Tuesday, 18 March 2008
The Collaboration Cycle
Three months into licensing or pursuing a market entry for a new technology everyone involved always feels like they're a few months away from a deal, and no more than a year from revenue. Time and time again we've found it always takes much longer. You can expect to see at least one change in the bigco's team, and if it's an international collaboration each cycle of meetings takes months. This graph tries to compile the wisdom from all our companies licensing and collaboration projects- the conclusion being that, even without any hiccups, it's likely to take around 3 years from first meeting to revenue. This is a real opportunity, in my view, for the largeco's to steal a march on their competitors- getting really quick and sharp about technology acquisition would buy them a great advantage.
Posted by Ed French at 12:13
Monday, 17 March 2008
Rahns law of investment propositions
Mark Rahn, the newest member of our technology team, is doing a great job and took to the job like a "duck to water". He came up with a real gem of an observation the other day, which I've taken the liberty of christening, "Rahn's Law".
"The quality of a proposition is inversely proportional to the amount of time the plan or team spends extoling its virtues." |
This links nicely to four tests for any business plan which I've always urged our investees employ:
Four tests for business plans
1. The superlative test
Have you obliterated all superlatives? Leave it to the judgement of the reader if something is really "exciting","superb", let alone is someone's track record is one of "success".2. Have you used facts/numbers wherever you can?
It's a good discipline to try and replace each superlative with a number or fact instead: it makes writing much punchier! Don't say there's a "multi-billion dollar market for mobile software", try and say something like "there's a £n million market for GPS software on mobile devices". It's a great deal harder to write this stuff, but it helps convey real market knowledge and understanding.3. Check that jargon is appropriate/necessary
If I was writing a plan associated with "WiMax", the I probably need to refer to "WiMax"; that's appropriate use of jargon. However, it doesn would a proposition really benefit from using "ARPU" when you're not talking about anything that's not encapsulated by the word "revenue".4. Can a non-specialist reader tell what the company provides?
Include a laymans explanation of what your product or service is/does. A good case-in-point is a company I've been reading about tonight: they provided three documents in total describing the business, but after reading them, I have only the vaguest idea what the business does. Without this information all the stuff about the team, route to market and competitors is really hard to understand, relate or assess.I'm sure there are some other great suggestions out there...?
Later ammendment
5. Did you really describe your competitors and their comparative attributes?
This is often one of the most revealing sections of a plan- it's amazing how often it's missing!Posted by Ed French at 20:01
Labels: advice, vc, venture capital, venturecapital
Monday, 10 March 2008
Updated: Role of Chairman in Pre-Revenue Tech companies
The role of the chairman in RisingStars companies is a little different from the standard in a small company due to the emphasis on growth and support of a growing team.
Updated version, also I've added the highlights to emphasise particular areas that are unusually important in a pre-revenue technology company.
Team Building |
|
Financial Governance |
|
Strategy |
|
Fundraising |
|
Representing Shareholders Interests |
|
Proceedings at Board Meetings |
|
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Top 30 Internet Start-ups- erm not!
Top 30 Internet Start-ups
Real Business published on "Thursday, 30th August 2007"
I stumbled across this fascinating article today.
The top 30 includes Beenz.com and Boo.com- so somehow I think that their content management system isn't getting the date of the article quite correct. Anyone care to guess the correct date?
Seriously, it makes interesting reading if you want to compare the original .com bubble to the web2.0 situation today. I don't think you'd be left with the impression that there was too much in common?
A more interesting comparison for me was in the IT suite of my kids (primary) school, the end wall had been peppered with around 25 Web2.0 services that they were suggesting the children might like to use for entertainment or for coursework. Interestingly very few of these were actually targeting children, no doubt many are putting out a free product with a view to building paying customers later. The most sobering thing was how few of these services I'd actually come across!
Posted by Ed French at 09:03
Subscribe to: