‘NACO’ Tags

November roundup: What does it take to bring technology to market?

November calendar 300x187 November roundup: What does it take to bring technology to market? By Alexandra Reid

This month saw a lot of action in the Canadian startup scene and we covered much of it here on our blog. Most notably, Startup Canada launched its much anticipated Startup Blueprints, an ambitious web platform that summarizes what the organisation heard this past summer, and sets out what needs to be done to turn those ideas and reflections into concrete action.

But that shouldn’t eclipse the wonderful work of Maple Leaf Angels and CanWit, two organisations that have fostered a partnership to create new investment opportunities for women-led startups in Canada. The National Angel Capital Organization also held its annual conference in Halifax, where important debates took place about the value of crowdfunding and how investment in this country could be improved.

Of course, those stories don’t even scratch the surface of our coverage this month. In case you missed any, here’s a handy roundup of our posts, ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers.

November 19: Lessons for entrepreneurs who wish to globalize their startups upon inception: Part 2 by Tony Bailetti

November 28: If Jack and Jill had worked together to engineer a well water system … by Leo Valiquette

November 20: Celebrating 25 years of community support by Alexandra Reid

November 29: A clarion call to make Canada an entrepreneurial economy by Francis Moran

November 6: CMI-MarketingProfs report reveals B2B content marketing confusion by Alexandra Reid

November 12: The CMO is dead by Dominique Turpin

November 27: Product management: Give the user the best possible mobile experience by Peter Hanschke

November 13: Hey, kid, I hear you want to be an entrepreneur by Leo Valiquette

November 26: Supporting investment in women-led startups by Alexandra Reid

November 7: Give capitalists the ball, let them run by Leo Valiquette

November 14: Lessons for entrepreneurs who wish to globalize their startups upon inception by Tony Bailetti

November 5: The neuroscience behind elections by Bob Bailly

November 8: Hootsuite CEO Ryan Holmes inspires hometown crowd: Video by Fiona Campbell

November 14: The subsistence diet of government — and some VC — funding by Francis Moran

November 21: Walking the digital tightrope: The perils of co-branded employees by Megan Totka

November 22:  Startup Canada to call for urgent action to support Canadian entrepreneurs by Francis Moran

November 1: Even angels are going enterprise by Francis Moran

November 16: How to create brighter lives with content marketing by Alexandra Reid

Image: Oana Befort

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

The subsistence diet of government — and some VC — funding

doling out cash 300x224 The subsistence diet of government    and some VC    fundingBy Francis Moran

Former Canadian Olympic gold medalist and chef de mission Mark Tewksbury gave a keynote address at the National Angel Capital Organization‘s summit in Halifax in late October. In urging that Canadian business adopt the Olympic movement’s Own the Podium approach that sees athlete funding going disproportionately to those who show the best promise of winning a medal, Tewksbury said we have to move away from the old Canadian funding model. That approach, he said, sees government spread its limited funds across too many recipients, ensuring that nobody starves but also that nobody gets the resources they really need to succeed. As Tewksbury put it, funding before Own the Podium was “one for me, one for you,” ensuring “one for me-diocrity.”

The same sentiment came up during a conversation last week with Didier Leconte, head of MSBi Valorisation and, also now, Valeo Management. The two organisations are part of the value chain bringing to market innovations developed by researchers at a handful of universities in Quebec. Leconte has been a regular contributor to this blog, mainly as a source of good commentary and a sounding post for some of my questions. We got into a discussion about venture capital in general, the federal government’s pending deployment of $400-million into the VC sector, and this overall trend of spreading available funds too thinly.

I maintain that brilliant ideas will almost always attract the necessary levels of investment, even here in Canada where the common lament is that the capital pools aren’t big enough. And while Canada has structural issues that most certainly need to be addressed to make this a more attractive environment for risk capital, the reality is that most companies that don’t get funding simply don’t deserve to get funding. I may be a socialist, but when it comes to allocating scarce capital in the private sector, I am an unsentimental Darwinian advocating for survival of the fittest.

And both Leconte and I agreed that the same unsentimental approach ought to hold true for government funding because current approaches, as with Olympic athlete funding before Own the Podium, are unlikely to create many gold-medal-winning performers.

“One can look at it like a spray-and-pray approach,” Leconte told me, with little bits of money doled out to too many companies in the hopes that some of them will gain traction. “That has certainly been the approach in technology transfer as well in the past.”  The reality is that without focus and efforts, failure is not just an option, it’s inevitable. “The rising of groups like TandemLaunch headed by Helge Seeltzen shows that focus pays-off and attracts industry backing” Leconte said.

The traditional subsistence diet is designed to make sure nobody starves but also guaranteed to make sure nobody has enough to really make a difference. Certainly, it is far too miserly for what Leconte calls “hard-tech” ventures, companies working in capital-intensive sectors in general with lengthy and complicated development cycles.

And lest you think this Fagin-like approach to treating companies like waifs is limited to government, it is not unheard of even amongst private-sector venture capitalists. Whether it’s in the name of spreading risk around a well-populated portfolio or just a case of not having sufficient risk tolerance to make really large bets, too many VCs dole out just enough money to keep their companies from going under but not nearly enough to allow them to truly thrive.

The downside, one that both Leconte and I can see clearly, is that backing the winners means starving out those with less promise and the more we do this, whether with Olympic athletes or with companies, the greater will be the number of unfunded complainers. I don’t know if politically directed public funds have the bottle to withstand the inevitable criticism; I sure hope private-sector VCs do.

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

October roundup: What does it take to bring technology to market?

October calendar 300x225 October roundup: What does it take to bring technology to market? By Alexandra Reid

As usual, we covered a lot of ground on our blog last month.

We explored why startups should focus on problems, not platforms, and why they shouldn’t outsource their core competencies. Francis explained why marketing involves much more than just creating a message and delivering that message with the tools of advertising and public relations. Mitch Joel supported that argument by stating that marketing is everything. Leo shared lots of great media relations advice, teaching us how to pitch to busy journalists without becoming a nuisance. Of course, these just scratch the surface of the topics we covered.

In case you missed any, here is a handy roundup of our posts last month, ranked by the enthusiasm of our readers:

October 16: Meet ..duo by Alexandra Reid

October 11: Montreal’s Notman House enters final funding stage by Francis Moran

October 10: Mitch Joel on why marketing is everything by Alexandra Reid

October 15: Social media gaffes: They can happen to anyone by Megan Totka

October 22: The plight of product managing myself by Peter Hanschke

October 24: ‘Put away the cozy image of the little old lady knitting a sweater for the grandkids’ by Alexandra Reid

October 9: Apple versus Samsung – Every patent owner’s dream by David French

October 2: Why I started learning code: a marketer’s perspective by Alexandra Reid

October 4: Marketing is about more than the colour of your new website by Francis Moran

October 23: Pitching to busy media figures in various media environments by Leo Valiquette

October 17: The thin line between being persistent and being a nuisance by Leo Valiquette

October 30: Make sure you’re barking up the right tree by Leo Valiquette

October 18: Canadian angel investors to gather in Halifax next week by Francis Moran

October 31: Pitch perfect: Startups should focus on problems, not platforms by Alexandra Reid

October 25: Communications planning: The principles by Caroline Kealey

October 3: Startups: Do not outsource your core competency by Leo Valiquette

October 29: The allure of building enterprise products by Jesse Rodgers

Image: 10Wallpaper.com

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

Even angels are going enterprise

naco annual conference logo 300x181 Even angels are going enterpriseBy Francis Moran

There’s been a growing amount of attention paid recently to the surge in interest by startups in working on enterprise-grade products and services rather than the quick-to-market consumer and web applications that for so long seemed to dominate pitch contests, accelerator program cohorts and media attention.

Enterprise is getting sexy,” Kevin Rose of Google Ventures said recently. Bernard Lunn has done a 180 on his 10-year-old requiem for enterprise software, saying it didn’t die, it just went into a coma from which it is now recovering. Enterprises, Lunn said, “cannot simply empower every employee with consumer web type tools and hope they all pull together to grow the profits.” Our own Jesse Rodgers wrote earlier this week about the allure of building enterprise products, saying that opportunities in the enterprise are being driven by the BYOD movement that is requiring IT departments to deliver better tools, a higher expectation of a better user experience than that delivered by stodgy old enterprise software, and an easing of the once-onerous burden associated with the enterprise sale.

I think there’s another huge factor at play. Far too many consumer and web applications have an opaque path to revenue. They might be cheap to produce and launch but they’re devilishly fickle when it comes to generating profits or returns for investors. Even most of the runaway superstars, like Instagram for instance, made money for their investors because of crazy acquisition valuations and not because they worked hard, as John Houseman used to say with such plummy emphasis in his Smith Barney ads, “They make money the old-fashioned way. They earn it.”

It’s this recognition that an enterprise play might be a lot more hard work than a disposable consumer app but that there is a far greater potential of a real and sustained payoff that is driving a resurgent interest. And that’s a good thing for both entrepreneurs and investors.

So it wasn’t a big surprise that all five of the companies presenting at the National Angel Capital Organization’s summit in Halifax last week were enterprise plays. Even angels, who you don’t usually think of as backing the long development cycles and even-longer marketing and sales cycles of an enterprise product startup, are getting in on the action. (I wrote a brief item on each of the five in a summit preview article a couple of weeks ago.)

There weren’t a lot of other surprises at the summit, either. Angel investing continues to be the purview of iconoclastic individuals with pocket books and interest levels deep enough to get seriously involved with the companies they back. Although angel groups are proliferating, the number of angel investments that involve syndicated deals is still a tiny fraction of the total, according to numbers bandied about by summit panelists. And yet, as we have regularly written here, this investment class is a critical step in the growth of so many young companies and it deserves greater attention and organization and an injection of professionalism that is beginning to happen.

Even in a series of debates at the conference — hosted by the genial Frank Peters, a sometime contributor to this blog – there was little real disagreement. The one exception was in one exchange about crowd funding, with long-time angel and venture capitalist Catherine Mott seeing little value for angels in the push to open up startup investment opportunities to retail investors. Brad Ross, a Kingston-based angel and co-founder of Entrust, told me in a corridor conversation afterwards that all the objections raised over crowd funding are straw-man arguments. Effective crowd-funding schemes have been introduced in other jurisdictions, he said, avoiding most of the pitfalls that critics here in Canada cite. I have asked Ross, who is working on the crowd-funding file with the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance, to write a post for us on the subject. Keep your eyes peeled for that.

Perhaps the highlight of the summit was a keynote lunchtime speech by Mark Tewksbury, multiple Olympic medalist and chef de mission for Canada at the 2012 games in London this past summer. In a passionate talk driven by highly infectious emotion, Tewksbury drew obvious but effective parallels between an entrepreneurial pursuit and the quest for an Olympic gold medal. “Someone has to win this race tonight,” Tewksbury said he told himself on the day he qualified for the finals in what would ultimately be his sole Olympic gold race. “Why not me?” The same question can be asked and answered by entrepreneurs.

Tewksbury also cited the Own the Podium program that funnelled athlete support dollars to those individuals and sports that had the best chance of actually winning a medal. This was a sharp departure from the standard, very Canadian and egalitarian model of dividing up dollars “one for me, one for you, one for me, one for you, one for me-diocrity.” We need to identify and back our business winners in the same way, he said.

If that means backing those with the best chance of generating real profits and real returns, and building real and long-lasting companies, then Canada’s own the podium program for startups needs to focus on the enterprise.

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

Canadian angel investors to gather in Halifax next week

naco annual conference logo 300x181 Canadian angel investors to gather in Halifax next weekBy Francis Moran

The National Angel Capital Organization’s Angel Summit, an annual gathering of those critical early-stage backers of new ventures, will wing its way to my former home town of Halifax, Nova Scotia, next week for three days of professional development workshops, company pitches and networking. As has been the case for the past few years, I will be there to report on the latest news and trends out of this important investment community.

For those unfamiliar with this investment class, angels generally invest their own money in early-stage companies and often assume a fairly hands-on role in advising and mentoring the CEO and the balance of the management team. Increasingly, angels flock together to share the onerous burden of due diligence on new investment opportunities and to syndicate investment rounds. There are scores of angel networks across North America, some far more organized and professionally operated than others, as well as thousands of individual angels who continue to invest on their own.

More than 100 participants are expected at this year’s summit, where they will share experience on topics such as angel investor and angel group best practices, cross-border investment, crowd funding, incubators and accelerators, trends in angel investing, commercialization of intellectual property and government support for capital markets.

In addition, five companies will pitch at the summit. They are:

  • KarmaHire, Vancouver, a technical testing and video interview platform that lets companies and job candidates interact remotely.
  • HitSend, a company out of Ryerson University’s Digital Media Zone that has a couple of web tools in early market stage.
  • Xiplinx Technologies, a Moncton, NB, company whose bare-bones website promises the private beta release later this quarter of “production risk management tools for dynamic operations.”
  • P&P Optica, a Waterloo company I’ve visited a couple of times that uses difraction gratings to greatly increase the sensitivity of spectrometers.
  • HealthAware, a Toronto company I got to know when it was part of a recent FounderFuel cohort and that lets patients find health practitioners online and book appointments with them.

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

For the last time, they won’t come just because you’ve built it

This is the 11th 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 For the last time, they won’t come just because youve built itBy Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

“Companies that can’t clearly articulate their customer and market are not real serious companies, they are research projects … Engineering and marketing need to work together from the get go.”

We began this series a couple of months ago with this timeless quote from Band of Angels’ Ronald Weissman. It strikes to the heart of what all of us here take as gospel.

In a recent post, we looked at the findings of two studies into the factors that contributed to the demise of 50 startups in Canada, the U.S., and, to a lesser extent, India and Europe. The first was “Understanding the Disappearance of Early-stage and Start-up R&D Performing Firms,” prepared for the National Angel Capital Organization, by Douglas Barber and Jeffrey Crelinsten. The second was a study by ChubbyBrain. In both studies, issues related to market research and customer engagement ranked high among the reasons for startup failure.

Phil Newman, CEO of Pergali and one of our U.K.-based associates, often finds a high level of “snobbery” toward sales and marketing among many of the inventor/entrepreneurs he encounters on his side of the Atlantic. This is often coupled with a firm, if misguided, belief that a sales and marketing strategy is not fundamental to building a successful company.

Eric Ries, creator of the lean startup methodology, sums up the trap into which inventors and entrepreneurs everywhere often fall:

“When we build products, we use a methodology … but too often when it’s time to think about customers, marketing, positioning, or PR, we delegate it to ‘marketroids’ or ‘suits.’ Many of us are not accustomed to thinking about markets or customers in a disciplined way. We know some products succeed and others fail, but the reasons are complex and unpredictable. We’re easily convinced by the argument that all we need to do is ‘build it and they will come.’ And when they don’t come, well, we just try, try, again.”

This hardly supports a capital-efficient approach for getting to market quickly with the right product at the right time. In today’s environment, in which startups are being passed over by VCs who prefer less risky later-stage investments and angels are acting like VCs and demanding more market validation before they will invest, startups can’t afford to burn cash on “research projects” that don’t have a qualified customer base waiting for their product.

“Great companies constantly test the market for validation and feedback,” said Weissman. “When I look at a new company, I ask where did the product come from?  Did it come as a result of a market demand?”

Technology ain’t the problem

Ries and Blanks agree on the additional point that, “few startups fail for lack of technology. They almost always fail for lack of customers. Yet surprisingly few companies take the basic step of attempting to learn about their customers (or potential customers) until it is too late.”

And yet, there is plenty of research out there, as noted above, that provides nascent entrepreneurs with the sober heads up they need to avoid falling into this trap themselves.

(This seems like a good spot to once again plug the idea of being coachable, as well as Peter Hanschke’s post on market validation plans.)

A key pillar of Reis’s lean startup is the customer-development theory of Steve Blank, author of The Four Steps to Epiphany. Blank makes the point that “In a startup, no facts exist inside the building, only opinions.” As Ries says, customer development is “an attempt to minimize the risk of total failure by checking your theories against reality.”

For Weissman, defining the market opportunity and ensuring a product is the right fit is so important at the outset that when he is building the management team for a startup, he will often hire a head of product marketing and head of business development before a CEO.

So, as the founder and all around chief development person for a new venture intent on wowing the world with a better mousetrap, look hard in the mirror and ask yourself the following questions:

  • Who are our customers for this?
  • What do they need? What do they want? (These are two very different things)
  • How big is the market opportunity vs. the cost of bringing the product to market?
  • How do we find out?
  • How long do we have to get to market before the opportunity is passed?
  • Who else is doing what we our doing and how must we be different?
  • What features and functionality must we have in the product when it hits the market?
  • What features and functionality are not needed and should therefore not consume time and resources to shorten time to market?
  • Where can we turn for help?

Get out there and talk to people. Engage with networking organizations and go to industry events where you can meet with veteran entrepreneurs, investors and potential customers. And of course, talk to strategic marketing and communications experts about how brand positioning, customer development and public relations facilitate profitable market entry.

Next week, we will look at shortening time to market and the concept of lean startup.

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

Words of wisdom: What can you learn from a thunder lizard?

This is the eighth 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 Words of wisdom: What can you learn from a thunder lizard?By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

“A startup is ultimately … not just about whether an idea or a product works, it is about whether or not you can create a business around it. Whether or not the ecosystem will support it, the customers will buy it, if the channels will support it, and if the manufacturers will actually create it. And because of that, we need to be able to test all these different facets of our business model, and do so quickly.”

This comes from someone Forbes calls “the most powerful woman in startups,” Ann Miura-Ko, co-founding partner with FLOODGATE. In October, she gave a lecture at Stanford University titled “Funding Thunder Lizard Entrepreneurs,” which is filled with so much insight we were tempted to just transcribe the whole damned thing and offer it up as a blog post of its own. However, her talk is available as a conveniently indexed webcast.

Perhaps her comments resonate with you as common sense of the most practical sort. Perhaps they don’t. Regardless, it’s much easier to talk in theoretical terms about what it takes to successfully launch a startup and bring technology to market than it is to follow through and execute effectively.

Next week, we will recap some practical bits of advice that have emerged from our interviews and research for this series. But first, we will explore some of the common factors that have spelled the doom of many a startup and refer back to Miura-Ko’s Stanford lecture for some insight on how current realities have impacted the art and science of entrepreneurship.

Why do startups fail?

It ain’t rocket science. You don’t have to look far to find some compelling answers to this question.

In their September 2009 report for Canada’s National Angel Capital Organization, “Understanding the Disappearance of Early-stage and Start-up R&D Performing Firms,” authors Douglas Barber and Jeffrey Crelinsten interviewed the senior executives of 18 R&D-intensive tech companies that had disappeared, either through bankruptcy, liquidation or merger. Among the key factors attributed for the demise of these companies were:

  • No revenue from customers
  • No input from customers on R&D performed or on the product or service being developed
  • Misreading of markets (e.g. overestimate size, delay market entry)
  • Product not needed or not simple enough for the application
  • Poor sales and marketing decisions (e.g. distribution channels vs. direct sales, delay going global or going global too quickly)
  • Timing wrong; the product or service was too early or too late.
  • Unaware of competitors and changing market conditions

But, gentle reader, don’t leap to the hasty conclusion that this lack of sufficient market research and customer engagement is in any way unique to Canada. Many moons later, a similar study in the U.S. by the self-professed data geeks at ChubbyBrain surveyed 32 startup entrepreneurs about the factors that had contributed to the demise of their failed ventures. The majority of respondents were U.S. based, with a few from India and Europe. The results were distilled into the chart below:

startup failure post mortem top reasons Words of wisdom: What can you learn from a thunder lizard?

As you can see, issues related to market research and customer engagement ranked high. These and many of the other common factors revealed though ChubbyBrain’s research often cropped up during our interviews for this series.

‘The democratization of innovation’

What does Miura-Ko have to say about how market research and customer engagement, or a lack thereof, can mean the difference between success and failure?

Much of her lecture revolved around “the democratization of innovation,” which has three key components:

  • The collapsing cost of product building. This should not be confused with the cost of company building. This is characterized by open source, commoditized technology, crowd-sourced infrastructure and elastic computing power thanks to the cloud. “I see my students all the time just taking out their credit cards and building a product, rapidly prototyping something and seeing if it works,” she said.
  • Rapid business model testing. This is illustrated by her quote with which we began this post. She went to say, “The beauty of the Internet is that you can have a direct dialogue now with your customer. In one of my classes, if I ask my students to test out a web startup. They can go out and interview 300 people in the bat of a eye and be able to tell you if that product was attractive to that group of people or not. And it is not unusual for our students to do so. Think of the people who have actual resources to put to bear on that.”
  • Running out of iterations. This gets into Steve Blank and Eric Ries’s concept of “lean startup.” This is the notion of customer development and agile programming and how you bring it together to achieve rapid iteration. This allows you to experiment quickly and effectively to stretch your dollars further. “It’s not that you’re running out of cash when you’re an entrepreneur, you’re running out of iterations … you run out of iterations, you don’t have any hope anymore.” (We will explore the lean startup methodology in more detail in a couple of weeks.)

In other words, traditional enterprise sales models have been collapsed by social and new media channels that facilitate early customer engagement and shorten time to market. The “collapsing cost of product building” has made it far easier to bring a software service or product to market compared to 10 or even five years ago.

Even for hardware plays, greater capital efficiencies can now be found thanks to fire sales of equipment and IP from companies claimed by the recession, by outsourcing low-cost components and by the shifting partition between hardware and software.

It can be argued that there has never been a better time than now to bring technology to market. But as we explored at the outset of this series, all of these advantages will only pay off if the startup is focused on the right starting point – that potential customer it hopes will ultimately buy the product or service it wants to develop. Every effort must be made from the outset to determine who they are, where they are, what they want, and how much they are willing to pay. Market development must be carried in tandem with product development.

To once again quote Ronald Weissman, chair of the Software Special Industry Group at one of Silicon Valley’s oldest angel organizations, Band of Angels, “Great companies constantly test the market, for validation and feedback.”


 Words of wisdom: What can you learn from a thunder lizard?

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

New Ottawa angel organization takes flight

By Leo Valiquette

Last week, a new angel investing network launched in the National Capital Region to support new business initiatives, mentor the next generation of entrepreneurs, and of course, generate great returns for investors.
The Capital Angel Network (CAN) is an informal network sponsored by the National Angel Capital Organization (NACO) where angels can view potential investments and discuss them as a group. The goals are to increase the quantity, quality, and success of angel investments in Ottawa, to create a greater pool of capital for innovative start-up companies and to complement existing angel groups.

Laurie Davis, a long time angel investor in the Ottawa area and a member of CAN’s board of directors, took a few moments to share his thoughts.

What was the impetus behind the creation of this new network?

Davis: I meet with entrepreneurs all the time and they tell me they have a great deal of trouble raising money. It’s always been difficult, but much more so in recent times for various reasons. It takes a lot time and effort to find enough angels to give you the amount of money you need. So if you can gather a number of angels together in a group, it saves the entrepreneur a lot of time and effort.

From the angel’s point of view, I enjoy working with others in a group and hearing their perspectives on things before agreeing to commit money.

What are your key objectives and goals?

Davis: Obviously this is only a useful exercise if companies get funded. In the end, the goal is to have people fund companies they find useful and interesting. We are going to track what happens and see if by the end of the year we have four or five companies that have been funded.

How is CAN different from other angel investor organizations that we have seen in Ottawa over the years, such as Purple Angel, Band of Scoundrels and the Ottawa Angel Alliance (OAA)?

Davis: I am a member of Purple Angel, a founder of OAA and friends with members of Band of Scoundrels. What are we doing different? We got some feedback when OAA wound down that there wasn’t much appetite for a formal organization. With OAA, you had to pay membership dues and commit to a certain level of investment. People didn’t like that level of formality. The bottom line is to try something different until you find something that works. The challenge of course, is to make sure you have real investors, as opposed to the room getting filled up with lawyers, accountants and other service providers looking for business. With the informal model that becomes a little harder, but we’ll be watching it.

Where do you think we have the most significant gap in turning great ideas into competitive commercial products that make it to market?

Davis: In general we have people who know how to go about building a product, but that whole go-to-market strategy, to know how to get a product to customers and to identify real customers – that’s the problem we have.

How will CAN help early stage companies overcome this hurdle?

Davis: We are not going to be tackling it directly. The key thing is, if you have a group of smart people in a room, the expectation is that someone will step up and help. The whole idea of angel investing is not to just provide money, it is to get involved and help where you can. We hope to see a lot of that.

What do you think of Terry Matthews’ recent announcement of his new commercialization fund?

Davis: It all helps. None of us are competing. There is a problem out there that needs to be solved and anything that can be done to solve it is a great benefit to the community.

What is the future of the venture capital model?

Davis: I wish I knew. It certainly is not pretty out there right now. If you look at it from an entrepreneur’s perspective, it is painful. And they are trying to address that by creating companies that need less capital. There are some businesses that you can launch with a few hundred thousand dollars, but others you simply can’t without tens of millions of dollars – and those are the companies no one wants to start right now. This is a huge problem and I don’t know how it’s going to be resolved. There is talk that institutional investors will invest directly in companies, as they once did – that would certainly help, but I haven’t seen this happen so far.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,