Apply for Disrupt@Scale ($75K)

[Colette Grgic]

New year, new opportunities! Applications are open for Disrupt@Scale - Human Connections where four winning startups will receive $75,000 investment each.

Lowdown:

*  Partnership between BlueChilli, InnovationBay with investment from Entsquared and BlackSheep Capital.

* Initiated by corporate partner: one of the largest financial institutions in Australia

*  Four startups will each receive $75,000 investment for 30% equity...

*  ...which also gets you a six month placement in the BlueChilli Accelerator program...

*  ...and a very valuable corporate partnership giving you the ability to scale your startup through their 35,000 staff and 12 Million customers

* Must apply under broad themes "Marketplaces" or "Mobile Workplace Solutions"

* Early stage startups preferred, "lean canvas ideas" welcome too

* Can apply with multiple ideas

* Can apply with or without a tech team in place (i.e you choose your dev team, although all winners will have access to the BlueChilli devs at cost)

* Applications close 16 January

All the details are on the website; fire away with questions here or send me an email if you're feeling shy.

Cheers,

Colette

P.S If you're wondering whether it's worthwhile, check out what applicants from the previous program had to say about it.

• 
  

[Geoff Langdale]

> $75,000 investment for 30% equity

This is... unusual, isn't it?

[Colette Grgic]

Also unusual to have such a large a corporate offer to scale your product to their staff and/or customers, no? 

Two startup problems (aside from tech co-founders woes!) we all hear about incessantly is 1.) lack of funding and 2.) that's it's hard to get traction and critical mass. Despite the "being global from day one" statements the reality is it's particularly challenging in Australia where we're a small population. That's the reason why Disrupt@Scale exists -  to solve those problems and provide more avenues to scale and more options for startups to succeed (four, in this case). This particular corporate is able to adopt and push the right product/ technology very far very quickly; the valuation isn't unreasonable for the money, support and the scaling opportunity the startups get. It's just the first :-)

Like every other program/ incubator/ funding/ bootstrapping/ competition/ hackathon it isn't the right fit for all. Nor should it be. But it could very well be the difference between success and failure for some, and that's what we're aiming for.

[Jason Seed]

NO.

Thats not a startup incubator/competition, that is devs for hire at Ramen Soup rates.

Jason Seed
650 454 5311

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Michael Ridland]

It says you don't need a tech team, this might be good for a biz person with just a good idea.

[Jason Seed]

I did not dive deep enough, either way this does not build a startup

Jason Seed
650 454 5311

[Geoff McQueen | AffinityLive]

Yeah, that doesn't seem like a very good deal to me either. Standard terms I'm seeing here in the Bay area are seed rounds of $500K-$1MM on a cap of around $4MM. Even if you halve these numbers for the Aussie market and see $250K on a $2MM cap (12.5%), having 2.5x of equity sold for a third of the amount of money seems like a pretty crappy deal. And while I'm sure there are some startups out there (somewhere?) that would be excited by going to market with a large, bureaucratic partner, I can't see 7.5x worse deal attracting any decent startup :-(

That being said, Westpac getting involved shouldn't be roundly rejected, even if the model doesn't look very attractive right now. It could be compelling if the startup can buy the equity back at Westpac's commercial interest rate in the first 24 months. This page shows the small business growth rate at 7.01%, so if the founders can buy their equity back for $86.25K it could make sense - Westpac would also get some smart tech people trying to solve problems that they and their customers care about, and would be in the driver's seat to invest in the first properly priced round, and if all of the investments are duds they can be written off as equity invested without return as opposed to a bad debt.

Geoff McQueen
Founder & CEO
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Office: +1 800.425.7315
Cell: +1 650.450.4384

Skype: geoffmcqueen

[Colette Grgic]

Thanks for your feedback guys; few clarifications:

- It's not ramen devs for hire Jason. The corporate isn't invested at the first round; for the most part they have only been involved in providing the problem areas/ themes and agreement to scale the viable products. The $75K comes from Entsquared, Blacksheep Capital and BlueChilli Venutre Fund, and the corporate gets the first right to refusal to offer/incorporate your product/ tech into their user or customer base when you launch (after the 6 month accelerator program).  At this point the corporate and/or the existing investors and/or new investors could choose to invest further to aid your scaling goals. Or you might not need it if your product generates revenue from their users. So really, it is exactly as it's written: early stage financial support to develop an idea, and the opportunity to scale to the partner's users and customers after incubation. The entrepreneur retains autonomy. I spent a lot of time making sure it's a win-win for both and that the founder's interests are protected. I'd be interested to hear more alternatives if you think it can be done better/ different.

- Deals aren't the same as in the Bay area, because we're not in the Bay area. The investment ecosystem in Australia is (unfortunately) still very different. If you look at accelerator programs like Startmate (now $50K for 7.5%) it is half to third of the investments YC ($120K for 7%) or 500 ($100K for 3-10%). Does that mean Startmate doesn't provide equal or better opportunity for Australian startups? Of course not. 

- Most accelerator programs and funding options for startups also "require" you to have your own dev team on board (who presumably share in the equity pie too, right?) so they aren't suitable or even accessible for everyone. Neither is this opportunity. As Michael pointed out, this could be exactly what a sharp business/marketing entrepreneur needs to get their idea kickstarted, and you might just retain more equity this way than if you get a team of three or four on board (and here you also get $75K to go and test something out).  

- Geoff, Westpac was the previous partner for the Innovation Challenge. This is a different program and the partner will be disclosed when the 10 finalists are selected. But speculate away in the meanwhile :-)

Cheers,

Colette

Colette Grgic

S colette.grgic

L au.linkedin.com/in/colettegrgic

[Jason Seed]

Colette,

My issue is mainly the 30%, this is not about comparing Australia with Silicon Valley. A founder that has 30% gone at the start will lose control of their company at the next round. This does not build successful companies.

But now I have looked the T's & C's I am even less impressed. This should not be called a Prize. Item b (copied below) especially and the regular mention of At Cost Technical Development from Blue Chilli.

8. There are a number of conditions that must be satisfied by a Winner before a Prize will be awarded to him or her. These conditions are as follows:

a. Execution of a Non Disclosure Deed in a form required by the Promoters and the Sponsor;

b. Execution of an agreement with BlueChilli for development, incubation and co-investment in a form satisfactory to the Promoters;

c. Execution of an Investment/Shareholders Agreement between a Winner, BlueChilli or its nominee, Entsquared or its nominee and any other party as required by the Promoters on terms satisfactory to the Promoters; and 

d. Any other conditions as determined by the Promoters in their absolute discretion.

There are several other concerning clauses, especially where the organizers agree not to compete on the same idea within 12 months of the competition starting.... 

"The Promoters acknowledge that Eligible Applicants may be in the possession of original ideas. To the extent that the Eligible Applicants can satisfy the Promoters acting reasonably that their ideas are original, the Promoters agree that they will not commence involvement to commercialise such idea without the involvement of the Eligible Applicant for a period of 12 months from the date of the commencement of the Competition. "

Frankly this is not a good deal, anyway you look at it.

Jason Seed
650 454 5311

[Geoff Langdale]

Agreed. It may be unfair to compare this to a big seed round in SV, but the terms suggest around 37% of the pre-money valuation of Startmate, and this looks to have far more strings attached. I'm not a VC, but I'm wondering at how enthusiastic your future Series A guy would be when you rock in with 30% of the cap table gone and a RoFR to a 'corporate partner' who is in bed with the 30% guys.

I think the best outcome for a talented person doing this is an acquihire by the corporate partner with the ultimate outcome of being made "Vice President of Being Sort of Startup-ish". Not That There's Anything Wrong With That; there's a lot to be said for a lifestyle with a large stable salary where the toughest job is figuring out which blazer goes best with jeans.

silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jindou Lee]

Questions:

•If I come up with an idea and win the $75k, does that mean I have to spend that money to employ BlueChilli's development team?

•Once the idea is developed (irregardless of who I get to develop the project) and I decide not to pursue the idea anymore, what happens to the company?

Bonus points:

•Would you take up this deal and think it's a great prize if you won it?

[Matthew Ho]

For the first question, it says $50k goes towards Blue Chilli dev team

It says this on the website:

Each of the four startups receives $75,000 in return for a 30% equity stake, provided as $50K upfront for development and $25,000 at launch of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

You will benefit from at-cost technical product development from BlueChilli to bring your startup idea to life

Cheers, 
Matt Ho

@inspiredworlds

[Colette Grgic]

Whoa there guys, there's no monster in the closet and a few things are being taken out of context. So to answer the new questions:

Geoff, I agree that it's not for all entrepreneurs and thanks for keeping an open mind about the different ways that entrepreneurs can start different companies. What you see as strings attached someone else with the right idea might see as opportunity. Also...

Jason, if your product could scale to 12 Million customers you might not need another funding round. You'd have revenue. Even if you did want to raise more, you'd be in a very strong position with either traction in market or a major client on board if you were to raise another round so there is no reason to jump at assumptions that you'd be a minority shareholder at that point. Now we don't need to debate the merits of investment funding vs revenue funding (or perhaps in its own thread?); different products/ businesses will suit either model. Personally, I think money from your customers is best. If you can get to them. Cheaply. At scale.

I don't see how a non-compete clause is a bad thing. We actually went back after first reviews and added it in to be clear that the entrepreneur would be protected. What am I missing?

Clause 8b of the winning condition (requiring an agreement with BlueChilli) is because the winner will be part of the accelerator program. That's standard practice for most accelerator programs. 

Which leads me to Jindou's question and Matt's statement: the wording on the site does not say that the "$50K upfront for development" must be spent on BlueChilli (nor should it). The winner will receive the upfront $50K investment as cash - same as other accelerators - which is given to founders to develop/ build/ test/ MVP-up their startup. They will receive that money regardless of whether they choose BlueChilli or not for the development. And regardless of whether you get the whole thing built by BlueChilli or you just want a little help on UX, all winners can choose to access ay of BlueChilli's team at cost although they do not have to. The remaining $25K is released upon completion of the accelerator program when you launch. If a founder quits before launch the remaining $25K won't be paid out.

Jindou, it does happen that founders need to shut down/ leave businesses. It's hard to predict the circumstances where this would happen and to build T&Cs around that. Someone leaving as a bad founder is different to someone leaving due to terminal illness. It would come down to an individual agreement with the founder that respects the work they have done and gives the business the best chance to survive (assuming it's a promising business) - some options could be to buy out the founder, or having the founder retain some equity for their work, or that the company is shut down completely or that a replacement CEO is recruited. Either way, the founder is the majority shareholder and we hope to work with dedicated and reasonable people.

Bonus answer: If I just had an idea, a curiosity to try, no team on the starting blocks and wanted to take a punt on a new idea risk-free, damn right I'd think it's a good idea. Far too many startup founders are so attached to the cookie-cutter Techcrunch version of what a startup should look like that they are blind to other opportunities that don't fit the mould but could make a successful business. IMO this is one of them. 

Colette Grgic

P 0420 420 326

S colette.grgic

L au.linkedin.com/in/colettegrgic

• 
  

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[Matthew Ho]

If that's the case regarding the $50k, then its not very clear. As I read all the points together and had a different interpretation.  

Thanks for clearing it up.

Cheers, 
Matt Ho

@inspiredworlds

silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Geoff McQueen | AffinityLive]

Colette, your response to Jason is a pretty good example of everything that's wrong with the Australian early stage scene. Rather than just throwing bombs though I wanted to take a few mins to outline why many of the folks with experience on this list are pushing back so aggressively on the model you're proposing by looking at that paragraph and highlighting why $75K for 30% is a bad idea for pretty much any tech startup.

Jason, if your product could scale to 12 Million customers you might not need another funding round. You'd have revenue. 

I don't even know where to begin here. Ring-fencing the discussion with an assumption that we're talking about a SaaS business (since we can't be talking about consumer with this statement since it doesn't do revenue until it is a long way along, and SaaS is one thing Australia does pretty damn well), this statement is pretty crazy. Even as someone who's bootstrapped a company into the millions of ARR (and it is a long, slow, hard road, as many on this list know) and who's (mainly) used revenue to get there, SaaS is a business that succeeds a lot faster with capital. This brilliant post from Jason Lemkin (http://www.saastr.com/2014/10/16/why-youll-need-just-about-3000000-to-build-your-first-real-sales-marketing-team/) outlines exactly how someone in our situation spends $2.5-$3M to scale the business. That is scale. That is what it costs (within 20%-30%). So even if you bootstrap your way to Initial Traction (which is going to cost a lot more in salaries alone than a $50K prototype can cover) you'll do much better if you can then raise money to fund customer acquisition and grow quickly to $10M and beyond. 

Removing the ring fence and talking about marketplaces (another Oz win) has similar, if not bigger capital challenges - you've got to market to two different audiences, get them to buy, and your revenue clip of the ticket is small in magnitude while you're small - it you're taking 5% and you need to fund $30K a month of fixed costs (4 people, AWS, shitty office) you're needing $600K a month moving through your marketplace.

The issue isn't "if your product could scale to 12 Million" as much as "if your product can scale at zero cost (including no cost of sales, marketing, support, operations), then you might not need a funding round". If you're able to make such an insanely profitable tech business, you certainly shouldn't be selling 30% for chump change - you've got a money printing machine. 

Even if you did want to raise more, you'd be in a very strong position with either traction in market or a major client on board if you were to raise another round so there is no reason to jump at assumptions that you'd be a minority shareholder at that point. 

Again, I don't know where to start here. "Very strong position" requires a pretty unique set of circumstances; I'd only consider a startup (again, in SaaS to ringfence the discussion) to be in a very strong position if they're doing more than 300% annual growth, churn rates of 1% and a customer acquisition cost which is paid down in under 6 months. 

Having "a major client on board" is almost completely irrelevant (see Crossing the Chasm and the Visionary category/stage to see how one or two major clients for a startup aren't a positive).

For a Seed Round they'd need to be at $60K-$80K in MRR; to be suitable for a Series A investment they'd need to be doing $250K in MRR. 

Even if they're in this position, as an investor looking at those deals, I'd be conscious of the impact of having 30% of the equity soaked up already. As is standard, I'd be insisting the company have 10% set aside for employee share options, and I'd be aiming to buy 25% of the company - which would leave the cap table at a standard Seed Raise of $2M on a $6M pre look like:

- Seed Round: 25%

- Option Pool: 10%

- $75K "Prize": 22.5% (unless the "prize" equity has preferred rights light pro-ratas, at which point it remains at 30%)

- Founding Team: 35% - 42.5%

So, the people you're relying on to drive the business to a liquidity event are down to potentially a third - but the real issue is what happens next. Every Seed investor I know (and I know dozens personally) is focused on whether the company they're investing in as a Seed investment can get to the Series A with the cash they're investing in the Seed Round. 

Let's look at what happens to the cap table in the A-Round of say $5M on $20M:

- A-Round: 25%

- Seed Round (with pro-rata): 25%

- Option Pool: 10%

- $75K "Prize": 16.875% - 30% (if prize has pro rata rights)

- Founding Team: 10% - 23.125%

The point is, the imposition of having 30% of the equity already allocated is actually important for alignment. And with this example, the founding team is close to single digits, and they're the ones who need to work 100 hour weeks to make the business succeed over a period of 5-7 years. There's a really strong economic incentive for that team to just give up; while it is absolutely true that 5% of a billion dollars is better than 100% of nothing, having options like easy exits and the chance to do it all again without a dead albatross around their neck creates misalignment.

 

Now we don't need to debate the merits of investment funding vs revenue funding (or perhaps in its own thread?); different products/ businesses will suit either model. Personally, I think money from your customers is best. If you can get to them. Cheaply. At scale.

"Money from your customers". "Cheaply. At scale." 

This reminds me of the underpants gnomes - http://southpark.cc.com/clips/151040/the-underpants-business (or the shorter YouTube version if there's a geoblock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts).

One last point about the comparison with accelerators like StartMate and Y-Combinator. There's a very good reason why these programs only take 7.5% - the alignment factor above. Taking 4x as much pretty much blows your program out of the water. Even if StartMate could offer twice the cash for twice the equity (thus keeping the valuation the same) I don't think it would be smart for either StartMate or the startups. Doubling that number yet again is pretty much insane.

There *may* be some people for whom this is a good opportunity, but if you have a real tech startup (rather than an idea in search of someone to build it for you) this deal looks pretty predatory and set up for failure unfortunately.

Disclosure: I've been an investor and mentor in Startmate from the beginning.

[Craig Davis]

Geoff,

I agree with most of your analysis, but I wouldn't be so harsh on it. 

In the capital scenario you outline, if there's a single founder and the prize equity is diluted (a non-dilution right would be getting a bit nasty IMO) the founder has 23% of a business with $25M valuation which is worth over $5M - a substantial amount of value for them to build on and hopefully later realise. 

Of course, that is very much a best-case scenario with a very strong series A valuation and excellent seed round too. I agree such a large initial investor equity reduces founder upside dramatically. It also makes common scenarios like a lower seed valuation, second seed round (not quite there for series A), etc much more painful to all concerned which may make a business failure more likely in the mid-performance case.

Entrepreneurs should look at options like this with their eyes wide open, and have a good look at other options too - diversity is good. I really like startmate, Scale and bluechilli - would like to see all succeed as well as GRIFFIN Accelerator which I'm involved in - all four of those options have distinctly different value propositions for entrepreneurs to look at.

Cheers,

Craig Davis

@Craig_A_Davis

griffinaccelerator.com.au

[debtfree]

This is a terrible deal. Valuation at 250k but you lost 30% of the company.

For seed around, anything more than 10% is unacceptable.

[Dean Collins]

Agree 30% in a seed round makes it a non starter. I’d also want to see fixed “dev costs” in advance if I was pitching for a “hot house” situation like this otherwise you could end up spending $75k on “in house” development very quickly and still have nothing to show for it when it came to the next capital round. Eg $75k could be a very very short runway……

 

 

Regards,

 

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
de...@cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357   New York

·          

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[blindman2k]

This is BlueChilli's model ... take an idea, throw some resources at it, get it to the market quickly and see where it goes. In a sense you are giving away the company in return for having your idea turned into a product. Would I put any of my ideas through that? No. Is it excellent value for some people? Very much so. I know plenty of people who have ideas but no skill to execute and instead of taking on a co-founder for 50% they can take on an investor for 30% who is technically capable and highly motivated. That's not a deal breaker for everyone.

    A.

[Dean Collins]

….and as long as you go into it understanding all the complications it will involve it may be a viable solution for a limited number of people but when you give up 50% to a developer “partner” you aren’t paying them market rates for the POC site…..

How many successful “round 2’ exits have there been from BlueChilli? Eg how many POC’s have gone on to get funding from additional external partners and not run out of runway?

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Dean Collins
Cognation Inc
de...@cognation.net

+1-212-203-4357   New York
+61-2-9016-5642   (Sydney in-dial).
+44-20-3129-6001 (London in-dial).

--

[Geoff Langdale]

The difficulty of answering this question, for pretty much *all* Australian incubators and accelerators, is why I posted the "Centralized resource for assessing the fate of startups in Australian accelerators and incubators?" thread. The unspoken sub-part to your question is "... out of how many startups" - is even more difficult.

silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[blindman2k]

….and as long as you go into it understanding all the complications it will involve it may be a viable solution for a limited number of people but when you give up 50% to a developer “partner” you aren’t paying them market rates for the POC site…..

I agree but for some people thats an acceptable cost, especially as they are doing much more than just software development. They assist with the business, the marketing as well. I am not suggesting its a fantastic deal, just that it suits some people well and they don't have a shortage of applicants.

 

How many successful “round 2’ exits have there been from BlueChilli? Eg how many POC’s have gone on to get funding from additional external partners and not run out of runway?

That's the $64 question we all want to know.

 

[Pushpinder Bagga]

The devil is in the details - there might be more clauses in the shareholders agreement with possible cap on dilution, special majority approval, vito powers and directors status etc. It's essentially a matter of time folks - it will soon be clear which founders / companies take this offer - repent it later or use this opportunity to create some if not much value for themselves.

This comes as a part and parcel with the development of the tech startup atmosphere in Australia and will help outline what type of offers are good for which type of start-up companies.

Cheers!

[Dean Collins]

…..or Colette could just post a copy of the terms to the list…..like I said restrictions on further funding is probably going to be the main sticking point for most experienced entrepreneurs.

 

 

Cheers,

Dean

·          

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[blindman2k]

I can't see experienced entrepreneurs being interested in Blue Chilli's offering either way.

[Brian Dorricott]

Geoff said: ...and as long as you go into it understanding all the complications it will involve it may be a viable solution for a limited number of people but when you give up 50% to a developer “partner” you aren’t paying them market rates for the POC site…..

Aron said: I agree but for some people thats an acceptable cost, especially as they are doing much more than just software development. They assist with the business, the marketing as well. I am not suggesting its a fantastic deal, just that it suits some people well and they don't have a shortage of applicants.

 

The concern that I have is that some of the people applying do not understand the implications of the agreements that they are signing. For example, an NDA can cut both ways – if you later discover something in the agreements that you think everyone else should know (so they don’t get caught out) you may not be able to warn them… 

 

Geoff said: How many successful “round 2’ exits have there been from BlueChilli? Eg how many POC’s have gone on to get funding from additional external partners and not run out of runway?

Aron said: That's the $64 question we all want to know.

 

I’ll second that. And I’m sure that BlueChilli have that information since it is a proof of success of their model…

 

Brian

[Alan Jones]

Hi group, I'm a member of the leadership team at BlueChilli, founding mentor and investor in Startmate, investor and mentor in Pollenizer's original incubator program, volunteer mentor at Muru-D, BlackbirdVC investor and seed round investor in Bugherd, Scriptrock, Bugcrowd, OtherLevels, That Startup Show, and others.

I say that (a) to boast ;-) and (b) because I don't think there is a single "best model" for creating great startups, so I back as many models as I can afford to. Success depends upon a great many variables, many of which we can only ever be aware of in hindsight, and often entirely independent of who is in our team, whether we did an accelerator program, who invested in us, or whether we did an Android app for it. 

Startmate only accepts technical teams with a prototype, and even then, only the top 8-10 of hundreds of applications.

There are obviously no numbers on this but I'm going to assert based on my experience with BlueChilli and Startmate that in Australia now and for the next 10 years at least, for every pair of tech co-founders with a functioning prototype ready for a Y Combinator-like program like Startmate or AngelCube there are 5-10 non-technical entrepreneurs with a great idea for a startup, seeking validation from a respected third-party that their idea has merit, and help with securing enough money to give it a crack. They need help, and at BlueChilli we think we have an opportunity to help them in a scalable, profitable model.

As I wrote last year in StartupSmart, US research indicates you need at least five years of data on graduating cohorts before you can say whether or not an accelerator improved the odds of raising a next round. Startmate will hit five years when its 2015 cohort just starting now graduates and spends the following 6-12mths raising. BlueChilli won't have five years of data until somewhat later.

BlueChilli doesn't have the right to disclose publicly whether a startup has raised a round, (and if so, for how much) unless the startup's directors have already done so, or given us express permission to do so. If I held 5% of your startup and started blabbing publicly about your capital raising went, you'd be pretty pissed off with me too.

Hopefully initiatives like Startup Muster will start to gradually fill in the data picture in the next year or two.

Until then, I'd caution everyone to beware post-purchase rationalisation. We tend to defend the important choices we make — whether it's to bootstrap yourself, enter an accelerator program, hang out at a coworking space, buy a Jeep, whatever. We also tend to enforce that choice on everybody else: "I went through Accelerator XYZ so everybody else should too". Or "I taught myself to code and so should everybody else".

I'm happy to explain the BlueChilli model in person to anybody who wants to book a time with me (we're just next to QVB so easy to get to) and I can recommend volunteering your time with a few of our startups as a great way to see for yourself whether what we do is working or not.

Right now, I'm late for a mentoring session at Startmate so I better go!

- alan  

[Jindou Lee]

30% though?!??

I don't think people disagree on the value incubators/accelerators/bluechilli brings to the equation. However, I think the general feeling is the value prop is very one sided. 

I look at this from a few different angles. 

1) As a founder: This would be almost giving up my company for next to nothing. Sure I might have just an *idea, and no capability to get it to reality. But as a semi decent founder, surely, I can either hire an o/s dev shop or give 30% equity to a bunch of young hungry tech guys with a 4 year vesting period. So if they don't perform, I'll take my equity back for the next person. Furthermore, if I'm still around to raise a next round and give up 20-25% of the pie again... then I'm close to half of the company (not to mention my employee option pool). And being in Australia, I'd most probably I'll raise $500k-$1M cos it's a small market/lack of solid investors/blahblahblah. That's pretty crappy and not much incentive for me to carry on.

2) As an investor: I've done a few investments now and I would never want to invest in a company that does not have a full time dedicated tech team. Massive signaling risk. Even if the tech team was not super strong, there is at least a tech presence. I know that all development projects fail, take longer and it's a massive grind. If it's a fee for hire dev shop, they will stop working when the going gets tough cos the incentives are not there. Outcome = Investment fail. The success of an early stage company boils down to the founding team's DNA.

A part of me also says that taking such a big chunk of their equity up front seems a bit predatory for my liking as an investor. It gives no wriggle room for future hires and future investment rounds. All key to the success of my investment.

3) As a product guy: From a product perspective, I would view all this feedback as customer validation. Although the people that have spoken up are not representative of the founders that would be attracted to the BlueChilli model, I do think there is some wisdom that might make for future iterations of how you structure/market/sell the Disrupt@Scale program. 

Again, this is just my perspective from 11,000km away.

Let's see how it pans out.

J

PS: 30%?

*The old saying goes: Ideas are like a-holes, everyone has one and they usually stink

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[Alan Jones]

Yes, 30% :-) Before I try to explain why 30%, I should also make sure you know that BlueChilli doesn't usually take 30%. Our usual deal varies according to the risk/opportunity in the idea, founding team, complexity of the product and investor interest level, but ranges from 2% to around 15% most of the time. Disrupt@Scale is a new and separate program to our main line of business, developed in collaboration with the major financial institution we're working with on this. 

Anyway, yes: 30%. JD, you know I love you man, and I'm such a fan of yours because you're so very, very different from the people this program is designed for and you can't see that. You're enormously talented and yet you're so modest, completely undervaluing all the skills and experience you have that a first-time 'wantrepreneur' doesn't have.

You were selected for a Startmate intake, which puts you in the top 1% of Australian entrepreneurs who apply for an accelerator program. You succeeded on all Startmate metrics — survived a founding team member exiting, recruited new team members, relocated to the US, raised a decent next round, built a decent product, found paying customers for it and made them happy, and are still kicking arse today — that puts you in the top 0.05% of Australian startup founders by the data from the Startup Genome project.

When you say, "I could just recruit a team of young guns, put them on a vesting schedule and put them to work" there are so many skills and experiences you're implicitly drawing on to be able to do that! It's hard to find an analogy that adequately explains the gulf, but I'll try: I want you to think of a relative or friend who still uses a Hotmail or ISP-supplied email address for their primary email address. You're at a party together, they know you're a startup founder, and they tell you they've got an idea for an iPad app (doesn't matter what it might do) and they ask you how they should go about getting the product built. So first you tell them to outsource it. OK, they say, how do I brief a developer? What do they need to know? How much should it cost? How do I tell if they're doing a good job? Hmmm you think: this could take up a lot of my time if I don't want them to get into trouble on Elance. So you decide you've given them the wrong advice, and you tell them to find enough money to incorporate, set up an ESOP, recruit some young hotshots and offer them 5% each on a 4 year vesting period. The friend/relative doesn't know what "incorporate" means, much less what an ESOP is, how to set one up, how to tell a good hotshot from a bad one, or where to find one that might be interested in working on the app. They don't know how to do any of this either. This could all take a LOT of your time to explain and advise on each step of the journey.

They're not a dumb person. Maybe they're an accountant or a brain surgeon in their day job, but they didn't grow up drawn to tech from an early age like you and I did, and their profession has never required them to learn any more than the basic user stuff. Yet people like this sometimes do have valid startup ideas, and some of those ideas can become successful startups, with those people as founders. Great at managing people, or closing sales, or really know the target customer, or have bags of cash from a previous business and no time to spend learning how to be Jindou before they start. 

They're just going to need a lot of help to get there, and that help isn't (and shouldn't) be free.

The Disrupt@Scale program doesn't just give them the validation that their idea might be a great idea and $75k. In no particular order, they get a free pass to BlueChilli's 156 Accelerator program (including curriculum, dedicated, on-site startup mentors, office space, range of discount and free services, introductions to investors in our ESVCLP fund) and if they want (strictly optional) they can use our product development team at-cost (really: at cost) on all or part of the platform dev. Most important: they get The Major Financial Institution (TMFI). Identity of TMFI to be announced when the finalists are announced, but they're M. Way M.

Unlike a typical early-stage tech investor, the TMFI isn't investing to get either a 50x return in five years or shut you down. They want to learn how startups create innovative new lines of business so quickly, and they think a good way to do this might be to invest a small amount in some of them so they can observe from the inside. You're not ever going to move their revenue or profit needle even a basis point even if you're a $100M company, so it's not about wresting control from the founders or even necessarily avoiding their own stake being diluted. But it's a big enough stake that they don't want you to fail, it's important for them that you succeed.

If, on the other hand, you're the kind of startup they can help grow (and if you're a finalist, you will be) they'll sign up as your first customer, help you gain access to their large global customer base, salesforce, marketing channels, etc. We both know from, for example, Grabble's experience with WalMart that big corporate help is sometimes a bit of a mixed blessing, but we're hoping that having BlueChilli as a partner and investor too, we can help mitigate that.

Imagine having the biggest potential corporate customer of your startup approach you when your startup was just a one-page idea. You've got no prototype, no team, no company, no validation of the business model, not even a logo from 99Designs. There's no due diligence beyond a few interviews and a couple of pitches. But the TMFI likes you, and likes your idea, and wants to back you. You've got no idea about how to create a startup but the corporate customer is going to pay for you to go through an accelerator program and BlueChilli's there to build it if you want us to, or not.

2) I completely understand why you wouldn't invest in a startup like this, and that's your prerogative, but with the greatest respect, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad investment. nor a startup that will find it hard to raise capital. I remember a startup helping property managers do inspection reports that I passed on... Other types of investors will see the very things you don't like about this startup as positives instead of negatives — first massive customer already paying and already a significant investor in the startup, external validation of the startup and founding team from a well-known accelerator, MVP built and ready for seed funding needed to recruit an in-house product team to take ownership and kick it up a notch.

3) Nope, I don't see the negative feedback from some on Silicon Beach as customer validation. If we agree on anything, it's that you and Geoff and the others are *not* the target customer. We're guilty of bad targeting and bad creative: it's not for you, you didn't understand what it is, who it is for, and why they might want it. My metrics that matter are: how many applications we receive before closing date, the quality of the applications we receive, and the quality of the founders who apply. A week out from closing applications, we have enough applications, there are some good ideas, and we'll soon get to meet applicants.

30% is a starting point and of course that could change in future. Nobody's done something like this before. 

But even if it were 5% you still wouldn't apply Jindou, and don't kid yourself that you're no smarter than the average bear.

- alan

silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Sazima]

Great discussion!

I was just wondering... if TMFI really just wants to learn, why learn with the people that are the least knowledgeable (about "how startups create innovative new lines of business so quickly")? Why not back and learn with people like Jindou (whom I don't know, but, after reading Alan's compliments, seems an awesome bloke)?

Cheers, Richard

silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Collins]

Yeah, I'm with you Richard. It sounds to me like a philanthropic cause investing in people with such lack of knowledge. But Alan is right, the proof is in the pudding... god speed Alan and I hope you've worked out a model that works.

[Jindou Lee]

Yes, my mum tells me I'm an awesome bloke. :)

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[blindman2k]

I hope you go home to see her once in a while JD. 

A couple of points to add to Alan's comments and a quick thank you for joining in the conversation.

a) I suspect none of the likely entrants are reading this thread. SB is a weird group of people with either entrepreneurial genes or a dream to become one. I think the candidates are likely to be more like Alan described, those that have an idea they are passionate about rather than a basal need to build something / anything.

b) If I recall correctly, BlueChilli makes founders pay to join the program. A "minor" skin-in-the-game move which I think has merit. This changes the dynamic of who applies considerably.

    A.

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 9:20:53 AM UTC+11, Jindou Lee wrote:

[Rai]

So here's the thing. I went back to the original post, checked out the info page and to be honest, I'd take that deal.
From what is described in the info page, it would suit my needs to a T.

Like a lot of us, I'm constantly thinking up ideas. My own criteria for whether or not an idea I've had is worth exploring:

• Will it do good - This is more than the concept of disruptive usually thrown around. I want my product to so change my customer's life, they wonder how they did (insert action) before my product came along. I want to make their lives a magnitude of times better than it is now through technology.
• Does it have a business model. My most brilliant ideas are something I potentially wouldn't pay $0.99 for. Binned. Why? A digital business is a business is a business. On the most reductive level a business' raison d'etre is an exchange of something (goods, service) for cash. If I can't mould my idea into that definition of a business, it's useless to me.
• Can it achieve (customer, company and tech) scale? Much MUCH harder than most people think.
  

So. If I had an idea that satisfied these three requirements, and I wanted to move on it, and I have limited tech skills, and I have about 10 startups worth of experience, so I know which areas I'll basically be crap at - I'd apply for this program. 

I've had these conversations with other founders, and I know plenty disagree with me. But you know what? I know that it would be MY best shot at turning entrepreneur/founder.

30% for a chance at that? GIMME.

Rai

[Alan Jones]

You don't know Jindou? Happy Inspector cofounder, early Startmate grad. Humble, self-effacing, funny, now an experienced and capable Aussie founder in SV.

Should TFMI start making bigger investments in more mature startup ventures? You bet! But that's another project, already underway, doesn't involve me, and doesn't depend on the success/failure of this project.

Alan

Alan Jones

Chief Growth Hacker

e al...@bluechilli.com

m +61414987069

a  125 York Street Sydney
f   facebook.com/BlueChilli

silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[Richard Sazima]

Just complementing, I find it awesome that Colette and Alan are providing really thoughtful answers to the great arguments that have been posted by a number of people (which also helps them think about many details of their value proposition), it is not uncommon this kind of discussion to turn sour...

I was a founding partner at an accelerator in Brazil (http://baita.ac) and it was *really* hard to start (and still is). Many months of unpaid long hours of work and very low returns. Even so, we managed to partner some of the leading thinkers in SV and eventually were accredited by the national startup program (StartupBrasil). In a sense, it's like a startup.

One thing that few people realise is how lean (in the usual sense, no fat) accelerators and early-stage investors have to be. It's not like M&A teams in big banks or Wall Street investors. There's almost no money in the game at this stage, so there's not much for everyone. All the people involved are actually undertaking an endeavour together. That's why accelerators and investors need a sizeable share of the startup, because it is a very small business at this stage, but the costs these enablers incur are (mostly) in line with market prices.

Now, on the other hand, I know entrepreneurs with no tech skills, no previous startup experience, that didn't go through any acceleration program, and even so managed to raise hundreds of thousand of dollars for less than 30% equity and the business is going strong. They did suffer from several of the problems mentioned in this thread, but survived, learned and are doing great now. It's a fact that lower initial valuations / higher dilutions would have hurt the business and negatively impacted subsequent capital raising.

In summary, 30% equity does seem a bit high, both based on the arguments raised so far and actual experiences. But accelerators, investors and others also need to be rewarded for their work, risk taking and so forth. The better they do, the better we all do (and the other way around too), it's a virtuous cycle. And as Alan, Rai and others have pointed out, there might be people that find it fair or even a great deal. Finally as Alan said: "30% is a starting point and of course that could change in future", so let them experiment and adapt. Good luck!

​Cheers

,

​ ​

Richard

[Richard Sazima]

Yeah, unfortunately not...  living  in Townsville... :-)

Humm, that would be good too, but not necessarily higher amounts, just more deals, more exits, etc. We need more players and faster cycles for the industry to mature. In that regard, Disrupt@Scale is a good initiative, builds momentum.

Cheers, Richard

[Colette Grgic]

Thanks for the input, from all sides - I think it's fantastic that we have a community that cares about supporting and challenging each other so we grow and get better outcomes for everyone.

I think we all agree that we need more successful startups in Australia to cultivate a stronger ecosystem of tech, innovation and entrepreneurship; we need a growing foundation of successful entrepreneurs who can start, support and grow the next cycles of startups.  If you filled out Startup Muster (and if you haven't, you should - it closes in 4 days: https://www.startupmuster.com) you probably saw from last year's results that the two biggest problems for startups are #1 Availability of private funding (40%) and #2 Availability of technical talent (39%). The more of these barriers we remove and the more diverse opportunities we offer people - especially those who aren't already doing a startup already - to take the leap and start one, the higher chance we have of building a strong ecosystem. 

Thanks again,

Colette

[Darren Patterson]

Growth Hacker

BrickX is a revolutionary real-estate trading platform providing universal access to the Australian property investment market.

Founded by seasoned entrepreneurs with deep investment experience and a passion for disruptive ideas, the company is backed by the BridgeLane Group and based at Tank Stream Labs, the vibrant startup space in Sydney’s CBD.

Role

Reporting to the CEO, you’ll join a smart, cross-functional team collaborating on an innovative real-time, transactional platform.

As our Funnelmeister you’ll be moving the metrics north and filling the funnel in a creative and insightful manner. You’ll discover ways to make our brand fun and engaging.

This role is for you if you’re:

• Analytical but also creative.

• Contribute to our tone of voice and brand identity.

• Able to react to market research, whilst testing and learning.

• Have strong copywriting skills.

Requirements

• Proven record of viral acquisition, be ready with examples.

• Comfortable with all the paid acquisition tools and platforms:  Google, Facebook, display, mobile, TV, print, radio etc.

• Familiar with leveraging call centres to drive low cost customer acquisition.

• Content marketing experience – blogs, infographics, viral videos, turning visitors into paying customers

• Email Marketing – engagement, activation and motivation.

• SEO.

• A/B Testing and analytics to the extreme, preparing weekly comprehensive cross platform management reporting in a clear and concise manner.

• Business dashboards – build, drive and watch the needle move.

Great to have

• A sense of humour.

• Bachelor/MBA degree.

• A keen interest in real estate.

• Some interests outside of work, hopefully yoga, netball, cycling, cricket and / or cold-drip coffee.

Why BrickX?

• Enjoy the adventure and challenge of doing something that’s never been done before.

• We offer a fun, bright atmosphere. A great work / life balance includes tech-share lunches, friday drinks, table-tennis, cold drip coffee on tap and an annual go-kart Grand Prix!

• You’ll be part of the Tank Stream Labs community, home to over 30 high-profile startups including Airtasker, goCatch, Braintree and BuzzFeed.

• We believe in continual learning including training, certification, and taking full part in the tech community.

• A competitive salary includes generous stock options.

How to apply

We’re looking to fill this role immediately – please drop a covering note and resume to jo...@brickx.com.

Notice: if received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not intend to waive confidentiality or privilege. Use of this email is prohibited when received in error.

[Dean Collins]

Hi Darren,

Interesting idea…..unfortunately your email address sign up doesn’t work (or doesn’t in IE)

 

 

Cheers,

Dean

 

From: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com [mailto:silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Darren Patterson

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 12:31 AM
To: silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [SiliconBeach] Growth Hacker

--

[Geoff Langdale]

Never mind giving inside details of funding... is there some source for, say, a comprehensive (no deletions) list of startups that went through BlueChilli? I think a flat list of startups and dates would do a great deal to "gradually fill in the data picture".

[Alan Jones]

I think we can do that Geoff. It’s not a secret, in fact we usually have the logos of all the startups gone through the program on the wall in reception (no deletions ;-). We’ve just moved to a bigger place so we don’t have them up on the new wall, but I think we can compile a text list.

Which date do you need? Date of what?

Would it be too much to ask you and other concerned citizens to follow up with all the other accelerators and get the same list from them? More lists = better comparisons, yeah?

- alan

Alan Jones

Chief Growth Hacker

e al...@bluechilli.com

m +61414987069

a  125 York Street Sydney
f   facebook.com/BlueChilli

--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Silicon Beach Australia mailing list. Vist http://siliconbeachaustralia.org for more
 
Forum rules
1) No lurkers! It is expected that you introduce yourself.
2) No jobs postings. You can use http://siliconbeachaustralia.org/jobs
 
 
To post to this group, send email to
silicon-bea...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-aus...@googlegroups.com.

[Geoff Langdale]

Alan,

That sound good. I think 'date in the program' (maybe a range, or a graduation date) and 'role played' is probably a good couple of fields to include (many accelerators seem to play a range of different roles and may not have the same involvement with all their startups).

I'm not singling out any single accelerator with it. I think NSW would be a good start. Probably only programs that have had >2 or >3 classes or a certain threshold # of startups. Nor is it an exercise in snark; some programs are neglecting to publicize success as well as failure. It's hard to see the big picture as many startups take years to become overnight successes.

Also, I think it does make sense for a accelerator or incubator to have a "Edited Highlights" portfolio listing - there's place for that as well as a "full disclosure" statement...

Geoff.

silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/silicon-beach-australia?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Silicon Beach Australia" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/silicon-beach-australia/SCdsCCWxeQQ/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to silicon-beach-australia+unsub...@googlegroups.com.