Wherefore Art Thou, Austin Investors?

Back in November of last year, I wrote an energetic post for this site that in essence introduced me to the Austin tech scene. I was an emerging tech analyst that wanted to meet every startup in town! I wanted to hit every happy hour! My enthusiasm was a little frightening!

Fast forward seven months and I’ve developed encyclopedic knowledge of the city’s coffee shops. I’ve met a bevy of entrepreneurs, a smattering of local tech-focused organizations and a sprinkling of investors. I’ve become so inspired by the entrepreneurial spirit that I’m finally pulling the trigger on my own business. In short, I’ve become more secure in the knowledge that the Austin tech scene is one of the most vibrant in the nation, a fact bolstered by a continuous flow of lists that place us at the top – Forbes’ second Most Innovative City in the US and Kiplinger’s Number One City for the next decade (“arguably the country’s best crucible for small business”), to name a few.

But – and you knew there was a ‘but’ coming – everyone in town wonders where the Superstar is: the tech company that starts in Austin, is funded by Austin, and whose successful exit brings the cache that will solidify Austin as the Silicon Valley of the 21st century. (And make no mistake, that is in our grasp.)

Doesn’t it seem like we’re perpetually *almost* there, standing on a precipice with our toes hanging off? Are we waiting on some nebulous event to occur? Or can we propel ourselves into that elite status on our own terms? My hope is the latter but my fear is the former.

In order for Austin to produce a Superstar and therefore prove our savvy as a nurturer and picker of winners, we need three sectors fully participating and on board with the entrepreneur mentality: entrepreneurs (check), organizations (over-check), and investors (begin new paragraph).

Look, believe me, I know. I’ve been around long enough to know that the startup ecosystem doesn’t exist in which entrepreneurs don’t bitch about investors. There will always be more ideas than money. Period. But there’s a level of frustration toward the Austin investor community that should be acknowledged and addressed. Austin entrepreneurs are increasingly flying to Silicon Valley to seek investment, after months of futile conversations here in town. I won’t give specifics for obvious reasons, but in the last month alone I’ve talked with three startups – innovative, viable startups with real revenue paths – that have given up on Austin money and are in talks with Valley investors. One founder is so frustrated, he’s about to move to the Bay Area. He’s been looking for $200,000 for a year (!) and says it’s time to move on to “people who get it.” That, my friends, is one depressing sentence.

If the hundreds of conversations I’ve had the past 7 months are any indication, I’m not making any earth-shaking pronouncements. So how do we fix this? How do we bridge the disconnect that lies between two very important sectors who very much need each other?

I think the answer lies in that middle sector I mentioned a bit ago – organizations. We’re a city that loves gathering together and it shows in the number of groups that focus on startups. Bootstrap Austin, TechRanch, Conjunctured, Austin Technology Council, Capitol Factory – just check out this list to save my keyboard. We need a coalescence of these groups toward a common goal – integrating the folks with money comfortably into our world. I may be naive but I suspect that productive exposure to the energy of Austin entrepreneurs can only result in more meaningful relationships for everyone.

I’d go so far as to suggest an overarching board or council, one that includes representatives of every sector in the community and works toward no other goal – including profit – but nurturing and producing Superstars. What if we took that list linked above and invited one or two people from each organization to a brainstorming meeting? Would you come? Am I thinking too broadly?

A savvy entrepreneur recently told me, “Austin investors won’t start taking chances on consumer internet [companies] until there are multiple losses – big exits of Austin companies who have Valley money.” I suppose he’s right but I wish he wasn’t. I wish we could fix this problem ourselves before the Valley fixes it for us. A startup scene in which one sector assumes all the risk is one that will not sustain itself. So why not take the plunge and all assume it together?

Posted by Carla Thompson http://sharpskirts.com/
A veteran of the emerging tech industry, Carla Thompson has counseled startups around the globe on creating, launching, and sustaining smart businesses. With Sharp Skirts, Carla is working to create a self-sustaining network for women entrepreneurs at every level. She also consults independently with select women-owned startups on business strategy and continues to keep a finger on the pulse of emerging tech as a member of Guidewire Group’s Affiliate Analyst program. In her previous role as VP of Community Strategy & Engagement at Guidewire Group, Carla provided advisory services and strategic counsel to startups and helmed the company’s community initiatives, overseeing marketing and social media strategy. She also assisted Executive Producer Chris Shipley in screening and selecting demonstrators for the renowned DEMO conference. To read more posts click here.

Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Technorati Facebook
  • We are gathering 100 Angel investors from Austin, Houston, Dallas and around the country at the Capital Factory Demo Day next week. This is a fantastic opportunity to meet investors. If you are fundraising for a startup, email me at josh [at] capitalfactory.com and I'll try to make some introductions.
  • I couldn't comment on Angellist plans at the time, but I'm happy to share that they are now public and it is in many ways the "list of investors" that some people are looking for.

    http://angel.co/austin

    They are backlogged on approving people, so there are actually 14 investors from Austin who have applied so far. I'm talking to everyone I know to try and get more investors on the list.

    Angellist was a huge help for us in fundraising for OtherInbox and its also been a great source of dealflow as an investor. I highly recommend it!
  • Ken Swanson
    Great discussion regardless of your viewpoint. Here's another 2 cents . . .

    Why not a kickstarter.com site for Austin-based companies?

    Most high-tech ideas I've seen lately are all hat and no cattle. Business owners don't want bells and whistles, they want results. Consumers might be impressed with the latest web gadgets for awhile, but in the end they want results too. There's lots of money in not-so-high tech.

    Reminds me of a line from an old movie: "They're pretty, but can they fight?"
  • Without having read any of the other 90-some comments that have been posted, I'll offer a few tidbits of insight that I think will go a lot way to solving the funding dilemma here in Austin. A copy of this comment will also be posted at The Venturous Objectivist - http://venturousobjectivist.wordpress.com/

    First, with lack of competition comes lack of performance. If investors have the sense that there is no need to compete, entrepreneurs will continue to go elsewhere. Part of this dilemma also stems from there being a lack of a "market" --a place where real dialog and transactions can take place regardless of geographical preferences.

    Chances are, in order for that to occur, a new model for attracting investors will have to dispense with the idea of "Austin-only" investors, and move to an online solution to effectively help entrepreneurs in the hand-holding process and get them through the hills and valleys much more quickly and efficiently than going begging as the current model offers. Investors can monopolize too much time, money and effort. An online solution would help level the playing field. This is an idea of mine that I have had for a while, knowing about these same problems elsewhere, that I would like to develop with other interested parties.

    Part of that equation will also have to include (or exclude) incubators, since they also play a role in all of this. Not to say that we don't need them, but the fact remains that if they cannot be influential in attracting start-up capital and nurturing entrepreneurs and their ideas, there's an additional problem that needs fixing.

    Secondly, Austin may have some cultural issues that have come about due to either arrogance or complacency, or both, that may require some help from either the Austin City Council, Travis County, and/or the State House, to lure more investors (competition) to the region. Alternatively, a new statutory framework to incentivize a new or better way to participate by local investors might be worth considering, so long as it adds more investors and viable startups, instead of deterring them. This would be my last resort as I prefer to keep gov't out of business. Entrepreneurs do need a voice in these places, so the idea of a board or council to advocate for those interests, with perhaps a paid lobbyist, could be helpful.

    Thirdly, the frustration that has been expressed with the Austin investor community exists elsewhere, so this should underline that this is an issue that should be resolved through market development and increased competition, which further begs for a new way to connect entrepreneurs with investors.

    Perhaps the most important thing that needs to be said in this dialog is that the notion of relying on local funding may only be a pipe-dream, and that entrepreneurs should not make that a part of their contingency plans with understanding the nature of the way things are right now.

    Lastly, what I don't agree with is the idea of coalescence or central planning of existing groups. The problem we have is due to lack of competition, so fusing all that we have into one would be a counter-productive.
  • Nice post Carla. I hope all is well. We are an Austin-based start-up and raised our Series A round last month from a Texas-based venture firm (which was very important to us). There are a handful of early stage funding sources in Texas. We had many discussions with SV and NY firms. Even though you may not be looking for funding, I suggest you have "discussions" with as many firms as possible early in your company's process. They all have opinions and free feedback. You'll also be on their radar when you are ready.

    I am more than willing to share my thoughts and experience with any entrepreneurs out there. Email me at ken@spredfast.com
  • As a local entrepreneur of a startup I bootstrapped and then eventually raised a little over $200k in capital, I applaud Carla for having the courage to write this article, and also thank the local organizations like Capital Factory, TechRanch, CTAN, TiE and many others for helping to grow the local entrepreneurship scene. I appreciate that there is a lot of passion in this forum, but I think we all need to focus on the bigger picture here - the intent is not to point fingers...the intent (I believe) is to make our local entrepreneurial ecosystem better. In the spirit of continuous improvement, let's continue this constructive dialogue and continue together to build Austin into the entrepreneurial powerhouse it can be. Your tag-line says it all: Ditch the Valley, Run for the Hills. Let's continue to build and prove the we've got the environment for startups from all sectors to thrive - right here in Austin!
  • Here's a little CrunchBase info, in case anybody is interested

    http://gist.github.com/425753 (companies in Austin with listed angels - who are the companies, who are the angels) (collated it manually)

    http://gist.github.com/425476 (a generic Ruby script for querying CrunchBase with their API. The API Search is not sophisticated. The Advanced Search web form is much more specific. Perhaps at some point their API will be better, but for now you'd need to screen scrape to get at some really good data. In the meantime however, if you want to play around entering some terms in the search, tweak the script to do something else, etc...have at it)
  • James
    Thanks Damon !!
  • Regarding the entreprenuership scene in Austin, in addition to the lists that a few people have mentioned, here's a little network mapping that Bioy and crew have done: http://www.mindmeister.com/24358308/entrepreneurship-scene

    On a related note, I'd offer props to Stacey at GigaOM who posted a nice piece nearly 5 months ago presaging this discussion: http://gigaom.com/2010/01/15/can-austin-ignite-the-fire-of-entrepreneurship/
  • Carla, as mentioned before... awesome post.

    You got me thinking about this topic all day yesterday and it was taken me all night to come up with my response. It seems that Cullen Wilson is heading the direction I'm going to take.

    In my opinion and in the 4 years I have been living in Austin, I have realized that the overall quality of startups in Austin are ........ mehhh. There you go! I said it. I won't name names, but this is my overall impression.

    Cullen said "To a young person B2B is, well, boring."... and I think this is the main issue of Austin startups. I agree with Cullen that B2B is boring, but you know what, if you want to get funded and want to make money, B2B will get you there. B2C is fun and cool. Gowalla is a cool. But what are the chances of getting funding or actually making money on a B2C. As an academic and researcher, I apply my research methodology to startups and it works:

    1) What is the problem: ok, so you are starting a company and it does something. What does it do? It's solving a problem right? What problem does it solve?
    2) Why is the problem important: there is a market for the people who want this problem solved.
    3) What makes you different from everybody else: what is your competitive advantage?

    When I talk to startups and ask them these questions, most of them can't answer them. Why? Because they are working on cool B2C ideas. And honestly, that is a longshot. Furthermore, there is a high risk therefore not attractive for investors.

    I've never lived and experienced the SV entrepreneur environment, but maybe investors there take higher risks. If so, let SV be the place for B2C. Austin show be different!!! We can be the place where startups actually start making money!

    On a personal note, my vision is that Austin has the opportunity to be THE place for new semantic technology startups. Now that is cool, and there is an opportunity to make money.
  • James
    Juan, Thoughtful comment.

    How does Austin compare to SV in terms of exits and valuations of homegrown startups? Also, are you saying that Austin should disown all the talent/entrepreneurs that want to be in B2C - send them off to SV?
  • Someone should just prove Juan wrong and have a big B2C exit in Austin - til then, its all talk right? :) Hopefully homeaway first, and more to come.
  • I would love to see it. But just one?

    I am biased. I have a B2B startup and we were profitable from day 7 (literally). We started to shift gears and do B2C in our same area and it wasn't worth it. But that is just me
  • Its the closest to exit - and you have to start with 1 if you ever want to get to 2 :)
    I can relate to your point of view - I just think if someone disagrees with you - nothing stopping them from proving you wrong, right? :) we'd all pat them on the back (including you i'm sure) if someone can do it.

    Nothing wrong with being profitable early :)

  • James,

    I do not know SV at all, so I can't comment on your first question.

    In regard to your second question, I think that if you look at the current situation, talent/entrepreneurs who are interested in B2C will have much better chances in SV. If they decide to stay in Austin that means that we need more people to invest in B2C. However B2C has a much higher risk. Seems to me that it can become a chicken-and-egg problem. In that sense, if we want B2C to stay in Austin, we need angels and VCs to start funding them. It seems to me that it's up to the investors.

    This makes me ask the following: what does the City of Austin benefit from the most. B2C startups funded by investors or B2B startups that may have less angel/vc funding. What helps the City's economy the most? What creates more jobs? Any answers?
  • Is it always the case that B2C implies your company doesn't charge anything and has no business model? I would just call that freemium or figuring it out later. You can create a B2C company and still generate revenue by directly charging consumers.

    When I mentioned B2B being boring in my first comment I more or less meant enterprise.
  • If you are "figuring it out later", then you are focused on a cool idea in which you 1) dont know clearly what is the problem you are solving and 2) dont know why the problem is important (you dont know your market and how you are going to get money out of it).. but not an idea that is solving a problem (which people are likely to pay for).

    There are a lot of cool B2C ideas... but what is there business model? Just wait to get a lot of people using it an do ads?

    I'm separating too much B2B and B2C. There is an intersection when have a B2C startup and your consumers are actually small business. What is that called? oops.. getting off topic.
  • juan, if you check out steve blank / eric ries blogs, you can see a lot about the "lean startup" and "customer development" - i think what cullen describes would fit in the discovery/customer-development mode - trying to discover the business model that will work. Once you have your model, you try to scale it.
  • Excellent post! I love the idea of creating a cross group made up of 2 members of each group! It is almost hard to believe that it has not happened already in a town that is so excited to share. I cannot tell you the countless new entrepreneurs I talk to that are unaware of many of the local groups and orgs. What a great option to one day have a "career day" type of event with all the orgs present, workshops, etc. They are tremendous start-up orgs here all doing amazing work (I was lucky enough to be a part of the Capital Factory last year) - why not bring some of that energy together and create a start-up sonic boom to be heard all the way out west! Oh wait, did I just name it??? Austin's Sonic Boom!
  • Love it! No matter what happens, we have to give some group that name. ; ) And I don't think monthly meetings are necessary. Even just once a quarter would be nice.
  • James
    Fantastic ! And make it a monthly event?
  • So i'll be the minor buzzkill here. have any of you attended the bootstrap or bijoy's entrepreneurship "scene"? why don't you do that before expecting to start a new group, and possibly getting disappointed when you don't find two members from every other group you can think of who can take time out to go to your new group too?

    Remember, the people who do these things (entrepreneurs or investors) have limited time - and its taken a long time for bootstrap to reach critical mass, and ditto, I'm sure, for the other communities mentioned in this post. If the three of you on this part of the thread *haven't* at least attended techranch or bootstrap or the entrepreneurship scene - why not? why not check it out? you might find what you need, or you might not, but isn't it worth your time to try - and won't it better inform you if you really start a new group, as to what the dynamics of it should be?
  • Yeah I have to agree. I attend most of these events and the last thing we need is one more that directly overlaps with what is already happening. We're all busy enough as it is. Bijoy's Entrepreneurship Scene may not have *every* group but they already have most of them. We should just invite the groups that are missing.

    Lets not recreate the wheel or have overlapping/competing groups.
  • But I think that's everyone's point - there are too many groups as it is, and too many operating apart from each other. The idea isn't to form a competing group but an over-arching body. A while back, Julie Huls threw out the point that that's supposed to be the purpose of the Austin Technology Council. It hasn't translated as such but...

    The last thing I want is to be the new girl in town saying, "You guys aren't doing this right." That was never my intent with this post. Austin is doing a hell of a lot right, obviously. There's not much to be mucked with. My only goal was to take a conversation that's been happening behind many closed doors and bring it to the fore. And clearly that's resonated. I think the call for a group, council, bridge, body - whatever the heck you want to call it - is coming from somewhere. So let's figure out where and what can be reasonably done about it.

    And I will go to Bijoy's damn meetings if someone will tell me where they are! (Said with jocularity.)
  • James
    sfrancis & Joshua seem to be in love with the status quo. Wonder why they are so actively fighting against improvements.
  • James, get a grip.
    i don't have any vested stake in status quo or the new world order, which is obvious because I'm not posting anonymously (who are you again?), and I'm in a bootstrapped business. I'm in favor of people succeeding despite the challenges, despite the status quo as well as because of it. And I'm in favor of people trying to improve things (Bijoy's bootstrap group was one improvement which I've leveraged, Techranch is another, CF is yet another improvement to the community of startups in austin) but so far I hear you tearing down these people - to what purpose? Can you evangelize what you want without tearing other people down? People can disagree with some of your points without having underhanded motives.

  • James
    sfrancis, I am not tearing down anybody. In fact, I have a great deal of respect for Bijoy and TechRanch. All existing entities are very good for Austin. I simply agree with Carla's point that there's got to be more that can be done to enhance entrepreneur - investor interactions and vibrancy of the community.

    My identity is immaterial to the discussion. Get over it.
  • And one more thought - I think there's a whole other post to do on engaged startup organizations and how to make them work *even* better for folks. Perhaps talk to all of them and compile a guide of some sort. Oh yes, I like that idea. Anyone want to help me write it??
  • I'd love to help!
  • You rock, Juan. I'll email you later.
  • Great post Carla, this may be the first time I've really enjoyed a discussion on AustinStartup (we need more of this!).

    Thus far the entire conversation has been dominated by angels and veteran entrepreneurs, so I'd like to contribute a few thoughts from the perspective of a young entrepreneur who is currently working on a startup here in Austin.

    What I think we're missing:

    1. Motivation from young entrepreneurs. An unfortunate side effect of Austin's laid back lifestyle seems to be very lazy young entrepreneurs who just don't know any better. Now don't get me wrong, I know some great young entrepreneurs who are busting their asses building awesome companies, but I can count these people on two hands. When I visit San Francisco the vibe is completely different. You can feel the passion and dedication in the air. Founders will starve before letting their creations fail. I don't know if it truly is the Austin lifestyle (which I love), the lack of focus on entrepreneurship by our local universities, or if it's just something in the air but I'd really like to see more of my peers step up to the plate and take advantage of their youth. Lack of initial funding or fear of taking the plunge isn't an excuse; eating ramen for a few months won't kill you.

    2. Lack of talent. Again, I'm not saying Austin doesn't have talented budding entrepreneurs, but our coffers are much smaller then the west coast. Many of the really talented guys and gals get snapped up quickly by larger companies and/or move to the valley. It's not always easy to find that designer or programer you need to get your project started.

    3. Previous success stories to inspire us. To most young entrepreneurs in Austin startups are a mythical thing that happen in California, not Texas. Yes, we have companies like Trilogy, Bazaar Voice, HomeAway, and Dell... but why would we care? To a young person B2B is, well, boring. If a company has their logo on a big building in front of Whole Foods they are not a startup, they are just another big company. That size of business isn't something a young person can really relate to. The companies I mentioned are all from a different generation, making it that much harder to relate to or envision ourselves in their shoes.

    The things we DO have:

    1. Small groups of amazing veteran entrepreneurs and angels. I wouldn't be working on my current startup if it were not for people like Josh Baer, Jason Cohen, and Josh Dilworth. These guys really, really want to put Austin on the map and are doing everything they can to make it happen.

    2. A crap load of awesome technology related meet-ups, groups, co-working spaces, and accelerators. Jumping into the tech scene and meeting people isn't hard, you just have to do it!

    3. The spotlight. We're slowly but surely becoming an "it" city for startups. Facebook is opening an office here. We finally have a "cool" little startup in town called Gowalla. We have SXSWi, which gets better every year. Zynga just acquired Challenge Games. The world is watching us, we just have to produce results.

    I don't claim to have the answers, I'm still learning myself, but I do feel like there is a lot of talk and not a lot of getting shit done.
  • James
    I agree that Capitol Factory serves the needs of a few entrepreneurs. I am glad you found your inspiration from them. I believe what is being discussed here is the Austin ecosystem and the need for forums that don't involve middlemen in their own little silos. Because, human nature dictates that there might be a conflict between the needs of these middlemen and the needs of the community as a whole.
  • I wouldn't describe CF as "middlemen in their own little silos" . You should talk to josh about how CF works, gets funded, etc.
  • James
    sfrancis, I know enough about what CF does. It actually fits the definition of a silo better than most other facilitators in town.
  • You sound like you have a lot of prejudgments about other people's motives. And you're posting anonymously while everyone else isn't....

    I think you're under the impression that CF is a big money making scheme for Josh. I think its more about his attempt to give back to the startup (and austin) communities. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. A lot of people have donated time and services to the effort, or provided things at cost.
  • James
    sfrancis, I have nothing against Josh or any other entity. Carla has identified a problem and I support efforts that will alleviate the problem.

    More open is better than less open. More transparent is better than less transparent. More forums for entrepreneur-investor interactions are better than less forums.
  • James - I'm not a Capital Factory participant. I wanted to start a company, I found like minded people, and we figured out a real problem to solve. Now I'm busting my ass to make it happen.
  • James
    Cullen, I appreciate your efforts. We need more Cullens in Austin. All the Best with the venture !
  • One thing that bodes well all sides of this discussion is that I expect to see a lot more outside investment in Austin over the next few years. I can't tell you how many times I've heard venture investors on both coasts probing about the environment here and expressing a desire to open an office in Austin.

    There are 2 factors working in our favor. We've had some great recent success stories (mostly B2B, but that's not really relevant to this point) and the market in the valley and on the east coast is very competitive.

    Companies like Bazaarvoice, Spiceworks, Homeaway, Challenge Games, SolarWinds, and others have really put Austin on the map again. I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of other obvious ones (sorry if I missed you!). As these companies have grown, they brought in more and more outside investors and exposed them to Austin. All the same factors that make Austin the best positioned for the next decade make it attractive to them as well.

    Austin Ventures isn't sitting still either. They have funded a handful of new B2C startups recently and just brought on Adam Dell to focus on early stage deals.

    For the same reason that some Austin startups feel the need to go to the valley to find investors, some investors in the valley want to look at places like Austin where there isn't as much competition for deals.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see 2 top tier VC firms from either coast open offices in Austin in the next 2 years.
  • James
    Perhaps the solution is an entity that is run SOLELY by entrepreneurs. Have a web site that is similar to AngelSoft, but only for Austin. Every Austin entrepreneur can be on here. So, can all the investors - both angels and institutional - in the Austin area. Periodic meetups where entrepreneurs can do 5 minute pitches, attended by investors.

    No middle men. No self-serving motives of middle men. All the entrepreneurs that don't get picked up by a Capitol Factory or who don't have the connections still have a fair shot at presenting their proposition to investors.
  • I would just caution - as soon as you facilitate a group, there will be another James coming along who will call you a middle man with self-serving motives. I've seen it happen already on this thread and in previous conversations because people don't always have the history or the interactions with the people they're labeling to know otherwise. Regardless I hope this thread gives you the motivation to go out and see the groups that already exist, and figure out what you like or don't like about them, to inform your efforts either toward forming something new or joining one of the existing endeavors.
  • What I imagine from this is the same process which occurred at the beginning of American government....the result? Three branches of government...any one of which, alone, would be tyranny of one type or another (not that I'm assigning that assessment to this case, only agreeing in concept).
    It would allow some much more complex interactions to take place, and possibly accelerate the scope of general economic improvement.
    To Josh's point, though, there definitely would be a danger of an open forum becoming bound up in bureaucracy and political wrangling.
    What about starting an employee-owned staffing agency, where we could collaborate on training, development, recruiting, etc?
    Would that satisfy your concerns?
    Heck, there might even be some investors willing to help out with that, especially since the return on investment could conceivably be very short....actually might need relatively no investment, as the standard recruitment fee might fund the process itself.
  • To take the idea further, have the parent company be a non-profit corp, which generates, structures and staffs LLC's which can be trained up, staffed out, or presented to investors for additional funding. The common denominator might be the blueprint/model, rather than a single organization, per se. That might avoid the "bureaucracy/committee" issue.
  • Why not just start/join a group on meetup.com?
  • That sounds kind of like the Open Angel Forum... maybe we can work something like this into Demo Day in September.
  • James
    Josh & Matt, Thanks for the inputs. I will check out Open Angel Forum.

    Would live to hear from the article author as well - about Matt's Meetup idea.
  • There are some really solid ideas here re forming a group. I think the question now is who/how/what. I'm planning to work on a post in the next week that takes a look at all the orgs in town. From that, I think a more targeted discussion can occur that will lead us to a good solution.
  • James
    Thanks Carla.
  • I'm getting lost in what I want to reply to - a good problem to have. One theme I'm seeing in comments is the implication that bootstrapping and angel investment are mutually exclusive. That just isn't the case. The startups I've talked to, almost without exception, have bootstrapped and reached the logical point where angel money makes sense. To the average entrepreneur who hasn't had a previous exit, bootstrapping only takes you so far.

    And Josh Baer - what a huge boon to our community. You're deeply engaged at almost every level and have invested a lot in local companies. But bootstrapping to you is a very different thing than bootstrapping to your average struggling entrepreneur. Your assertion of "whining" is short-sighted. The folks I've talked to have built solid products that are getting investment in the Valley. Someone here should've gotten to them first.

    I hate committees too but I maintain that some sort of counsel involving *every* faction of the tech community makes a lot of sense. Rather than passing down decisions, it could serve as a unifier, spreading the wealth of knowledge across the entire community. It would take a lot to coordinate but could be worth its weight in gold in the end.
  • Why is bootstrapping different for me than for others? I bootstrapped my first company out of my college dorm room with a few dollars to my name and a credit card full of debt.

    The council already exists - please look into Bijoy's Entrepreneurship Scene that has monthly meetings. It sounds like exactly what you are looking for. Current participants include RISE, Rice Alliance, TechRanch, Capital Factory, Austin Business Journal, Austin Entrepreneurs Network, Bootstrap Austin, and more. If they don't have *every* faction there can't very many missing.
  • The key to the council though is venture involvement. What I meant by the 'every' qualifier is not necessarily each org in town but each sector. Guess that's my overall point - in most of the happenings around town, I don't see a lot of venture representation. And, I should add, they haven't spoken up much in this discussion either. I was really hoping AV would chime in. But there's that naivete again, eh? : )

    But yes, I do need to get to one of Bijoy's meetings. That's one event I've missed out on so far.
  • Jonathan McCoy
    Carla, I moved from Austin to Silicon Valley a little over 2 years ago. Austin is great, and I miss both the city and the people. I was active in Bootstrap Austin and EO and volunteered because I was passionate about entrepreneurship and Austin. Your article sounded so familiar to many of the conversations I had over the years with other entrepreneurs in Austin.

    Since moving to Silicon Valley, I've met enough peers who have achieved success to get a general idea of the ecosystem here, and what makes these folks successful in their venture.

    A few things that I feel were missing in Austin:
    1. A whole lot of people from all over the world that are there just to start a business. Its about being in a place where knowledge transfer happens at a dizzying pace. The minute there is a new or interesting technology there are 30, 100, 200, 500 people that meet up and talk about it. It is so much easier to meet others who are reading and thinking about the same things as you - particularly if your interests are in an area that is emerging (which incidentally is where many tech 'superstars' are born).
    2. Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.. these companies bring tons of really bright people to SV, and put them in entrepreneurial minded cultures (where they have also made a lot of money). Then some of them leave to startup on their own with a team in place, cash in hand, and a handful of advisors / investors. Further, SV companies make acquisition of SV startups, often for product, and often for recruitment.. this also fuels the cycle.
    3. Stanford. Stanford is a proactive force in entrepreneurship, UT (as much as I love my alum) is not. Stanford arguably gave birth to Silicon Valley and its impressive how much influence the university has on the region.
    4. Experienced investors / advisors. Investors invest in what they know. Advisors advise in what they know. SV is literally stuffed with entrepreneurs that have exited ventures, often multiple ventures. If an entrepreneur needs advice or funding to become a 'superstar', chances are there is someone in SV with the right experience to help this entrepreneur. Well, chances are higher in SV than anywhere else anyhow.
    5. Risk. Entrepreneurs in SV, on average, simply have a different risk profile than those in Austin.

    .. anyhow, to sum up, from what I've seen, its about the peers you can meet and share ideas with at an unbelievable pace. Its about the advisors / investor you can meet you have walked down the same path you want to pursue as an entrepreneur. And, its about large institutions being involved and encouraging the cycle. And, of course, this is just my own limited experience.. but I thought it would bring an interesting perspective to the conversation.

    Lastly, I do not feel that fueling the 'superstars' is simply about investment. Investment is just one facet of the knowledge transfer dynamic, the risk tolerance and the culture of SV (albeit, investment is the facet that is most present in the media.. so from far away its often all that you can see).
  • I don't think the goal can be to be just like SV. Its like saying you want your city to be just like NYC. pretty impossible. We don't have stanford or Google etc. So we just need to make the best of what we do have, look to influence UT to be more supportive of entrepreneurship, and to broaden our experience. One recommendation I would make to people starting companies in Austin is to travel - don't just stay in Austin - get out to NYC and Boston and SV and find out what people are doing and how they're thinking, it can definitely inform your world view.
  • James
    From what I can tell, Jonathon's underlying point is the need for more interactions in the community. He is in SV after moving from Austin. Seems to me he is definitely quite informed.
  • BB
    Some highly successful Austin start-up companies in the semi space are Crystal Semi, Silicon Labs and Agere
  • We are funding B2B startups. They have to be at revenue.
  • ...Perhaps the scope is too narrow? Why must entrepreneurship be limited to tech?

    One of the fastest growing US insurance companies is based in Austin. Relocated to Austin last year, actually. I ought to know - I'm one of their top producers

  • bmenell
    Good point Barrett. This is being discussed on a blog focused on tech startups, but I hear the same issues from people starting all other kinds of businesses too.
  • Carla - congratulations on such a comment-provoking post. I agree with Josh that bootstrapping is best anyway. It forces you to build something and get it off the ground before taking on angel or VC funding, which is better for you the entrepreneur. Smiley Media is a good example of bootstrapping success and now they are hiring in Austin and don't need investors.

    Especially in B2C, I think the question from investors these days is why *haven't* you bootstrapped? Why do you need money when it's so cheap to build something and see if it gets any traction before asking for money?

    Also I don't think its that hard to find angels in town. There doesn't need to be an overarching organization. You can find the top 50 angels and VC partners in town just through connections. Living in the bay area for seven years and then back here in Austin for seven years, I believe Austin is definitely a closer knit community where investors and other entrepreneurs want to help you succeed.

    I agree though that everyone in Austin would love to have some new Austin success stories. I think it's in the process of happening with all the companies mentioned in these comments.

    Good post!
  • James
    Andy, I know a bunch of entrepreneurs that would love to connect with the top 50 angels in Austin. Where is the list?

  • I wonder if you could automatically generate that list from CrunchBase?
  • James
    Thanks Joshua. I will check it out. We would still need to figure out how to publicize such lists and make the community aware on a consistent and predictable basis.
  • Maybe you want to publish the list of entrepreneurs, and Andy can send it to his list of angels :)
  • I think the StartupList and AngelList lists from Venture Hacks are an awesome idea and they've posted several times about connections made through that mechanism. No reason to not collate those two lists for Austin to see if reducing the friction in locating each other is a significant problem.
  • I had a lot of success with the @VentureHacks @AngelList - highly recommended.
  • Cool. I didn't say it very well, but what I meant was that someone could put together two *similar* lists which are Austin-focused.

    On the one hand, entrepreneurs seeking funding to grow Austin companies, and on the other, angels interested in investing in Austin companies.
  • A list won't help you. :) You need to do the work - networking, building credibility, getting introduced to the right folks. It takes time but its not difficult.
  • James
    sfrancis, You can get the list of all rejected startups from the CapitolFactory competition and the TiE Funding Forum competition. I assure you the list will have at least 100 startups. And this is the list only from the past few months.

    Andy, This is precisely the problem. From what I can tell, Austin has a few gatekeepers - CapitolFactory, CTAN, TiE and so on. Each of these entities is pushing their own interests. Should an entrepreneur be occupied with building the business or should they be occupied with kissing the hands of these self-serving gatekeepers? Why should the list of investors not be available freely?

    A non-partisan committee that has members from all these entities (and investors) makes a lot of sense to me.
  • bmenell
    I think your premise is slightly flawed. You're stating as fact that these organizations hold the key to some secret list of investors that can only be obtained by some type of subservient behavior. That's like stating the convenience store clerk is the gatekeeper to your Powerball millions, or UT is the gatekeeper that prevents you from getting a great job.

    I'm not a member of CTAN, but they seem to be a collection of people who are interested in investing in young companies. And since their members are probably relatively wealthy, it stands to reason they probably don't want to be on a published list. They would get lots of inbound interest, and it would sort of kill the entire premise of organizing in the first place.

    I've made many introductions between startups and investors, and it's because the startup has merit, and there is potentially mutual value. And yes, it's in my own self-interest to do that, because I value my business relationships.
  • James
    bmenell, I respect the fact that you have been able to make valuable introductions.

    However, my statement regarding gatekeepers with self-serving interests - as opposed to the community, in general - still stands. Which is why a panel of all organizations makes a lot of sense.
  • James, your argument doesn't stand up. Look, 14 months ago capital factory didn't exist. Are they gatekeepers or "facilitators" or "enablers" ? I'd argue one of the latter - since they helped startups who previously had trouble getting traction to get some, and helped connect them with angels and VCs. I just don't see the downside in what they did.

    Now, if the "gatekeepers" could prevent others from investing, then I could see your point, but no such veto power exists. And, btw, investors invest for self-interest as well as community interest. It isn't a bad thing to be "self-interested" you know - most entrepreneurs are too :) A modicum of self-interest can be good. The gatekeepers you mentioned are actually enablers. Its funny how quickly perception can change. If CapitalFactory or CTAN or TiE went away, would it be easier to get funding or harder?

    And if you had a new organization, why wouldn't someone new come along and say this new organization is a gatekeeper, and maybe have even more proof since it is an organization of organizations...
  • James
    sfrancis, I see what you are saying. Please see the new thread that I started with a proposed solution - for discussion.
  • FYI - If you're looking for the new thread and can't find it, try sorting by "newest first". I couldn't see it at first.
  • James
    Thanks Joshua. It is actually a New Comment in the comments below. I noticed you found it.
  • bmenell
    If tech startups provided great returns, then everyone would flock to invest in them.

    But they don't. We just love them anyway.
  • I applaud your efforts but I don't think that the problem is connecting money with entrepreneurs or creating a committee to coordinate (in general I hate committees). The various groups are already well coordinated and talk to each other and attend each others events. Bijoy has also gathered a monthly meet up for the "entrepreneurship scene" that may be just what you're looking for - but I don't think that it is going to affect the funding environment.

    I don't think "we" need to do anything. Individual people need to just stop whining about lack of funding and make it happen. Go start B2C companies. Bootstrap if you can't get funding (thats probably better anyway). It doesn't matter if the investors come from Silicon Valley or Tahiti as long as the company is based here in Austin.

    The problem isn't connecting investors with entrepreneurs - it's breeding new investors. I'm an unusual angel investor because my first 2 companies were B2B but I still have invested in more than a dozen B2C startups. Investors don't just invest in anything - they invest in things they know. Most of the successful entrepreneurs in Austin have a B2B background - so that's what they invest in. Some guy who made a bunch of money at Dell migt not be intereted in a social networking site. It's not that investors need to see "losses" - they just need to see some wins. I'm currently running a B2C startup that has angel investors from Austin, Silicon Valley, and New York. There are definitely angel investors in Austin willing to do B2C. Austin Ventures has funded numerous B2C startups in the past year (not all of them have even launched yet). 8 of the 10 companies Capital Factory has funded are B2C.in fact, we're moving companies from the east coast and west coast to come to starts here in Austin. It's not impossible to get funded by any means - but it will get much easier when we have some B2C exits.

    Challenge Games selling to Zynga won't hurt!

    (I tried to post this yesterday but Disqus doesn't seem to like iPads for inputting comments)
  • James
    Joshua,

    'I don't think "we" need to do anything'.

    From your perspective, it sounds like Austin has THE PERFECT environment for entrepreneurship - that's plain silly. Please don't project yourself as the big man in Austin. You are not. You simply don't have the gravitas nor the maturity. You are in fact part of the problem.

    What Austin needs is a new generation of facilitators - people that know how to ENABLE the community. Rather than those that indulge in incessant self-promotion - there are too many of this breed right now.
  • BullyDog
    Even if this so-called self-promotion were true (which I strongly believe that it is not), is it not the right of the investor to do so? Why would anyone suggest that the investor has an obligation to anyone? It's his/her money for God's sake.

    An "overarching board or council" screams regulation to me. It is the lack of regulation that makes the entire angel investment world go 'round.

    My organization was selected as one of those who made it to the one-on-one interviews for this year's Capital Factory. Though I did not get selected as one of the five who received funding, the experience was invaluable. I am by far in a better position to receive funding now than ever before. My organization has grown tremendously since my interview as I continue to follow the work and advice of some of the CF mentors.
  • James
    BullyDog, I am glad you found the CF experience helpful. What's being discussed here is ways to help you get information and access to investors since you didn't make it at CF. Please see another new comment where I proposed a solution. There is absolutely no regulation.
  • I disagree with you too, James. I've got to give props to Josh. To me, he's done more to help the Austin tech community than probably anyone else the last few years. We need more people like him in the community.
  • James
    Steve, My apologies. I know I went a little overboard - a direct result of the tone of Joshua Baer's message. He seemed to be supporting the status quo and talking down to entrepreneurs.

    Please see my proposed solution in a new thread.
  • Last time I checked, Josh is an entrepreneur. He's done a ton for other entrepreneurs in Austin, myself included. I'm not seeing anything he wrote that isn't dead-on accurate. Silicon Valley is a unique place. If lots people do what Josh is talking about for 20 or 30 years, Austin will look a little more like it.

    The bigger point is that none of those successful Valley entrepreneurs got there because the community encouraged them. They made it happen on their own.
  • James
    Oh ok. Let's take 20-30 years to make Silicon Valley happen here. Since, we don't have the brains to create something that works better than what we have.
  • James,
    I don't think Josh said that. You're reading a lot of your own bias into someone else's writing. Josh's point was that we need more investors - and you get that by having more entrepreneurs with profitable exits.

    I don't think Josh thinks he's big man on campus, or even in Austin. But he's built more than one successful business (the first one, and maybe more than one, bootstrapped) and helped several others (with either an investment or development team). One of those firms now employs several hundred people - and their founders are quite complimentary of Josh's (and his team's) contributions to their startup efforts.

    It sure sounds like he's enabling to me. And there are a lot of facilitators in Austin already.

    It takes time to get networked in any particular ecosystem - Austin isn't any different in this respect. You have to put in the time helping others and earning some karma. Just the way it works in most communities.

    If I was looking for outside investment, Josh would be one of the first people I'd talk to.
  • Great discussion here. I wanted to note two items. Re the entrepreneur who can't raise $200k, yes of course it's possible there's something lacking in his pitch/style/acumen. He's notable to me because his particular tale was about the 20th of its kind I'd heard. As I mentioned in the post, entrepreneur enmity against investors isn't new and is to be expected. But the amount of frustration in Austin is significant and shouldn't be written off as the result of inept entrepreneurs. Whether the problem is real or perceived, there is a chasm that needs to be crossed by both parties.

    And to sfrancis, who wonders what's wrong with Austin companies going to the Valley for cash - I get your point. It's nice to be represented in the Bay Area. But I maintain that a startup scene in which one sector assumes all the risk cannot sustain itself. A healthy business community is balanced on all sides. And Austin needs at least a bit of the weight taken off its entrepreneurs.
  • All of this will be fixed by having profitable exits in Austin. If those happen, there will be people with money in their pockets who are willing to invest in the next crop of startups. I don't think the problem is that AV is too stingy, and wishing there were more VC firms won't make it happen. I think there are quite a few angel investors in Austin, but angels tend to invest in the areas they know best - in Austin, that's likely to be enterprise rather than consumer. In the Valley you have more variety. But the entrepreneurs I know in the Valley and on the east coast seem to complain just as much about raising money as people I know in Austin. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, right?
  • James
    sfrancis, The problem might also be the gatekeepers that continue to influence the angels in town. These gatekeepers continue to push the B-B story and scare the angels from anything else. This is a limitation of the gatekeepers' intellect - not the entrepreneur's creativity or the willingness of the angel investor.
  • I've advised angel investors a couple times on investments, and I didn't sense that they scare easy.
  • Good discussion. Having about 12 year head start on you in Austin, Carla, I would offer the following four "source" companies as the ones doing the most to contribute to why Austin was attractive to you in the first place.

    - MCC - many of the original scientists and advisors who are still deeply invested in this town are still here - some in tech, like a Jim Keeler at Wayport, now AT&T Wifi (a $400 million acquisition in the past year), to Bill Stotesbery who is the CEO of our PBS stattion, KLRU

    - Dell - there so many active folks supporting the continued success of Austin who did well by Dell, I can't even begin to name them

    - Tivoli - probably the root of the tree you are really looking for - see: http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2009/06/01/focus1.html - Dazel, Motive, Sailpoint...the list goes on and on

    - Trilogy - as others have already said, probably as much a source of entrepreneurial talent in Austin in the past decade as any other

    This, by the way, doesn't count for the incredible stewardship by community and services infrastructure leaders that have fought and compromised hard to make Austin such an attractive place to live, in so many other ways to an entrepreneur wanting to have a social life and/or raise a family.

    And lastly, regarding Austin Ventures, I'm no expert by any means, but over the years I've gained a great appreciation for their responsibility to their partners/investors and their role for the community. I agree with most of the general assessment of our anonymous friend, "Bill Montgomery;" and regardless of how well one might gel with any particular partner or associate at AV, as a whole, the firm is a tremendous asset to our fair city.

    Anyone who doesn't appreciate the way they - or any of the other notable VC firms in the city, from G51 to Sante - make money or how AV has invested in Austin hasn't done their homework. And, by the way, talk about a 24x7 tech advertisement that the name alone - Austin Ventures - provides us!

    As for the next company like Tivoli - to spawn a couple of dozen firms or more, that are newly additive to talent and resources in Austin - my wish is for it to a firm like Solarwinds (hoping they'll eventually go the way of Tivoli and spawn dozens of strong engineers and tech managers who will want to stay in the community) or Ambion, a firm no one has mentioned, but I'm hoping is able to help spawn some great scientists into the momentum-building area of life sciences/healthcare tech.
  • Great points - I was remiss in not mentioning Tivoli! In fact there were quite a few good companies on that west courtyard drive hill - tivoli, trilogy, dazel, and origin to name a few (and there were others).

    Really good point about the value of Austin Ventures from an advertising point of view for Austin, and their value to Austin. Hard to underestimate that value over time. There are others that are good representatives or evangelists for Austin (Mike Maples Jr comes to mind).
  • Much needed post, Carla. Thanks.

    Chris and you both alluded to the fact that we haven't had many homerun exits the last ten years. That seems like an obvious contributing factor. Paypal begets Founders Fund, Yelp, Youtube, etc. It seems like Trilogy, despite it not being a big exit, was sort of like that for Austin for a while. That center seems to have dissolved. It would be interesting to see a study on the multiplier effect that a large exit has on a local tech community or even more interesting what happens to a community in its absence. Here's hoping Gowalla, Homeaway, or even Bazzarvoice can change that.

    A conversation about Austin's tech investment scene certainly can't be complete without mentioning Austin Ventures. One thing I'm curious about is whether AV's focus on huge private equity rollups has effected or will effect the local tech community long-term. Not necessarily from an investment standpoint, because AV still does some smaller deals (Spredfast), but rather the impact on the potential multiplier effect that might be lost if AV does have some big exits on these rollups. These deals seem much less technology-driven and more business-model/market-opportunity driven. I worry that those kinds of PE deals won't spin off a comparable number of great, local technologists or even flush, local angels as more traditional seed/series A deals would long-term. These deals also seem to have more of a long-term flavor to them, so we might have missed out on some smaller exits had their investment focus been more early-stage.

    In any case, the consumer investment vacuum that has existed in Austin has made for a class of scrappy, lean startups that really help and root for each other. It's a great scene of which to be a part. It feels like we're building something with longer-term potential.
  • Steve- good point re: Trilogy. In software circles in Austin, seems like every company going has veterans from either Trilogy, Vignette, or Motive (or all three). Often people worked at one or two (or three) of those firms. Mix in a little IBM experience or MCC background, or Landmark Graphics. The Trilogy effect would be much larger if there had been an exit (IPO) as it would have minted quite a few millionaires. As it is, it has seeded Austin with a lot of talent both local and imported from both coasts and Canada and overseas.

    The lack of exits the last 10 years has hurt the supply of angel investors in Austin for sure- but this isn't any different than most locales, though it does put us at a disadvantage to places like the Valley or NYC or Boston where there is a lot of angel money floating around.

    As to the investor problem: this is an easy one to fix. One of these entrepreneurs just has to make it big, then turn around and start investing in startups. CapitalFactory seems to be doing that already. Maybe some veterans from the current crop of startups will have similar interests (Homeaway, SolarWinds, Bazaarvoice, etc. )

    @Bill - the relationship between Austin and AV is more complicated than you might be aware. Obviously better for Austin to have AV than not, by far. But also, better for Austin if AV had local competition of similar heft. It is GOOD for investors that there is competition among VCs in the valley, it would be good for Austin too. Most of the complaints I've heard could be root caused in this basic regret, that we don't have a second firm of similar stature. I think you're over-reading into Steve's comments about AV - he wasn't trashing them, just wondering if their strategy would yield the best multiplier effect in the near-term.

    Also, if you don't think there are enough quality entrepreneurs in Austin... well, I don't know what to say. If we take the word quality out, I think we could agree there are a lot of entrepreneurs in Austin considering size of the city. Quality is a very subjective statement, and without knowing your yardstick hard to comment on that assessment. By my own yardstick however, there are quite a few excellent entrepreneurs in town- some of them in VC-funded businesses, and many of them in self-funded businesses that may not be on your radar. (Incidentally, I have to agree that if someone can't raise $200k for a company here or anywhere, the problem may not be the investors. The fact that some single person can't raise money isn't exactly proof of a lack of investors... if he trivially raises this money in the Valley, then we should revisit the conversation). I don't see a lot of startups leaving for the valley, but I do see people raising money from firms in the Valley - but what's wrong with that? I think its good for Austin entrepreneurs to mix it up with the VC community out there.
  • Bill Montgomery
    I agree this was a thought provoking post. I moved here from Silicon Valley around 3 years for personal reasons and I worked for some decent internet companies while out there. I'm not posting under my real name here as I don't want the publicity around this topic and I frankly don't want to be blackballed by the other entrepreneurs in town that seem to carry a grudge for anyone that disagrees with them. I think I'm still kind of an outsider to Austin even though I've met a number of the good entrepreneurs around town and have been really impressed by them.

    In response to you Steve, I'm not sure I follow you. As I said, I'm relatively new to town and I may not know what I don't know but your comment around how Homeaway hopefully has the potential to be a "multiplier" but then you question AV's investment focus change on huge equity roll-ups and how that might impact this multiplier effect. I though Homeaway was one of those roll-ups? I'm not aware of more than two other roll-ups AV has done in town and the best I can tell on those other ones they've brought a lot of credible talent in from out of town to help with those deals that in theory should help the local Austin cause long term. Am I missing something here?

    Perhaps the most thought provoking thing about this post is you think you have the entrepreneurs in Austin. As I said, there are certainly some great ones here - most are mentioned in these posts. However, I wouldn't call someone who isn't resourceful enough to raise $200,000 in Austin a "quality" (or resourceful) entrepreneur. If their answer is to move to Silicon Valley I'd worry they won't even be able to find a place to live out there that they can afford!

    I'll put this out there and I'm sure this will cause a lot of negative comments but I think the title of this post is a symptom of the problem in Austin and not the problem. By that I mean it looks like there is plenty of capital available in Austin - my issue would be there aren't enough quality deals or entrepreneurs in Austin. The Austin Ventures investment focus shift that Steve references is probably a reaction by the AV guys that they have a limited amount of time to invest the money their investors gave them and they can't find enough good things to invest in in Austin. That might just make them good businessmen that have had to adjust their strategy just like any of us would do as an entrepreneur. I'm pretty sure if there were more deals in town that warranted an investment that other venture guys would be doing them here if AV wasn't. Venture guys care about one thing - making money. I am still an active angel in the Valley and I've yet to find an investment in Austin in 3 years that I'd do. Maybe I need to find the guy looking for $200K.

    I don't know Carla and I see she doesn't want this to be a "blame" vibe. I do agree with Steve you have to bring up Austin Ventures in this discussion. My observation over 3 years is that everyone in this town likes to whine about Austin Ventures and their role in the start-up ecosystem here. I've got no agenda as I'm not trying to raise money now but I've met with the 3 guys who do the early stage investing over there and they seem like solid guys that have a firm grip on what is going on in the technology world that aren't too full of themselves. The best I can tell they haven't missed any significant investment opportunities in Austin and have invested in a lot of good ones, including a decent number of early stage deals for 3 guys. On Steve's comment about AV's focus change having an impact by there not being more smaller exits. I'm not sure how that would have fixed your problem here? Smaller exits don't help with your "capital" problem (symptom). I don't think anyone has seen many exits in the last few years - you hear more about them in CA b/c there are about 1,000 venture firms and 1,000 times the number of startups in Silicon Valley and thus there will be more on an absolute basis. The AV guys have had as good of a string of recent exits of any venture firm I know that looked like they made money on - Lifesize, Solarwinds, Convio, Jigsaw, Lombardi and they look like they have more coming - HomeAway and Bazaarvoice to name a couple.

    Again, I'm new to town but I think Austin is pretty lucky to have a firm like AV active in this town. They look like they do a lot of other stuff around town to make this a better place to live but always catch a bunch of grief as could be construed in this case. Why does everyone hate them so much? Maybe I'm missing something here? Are there any other credible venture firms in Austin and what deals have they done that AV didn't do?
    I'd love to get some one from AV's response on this but if I was them I'd never touch this topic.
  • drewcwsj
    I can speak from experience on this one. My company moved to Austin from Iowa two years ago and to date have not raised a single dollar in this town. We have been successful with Iowa angels, silicon valley institutional and several east coast investors. We'll stay in Austin for the engineering talent pool and low tax climate but overall we are very disappointed with the investor community here. They all seem to be chasing the "me too" dot com plays - how many location based service and Groupon competitors do they think will survive? Show them hard science and their eyes roll back in their heads.

    Here is an interesting article about VCs veering away from hardware http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=192758
  • Guest
    Joshua set up capital factory purely as a vehicle to promote OtherInBox. Everytime he shows up at a function, he has that same t-shirt on. Give it a break man, there are like 5 companies doing the exact same thing as you. It's really hard to imagine you care about anything else but yourself when you wardrobe consists of one shirt with your company's logo on it.

    That said, capital factory has some really great mentors and genuine people who care about you (not their own company). However, if they opt to invest their own money in a follow up seed round, don't expect a valuation over $1m.
  • Brave post, Carla...

    I find myself both agreeing & disagreeing with what you're saying here. Many startup consumer plays simply can't get funded here today. In the Valley, folks with these ideas are visionary. In Austin, the same person would be considered delusional.

    But I don't blame the local VCs for this entirely. I actually think the local VC community actually does a good job finding & investing in things that play to local strengths. Like it or not, this is more or less a B2B oriented environment. Many folks have a strong background & successes in those areas. And it's a little easier to see traction as an investor.

    The one place where I do think local VCs could improve is in finding interesting local B2C plays earlier & making real investments there. But it's a fait accompli whose cycle can't get broken without folks taking a leap of faith. Austin will not have a great homegrown B2C story until one gets funded adequately -- and realistically that is a lot harder in Austin than either coast.
  • Blame isn't the vibe I'm going for here. More along the lines of - let's all figure out together why our startups are going to Silicon Valley. It is a cycle that is hard to break, as you point out. But I do think it's breakable. Then again, I also allow for the possibility of naivete. ; )
blog comments powered by Disqus