Do you need a 'lighthouse' or 'a torch'?

Traditional wisdom says that to build a successful startup, that you must put your head down and relentlessly build, create, engage, pitch, compete, push, test, iterate, sell, etc etc, for 3-5 years, until you've achieved some measure of success, and then you can give back to your local startup community.

That is, become a lighthouse - "the shining light on the cliffs", to help others avoid the rocks of their journey.
This premise assumes that most of the people are already out on boats, and 'out to sea', and not walking through rough terrain on the land with no light to guide them. Which is often wrong.

Like explorers of old, entrepreneurs who've already launched their 'ships', have already hired their boats, financed their journey,  assembled their crews, charted their courses on maps, loaded the supplies for the journey and consulted others who've made the voyage before them. They know where they are going, and why.

However, the majority of startup ideas people are still on the cliffs above the shore. They still have all that to do before them. But first, they still have to clamber down through rocky cliffs just to reach the harbour. Most wont make it this far- many will lose their way and become lost in the night. Some will give up and turn back towards home, or lose their grip and fall, with their hopes & dreams dashed on the rocks far below.

Some will end up at the wrong harbour. Others will arrive, with no money to hire the crew & boats that they need; others still will find no suitable boat available, or that the journey they've planned isn't possible, viable or worthwhile. 
(There may be another post in this about pirates, mutinies, and ships lost at sea, but I'll save that for another day).

So I'll come back to this story in a moment.

We are building our startup and you want to do ....'What'?
"Yes, we are right in the middle of the build phase of our startup, and I want to put aside some time to help grow the startup community", was the conversation I had with one of my co-founders.

I had just told him that I had started up, not just a local meetup to help other startups, but also structured it as a 'group anywhere' (to encourage others to syndicate it) AND a LinkedIn group for online collaboration.

In order for our own venture to succeed, we also need as many of our brethren as possible, to reach the harbour, prepared and willing to continue their own journey.

They first need torches to make it down safely from the cliffs, before they need lighthouses.
Not only do we have all the torches we need, but we have torches to share. And to help our fellow journeyman, all we have to hand them out, and light them. (For some of you younger folk, there were torches of a different sort, in the days before batteries).

He looked at me incredulously for a minute..... And then the light went on in him too. 
So are you 'sharing your light' whilst still on the shore, or are you waiting until you've returned from your successful voyage?

If you want to shine your light, and are nearby, join us at Startling Startup Ideas Group Melbourne.

This group is "Q&A for Startups". The first local group (Melbourne) is now live, and we expect to begin planning our first events soon.

http://meetup.com/Startling-Startup-Ideas-Group-Melbourne
It's based around user-driven topics to help you start, launch or grow, so tell us -
-which topics are most important to you and
-which ones that you want first (and suggest others), decided by group voting.
For those of you that are in interstate or overseas locations, there's also an opportunity to join an online conversation, or expand the concept via syndicated meetups, so don't feel left out.
You can join & share the online conversation at http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Startling-Startup-Ideas-Group-6669314
Or, if you believe as we do, and would like to expand the face-to-face concept, reach out to me on Twitter @That_StartUpGuy or visit http://www.meetup.com/Startling-Startup-Ideas/
This is an initiative that is being supported by my newest startup, StartUp Foundation, which is 5 Stage venture Accelerator for experienced professionals. 

At StartUpFoundation.com.au, you can find out the 8 success factors which make the difference between massive success & failure in a startup - and they have almost nothing to do with which 'methodology' you use. Lets help you take your great ideas, and use them to help you break free from your day job and make that 'Leap of Faith'.

Do you LOVE what you do?

I truly believe that if something isn't fun, or that you can't make it fun, or at least have fun doing it (what ever it is), then you probably shouldn't be doing it. 

In fact, you should do something, anything else. 

We spend so much time doing 'something' as a profession, career or vocation; why not make it significant, engaging, and enjoyable?

Of course, for some people, doing something that isn't fun, is often about money, or other reasons; a means to an end, keeping up appearances, meeting others' expectations, or climbing a ladder. 

But I'm not speaking to that audience. I talking to those of you who are seeking your life's purpose; doing your 'thing', which will lead you to a life of significance & meaning. 

In seeking to achieve that through startup success, if you have a partner, there is something that you absolutely must do before, during & after your startup. You have an obligation to bring that person 'with you' on the journey. 

First and foremost, aren't you building something so that you and your partner can have a better life together? So why wouldn't you want to share the highs and lows?

Celebrate the successes? Share in the learning?

After all, if it really is all about the journey, isn't it also about who you share that journey with? 

I was married for many years to a very fearful person. Her main expression was 'There's no fun until the work is done'. And this is not an uncommon attitude. There are many people in the world who cannot 'let go', who have to own the process & micro manage it to its conclusion before they can relax. 

And yet, that holds them back from obtaining a state of 'flow', a positive, inspiring state of creativity, passion & productivity. Its exactly that state you need to get to in building a startup, where people just cant wait to engage with you. 

For reasons not relevant here, I am no longer with that person (though I harbour no resentment), but obviously there was a mis-match of psyches. This is a scarcity mentality, not one of abundance. (If you aren't sure what I mean, there are are some great books on the topic, but my favourite is 'Blue Ocean Strategy').

Some-one with that sort of attitude, will probably never understand the mentality required to create a startup (whether successful or not). The ebbs & flows of the tides of our world are too strong, too overwhelming, too uncontrollable. 

So before you quit your day job to do the thing that you've always wanted to (whether a startup or something else), think about your partner, and what they need; talk with them about where you want to go, and why. And then start thinking about positive strategies to bridge any gaps. 

And if you want to give yourself the best chance of success, do this with the advice, support & guidance, of a suitably experienced coach, advisor or mentor. 

Then you can love what you do, and so will the person that you love. That, my friends, is half the battle won right there, before even a single shot has been fired. 

The smartest startup decison that I never made

Back in late 2010, immediately following the collapse of 2 concurrent startups, I started the discovery process on a startup idea in the Financial Services industry, which was built around the impending FOFA reforms.

It was an interesting arbitrage process in financial services, that we could bootstrap through to substantial growth, before expanding to include additional services, or sell to one of the dealer channels that would've been our customers. It  (the idea) had all the hallmarks of a successful idea; a scalable business with a compelling need, accessible market, viable value proposition, a low investment trajectory, an immediate path to customer revenue, deep-domain knowledge and market expertise, with a market willing to pay. In short, a 'unicorn'.

The compelling need was caused by a change to Financial Services legislation by the-then (Labour) Federal government, with an original start date of July 2013. It centred on whether Financial planners were authorised to give advice to clients (which they are), on matters pertaining to tax advice related to the FP advice (which they are generally not).

My co-founder, who apart from being a Chartered Accountant, had a long & successful entrepreneurial track record. He had recently gotten married, and had started working together with his new wife in the Financial Services industry as Financial Planners & Tax Advisors, which was how we had identified the opportunity.

After 6 months of customer discussions, problem identification, and solution design, things looked good to start scoping out the platform & service.

And then something weird happened; the spouse of the business co-founder suddenly started making demands on my co-founder, around our involvement together, which seemed completely at odds with the process of 2 people starting a venture. Without having a clue why (and I'm not considered to be socially inept), we had gone from having dinner parties at each others homes, to my co-founder telling me that I couldn't call  outside of business hours, lest his wife hear that we were talking together.

By this time, I had my own personal family challenges, so I made the critical decision to shelve the project, and put it down to a learning experience.Though to this day, i still have no understanding of the cause of the  'disappearing act' of my friend and co-founder. And perhaps I never will, but the process taught me some valuable lessons.

As it turns out, due to this week's announcement that the (now Liberal) Federal government has permanently shed the FOFA reforms, it would seem that I saved myself 3 years of hard work and effort in developing a startup through to being enterprise-ready. As I had previously developed a startup that turned out to be on the wrong side of government legislative changes before (which was around the National BroadBand Network), this meant I could apply an important valuable lesson, that I previously learnt.

So for a range of reasons, deciding to build that startup, was probably the smartest decisions that I never made.
However, as we get closer to our first seminar to support experienced professionals, - part of the first stage intake of our  new venture accelerator program  (StartUpFoundation.com.au) -  my take-aways from it, and the value and that I can pass on to other prospective entrepreneurs far outweighed the price I paid for the learning.

I make the observation specifically around these key areas, because as entrepreneurs (me included), so often when we have 'the solution', we just want to get into motion, and 'get it done'.  Doing so might cost you and your co-founders years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses and opportunity costs, without getting some things clear first.  I am proud to say that I have never lost a dollar of investors’ money, perhaps because ideas, resourcing, team-building and execution have never been a problem for me.

Before you get to your ‘Go/No-Go’ decision point, here are some things that you must address.

• Get your life in order - which includes making sure that the life partners of any participants in the venture understand where you are going, and how long & what it will take to get there.
• Have a plan for when the life of your co-founder (or you) goes 'pear-shaped'. It will likely happen, so having those open discussions early, will help set the tone for open and considerate conversations in more difficult times.
• Not doing so is probably the biggest unsung 'killer' of most early stage ventures.
• Know what your 'stop-loss' strategy is at every point. Just as you do with your share portfolio, know what your entry & exit points are, especially if you aren't hitting all your milestones.
• Getting the right types of mentoring & accountability guidance & is especially critical here, as is continuing the the conversation & involvement with life partners.
•  Make sure that your exit or contingency strategies address the challenges of governmental or legislative risk. If you are building a model contingent on the economy, or governments doing "the logical thing", you could be in for a nasty surprise.

o    There are many things that stay the same when governments change, but ideologies or political philosophies aren't amongst them. Just because the government-of-the-day thinks 'A' or 'B' is a good idea, doesn't means their successors will.

And finally, you might need to grow up (occasionally)- unicorns don't really exist, except perhaps in our dreams. ;-)

"StartUp success" is moving from one failure to another with enthusiasm

I started writing "The Great Escape" late last year, with a view to sharing some of my experiences with other experienced professionals, about the challenges in making a 'leap of faith'. 

"Easy", I thought, "I can do that". 

What I realised in the process, is that the art of writing isnt like writing a business plan, a strategy, or even an instructional "startups for dummies" guide. 

No, writing is about personalising -making the content relevant to your audience, in a relatable way. Sharing a part of yourself, so that the person reading the book, can take that information in & the apply it, in a meaningful & substantial way in their own lives. 

The opportunity in doing that (there is opportunity in every challenge), for every author is in 'peeling back the layers' of your life experiences, in order to share the hard truths. 

A little like building a startup career.  

Building a singular startup is often an iterative process of product building - 'build, feedback, learn, improve, repeat'. But building a startup career is something different - it introduces an unknown and changing variable -people. 

No matter where you start, or where you end up, suddenly there are people in the process - partners, funders, users, influencers, collaborators, supporters, even customers, who are all people, all of whom have there their own desires, objectives, needs and often, agendas. We form relationships, influences, share stories, and gradually let many of these people into the fabric of our lives, until one day, they form part of it.

Thats where then unpredictable element comes in. Suddenly, we cannot make decisions just on on the basis alone of what we learn; we also make decisions on the basis of how people will feel. 

For instance, imagine you receive guidance from a wise mentor, which seems at odds with where your feedback loop tells you that you should head. Early, the decision is easier. As you grow and learn, you come to realise that 'perspective' is in itself a wonderful feedback mechanism. And in not taking the perspective of the mentor, there are implications to the future of feedback & guidance as a result. Because we are dealing with people. 

I imagine that this is true not just in startups, but in any artisan craft -music, art, in fact in any profession. 

At that point, the failure of any one venture ceases to have less relevance in the overall scheme of things. Failure & success are objective measures, but touching, impacting, changing people, creating real human feeling and emotions? I'm not sure that there's a set of measurable metrics for that - and thank goodness, in my opinion. 

And that frees you to move to your most influential creative state, in becoming your ultimate creativite self. 

Sudenly, no longer is 'failure' negative. Like the songwriter or performer who ceases to deliver the 'popular hit', and seeks to craft the message of her soul, and in doing so, acheives a status and level of creativity that often leads them to a whole new level of audience. I could list hundreds of names here, but a few will suffice -Lennon, Madonna, Clapton, Springsteen.

At a point in their careers, they all stopped creating for the hit, and started creating for the feeling. 

And if you stay in the game long enough, so will you. 

 

Transitioning from one startup to another.

About a month ago, I made the decision to close startup #10 (Terralingo), and transition to a new business startup (#11). This is often called a 'pivot', though in our case, only 3 of the original founding team came across.

I believe that many founders grapple with the questions & issues around 'viability', 'purpose' and 'motivation' on a daily basis. 

So for those of you that do, I thought I would share the 'transition' letter, which I sent to our team, with you, in the hope that it might just a few of you to a greater level of clarity. 

Not enough is written (yet) about these sorts of topics by founders (though I recommend http://www.tawheedkader.com/2014/02/it-takes-3-years/ and http://francispedraza.com), so I hope that this post can act as a catalyst for more writing on the topics, by other founders. 

"Hi guys,
I thought I would give you some insight into my thinking about how TerraLingo is still a real opportunity. 
I posted up a blog piece earlier in the week about it. 
http://thatstartupguy.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/startup-10-big-opportunity-with-social.html?m=1

As a AI/machine-learning language translation problem, its a big challenge, and would likely require a +$100m VC-backed funding solution. 
What I've realised is, that as big an opportunity as it is, and with all the effort required to de-risk,

A) it has too high a risk profile for my appetite, 

B) it might never hit 'pay day', and

C) as a part-time mature team, we would be unlikely to gain entrance to an accelerator, and therefore the resulting access to seed and VC funding.

In "creatively-resourcing" it, I realised that there's a larger problem, one that I'm much more passionate about, aligns perfectly with my skill set, and suits how my brain is wired. 

TerraLingo requires a much more engineering-focussed mind than mine. I'm all about people & communication (hence the attraction), but its at the intersection between personal mastery & business entreprenuership that my heart is at. 

It was however, the necessary vehicle for me to bring together a committed team of people. 

And in bringing you guys together, and then a larger team, which lead to identifying the resourcing issues, and all the problems that we would face in Australia, that the real idea was born.  - "StartUp Foundation". 

So whilst I'm not sure that I wanted to let go of TerraLingo completely, I've realised that my path is to build a different type of startup, & in doing so, setup a model from which I can help hundreds, or perhaps thousands of entrepreneurs just like me (and you).

So timely & resonating was the idea of an accelerator program for 30+ professionals, that we've now brought over all of the 20 consultants to SUF,  are creating a new advisory board, and an executive team that really believes in what we are doing. Which by the way, includes 2 of the original team, whom you met at the Fireside chat. 

Startup foundation is launching in early 2014, and will be focussed on helping 30+ professionals break free from their corporate career, & build capacity for their own startup, especially in the B2E space. As well, we'll bring in enterprise as investors, customers, partners & potential exits. 

We think that there is a completely different path possible to create a startup, one which leaves a lot more on the table for founders. So we'll test our assumptions in the market to prove it. 

And we already have our first 2 sponsors. 

So i have to extend my warmest thanks to you all in coming together in TerraLingo. 

Firstly, for having faith enough to join me; 2nd for helping to create something that we proved could work, and mostly because in following me, you helped me find my true purpose and passion again. 

I started StartUp Foundation for you, and the thousands of others like you. When you start thinking next about doing your own thing, or wanting to connect with other clever people who are, give me call, and I'll help you on your own path. 

Gentlemen, thank you to each of you."

Entrepreneurs are made, not born

If someone tells you that entrepreneurs are born, not made, consider this:-

Entrepreneurs are always forged from the ore of experience, brought up from the depths of (often) a challenged upbringing.

Smelted in the furnace of burning desire,

Poured from a cauldron of seething ideas, into the mould of opportunity

Shaped by passion, and resistance to upbringing, culture and class 

Beaten against the anvil of life, by the hammer of rejection. 

Ground & polished by the criticism of others,

Sharpened on the whetstone of the marketplace, 

And finally, wielded with the strength, power & desire of purpose.

This is the true blade of precision & craftsmanship -each one created, through vision, an individual, and yet made in so many ways the same. 

Startup #10- a big opportunity with a Social Media Language Translator

Opportunity #10 is in a big space.

in late July 13, I took an idea to a Launch 48, a pitching competition & 'hackathon', with the idea to testing it, & perhaps forming a team around it, either for that idea, or maybe another. Not only did we win that competition, and put together a large team to build the opportunity,  I also learned a whole lot in the process.

What we created was a working prototype proof of concept and a business model for a very large startup, called TerraLingo (I'll come to the size of it in a minute), which is a social media language translator, with interesting big data analysis and corporate partnership opportunities.The challenge is that to build something within the opportunity space that we saw,that could scale at a worldwide level, would take easily between $20-30 million of venture capital over 3-5 years. Like many startups in that space, it had a high failure capacity.

The problem was that because most of our team was 30+, and would be initially part-time, no startup accelerator in Australia would've approved our application, which is seen as almost mandatory to obtaining tech VC seed capital. And the normal model means giving up a fair chunk of equity to a VC (often here at very unfavourable terms), in order to get the cash you need to grow the business to a big enough level. To do a startup well, means having cash, and spending that cash wisely, whilst we validate our model, whilst gaining traction and creating revenue.To grow it means a location to operate from, cash to pay for staff, research, services, consultants, advisors, software, business infrastructure etc

Also inherent in the problem for most of us older guys doing a startup, is that we have 'golden handcuffs', - obligations. We have wives (or husbands), kids, mortgages, school fees, lifestyles, etc. Which meant that life for us in a startup requires us to have a new (better) plan, none of which would work for a VC-funded venture (or at least, not for any of the one's I've met).

To make matters even worse, the local VC's that I directly pitched to didn't get it, so seed funding was going to be really hard, which meant we really needed a better plan. As my great mentor, Neville Christie, recently told me -"It's not a lack of resources that you suffer from; it's a lack of resourcefulness".

So the plan expanded to bootstrap through direct customer investment, and create a range of services to allow us to stretch our resulting cash further. We developed a model which should give us access to all the people, resources, mentors, corporate clients & money that we'll need to build out TerraLingo, without VC money at onerous terms (eg 2 x Participating, preferred stock, anti-dilution, ratchet clauses, board seats, controlling interests, and....... the list goes on). My apologies for the jargon.

To get really creative, we looked to our own ingenuity. For example, instead of us paying $7k per person at a co-working space (do the math on 3-12 people), we could operate from effectively our own venue that a separate group/team has setup for us, leaving the cash from that saved expense free for more important costs like marketing & a bigger team; instead of outsource our core requirements, we 'insource' them.

To generate cash, you should also get creative, and by spending our time seeking customer, rather than VC money (often called 'bootstrapping'), we not only would validate our startup but raise the value of the business before obtaining external financing. I'll demonstrate the value of this method in one line:-
Angelist recently raised a Series A round of $24m, on a $150m Valuation - a series A! in doing so, demonstrate how other startups could use them & replicate their model = more value in their clients and their model.

I'll lay out the whole plan shortly, but what we've been creating (on the side) has become a fully vertically integrated accelerator & co-working space model, for which TerraLingo would be an anchor client.

And with the early equity that we don't have to give up to an accelerator or VC, we can reserve a larger slice for the team, and offer some up to group of direct investors, advisors, consultants and mentors to accelerate our growth. Just like Ycombinator & 500 startups do. In effect we create our own VC model - and then allow other startups to piggyback onto our model, expanding it to support "from ideation to exit".

I promised you an outline of how big an opportunity TerraLingo is; to give you a sense of scale, it was announced yesterday that Topsy was acquired by Apple for $200 million, and DataShift is worth even more. Perhaps we were too late to the table, though its a shame that some of our 'clever' VC's didn't get it.

However, we think we might have 'accidentally' created something far more valuable.

Dynamic Equity Splitting for startups

As founders, one of the most difficult decisions we face that the early-stage of a startup is how to split equity amongst the founding team. Often the most simple route is a straight split. But this can lead to fundamental problems later on in the life of a startup.

 The common question of "what is an idea worth" often comes up. In reality, a good idea and $4 will buy you a cup of coffee. The same problem is is true of valuing the contribution of early stage investors and advisors.

One of my last startups was done on an 50/50 split, but I ended up doing 80% of the work. Then my co-founder took a full-time position back in the workforce, so I really had no alternative but to close the down the opportunity rather than buy-out his share. A good shareholder agreement can help with that problem, but your actual calculations are still often based on guesswork or notional contributions.

Dynamic Equity Splitting solves that problem by allocating the percentages of ownership after the fact, based on the actual contributions of founders, as well as investors, advisors, consultants, and even early stage hires, relative to their their experience and actual contribution of labour or resources.

Dynamic Equity Splitting is a concept pioneered by another successful 'StartUp Guy', Mike Moyer, who has had a number of succesful startup based out of the US. He also happens to lecture at the prestigious University of Chicago Booth School of Business, as well as mentoring and supporting startups (using Dynamic Equity Splitting) so his experience is well based in both the theory and the practical.

It's gaining interest around the world from founders who want to address the challenges of splitting equity. Even the startup media has recently become interested, with SmartCompany's Rose Powell writing an article on the topic of Dynamic Equity Splitting.

DES is now the cornerstone of all our startups, including of a new type of accelerator program that we'll be launching shortly, for professionals wanting to enter the startup space, a group often overlooked in the crowd full of 20-something graduates. DES is fairer, eliminates ambiguity, recognises value, and rewards people based on their actual contribution, relative to the total contributions made by all, using pre-agreed formulas.

This also gives investors & advisors some certainty and aligns the equity of founder shares relative to the value of their own financial & advisory contributions, thereby de-risking an important part of the startup dilemma. This promotes open-ness & communication around equity, and can remove some of the ambiguity or disagreement around ownership splitting, freeing up founders & advisors to focus on critical areas area likes marketing , business development, and product/market fit.

All 4 of our startups will be using this model, and we encourage others to consider it as a method of splitting equity between founders.

As to how to apply the principles, we'll be happy to help Aussies locally, and you can contact Mike Moyer at 'Slicing Pie' for more information, and order a copy of his book

Hot 30 over 30 entrepreneurs -there are more than you think

There's often talk about hot & hungry young entrepreneurs -those types of list are everywhere -with good reason. I think they are talked (and often hyped) about because they are the exception, rather than the rule.

I suggest that there is a hotter, less spoken about group of entrepreneurs who are in fact the larger group of change agents actually driving entrepreneurship in startups - the 'over 30' set.

I should know; not only have I met hundreds of them in my last 2 1/2 years of pacing the startup hallways, but I'm also one of them. 

The ability to 'do' a startup in your 20's is made more possible often by the lack of entanglements - its much more difficult to take the plunge & follow your dream into StartUpLand when you have obligations that must be met; like a mortgage, kids school fees, car payments and other 'necessities'. 

Often the requirement for a steady pay-check to meet those daily bills is a set of 'golden-handcuffs' that keep would-be visionaries tied to their desks, a title or benefits, their careers and their current trajectory. 

In many cases, this group of aspiring entrepreneurs is tied through family requirements, expectations, or 'what would my wife/mother/ colleagues/ etc think of me if I chased my dream?'.

And yet, there are many who are doing just that. Some have thrown caution to the wind (like I) despite their circumstances, others have transitioned slowly into the space, and yet others have made that leap after a successful corporate career. Just like Troy Westley has.

One qualification here is that I am talking about startups that are actively engaged in driving their idea. Which means that I must, by definition, exclude the many people that attend startup groups & meetings as a 'wantapreneur'; those peolle that may have a great idea, but lack the drive or catalytic event required to actually make a start. 

In a more mature entrepreneur, that catalytic event could be a layoff, a life-event, an awakening moment or even just a gradual awareness of the 'ticking clock of life', and that the time is now. 

So if you know of a startup guy (or girl) who qualifies as a "hot 30 over 30", let me know - their story also deserves to be told.

Why Mick Liubinskas is wrong about centralising startup funding.

Today, Mick Liubinskas was quoted in a piece in StartUpSmart about an annoucement of $28m in startup innovation funding by Labour, to a Sydney incubator program. 

http://www.startupsmart.com.au/government-and-regulation/labor-pledges-28-million-in-co-funding-to-make-sydney-hub-for-innovation.html

Mick was quoted as saying “What hasn’t worked in the previous programs has been spreading the funds out too widely. It’s much better to put this money all to work in say Hobart or Sydney."

 

“I’m really passionate about fighting fragmentation, even if we can put it all to work in one industry and location, that’d be a breakthrough,” Liubinskas says. “If they have the courage to make it focused and local, it’s great.”

He's flat out wrong. 

My response comment to the article was 

"Last time I checked my citizenship documents, I distinctly remember them saying that I am an Australian citizen, not a Victorian or a New South Welshman. 

I understand what Mick is saying about focus, but since when did we as enrepreneurs, start buying into or accepting, the philosphy of scarcity?"

"Sydney is not the 'centre' of Australia (nor is my home town, Melbourne). And governments should not be in the business of 'picking winners' (especially based on their recent track record). "

"If we truly want Australia to be a force in the world startup ecosystem, governments need to encourage the whole ecosystem, not just one part of it. Governments know this better than any one, which is why we have a senate system which recognizes the rights if all states equally."

"I respect Mick's view & track record, but here, he is flat out wrong in buying into the typical pre-election pork-barrelling."

And here is why.

The recent PWC report (sponsored by Google) into the possible future of the Australian startup ecosystem, and the subsequent benefits to the Australian economy & new job creation in the sector, highlighted the immense opportunities that Australia will have over the next 20 years. 

If the last 20 years of Australian politics are anything to go by, namely 5 prime ministerial changes, 3 changes in government (with a 4th looming), a minority government, the rise of independents & minor parties controlling government policy (from Sen. Harradine etc), we will likely see those trends accelerate in the next 20 years.

If that is the case, the opportunities for Australian startups to emerge & thrive will be squandered as various factions & viewpoints sqwabble & scramble for meager funding opportunities offered by each of the major parties when each election period comes around. Worse, post-election, there will be (as there has always been), the traditional watering down & pandering to minority political interests, of pre-election promises. 

Direct personal experience tells me that changes to government policy can & will have a devastating impact on the success of many yet-to-envisaged startups across Australia.

My case in point is the NBN - which as a result of partisan politics in Australia -will likely become the largest fiasco in Australian political & technological history -against which the 'pink batts' disaster will pale into insignificance. 

We need a better plan than that -a plan that makes sense for those many thousand of professionals & startup entrepreneurs, most of whom will forgo traditional businesses & corporate roles, to invest 3-5 years of their lives in ventures that have an unforsee-able likelihood of success. 

So in our world of uncertainty, the one thing that we should ask for -no, demand -from our governments, is certainty of policy, and an ongoing commitment to consistency of approach - a bi-partisan long-term plan, free of pork-barelling, picking winners, and agenda-driven quotas.

Only then will we be in a position to create the opportunities of excellence that we can each imagine in our own spaces.

There are looming question of the 'funding gap', as well as equity-share taxation issues that will obviously need to be addressed, preferably sooner rather than later- but these are secondary. Without certainty of policy & committment, how could any government expect to get the funding initiatives right over a 20 year framework. 

I read a report recently that listed the top 25 startup locations in the US. Interestingly, 4 of the top 10 were in one middle-of-nowhere state called Colorado, which with just over 5 million people, is ranked 22nd largest state by population (roughly the same size & land area as Victoria). I'll venture that it didn't just happen by accident. 

So if Colorado can have 4 of the top 10 in the US, why can't Australia have 4 (or 6) of the top 10 in the world?

My dad used to say "A rising tide lifts all ships", but thats only true if there isn't an artificial dam put right in the middle of the harbour. 

So my request to Mick is simple - irrespective of the party elected, now and in the future, we need a plan from Government that helps, not hurts, our eco-system. Our best efforts should be directing to encouraging that to happen, rather than pitting one city against another. 

PS my original blog posted as "Mark Lubinskas" - which requires a direct apology to Mick (Sorry Mick) -I'm guessing I owe him at least a coffee.