It’s a topic that keeps cropping up in my circle of friends/business acquaintances.

Startups, startups, startups.

It’s an obsession with some people. I’ve noticed it a lot recently. There are startup programmes at all the universities. There are incubators. There is funding to do it. There is support. There is a whole legion of people in Scotland who are obsessed with the notion that startups are the thing to focus on. The only thing to focus on. The holy grail of business.

(seriously, if you listen to some people you’d swear that startups can simultaneously cure AIDS, end poverty, make David Cameron less of a shitty prime minister…the list goes on).

I’m not buying it. Startups mean nothing to me. Sustainable businesses, on the other hand, do.

Look, starting up a business is easy. You can do it in about five minutes. All it takes is a credit card and a name. You register it at Companies House and BAM – you’re a director. There is nothing special in that. There is nothing holy or impressive.

Now building a business – that’s hard. I know from first hand experience. There are sleepless nights, hard choices and a lot of ups and downs.

But I think it’s deeper than that. It’s also about the kind of business you want to build.

When I started Designate, an exit strategy never occurred to me. Nor did a fall back plan. I was determined to build a business.

I was also determined to build my business. The business I wanted to work in. The business that could be a great company, with great people and great services. I wanted to build the best team. I wanted to make the best environment. And yes, I wanted to make the best money as well. Work hard, play hard – you know how it all goes.

But the majority of startups I see nowadays don’t seem to focus on that.

It’s a quick in and a quick out. We’ll build this up and sell it on in five years. We have an exit strategy.

What are you focussed on if that’s the case? Are you trying build a business or are you trying to follow a business plan? Are you trying to make the best products/services or are you just trying to get to the end?

I know that some of this is driven by the investment community we have in the UK. There is a huge focus on quick exits. In and out. We need an exit return after three years. Or maybe five. And I understand that investors need to be able to make their money and their profits. It’s how the whole thing works. But how much are building a false economy here?

What’s the shame of having a sustainable business that grows over twenty years? Or thirty? Have our businesses really gone the way of our construction industry – we build them cheap and they last a short period of time. Is this really the business world we want to create?

I’d like to see us focus a little less on startups and more on building lasting companies that grow. I’d like to see us concentrate less on the short term win and more on the long-term growth. I’d like to see less incubators promising “FREE FREE FREE”, and more support for growing and building a business.

As I said at the beginning: Startups mean nothing to me. Sustainable businesses, on the other hand, do. And I think we need to concentrate more on building great companies than on obsessively starting up companies doomed to fail.

- J

But early this morning, as I checked my Twitter feed on the iPhone that always lies next to my bed, the news of his death did cause me to do something.

I started to think a bit about his technology.

I admit it. I am unashamedly and unabashedly an apple fanboy. I love their kit. My office is full of iMacs. I carry around an iPhone and an iPad. I want an iPad2.

(Scratch that: I need an iPad2)

It’s always been a bit of a battle-ground for me and some of my friends. They hated Apple’s products for a variety of reasons. Too restrictive. Too much arrogance. Too pretty. No command lines. Whatever. We’d battle it out on a fairly regular basis – never coming to any agreement, but always willing to waste a few minutes (hours? days?) almost coming to blows. I’m not sure any of us really cared that much about the companies involved (I mean, they HATE Microsoft) but there did seem to be a fundamental difference in the way we saw the technology. They thought I was a follower in some weird cult. I thought they needed to have more curiosity about the world.

I have a confession to make. I’ve recently been testing a lot of non-Apple products. I’m a bit ashamed to admit that. My girlfriend has been looking at the HTC phones, my flatmate needs a cheap laptop…it’s not really me (I swear) that’s interested, but it’s me that needs to find out more and give the advice. I promise.

So recently I’ve played with a lot of different kit. I’ve tried five or six other tablets. I’ve tested three or four netbooks. I’ve fiddled with six or seven other phones. And this morning it finally crystalised, for me, where the difference truly lies.

Apple’s products are aspirational. The other products are not.

What does that mean?

Sometimes you can’t put your finger on it. Is it how a line is drawn exactly right. Is it the curve of a corner? Is it the blend of perfect design with perfect interaction? It could be any one of these things. It could be all of them.

But there is a much more important ingredient: Apple’s products are trying to be the best they can be. The others aren’t.

Test me on it. Go out and try some of the other tablets out there. They are a response to the iPad. That’s it.  They have no life on their own. They weren’t dreamed up. They were made. They weren’t designed. They were spec’d. They exist because a market was created and a company wanted a piece of the action. That is their reality. That is their dream. The iPad wants to be more. It wants to be the best device it can be.

Aspirational products change the world. They change how we work. They change how we live.

I can’t think of a better tribute to Steve Jobs than that.

Can Aspirational Be The New Exit?

My early morning thoughts about Steve Jobs and Apple also stirred something else in me. Something that has been stewing in there for a long time.

Is this the problem with the majority of new technology start-ups in Scotland?

How many times have I sat through an “investor presentation” over the past six years and heard more about the market opportunity and exit plans than I have about the company’s aspirations for the future? Ninety percent of the time?

(To be honest, how many times have I been the one asking them about their exit? I’m just as guilty.)

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t think about the hard-nosed financial realities of business. We should. In fact, I think a lot of times, particularly at universities, we don’t think enough about it. We don’t give the reality check of commercial viability.

But a lot of the times, we spend most of our time taking the aspiration out of these businesses. And that’s not what I got into business to do.

Maybe it’s down to who is in the room. Nine times out of ten the main people who get involved in these projects at an early stage are lawyers and accountants. Can you think of a better way of killing off innovation and aspiration than surrounding them with lawyers and accountants? Seriously.

But it’s not all the lawyers and accountants’ fault. We do it to ourselves.

I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and had a really enjoyable conversation with a professor from some university in England. We laughed a lot about the shoddy way universities handle IP and commercialisation, and we talked about some of the good bits that happen in other countries. I spoke about my experience working with some biotech VCs who install a professional business team to run the companies, and let the technology guys do what they do best – create technology.

We were joined by someone from Scottish Enterprise. She said an astounding thing: “We don’t have the appetite here for that.” Are you kidding me? This is coming from someone who is supposed to be fostering innovation and growth? Her take on it was simple – be happy with what we have. Don’t rock the boat. We can’t do that. It won’t work. We can’t succeed.

With her it was all “No, no, no, no and no”.

What a load of tosh.

I look around in Scotland and I see nothing but interested and enthusiastic people. I see innovative thinkers and hard workers. I see risk-takers and salespeople. I see entrepreneurs and leaders.

But give it five minutes and someone will pop up and remind us all that it can’t happen in Scotland. We don’t have it. We don’t have the risk mentality. We don’t have the appetite. We’re doomed to fail if we try.

Is that aspirational?

I’ve been in business for almost six years. In that six years I’ve seen success and I’ve tasted failure. I’ve been up against the wall and I’ve thought I was untouchable.

I’ll let you into a wee secret. I didn’t get into business to make billions of pounds. I started a business because I wanted to build something – a team, an idea…I’m not always sure what. But I know it when I see it.

And if I stopped believing that? I’d quit. It wouldn’t be worth it.

Back to Steve. The quote you’re most likely going to be bombarded with over the next few days comes from his 2005 commencement speech at Stanford University. If you haven’t seen it yet, go look it up on YouTube. Seriously. It’s a great speech. The quote most people will be throwing around on Twitter and Face book is :

“Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything — all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure – these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important. Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose. You are already naked. There is no reason not to follow your heart.”

But that’s not my favorite part of his speech. My favourite part comes at the end. He talks about the Whole Earth Catalogue’s final message to their readers: “Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.”

Now that is aspirational.

- Jordan

That’s not meant to be negative. There are lots of great examples of recent companies that have brought new and innovative (or some combination of the two) products to the market successfully. There are some really good case studies of companies that have defied the odds and moved up from a start-up brand to a globally positioned one. It’s very possible.

But there are also graveyards littered with the corpses of dead and dying products. Lots of them. It sucks.

Now some of these deserved to die. They really did. They didn’t have a market, or they were badly designed…there are lots of reasons why your new product deserves to fail. I can’t find myself getting to weepy about any of them, to be honest.

But the ones that do get me down are the ones that have the potential but they squander it. The good ideas that fail because of how they are brought to market. That makes me sad because, for the most part, these projects could have been successful with a few minor changes to the plan.

So today, I’m performing a public service. My company specialises in bringing products to the market. We live and breathe it. And one of the things I normally find when I start talking to people about launching their products is that they really have drastically underestimated how difficult it is.

You see, launching something is easy. Getting to it to stick is the hard bit.

So here it is, then. Five ways I tend to see good strong products with potential to grow lose the plot, struggle, and die.

1. The Golden Ticket
   Willy Wonka aside, there is no such thing as a golden ticket. It doesn’t exist. But you’d be amazed at how many time I speak to people who are convinced that this one thing is going to be the thing that gets their product rolling. The dirty little secret is that ‘this one thing’ doesn’t exist. Getting a product to have a successful commercial lifespan involves so many things – The product, the price point, the market, the need, the economy…. and that’s just a start. ‘That one thing’ will never happen, and if your strategy relies on it you should take your money and go to Vegas. You’d be better off betting on the last card turning up….
2. Sure, they’ll do the work for you…
   This one makes me laugh. I can’t tell you how many times I have spoken to people who are convinced that getting in the door is enough. “I’m getting my product in Tesco next year” is the mantra I hear all the time. So what? What happens next? Do you honestly think Tesco gives a shit if your product lives or dies? They don’t. You are a product on a shelf. They only care if you are selling. They care about space, and if your product doesn’t sell, it’s off the shelf. I keep meeting people who are convinced that the big players (retail, banks etc.) will push their product off the ground for them. You want to guess how likely that is? Like I said, getting a product to market is easy…it’s making it stick that’s hard.
3. Who needs all that cash?
   You know, there is a big difference between launching a B2B product and launching a B2C product. It takes a lot more money to launch in B2C. A lot more. And I don’t mean frivolous money either. The simple fact is that a B2B product has a much easier time defining the right channels and the right incentives. If the product is genuinely good and has a genuinely good benefit…it’s actually pretty easy. After that it is down to the sales. 

   But with B2C it’s different. That’s harder and has a much more difficult distribution strategy. There are a lot of channels out there, and you have to make them all work for you when you start looking at B2C. I have seen so many B2C companies fail because they underestimated the cost and effort involved with getting a brand new product (and brand) out there. If it takes you £150K to get the product done and produced, why do you think it will cost you £15 to market it? Stupidity in itself.

4. Everyone needs it, I promise…
   Everyone has seen this one right? It goes along with the “my mummy thinks I’m handsome, therefore…” argument I love to make (and for the record, she does). It’s particularly true when you are dealing with the techie guys themselves, but almost everyone who tries to launch a product is convinced that the market will love it as much as they do. They are convinced that everyone will flock to the (e)stores to buy their product as soon as it’s released. 

   Well that’s not true is it? It’s a lot harder than that, and the timescales are a lot longer. What we think will take two months will almost always take four. It’s the nature of the beast. Nothing goes exactly to plan. And you need to find the momentum behind the product. That’s crucial. Every product I have been involved with has a certain momentum it needs to develop. Sometimes it’s quick and hard and sometime it’s long and soft (oh my…).

5. Social Media and Viral is all there is right?
   I was in a meeting the other day and the company could pretty much sum up their entire sales strategy as “viral stuff and the website”. Oh dear. Probably not mate. And yet I can’t tell you how often I see companies convinced that the key to victory will be to get an online campaign going. Why? I mean yes that can help, but it’s missing the point. You have to have a balanced approach. You have to see the right paths to walk down and make sure you’re walking in the right direction. It’s a bit of this and a lot of that. You push here and you pull there. It’s give and take.

And that last point brings us to the simple truth: launching a product is not simple. It’s a complicated web. You can’t focus on one thing, you have to push them all along. It takes skill and planning and, sometimes, a little luck. But the upshot is if you do it right you start to get that momentum. And when a new product gets momentum, watch out – it’s time to pounce.

-j

Anyway, there was a bit of a sales pitch on his side of the table, but he was a nice guy and, at the very least, he was honest about it. I appreciate that. I liked him.

Of course what always happens in these meetings is that the two of us play a bit of ‘show me yours and I’ll show you mine’ footsy. Here’s what we do. Oh yeah? Here’s what we do! Repeat.

As I was talking to him a bit about what Designate does, I started to talk a lot more about what makes us different from most marketing companies. The short 3-second answer?

Sometimes it’s our job to tell you that you look fat in that dress.

I’ll elaborate.

Most marketing companies are really just glorified creative companies. That’s not a slight by the way. I admire them. I really do! I also use quite a lot of them on different projects. But let’s not confuse what they do with what real marketing is about. Real marketing is placement. Real marketing is the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ and then the ‘how’ and the ‘where’. The pretty skin on top is the last part of the equation. It’s a critical part, of course, but if it’s not grounded with a proper understanding of the fundamentals, it’s also a useless part. Most creative companies will act on what they are given. They don’t question…they execute on what they are asked.

Not us.

I gave him an example:

We’re working with an exciting software company right now. They have developed some very cool technology and they came to use to figure out a strategy for them. How could they turn their business from one that uses their technology to service clients into one that sells their technology and makes a lot of passive income. It’s a big question. It’s a huge change in business model but, if they could manage it, they could see the benefits. And they have been trying to figure out how to do it for years with no luck.

Well we took a look at the technology and, based on where they were, said forget it. You can’t play in that field, and going forward like that is suicide. You won’t make it. There isn’t enough of a market to make it worthwhile. Ouch eh?

Was that the end of it? Of course not. Our job isn’t to do what you tell us to do – it’s to come up with a strategy to accomplish what you want to do. If you knew how to do it, you wouldn’t need us.

Now we could have accepted the project on spec. They briefed us to do something, we execute the brief. Job done. Chance of success? hmmm..I’ll say about 5%?

Instead, we did what we always do. We worked out where the best opportunities existed and we made a case for a strategy to go after them. We got our hands dirty. And guess what? We have been helping them leverage their technology into specific niche markets. And it’s working. And they are happy.

That’s one of the things I love about what we do at Designate – it’s not our job to be reactive. It’s not our job to do as we’re told (of course we value our client’s opinions and experience and of course we put them first…don’t be stupid). It’s our job to question. It’s our job to poke holes. It’s our job to think of the better way. It’s our job to give the unvarnished truth.

And our clients appreciate it. They benefit from it. They profit with it.

So yes, my dear, you look fat in that dress. But the good news? I found a company willing to pay for it….you’re going to make a fortune as a plus-sized model….

- jordan

P.s. Please don’t send me email about using weight as an issue. It could have been anything. I’ve just used this analogy. Grow up.

Quick back story. I was actually walking to the train station this morning and I pressed the play button on my iPhone. It randomly selected some Kenny Rogers. Me being a fan, I let it play and, as I heard those lines, business ideas started to creep into my head.

As I wandered through the streets of Edinburgh at 0630 listening to Kenny…those four lines sort of jumped out at me:

You got to know when to hold them
Now when to fold them
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

It jumped out at me because it reminded me of a conversation I had with a company just the other day.

They have the cards (to continue the, possibly tortured, metaphor) and they are in the game, but they really don’t know when to hold or when to fold. And regardless of whether they walk or run, they don’t even know what direction they should be heading.

The starting point to our conversation wasn’t positive. We didn’t start well.

They believed they should be looking at one thing. I firmly believed they needed a much deeper conversation. It wasn’t really a conversation they wanted to have. It really wasn’t. But my company had been referred by someone they trust, so they stuck it out, and we are all very glad they did.

Back to my point. It’s a bit of a throw-away line to say “don’t confuse tactics with strategy”. A lot of people use it. It’s annoyingly popular, but it is also very true, and in this case, it got to the route of the problem.

There a a lot of tactics you can use to market a company (or a person, a product….whatever). Lots of tactics. Like so many other parts of a business, the problem lies in the preparation.

To put it another way: you can be the fastest runner in the world, but if you’re pointed the wrong way I’ll still beat you to the line. A good athlete will combine the extraordinary physical nature of their sport with a real understanding of strategy. Strategy to compete. Strategy over competitors. Strategy to maximise performance. There are very rarely situations where pure power, speed or talent succeed without being lead by a strategy to succeed.

And yet, when it comes to marketing, so many companies launch into it without really understanding what it is, where it can be applied and where they need to concentrate. They talk about ends, not means. That’s all well and good, but you can’t get to the end without a thorough understanding of the means.

Marketing means a lot of things to a lot of people. I can ask ten different people and I’ll get ten different answers. There is one thing that is universally true. If you don’t know where you are and you don’t know where you’re going, you’re wandering in the dark being guided only by hope.

To me, that’s not a smart business bet. Far better to invest the time and money to develop a proper strategy. (in the long run, it’s also a lot cheaper when you make less mistakes)

- j

I’ll pause now for you all to stop laughing.

Anyway the point is  I’ve decided to self-censor the title of this post a bit. It’s normally a little more crude, and I have a habit of saying it when I’m on stage speaking, but it also is a nice way of illustrating some business points that drive me wild.

Just because you like what you do, and your friends like what you do, and your mum likes what you do…. you get my point right?

It’s funny. I run into this problem a lot.

People are always more invested in their own things. Nobody cares about my business more than me. Staff don’t. They never will. That’s not saying they don’t like working here or really like the company. They do. They work hard. But they won’t ever live and breathe it like I do. Nor, to be honest, should they.

Where it starts to lead to mistakes is when you’re applying these thoughts to your marketing and growth.

I’ll give you a couple of scenarios that I’ve seen first hand:

1. A technology company. These guys are geeks. They love their tech and they are very, very, good at it. They’ve got an idea for a website. It will simply fly. They know this. Why? All their developer friends love the idea. All their developer friends get it. They are on the road…

2. A retailer. They manufacture high-quality luxury goods. Really nice stuff. But now they are looking to expand and they are looking to go into some new territories. That’s fine though. Look how good their stuff is! It won’t be hard to get people interested in their product. Easy.

Do I really have to state the obvious?

They both failed.

Spectacularly.

Why? They suffered from that central flawed assumption – they love their products therefor everyone will love their products.

I see this a lot when I’m looking at potential high growth businesses. Most of them have some sort of innovative product or process and are looking to create a commercial vehicle out of it. They are all very good at what they do, and sometimes the products are actually very cool. Whether they succeed or fail usually hangs on the marketing strategy.

1. Do they have a market for it?
2. Will the market pay for it?
3. Do they know how to reach this market?
4. Have they priced it correctly?
5. Is the market big enough to support the investment to get it off the ground?

You can think you have the best company in the world. You can think you have the best product in the world. You can think you have the best people in the world.

Just because you think it, doesn’t make it true. Just because you believe it, doesn’t mean anyone else will.

My mum thinks I’m a pretty handsome guy, but guess what? I’m going home alone….

Get your head out of the sand and look objectively before you make a move.

- j

I was at a good meeting this morning. There were three of us sitting around the table in a hotel bar (this isn’t the start of a really bad joke) having a good discussion about the mixture of talent and investment needed for a lot of the companies we regularly see.

I think that’s an important mixture to make clear, because a lot of companies look for investment because they see the ££££ (or $$$$) necessity in their business. And money is important. Of course it is.

But equally important to get right in this mixture is the talent. What talent needs to be brought in? What areas of your business need to be tightened up and who can be the right fit to help you achieve that?

This is important for both the companies and the investing entity:

1. For the companies, it’s crucial that they realise the responsibility they have when they bring on an investor. They are giving up part of their company and they are responsible for that. Very rarely will a company that is looking to achieve this growth through investment have all the necessary skills needed. Very very rarely. The right talent is crucial and the company needs to be willing to take a long hard look at themselves to see where they are weakest and where they need to gain strength in depth.
2. For the investors, it’s equally critical. You can do all the due diligence in the world, but at the end of the day it’s the team that will be driving that business forward. It’s critical that they feel comfortable that the team has the right expertise and understanding to achieve the growth that everyone is so sure they can look forward to.

The subject came up as we were looking at a new investment vehicle that is currently launching throughout the UK. It’s a private equity fund that is looking to invest about £25M. The real catch? It aims to match up proper talent and expertise alongside the financial investment. This isn’t a new concept, of course. There are lots of examples of investors installing an expensive non-exec board which slowly drains the funds away from the company before it ever gets off the ground. What we liked about this fund was the matching of the right professional expertise with the right financial investment.

It could be a good fund. It might not work. We’ll find out as everything moves forward and we see how the landscape falls.

I do think, however, that the point they are making should be driven home in every way possible.

Investment needs talent to drive it forward.

Talent deserves to be invested in by every company.

Don’t be a generalist. Find the specialists you can trust and get them making you better, stronger, faster and more profitable.

- j

The void between Super Angels and VCs

(for some reason I can’t embed the video here, sorry)

Interesting interview. Worth (about) seven minutes of your time.

-j

Only two or three have really thought it through.

That does not make me happy.

I’ve said it before, but my company does a lot of work with high-growth companies. These projects range from bringing new products to market to helping them expand into new territories. They all have one thing in common. At some point, they feel it’s necessary to bring on investors.

My question is simple: why?

I’m not against bringing on investors. Not at all. We do most of our business with companies that have active investors. It can be critical.

The problem, as I see it, isn’t the investors. It’s companies that look to investment as  almost knee-jerk reaction. “We can’t get where we want to. Let’s get in some cash.”

That is the wrong reason to bring in an investor.

So is your company thinking about bringing on an investor? Try to remember a few things. They may seem obvious, but at least 80% of the companies I see fail on one of these counts.

1. Don’t forget, investment is a commercial proposition.
   This is vital. Investors aren’t giving you money to make you feel better or to ease your business pain. They are giving it so that they can get back significantly more in return. You need to show them the commercial case for the investment, and you need to make sure, above all else, that this is a commercial case based in reality. You know what happens if it’s not? Really really angry investors who come down on you like a ton of bricks.
2. What’s the point? Where does it get you?
   Investment can be a hugely useful tool in growing your business, but what’s the point? Where does it get you? Where are you trying to go and, more importantly, will this money, expertise and support actually get you there? Investment isn’t cash-flow. You can’t treat it like it’s money in the bank. It should be there to accomplish key commercial goals – it should be there to drive you to a successful financial outcome. The formula should be simple:

   Opportunity + Investment = Growth
   Growth = Return on Investment

   That works lovely. The problem is a lot of companies seem to see it as:

   Opportunity + Investment = Stay Afloat
   Stay Afloat = Goodbye Investment

   Not so good, right? You have to make sure that what you’re asking for is going to lead (as far as you are able) to a solid return. It may not work out that way, but the plan has to make sense.

3. Outline the real proposition.
   Chances are, nobody loves your company like you do. You’re doing things because you love them. You’re doing things because of passion. That’s great. Investors will like that. They need to like that (and to like you). But that’s only going to get you half the way there. The other half is all commercial. That side needs to stand – and stand on its own. Without that, a real investor will look right through you.

As I said. I meet a lot of companies. A lot of companies in this field. There are a lot of excellent opportunities out there. A lot of great Scottish (and British) talent exists and I have seen some really innovate people come up with some cracking ideas.

Now we just have to make sure we get the investment right.

- j

If we’re in early enough with our early-stage clients, we often work closely with them to prepare them to pitch to investors (think Dragon’s Den with less make-up). This process can be fun. It can also be painful. It can be successful. It can also be the death rattle.

One of the biggest issues?

Asking for the right amount of money.

One of the problems I find with a lot of early-stage companies that spin out from Universities (and let’s face it, that’s about 85%) is what I call the ‘grant mentality’. These aren’t normally people who have a lot of experience in business. They are experts in their field. They have gained their experience working in the University, where the emphasis tends to be on a continuous process of applying for grants.

That’s a problem when it comes to the real world. Their natural inclination tends to be towards asking for a smaller amount of money (which they see as being more likely to be achievable). Why? Simple, it will carry them through for a bit longer. It’s not enough money to make a success of it, but that doesn’t seem to be their worry. They want to have the money to keep working.

That’s not a recipe for a successful commercialisation strategy.

Yesterday I sat on a panel interviewing four companies that are seeking investment. My question is normally the same:

Where will that money get you?

I ask every company that is looking for investment to seriously think about where they are and what they actually need to get them to a profitable situation. Investors aren’t stupid. They will invest into your company if they believe they have a good chance of making a proper return. If you tell them that £200K is what you need and it turns out you actually need £1.5M – everybody loses.

And before anyone thinks I’m being too pushy for money – I’m not suggesting for a second that you artificially inflate your investment proposition. Not at all. I’m simply saying that there is a commercial reality that needs to be dealt with, and too often companies are so desperate for some cash that they ignore that commercial reality in order to focus on that short term gain.

Commercialising new technology isn’t like that. You’ve got to take the realistic view (in terms of time AND money).

So before you go forward searching for investment, ask yourself some basic questions:

How much money do we actually need to raise to successfully (and profitably) bring this to market?

Are we asking for too much?

Are we asking for too little?

- j