We Test the "Rules" of "Are You Fundable?" on Ultralight StartUp Pitches
Ultralight Start-Ups Investor Feedback Forum is one of the leading entrepreneur venues in New York. As founder, Graham Lawlor said to me, it attracted a high quality of pitches. But are they Fundable?
We at the Innovator Evening (iEvening) are friendly competitors and at the Feb 5th event, 3 of their 8 pitches have presented at our iEvening & Startupalooza events in the past.
Ultralight Start-Ups Investor Feedback Forum is one of the leading entrepreneur venues in New York. As founder, Graham Lawlor said to me, it attracted a high quality of pitches. But are they Fundable?
We at the Innovator Evening (iEvening) are friendly competitors and at the Feb 5th event, 3 of their 8 pitches have presented at our iEvening & Startupalooza events in the past.
The winner was an unusual offering that we would
not typically see taking the prize at an event like this: a health-related crowdfunding
site focusing entirely on giving.
At the same time, the quality of presentations were
good. What was missing was the proverbial young engineer with a better, faster,
smarter solution to a big tech problem. Oh wait, there was one. He came up
quietly to the VCs at the very end, handed out his card and they practically
devoured him.
So, while they may have stumbled upon this one
breakthrough start-up they had these to really think about. All were good – but
were they fundable? (Hint: that’s the name of my upcoming book…..)
1. Sashka Rothchild - Standbuy
This was the winner – a crowdfunding site for
cancer patients to raise money for the unexpected costs of their treatments.
Using a very slick site designed by co-founder, Mark Kozlowski who worked at R/GA
– a very high end ad design and production company – and citing some critical
numbers. she wowed the judges. About a third of all Americans experience cancer
and most will find that their insurance just isn’t enough – and they so they
wind up owing thousands of dollars. It also helped that a VC happened to have
an emotional attachment and was also the first investor in Indiegogo – one of
the first and most successful crowdfunding sites.
Sashka had her own cancer experience to relate,
which was also compelling.
This is a very interesting proposition on a lot of
levels because it is the kind of deal most Angels avoid and is as much an indictment of our medical
system as it is a kind of solution.
Angels have never been fond of crowdfunding sites
partly because it depends on the kindness of strangers – a foreign concept for
most businesspeople – and because it tends to challenge the Angels’ dominance.
But Standbuy won because it was a (C) – a startup that found a champion who happened
the first VC to fund IndieGogo and who also cares about cancer. Because of that
other VCs will follow.
If you analyze the deal what you get is a site
that invites people stricken with cancer bills to hold out their cup. Unlike
regular crowdfunding sites there really are no perks – not even a t-shirt or
tayband to lure you in. This is about pure compassion for someone you don’t know
or really don’t know well. Moreover, the site asks for a 1% premium over the
crowdfunding norm of 7% because it is purely focused on cancer.
At the end of the day, what you have then, is an
extremely well-designed site that makes asking others to help with your dire
needs seem dignified.
You would think that a “misery site” would charge
less not more. So, I am hoping that extra 1% would go to promotions which would
then attract more potential donors. Otherwise, an enterprising cancer
non-profit might be encouraged to go after the same market by charging less -
or even more – but then turning the entire donation into a tax deduction.
For that reason this is all about a (C)hampion
and not a fundable site in the ordinary sense that investors generally would
want to invest if they could. They would want to know how big it could be, how
sustainable and what the returns are. Would it have an exit? Who would buy it
and why?
We might get some ideas if we went to the biggest
issue first. Just how bad is our healthcare system if middle class people who
pay their health insurance are reduced to a kind of Hunger Games of sad stories
so they can pay for treatment that should have been covered by their premiums?
Very bad. That’s why the Standbuy solution is OK
for now but clearly, it isn’t enough. For one thing, I happen to think cancer
treatment has become something of a racket. You may not want call it that
because of how many people it helps - but if you are reduced to holding out a
begging bowl on your way to the clinic then the facts speak for themselves.
For example - a family member was having a mole
removed by a plastic surgeon. He saw something that had a slight chance of
melanoma. In an abundance of caution we went to the “Big Clinic on the Hill.”
After tests, expertly managed patient paranoia, the child turned out to be
okay. But, the exploration cuts had made their mark and what a deft plastic
surgeon would have gladly done for $1200 was now a $45,000 gouge.
So what exactly did they do for 40x other than
dig deeper, take out a couple of lymph nodes and run a slew of tests? (Not to mention, somehow placing me on a number of cancer research Telemarketing lists.)
That’s the solution investors are really looking
for – cut the bloated belly of the fear factory and you have an (F) – a
fundable proposition that investors anywhere would jump on instead of a (C) –
something only a special kind of investor would push.
I am not a big fan of the name, Standbuy because
(a) for a very specific site it doesn’t suggest cancer and (b) you really aren’t
buying anything. Standby or buy could anything other than cancer.
But since it is staking out a very big issue with
disrupting it, it does make you wonder. How about:
i.
CancerBids. Once you break apart the system – each segment can be
handled by subspecialist at routine costs. So, you put your care out to bid –
and you watch those bills come down. Not all chemo is the same nor is radiation
– but that’s what the ratings are for.
ii.
PayitFor.US – in this site I give strangers money but then 5% goes
towards an insurance fund that guarantees me a payback if I or my family
members get cancer. The best donors also go to the top of the PayitFor.US
promotion list if, sadly they are stricken. All donors get an "I gave at the office" pass whenever they get hit up by cancer research charity.
iii.
TreatmentTravel. Get treated for less at places like Costa Rica or the
Caribbean. Or the Poconos. There are plenty of fine places that are
inconvenient to get to but wind up being affordable. The site guarantees the
standards of treatment and helps manage the insurance boondoggle.
iv.
Lab_on_a_Chip. I didn’t make this up but he third world is buzzing
over this lowcost device that can run dozens of test in real time. Invent one
for cancer and the bloated belly of the cancer beast will be sporting a
six-pack in no time and you will be able to afford your longevity.
Rating: (C)hampion
Minteye, one of two runners-up is a cool product that turns those ever annoying Captcha’s into far less frustrating process that also happens to be an advertising opp. Instead copying some bizarrely twisted text, you simply move a slider until a swirling image becomes visible. The now visible image is an ad and you just passed your Captcha test. So why wouldn’t sites want this?
2. Larry Levine - Minteye
The answer is
complicated. Capthcas are a tolerated service not an ad game. So now they are
disrupting the model but only if they can sell the ads which is quite a big. As
a result Minteye wants to license it to ad networks. Good idea but not for
investors. Like affiliate sale systems ad networks have a way of leaving you with the very short end of the
stick. So that model is not too fundable. Then you have the team, which
consists of a savvy Ad-seller and some tech execs who are not the primary
developers but the US representatives of a distinguished Israeli development
team.
Angels always prefer to
deal with the primary developers so a significant number of investors will pass
on that basis alone. The team is not young and that has consequences. While we
can argue all day over whether or not anyone over 50 is Fundable, we can all
agree that the older you get the more substance you have to display. In other
words, you should have everything
ready to go – the customers, the products and so the capital is just the rocket
fuel. At least, that is the case with an product improvement. Their experience
and relationships should have
delivered key accounts that are ready to go. Instead they have a great product
with no current takers and for that, their veteran status cold actually count
against them. Also, the name. Minteye is what? A new flavor of Visine?
Consider this an (S) – for
the right Ad Tech specialty investor – which is harder to find than you think.
3. Amrish Singh - Threadmatcher
Threadmatcher is the
other runner-up, a site that helps men buy and put together outfits. It
also helps you find good deals on these ensembles. On a competitive level there
are numerous that help men match clothes. There was even pitch along those line
on “Shark Tank.” Apparently, all this competition is focused on this one issue:
men don’t know how to make outfits and the death of the suit (remember Today’s
Man?) has taken them from the simplicity of throwing on a suite and grabbing
tie to figuring how to put together a look.
Unfortunately, the men
who don’t know how to put an outfit together probably don’t care that much and
the ones who do, already know how. And remember men hate asking for directions.
So, unless you can find the Zappos of men’s clothing, outfit matching site
remains the elusive goal of a many an entrepreneur – a virtual haberdasher’s
Holy Grail.
Since the execution
looks good this is a (C)hampion – if someone likes them it could happen.
Likewise there may be some clothing players that need a matching site so chalk
up a lesser (S). But on its own, not generally fundable.
4. Alden Levy - MyBillRegistry
This is a site that,
like Standbuy, uses crowdfunding for a purpose. In this case, it is about funding
your loved ones’ education needs and other sundries while at college. Or at least, that is how they started. Their
Champion (C) is Scholastic, which has some type of test sponsor relationship.
Unlike Standbuy, their original charter was unlikely to have the mass reach that a heartwarming
cancer story might, but then again, every student has an extended family that
might be willing to throw in a few bucks to help Johnny or Janie get through
college.
The site is well
designed – not as slick or evocative as Standbuy - but still very professional. Now they have extended their plan to encompass medical bills and eldercare. While their name was decent to begin with - registry is associated with great beginnings as in wedding registries - but it withers when applied to the exigencies of healthcare. They need a name that is more evocative of caring.
For now, they suffer the
double-edged sword of a single sponsor. It’s great having them but now investors
want to see to two or three otherwise they will think of it as a specialty
product that won’t grow on its own even though they have extended their reach. Educational products are usually a
specialty investment product to begin with so unless they can find a way to
break out with an equivalent of Scholastic in the healthcare field they are an (S) for specialty investment.
5. Igor Kirtchakov - LienLog
LienLog happens to be my
favorite just because they are opening up an arcane area of investment that supposedly
smart investors like Robert Kiyosaski tout as a way to sell their expensive
training programs. Apparently, you can make some pretty spectacular gains by
guying up tax obligations backed by real property. But only specialists have
this game figured out. LienLog hopes so open that up, make these investment opportunities
easier to discover and manage. Most of all, they hope to attract enough of
these investors to create a liquid market. This is a very big promise and not
easily done. The name is also too specialized – compare with SecondMarket – they
need a much broader title like – LienMarket or TaxTrader. As a result, this is
another (S)pecialty investment for which only a hedge fund owner or property
tycoon who loves this space would put up his money.
Generally, I like sites
that take apart the mysterious and make it affordable. Merocrat does this with
the Fashion World where the magic is locked up in overpriced Fashion Ad Agency boxes. So
they open up the process for creative bidding by individual creative talents and hope to make a killing off
the historically fat referral fees. Maybe, but fashion is not awell-understood industry by the predominantly male investment business and at the end of the day this is another Ad or Fashion Specialty product that
needs a (C)hampion or will have to settle for a (S)pecialty investor in the Ad
tech/Fashion marketing space which is crowded with deals and not that many investors.
They also have a chicken
an egg problem of finding enough creatives to keep enough potential customers
happy and vice versa. As anyone who has worked in the ad world knows, it is
all about finding clients who are unhappy with their current agency enough
that they are willing take the pain of firing them. Or, they have this great
new product that needs a great new agency. Either way, it is all about finding
those people at exactly the right time otherwise inertia just keeps them where
they are. The fundability problem is that Ad Specialty people investors tend to
want to enhance the market not disrupt it and non-ad people need to see a
provably disruptive idea. This needs significant sales figures to attract a (C)hampion but is not
generally Fundable as it stands. Also the name Merocrat says neither Fashion, nor ad sizzle – but something administrative.
7. Joe Blewitt - Epion Health
What happens when you have
patients sitting about in a doctors office in the age of relatively
cheap tablets? In theory, you have 30 or 40 minutes of captive attention of
millions of patients. Epion Health hopes to integrate functionality with
Electronic Health records and big pharma to create a high value medium. As industry
vets they have relationships in place with major healthcare providers and their
cloud-based software integrates it all.
So, they should be Fundable, shouldn’t they?
So, they should be Fundable, shouldn’t they?
They are - until you spend a half hour in doctor’s office where you quickly realize that no is one
reading those doctor magazines any more. They are glued to their smartphones, Gameboys
or iPads. And while you’re waiting to see the Doctor do you really want to suck
up medical information or would rather be distracted until the moment of reckoning
arrives.
Generally, investors hate deals that require you to invest in a third party
platform just to seed the market. Either you make the platform or it already
exists and you build on it free of charge. Since they need to raise money in order
to give out the devices, they have a challenge.
Recommendation – go with an app that lets you check in, make your copay
and manage your doctor’s appointments. That means they can interact on their
own device. Once the doctors like the service they can buy their own tablets or
have the pharma pay directly. I could be wrong, but the tablet remains the
barrier between (F)undability and (S)pecialty investor.
8. Oisin Hanrahan - Handybook
8. Oisin Hanrahan - Handybook
Handybook is a very slickly presented site that
enables the harried homemaker to book a house handyman just easily as they
order Lincoln and a driver with Uber.
Perhaps.
Who wouldn’t want to be the next Angie’s List? This might even be better because homeowners are always hiring a fixer and they don’t have to pay to join. On the other hand, what homeowners really prize is a friend’s referral. So these sites tend to do well with newer homeowners and less so with people who have settled in. In any event, this is hardly new ground and so it rates low on the Fundability scale but the right (C)hampion or a (S)pecialty investor who has reason to could well invest in it because the execution looks so slick.
Perhaps.
Who wouldn’t want to be the next Angie’s List? This might even be better because homeowners are always hiring a fixer and they don’t have to pay to join. On the other hand, what homeowners really prize is a friend’s referral. So these sites tend to do well with newer homeowners and less so with people who have settled in. In any event, this is hardly new ground and so it rates low on the Fundability scale but the right (C)hampion or a (S)pecialty investor who has reason to could well invest in it because the execution looks so slick.
4 comments:
Alan--
So you don't like the name of my company. You don't like that I am over 50. And you got it wrong, that our business model is to license the product to (only)ad networks, and that somehow, to you, this is similar to affiliate networks? For the record, our business model is to license our products (we have 5 under development) to large publishers that have their own sales teams, and to large e-commerce companies (that also have their own sales teams), and to ad networks (but NOT only to ad networks).
To paraphrase an old quote, Those who can do (start-ups), and those who can't critique.
Regards,
Larry Levine, VP Strategic Partnerships, minteye.com
If Wrigley's merged with Bausch & Lomb then "Minteye" would be a great name for their first product.
But for the product that's supposed to knock out Captcha? I don't know. On the other hand the product does kind of resemble the swirly design on those red mints with the white coating you get at restaurants. Perhaps that's what they were thinking.
I never said I don't like that you are over 50. I love that. What I said is that investors get mighty leery at that age and unlike me, will never tell you that. At the very least, they will expect you to arrive with a package of relationships and deals in place commensurate with your years of experience in the field.
As for the licensing approach, I don't have a problem with that but investors generally shy away from it because it is hard for them to get a return of and they don't see an exit. You could do well but not them.
In general, they prefer to finance the building of a growth enterprise they can sell. They never like funding a company whose fate is in the hands of a third party sales department. Kevin O'Leary on TV's "Shark Tank" would love your deal but consider what he would offer you - $50,000 for 60% of the company, or a direct royalty on each sale with just a few pennies down. In other words, not the kind of deal you are currently looking for.
To finance a licensing deal you probably need a special kind of deal structure and a special kind of Ad tech investor. Or a strategic partner who has the channel and just needs your product.
If you don't like the critique - and it comes with plenty of helpful advice - then you are not going to have much fun on your journey through the funding process.
The worst part is - they probably won't tell you any of this - just a bunch of maybe's.
So, if you hate critics, maybe you should force them on to a chain gang where they have to launch a start-up.
Oh wait, I just did that.
Stay tuned.
Alan--
First, I said nothing about hating critiques. I was merely pointing at the source of the critique, which is one man's opinion, and from what I can see, that man (you) seem to have no credentials of experience as an investor. If I am incorrect here, and I may very well be, my apologies in advance, and please point me to the investments you've made. The fact that you spend time critiquing the name of a company, and then spend additional time defending or joking (sorry for not having a sense of humor that would allow me to ascertain which) seems rediculous to me. How about a critique of companies using names such as-- Amazon, YAHOO, Zappos, YELP, or numerous others??? Can you offer any witticisms for name choice here?
Forgive me for noticing how you generalize on the whole population of investors with statements that begin with, "Investors don't like.........". It really doesn't matter what follows, as one (in this case you) cannot generalize about an entire population of any group, and certainly not a group as diverse as investors. As for "who I can do well with" again, let's leave it up to each investor to decide. another of your generalizations that "liscensing approaches" are hard to get a return from is just your opinion, expressed as a generalized truth, which it is, of course, NOT.
Finally, introducing reality TV, ala Shark Tank, which is an entertainment product whose revenue model is based on acquiring an audience to which to sell to advertisers, as a proxy for real word Angel investing is as far from a valid analogy as I could possibly think of.
So to briefly summarize, you seem to lack the experience and credentials as an investor to speak for that community, you tend to generalize and then apply your generalizations to a specific (in this case our conversation about my company), and you introduce false equivalencies, as in Shark Tank = Angel Investing.
If your response to this posting is as flawed as your previous one was, I wil have to decline further participation in this debate.
Regards,
Larry
While I do occasionally invest in Start-Ups my function is to direct great deals to investors. You could look up Violin Systems (expected to go public with $2 bn valuation), Pond5 ($1m NY Angel deal) Partsearch (Idealabs $0-65 million). These were all deals that originated at our forum. There are plenty more.
When you have looked at as many deals as I have. you see patterns - some obvious, many hidden. "Are You Fundable?" tells you what they are how ton use that to improve your funding chances and if necessary, find better alternatives.
Or you could argue.
Nothing like a good argument to get people thinking!
PS as for names: Amazon, YAHOO, Zappos, YELP actually mean something. Minteye means nothing....until you associate it with a hardcandy often given out at restaurants. Embrace it - or find a name that tells people what you do.
(How do I know this? Look for Advertising Age, ADWEEK, a seminal book on Cigarette Branding and my association with the founder of the focus group on my bio......)
Post a Comment