Over the past couple of years I have become extremely turned off of launching a company with this approach. The first thing that has to be realized is that whatever the idea might be, many other people have the exact same idea at the exact same time. It is also a little obnoxious to think that your idea is so good that everyone else will drop whatever they are doing and go after it if they learn about what you are doing. This is nicely summarized in the TechCrunch post – Get Over Yourselves: Nobody Cares About Your Secrets.

In the end, it is much less to do with the idea and a lot more to do with the execution and adaptation of the concept. In order to be successful with this, you need to get feedback from potential customers, experts in the industry and people much smarter than yourself. When operating in stealth mode you miss out on all of these opportunities.

When I started working in this field I was worried that I wasn’t an “Idea Guy”. I don’t worry anymore as I have quickly realized that the idea is the easiest part in starting and building a disruptive company. Most who don’t have the means or ability to execute on their ideas don’t, and those who can execute normally end up adapting the original idea anyways.

That brings us to NDA’s. First a disclaimer; if you have a patentable technology where most of the value of the company will reside in this IP, then yes, you should look at putting an NDA in place. For the other 98% of technology startups, don’t bother with it.

When I meet an entrepreneur who throws an NDA down before saying hello three thoughts immediately cross my mind;

1. They haven’t started a company before.
2. They are not near as smart as they think they are.
3. They won’t trust or listen to anyone.

I agree with Matt Mireles on this one: “As they say, you want missionaries, not mercenaries.”

We have all heard about the Facebook vs. UConnect fiasco. However, unless you think you have the next Google or Facebook, you should probably skip the stealth mode and NDA and drastically increase your chances of not completely failing on your new “idea”.

In Malik’s post, he emphasizes that the main thing the Valley has going for it is optimism.  I would agree with this, if put in context.  There are not too many things that people won’t go after or think are not possible.  You really get the sense that you can accomplish anything.

I have to admit that this fueled one of the biggest changes in my life.  I never had the sense that I could really do anything before.  Sure, people always say you can, but do they really believe it?  In the Silicon Valley, you hear it all the time and then you get to watch people do it. All of sudden I am looking at someone who was no different than myself in experience, education or ability a couple of years ago accomplish a huge feat.  It makes you start to think – “Why can’t I do that?”.

Now, to put things into context.  The Silicon Valley is not fueled by optimism alone, there are many other factors which could be an entire separate post – here is a great one by Paul Graham.  Also, and most importantly, it is not naïve optimism.  There are people down there that have the talent, skill and incredibly work ethic to feed off the optimism and accomplish amazing things.

Coming back to Canada I have made a diligent effort to surround myself with people that share this kind of optimism.  This includes personal and business relationships, mentors, bloggers and lots of books.  It is a tough job to keep oneself continuously inspired and optimistic, especially when there are so many skeptics, but in the world of startups, whether on the founder or funder side, it is imperative.

The thing that surprised me is how unhappy most people were with their jobs and how many managers were unhappy with their employees.  Larger corporations are having a hard time retaining employees and creating work environments that motivate them.  Instead, they try to enforce more rules and restrictions and provide “rewards” for those who play by the rules.  This leaves out the employee who is motivated and passionate to jump on new opportunities or possible improvements they see within their organization.

I want to briefly explain why I never even entertained this kind of career and what I love about taking the risk of working in early-stage companies.

• If you are a technical person instead of education, qualifications and experience, these companies will look for a combination of passion, the love of learning, intelligence and ability to adapt to things.  Check out this great article for more on this.




• Instead of having a corporation where employees and positions are very structured and bureaucracy reigns, start ups are managed and run based on relationships and there is a real team environment.  I love nothing more than seeing this kind of trust spread throughout the company as it is essential to the success of the business.




• One word.  Ownership.  If a start up is properly run, the opportunity for ownership is immense.  I am not speaking about monetary ownership here, but rather the ability to take what you are working on and make it your own by calling the shots and producing the results you see possible.  You will not handed out mundane tasks, but rather be able to manage yourself.  I should note that this only works if there is a culture of responsibility and accountability built in to everyone.




• There is never a boring day.  Sure it is not fun during the lows, but the highs make up for it.  Where you don’t have a lot of opportunity to affect the success of a large corporation, everyone has this ability in a start up.  And with a team mentality, this makes for a lot of ups and downs, but never a feeling of “putting in your time”.




• Early stage companies, if run properly, should be rather flat in management hierarchy.  Sure you need a CEO, possibly a head of engineering or sales, but for the most part those titles are more important for external purposes.  Many have trouble working in a start up as they feel they aren’t “advancing” up the corporate ladder.  What you have to realize though is that you are developing your skill set and experiences at a much higher rate and your opportunity to take on larger roles and responsibilities never ends.

For even more reasons to join a start up, check out Canadian entrepreneur Ben Yoskovitz’s post on the same topic.

The other misnomer that I come across often is that people mistake new businesses as start ups.  They are not.  In fact, they are drastically different.  I would like to share some major differentiators between the two.

1. Dealing with extraordinary uncertainty

   When you start a business, you generally know your market, your competitors and a business model that has been replicated and proven over and over again.  They generally occur in mature industries as well.  Think about starting an automotive shop, a restaurant or a construction company.  Sure you could try to provide better service than anyone else, have an innovative market twist or use newer, innovative equipment, but the basic business model to be successful is known.

   Compare this with a start up.  It has nothing but uncertainty.  Will the technology work?  Is there a market for what we are building?  Do I have the people that can pull this off?  Will people be willing to pay more than what it costs?  It is also a fact that most start ups end up doing something different than what they set out to do.  I love Eric Reis’ definition of a start up:

   “A start up is a human institution designed to deliver a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.”

2. The people make the difference

   There are not many businesses out there that wouldn’t say the most important thing is their people.  However, how many companies out there would completely fail if one of your employees really messed up?  Probably not many, especially if you are in the service or retail industry.  But this is exactly what happens in a start up.  Every team member is of such extreme importance and has to carry a massive sense of ownership and responsibility.

3. Lack of funds

   In most new businesses you begin generating revenue as soon as you open your doors.  This is not the case in start ups.  So many up front resources go into developing your product that you may be months or even years without revenue.  That means you have to find a way to bridge that gap.  And don’t think that you can just walk down to your local bank and get a loan – no banker would touch companies like this as the risk is just too high.  You will need to stretch your personal finances, find angel investors to invest in your company, possible try to raise large rounds from institutional investors or venture capital funds.

   In starting “normal” businesses, the question is whether or not your revenues are larger than your expenses.  In start ups, the question is whether or not you will have any money next month.  Big difference.

This was my 3rd BVF and I have to admit that each experience has been different.  BVF ‘07 was my first step into the world of tech ventures in Canada.  I remember that upon returning to Alberta from California I composed a “hit list” of a bunch of people who were active and respected as either entrepreneurs or investors in the tech space who would probably be at Banff and headed out with nothing but pictures and internet bios to track them down.  It was there that I initiated what have turned out to be some extraordinary relationships and I always appreciate the opportunity to come back to Banff and spend a couple of days with many of these colleagues.

Really enjoyed meeting Seth Levine from the Foundry Group in Colorado.  Seth is also involved in Techstars, which follows a model that I know a few people in Edmonton are looking at.  It was valuable to hear Seth’s thoughts on it as well as life being a “younger” VC.

I will have some follow up posts concerning growing tech companies in Alberta as I had some excellent discussions with some of the groups and individuals who are trying to contribute to this.  I have to admit that there are some good people involved in government and the private sector and was generally encouraged with what I heard.  More on that later, first some thoughts on the pitches from the companies in the ICT stream:

• Was rather uninspired by the pitches this year.  Not sure if this is me becoming more critical as I learn this business or if it was just a weaker field.




• A lot of companies are focusing on mobile, but it was very hard to distinguish exactly what problem they were trying to solve.  The mobile space is obviously immature and it will be interesting watching it develop.




• There was not a lot of young entrepreneurs pitching this year.  In fact, half the companies had CEO’s well over 40.  Not saying this is good or bad, just saying.




• A few companies were trying to raise small rounds at low valuations after taking on huge rounds on large valuations not too long ago.  Would like to say that this is a result of the financial climate this past year, but I don’t completely buy that.




• Observed a panel on monetizing social media, local VC Shawn Abbott participated, and had some excellent discussions afterward with a group on what we have learned at Nexopia.  It is something that is still not completely solved, but I can tell you what doesn’t work.  Not a big fan of trying to improve ad revenue via analytics and user behaviour, yet so many companies are still going after it.  Why?

All in all, it was once again a great couple days and a great chance to step back and look atythe things I am involved with from a higher level.  The thing I love about being around a group of people like this for a couple of days is that it re-energizes and inspires me to go back to Nexopia and keep pushing even harder.  Entrepreneurship is contagious and you can never underestimate the power of surrounding yourself around the right people.

I have been enjoying the journey so far and have learned a ton.  I not only look forward to sharing some of this with you, but even more so, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.