Tag Archives: IoT

What do you do with all the advice you get as an #entrepreneur?

I had the opportunity to meet about 20+ entrepreneurs at the Plug and Play Tech Center, an accelerator and coworking space in Sunnyvale. This cohort was 2 sets of companies in the IoT (Internet of Things) space. Companies ranged from those in wearables, healthcare, connected car and home automation spaces. There were none in the industrial or commercial IoT area.

The startups were trying to get a sense for the changed funding landscape for startups and how to manage the new set of investors they had to deal with. Many in the connected car space were also talking to “strategic investors” such as the automakers themselves to get a sense for their interest to fund startups.

There was a question that one of the startups asked, which was they were adviced by a mentor who was a venture capitalist that “If we get funding from a strategic investor, then it will be viewed as toxic (sic) since we have to build to their needs”.

I am not sure of the context of that discussion, neither do I know about that investor’s background or intent, but this seems like poor advice at the outset. With more context and analysis I might learn more, but at the first glance, this is poorly construed.

I have written about conflicting advice for startups before and also a framework for entrepreneurs on how to take advice.

I think the best way to deal with experts who provide advice professionally is to resist the temptation to dismiss it rightaway or the desire to take it at face value and implement it rightaway.

Surprisingly I have found that most entrepreneurs actually “forget” the advice and seek out to experiment and find their own answer. That’s goodness, but it begs the question, how do you remember to seek what you learned?

So the problem as most people realize is that (like with storing and sharing good things at home) the problem is not storing, it is retrieving.

How can you recall the right advice when you need it?

Some decisions we make are fairly quick and provide us with very little time to process. Most decisions we make as entrepreneurs take require a longer lead time than a day.

The best way I have found to recall information an advice is to ask it again in context, instead of trying to remember what was said before and assume no judgement or bias before asking for a framework to think about the decision.

That way it gives you the ability to recall in context.

This surprising tactic means you should ignore all the advice you get and filter most of it as entertainment.

Which, if you are an entrepreneur is a much needed distraction.

Advertisements

Are accelerators failing startups or the curious case of “zombie startups” jumping from one accelerator to another

On Wednesday I had a chance to interact with 31 entrepreneurs in the IoT space at Plug and play technology coworking space in Sunnyvale. There were 10 companies in the Healthcare IoT area, 11 in the connected car and 10 in the home automation (IoT) space. Plug and play has 3 sponsors for their programs including Bosch, Johnson and Johnson and StateFarm, so the companies chosen were deemed a good fit for those sponsors to help them with innovation and startup scouting.

The interesting part that was very obvious to me when I looked at the list and later spoke with many entrepreneurs was that 19 of the 31 had gone to another accelerator program before this one. Of the 10 companies in the connected home space, 3 were from the Microsoft Accelerator itself. Of the 31 companies, 28 were outside the Silicon Valley, which makes sense (that they would want to move to the valley). Two that applied were from YCombinator as well, so, there were not just companies from tier 2 accelerators.

I asked the entrepreneurs why they felt the need to go through another 3-4 month program after they had been to one before.

The not so surprising conclusion is that for many (not all) companies, the 4 month accelerator model is largely insufficient. I did learn that most entrepreneurs did value the support, mentorship and advice provided by the accelerator program they were with before, but many had insufficient “traction” to justify a series A after their “acceleration”.

Of the over 3500 companies funded by venture capitalists in technology last year, less than 150 went through accelerator programs. Of them, nearly 50% were from YCombinator.

At the same time, over 1200 companies went through accelerator programs in the US alone last year. Of the over 1200 companies, 68% have gotten some form of funding (or about 800 companies) is the claim from the accelerators.

Which means about 650 (800 minus the 150 who secured VC funding) companies that “got funded” after an accelerator program, have not secured Institutional funding from a VC, but either from angels or from other accelerators.

If you look at the angel data from the US, of the over 4000 deals funded by angel investors in technology, < 5% or about 200 companies have been through accelerators before.

The result is that 450 companies that were claimed as “funded” after an accelerator program actually went to another accelerator.

Going back to the numbers above, if out of the 1200 companies funded by accelerators, about 450 (or 30%) went to another accelerator and 20% of them (on average) shut down, fail or close, then really about 50% of the startups from the accelerator programs or about 600 companies should be technically “funded” institutionally, but that number is 150. So, there are 450 “zombie” companies.

So the question is – what has happened to the “zombie” companies?

There are only 3 possible answers:

1. More companies have shut down that the numbers reported by accelerators.

2. Many companies end up becoming “cash flow positive” or “break even”, so they chose to not raise funding, but instead grow with “customer financing”.

3. More companies are “zombies” or walking dead – trying to raise funding, not succeeding, but not growing fast enough to justify institutional Venture funding.

I have my hypothesis, that it is #3 that makes up most of the “zombie” companies, but I’d love your thoughts.

If the measure of value that an accelerator provides (as measured by entrepreneurs) is funding, alone we are failing big time.