Thirteen of Endeavor’s high-impact entrepreneurs in emerging and growth markets have scaled their business at an extremely fast pace, and are growing as fast or faster than the privately held US businesses on this year’s Inc. 500 list! To qualify for the Inc 500 class of 2012, just released today, a company must have a growth rate of at least 762% over the 2008-2011 time frame and a minimum starting revenue of $100k. Even more exciting, over ninety Endeavor Entrepreneurs have been growing as fast as Inc 500 companies based on historic thresholds for previous Inc 500 lists. Congratulations to Endeavor’s fastest growing Entrepreneurs for the 2008-2011 period, and stay tuned for more details on each of these fastest growing Endeavor Entrepreneurs in the coming weeks!
Join the global conversation
Endeavor Investor Network’s Latin American Venture Forum Gathers 160+ Entrepreneurs and Investors in Bogotá
Last week, Endeavor Global and Endeavor Colombia hosted the inaugural Latin American Venture Forum in partnership with Bancoldex. This event gathered over 30 of the most active regional funds in Colombia for a day of content, discussion […]
September 16th, 2014 — by adminRead more
In the news
Bogotá’s tech entrepreneurs have built over 100 companies and created thousands of jobs over the past two decades, according to a recent study by Endeavor Insight. With the support of Endeavor Colombia and the Omidyar Network, the research team […]
February 17th, 2014 — by adminRead more
Latest Video(video) Endeavor CEO Linda Rottenberg Featured On Fox Business’ After The Bell
July 15th, 2014
By David Beisel, Cofounder and Partner at NextView Ventures, a dedicated seed-stage venture capital firm making investments in internet-enabled startups.
A few weeks ago, a very good friend who works at a growing startup emailed me with the following question (in which I’ve masked just a few of the identifying details):
What does it mean when almost all of a startup’s early employees have left the company?
By almost any measure, [our company] is doing phenomenally well. We’re coming up on our 5th birthday; we have ~250 employees with offices in New York, SF, and London; we have contracts with 70 large customers, including most of the biggest in our space; our investors are [three top Silicon Valley firms]. But by the end of the month, we’ll have only 5 of our first 10 (including the two founders) employees and 10 of our first 20. We’ve been running at 20-30% attrition over the last 9 months. Our CEO is entirely dismissive that there could be any sort of attrition problem. No one has ever been promoted onto the management team, only hired in from outside.
I guess the “myth” of the startup is that companies that beat the odds and “make it” do so in such a way that those that entered on the ground floor leave, eventually, have accumulated a great deal more responsibility. In your experience, is this myth true? As an investor, how would you evaluate a company that has such high turnover but still manages to dominate its space?
My email response to his question was (with the bolding added to this blog post):
You’re asking quite a bit in this email, both explicitly but implicitly underneath. To the direct inquiry about attrition of early folks in startups generally, I think that’s very natural. People who are suited to building a ship aren’t always the best (or have the interest in) sailing the ship, and vice versa. The skillsets required for being effective in an organization with two dozen people or less are very different from those from being effective in one with a couple hundred. The roles transition from being broad ones with high impact to specialized ones with focused results. Additionally, the financial risk-reward profile of the company changes with this progress. So it doesn’t surprise me that the early employees who joined with you are leaving; the situation has changed. That being said, it sounds like there has been a spate of departures recently, which sounds like a different set of issues which may be affecting the company.
But I also think you’re asking a career question about tenure at a startup company, to which my answer (an opinion) is very binary: I am of the opinion the best route is go early and stay until a successful exit -or- stay until you vest your initial grant and not a day longer. Given the dynamics I mentioned, tenure at a startup should match an individual’s interests/skills, but also synch with financial/career milestones. As an early employee with the company taking off, staying through to an exit will be rewarding both financially and also from a leveraging career trajectory. But after you’ve initially vested (after three or four years?), there aren’t as many marginal benefits in either category (additional option grants are less significant and responsibility accumulation is incremental) until the company hits that very important exit scenario.
eMBA field report: leveraging private sector efficiency to improve education for disadvantaged groups in Mexico
Approaching the midpoint of my internship, I am struck by how quickly and comfortably I have settled in at both Enova and in Mexico City. This is largely due to the collegial, relaxed and inclusive culture at Enova that has made working here both fun and fulfilling. That the company’s entrepreneurs have succeeded in creating such a pleasant work environment without detracting from the urgency of their mission is that much more impressive. As Enova undergoes an aggressive expansion over the next few years, it will certainly be faced with a myriad of challenges and undergo significant changes. However, judging from my short time at the company, it is clear to me the talent and temperament to make this transition as smooth as possible are in place.
Enova, in partnership with the government of the State of Mexico, runs 70 educational centers targeting disadvantaged communities across the state. These centers provide a surprisingly comprehensive range of educational services, ranging from supplemental after-school classes for public school students to adult education for women. The company plans to expand seven fold within the next four years to 500 centers across the entire country. My role has revolved around the strategic planning for this expansion. Though I’ve mainly focused on helping to develop the financial model for the expansion, I’ve also gotten exposure to planning for an effective expansion of the company’s operational functions. The scope of my work has allowed me to experience firsthand the dynamism of Enova’s leadership team. The company is run by three entrepreneurs, Mois Cherem, Raul Maldonado and Jorge Camil Starr. Because their talents complement each other extremely well, each has been able to focus on running a different aspect of Enova, which has allowed the company to grown rapidly over the past three years without major hiccups.
I’ve spent my first few weeks in Mexico getting to know Mexico City better and have been impressed by its vibrant and diverse culture. Living in Colona Roma, where Enova has its offices, has certainly helped as the neighborhood is both charming and bohemian, and boasts a great selection of restaurants, bars, plazas and art galleries, among other things. Despite having initially been a little concerned by the security situation in Mexico, I have not encountered any problems and have felt safe throughout my stay here. I hope to travel more in the second half of my stay and experience what other regions of the country have to offer.
All in all, I am extremely happy with how the eMBA program has shaped up for me. The work that Enova is doing is groundbreaking in many ways and represents an early instance in the emerging world in which the private sector has partnered with government to profitably and efficiently deliver higher quality education to disadvantaged groups. As someone from Southern Africa, I can see the Enova model translating effectively there. From a personal development point of view, the chance to work with Enova’s entrepreneurs has helped me better understand and frame what it takes to build and run a world class enterprise in an emerging market environment.
Endeavor Entrepreneurs Martin Schrimpff and José Fernando Veléz were recently honored by Veracode when their company PagosOnline won one of three Secure Development Awards. The following is a report on the story, while the official press release may be found here and more information about the award may be found here.
Last month, Veracode, a leading American company in cloud-based application security testing, recognized PagosOnline as one of the most secure software developers of 2012. PagosOnline, led by Endeavor Colombia Entrepreneurs Martin Schrimpff and José Fernando Veléz, is the leading payment service provider in Latin America, which specializes in integrating local forms of payments into their online payment platform.
This is the inaugural year of Veracode’s Secure Development Award, which recognizes Veracode’s small and mid-sized customers who have developed the most secure software applications. The rigorous selection process began with 18,000 applications, which were evaluated based on their flaw density, or the number of flaws present per megabyte of code. PagosOnline, along with On-Line Strategies from Dallas, Texas and SecureKey Technologies from Toronto, Canada stood out among other candidates as the most secure applications scanned by Veracode.
When Mexican media personality Martha Debayle gave birth to her first child 16 years ago, like many new moms, she felt “clueless about what it meant to be a mother.” To make things worse, when she looked for information in the media about parenthood, all she found were clichés and patronizing language. Other parents might have given up and muddled through on their own; Debayle turned her frustration into a multimedia empire. BBMundo (“Baby World”), which she founded as a web startup in 2000, is now the destination of choice for 680,000 Mexican mothers and mothers-to-be eager to learn about reproductive and prenatal health and child-rearing.
Debayle, now 44, had worked in Mexican radio and television since the age of 18. She was especially irritated by media stereotypes that assumed mothers only wanted to talk about diapers and strollers. “I thought there must be other women like me,” she recalls. In 1997, Debayle persuaded executives at Televisa, Mexico’s biggest media group, to air “bbtips,” a 20-minute morning television segment. Her hunch paid off: ratings of the program soared, and in three years viewership grew to 1 million.
Debayle soon set her sights on the growing Internet phenomenon. She used her credit card to buy a web domain, and in September 2000 launched www.bbmundo.com with the slogan “Inspired by love, guided by knowledge.” Despite limited financing and limited traffic at first, Debayle turned down purchase offers from Televisa, Grupo Bursátil and Kimberly Clark-Mexico. “I knew that if I sold, I would lose control of the philosophy that I wanted the company to abide by,” she explains.
Debayle’s quest for independence led her to formulate a unique business model. Instead of selling ads, Debayle offered companies like Nestlé and Gerber space on bbmundo.com through “micro-sites”—essentially, individual pages on the site where they could post information about pregnancy and parenting.
To ensure editorial independence, BBMundo would check all content before it was posted, and would reserve the right not to publish material it judged unreliable, and to post competing views.
Advertisers bought into it. Today, BBMundo has over 60 clients, including pharmaceutical giants like Sanofi, kid-friendly brands like Disney, and consumer and food product companies like Froot Loops.
The brand has expanded to multiple media platforms: what originated as a TV segment and morphed into a website is now a print publication, radio talk show and iPad application. Revista BBMundo, a lavishly illustrated monthly magazine, has a monthly circulation of 40,000. “Martha Debayle en W,” a daily three-hour radio program, has 600,000 listeners. There’s also “bbcard,” through which users receive discounts on everything from diapers to doctor’s appointments.
And the BBMundo database itself—with precise information on users’ sex, age and number of children—is an asset; outside companies are increasingly contracting BBMundo to conduct market research and develop communication strategies.
Today, 94 percent of BBMundo.com’s users are women between the ages of 18 and 44. The vast majority (85 percent) live in Mexico (most in Mexico City), though the website also reaches users in the U.S., Spain and the rest of Latin America. Registration is free, and readers can access tools such as a fertility calendar and a height-and-weight calculator for babies at different stages of development, as well as in-depth articles with pregnancy and parenting tips, from the right way to breastfeed to navigating a son’s adolescence. Users can also participate in online forums with health professionals and with one another.
That’s a long way from diapers and strollers.
By David Beisel, Cofounder and Partner at NextView Ventures, a dedicated seed-stage venture capital firm making investments in internet-enabled startups.
It always feels anachronistic these days to exchange business cards when you usually have someone’s contact information anyway in an electronic format before (via email introduction) or just after (via LinkedIn connection) you meet. Many people, though, take the opportunity with a physical card to make an impression with a unique spin on their card (size, vertical orientation, etc.). But the one thing I find which also makes a subtle impression on me when I meet a founder of a startup is the convention of the company’s email address. I started mentally noting a few sort-of-funny-because-they’re-true cases, so I thought I’d brainstorm a quick list of what founders’ email addresses say about their startups:
firstname.lastname@example.org <– The first-name convention projects that the company values the individual in a truly personal manner. Or, it wants to ascribe internal prestige to the early employees (i.e. “I was the first John”) that will not whither as the company grows.
email@example.com <– This convention conveys the importance of scalability in the organization, even from the founding stage… most likely stemming from a technical founder.
firstname.lastname@example.org <– Precision trumps brevity in this startup.
email@example.com <– The founder’s last name is too long or hard to spell, and so nobody else at the company will list theirs either.
firstname.lastname@example.org <– It’s a casual, yet hip atmosphere… the office eschews chairs for beanbags, shared tables for offices & cubes, and there’s not a Windows PC to be found.
email@example.com <– The founding team is all from Microsoft and can’t shake it if they tried.
firstname.lastname@example.org <– The founding team is alumni from one of the Techstars programs.
email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org <– The founder over-communicates in a somewhat conventional manner that he wants to defy all conventions.
email@example.com <– The team is running in stealth-mode to look inconspicuous, but really wants people to ask.
firstname.lastname@example.org <– The founders can’t even figure out how to buy their own domain name.
email@example.com <– The founders are so convinced that they’re taking over the world that they want to leave the option of issuing @startup.com email addresses to their consumer users.
firstname.lastname@example.org <– The founder is a Lean Startup disciple who wanted to put out a Minimum Viable email address.
Reprinted from Emerging Markets Blog. Original article here.
By David Gates, a senior strategy consultant with 10 years of experience in defining strategy for leading companies in the telecom, media, payments, and insurance industries.
Book Review: Emerging Markets Century, by Antoine van Agtmael (2007).
The world’s largest corporations are no longer just American, western European, or Japanese. A new breed of multinationals from developing countries is rapidly achieving global presence and prestige. They are also attracting more media attention. For example, this week’s Economist looks at emerging-market corporations in one of itsleaders.
One of the best recent analyses of emerging market corporations is a book written by investment manager (and originator of the term “emerging markets”) Antoine van Agtmael. In Emerging Markets Century, van Agtmael seeks to explain the why and thehow behind the success of the world’s top emerging market corporations.
The author describes three distinct waves of commercial development in emerging markets since the end of World War II. First, Western corporations made foreign direct investments in plants in developing economies. After a while, local entrepreneurs began to set up their own plants, typically to provide outsourced production to the Western multinationals. Over time, these local businesses acquired more skills and capabilities, gradually moving up the value chain and into ever more competitive markets. Eventually, the best of these firms achieved recognition as top global corporations.
Agtmael profiles 25 emerging market companies in different industries, including:
• Fourteen high-tech or capital-intensive companies: Samsung (Korea), Hyundai Motor (Korea), Hyundai Heavy (Korea), POSCO (Korea), TSMC (Taiwan) Hon Hai (Taiwan), HTC (Taiwan), Lenovo (China), Infosys (India), Ranbaxy (India), Embraer (Brazil), Tenaris (Argentina), Sasol (South Africa), MISC (Malaysia)
• Five basic commodity producers: CEMEX (Mexico), CVRD (Brazil), Aracruz (Brazil), Petrobras (Brazil), Reliance (India)
• Six consumer companies: Yue Yen (Taiwan), Haier (China), Modelo (Mexico), Concha y Toro (Chile), Televisa (Mexico), Telmex/America Movil (Mexico)
The 25 profiles are interesting and informative. Collectively, they yield several valuable insights on the factors behind the success of emerging market corporations:
• Among the most important success factors were an early commitment to export markets and a relentless focus on superior execution and quality. These two go together: focusing on exports requires producing internationally competitive products, which in turn requires the highest quality. Hyundai Motor’s rise has tracked its determination to succeed in the US market. Hyundai seriously blundered when it first entered the market because its cars were perceived as low-quality. The company rebounded by targeting Toyota as the quality benchmark to beat (while also appealing to consumers by offering the best warranties in the US market).
• Some companies have become world-class by moving up the value chain. Taiwanese electronics manufacturer Hon Hai began life as a low-value added components manufacturer, but is now a “one-stop-shop” to US clients such as Dell and Apple.
• Other suppliers became world-class by innovating on supply chains. Mexico’s CEMEX and Argentina’s Tenaris used information technology to offer highly customized order fulfillment and rapid delivery to their customers. Brazilian regional jet manufacturer Embraer turned traditional outsourcing models upside-down by recruiting US, European, and Japanese “partners” to build its planes.
• Many emerging market players defied prevailing industry perceptions and created new business models. Steel manufacturers were supposed to be located near resource mines, but South Korea’s POSCO set up shop far away from any mines, believing that increased transportation costs would be more than offset by other efficiencies.
• The world’s leading emerging market companies increasingly recognize the value of branding. Samsung is already a premier global brand. Other companies, such as Lenovo and Haier focused on acquiring trusted Western brands (IBM and Maytag).
These are just some of the most compelling of many insights described in the book. The 25 case studies make Emerging Markets Century a treasure trove of information and a valuable read for international business executives, academics, and investors.
I have a few minor gripes with the book. Eight of the case studies are from South Korea and Taiwan, which are among the most industrialized and well-educated of the emerging markets. It is questionable how well their experiences apply to other countries.
Meanwhile, there are no Eastern European or Turkish case studies. Nor are there any banks or retailers. This is not for a lack of compelling sources. Brazilian bank Itau, Turkey’s Koc Group, Chilean department store Falabella, Russian foods company Wimm-Bill-Dann, and South African mobile phone group MTN are top-notch companies.
I would also like to have read more on the theme of frugal innovation (which was wonderfully profiled in the Economist in a survey of articles last year). The idea behind frugal innovation is that emerging markets companies will find ways to offer compelling products at the low price points their markets require. The best example is the Tata Nano, a $2,000 automobile that surely would have never been developed in the West.
These are small issues. This is a great book that is well worth your time. I believe many of the themes it identifies will influence the 21st century global corporate landscape.
By Mark MacLeod, a Partner at Real Ventures (Canada’s largest seed VC fund) and an advisor to some of Canada’s leading startups.
You don’t have to look too far to find entrepreneurs that have had a tough time raising VC$. Despite the endless stream of funding announcements these days, most companies that want to raise VC, don’t. This is due to a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest, is that venture capital is a very specific thing. It’s not what all technology businesses should think of when they need capital.
It only really works for businesses with:
– High potential for escape velocity
– A large potential market
– A team capable of building a large company
Sounds easy, but most opportunities don’t hit those criteria. This is why most VCs fund around 1% of the deals that they see. So, that means most people are not getting funded.
To help you judge whether VC is right for you, here are my completely subjective top 10 reasons why a business would not be VC fundable:
Services, not product: While some great startups were services companies before becoming product companies, you cannot (usually) raise $ for a services business. Why? Hard to scale without adding lots of bodies. VCs look for highly scalable products.
You are a sole founder: VCs much prefer investing in co-founders vs. solo founders. If you don’t have a co-founder it will be tougher to raise $. And more importantly, it will be tougher to build your company.
You don’t know any VCs: VCs get so many deals shown to them that they rely on a variety of filters to screen them out. One of the biggest is the source of the deal. If you are submitting your business plan to email@example.com, you’re wasting your time. You need to either know the VCs your’re pitching or have a very trusted referral into them.
You have no traction: This is a biggy. So many people come in and pitch VCs when they are just starting out. And while there are many funds that do seed, including ours, even seed VCs have a strong preference for investing in startups with some market validation and users already. Nothing gets VCs to move faster than traction.
You have outsourced development: This is a complete killer for me. As soon as I hear this, I try and end the meeting. Why would you outsource product development as a technology company? Would you invest in a law firm run by non-lawyers? Me neither. All tech companies need to have lots of geeks.
You serve a niche market: While I always encourage startups to focus on a specific niche to start, the product you are building must ultimately serve a broad market in order to be of interest to VCs. The more specific niche you address (even if’s a big one), the more you need to raise capital from people and funds that understand that niche.
You don’t know the market: If VCs know more about your target market than you do, you’re in trouble.
You are disorganized: Speed is so important to tech startups. If you are slow to respond to due diligence requests that makes investors nervous. If you can’t be completely on top of things when your company is small, how will you be better as your company grows?
You move slowly: This relates to the previous point a bit. While some VC deals come together very quickly (those deals usually have massive traction), most evolve over a few months. If your business is not making huge progress over those months, then you likely will not get funded.
You lack that founder magic: This is by far the #1 killer. While it’s true that some of the biggest startup success (especially in direct to consumer companies) were run by 1st time founders, I’m pretty sure those founders had something special that made investors excited (or had traction). Mark Zuckerberg was a crazy developer (and had traction). Steve Jobs had an uncanny ability to place people inside his ‘reality distortion field’.
Whatever your magic skill is, it has to translate into a superior ability to build product, team or customer base. And if investors can’t see that, they will pass – always!
In talking about “your partners”, I will focus on your investors, because that is what I am. A VC. Most of this advice can be used to a degree with other partners, advisors, independent board members, consultants, etc.
There are a lot of investors who can write checks. But there are not a lot of investors who can help you build and manage a team. If you have a choice in your investors, which not everyone will have, you should select investors who can do the latter.
The best investors, the ones who have been at it for a while and have great reputations, will have a large network of people they have worked with over the years. Their network will also include people who they want to work with and who want to work with them. They can and do play matchmaker between their network and their portfolio companies. I suspect the partners at USV spend at least 25% of our time on things that would be considered “recruiter” functions. And we should probably spend more of our time on this. I don’t know of a better way to positively impact the performance of our investments.
But not every portfolio company gets equal benefit out of our recruiting function. Like all things in life, the squeeky wheel gets the oil. We love all of our investments equally but some demand our time and attention and others do not. The ones who demand get. The others get too, but not as much. So rule #1 is demand that your investors help you grow and develop your team. Ask for results, expect results, get results.
Rule #2 is to be very specific about what you want and request help in frequent small asks. One of our portfolio companies that I am actively involved with sends me an email each week with up to three specific asks. No more than three. I can do three each week. What I can’t do is a vague open ended request once in a while with a very large ask.
Rule #3 is to communicate actively with your investors. Make sure they know what you want and what you don’t want. I know a lot of investors who spam their portfolio companies with resumes. That is not helpful. Make sure your investors know the jobs you are actively recruiting for. And let them know about the roles you are “opportunistically” recruiting for. And most importantly, make sure they know what you are not looking for and why. When you get resume spam, instead of ignoring it and deleting it, reply back with a courteous but clear message about why that was not helpful.
Rule #4 is to selectively engage your investors in the recruiting process. Use them when they can help. Use them to close an important candidate. Use them to get a second or third opinion on a particularly important hire. Don’t give your investors control over your hiring decisions but engage them as trusted advisors. As the Gotham Gal likes to say “you get what you give.” Give someone a role and a feeling of being involved and you will get help.
Rule #5 is to expose your investors to your team. Give them a sense of the culture of the company and the composition of the team. Give your best and brightest “air time” with your investors. Your employees will like it and so will your investors. I really enjoy being invited to speak to an all hands meeting, or to have lunch with the team, or to go play paintball with a couple portfolio companies. It allows me to help with retention, it allows me to think more clearly about who might fit with the team, it allows me to help the company in more ways, and most of all, it makes me feel good about the work that I am doing.
There is a limit to all of this. You should not let your investors become too engaged in the company. You and your team must run the company and there needs to be a very clear line between what is advice, assistance, and help and what is a shadow management function. If your investor is running your management team meeting, you know you’ve crossed the line. That is a bad place to be.
But many entrepreneurs overcompensate for this by stiff arming their investors and that is a mistake too. You can’t do everything yourself. Your investors can help. They operate at 30,000 feet and as a result they see a lot more of the markets that matter to you than you do. That includes the market for talent. So leverage them in the war for talent. Use them wisely. And you will see that it will pay dividends.
By Mark Suster
VC’s keep different titles but the most common that I’ve come across that are investment professionals are (in ascending order of seniority): analyst, associate, principal and partner.
These are the permanent members of a VC. Then there is the EIR (entrepreneur in residence) who is usually at a VC for a temporary period of time and other individuals such as venture partners or operating partners.
The process for raising money from a VC is a sales process and as such much of what is taught in enterprise sales can be applied. While this post is written about raising venture capital (which I always remind entrepreneurs IS a sales process) the lessons can be applied to any sale or biz dev deal.
This lesson on NINAs applies to VC pitches as well as any sale.
- February 4th, 2014
- November 13th, 2013
- January 24th, 2013
- January 16th, 2013
- View All
In the news
- August 1st, 2014
- July 29th, 2014
- July 24th, 2014
- July 21st, 2014
- View All
- (video) Endeavor CEO Linda Rottenberg Featured On Fox Business’ After The Bell
- (video) Endeavor CEO Linda Rottenberg Discusses Her Entrepreneurial Journey in Business Insider
- (video) Endeavor Greece Reports on Youth Job Creation, Focuses on the Need for High-Impact Entrepreneurship
- (video) Linda Rottenberg Discusses Lessons in Entrepreneurship for Stanford’s eCorner Series
- View All