startup funding Archives

Small cities can be uniquely positioned to help startups get up and running. With lower costs to operate, less competition for resources, and high levels of public interest in new companies spinning up, smaller markets can be great incubators. Despite those tailwinds, companies in smaller cities often struggle to find private investment funding. It’s not that there isn’t any money to be invested—quite the contrary. Most metropolitan areas have at least one anchor industry creating wealth that spans multiple generations. Economic development organizations bring public money to the table as well.

Creating a minimally viable product and proving market traction are normally required before a startup lands sizeable investment money. Building that MVP and proving market validity takes time and money that many new ventures don’t have.

When founders decide to take on a funding partner, they often think in terms of securing $500k or more. That kind of investment falls in a gap that normally goes unfunded—too small for institutional investment and too big for individual investors. Pre-revenue startups who want to raise a year’s or more worth of runway in a single round are often left without any dance partners.

The fragmented nature of private individual investors, relatively finite size of public money offering, and the follow-on investment plays of institutional funds perpetuate this seed funding gap.

Overcoming this gap requires founders to change their thinking.

Step 1: Take a strategic look at what it will take to create the MVP. Consider what kind of money and resources it requires, and strip out anything that isn’t absolutely crucial.

Step 2: Determine how you’ll prove market traction. Whether that includes landing the first customer, attracting users, or building models around credible survey data, plan for this before you ever determine how much money you’ll need to raise and how quickly you’ll need to raise it.

Step 3: Complete the financial projections to determine the amount you absolutely need to pull off Steps 1 and 2. Decide how much equity you’re willing to give up (hint: it will be more than you want to give up).

Operating under the assumption that this seed funding won’t get you very far—only to the point of launching an MVP and proving market validity—the new funding number is likely far smaller than $500k. If the numbers fall between $50k and $120k, you could very well find an individual investor or small group of investors who shares your vision and is willing to risk cash in exchange for a sizeable chunk of equity.

Once you’ve launched the MVP and proved market traction, the size and options for investment funding expand. Not only will local sources of investment be more readily available, but investors from other cities, areas, or regions may be more approachable as well. Closing the funding gap is something pre-revenue startups can do for themselves as long as they tailor their timeline, product development, and overall approach to the funding sources available.

Every city seems to be hosting startup contests where founders pitch their companies to a dais of “experts” live on stage in an effort to win some funding. Sometimes these competitions are massive and worth millions but many are much smaller; awarding $5k to $20k. It’s within these newer and smaller competitions that I have noticed a recurring series of mistakes.

1. The judges are not experts in entrepreneurial businesses

You see this when sponsors become the judges or the panel includes commercial bankers who are really not business-builders. I love bankers and many of my friends are a part of that industry but they are institutionally bad at valuating and understanding start-up businesses. They tend to judge a business idea in terms of if they would give them a loan and for how much.

2. Contestants are often post-funded companies that have been in business for a year or more

When you are awarding $10k to a company that already has employees and overhead, you have given them 6 weeks of operating costs. That $10k could have launched a prefunded company’s business plan and allowed them to get a credible pitch together to secure additional funds. Instead, you have floated an established company’s payroll for a few weeks. You’ve created almost zero value. If the contest is awarding $100k or more, that’s a different story but when you are giving away small amounts of prize money, focus on those for whom it has the greatest impact.

3. The best idea almost never wins

Based on the sponsors, the event’s host, the constituency of the audience and other non-business-related factors, the least deserving of companies often win these events. There are always ulterior motives at play and when those are allowed to propagate, you see some truly awful business models walking away with money that would have served a greater purpose being set on fire in the parking lot. Nobody wants to admit this happens- but it does.

4. The event tries to be “like” Shark Tank

As soon as one of these competitions invokes the Shark Tank name in its promotional materials, it immediately loses credibility with me. Mark Cuban is not coming to your event. It is a TV show that is 50% substance and 50% manufactured drama. The best contests hold non-public and lengthy discovery sessions between the companies and the judges. Financial details are poured over and every assumption is challenged. By the end of that process, a business plan has been credibly reviewed and vetted. When those judges name a winner- it’s a very carefully considered verdict. The contestants come away with invaluable insight and advice from experts that will benefit them in perpetuity.

5. There’s fine print about the award money

More needs to be done to explain to contestants any requirements that will be imposed on claiming the prize money after it is “awarded.” This includes details around benchmarking or timing thresholds required before the money will be made available. What tax implications exist and was that explained to them? One competition I watched closely actually had a very short window where the winners could claim their award and it required hours of drafting financial reports and updating the business plan. At one point, the 2nd place winner decided the $6k they won wasn’t worth the effort and forfeited the money.

It’s truly outstanding that more of these competitions are popping up all over the country. These events can be future-altering opportunities for start-up businesses or they can be thinly-disguised advertising events for the paying sponsors.

As with most innovative ideas, the shift toward commercialization happens at some point and the original altruistic motivations are supplanted by the attraction to revenue and marketability. We’ve seen this shift happen with the best events. If you think that AOL purchasing TechCrunch won’t turn Disrupt into an event where sponsors look to sticker-up everything that moves like a NASCAR, you may be sincerely disappointed.

If organizers can focus on creating the best possible value for their sponsors while maintaining the worth of the experience for contestants, these competitions can help launch the next big idea.

startup funding

How Small-City Startups Can Get the Funds They Need