Friday, March 19, 2010
Business Bootstrappers vs. Angel Capital - MIT Enterprise Forum March, 2010
Two scrappy entrepreneurs squared off with two beneficent angel financiers to discuss the state of entrepreneurial innovation at the MIT Enterprise Forum on Tuesday, March 16. The entrepreneurs were Jeff Judge of Interactive Mediums, which provides a platform for managing and implementing mobile ad campaigns, and Chris Hill of PerkSpot which helps corporations communicate and manage access to third-party employee benefits, like AFLAC or discount programs from Dell or Six Flags. Judge is not seeing capital while Hill is quietly raising a round of that he says he would like to be $1M.
The investors were Jeff Carter of Chicago's Hyde Park Angels and Laurence Hayward of Cornerstone Angels. They represent "angel" consortia, groups of investors who buy into early stage companies. Angel investors come into companies early -- often before they have any customers and invest smaller amounts than "Venture Capital" firms. Angel investments will typically be rounds that range from $100K to $1M, while Venture Capital invests in the $3M - $7M range.
Linda Darragh, Director of Entrepreneurship Programs and Adjunct Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business was an excellent and knowledgeable moderator.
Both of the entrepreneurial bootstrappers were very successful. Both had started their companies with their own money, and not a lot of it by venture standards. Both companies have Fortune 100 companies in their client portfolio. PerkSpot was lucky to get Anixter (just out of the Fortune 100) as one of their first clients. They had a contact in Human Resources who needed their product and who walked them into the office of the VP.
Interactive Mediums started out with several bars and restaurants, small local businesses with a hip, mobile-friendly clientele. Then they want to a trade show (with four employees and four friends, a classic fake-it-until-you-make-it move) and found some corporate marketers who wanted an easy, inexpensive way to test out mobile campaigns. Judge said he was caught off-guard when the first corporate client said "yes"!
Both companies have grown, and from the sound of it, Judge's company has changed the most in terms of their product offerings. He says that the company will transform dramatically in the next six months in terms of who they target and what their system does.
While this wasn't a formal "pitch session", both of the investors responded favorably to the entrepreneurs. They have solid products. They described good teams and an ability to adapt to the marketplace. Most importantly, both had "marquee customers."
In terms of "elevator pitches," neither described themselves as solving a "big, pressing problem" and neither discussed their competition, be it a company or the status quo. Nor did the discuss barriers to entry for competitors.
Since neither was pitching for investments at this event, it was understandable that they did not address the issue of how an investor would make money out of the deal, which would include a discussion of how scalable the business is and who would be potential acquirers.
Interactive Mediums' Judge said he would avoid outside investment as much as possible. His biggest concern was that Angels and VC's don't sufficiently value the founder's equity. Hill expressed more flexibility. Both agreed that seeking funds and keeping investors engaged and happy would take up much of the CEO's time and energy.
When asked "how did you bootstrap?" Hill said that there is "a major lack of early funding in Chicago. I bootstrapped because of that environment." He focused on solving the problem of companies communicating and managing discount programs for employees and looked for his first sale. He wanted a good developer and used equity as an incentive.
Judge started with personal funds and, before the credit crunch, was able to get a $100K loan. He follows the formula, for every $10K in increased monthly revenue, he can hire one more person.
On the investment side, Carter and Hayward provided some insights into Angel Investors in general and Hyde Park Angels and Cornerstone in particular.
Cornerstone has done 17 deals since 2006, investing $4.5M. There is wide variation between deals, from $50K to about $750M. The entrepreneurs are mostly looking for $500K to $2M. They funded three manufacturing companies who had "better processes" for industry.
They have twenty full members and they have five or six investment meetings where two or three candidate companies present. These events get forty to fifty people by invitation only, generally members and some entrepreneur guests. Members collaborate on due diligence and write individual investment checks. Only a third to a half of the presenting entrepreneurs get funding from these events.
In addition, Cornerstone holds five or six screening events per year, with 5-10 members from the screening committee in attendance. This year, Hayward says there are good entrepreneurs are coming out of the woodwork. Even the best connected entrepreneurs are having trouble finding funding from their close circles of friends and family, so more deals are coming to light in semi-private Angel Investment circles.
Cornerstone will invest outside the Midwest, while Hyde Park Angels keeps their investments "one day's drive" from Chicago. They have fifty-five angels and will cap membership at one hundred.
Hyde Park Angels lists four companies on their portfolio page, with a fifth deal recently closed and the Chicago Tribune reports they have invested "about $3M" in the four companies.
Hyde Park's investment criteria can be found at http://hydeparkangels.com/invest.html In addition, Carter has two other investments outside of HPA. They are in Tallgrassbeef.com, and windetergent.com.
Angel groups like to get other angel groups to invest with them. It spreads the capital risk to other communities and brings in capital from places other than Chicago and the Midwest. Angels want to get the first round of financing full because later rounds will often dilute their equity position.
In contrast, VC investments average around $7M (Carter says that "over $3M is VC territory").
Hyde Park Angels works with the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at Chicago Booth. They have ten interns (hiring 5 per year from a pool of over a hundred applicants). Carter praises the U of C students as being critical to the success of HPA. Entrepreneurs pay $100 fee to submit a deal. Hyde Park gives "a fast no and a slow yes." They present three potentially qualified deals at each quarterly meeting, and their goal is for members to fund all three of those deals. The format of the meeting is 10 minutes to pitch and 10 minutes Q&A with the panel.
Carter brought up that .05% of companies go public, so investors want to know how they will get paid. Hayward explained that investors are looking for an IRR from their fund of 19%. Since one or two out of ten investments provide 90% of the return, they are targeting a minimum of 25% IRR from each deal.
The point was made more than once that angels look to invest in scalable businesses that can be acquired, not "lifestyle businesses." This is a key point. Many entrepreneurs have really great ideas for businesses. They might not be a perfect fit for an angel investor because they are not scalable enough to become big business as envisioned by the entrepreneur. However, this shouldn't dissuade entrepreneurs from starting businesses. You can provide a pretty good income for yourself and family by starting up and running your own business.
As is usual with the MIT-EF meetings, there were some excellent questions. Both of the investors said they would like to see a social platform where they could have visibility to all local "deal flow" -- who is seeking funding, and who is investing. Carter recommended the book "World Wide Rave" by David Meerman Scott on the subject of Social Networking. He encourages every entrepreneur (and angel) to read it. The entrepreneurs were split on the value of Intellectual Property protection, but neither had pursued patents due to costs (much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of event organizer Bob Brill and event sponsor Ungaretti & Harris). The issue of control came up. The Angels generally take a minority position. Hyde Park Angels want a seat on the board, while that's not always a requirement for Cornerstone's investments.
As always, feel free to contact me with any questions or corrections (grammatical edits aside).
The investors were Jeff Carter of Chicago's Hyde Park Angels and Laurence Hayward of Cornerstone Angels. They represent "angel" consortia, groups of investors who buy into early stage companies. Angel investors come into companies early -- often before they have any customers and invest smaller amounts than "Venture Capital" firms. Angel investments will typically be rounds that range from $100K to $1M, while Venture Capital invests in the $3M - $7M range.
Linda Darragh, Director of Entrepreneurship Programs and Adjunct Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business was an excellent and knowledgeable moderator.
Both of the entrepreneurial bootstrappers were very successful. Both had started their companies with their own money, and not a lot of it by venture standards. Both companies have Fortune 100 companies in their client portfolio. PerkSpot was lucky to get Anixter (just out of the Fortune 100) as one of their first clients. They had a contact in Human Resources who needed their product and who walked them into the office of the VP.
Interactive Mediums started out with several bars and restaurants, small local businesses with a hip, mobile-friendly clientele. Then they want to a trade show (with four employees and four friends, a classic fake-it-until-you-make-it move) and found some corporate marketers who wanted an easy, inexpensive way to test out mobile campaigns. Judge said he was caught off-guard when the first corporate client said "yes"!
Both companies have grown, and from the sound of it, Judge's company has changed the most in terms of their product offerings. He says that the company will transform dramatically in the next six months in terms of who they target and what their system does.
While this wasn't a formal "pitch session", both of the investors responded favorably to the entrepreneurs. They have solid products. They described good teams and an ability to adapt to the marketplace. Most importantly, both had "marquee customers."
In terms of "elevator pitches," neither described themselves as solving a "big, pressing problem" and neither discussed their competition, be it a company or the status quo. Nor did the discuss barriers to entry for competitors.
Since neither was pitching for investments at this event, it was understandable that they did not address the issue of how an investor would make money out of the deal, which would include a discussion of how scalable the business is and who would be potential acquirers.
Interactive Mediums' Judge said he would avoid outside investment as much as possible. His biggest concern was that Angels and VC's don't sufficiently value the founder's equity. Hill expressed more flexibility. Both agreed that seeking funds and keeping investors engaged and happy would take up much of the CEO's time and energy.
When asked "how did you bootstrap?" Hill said that there is "a major lack of early funding in Chicago. I bootstrapped because of that environment." He focused on solving the problem of companies communicating and managing discount programs for employees and looked for his first sale. He wanted a good developer and used equity as an incentive.
Judge started with personal funds and, before the credit crunch, was able to get a $100K loan. He follows the formula, for every $10K in increased monthly revenue, he can hire one more person.
On the investment side, Carter and Hayward provided some insights into Angel Investors in general and Hyde Park Angels and Cornerstone in particular.
Cornerstone has done 17 deals since 2006, investing $4.5M. There is wide variation between deals, from $50K to about $750M. The entrepreneurs are mostly looking for $500K to $2M. They funded three manufacturing companies who had "better processes" for industry.
They have twenty full members and they have five or six investment meetings where two or three candidate companies present. These events get forty to fifty people by invitation only, generally members and some entrepreneur guests. Members collaborate on due diligence and write individual investment checks. Only a third to a half of the presenting entrepreneurs get funding from these events.
In addition, Cornerstone holds five or six screening events per year, with 5-10 members from the screening committee in attendance. This year, Hayward says there are good entrepreneurs are coming out of the woodwork. Even the best connected entrepreneurs are having trouble finding funding from their close circles of friends and family, so more deals are coming to light in semi-private Angel Investment circles.
Cornerstone will invest outside the Midwest, while Hyde Park Angels keeps their investments "one day's drive" from Chicago. They have fifty-five angels and will cap membership at one hundred.
Hyde Park Angels lists four companies on their portfolio page, with a fifth deal recently closed and the Chicago Tribune reports they have invested "about $3M" in the four companies.
Hyde Park's investment criteria can be found at http://hydeparkangels.com/invest.html In addition, Carter has two other investments outside of HPA. They are in Tallgrassbeef.com, and windetergent.com.
Angel groups like to get other angel groups to invest with them. It spreads the capital risk to other communities and brings in capital from places other than Chicago and the Midwest. Angels want to get the first round of financing full because later rounds will often dilute their equity position.
In contrast, VC investments average around $7M (Carter says that "over $3M is VC territory").
Hyde Park Angels works with the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at Chicago Booth. They have ten interns (hiring 5 per year from a pool of over a hundred applicants). Carter praises the U of C students as being critical to the success of HPA. Entrepreneurs pay $100 fee to submit a deal. Hyde Park gives "a fast no and a slow yes." They present three potentially qualified deals at each quarterly meeting, and their goal is for members to fund all three of those deals. The format of the meeting is 10 minutes to pitch and 10 minutes Q&A with the panel.
Carter brought up that .05% of companies go public, so investors want to know how they will get paid. Hayward explained that investors are looking for an IRR from their fund of 19%. Since one or two out of ten investments provide 90% of the return, they are targeting a minimum of 25% IRR from each deal.
The point was made more than once that angels look to invest in scalable businesses that can be acquired, not "lifestyle businesses." This is a key point. Many entrepreneurs have really great ideas for businesses. They might not be a perfect fit for an angel investor because they are not scalable enough to become big business as envisioned by the entrepreneur. However, this shouldn't dissuade entrepreneurs from starting businesses. You can provide a pretty good income for yourself and family by starting up and running your own business.
As is usual with the MIT-EF meetings, there were some excellent questions. Both of the investors said they would like to see a social platform where they could have visibility to all local "deal flow" -- who is seeking funding, and who is investing. Carter recommended the book "World Wide Rave" by David Meerman Scott on the subject of Social Networking. He encourages every entrepreneur (and angel) to read it. The entrepreneurs were split on the value of Intellectual Property protection, but neither had pursued patents due to costs (much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of event organizer Bob Brill and event sponsor Ungaretti & Harris). The issue of control came up. The Angels generally take a minority position. Hyde Park Angels want a seat on the board, while that's not always a requirement for Cornerstone's investments.
As always, feel free to contact me with any questions or corrections (grammatical edits aside).
Labels: bootstrapping, cornerstone angels, entrepreneurs, hyde park angels, innovation, mit enterprise forum chicago, mobile marketing, polsky, venture capital
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Business Network Chicago Venture Capital Panel
April 7, 2009
Four interesting and innovative companies presented their concept pitches to the monthly Business Networking Chicago Venture Capital meeting. Hosted by Len Bland and David Carmen, the attendees included entrepreneurs, service providers, students and perhaps a half-dozen actual investors.
The companies presenting at BNC Venture Capital are generally early in the cycle of seeking investment, and both participants and audience have an opportunity to learn how to make their business case to potential venture capital investors. Each speaker is given ten minutes to present and fifteen minutes to answer questions from the crowd.
Moderator Bland asks them to make sure they answer three questions: 1) What is your product or service and why will customers buy it? 2) Why is the management team qualified to execute the business plan? 3) How will your investors make money?
Of the four companies that presented at the meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, two were related to education; One was an innovator in sustainable (e.g. "green") transportation options; and one offered to transform the manufacture and distribution of a common retail product.
The first company, Lake Forest based INNOVATE2LRN, branded as QWK2LRN provides "thin client" computers to urban schools, with the objective that each student have a working computer at their desk full time. They provide hardware and infrastructure utilizing on-demand remote (or "cloud") server capacity.
It was interesting that the audience did not have a clear understanding of the Innovate to Learn's business model. That their service is related to providing computers and a "cloud-based" infrastructure to schools. This may be because QWK2LRN CEO Bill Lowe focused much of his presentation on the efficacy of having a dedicated computer workstation for each student in urban schools. He then recommended that the schools use web-based educational programs; the QWK2LRN solution does not provide software or teacher training, though they do have one person available to consult with teachers and administrators on selecting appropriate web-based educational programs.
A key to QWK2LRN 's business plan is that the management team works with school district superintendants to get access to already-allocated federal funds to pay for the hardware. The core team is made up of executives from Xerox, they bring Xerox's top-down approach to sales. The executive team has built strong connections with philanthropists who are active in urban and educational causes. This has given them access to school district superintendents rather than going in through the IT department. We note that, at this writing, their web site is "undergoing site maintenance".
The second education-related company to present at the BNC Venture Capital meeting, School Town, provides tools to help teachers, students, and parents communicate about school assignments and schedules. School Town also provides capabilities for teachers and parents to collaborate and share lesson plans and other educational information. School Town CEO Michael A. Kritzman also stated that School Town provides a platform for teachers to implement "differentiated learning" in the classroom.
Based out of the Chicago suburb of Glenview, they have had successes with their initial installations. The solution helps teachers and parents communicate with students, and helps students develop time management skills. One concern of the audience was whether competition in the education marketplace represented a good opportunity for the company to be acquired for integration or if the company could succeed as a stand-alone SaaS offering. Kritzman indicated that their strategy is to develop the product and be acquired. Another question from the audience was how much time School Town would save teachers versus the complexity it added to their jobs.
Parry Transit is an American subsidy of a British company that developed the hybrid trolly. They offer a sustainable ultralight rail solution. CEO Barry Seifer described ultralight rail as an affordable green transit technology. Light rail has a 10-year sales cycle, but ultralight is less expensive for both the track and cars and can go to market more quickly.
Despite Mayor Daley's repeated tries to build light rail in Chicago, this Chicago audience could not relate to the Trolly concept, asking if they could put tires on the cars. Unfortunately, that would eliminate many of the benefits of the Parry Transit system. Light rail has enjoyed success in other locations, including downtown Portland as an outstanding example.
On one hand, with federal stimulus dollars on the table, Parry's ultralight rail looks like an appealing investment. On the other hand, high-speed rail for the Midwest has been getting the PR buzz lately. A lot of Parry's success rides on managing all aspects of selling to government, including setting public expectations.
Chicago-based Novus Ice proposes to "redefine the distribution chain for bagged ice" in retail locations by placing automated systems in stores. The systems run quietly and have the same footprint of current ice vending systems, with added height.
The manufacture and distribution of ice is typically a local monopoly, with some 2,000 suppliers nationwide. There are two large public companies trying to roll up this market: Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier. Novus' business model is to finance the placement of the systems and take a percentage of sales from each unit. They will guarantee the retail price of a bag of ice. Eliminating the manufacturing and transportation costs of ice should improve margins on ice to around 20%.
The machines use standard components, assembled for Novus by the hardware suppliers. The makers of the freezer units have an existing nationwide maintenance operation, which Novus says will minimize the exposure of the maintenance risk.
The use of standard components raised the question of competition. Novus said that there is no competition currently in the market and that their projections are to take 4% of the retail ice market, focusing on chains with larger stores. Their business plan showed 64% EBITDA at the end of five years. They are in the planning stages for a pilot with Walmart.
Note, however, that a later Google search for "in-store ice production" yields a February announcement from Arctic Glacier of their in-store ice production system, and another system from Louisiana based Ultra Pure Water Technologies, dating back to November, 2005. (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5559/is_200102/ai_n22604092/ and http://www.upwt.com/icemakers.html ). It appears that there may be more to the story behind this innovation. If I were Ron May, I'd probably take up the space to also point out that the management team is not listed on the company's web site.
At the end of each presentation Bland polled the audience to vote their confidence in the presentation's investment potential on a scale of one to ten. Novus Ice Systems was the best received of the companies presenting. School Town received the most tepid support from the audience. Parry Transit appeared to have the widest dispersion of low-to-high votes.
The next Business Network Chicago Venture Capital meeting is Tuesday, May 5.
Four interesting and innovative companies presented their concept pitches to the monthly Business Networking Chicago Venture Capital meeting. Hosted by Len Bland and David Carmen, the attendees included entrepreneurs, service providers, students and perhaps a half-dozen actual investors.
The companies presenting at BNC Venture Capital are generally early in the cycle of seeking investment, and both participants and audience have an opportunity to learn how to make their business case to potential venture capital investors. Each speaker is given ten minutes to present and fifteen minutes to answer questions from the crowd.
Moderator Bland asks them to make sure they answer three questions: 1) What is your product or service and why will customers buy it? 2) Why is the management team qualified to execute the business plan? 3) How will your investors make money?
Of the four companies that presented at the meeting on Tuesday, April 7, 2009, two were related to education; One was an innovator in sustainable (e.g. "green") transportation options; and one offered to transform the manufacture and distribution of a common retail product.
INNOVATE2LRN – Dedicated Workstations for Urban Students
The first company, Lake Forest based INNOVATE2LRN, branded as QWK2LRN provides "thin client" computers to urban schools, with the objective that each student have a working computer at their desk full time. They provide hardware and infrastructure utilizing on-demand remote (or "cloud") server capacity.
It was interesting that the audience did not have a clear understanding of the Innovate to Learn's business model. That their service is related to providing computers and a "cloud-based" infrastructure to schools. This may be because QWK2LRN CEO Bill Lowe focused much of his presentation on the efficacy of having a dedicated computer workstation for each student in urban schools. He then recommended that the schools use web-based educational programs; the QWK2LRN solution does not provide software or teacher training, though they do have one person available to consult with teachers and administrators on selecting appropriate web-based educational programs.
A key to QWK2LRN 's business plan is that the management team works with school district superintendants to get access to already-allocated federal funds to pay for the hardware. The core team is made up of executives from Xerox, they bring Xerox's top-down approach to sales. The executive team has built strong connections with philanthropists who are active in urban and educational causes. This has given them access to school district superintendents rather than going in through the IT department. We note that, at this writing, their web site is "undergoing site maintenance".
SCHOOL TOWN – Web-based Teacher-Parent-Student Communication Platform
The second education-related company to present at the BNC Venture Capital meeting, School Town, provides tools to help teachers, students, and parents communicate about school assignments and schedules. School Town also provides capabilities for teachers and parents to collaborate and share lesson plans and other educational information. School Town CEO Michael A. Kritzman also stated that School Town provides a platform for teachers to implement "differentiated learning" in the classroom.
Based out of the Chicago suburb of Glenview, they have had successes with their initial installations. The solution helps teachers and parents communicate with students, and helps students develop time management skills. One concern of the audience was whether competition in the education marketplace represented a good opportunity for the company to be acquired for integration or if the company could succeed as a stand-alone SaaS offering. Kritzman indicated that their strategy is to develop the product and be acquired. Another question from the audience was how much time School Town would save teachers versus the complexity it added to their jobs.
PARRY TRANSIT – Ultralight Rail Using Hybrid Power
Parry Transit is an American subsidy of a British company that developed the hybrid trolly. They offer a sustainable ultralight rail solution. CEO Barry Seifer described ultralight rail as an affordable green transit technology. Light rail has a 10-year sales cycle, but ultralight is less expensive for both the track and cars and can go to market more quickly.
Despite Mayor Daley's repeated tries to build light rail in Chicago, this Chicago audience could not relate to the Trolly concept, asking if they could put tires on the cars. Unfortunately, that would eliminate many of the benefits of the Parry Transit system. Light rail has enjoyed success in other locations, including downtown Portland as an outstanding example.
On one hand, with federal stimulus dollars on the table, Parry's ultralight rail looks like an appealing investment. On the other hand, high-speed rail for the Midwest has been getting the PR buzz lately. A lot of Parry's success rides on managing all aspects of selling to government, including setting public expectations.
NOVUS ICE SYSTEMS – On-site Ice Production for Retail Locations
Chicago-based Novus Ice proposes to "redefine the distribution chain for bagged ice" in retail locations by placing automated systems in stores. The systems run quietly and have the same footprint of current ice vending systems, with added height.
The manufacture and distribution of ice is typically a local monopoly, with some 2,000 suppliers nationwide. There are two large public companies trying to roll up this market: Reddy Ice and Arctic Glacier. Novus' business model is to finance the placement of the systems and take a percentage of sales from each unit. They will guarantee the retail price of a bag of ice. Eliminating the manufacturing and transportation costs of ice should improve margins on ice to around 20%.
The machines use standard components, assembled for Novus by the hardware suppliers. The makers of the freezer units have an existing nationwide maintenance operation, which Novus says will minimize the exposure of the maintenance risk.
The use of standard components raised the question of competition. Novus said that there is no competition currently in the market and that their projections are to take 4% of the retail ice market, focusing on chains with larger stores. Their business plan showed 64% EBITDA at the end of five years. They are in the planning stages for a pilot with Walmart.
Note, however, that a later Google search for "in-store ice production" yields a February announcement from Arctic Glacier of their in-store ice production system, and another system from Louisiana based Ultra Pure Water Technologies, dating back to November, 2005. (see http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5559/is_200102/ai_n22604092/ and http://www.upwt.com/icemakers.html ). It appears that there may be more to the story behind this innovation. If I were Ron May, I'd probably take up the space to also point out that the management team is not listed on the company's web site.
FEEDBACK FROM THE CROWD
At the end of each presentation Bland polled the audience to vote their confidence in the presentation's investment potential on a scale of one to ten. Novus Ice Systems was the best received of the companies presenting. School Town received the most tepid support from the audience. Parry Transit appeared to have the widest dispersion of low-to-high votes.
The next Business Network Chicago Venture Capital meeting is Tuesday, May 5.
Labels: BNC, business network chicago, chicago, innovation, venture capital
