Paul Wallbank | Paul Wallbank - Communications Professional

Building a billion dollar business

Therese Tucker, founder and CEO of accounting automation service Blackline, has some useful lessons on building a new business

Last week accounting automation service Blackline listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange with a valuation of over a billion dollars.

The listing was a triumph for the company’s founder and CEO Therese Tucker who started the company in 2005 after a client asked her to find a way to manage the ten thousand spreadsheet their firm used for accounts reconciliation.

We spoke to Therese last year during a visit to Australia where she described some of the challenges of building a business.

Therese’s journey is an interesting, and inspiring, tale of how you don’t have to be a twenty something white guy to build a billion dollar tech business. Her story is worth listening to.

Why Cyber matters

‘Cyber’ has become a buzzword, but it does have some serious meanings for managers and business owners

This is the unedited version of an article that appeared two weeks ago in The Australian.

Cybersecurity is becoming an important responsibility for executives and directors. Often shortened to ‘cyber’, it’s easy to dismiss cybersecurity as just being the latest IT industry buzzword however ensuring information systems are secure is now firmly a management issue.

Information breaches have become embarrassingly common in recent times with events ranging from Target exposing forty million of its customers’ records in 2013, a breach which cost the company $162 million dollars, through to national security embarrassments like the Snowden revelations.

Exacerbating the risks to businesses is the dependency upon information systems to normal operations and the damage from denial of service attacks such as the outage across much of the US last weekend can be debilitating and costly. The recent Australian census saga that cost taxpayers thirty million dollars, is an illustration of how costly poorly planned responses to service interruptions and security breaches can be.

Compounding the risks for Australian executives are the breach disclosure laws tabled in Federal Parliament last week which threaten 340,000 dollars fines for individuals and 1.7 million dollars for corporations that fail to act quickly on data privacy failures.

In such a high risk environment business leaders need to be proactive says Leonard Kleinman, the Asia Pacific and Japan Chief Cyber Security Advisor for security software firm RSA, “the legislation is aimed at organisations that I’d call ‘wilfully blind’ or like to employ the concept of ‘plausible deniability’.”

As that period of ‘wilful blindness’ and ‘plausable deniability’ comes to an end, executives and directors have to start taking their responsibilities in protecting data far more seriously. The challenge lies in understanding the risks.

“What a lot organisations – both private and public – haven’t done well is their ‘Crown Jewels assessment,” says Glenn Maiden, Principal Security Consultant at Canberra’s ?Shearwater Solutions. “It has to be contextualised. My crown jewels might be credit card numbers but for that may not be the interest for foreign intelligence agencies.” Then understand where the risks are for those critical data and processes.

In understanding what those ‘crown jewels’ are, it’s important to consider what is valuable within the organisation. While to the marketing team the most valuable information may be customer data, to the COO it may be ensuring continuity of service while to external parties it could be pricing details or legal correspondence.

“The things I’ve suggested in the conversations I’ve had with organisations is simple stuff; review things like your instant response strategies – can you start an investigation quickly,” says RSA’s Kleinman. “It’s probably good to review your contracts. If you have a cloud services providers that experiences a breach, how are they going to go about doing the notification?”

In a world where subcontracting and outsourcing is normal business practice, the risk from third party vendors is real and goes beyond cloud providers. The disastrous Target hack being due to an air conditioning contractor’s compromised system and Edward Snowden himself wasn’t a direct government employee.

Privacy and security breach notifications are only part of the broader cybersecurity picture though and the field is becoming more complex. Last weekend’s massive denial of service attack that compromised many US based online services was caused by the Mirai botnet, that exploits vulnerabilities in cheap internet of things devices.

With business processes becoming increasingly connected and automated, management concerns are extending to the security, integrity and reliability of devices being used in their organisation. Even if the business critical sensors being officially purchased are of high quality, everything from smartphones to connected kettles being bought into the staff tearoom could be a potential risk to the corporate network and a business’ reputation.

It would be a mistake however to think cybersecurity is purely a technology problem however. “Ultimately insider threats are about people,” says Senior Vice President of Nuix’s threat intelligence and analysis, Keith Lowry. “These are all people who used tools or technology to do what they did and they got away with it because others were focused on the technology rather than focused on the people.”

As the business world becomes more dependent upon data and connected systems, the governance of networks and their security is going to be increasingly the responsibility of business leaders.

Security as a people problem

Security is more of a people problem than a technology issue believe’s Nuix’s head of threat intelligence Keith Lowry

Are we focusing too much on technology and not enough on people when it comes to insider threats? Talking to Keith Lowry, the Senior Vice President of threat intelligence and analysis for Nuix, it’s hard not to come away with the impression there is too much emphasis on technology and not enough on human factors when looking at IT security risks.

Lowry gave a briefing to journalists at Nuix’s Sydney office last week discussing the types of insider threats organizations face. “Why is it, despite all the money we’re spending, we seem to be losing the cybersecurity battle?” he asks.

“The majority of insider threat programs that I’ve seen begin with the foundation of technology when in reality the foundation of a counter insider threat program should be about people,” he stated as one of the reasons why organisations are struggling with security their networks.

Supporting his belief that people are a problem is a 2015 survey by information security company Clearswift that found more than a third of employees are willing to sell their company’s private information.

All of the six examples he cited illustrated the problem facing managers, each breach was as much a failure in managing people as it was technology not being implemented correctly.

Naturally the Chelsea Manning case was one of the headline cases, “Manning was a failure of leadership.” Lowry said, “what’s really interesting is before his unit went to Afghanistan was deemed by a psycologist to be unfit to deploy. They took him anyway.

Two of the other examples, alleged Chinese spy Hao Zhang and Russian intelligence agent Anna Chapman are classic espionage tales while Edward Snowden is a continuing tale that may well define our public security policies for a generation.

Of the examples, Aussie twosome Christopher Hill and Lukas Kamay along with US student Glenn Duffie Shriver are the two that should worry organisations the most.

Duffie-Shriver was sentenced to 48 months jail after being recruited by PRC intelligence officers while studying in China.

Born in 1981, Duffie-Shriver is part of a generation that’s far less loyal to organisations believes Lowry and, coupled with economic pressures such as student loans, they may be far more likely to be tempted by offers such those alleged to have been offered to the American scholar.

The Aussie example is probably more concerning for managements as Hill was passing Australian Bureau of Statistics data ahead of its public release to Kamay who arranged trades. Their insider trading scheme netting Kamay seven million dollars.

Kamay and Hill present a far more typical risk to most organisations as employees motivated by greed, addiction or some vulnerability are much more likely to steal data. This is certainly a human, rather than technology, problem.

Ultimately the focus on technology, foreign hackers and government agencies in protecting an organisation’s data is missing the greatest risk of all in our businesses – the people. How we manage and treat staff is essential to securing information.

Time to rethink IT security

Last weekend’s webcam launched cyber attacks are a warning that we need to take security seriously

Last weekend a cyberattack launched from compromised webcams crippled a number of high profile services. In response, the Chinese manufacturer has withdrawn the devices from the market.

That dodgy webcams should have been used to launch a massive DDOS doesn’t surprise anyone who’s spent any time in the home automation field. These problems are endemic in the Internet of Things.

In the early 2000s I became involved in a home automation company through my IT support business. Basically we were kitting out Sydney’s harbourfront mansions with state of the art technology.

Very quickly I realised something was wrong. Almost all the home automation and CCTV systems were running on outdated, insecure software. The leading brand of home security systems used servers running on an old version of Windows 2000 at a time when malware was exploding.

It wasn’t a matter of if, but when, these systems would become hopelessly compromised given the networks they were running on were shared with the home users.

The real concern though was when I raised this with the vendors, installers and designers – no one cared. It was clear security wasn’t a concern for the market and the industry.

We could have patched the systems and boosted their security policies but given the shoddy software being used – mainly DOS batch files – and the assumed file permissions we’d have completely broken the systems and it would up to us to fix it given the attitudes of vendors and clients.

After realising this problem was industry wide I pulled the pin on that business venture as I wasn’t prepared to carry the legal risk and moral obligation of helping install dangerous equipment into people’s homes or businesses.

I’ve since watched as the Internet of Things has become fashionable with the knowledge that the industry’s cavalier attitude towards customer security hasn’t changed.

Now we’re at the stage where script kiddies can launch massive attacks from compromised webcams – God knows what the serious bad guys like state sponsored actors, criminal organisations and commercial spies are up to with these things – which shows the industry’s robotic chickens have come home to roost.

What last weekend’s events show is we have to demand better security from our technology suppliers. That though comes at a cost – we’ll pay more, we’ll have to sacrifice some convenience and we’ll have to spend time maintaining systems.

Are we prepared to wear those costs? Is the tech industry prepared to move beyond it’s ‘good enough’ attitude toward security? Are governments prepared to legislate and enforce proper design rules?

We may not have a choice if we want to enjoy the benefits of technology.

Google’s grab for the smartphone market

Google’s Pixel smartphone is part of the company’s bid to exert greater control over the smartphone market.

This week Google released its latest smartphone, the Pixel, to mixed reviews. Controlling the most popular mobile operating system, Android, isn’t enough for the company.

As Microsoft found, just supplying the operating systems for smartphones isn’t enough to influence the market. Apple, along with Nokia and Blackberry before them, showed that the path to both controlling the segment and being profitable relies on having devices designed for their software.

Given the Pixel’s price point, it’s unclear how well it will do against the iPhone, Samsung’s models or the plethora of Chinese devices but for all the Android ecosystem’s players, having its controlling owner running in opposition to them can’t be comforting.

Again though Microsoft’s experience is instructive, and encouraging, for the broader Android community as Microsoft’s attempts to push out Windows CE devices failed dismally. For Google to be successful where Microsoft failed would require a degree of corporate discipline the search engine giant is not renown for.

In the Windows ecosystem, Microsoft strength was licensing and controlling access to the operating system. Android’s strength in the smartphone world is that Google doesn’t have the same veto power. To be able to exercise control over the market, Google needs a big device share.

Ultimately though the success of the Google Pixel smartphone will depend on how many users will adopt it. It may be time for another round of smartphone subsidy wars.

An entrepreneur’s journey – a conversation with Muru-D’s Ben Sand

From a scrappy and underfunded inner Sydney startup to Silicon Valley and back, Muru-D’s Ben Sand has a fascinating entrepreneurial journey

As part of Telstra’s Muru-D business accelerator opening its latest startup intake this week, Annie Parker and Ben Sand, the organisation’s co-founder and Entrepreneur in Chief respectively, spoke to a small group of journalists on Tuesday about what they were looking for in the next batch of applicants and how the tech startup sector is changing.

Ben’s entrepreneurial journey from a scrappy, underfunded Aussie startup to a hot Silicon Valley property and back to a corporate incubator is an interesting tale in itself.

His first venture, an edu-tech startup called Brainworth founded in 2010, operated out of a dilapidated inner city Sydney terrace. The business acheived traction and Ben’s team won a ScreenNSW interactive media grant two years later.

Failing the Kickstarter test

Ultimately Brainworth petered out after missing a Kickstarter round. As Ben says, “I focused on getting out the maximum viable model rather than the Minimum Viable Model and the money ran out.”

As Brainworth withered away, Ben joined former university friend, Meron Gribetz at his Augmented Reality startup Meta which went onto join the Y Combinator program. The company went on to attract $23 million dollars in investment, primarily from Hong Kong and Chinese investors, and now has 150 employees.

Earlier this year, Ben returned to Australia after seeing Mick Liubinskas’ blog post about moving to the United States. In that article, his predecessor put out a call out for those interested in replacing him at the Sydney office which Ben answered.

Australian advantages

Now firmly settled into his Sydney role, Ben sees computer vision as one of the biggest opportunities in the tech sector. Bringing together disparate technologies like virtual and augmented reality, artificial intelligence and smart sensors, computer vision allows machines such as autonomous vehicles, drones and medical diagnostic equipment to pull together sources of data that lets machines see what is going on in the world around them.

Computer vision is a field where Australia has an advantage, Ben believes. “Adelaide is the second most funded city in the world in computer vision,” he points out with investments like Cisco’s into South Australia’s Kohda Wireless driving the local industry.

Ben and Annie don’t see the next group of Muru-D applicants being restricted to any one field despite Ben’s background in AR and interest in machine vision. “It’s more the psychology of the founders,” he says.

Mentoring the next wave

Three years of experience is also delivering dividends, observes Annie. “I’m starting to see the early cohorts starting to mentor and support the newer ones. That’s part of what Muru-D is part of, creating the ecosystem.”

Over the three years, there’s also been quite a few adjustments to the Muru-D process, Annie observes. “We change the model each year by about thirty percent.” she says.

Another thing that has changed is that later stage startups can apply for the program which will be open until November 4.

“I’m excited and I’m very confident we’re going to get great outcomes for these people,” says Ben of the next Muru-D cohort. “We’ll be working on getting the most confident founders on board and hopefully helping them to aim high.”

ABC Nightlife – building the businesses of the future

What can we do to build the next generation of businesses?

This Thursday night join Dom Knight and myself on ABC Nightlife to discuss what tools you can use to start or improve your business and how can we encourage more people to have a go.

Last week the last Australian car making jobs finished and a survey of the Geelong Ford workers found only one percent were interested in starting a new business.

If you missed the spot, you can listen to the podcast through the Nightlife website.

Despite the reluctance to start new businesses it’s never been easier to do so with a range of tools making it simpler to run one. Tonight on the Nightlife we look at some of those tools and what we can do to encourage more people to have a go at running their own companies.

For the program, I’ve a compiled a list of tools businesses should be using. It certainly isn’t exhaustive or definitive and if you have any suggestions on better or newer tools, I’ll be happy to add them.

Some of the questions we cover on the program include;

who ran the survey of motor industry workers?
what were most of them going to do?
so what sort of businesses can these workers go into?
what programs are being offered to these workers?
how has starting a business changed over the past twenty years?
is the focus on tech startups intimidating people who might want to start a business?
what are the basic tools every business should have?
a few years ago social media was all the rage, does it matter any more?
what’s the number one advice for anyone thinking of starting a business?

Join us

Tune in on your local ABC radio station from 10pm Australian Eastern Summer time or listen online at www.abc.net.au/nightlife.

We’d love to hear your views so join the conversation with your on-air questions, ideas or comments; phone in on 1300 800 222 within Australia or +61 2 8333 1000 from outside Australia.

You can SMS Nightlife’s talkback on 19922702, or through twitter to @paulwallbank using the #abcnightlife hashtag or visit the Nightlife Facebook page.

Facebook’s challenge in executing for the enterprise

Workplaces by Facebook is the social media giant’s push into the enterprise computing market. Its success isn’t assured.

Workplaces by Facebook was is the social media giant’s enterprise collaboration service it hopes will put the company into the enterprise space.

Like many similar products, the service is aimed at improving collaboration in the workplace. As the media release gushes, “the new global and mobile workplace isn’t about closed-door meetings or keeping people separated by title, department or geography. Organizations are stronger and more productive when everyone comes together.”

On first impressions, Facebook should score some successes with the service however it’s success is far from guaranteed. As we’ve seen with other major company’s attempts to open new products, being the deepest pocketed player doesn’t automatically ensure a successful product.

The Google example

A common assumption when a behemoth enters a martketplace is will simply smother smaller competitors by virtue of its size.

History shows this not always the case, Facebook itself thrived despite the huge threat posed by Google+, indeed Google is probably the best example of a large corporation that struggles outside its core business.

Part of the reason for the idea of big companies easily squashing the little folk being a fallacy is that the smaller companies are more focused on their problem – for a corporation the division is one part of a broader operation run by managers, not owners.

In such a marketplace, execution and management focus matter so Facebook’s success will depend as much on executive buy-in as the resources thrown at the product.

Cost and complexity

A notable thing about Workplaces by Facebook is its partner network, led by Deloitte. This is not a good sign.

The need to have consulting partners – particularly huge and expensive companies like Deloitte – is not an encouraging sign for the nascent service and may be a barrier towards adoption.

A separate issue in Deloitte’s involvement is how cloud services, which we include Workplaces by Facebook, are buddying up with the major consulting firms with everyone from Huawei to Oracle entering arrangements. While this might help partners squeeze a few more pennies out of their hapless clients, it’s doesn’t seem to be in the vendors’ or customers’ interests.

Trust

What happens to users’ data is a perennial problem for Facebook and it’s notable this issue isn’t mentioned in the announcement.

Facebook’s success shows consumers are relaxed about how the company uses data but that attitude may not be shared by managers and business owners.

The proprietor of one reasonable sized startup said, “I have a slight concern about giving Facebook any access to my company information. Whilst it has been fine from a personal perspective I feel the trust level is not strong enough to warrant handing over access to, effectively, everything.”

Overcoming that objection may be one of the biggest challenges for Facebook being accepted as an enterprise tool.

Becoming an enterprise service

Facebook’s push into the enterprise isn’t surprising and indicates that as the company matures, something more than the advertising funded consumer market is needed to drive its growth.

That consumer background is a strength for Facebook as the consumerization of enterprise software is an established trend. Having an interface and tools that are familiar to most staff is very attractive to managers looking at introducing new platforms with the shallowest possible learning curves.

However the ultimate question is what need does Workplaces by Facebook address? There’s no shortage of collaboration platforms that offer most of the futures offered by the platform.

If Workplaces by Facebook does address a genuine need in enterprise workplaces and the company’s management can maintain its focus on the product then the service may be a success. That isn’t a given though.

Speaking American – learning the language of Silicon Valley

While the business cultures of the US and Silicon Valley may look familiar, they are very different to other communities warn Australian startup founders

This is the last of four stories I did for The Australian on why entrepreneurs are making their way to the United States’ Bay Area.

“It is a very good time to be Australian in America,” says Dr Catriona Wallace , the Sydney based founder of Flamingo Customer Experience. Despite that goodwill she and those who’ve made the move to the US have found the ways of doing business in the two countries can be quite different.

US decision making processes are one trap, Wallace observes. “Americans will say ‘yes, yes, yes then no’, whereas Australians will say ‘no, no, no then yes,’“ she told The Australian. “I had to learn that an enthusiastic “Yes” from an American is an expression of their interest and intention, not necessarily an action that can be followed through.”

Swinging for the fences

Casey Ellis, who relocated his Sydney security startup Bugcrowd to San Francisco in 2013, finds the scale of ambitions are a key difference between the two countries. “Americans are comfortable with those who swing for the fences whereas Australians aren’t.

“I had a million dollars committed already but people weren’t buying my execution because the way I was selling it was that I had it all figured out, which is what I’d been taught what to do in Australia – we’ve figured how to make sausage machine then the key to making more money is to build a bigger handle and crank out more sausages.”

The reality though is different in the United States warns Ellis. “If I’m pitching like that to VCs over here they’re like ‘we like what you’re doing but your vision is too small.’ I always had a big vision for Bugcrowd but I’d been taught not to put that at the front. In the US you put the vision first and the execution follows.”

Figuring out the differences

“I spent some time trying to figure out why it is different,” Ellis reflects. “If you think about it Australia is a country was formed by a bunch of people who were thrown out for stealing stuff, dropped on a rock and told to figure it out, so we’ve got this incredible culture of troubleshooting and innovation but we’ve also got this tall poppy syndrome of ‘don’t stick your head out too far.’ That’s a very strong cultural feature of Australians and how they interact.”

“If you bring that over to America you will fail because this country was formed by entrepreneurs who set out to find a new land,” Casey concludes. “It’s not about saying Aussies are meek, they’re not, but Americans are completely comfortable with swinging for the fences and Australia’s aren’t.”

Peter Grant of Safesite warns not to overplay the Paul Hogan persona. “Coming from Australia is a novelty but you can’t play the dinky di Aussie card, you have display professionalism and represent you are serious about being a US company and serving the US environment,” he told The Australian. “Americans are a lot more accepting of risk and have a fear of missing out on the next big thing.”

“The country is founded upon going out and doing your own thing and being a maverick, so they are a lot more accepting of risk and have a bit more of a fear about missing out on the next big thing, “ Grant explains. “We’ve developed a strategy of saying ‘we’re working on this, this is going to happen and we’re talking to your competitors.’ That seems to work.”

Watching the clock

One respect where Australians’ laid back attitudes come unstuck is in time keeping warns Flamingo’s Wallace, “Americans are super punctual. Conference calls typically start 5 mins before the hour rather than 10 minutes after as it would in Australia. Meetings finish at quarter before the hour so people can get to the next meeting 5 minutes early.”

“If people are delayed and get to a meeting a few minutes late they will apologise profusely for several minutes and then apologise again at the end of the meeting. American’s will warn of the need to finish a meeting at a certain time by saying, “I have a hard stop at quarter before”

Humour lapses

Another difference is the sense of humour, Dr Wallace warns. “Americans typically are not funny in business as we Australians are. There is not much joking in meetings. I once used the enormously funny expression of, ‘That customer experience would have been like having a hot chicken blood enema!’.”

“Instead of this being outrageously funny I was surrounded by a group of 10 executives whose mouths hung open in shock that I had just said something like that. The meeting tanked from there on….”

“All this being said, the American business community love Australians,” Wallace concludes. “They find us hard working, great at relationships, good at navigating politics, honest, authentic and transparent. In some ways they aspire to be more like us. We cut through the bollocks – although they don’t understand that word – or bullshit and get things done. Americans like that. We are generous. They like that too.”

Maintaining the home base – why many startups don’t fully move to Silicon Valley

For all the benefits of moving to the Bay Area, many startups are happy to keep much of their operations in their home states.

This is the third of four stories I did for The Australian on why local entrepreneurs are making their way to the United States’ Bay Area.

For all the benefits of moving to the US, many startup founders want to remain down under. According to last year’s Startup Muster survey of Australia’s tech community, only 18% of local entrepreneurs intend to move overseas, and even those going offshore keep the bulk of their operations Down Under.

The reasoning for keeping operations in Australia vary, but for those focusing on Silicon Valley costs are a key concern. Didier Elzinga of Melbourne’s Cultureamp decided to keep management and the bulk of operations in the company’s home town due to several aspects. “For us there are many great benefits, including lifestyle, but commercial decisions play into it too,” he says.

“Our engineering team is based in Melbourne, and we are happy not to be competing for talent in the bloodbath that is Silicon Valley. In the longer term we also believe the world is moving to the East – and Australia has the opportunity to be the eastern most tip of the West, or the western most tip of the East.”

Needing a US presence

Having a North American presence proved essential for the sentiment measurement company, “for us a US office was an easy decision as most of our clients were tech companies based in the Bay Area” says Elzinger.

“We had someone working in customer success there from fairly early on, and then we officially beefed up our presence when one of our co-founders Jon Williams moved to San Francisco in 2014.” Since establishing a San Francisco base, Cultureamp has raised six million dollars in capital raisings and opened offices in New York and London.

Running a global business from Melbourne can be demanding but Elzinger believes it is worthwhile, “other than timezones we’ve yet to run into any major obstacles,” he says. “For me as CEO, it can mean a lot of travel, I try and get to the States at least once a quarter, most times more. But overall, we feel we’ve made the right decision, and are proud to grow a global company from Melbourne.”

The travel can be demanding for an Australian based business and Temando’s CEO Karl Hartman found the demands of regularly flying across the Pacific left the company at a disadvantage. “Previously when I was flying here once a quarter, things moved gradually,” he recalls. “Being here means we can move much more quickly, some things need to be face-to-face.”

The expense of Silicon Valley

A San Francisco base comes at a cost though, “it’s very expensive here.” Hartman warns, “we have a focused team here in the US that is largely focused around partnerships, project management and go-to-market. But we keep our developers largely in Australia.”

“I’d caution any Australian company looking at coming here to fill engineering jobs that coming here is very expensive, I’d argue you can find very good talent in Australia,” he says. “I’d also argue it’s easier for Aussie companies to raise seed investments in Australia.”

Holding costs down is particularly critical for earlier stage companies points out Affinity Live’s Geoff McQueen. “It’s about a third less to employ a developer in the Illawarra than the Bay Area,” says McQueen who has kept his development team in the company’s home town of Wollongong. “Saving those costs gives a startup with limited funding a lot more time.”

Keeping the skills base

Data analytics startup Instaclustr is another keeping most of its operations in Australia while opening offices in the United States, Europe and Japan. “We established a leadership team and sales office in the US, but all of our engineering and support services are located in Australia, at the University of Canberra,” CEO Peter Nichol explained to The Australian.

Instaclustr, which recently raised $2 million in seed funding for its data analytics service running on the open source Apache Cassandra system, chose to maintain operations in Australia to avoid having to compete with the salaries and expectations for high-tech staff in the US.

A favourable Australian dollar and a relationship with local education institutions were also key factors says Nichol, “the skill sets that we are chasing are rare, so we have decided to built a knowledge base and big data experts through a partnership with the University of Canberra.”

Keeping close to customers

Like most tech companies having a US presence, if only for management and sales, has proved essential for Instaclustr. “The main reason,” Nichol says, “was to be to near our customers and partners from a physical and time zone perspective. Over 60% of our customer base is located in North America and 100% of ecosystem partners.”

Despite the benefits of remaining in Australia, the movement of Australian entrepreneurs overseas is increasing. While only eighteen percent of the 602 startups surveyed for the 2015 Startup Muster report intended to move overseas, it was an increase of fifty percent over the previous year.

That many heading overseas want to keep operations and employment local should be encouraging for those trying to Australia into a global startup centre and has to be a factor in developing a local ecosystem and government policies that support it.

California dreaming – following the startup trail

The flow of startups to Silicon Valley is a modern gold rush. Why are entrepreneurs making their way to the Bay Area?

Earlier this year I did a series of four stories for The Australian on why startups see Silicon Valley’s Bay Area as the best base for their businesses.

From the interviews there were a number of reasons for that migration and it was a fascinating exploration of what drives the development of today’s tech industry along with how a global industrial hub maintains its position.

The stories feature a diverse bunch of founders and businesses which in themselves are interesting tales.

Just doing it – the road to Silicon Valley

For business founders thinking about moving to Silicon Valley the advice is ‘just do it’ from those who’ve done it.

This is the second of four stories I did for The Australian on why entrepreneurs are making their way to the United States’ Bay Area.

“Get over here as quickly as you can. Don’t worry about being ready, feeling fully baked or whatever,” says Bugcrowd founder Casey Ellis. “Do whatever you can to get a ticket over here, stay in a hostel and do whatever you need to be here and experience the place.”

Casey Ellis was speaking in the company’s converted warehouse offices just off San Francisco’s Embarcadero waterfront. “Half the price of SoMA,” he smiles while explaining what intending expats should prepare for when moving over to the United States.

Ellis has plenty of reasons to smile as a few weeks earlier the crowdsourced security testing service had announced a successful $15 million fund raising with Australian investor Blackbird Ventures leading the round.

Getting a US base

While he was delighted an Australian investor had lead the funding round, Ellis believed the company had to have a US base from its early days. “One of the reasons for that is if we’re not here, we’re going to be competing with someone who is,” he says.

“When I started going full throttle into BugCrowd, the logic I applied to it was this is either going to fail as an idea or it’s going to move very quickly,” he told The Australian. “If it moves quickly we need to be in a position where we are resourced as well as possible. The place to do it is here.”

“What blew my mind when I got here. I had blinkers on and the move took them off and I’m like ‘there are opportunities here that I hadn’t dreamed of. The reason I didn’t know that was because I hadn’t seen it first hand.’”

Being social

Peter Grant of construction safety service Safesite found social media was a good tool to prepare for the shift to the United States. “If you’re looking at moving at over, but generally speaking you need to make sure there’s a good product and market fit. You need to establish your networks over here, even when I was back in Australia at Muru-D, Twitter was a good way to establish communications.”

“Don’t wait until you get to America, engage with your community and your market as soon as you possibly can. Go onto the webinars, know the language, know the language, know the players – it’s a big country so there’s lots of players. Just start to get involved as soon as you possibly can.”

Founded in Brisbane after Grant found most construction businesses monitored site safety with pen and paper systems, Safesite first moved to Sydney to be part of the first round of Telstra’s Muru-D program. In 2015 he moved to the US as most of the platform’s users were American based and has since set up a network of distribution agents across the nation.

Staying local

“If you’re an organisation like us that needs to be in the US to survive then get over here as soon as possible,” Grant points out. “We have a year on our competitors. If it’s going to be too complex or you already have a profitable business in Australia you may not need to come to the US, you have to be realistic about it. It might make sense to find a local partner.”

Should it make sense to move to the US then it’s important to capitalise on those initial contacts and market research, Grant believes. “When you get over here establish your product market fit and your face-to-face relationships, the dynamic factors that will influence your growth over here.”

The move though doesn’t come without costs he warns, “it can be expensive to set up a business over here so make sure your investors and your legal representation have a full understanding of the implications of what you’re doing and the processes.”

Just do it

Jindou Lee of HappyCo also warns startup founders have to be prepared for some changes when moving to San Francisco. “If you really want to change the world and see your company succeed, get closer to your customers, you need to make sacrifices.“

The founder of real estate inspection app Happy Inspector, Jindou moved from Adelaide to the United States in 2012. After raising three million dollars in funding and being accepted onto the 500 Startups program, the company expanded into general business documentation and renamed itself to HappyCo. “My advice specific to moving to the US is… do it,” he says.

Connecting with the existing networks is also important, “the other piece of advice is to hook up with the different groups that are around,” says Bugcrowd’s Ellis. “The Startmates, the Blackbird folk – figure out who you can get in touch with. People like me who can sherpa you a little bit.” He says “Don’t rely too much on them as you won’t succeed as an entrepreneur if you do, but get a good solid start.”