All posts filed under “Analysis

comment 0

A new home for seed accelerator resources

In the summer of 2009, I wrote a paper called “Copying Y Combinator: a framework for developing seed accelerator programmes” and posted it here with links to all the background research and data that I had compiled.

Ever since I’ve received a lot of requests to share various spreadsheets, questions about the paper, and comments from people involved or interested in seed accelerators.  I’ve come to realize that while it was fine having things scattered about on my blog and in various Google Docs, it wasn’t ideal.

Today, I’m happy to announce a few things:

First, I’ve created a “Seed Accelerator knowledge base” site.  Everything I’ve written or compiled on Y Combinator and other seed accelerators can be found there.  It’s very bare-bones right now, but hope to flesh it out in the coming weeks/months.

Second, I’m starting a newsletter on seed accelerators.  (Sign up at the bottom of this post.)  I promise it will be low traffic (about 1 email/month) and high signal/noise ratio.

(I’ve also created a page on this site to make sure visitors can always find their way to anything I’ve done related to seed accelerators)

What the future holds

Eventually I’d like to turn the knowledge base into a webapp of sorts, probably tied into Crunchbase.  This will allow for better analysis of the data over the long-term.  If entrepreneurs and the people that fund them have access to key signals (1st tier – #/value of exits, 2nd tier – # still operating/alive, 3rd tier – #/value fundraised) then everyone will be able to make better choices.

If you have any comments or recommendations, please let me know!

comments 2

Startup accelerators in 2011



Please see the Seed Accelerator Knowledge Base for the most up-to-date information on seed accelerators world-wide, and the startups that have graduated from them.


I’ve long been interested in the seed accelerator model, as started by Y Combinator.  I wrote my master’s thesis on it, and wrote a follow-up post this spring.  Recently, two things have happened that I wanted to write about.  First, I restructured the spreadsheet where I maintained a list of all companies to come out of seed accelerators.  And second, NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, a UK investment and research body) recently undertook a significant piece of research into seed accelerators.

Update to Seed Accelerator company list spreadsheet

As a part of my original paper on seed accelerators, I compiled a list of all the companies that have come out of seed accelerators like Y Combinator, TechStars, Seedcamp, et cetera.  Each accelerator had its own tab, with the details of all their companies.  I kept edit rights, mainly so that I could be sure of the details for my paper and follow-up work.

As seed accelerators have exploded in number world-wide, it’s become nearly impossible to keep this working.  There were too many tabs for different accelerators to be found properly, and it really is best if the people that run the different programs can edit the details for their companies.

So there are now individual documents for each seed accelerator program, and the original document now has links to each individual program sheet.  If you run a seed accelerator, please e-mail me and I’ll be sure that 1) I have a separate spreadsheet for your accelerator and 2) you get full edit rights for your program’s spreadsheet.  (

Please check the new seed accelerator company directory here.

NESTA research

Kirsten Bound and Paul Miller recently undertook a significant piece of work to define, describe, and analyze seed accelerators on a global basis.  The result of which can be found on the NESTA page: “The Startup Factories“.  [Direct link to their PDF paper.]  I spoke to Kirsten a couple of times prior to and during their research, and they developed a real sense of the opportunities and challenges of startup accelerators.

While I didn’t have time to make NESETA’s half-day conference on seed accelerators last week, a friend of mine (Mark Littlewood of the BLN) did and wrote about it here: “Do we need startup factories?“.  The key element can be found at the bottom of his post, where Mark echo’s something I’ve been saying since my very first paper.  Only the best, top-tier seed accelerators will truly be of value to entrepreneurs. And the followers, the “me-too” seed accelerators that are starting to pop up everywhere, will be of little to negative value.  While in the long run it will be easy to tell between the two, in the short term I am afraid that startup founders may get fleeced.  Startup accelerators need to clearly understand their unique advantages that can allow them to recruit some of the best startups away from the Y Combinators and TechStars of the world.  If they can’t offer that level of value, it might not be worth it for them to exist.

The NESTA report is quite well written and clear.  Some of the data is a little dodgy; in particular I’m not a fan of the Tech cocktail rankings at all, since they have yet to mention what data they’re using to create the rankings.  (I personally believe that it overly weights the accelerators that more freely share data.)  But overall, it’s a great resource.

If you do have comments, please share them with the writers.  The discussion paper is currently in draft form, but they hope to finalize it soon.

comment 1

Your guide to getting London 2012 Olympics tickets

CZ Weightlifting

I went to the Olympics for the first time in 2008, and had the most amazing experience.  If you’re someone that enjoys sport (any sport) it is an experience of a lifetime.

The ticketing process opens Tuesday, March 15th: 500 days before the Opening Ceremonies.  This post is a guide to (most) everything you want or need to know about getting tickets to the London 2012 Olympics.

The basics

Application window, not sales

If you think you need to get your request in first thing on March 15th, don’t.  There is a six-week application window during which you can submit your ticket application.  All requests received during this window are treated equally.  When the window closes, the London 2012 committee will evaluate how many applications were made for each session and price-point of ticket.  There is then a lottery/matching process to allocate the actual tickets, and you find out what you get at the end of that.

What starts in March is the application for tickets, not the sales themselves.

Secondary market

Yes, there will be a secondary market for tickets.  According to the London 2012 ticketing website, once you apply for tickets you’re committed to purchasing the tickets you are allocated.  But there will be an official ticket resale programme run by London 2012.  Additionally, there are always unofficial channels for reselling tickets.

What you need to plan

You must visit the London 2012 ticketing website to view the full competition schedule for the 2012 Olympics.  There’s a complete PDF, and an individual PDF for each sport.  It lists the dates, times, locations, and ticket prices for each session in the Olympics.  It details which exact events are included in each session, so you can pick out exactly what you want to see.  (Though for knock-out competitions like football, beach volleyball, etc., you won’t know who will be competing until the Games themselves.)


Key advice

Events subject to supply and demand.  (Some are not obvious.)

Some sports are fairly easy to get tickets for; they’re held in large venues and not as popular a sport.  Some are very hard: I specifically remember swimming being nearly impossible to get tickets for in Beijing.  The venue for swimming isn’t very big, and nearly half of the available space was taken up by world-wide press!  The demand for tickets roughly correlates to the TV popularity of a given sport; swimming, gymnastics, athletics are quite popular.  Weightlifting, shooting, and modern pentathlon less so.

Also, you can certainly try to apply for Opening Ceremonies tickets, but there’s so few left over after sponsors and athletic associations and governments get their tickets, there will hardly be any available.  Just so you have appropriate expectations…

Remember this when applying; you’re unlikely to get all of the tickets you want, and even less likely when they’re very popular events.

Lesser-known sports can be incredibly cool

This surprised me a bit based on my Beijing experience, but’s absolutely true.  The B finals in weightlifting (where they aren’t even eligible for medals) were just as riveting as any other sport I saw.  I also saw Greco-Roman wrestling for the very first time and it was awesome!  The organizers in Beijing had flyers at the entrance of each venue with information and rules about each sport, so if you weren’t familiar you could quickly get up to speed.

Fundamentally, the athletes at the Olympics are the very best in their particular sport. They have usually trained for years and years to get to that point, and are at their peak physical condition.  Any sport where the very best athletes are competing with so much on the line is awe-inspiring.

Cheap tickets can still be great seats

This is something else I’m really glad I learned in Beijing.  There really are no bad seats at a venue. The organizers go out of their way to install large screens so you can see the closeups of what you want, and scoreboards are everywhere.  Certainly the more you’re willing to spend, the better the seat you’ll get.  But even if you get tickets in what seems like the nosebleed section of the Olympic Stadium, you’ll still have a great experience.  (That’s where LondonAnnie and I had tickets in the Bird’s Nest in Beijing, and we had a fantastic time.)  Cheap seats at the Olympics are still good tickets.

Where you buy your tickets depends on where you live.

Buying tickets depends on where you reside.  The London 2012 ticket site is for residents of the UK and (most) European countries.  If you’re a resident of the USA, Canada, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Austria or Bulgaria, is where you need to register to apply for tickets.  If you have any questions, check the London 2012 site here regarding eligibility.

Think about locations and travel time

While most venues are in/around the Olympic Park (Stratford), the Docklands (East London) or Central London, not all of them are.  Rowing is an hour journey from central London, sailing is on England’s south coast, and most football (soccer) matches are spread all over the country.  Be sure to understand where each sport is located, particularly if you’re interested in seeing multiple sports in one day.  (Which you should!)

Also, this is a great opportunity for people elsewhere in the country to experience the Olympics without traveling to London.

Free public transportation

If you hold an Olympic ticket for any event on a particular day of competition, public transportation will be free.  So don’t worry about costs and how you’ll get from venue to venue; it’ll be sorted for you and be free.


Recommended Strategies

Request as many tickets as you can afford

Tickets can quickly get expensive, so you understandably can’t apply for all of the tickets you want.  (And you’re obligated to buy all the tickets you’re allocated, even though you could resell them later.)  But you’re also not likely to get all of the tickets you apply for because of supply and demand.  Evaluate how much you’re willing to spend, and apply for as many tickets as you can.

“Go deep” on one sport

I like/recommend the strategy of choosing one sport, and then bidding for better tickets and a deeper experience that sport.  It’s great to get into one sport and really enjoy the full experience, from qualifying rounds to medal rounds.  (Though for some sports, you’ll definitely still have to pick and choose!)  But you can then combine this with cheaper tickets in other sports, so your money gets you to as many events as possible.

Be sure to include at least a few sports “off the beaten path”

Some of the lesser known sports can be fantastic experiences.  The athletes are truly in it for the love of the sport; they’re never going to be famous even if they win gold.  The drama of these athletes competing at the pinnacle of their sport is really one of the best things about going to the Olympics, and I’d highly recommend seeing some of the sports that are “off the beaten path.”



When you apply for Olympics tickets, it pays to be prepared.  Think about how much you’re willing to spend, look into all of the sports, and have a strategy when applying.  Then submit your application and wait for the results.

No matter what tickets you end up getting, you will absolutely enjoy the experience.  The Olympic games are like nothing else.


History of my 2008 Olympics experience

These are links to the photos and blog posts of my 2008 Beijing Olympics experience.  It will hopefully give you an idea of what to expect.

2008 Beijing Olympics photos  (2628 photos) – by LondonAnnie
2008 Beijing blog posts

Photo at the top is from LondonAnnie here:

comments 9

Looking back – 1.5 years since “Copying Y Combinator”

It’s been nearly one and a half years since I originally wrote my paper on seed accelerators: “Copying Y Combinator: Why and How”, which focused on how other people or organizations could create their own programmes.  I wanted to reflect on what has changed, and what hasn’t changed since, and what that means for the future.

To be clear, my viewpoint is looking at what it takes to make a seed accelerator successful.  Think of the VC business model: not every VC fund is successful.  (In fact, the median net return to VC fund investors has not been positive since 1998.)  To be a continued successful seed accelerator program, you need to have a financial model that works, provide value to the companies that you invest in, and invest in the best possible companies.  That means the best possible companies need to prefer your program to any other.  There are tiers involved, and I’m interested in what makes top-tier results possible.

What has changed:

Y Combinator provides the most money to their funded companies

The deal with The Start Fund was huge news.  There is now an investor that is willing to put $150k into every Y Combinator startup, sight un-seen.  Many commenters have suggested that this will open up YC to older applicants, who will have enough income security to risk quitting a more senior job to do the program.  Though most YC, TechStars and Seedcamp companies raise external funding anyway, having this publicly committed before you even start makes it a nice security blanket.

Perhaps more importantly on a tactical level is that it gives YC startups more breathing room in the fundraising race.  Tommy at CarWoo wrote a great post about this.  As he wrote:

[Fundraising] was a huge issue on the minds of all the YC companies and I know for a fact that it was a distraction. I know it was for us.

Finally, this is a deal for Y Combinator startups alone, and puts them at a significant advantage compared to other seed accelerators in attracting the best companies to the program.  (The highest-ranked factor startups think about when it comes to seed accelerators, per my original post.)  The existance of The Start Fund signals that YC acceptance is a high bar, and it’s worth having an option on every company that comes out of it.

Y Combinator has the largest alumni network

According to my spreadsheet tracker, Y Combinator has funded just about 250 startups.  Combined with an ethos of helping each other out, this is a huge advantage to potential applicants.  I’ve spoken to a number of YC startups, and all of them mention this as a significant benefit.  (This is the second-highest-ranked factor startups think about.)

The secondary effect of all this is that Y Combinator has seen 4x-20x the number of startups that other accelerators have seen.  That means 4x-20x the applications, 4x-20x the founder problems, 4x-20x the customer acquisition problems, etc.  They have more experience with pretty much everything.  That extra experience is valuable for entrepreneurs.

TechStars has developed into a world-wide network

TechStars has recently announced a world-wide network of 17 seed accelerators, the TechStars Network.  What’s interesting with this is that it spreads the business model of seed accelerators more widely, and starts to standardize on best practices.  When I spoke with David Cohen nearly two years ago, helping other entrepreneurs and accelerators get started was clearly something he felt strongly about.  (Which is different to the go-it-alone approach of YC.)  While I believe my original thesis is correct, making each and every one of the accelerators that are popping up better is a great thing for entrepreneurs and startups.

What hasn’t changed:

Y Combinator is still the only seed accelerator in the Silicon Valley area.

There are new seed accelerators opening in what feels like every city, state, and university campus… except Silicon Valley.  (More about this below.)  I find this really strange, to be honest.  The Bay Area is pretty much the richest source of technology startup resources, and most of the programs dedicated to the most fledgling companies don’t exist here?  I can think of two reasons for it.

One, the people interested in starting seed accelerators want to do them in their own hometowns, no matter how suitable those cities are for these programs.  This would explain why so many are started in other cities, but wouldn’t necessarily explain why no additional accelerators have been founded in Silicon Valley.

Two, Y Combinator is seen as an 800-pound gorilla in the seed accelerator world, and no one wants to get in a pissing match with them.  This seems plausible, but I think there are so many resources in SV that any new program wouldn’t intersect with YC.  Perhaps this is more reflective of an ego issue; that no one wants to start a separate program and then be compared to YC?

Y Combinator, particularly through Hacker News, is more directly engaged with startup culture

I’ve grown to think that Hacker News is a key differentiator between the different accelerators.  It provides a strong conduit between the YC partners, the YC alumni, YC applicants, and general entrepreneurial people.  These communities always have existed before (ie, Slashdot), but Hacker News has centralized the audience around internet startups, and more importantly around the Y Combinator experience, philosophy, and brand.

Hacker News helps feed the virtuous circle that makes Y Combinator a top-tier seed accelerator.

Most seed accelerators are just local copies of Y Combinator

I’m disappointed when I see a program that’s simply a clone of Y Combinator in a different city.  Differentiate yourself! Though there are some notable exceptions:

TechStars has definitely taken a different tack with their program, developing into a network of international programs.  Their core programs in Boulder, Boston and Seattle together have a higher level of experience and engagement, with more startups funded and close coordination between the different locations.  TechStars has a mentorship process where each of their startups is matched with 1-2 mentors, and the mentors don’t work with any other TechStars company in that batch.  (They also provide centralized office space for the startups.)  All in all, it’s one of the most developed programs outside YC.

Fundamentally, results are what matter.  TechStars actually publishes their results online, and they’re solid.

Seedcamp has a radically different approach, but probably befitting their non-US location.  (Which means they can easily attract non-US startups that wouldn’t easily be able to live/work in the US.)  They host numerous mini-Seedcamp events across Europe, and then cap it off with their final decision around the handful of startups they put more resources into.  So while they’ve seen a lot of European startups, they’ve only invested in a fairly limited number, about 40.

The Brandery looked very interested when it got started.  They’re located in Cincinnati, Ohio, which seems like it’s off the beaten track for startups… until you remember that it’s the world headquarters for Proctor & Gamble, a company that is incredibly focused on consumer brands.  There’s a huge resource of talent for companies that need strong consumer brands.

I was hoping that this would open The Brandery up to startups that weren’t just consumer internet startups, but it looks like the list of their 2010 companies were just that.  I’ve now become more dubious; at the early stage of these startups they need a product more than they need a brand, so the accelerator won’t be able to offer as much value.  Perhaps there’s a place for a slightly later-stage startup: one that has a solid product but needs a brand finishing school to take them to the next level?


Andrew Parker (formerly of Union Square Ventures, now at Spark Capital) made an interesting comment on my original post:

If you’re going to copy YCombinator, then you should really give credit where credit is due: thank YCombinator. I went to the demo days for LaunchBox, TechStars, SeedCamp, fbFund REV and YCombinator in the past year. The only YC clone that even acknowledged that they were a YC clone and, furthermore, thanked YCombinator for their pioneering efforts was Dave McClure at fbFund REV. All the other programs never even mentioned YCombinator at the demo day.

Now I’m not convinced that every other accelerator should genuflect upon Y Combinator at each of their Demo Days, but what Andrew pointed out was interesting.

Y Combinator appears to be the least structured of all accelerators

TechStars was the second major seed accelerator out of the gate after Y Combinator, and they’ve started the trend of what appears to be much more structure in the TechStars program, and the programs TechStars has influenced.  In addition to periodic meetings for everyone, they have all the startups work in the same physical office, and have a structured mentorship system.  (As I understand it, each startup in a batch is matched with a small number of mentors, and those mentors work only with that specific startup.)  This is quite a bit different from the YC model, where the major structure is a weekly dinner and then open office hours with the YC staff which you can take or leave.

What this means for seed accelerators:

You need to be unique, where unique is not just a seed accelerator in a different city

I am still absolutely convinced that if you’re a Y Combinator clone, just located in a different city, you will never be a top-tier program.  Why?  Because if you’re just doing exactly what YC does, but you provide less money and less expertise, you’ll never have the top startups wanting to work with you.

What I’m waiting to see is a program that does something else entirely.  For example, what about an accelerator that works with companies building actual, physical products?  Companies like Wakemate (from YC) have struggled as they work out production issues, find and develop relationships with factories, etc.  If there was an accelerator that had a group of mentors that could help guide startups through this journey, with contacts a low- and higher-rate production facilities, and in a financial structure that made sense, I think it could be tremendously successful.  (Again, defining success as being the top-choice of any startup working in that field.)

This is simply one example; you could do a dramatically different approach any number of ways.  (After reading Roger Ehrenberg’s blog, couldn’t NYC start one around a theme of big data, data visualization and finance?)  But so far, everyone just wants to have an accelerator for internet software startups, generally consumer focused, with the same model as YC.  There’s more potential out there, people!

There’s room for another seed accelerator in Silicon Valley

Who’s going to start it?

(Dave McClure seems to have made a stab at this with the 500 Startups Accelerator; the main difference from others being that there’s no open application, startups have to be referred in.)

You need to be a program that everyone you’re focused on badly wants to attend

As one famous Google executive says, “Repetition doesn’t spoil the prayer,” and thus I want to keep repeating myself here.  To be a truly successful seed accelerator, you need to be highly desired by the best companies you want to help.  There needs to be a strong match between what you offer, and what the startup wants and needs to be successful.  There will always be companies looking for investors, and if your pool isn’t that big some of them will certainly look good, if only by comparison.  But your accelerator needs to be the preferred program for the best startups.  Those best startups have the best chance of being successful and generating the results and returns that enable the program to continue sustainably.


I still feel like we’re in the very early days of seeing the successes and failures of seed accelerators.  The startup world, and specifically the funding world, appears to have a number of discontinuities.  (Particularly once you start getting away from consumer internet startups.)  Seed accelerators have a great opportunity to start filling in the existing gaps, and helping companies go from idea to polished execution much more cleanly.

Going back to a link I shared near the top, Bryce Roberts has some great comments about VC funds that I believe also apply to seed accelerators:

a handful of them have been delivering outsized returns for decades now. They don’t call Sequoia, Accel, Benchmark, KP, Matrix, Greylock “top tier” for nothing. They’ve figured out a few things related to building enduring companies and consistently delivering returns for their investors.

If you’re going to start a new fund, be different. Proprietary dealflow, investment stage, operating experience or deep network of industry contacts are meaningless buzzwords that aren’t going to set you apart from the pack. As SuperLP says “to do something outstanding takes audacity.  And indeed, private equity should be all about audacity”. Being the 10th seed fund, or 5th “opportunity” fund isn’t going to set you apart from the pack. Be different.

To create a top-tier seed accelerator, you need to be a top-tier choice for startups the world over in your niche.  Just like a VC firm, seed accelerators need to have the best possible startups (deal flow), in order to fund the best teams and ideas.  If your seed accelerator can achieve this, you will have a sustainable program.

Appendix – Data

If you haven’t seen it already, I’ve maintained a list of companies that have been funded through these seed accelerators.  Click here for the Google Docs link, or check out the embedded doc below: