
Written on February 21st, 2011 | Short URL: http://abcjr.me/4f

Who needs risk capital anyway?
The Pittsburgh Business Times ran an interview this past Friday featuring Kit Needham (subscription required), a former colleague at the Allegheny Conference who is now: running her own consulting firm; working as a senior advisor at CMU’s Project Olympus (described as “bridging the gap between cutting-edge university research/innovation and economy-promoting commercialization for the benefit of our communities”); and serving as educational coordinator for Blue Tree Allied Angels, a network of local angel investors. There is no doubt that she has dedicated countless hours to the entrepreneurial community over the years.
In the article, she discusses her own investment strategy, which seems to be directly at odds with her advocacy for early-stage businesses. To quote Ms. Needham:
“It’s so hard to pick the winners and what I’ve learned is, I can’t pick winners,” said Needham, who also runs her own firm, Needham Consulting, and has worked for the Allegheny Conference on Community Development and what is now BNY Mellon.
“I learned I just didn’t have the time or, really, the commitment to spend the time to do a good job of this,” she said. “I am not keen on relatively illiquid investments.” (Emphasis mine.)
The article goes on to explain how she came to her investment strategy, which she described as a “proven sets of rules to build and preserve client’s wealth.” She broadly outlines her methods and the success she’s had (roughly 4% five-year return vs. S&P’s 0.99%).
For the record, I don’t fault anyone for a low-risk investment strategy that relies on mutual funds and stocks. Everyone has a different risk tolerance, which should be taken into account when pulling together a wealth-building strategy. Diversification is great. We should all aspire to structure our investments in a way that minimizes losses.
BUT, isn’t it concerning that someone so deeply entrenched in the entrepreneurial community can’t find space in her portfolio to directly invest in a local start-up? Sure, I could see where she might be reluctant to invest because of a potential conflict of interest, e.g. there’s an opportunity for personal profit if she provides advice relating to a company in which she’s invested. However, it seems counter-intuitive that someone who’s so directly involved in commercializing technology and guiding the funding of risky ventures admits that she can’t pick winners and isn’t keen on illiquid investments.
The oft-heard complaint in Pittsburgh is that we don’t have enough risk capital. I’ve heard great arguments from the various sides — some believe that VCs and angel investors are too risk-averse and let good companies flounder, others think there aren’t enough good deals worth funding, still others think that there’s plenty of risk capital in the region. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, can entrepreneurs get a fair hearing when someone who can’t handle the risk of a start-up is advising critical early-stage-oriented organizations? Finally, why would she publicly admit that she’s uninterested in risky ventures given her role?
I perceive that getting funded in Pittsburgh can be a challenge. While I’ve had the chance to help successfully pitch to an angel investor, our funding came from a close contact of one of the company’s founders who isn’t involved in the local angel community. As a result, we were fortunate to bypass the standard pitch-your-ass-off process that most start-up companies have to endure. Perhaps I’m over-reacting to a one-off PBT article, but if the folks influencing investment into our regional start-up companies can’t bring themselves to invest in these companies, then I can’t see how the money tree is going to be shake loose new money any time soon.
Written on July 2nd, 2010 | Short URL: http://abcjr.me/2p
As my friends and family are aware, I’ve been an entrepreneur for as long as I can remember. No matter what I’m doing with my life — full-time job, school, whatever — I always have a project or three that I’m working on as a 5-to-9 job (I discuss this concept in a post over at Untemplater).
One of my recent projects, along with three great friends, has been developing a portable draft beer delivery system targeted to tailgaters and campers called PortaBeer (
@PortaBeer). Beginning as a giddy conversation while camping with the guys last July, the project has taken on a life of its own. In the 11 months since we first came up with the idea, we’ve been able to haul in two awards (3rd Place, University of Pittburgh’s Big Idea Competition and 3rd place in the PCKIZ Business Idea Challenge for Point Park University), secure some engineering assistance, finance the R&D effort, develop a couple of quality strategic relationships and begin to see the results of all of our hard work. Not only that, we’ve founded a company where beer qualifies as a legitimate R&D expense.
In any case, as a result of the Pitt Big Idea Competition win, I was fortunate enough to talk about our product on The American Entrepreneur radio (AM 1360 in Pittsburgh) yesterday, guest hosted by Dave Wilke of Wilke and Associates.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Nothing like talking about a little beer heading into a Fourth of July weekend. On that note, enjoy, be safe and have fun!
Written on February 12th, 2010 | Short URL: http://abcjr.me/k

Learn from This Guy.
He understands people
better than you do.
Steve Blank is a damn good entrepreneur. He writes a very interesting blog and seems to be a great guy. He also points out a common entrepreneurial challenge in a recent post that I’ll paraphrase — a lot of engineers start companies, and those founders often really suck at the relationship part of building a business.
I’m a salesman at heart (you build these skills when the Cub Scouts force you to sell popcorn door-to-door when you’re 9 years old), but early on in my career, I sucked at the relationship part too. I’d try to impress people with whiz-bang knowledge, not realizing that I had to build rapport before I could get someone to be interested in my ideas. It’s actually a classic marketing mistake — If they like you, they’ll likely buy from you.
Then I hit drinking age.
I was so impressed by bartenders who could control a room and engage people they didn’t know, especially the folks who weren’t regulars. I realized they had something about them, some sort of skill that I just didn’t have. Maybe because there was alcohol involved, or maybe it was because a lot of people just wanted to have a good time and not worry about whatever crappy stuff they were dealing with in their own lives. Regardless, a good bartender could get anyone going.
So, I watched how they worked and figured a few things out. For those of us where the rapport stuff doesn’t come naturally, here’s the overused bulleted list in a blog:
You can get a drink anywhere and great bartenders know this. So, they make up the difference in service and it works. You go back to that place. You have conversations that make you feel good at the end of the night. You tip enough to be surprised by what you left the next morning. In short, you do exactly what you’d love your customers to do. You want them to like you, to refer you, to give you their money voluntarily. You want them to love your level of service and tell people about it. You want them to realize that, even if there might be other solutions out there, you’re bringing a level of game that no one else can match. Perhaps most importantly for any start-up, you want them to like you enough so that when there’s the inevitable hiccup, they’re more forgiving and understanding.
If you really want to understand how to build the relationships you need to succeed, skip the Dale Carnegie books and spend $20 at your local bar. You’ll learn more and have a lot more fun doing it.
Written on February 1st, 2010 | Short URL: http://abcjr.me/4
I’ve noticed that there are two schools of thought in Pittsburgh about the availability of risk capital and the lack of funds going into local start-ups. The first is that there are some very good deals in Pittsburgh, and there is precious little lower-level risk capital ($500k-$2M), and blame generally falls on the nearly impossible standards set by the local VCs/Angels. The second is that there is plenty of money out there and that money and finds great deals no matter what, inferring that the issue isn’t money, it’s the companies coming out of the region.
As someone who has worked on a project that got an Angel round (and some subsequent cash infusions), I can understand the difficulty in finding that money and, as a result, I’m a bit biased. Looking at the landscape, I believe that there are some very intriguing companies/technologies coming out of our colleges, universities and innovative entrepreneurs, and that should be supported. Obviously, I’m not alone — the Pennsylvania government and local foundations infuse local organizations with capital that is then extended to these companies. However, when those companies have grown out of the alpha stage and to a point where they’re ready to start beta testing in real-world environments, are they the quality deals that attract VC investment? Is Pittsburgh’s risk tolerance unusually low?
My guess is that our VC community isn’t much unlike others around the country. I’d also guess that Pittsburgh has similar state-level resources to other areas and, perhaps a little more. What I don’t think we have is an ecosystem — a critical mass of successful entrepreneurs that have cashed out for several million and immediately feel the responsibility to return the favor to other hungry entrepreneurs. The cities most often cited as models for the ecosystem — Silicon Valley, Boston, etc. — have earned that reputation honestly, but have taken decades to build that ecosystem. As one local VC said to me, “they weren’t built overnight, and we won’t be either.”
But, I think we’re getting there. There is a lot of energy in this community and, I suspect, additional resources will be devoted to not only supporting these companies, but helping to create that ecosystem that is critically important. I also believe that we need to do a little marketing to the outside world, showing off some of the companies that are making a difference. Would engaging other cities’ communities help facilitate some cash inflow by introducing their financiers to our companies? Would connecting with the diaspora help us to bring some of that money back to Pittsburgh? I think it would.
In the end, almost any money is good money, no matter where it comes from. Would I like to see more low-level risk capital? Of course. But, until we have a critical mass that can support some of these good-to-very-good deals (as opposed to great deals), we’re going to struggle to fund these companies. Should the state take a more active role? How do we get this done in a down economy? And, what are the best way to keep these companies fed in the meantime?
Written on November 17th, 2009 | Short URL: http://abcjr.me/1l
Saw a TED video by Richard St. John (
@RichardStJohn) , who discussed the 8 things that successful people do (video here). While the other aspects of his presentation might be things you’ve heard before (work, ideas, passion, focus), his perspective on persistence caught my attention, mostly because it incorporated mildly inappropriate language, a technique I enjoy using from time to time.
In his speech, he says that you have to persist through the CRAP – Criticism, Rejection, Assholes and Pressure. I hadn’t thought about it in such quite succinct terms, but that’s perfect.
Entrepreneurs have a unique expertise in persisting through the CRAP. Taken individually:
I’m going to think of my challenges this week in terms of persistence and in terms of CRAP. How many of them are just one element, or how many are all four? How do I manage those situations when I run into them? Am I as persistent as I should be? How does it change as a follower vs. a leader?
Next Page >>