standpoint, it’s a cross mix of large institutional, VC, angel, private and some government as well. That mix is important, not just for the funds to be successful, but for the investors; they want to see that it is not too strongly swayed in any one direction. The institutional and public want to see private investors and vice versa.

We’ll conclude next week with thoughts on why this kind of initiate benefits everyone involved, what are the key ingredients for it to be successful, and what roles various private and public sector stakeholders must play.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Government: Tech companies need a hand up, not a hand out

As part of our ongoing series examining the ecosystem necessary to bring technology to market, we asked Andrew Fisher, executive vice-president at Wesley Clover, to share his insights on public policy issues and the culture of entrepreneurship. This is the first of his commentaries and we welcome your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Government: Tech companies need a hand up, not a hand outBy Andrew Fisher

Businesses in Canada have a lot going for them. From the SR&ED program, to other services provided by Export Development Canada, the Business Development Bank of Canada and DFAIT, Canadian technology companies are certainly not starved for choice compared to most other jurisdictions.

Still, there are tweaks that could be made to improve the system and enable those areas that offer the greatest potential gain for the country as a whole. Nor is a rich buffet of government support and subsidy paid out of the public tax base necessarily a good thing.

What is innovation?

Let’s start off with a definition of innovation. To me it’s all about revenue and wealth. Innovation is only truly effective if it has value, if people demand it and will pay for it. It’s the commercialization of brainpower. Your ideas have monetary value and, as a result, they sell.

However, as a nation, our public policy intended to support economic growth is far too focused on R&D. In fact, it is far more likely to pick a loser on the research side rather than pick a winner on the development and commercialization side. In my experience dealing with politicians and bureaucrats at all levels, government absolutely shies away from any sort of incentive, reinforcement or support for people who are commercialization-centric.

Why? I don’t know. Maybe they’ve been burned in the past. But overall, they are reluctant to allocate tax dollars to commercialization activities out of fear that it will spark a negative knee jerk reaction from the population.

Instead, money keeps getting poured into bailouts for the auto sector, or into “stimulus packages” that are really just short-term construction jobs. How many bridges have been built, potholes filled, over the past two years? Compare that to how many technology companies received financial assistance to help build their sales channels.

The problem is that government in Canada tends to provide a common suite of services that have to be accessible to everybody. But there are good businesses and there are bad businesses. Bad businesses learn how to do a really good job of sucking up a lion’s share of the available subsidies. Instead of working to generate strong sales channels and scalable businesses, they become quite good at wooing various funding mechanisms and taking advantage of various programs. They have to; it’s the only way they know to survive.

The good businesses, meanwhile, don’t really have the time to futz around with those government folks and operate at a bureaucratic pace. Instead, they go out and sell their product, raise capital, whatever it is they need to do to get the job done. They don’t actually need that subsidy. Sure, it’s good to have when it comes, but the people running these companies are definitely not dependent upon it.

Now, I don’t want to sound like a complainer or a whiner here. No matter where you are in the world, you have to go out and fight everyday with every tool in your toolbox to win some business. And as I said, Canada provides some great tools. The SR&ED program is among the best in the world in terms of supporting R&D. But do we weaken companies because we give them too much subsidy?

R&D in a vacuum doesn’t create wealth

R&D is typically five percent of the budget in what is deemed a going concern. From a SR&ED perspective, it has to be risk, pure “R.” Where is the emphasis on commercialization? This is one example of where we need to rethink and tweak our existing policies to give wealth creation its due. Not that we should scrap SR&ED by any means, but it definitely needs an overhaul. The model needs to be adapted to also stimulate activities that are going to generate sales.

You can write software code till the cows come home and it might create a job in the short-term but unless someone’s out selling it, it’s not going to create all the other jobs that are needed to launch a viable company.

The flipside of this is that R&D done well can employ 20 people. That was the government’s original thought process – if we subsidize R&D, that one person will go out and hire 19 other people. But those 19 other people are in sales and marketing, operations and finance, positions you can’t fill if you are not generating revenue. Perhaps you have secured startup cash from venture capitalists or other investors to bring those people in, but you are still going to need a commercialization strategy that will bring your technology to market in whatever form customers are willing to pay for. The SR&ED program isn’t going to help you with that.

The system needs to be updated. I mentioned up top DFAIT and those other entities. They can help you generate leads. They can even help you qualify leads. However, they’re not mandated to do so. Compensation for their people isn’t based on these metrics.

Holding government accountable

The good news is that the senior people at DFAIT and elsewhere are looking at their internal processes and asking the right questions about what they have to do to generate more sales for Canadian companies. On the other hand, the majority of our elected officials just don’t get business. They do, however, understand what is most likely to get them the next vote. They understand the political currency that comes from signing a $10-million cheque for cancer research but not for helping a technology company build its export sales.

We as voters need to stand up and change that and make them more accountable. Businesses need to be provided with tools that will drive revenue, with benchmarks and balances that will weed the good companies from the bad and reward entrepreneurial achievement.

Next time, I’ll talk more about how government needs to pick winners and losers and incent those industries that offer the highest potential return for Canada.

Andrew Fisher manages a portfolio of ICT and digital media companies globally. In addition he also acts as a business prime for the Wesley Clover affiliate program, which connects teams of new graduates with tier one network operator, service provider and communications equipment manufacturers globally. These partnerships provide invaluable customer insight and a route to market for each of the affiliates.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lean startup: It’s the Canadian way

As part of our ongoing series examining the ecosystem necessary to bring technology to market, we asked serial entrepreneur Jason Flick to share some of his insights on getting tech to market with lean thinking. This is the first of his commentaries and we welcome your feedback.

FM Series banner headART 1 300x145 Lean startup: It’s the Canadian wayBy Jason Flick

You would have to be living under a rock not to have heard about the billions in venture capital flooding into the Valley. Venture firms raised over $60 billion in Q1 2011 alone. Some companies are ramping from zero to billions in revenue in years rather than decades. Students fresh out of school are being offered six-figure salaries, four-month signing bonuses and iPads to come on board. (VentureBeat summed it up well in this recent story.)

Of course, these stories seldom report that for every company like this, there are 99 others that flounder and end up as large financial craters.

Here in Canada we would of course like to have billions in venture capital, but would we like all the headache of a “home run or nothing” mindset? Or what about young hires with salaries greater than that of a senior developer, who, spoiled by a culture of “gimme gimme,” move on to the next hot company without so much as a thank you when the perks stop coming? I wouldn’t. I would like a place where people work hard and have aspirations to build amazing businesses with growth plans that don’t require a $1 million round followed in six months by another $5 million and then of course the much needed $30 to $100 million round.

So let’s assume you are operating in a bubbling area, but you have a great business idea. How do you get it rolling? I think you need two things. The first is a method to self-fund your project. The second is a process to keep all the varied team members engaged when you may not be able to pay competitive full-time salaries (we will explore this point next week in Part II of this post).

How do you fund your unfunded company?

On Monday Francis and Leo wrote about lean startup. Here’s my take on the lean approach to getting your unfunded company funded and your product to market.

If you have an idea that solves a customer’s problem, preferably a large customer, then you should be able secure “funding” from them. This funding might come in the form of services, prepayment on the product or even as a strategic investment. While you are out doing your market research—the part where you actually talk to potential customers—seek out these types and arrange meetings by being open about the concept product you are working on and your interest in their feedback.

Being honest and upfront starts the relationship off on the right foot and encourages them to be open with you. If your product idea is indeed a fit for them, a contract will develop from it, provided you give them added incentive to take the risk. Offer them the first mover advantage with a price point that will be half of what your product will cost in full commercial release. You can also take advantage of this time to have them prepay some of the royalties, device costs and so forth up front. Remember, if you’ve made it to the negotiations stage, you’ve done very well and hold far more power than you may think.

A few dollars more

Once you have this first customer, it isn’t time to just buckle down and work hard on the deliverable. Rather, this is the best time to go in search of additional funding from government sources, angels, and friends and family. Don’t wait until the few dollars you’ve secured from the customer are running out to start this search.

Government programs such as IRAP, the Investment Accelerator Fund managed by MaRS, and Ontario Centres of Excellence are amazing resources if you are based in Canada. And don’t forget BDC and EDC. For every dollar you pull in, you can find another dollar or two from the government to match it. At YOU i Labs we were able to secure, through five different programs, well over $1 million in government grants and loans on a very small upfront investment, much of which was sweat equity. There is a very long list of programs and organizations that can help you such as Communitech, DemoCamp, Ryerson University’s DMZ, OCRI, Toronto Tech Meetup and Mobile Experience Innovation Centre.

I don’t recommend you formally ask for their help until you have that very interested, preferably signed, first customer. There are thousands of great ideas that people are trying to bring to life, but securing that first customer raises you above the noise and into the top five percent. If you start off on the wrong foot with these organizations it can be hard to build up the momentum later.

Startup isn’t a culture, startups have DNA

This road of services-to-product is fraught with traps. Many startups turn into lifestyle businesses, which are great, but it’s unlikely you’re reading this if that’s your goal. The challenge is that if a company wants to be a product company, it needs to have a culture of product and a product-oriented team even though it may be operating with a services model in those first years. With a services model, billings will be low but often the customers will be very happy. The other risk is that you build a product for that first big customer that isn’t what the larger market wants.

While you are building and deploying to your first customer you are often re-selling across their organization to secure buy-in from other decision makers. As you’re going through this process you are building the DNA for your startup. Most entrepreneurs don’t appreciate how fundamental that DNA is to their everyday operations.

A company run by a friend of mine sold its software to a very large tier one company, but when a new opportunity came up in a smaller and more nimble market where the technology was a perfect fit, they pounced. Two years later my friend and his team came to realize they couldn’t sell their process into smaller organizations. Their model just couldn’t be scaled back and simplified enough to succeed in this market. But other startups with a very different model and a lower price point where able to fly in and successfully deploy a similar technology. After this experience my friend’s company refocused and found success with tier one customers.

At Flick Software, we know we are best at large and complex mobile solutions and poor at small marketing applications that often also require creativity. We know our DNA. Know yours.

Next week I’ll help you measure your DNA and use that to keep everything on track.

Get out there and create some amazing companies!

Jason Flick is co-Founder and President of YOU i Labs and President and CEO of Flick Software, a successful serial entrepreneur and product visionary. Jason has founded half a dozen companies in the past 18 years and is advisor and executive to nearly a dozen software companies. He is passionate about the disruption mobility has created and how businesses can lever it.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From local consultancy to global service provider in two weeks

By Leo Valiquette

Communications strategist Caroline Kealey has, over the past 10 years, marched to her own drum as the founder and chief executive of Ingenium Communications.

Her consultancy has carved a niche for itself in the nation’s capital and across the country in the “art and science of communications and marketing strategy” providing, in addition to its strategic communications and marketing services, facilitation, training and organizational development.

As with so many other consultancies, regardless of their discipline, this meant that Ingenium’s intellectual property resided almost entirely within the grey matter of its people, and especially of its leader, Kealey herself.

Six years ago, Kealey decided to change that. Despite being a busy single mother with a full-time business, she set out to lever the insight and expertise developed over a 20-year career into an educational resource for professional development and training. The Ingenium team, with a substantial amount of goodwill and in-kind support from friends and allies, set to work. The outcome is the Results Map, deemed by its creators to be the most comprehensive online tool for strategic communications planning available in the world.

Kealey took the time to share her thoughts on the tenacity required to launch her new venture, the challenges of bootstrapping, and the strategic marketing that has turned a largely local consultancy into a global play within a matter of weeks.

Q: Where did you get the idea for Results Map?

A: I think the idea came from my experience in having written now close to 400 communications strategies across a wide range of sectors and clients. I realized that much of the process is quite repeatable and that we had quite a lot of expertise in this specialized area. I also realized that, while seemingly a bit odd coming from someone who makes her living as an external consultant, optimally this process is most beneficial if it’s done in-house. So, I came up with the idea to package what we’ve learned from experience and create a methodology that communicators can easily apply within their organizations, tapping into their unique knowledge and experience with their subject matter and audiences.

Q: How did you go about validating the idea?

A: This whole project has been bootstrapped on the back of our traditional consulting practice and therefore integrates hundreds of conversations as part of regular client engagements and workshops. We carried out extensive market research to establish if there is anything like this … we looked at comparable solutions for other disciplines and went through an extensive process of one-and-one interviews in 2008 with people in different facets of the industry – academia, public, private, para-public sectors. We used all this to map out a business plan and worked with a focus group of 30 people to validate the concept from both a business and marketing point of view.

Q: What key challenges did you face turning this into a commercially available product?

A: This was far and away the most significant and complex project I have ever managed. The process has been ongoing over a six-year period and has been self-financed. The sheer tenacity and the focus required was a major challenge since the project had to run alongside our regular work and business development. Stitching this together into something coherent with an end goal in mind was a very significant challenge. This is not for the faint of heart.

Q: Where did you turn for sources of funding and other support to develop and launch Results Map?

A: One of the most extraordinary experiences throughout this process has been the generosity of the community in providing expertise (and) resources and offering to make valuable connections. I was really moved to the extent to which people are willing to support an entrepreneur who has a dream. That was a big part of our success – tapping into a lot of local in-kind support, and connections. We wanted to self-finance as much as possible, but did call upon the BDC and a private investor, both of whom have been extremely supportive.

Q: How do you characterize your experience, as an entrepreneur, in trying to secure funding and other key pieces of the puzzle?

A: As is often the case, it’s hard to appreciate the sheer volume of work and energy that this has required. In terms of lessons learned, you can’t underestimate the time and effort that isn’t immediately visible when you set out – the complexity of translation to another language, finding an online payment solution that works, developing a marketing plan, and addressing innumerable technological challenges. It all takes deep consideration, analysis and quality decision-making to position the company for success, and adjust in real-time to dependencies and changes in the development plan.

Q: What key entrepreneurial lessons did you learn through this? What would you do different next time?

A: If you roll back the clock, this could have gone in many different directions. Early on I became concerned by time-to-market and that other people would come in and scoop us. But that was fairly short-lived because I had trouble imagining that there would be too many others who would have the passion to drive through such a difficult task … call it stubbornness or stick-to-it-ness, it was clear that it was the road less travelled.

Most of the development work I did on this was between 5 and 7 a.m. before I got my kids up to get ready for school; that’s obviously not everyone’s cup of tea.

The technical development of the product took place over six months. This was very aggressive and in hindsight could have been done more comfortably over a year or 18 months. However, we had committed to complete and present by June 2010 at the International Association of Business Communicators World Conference in Toronto. As a result, we licensed our training platform from Telesto, a local development firm. Again, my whole orientation was on niche expertise, not on developing a tool in-house, from the ground up. This proved to be a good decision because the time and cost required to create a platform from scratch would have been prohibitive.

Q: What has been the market response to Results Map?

A: A few weeks ago I was running a local consulting company. Now our technology is on four continents and we are writing proposals for Fortune 500 companies … We have reached into some spheres that would not have been possible two weeks ago. We even have the government of Tanzania interested in our methodology.

This is precisely what we wanted to do with this product, have a global impact, and so far it’s off to the races.

Q: How did you take advantage of your attendance at the International Association of Business Communicators World Conference to launch of Results Map?

A: We had a whole strategy to make a splash at that event to capitalize on the fact that there were 1,500 communicators there from around the world. We ran a Twitter contest, a guerilla marketing campaign, exhibited with a booth, and I was a speaker. We very much took our own advice on having a plan and executing against that plan on a shoestring budget. People told us we were one of the highlights of the event, and that is entirely the result of our careful planning in terms of marketing, planning and positioning.

Now the challenge is chasing down all of our leads. The scope of our business has exploded in the space of a couple of weeks so while I’d thought the product development was the end of a goal, it really is just the beginning.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

May Roundup: Ottawa innovation, biz building, media relations

istockphoto 5320468 calendar may May Roundup: Ottawa innovation, biz building, media relations

By inmedia

In you missed any of these posts the first time around, here’s a roundup of everything we published in May.

Francis:
Propagating the Ottawa startup community
Ottawa DemoCamp9 showcases novel applications
How may my technology help you? Take 2

Tech community disagrees that BDC should ‘abandon its dogs’

Linda:
It’s about more than the written word
Copyright compliance
ITAC IT Hero Awards seeks nominations

The benefits of an agency having a horizontal account structure

Danny:
What bloggers want
Media getting even more social

Leo:
Buddy, how the heck do I build a business?
TheCodeFactory: ‘A place for innovation to grow’
Building small companies that roar

Finding anchors in the chaos

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,