According to Google Analytics, that post alone received over 2600 pageviews. Over 1200 of those came from Hacker News alone. Though the link was tweeted and re-tweeted all over (just check out the comments section to see the list), I got less than 200 page views from Twitter. It also got bookmarked 45 times on Delicious.
I’m honestly just really happy that people found it interesting! I post the stats above because I think it’s useful to have some data points about where traffic does & can come from.
Strategic Level vs. Tactical Level
In hindsight, I didn’t distinguish as much as I could have between the strategic choices in starting a new seed accelerator program and the tactical choices. This is where perhaps some of the comments/criticism/mis-understanding came from.
The Strategic choice has to do with the most basic analysis of what resources you have available, and how you can structure the program to take advantage of them. Your goal should be a program that is strong enough to be essentially independent of location; it should instead be dependent on the people and resources (connections to appropriate investors, customers, advisors) available. Startups working in your defined niche should want to come to your program above all others, no matter where it’s located.
Now while I’m not saying that a pure Y Combinator clone in Wyoming will never work, just that it will never be competitive with the real Y Combinator unless the resources provided to entrepreneurs are better than they could get through Y Combinator. Now the goal may not be financial success, but building an ecosystem. But even if that’s the goal, local startups have an incentive to go where they have the greatest chance of success. If that’s not your program, then you’ll only be helping a lesser quality company.
The Tactical choices are pretty much everything else. Once a seed accelerator founders have identified a focus where they have a true competitive advantage, then they can decide elements such as program length, investment and equity size, office space, etc. It’s important to recognize these as tactical decisions, versus the strategic focus decisions.
Thanks to everyone that read, linked to and commented on my paper and post. I really appreciate it!
Have you thought about starting a program like Y Combinator in your city? That doing so would not only build a startup ecosystem but would also bring a good financial return? I studied Y Combinator, TechStars, Seedcamp, and many more programs to develop a framework for “Copying Y Combinator”.
(With apologies to Chuck Palahniuk…)
The first rule of copying Y Combinator is: Do Not copy Y Combinator.
The second rule of copying Y Combinator is: DO NOT COPY Y COMBINATOR.
The key to copying Y Combinator is to figure out how you can be just as good, but in a different way, than Y Combinator.
Background
This last year I’ve been an MBA student at Cambridge University. In order to complete the degree we had to do a substantial piece of research, and I chose to do it on the rise of Y Combinator and similar “seed accelerator” programs. My hypothesis was that a lot of people/organizations are starting seed accelerators without really examining the full scope of innovations they need to think about in order to achieve their goals.
I wanted to take the opportunity to look into why entrepreneurs choose to go into a seed accelerator, why individuals choose to start a seed accelerator, and then propose a framework for designing new programs.
Key results are described in this post, and the full paper is embedded via Scribd (a Y Combinator company) below.
Data
The very first step in examining these programs is to get data; it’s almost all posted somewhere, but isn’t consolidated. Between the data that each program publishes on their website, press on the various programme Demo Days, and Crunchbase, I built a list of virtually every startup funded by every seed accelerator.
The only accelerator where this data isn’t as comprehensive is for Y Combinator; I’ve put in placeholders where known (ie, 8 companies in cohort X but only 5 have launched). That said, it should only be missing a handful of companies at most. And please note that nearly all exit values are purely speculation, though educated speculation based on exits of similar companies.
I also surveyed the founders of companies that have either been funded by accelerators or are looking to be funded by accelerators (Y Combinator and others). Specifically, I wanted to find out what they cared about when choosing a seed accelerator. The results are as follows:
Connections to future capital: 8.51
Brand/Alumni connections: 7.83
Business support: 7.42
Product support: 7.13
Pre-money valuation: 5.25
Level of funding: 4.14
These numbers did vary somewhat between different programs and non-funded companies. (For example, the average Y Combinator founder valued Brand/Alumni connections much higher than the average respondent.) But the trends show that entrepreneurs value the elements of programs that give them long-term chances for success: connections to investors, other connections, and product/business support.
Financial Results
Since seed accelerators are still in their early days, it’s too early to make a definitive verdict on their success. But the early data is promising.
Y Combinator and TechStars are two of the oldest seed accelerators, and are the only two to have had substantial exits. The TechStars exits have likely already generated a profit, and there are several companies that may still exit at some point in the future. The Y Combinator company exits have likely already brought Y Combinator to break-even, even after having funded over 100 companies. More impressive is that there are a good number of companies in the portfolio that could reach substantial exits at some point in the future. (And potentially a handful that could reach the vaunted $1billion+ exit.)
Recommendations – How to Copy Y Combinator
The bulk of my paper goes through the elements that are involved in a seed accelerator program. But the fundamental decisions that can define the potential success of a program are simple.
Success derives from the program’s founders and focus; together they must create a distinctive and compelling reason for entrepreneurs to join them.
There will always be entrepreneurs looking for funding; what a seed accelerator should provide is the right match of resources for those entrepreneurs. If the resources that entrepreneurs get by participating aren’t compelling, the program simply won’t get the highest quality applicants, and thus will not achieve maximum success.
This is why there has been little true competition for Y Combinator thus far: they simply have truly compelling resources to offer through PG and the other Y Combinator founders, the YC alumni network, and the combined program network. Until another program can be more compelling than Y Combinator, they will attract the best startups. (See rules 1 & 2 at top about copying Y Combinator.)
The key when constructing a seed accelerator is to look critically (and honestly) about the resources a founder has available; the founders’ experience and the expertise available to the entrepreneurs. Find the focus point that is different from Y Combinator that makes it distinctive and compelling. For example, FbFund REV accelerates companies building applications on Facebook. The new Springboard program in Cambridge (UK) is focused on B2B software applications.
Maybe your expertise is in mobile technology, maybe it’s in medical devices or maybe its in enterprise software. The key is that the founders and the mentors they assemble for a program in that focus area are a distinctive and compelling reason for entrepreneurs to apply and attend. Once the founders and focus are decided, many other decisions fall into place. For example, the program length and funding level will need to be adjusted so that companies can reach a significant development milestone during the program. Just because Y Combinator is three months long doesn’t mean that your program can’t be 9 months long, provided that’s right for the companies involved.
The full paper has far more detail, the point to take away is that the founders and focus must align, and must align to create a programme where an entrepreneur would travel from around the world in order to participate. (Even if there was an accelerator in their own backyard.) The potential to do this in the field of web applications is diminishing quickly.
Final Thanks
I want to say a specific thank you to the program founders that agreed to be interviewed: Paul Graham, David Cohen and Reshma Sohoni. And a huge thank you to the people that commented on my blog posts and Hacker News posts over the summer and took the survey I described above; your feedback was invaluable!
This post will detail how I’ve structured the dissertation thus far, and ask for your help!
Request for help
Are you interested in startups, or have you been involved in a startup? Then I would love it if you could take my survey. I’m looking to get some data around what people really want out of a program like Y combinator.
Secondly, in my draft papers I’ve been using the words “startup incubator” but really don’t like that term. Incubator implies a central office space, which isn’t part of some of these programs. I’ve also thought of “startup accelerator”, “startup boot camp”, but they don’t seem quite right.
If you have any suggestions for a better general name for these programs, please let me know in the comments section below!
My dissertation
The first step in the project was to get a handle on what programmes exist, how they’re structured, what companies they’ve funded and what kind (if any) exits they’ve had. It’s taken a lot of research, but I’ve developed the following files:
The biggest “holes” in the data are some missing company names from Y combinator, and a general lack of awareness of follow-on funding from all programmes (except TechStars and Seedcamp).
My goal is to establish a framework for thinking about startup incubator programmes. To do that, I’ve evaluated the needs of both types of participants: the programme founders and the entrepreneurs. What I’ve developed is this:
Entrepreneurs want:
Seed funding / Financial support
Product support (making product better)
Business support (how to run a business)
Connections to future sources of capital
Brand connections (and alumni connections)
Programme Founders want:
Financial return
To enjoy startups without the same risk/working hours
Local/regional influence
High-quality deal flow
(I’m currently working to verify and quantify these assumptions, and would appreciate any feedback in the comments below.)
There are a number of complications in setting up these programs, however. Mainly:
Non-financial goals (on part of programme founders) –
Particularly when a significant part of the funding comes from the government which has clear non-financial goals.
Location: where people want to live/work (and where they’re legally able to live/work) –
This is a question of desires in personal life versus efficiency and opportunities in business life.
Follow-on funding, where programme founders fund some of their companies but not all for further development –
This is a serious consideration depending on the angels/VCs involved and the structure of the program.
That said, there are a lot of areas for innovation when setting up future startup incubator programmes. Namely:
Focus on industry vertical or particular scope of technology
Length of programme
Funding level
Scope of education programme
Where this is all going to lead is a framework and recommendations for people or groups that want to start a startup incubator.
My biggest recommendation thus far is straightforward. What will make a new programme so compelling that founders would want to choose it over any other? That likely will not be because of the location, despite the fact that most Y combinator clones seem to be just that: Y combinator in a different city. But if a new programme can do something unique, like build an incubator around database technology, or sensing technology, or enterprise customers, or something else it could be a very compelling opportunity for entrepreneurs.
Decisions around industry verticals or technologies then lead into decisions on levels of funding and length of programme. While most programmes have copied Y combinator’s $15-25k for 5-10% equity, there is a lot of scope to change this when the programme isn’t just funding web applications.
Summary
This is what I’ve written thus far, and look forward to your comments and suggestions! If you’d like to get in touch with me privately, please contact me by clicking here.
What is it? A three-month long programme to help start startups. Founders (you) get ~$15-20k in “seed” cash so they can live without any other commitments for the three months, in return for ~6% equity in the business. (Thus, being accepted immediately values your business at ~$300k, not that this really matters.)
During those three months there are weekly dinners with the ~15-30 other companies accepted into the programme. YC specifically doesn’t offer office space, but these regular dinners and office hours with Paul Graham provide regular contact and guidance from other startups going through the same issues you are. These dinners also feature guests/speakers from across the startup/tech industry.
At the end of the three months is a Demo Day, which is attended by some of the top VC’s and angel investors in the US. (I’ve heard anecdotally that as YC has established its brand, Demo Days have become much better attended.) So in addition to helping get your startup and demo ready, YC puts you in touch with an incredibly ecosystem of VC’s and advisors to take you to the next stage.
My dissertation
Since Ycombinator became successful, there have been efforts around the world to try and copy the “secret sauce” which makes YC a success. These include:
But while each of these other programmes are broadly similar to YC, they’re actually fairly different. What I consider to be broadly similar is:
For small teams of startup founders to work on their own ideas
Defined term of programme
Funding – for living expenses while on programme
Education – intense period of product & business advice
Contacts – help you make appropriate contacts to help you in the next stage
Demo Day – opportunity to pitch to potential funding sources and advisors
My Goal
I am writing my dissertation in order to put a “framework” around the YC “special sauce.” If you’re thinking about setting up something like YC, what do you need to include and what do you need to avoid? How do your goals for the programme help or hurt its eventual chance for success? What will truly help entrepreneurs, and how do you make sure you do that in the programme?
Summary
So this is what I’m going to be spending a lot of time on this summer. I hope to release an early draft or two openly to get comments, and then release my final paper when it’s finished at the end of August. I hope that providing a way to think about YC will help other people as they set up similar programmes, hopefully world-wide!
I haven’t been posting much lately. I got a little snowed under with work and it broke me of what had been a semi-regular habit.
Not going to say much here other than that I got a paid internship for this summer in London! It’s ten weeks starting at the end of June, and I’m really excited. (I’m holding off on saying the name of the company until I’ve got everything signed, sealed and delivered! E-mail me directly if you’re curious.)
Other MBA classmates have been getting jobs, even in some hard-to-get finance areas, but it is a bit more bleak than a couple of years ago. I still believe that if you’re willing to reset your expectations you’ll still get a great job and be set for a great career.
This week our MBA class got to hear from Simon Murray. While his name may not ring a bell like some of the other speakers we’ve had this year, he was an absolute thrill to listen to.
Simon has had a fascinating career. He skipped his A-levels (similar to SATs for the Americans reading this) to join the crew of a merchant ship as it sailed around the world. Eventually he found his way to the French Foreign Legion, where he served for five years in Algeria. Passing up the option to become an officer in the Legion, he came back to the UK. Simon eventually became a hugely successful and highly regarded businessman in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia. Probably the most prominent of his current activities is being on the Board for Vodafone. More recently, he became the oldest man to reach the South Pole unsupported, at the age of 63. (It was a two-month trek!)
Career Advice
Simon had some really interesting insights for us as we approach our future careers. Specifically, one of his key points was that when thinking about jobs, we need to separate what we want TO BE from what we want TO DO. As long as you’re doing something you like, it really doesn’t matter who you become. (And if you’re doing something you like you tend to be really, really good at it!) What YOU DO is what YOU BECOME, so live your life to become the best at whatever you enjoy.
Another of his main points is that you have to grab opportunities as you see them. It was just a chance meeting that originally got him connected in Hong Kong, and Simon talked about how grabbing it was a seemingly small thing but an event that was a key to his future success.
Simon had two quotes that I thought were really interesting. Take them as you will:
“Don’t go where the path may lead. Go where there is no path and leave a trail.”
“On bad roads you meet good people.”
Finally, he told a story about trying to get to the heart of what a potential candidate really wanted to do with his life. Simon, not getting an answer, finally asked him what he would do if he had the next day off with nothing to do. The guy (a recent university graduate) thought about it, and told him “windsurfing.” Simon at the time owned a company that made windsurfing sails. The new graduate was sent to that company and became a great success and has gone on to very significant successes since. That concept, that we decide what to do in our career based off what we would do if we had a day off, is interesting. As Simon mentioned, it may lead to unexpected places, but as long as we do what we enjoy it should be fruitful both personally and professionally.
Summary
Simon was a fantastic speaker. His mix of great stories and fascinating personality made it one of the top tier talks this year. I’m definitely going to have to buy his book and learn a bit more about his early years in the French Foreign Legion.
Kevin Roberts, the CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, is also the CEO-in-Residence at Judge Business School. He came in to talk to us recently about Winning with an MBA, which was particularly useful considering the somewhat dismal job market that we’ll be entering later this year.
First off, he’s really an incredible speaker. His staff has a virtual command center to run his presentation, with multiple laptops and a sound mixer! Impressive, and it certainly created a good first impression toward Saatchi & Saatchi. I’m really, really looking forward to the Creativity Workshop that he’s going to be running for the MBA class later this year. From what I’ve heard, it’s a very unique experience.
I don’t want to write too much about his talk with us, but do want to point out three challenges that he set out for us. I think these apply no matter who you are or what stage in life you’re at. We’ve been tasked with thinking about these and writing the answers down; you should do the same:
What’s my 5-year dream?
When am I at my best?
What will I never do?
Particularly on the 5-year dream, he pushed us to push ourselves. He called the 5-year dream of running your own business, etc., “pathetic.” It was a bit of a shock, but a fair point. That’s not much of a dream; we can do that right now if we chose. What’s our real dream, something that seems completely impossible right now? That’s what we should be aiming for.
The other two questions are more straightforward. Still, we need to be brutally honest with ourselves when we answer them in order to really get an insight into our own abilities and preferences.
I went out to dinner with some of my classmates straight afterward, and we started talking about these questions – specifically our dreams. It was interesting to hear what people thought. Perhaps it’s the current job market, but it was generally difficult for everyone to really expand their horizons to answer the question.
While I think I’ve come up with my answer, I’m going to hold off from writing it publicly. But I invite you to really think (and feel) hard and answer the questions above for yourself; it could make for an interesting revelation.
Follow me on Twitter