Category: business advice

  • The pros and cons of bootstrapping

    The pros and cons of bootstrapping

    There are plenty of ways of raising money for a business; venture capital, bank loans, private equity and – by the far the most common – bootstrapping, where a company finances it’s growth through its own cashflow.

    An article in Tech Crunch by Ashkan Karbasfrooshan looked at the reasons why bootstrapping doesn’t work, his views are understandable Ashkan given his own business has raised $1.5 million in venture capital (VC) funding over the past four years.

    Outside the Silicon Valley bubble, it’s worthwhile considering the real benefits and disadvantages to bootstrapping your business. As with any business tool there’s real pros and cons with all financing methods.

    Benefits

    There are a number of benefits with bootstrapping, in that it forces the business’ management to focus on the product and customers while giving founders full control of the business.

    Total control

    A bootstrapping business has total control over its destiny – the business owners answer to no VC, bank or outside imposed board of directors.

    Those outside investors may also have different business objectives to the founders. Often a venture capital or private equity investor has a three to five year time frame while a founder may be looking further.

    Also a mis-match between the founders’ and investors’ exit strategies will almost certainly be a problem should the opportunity to sell the business arise.

    One of the biggest risks for a smaller business is banks can call in loans or ask for additional security – something that crippled many smaller businesses during 2009.

    For those who’ve raised equity funding, founders can find their shareholdings diluted or even be fired from the business they created.

    Customer focus

    The business that is focused on funding itself pays close attention to the needs of its customers. The distraction of raising, and then managing, investors or lenders can distract from building the business.

    Validating the business model

    A successful business that has grown through funding itself is has, by definition, a valid and profitable business model. This is not necessarily true of VC or debt funded enterprises.

    Overcapitalisition

    In his Tech Crunch article,  Ashkan quotes Marc Andreessen and Jason Calacanis as saying “raise as much money as you can.”

    This may well be conventional wisdom in Silicon Valley though the reality is a business can have too much money, as we saw in the original dot com boom with businesses such as Boo.com lavishing money on founders and expensive frills.

    A business can be crippled by having too much investment money that distorts the founders’ objectives and allows the company to lose focus on helping customers and getting the product right.

    Generally with bootstrapping this isn’t a problem unless the founders have an insanely profitable business, which renders the need for outside investors largely irrelevant.

    Disadvantages

    For all of bootstrapping’s advantages there are real downsides as well including the risk of being undercapitalised and the difficulty in attracting diverse management.

    Undercapitalisation

    One of the main reasons for business failures is under capitalisation; simply not enough money to grow the enterprise or to put it on a sustainable footing. This is a constant risk for bootstrapped businesses.

    Inability to focus

    Many owners or managers of bootstrapped businessese focused on making sales so they can pay the rent and make payroll; this distracts management from executing the longer term aims of the business.

    Expertise

    In taking an equity partner – either in private equity, venture capital or angel investor – the founders get the benefit of the investors’ expertise.

    A good investor who has similar objectives to the founders can add real value and complement the original team’s strengths and weaknesses.

    No one size fits all businesses

    Overall there’s no black and white to bootstrapping versus borrowing money or finding an equity partner; all of them have their risks and benefits.

    As entrepreneur Steve Blank points out, there are six types of startup and only two of them; the scalable and buyable (born to flip) are suited to the Silicon Valley venture capital model.

    The real risk in business is assuming one way or another is the only way to fund an enterprise, for many it’s a combination of some or all of the methods to raise funds.

    It’s quite possible to see a business first bootstrap to get established, then get a bank loan to finance growth, followed by a VC or seed investment that finally sells out to a private equity fund.

    For many business owners though, funding the business out of cashflow is the most sustainable way to grow and profit. If you’re happy with what you’re doing, there’s no reason to be hassling for equity or begging at the bank.

    Similar posts:

  • The business of baffling choices

    The business of baffling choices

    In his Daring Fireball blog, John Gruber’s takes to task the view that Apple suffers through not having a wide product range.

    John makes the valid point that Samsung seems to stealing market share from HTC rather than Apple but the whole theory of offering too many choices strikes to the heart of two industry’s business models.

    Those two industries are the mobile telco business and the Windows personal computer sector.

    In the PC world, the wide range of models has been both an advantage and a weakness; it’s allowed Dell and others to create custom machines to meet customer needs but also leaves consumers – both corporate and home buyers – confused and suspicious they many have been taken advantage of.

    All too often customer were being had; frequently buyers found they’d bought an underpowered system stuffed with software that either was irrelevant to their needs or an upgrade was necessary to get the features they hoped for.

    The entire PC industry was guilty of this and Microsoft were the most obvious – the confusing range of operating systems and associated software like the dozen version of Microsoft Office was deliberately designed to confuse customers and increase revenue.

    For the PC industry, the “baffle the customer” model reached its zenith, or nadir, with Windows Vista where Microsoft deliberately put out an underspecced ‘Home’ edition designed to push sales up the value chain.

    Compounding the problem, most of the manufacturers followed Microsoft’s lead and put out horribly underpowered systems in the hope that customers would upgrade with more memory, better graphics card and bigger, faster hard drives.

    Most customers didn’t upgrade and as a result the Vista operating system – which was horrible anyway – enhanced its well deserved reputation for poor performance.

    In the telco sector, consumer confusion lies at the heart of their profitable business model; a bewildering range of phones and plans often leaves the customer spending too much, either through an overpriced plan or paying punative charges for ‘excess’ use.

    Having a hundred different types of Android phone adds to the confusion and, by restricting updates, they can cajole customers into ‘upgrading’ to a new phone and another restrictive plan every year or so. This is why you get phone calls from your mobile phone company offering a new handset deal 18 months into a two year plan.

    Apple’s model has been different; in their computer range there has never been a wide choice, just a few configurations that meet certain price points. The same model has used for their phones and iPads.

    For Apple, this means a predictable business model and a loyal customer base. They don’t have to compete on price and they don’t have to fight resellers and telcos who want to ‘own’ the customer. It’s one of the reasons mobile phone companies desperately want an alternative to the iPhone.

    Companies using the baffling choices business model – Microsoft, HP, Dell and your local mobile telco – may well continue to do okay, but that business model is coming under challenge as new entrants are finding new niches.

    For all of us as consumers all we can do is make the choices that are simple are reject complexity. Warren Buffett has always maintained he doesn’t invest in businesses he doesn’t understand, perhaps we should have the same philosophy with the purchases we make.

    Similar posts:

  • Booking a disruption

    Booking a disruption

    Last night, US based booking service Eventbrite launched their Australian service, which promises to disrupt some cozy local incumbents.

    The Australian ticket booking industry – like most of the nation’s business sectors – is dominated by two large players; Ticketmaster and Ticketek, with the latter dominating most ticket sales for big events.

    Like most Australian duopolies, both Ticketmaster and Ticketek have a comfortable existence. With almost every ticket for major sporting, entertainment and cultural fixtures sold through their services, they’ve been allowed to neglect investing in new platforms while reaping monopoly profits from both attendees and organisers.

    The development of online ticketing platforms like Eventbrite and Australian equivalents like Sticky Tickets are part of the disruption coming to this sector.

    All of a sudden, event organisers don’t have to rely upon the grace and favours of major incumbents and ticket buyers aren’t getting slugged with outrageous “administrative fees” by the agencies.

    The ticketing sector is one of these areas where decades of business practices have allowed middle men to develop, now a whole breed of new intermediaries are using technology to challenge the incumbents.

    Integrating other technologies like reporting services, mailing lists and social media platforms along with hardware like iPad, iPhone and Android based management platforms for those on the door makes these services even more compelling to event organisers.

    Right now the big incumbents probably aren’t taking these services too seriously as their cashflows, and management bonuses, seem safe and unassailable. Like all challenged industries, it might take them some time to figure out there is a real threat to their positions.

    It will be interesting when a big events organiser or sports venue decides to move across to one of the newer ticketing companies, then we’ll see how the big incumbents deal with the threat to their businesses.

    Similar posts:

  • The four why’s of Sam Palmisano

    The four why’s of Sam Palmisano

    The New York Times’ profile of IBM’s outgoing CEO, Sam Palmisano, is an interesting study of how an established business can make well thought out long term plans through asking some basic questions.

    Under Palmisano, IBM moved a large part of their business from manufacturing and distributing computers to more Internet based products and services.

    A key part in IBM’s reinvention was recognising the PC hardware business was in decline as commoditisation of the computers and associated components eroded margins.

    To counter this, IBM looked at the areas where they believed the margins would be for the next decade and decided they lay in “on-demand” computing – what we now call “cloud computing”.

    What is particularly notable with IBM’s move to the cloud is this renting time on mainframes was the mainstay of their business up until the 1990s so the culture of reliable, accessible services backed by well priced plans is something not unknown to IBM.

    Having decided on the on-demand computing strategy, IBM then looked at who would buy their hardware division. Here they acted strategically and rather than selling to the highest bidder – someone like Dell or a private equity firm – they sold to China’s Lenovo which enhanced IBM’s standing within the Chinese markets.

    The notable thing with all of these plans is that they were made strategically and executed without the dithering we see at other companies struggling with similar issues. Yahoo! and HP being the two standouts in this area.

    While smaller businesses can’t execute on the same scale companies the size of IBM can should they choose, Sam Palmisano’s thinking was guided by four key questions;

    • “Why would someone spend their money with you — so what is unique about you?”
    •  “Why would somebody work for you?”
    • “Why would society allow you to operate in their defined geography — their country?”
    • “Why would somebody invest their money with you?”

    These four are something all of us could ask of ourselves and those around us. The answers to those questions are will guide what we do, where we do it and how we do it.

    For IBM, the future is fascinating as a new CEO comes in and they apply their investments in cloud computing, consulting and data mining to bigger picture projects like the Smarter Planet initiative.

    How this works for IBM and the other large technology companies remains to be seen although it’s quite clear that unlike many of their contemporaries, IBM’s management has a vision of where their business fits in the 21st Century.

    Similar posts:

  • The importance of transparency

    The importance of transparency

    The US Federal Reserve has announced they will release more details from the information they use on determining official interest rates. On the same day the social networking site Twitter is embarrassed when its opaque verified account policy fails.

    Being open and honest is the key component in trust and in turn trust is the bedrock of society. If you can’t trust your neighbour, the local cop or the grocer at the shops then society quickly starts breaking down.

    Many big businesses, particularly those in markets where they are one of a small group of incumbents get away with abusing your trust; they tell an illegal surcharge can’t be waived because “that’s their policy, you can’t change an account because of the “terms and conditions” and that the call centre’s operators name is Janet even though it’s Rajiv and you know that when you call back asking for “Janet” you’ll be told”there’s 35 Janets working in the department right now”.

    All of this we’ve come to expect from big bureaucratic organisations like the phone company, the bank and the tax office. The interesting thing is how many new businesses that are adopting this anti-customer model of operating.

    Rules and policies are fine – as long as everyone knows them, they aren’t too onerous and they are applied fairly and consistently.

    The challenge for all businesses – particularly those taking on incumbents – is they have to show they are more trustworthy than the existing operators. If you can’t show that, then maybe it’s time to think about how you operate.

    Similar posts: