Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts

Monday, May 25, 2015

FoodCrunch 2015: Innovation You Can Taste

Sorry for the hiatus.  I am back with more start-up news.



The Food & Agribusiness Institute at Santa Clara University and Beta Gamma Sigma, international business honor society, hosted FoodCrunch: Innovation You Can Taste on April 30th.  The event brought together two of the most important elements of Silicon Valley—technology and food.  Over the course of the evening, participants heard from four top executives in the industry and enjoyed a sampling fair with local vendors of innovative sustainable food products.  

Roger Royse of AgTech Incubator moderated the panel that included:
Dan Zigmond, VP of Hampton Creek
Kate Danaher, Lending Manager at RSF Finance
Harvindar Singh, local forager at Whole Foods Market
Eric Quick, CEO of Froovie

The panel was incredibly informative with great advice for any entrepreneur.  Here are some of the highlights:

Starting up

  • EQ: Bootstrap as long as you can.  You will learn about your own resiliency.
  • DZ: “The cost of failure has never been lower.”
  • EQ: Don’t start a company just to sell it.


Knowledge

  • KD: Investors and lenders want to know if you understand your clients, know your numbers, understand what your goals are, and how you are going to get there. 
  • HS: Know your industry and do your homework.
  • EQ: Free samples are free feedback.  Use it.


People matter:
  • EQ: You want to listen to the people who will tell you that the product isn’t right yet.
  • EQ: “Surround yourself with great advisors who will bring you forward.”
  • HS: When he initially meets an entrepreneur, he doesn’t look at the product primarily, but observes the people first.  He wants to build a relationship.
  • KD: Relationships are huge.
  • KD: Stakeholders matter.
  • DZ: In food you must win over customers one at a time. 

The product
  • HS: Local markets are saturated so you need to be different, unique, not available on the market.   To do so, you need to be innovative and takes risks, stand out, and don’t be a me too product. 
  • HS: To stand out, pay attention to your packaging.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Crossing the Valley of Death

Research update here.  

In addition to chocolate and social entrepreneurship, I also study technology start-ups.  Recently, I have been examining how technology firms cross the valley of death with some pretty interesting results.  Without getting into the statistical model, this blog post shares some of the findings. 

So what is this “valley of death”?  Basically, it is the lack of funding between the invention of technology and launch of commercial product.  Government and private investments have emerged to help firms commercialize nascent technologies.  Government programs in the United States include Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. 

The SBIR and STTR programs are two of the latest and biggest programs that the U.S. government has enacted to support small business development (Bonvillian and Van Atta, 2011).  The SBIR program was implemented in 1982 to support innovation in small, often nascent organizations (Audretsch, Link, & Scott, 2002).  The STTR program was started in 1992 and focuses on supporting innovation collaborations between firms and public organizations such as universities and government labs. The primary objective of these programs is to support innovation in small business.  The secondary objective of these programs is to help organizations cross the valley of death. Through 2012, SBIR and STTR have cumulatively provided over $34 billion in funding (Small Business Administration, 2013). 

Nanotechnology is the control and manipulation of matter between one and 100 nanometers.  One nanometer is about three to six atoms across, so nanotechnology is incredibly small and difficult. And expensive.  A complicating factor is that matter at the nanoscale acts differently than the same matter at larger scales.  Nanotechnology is used across industries including cosmetics, packaging, optics, and semiconductors. 

So if any technology firm is going to risk the treacherous valley of death, it is a nanotechnology firms.  They must endure the trifecta of burdens: the firm's liability of newness, the industry's lack of legitimacy and cohesive structure, and the technology's inherent uncertainty (see Woolley article in Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice)

I analyzed all nanotechnology firms started before the year 2002 and it turns out that 60% obtained SBIR or STTR grants and 25% were award at least one of each type.  In comparison, that is a lot.  Overall, the acceptance rate of the SBIR and STTR programs is about 20%.   More interestingly, firms that obtained SBIR or STTR funding were more likely to patent than those that did not received funding and were less likely to cease operations.  These firms were also more likely to receive VC funding.

Go nanotech!


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The World of Entrepreneurship

Over the last couple of months I have been catching up on some travelling, flying to Tel Aviv and Paris to continue my adventures.  No matter where I went, I couldn't help but be struck by the entrepreneurship in every location.  This is no surprise being someone who studies entrepreneurship for a living. But even after all of these years, I couldn't help but be intrigued by the similarities and differences of new ventures around the world.

Take Tel Aviv for example.  What an amazing city of history and innovation!  In the same block that you have a historic site of biblical importance there is a start-up working on the latest technology.  It was inspiring to see a government that promoted not only entrepreneurship, but also the vital infrastructure necessary for start-ups to survive.  They are working to attract funding sources from around the world including venture capitalists and large financial organizations.  Unfortunately, the World Bank ranks the country in the lower half of all countries for registering property, getting electricity, and dealing with construction permits.  And it was obvious that some parts of the country are more developed than others, but by and large - infrastructure was great.  And Israel ranks highly in investor protection, international trade and ease of starting a firm.   (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/israel).  Corporate tax rates are 25% and firms only pay about 5% in social security contributions. The US corporate tax rate tops out at 34% and the social security contributions are only slightly higher at 6.2%. 

In contrast, people that I spoke to in France said that it is very difficult to start a company there.  It is not the red tape, although the counties is ranked low for the ease of registering property.  This biggest complaint was the cost of hiring and paying employees.  Employer paid social security contributions are about 40% of one's salary.  40%! On top of that, firms pay a payroll tax of 5.45%.  Then, the corporate tax rate is 33.33%.  Think of the implications - a firm hires someone at $50K, but ends up paying $72.5K before being hit by corporate taxes.  Even with the strong infrastructure, education, and technology (and pastries), the cost of running a company is high.  Many companies choose to remain small to survive. 

So the next time you take a trip, look at the local companies.  Start-up success is as much influenced by the people who start and run firms as the infrastructure on which it relies.  

Sunday, January 5, 2014

Crowdfunding article Posted!- Part 3 (of 3)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

After frantic end-of-the-year madness, I am back to bring you more information about Start-Up Success.

First up, Part 3 of the Crowdfunding article has been posted.  Just go over to the crowdfunding tab and scroll down.

On the horizon:

  • tips from business veterans
  • even more interviews and visits with entrepreneurs
  • information about the latest trends, research and buzzwords.  

Speaking of which, here are a few fun stories to start the year. 

Buzzword Alert

Linkedin published their list of the most overused buzzwords in members' profiles.  http://blog.linkedin.com/2013/12/11/buzzwords-2013/

Here is the list: 
  1. responsible
  2. strategic
  3. creative
  4. effective
  5. patient 
  6. expert
  7. organizational
  8. driven
  9. innovative
  10. analytical 
If you are re-writing your profile now, you are not alone.  Just remember that although you have to be creative and innovative to show that you are a strategically driven expert, use the thesaurus responsibly.


Pivot Here for an Epic, Dynamic, Entrepreneurial Game 

WSJ has posted its "Business Buzzwords Generator".  Hilarious.  
It is like corporate mad-libs. As they describe it, "Use this tool to generate and share custom-built meaningless business phrases using overused business buzzwords as submitted by WSJ readers." My favorite so far, "Looking forward to 2014, narrative will be key to our ability to pivot the solutions strategically."     http://projects.wsj.com/buzzwords2014/#p=15||37||||1


Investor speak

qz.com reports that the use of the term "big data" is up 43% in investor presentations and conference calls while "cloud computing" is down 37%.  Just don't put your big data in the cloud.  

Sunday, September 8, 2013

From Technology to Tea

Onomea Tea

Rob Nunally and Mike Longo started Onomea Tea Company in 2003.  This was a second, if not third career for both of them.  Rob and Mike started Onomea Tea after realizing that their initial crop of choice, daylilies, would not grow as consistently as needed for cultivation.   Considering their options while drinking tea, they thought – “Why not grow tea?”  Having green thumbs and plenty of available property on Hawaii’s Big Island, they jumped in.  A new career was born.

Before Onomea, Rob lived in California.  He attended CA State University and received a BA in Business with an emphasis in Information System. This was perfect for Silicon Valley and he started in with a software support job and ultimately his own technology business. Since most of the technology was sold internationally, this business could be run from most anywhere.  In 2010 the political climate for the business changed and the business income dropped substantially, since that time he has been more focused on tea.

Mike was born and raised on the East Coast.  He grew up working in his father’s nursery and garden business and studied Biology and Chemistry at Marquette University.  After teaching high school biology, Mike’s path led him to the National College of Chiropractic and a career as a Chiropractic Physician and Natural Health Practitioner.  Mike lived in Fiji for a short time and eventually moved to Hawaii Island in 1977. He began hybridizing daylilies in the late 80's. In the mid 90's he moved to California and owned a retail nursery and a daylilies garden.  His interest in daylilies led to the creation of an online auction website for daylilies, which he still runs.



After a few years in California Mike began to feel the pull back to Hawaii. He convinced Rob to accompany him on a trip there. Rob became attached to the big island overnight. They began to look for a residence there in 1999. In a short time they discovered available land overlooking Onomea Bay that was breathtaking. They both packed up and moved to Hawaii in 2000 and began building their house. Their first tea plants were planted in 2003.

It has only been 10 years, but Rob and Mike are tea experts.  They have certifications galore and have trained with world renowned authorities.  Set on a nine acre plantation above Onomea Bay, Onomea Tea grows, cultivates, and processes some of the finest tea available.  Impressively, Onomea Tea is completely organic.  As Mike pointed out, tea isn’t washed before it is processed, so whatever is on when it is picked is on it when you drink it.  Pesticides – out, sea spray and Hawaiian sunshine – in.  Beautiful. 




The tea is picked and processed by hand on site.  They have been cultivating new hybrids of their tea plants after painstakingly selecting the best from their existing stock.  Currently, they produce and sell white, green, oolong, and black tea. Onomea does not add flavors and uses only their own crops. Recently, they produced an aged black tea “Koko Ki” that had subtle hints of cocoa.  (Yes – with no additives or flavorings they brought tea and chocolate together in one luscious cup.) Unfortunately, the demand is so high that they often sell out quickly. 

This second career seems to be working out quite nicely. 

If you are on the Big Island, contact them for a tour of the plantation and afternoon tea tasting!  You won’t regret it.





Wednesday, July 24, 2013

What Not to Wear

There seems to be a few interesting myths floating around about start-up styles.  I was reminded of this at a pitchfest recently.  Pitchfests are short events, usually a couple of hours, at which about a dozen companies have three to ten minutes each to convince the audience and sometimes judges that their companies are wonderful businesses and that they should be funded.  Pitchfests can be terrific for refining your story or connecting with potential investors, mentors, and customers.  There are very few opportunities where a company founder can talk to a room full of people who actually want to hear about the idea.  However, before a word comes out, you better believe that an impression has already been made.  Many people forget that clothing and body language speak volumes.  No, you don’t have to be the best dressed or have the perfect stage presence, but you do have to look like you care.  Here are a few tips about what not to wear.

1.   Backwards baseball hat, or any hat for that matter.  Even in Silicon Valley, a backwards baseball hat is sure to make audience members snicker and roll their eyes.  It doesn’t matter if it has the company’s name on it, it doesn’t look good.  It is very difficult to listen to a CEO when you are wondering if they just woke up.  And if someone can’t wake up in time for a mid-afternoon presentation, how do they run a company?

2. Sweatpants.  ‘nough said.

3. The hoodie.  That is so 2007.  Do you really expect us to believe that you are the next Facebook?  Even if you are, we don’t care. 

4. Sunglasses.  See hat.

5. College paraphernalia.  I love my alma mater, but wearing my favorite college sweatshirt to talk with investors is a flag of insecurity.  “Really, I went to this school and you should be impressed.”  Or not.  Save this one for grocery shopping. 

6. Haute couture or expensive designer wear.  If you are talking to potential investors you are asking for money.  You are asking for money to pay your salary.  Why should they pay you to wear better clothing than most actors unless you are starting a fashion company? 

7. Gum.  Warning.  Don’t sit in the first row. You may get hit by projectile gum during the presentation.  It happens. 

8. Shorts or skinny jeans.  Whoa nelly.  This distraction just makes one wonder which season it is. Is this pitch for a resort?  Leg hair removal?  Liposuction?  Plus, not many people can wear these and look professional. 

9. Gimmicks. It is one thing to dress in clothes that reflect the nature of the market in which you do business.  There is a fine line between looking cute and looking stupid.  Even if your app is the must have for skateboarders, dressing like Hawk or White mid-tre flip is not going to show others that you can run a company.  Just don’t go there. 

10. Goggles – No, I am not kidding.  And it wasn’t even a gimmick. 

11. Dirt.  Unconsciously, people connect cleanliness and competence.  This means, don’t eat spaghetti before talking with others.  Since I am prone to spills, I shy away from wearing white.  It is sure to end poorly. 

12. Like any teenager you know, even if you are a teenager.  You are not, nor will you ever be, the coolest person in the room.  Stop trying to be.   

And last, but certainly not least…

13. Smug smile.  Why are you here?

As in any situation, it is your job to convince the audience of your story.  Part of this is how you dress. If you were trusting a stranger with thousands, if not millions, of dollars, how would you want them to look?  Be respectful.  
   

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

On the road again

This last week, my husband and I took a road trip from San Jose to San Diego for a business meeting.  Before we left, I researched several young companies for consideration in this blog. A list of young companies (less than five years old) was created using web searches and local press.  My plan was to visit the companies during the road trip, meet with owners and managers, and gather information about their strategies for success.  This time, since a girl has to eat on the road, the list focused on bakeries.  All in the name of research.

What surprised me most wasn’t the fantastic companies that will be discussed in future entries.  It was actually the companies that were taken off the list.  Let me clarify something here. I don’t get paid to visit companies or write about them.  The products sampled are usually purchased by me, unless I happen to be on the factory floor and sampling is part of a tour or something.  Objectivity is paramount.  What you get here are my observations on what makes start-ups succeed and examples of potential weaknesses.   

For example, a bakery near San Diego has a recipe for success with a perfect location and a lot of foot traffic.  However, the product that I had was, quite honestly, inedible. (I am not one to throw away food, but I couldn’t finish that cupcake to save my life.)  Additionally, the menu was remarkably limited with very limited product on display, and the hours were short. On the one hand, just because a company exists doesn’t mean that it is successful.  On the other hand, there are many factors that I did not observe.   

Another bakery had a decent amount of press and a great website - two items in the plus column.  In contrast with the other bakery, the central coast had a huge range of products, um… if you like donuts.  Fun donuts of all flavors from traditional old fashioned to maple bacon logs - three items in the plus column.  But in no way, shape, or form does one appreciate flies on food.  Nope.  My co-pilot almost ran for the door.  Undaunted, I got a couple of things that looked the least likely to have been visited by airborne insects.  After missing lunch, I tried one of the donuts.  Unremarkable.  Ok – I liked the chocolate frosting, but the donut itself was just there.  We tried the other one.  Not even unremarkable.  As hungry as I was, I put away the pastries.  (In the end, they ended up in the trash.  Don’t tell my mom.)    
                                                                                                    
Just like our judgment of food, success is subjective.  The customers of the donut shop may love the crazy flavors and maybe I was there on an off day.  To the locals, this place may be hugely successful if it is revitalizing a neglected neighborhood or building community by bringing people together.  To the owners, it may be a success if it is not losing money.  To others, they may expect the next Dunkin or Krispie.  It is all relative.  So – your question for the week…  


What do you consider success?

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

The Upside of Managed Growth for a Start-Up

The upside of managed growth for a start-up

In a world where fast business growth is applauded, it is easy to forget that it is not the norm. Not that there is anything wrong with fast growth, but what about everyone else?  How many times have you seen companies that grow really fast and then fall flat?  I sometimes save magazine articles, add them to my stack of things to reread, only to find them years later when I am cleaning off my desk. (I know that I am not alone.) What is interesting is the number of companies mentioned that are no longer around. They had a great idea, but couldn’t survive.  There are many reasons for that, but business cessation is a whole other topic that could go on for some time. The obvious tortoise-hare analogy aside, there is something to be applauded about managed growth.  

You may have noticed that the previous blog posts here discuss entrepreneurs who have carefully managed the growth of their companies. Oscar from Landau Confections emphasizes innovation in both product and production, ensuring that the results are truly hand-crafted and original. Cristina from Kika’s Treats was given the opportunity to accelerate growth by mass producing her products, but didn’t want to compromise the quality.  Dandelion Chocolate’s business model specifically focuses on small batch chocolate, isolating the sources to bring out the individual flavors hidden in each harvest.  Robin at Bequet Caramels described her strategy as focusing, “on one niche and make the best product we possibly can in that niche.  We were often asked why we don’t make chocolates, too.  The answer has always been that our goal is to make the best caramel anyone has ever had (period).” 

These companies were chosen not because it is interesting to try new candy, but because each demonstrates a dedication to high-quality products.  Also, each company was given the opportunity to grow quickly, but the owners concentrated on the quality of the product, staying true to their existing customers, and continuing the practices that had succeeded for them. These owners decided early on what mattered to them in the creation and development of their companies.  Individually, they chose a strategy and stayed true to the course. 

Entrepreneurs are often faced with two extreme scenarios – too few options (such as early financing) and too many options (like an overwhelming number of potential suppliers).  Knowing ahead of time what you want your company to represent helps with both situations.  When you don’t have many options, your dedication to your strategy can help spur you to innovate new solutions.  When too many options exist, your knowledge of yourself and the company can help eliminate those choices that don’t align with your long term goals. This is not to say that sometimes compromises aren’t necessary.  However, knowing what you stand for makes decision making during these situations much easier.   

On a side note - Public companies often don’t have the option to manage growth in these ways when shareholders and the SEC require the optimization of shareholder wealth (aka stock prices).  When your business centers on driving down costs to increase profit, it is hard to choose the more expensive route.  Some companies are expected to make compromises that detract from the initial goal since higher quality raw materials, labor intensive production, and higher ethical standards for sourcing often cost more.  When a company targets the mass market who is increasingly concerned about price, executives often believe that they do not have the option to increase prices to off-set higher production costs.  Few companies have been able to do this.  In fact, one of the critiques of the Western business environment is just that, too much emphasis on meeting the quarterly expectations so that the stock price doesn’t drop. 

In turn, costs are minimized to help maximize profit. 
And we buy it.

So, what is the right formula?  You decide.  Every dollar that you spend is your vote.

Get to know the products that you buy and who makes them.