• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Seed study presentation London NESTA
 

Seed study presentation London NESTA

on

  • 2,243 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,243
Views on SlideShare
1,945
Embed Views
298

Actions

Likes
7
Downloads
0
Comments
0

6 Embeds 298

http://dgil.uz 109
http://www.linkedin.com 86
http://dgiluz.wordpress.com 84
https://www.linkedin.com 11
url_unknown 6
http://it.linkedin.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

Seed study presentation London NESTA Seed study presentation London NESTA Presentation Transcript

  • Accellerators and incubators @ Nesta Startup Factories Gianluca Dettori, founder dpixel http://about.me/dgiluz twitter.com/dgiluz dgiluz.wordpress.com
  • Venture Lab Project Goal Goal: Provide the first systematic ranking of seed accelerators/ incubators for use by entrepreneurs when picking a program in which to participate Team/Sponsors: •  Aziz Gilani (DFJ Mercury) •  Frank Gruber and Jen Consalvo (Tech Cocktail) •  Gianluca Dettori and Marco Ciccolini (dPixel) •  Kelly Quann (Kellogg School of Management, NorthWestern University)
  • What is a Seed Accelerator? Key Criteria For Profit Closed Terms Less Than 1 Year Paid in Equity Notable Seed Accelerator Graduates • Airbnb (Y Combinator 2007) • DailyBurn (TechStars 2008) • Dropbox (Y Combinator 2007) • Foodzie (TechStars 2008) • Heroku (Y Combinator 2008) • Ignighter (TechStars 2008) • Next Big Sound (iVentures10 2008 / TechStars 2009) • Posterous (Y Combinator 2008) • Reddit (Y Combinator 2005) • RunMyErrand (fbFund REV 2009)
  • Project Approach •  Internet-based and primary research to identify comprehensive program list and quantitative data points including: Quantitative •  Duration, Stipend for three co-founders, Equity, Companies per Research session, Total Alums, Qualified Financing Events, Exits •  Interviewed VCs to obtain perspectives on programs, particularly to assess quality of mentorship, participating startups, and demo Qualitative days Research •  Also talked to program participants to gain additional insights •  Developed methodology to apply quantitative and qualitative findings to ranking Synthesis & •  Finalized a ranked list of programs to be used to drive written Analysis publications and presentations
  • Research Sources US Quantitative Qualitative Seed Accelerator Program Websites Rob Schultz Illinois Ventures Crunchbase Scott Lenet DFJ Frontier VentureSource Stewart Alsop Alsop-Louie Partners Business Publications Jeff Bussgang Flybridge Capital (BusinessWeek, Forbes, etc.) Partners Brad Feld Foundry Group, Industry Blogs TechStars Tech Crunch Danny Schultz DFJ Gotham Industry Researchers Blair Garrou DFJ Mercury (Jed Christiansen, Robert Shedd) TechStars David Cohen Seed Accelerator Program Contacts Indinero Jessica Mah Kulveer Taggar Auctomatic
  • Research Sources Europe Quantitative Qualitative Seed Accelerator Program Websites Lea Bajc Northzone Ventures Crunchbase Will Prendergast Eden Ventures VentureSource Carl Fritjofsson Creandum Ventures Business Publications Evan Nisselson Entrepreneur, mentor (BusinessWeek, Forbes, etc.) Manager, Mentor Paolo Borella Industry Blogs AALTO Kellee Glass Mentor Seedcamp Tech Crunch Martin Kelly IBM Industry Researchers (Jed Christiansen, Robert Shedd) Barry Mulligan Entrepreneur, Mercury360 Seed Accelerator Program Contacts Sofinnova Alessio Beverina Stefano Bernardi TheStartup.eu
  • Methodology Qualitative Analysis Evaluation Factor Weight Mentorship Quality 12.5% Participant Quality 12.5% Demo Day Quality 25% VC Awareness 50% Overall Ranking Evaluation Factor Weight Stipend Value 5% Equity Stake Taken By Program 10% Size of Alumni Network 10% Qualified Financing Events ($350,000 within 1 year of program completion) 25% Exits 25% Qualitative Evaluation 25%
  • U.S. Results Rank Program 1 TechStars Boulder 2 Y Combinator 3 Excelerate Labs 4 LaunchBox Digital 5 TechStars Boston 6 KickLabs 7 TechStars Seattle 8 Tech Wildcatters 9 DreamIt Ventures 10 The Brandery 11 Capital Factory 12 NYC Seedstart 13 Betaspring 14 BoomStartup 15 AlphaLab
  • EU Results Rank Program 1 SeedCamp (UK/Europe) 2 Startupbootcamp / Tetuan Valley (Spain) 3 Startupbootcamp (Denmark)* 4 Springboard (Cambridge, UK) 5 Openfund (Greece) 6 NDCR LaunchPad (Ireland) 7 Propeller Venture (Ireland) 8 Startupbootcamp (Ireland)**Currently Not Active
  • Main Takeaways US •  In VC, you must be active in social media to stay relevant to your network •  Accelerator programs are valued by VCs more for the connection to the venture community than for deal flow – Recognized for their educational value to entrepreneurs •  Y Combinator and TechStars are the “gold standard” of accelerator programs, but have different models – TechStars and its followers utilize a mentorship-driven, open and replicable model – Y Combinator has a “guru” model, with a closed/exclusive approach •  Growing awareness and publicity for the TechStars Network likely to make YC become more open
  • Main Takeaways EU •  Europe is much more complex and diversified with different models. Europe is much less connected than the US ecosystem, fragmented in ‘islands’ that seem to have developed their own recipes and variations. •  A more detailed study would be necessary to really get the picture of what’s happening •  SeedCamp is the European “gold standard” of accelerator programs with a Ycombinator model, while StartupBootcamp is following the Techstars model •  50% of seed accelerators/ incubators started in 2010, we’ll need a couple of years to really figure out what works and what does not work in Europe
  • Next Steps •  Aziz Gilani & Gianluca Dettori to present findings to Kauffman Fellow Program (July 14th 2011) •  Used as background research for accelerator case studies •  Extend European map to 40 entities, build a US/Europe merged chart. New criteria (Europe), adjustments to the current ranking algorithm to account for our peculiarities and differences vs the US. New extended map criteria For Profit/No Profit entities Closed Terms Less Than 1 Year Stipend value /Charge fees /Investor mode
  • Where is this going?40+ entities active in Europe right now 2007 2008 2009 2010