A new approach to financing a startup. Questions to the collective intelligence habrasoobschestva
Not so long ago, I started a serious Internet project with partners. To date, he has been tested on a regional scale and the question arose of entering the whole of Russia (possibly the CIS). In this article, I will not specifically refer to the project itself (of course I will talk about it later), the details are not important yet, my task is to get fundamental answers from the Habro-community to the questions raised in order to understand which direction to go.
1. An excellent (in my deepest fanatical conviction) idea and development plan.
2. A working prototype launched in the microregion, covering a small part of the functionality.
3. Modest revenue from the sale of project services.
1. Fully implement all conceived functionality.
2. Go to the vast expanses of the Internet.
3. Ensure stable and safe operation under heavy loads.
4. Get a high profitability of the project.
5. Never stop there.
')
To implement the project while maintaining competitive advantages, resources are needed. By the way, money is not the most important thing and more on this in our further discussions.
1. Self-financing.
It’s obviously not enough money, and at the same time, earning and promoting a project is not very effective, you need to invest all your mental abilities, and not according to the residual principle.
2. State support of innovative projects.
A couple of times I tried to participate in state competitions to support innovations, but, firstly, the majority of old frauds who do not understand the Internet are on the jury, and secondly, they are overgrown with connections and draw out their projects. There was even a case when the project submitter himself was in the competition commission, in general, guys were not embarrassed, but it’s not about that, so don’t get distracted.
3. Venture funds and business angels.
There were, I admit, a few attempts to contact such people / organizations. In some cases, I did not reach out to those whom I identified as potentially useful for the project, somewhere I received the answer that at this stage of development the project is not yet interesting. I will draw attention to such a nuance - applications are sometimes received by performers who have a lack of qualification and desire to delve into the application. On the one hand, it is a pity to have time for such work, but on the other hand, this is the only way to gain experience and, most importantly, you better structure the idea and think through a development strategy.
For the first (experimental) stage, I attracted a few third-party investments, but for the full development of the project, in order to earn millions of dollars, more substantial funds are required. I search for them now.
Business communications service, through which company representatives can tell everything about their organizations and products, and users can evaluate and recommend to others. And the fundamental point - all the basic features are free and even small business representatives, if desired, can attract the required number of customers.
He retold the idea in part and very blurry, but it is impossible to say more so as not to get away from the essence of the discussion.
In the process of thinking about the project, I had an idea - why everyone is looking for one investor, why not attract millions of people as co-founders ? After all, this is the Internet, here you can automate the application process and reduce costs. Those. The project has millions of investors, each of which, in addition to money, can give its recommendations to the developers and influence the popularity of the project. In fact, there will be a blurring of the commercial model in the direction of a self-regulating organization that carries an important social function.
Cons ideas:
1. It is necessary to allocate funds for a small website where you can buy a stake in the project and work as a shareholder on the development of the project, vote for certain decisions.
2. It will require resources to promote the idea itself (advertising)
3. Add a small offline costs for the legal registration of multiple transactions.
Pros:
1. Savings on promotion. The project receives not just money, it receives a lot of supporters of the idea - a powerful core capable of providing the project with such vitality and popularity that you cannot buy with any money.
2. One head is good, but two is better. The owners are the users, so decisions will be made based on real needs. The project will be developed in exactly the right direction without excessive marketing research.
3. The best workforce. The community will nominate the best experts to work on the project. People will be able to work on a project that belongs to them, respectively, the return will be completely different.
So, question number 1. Is the idea of attracting millions of investors who will be interested in the development of the project real or is it a utopia?
Question number 2. What marketing tools to use to attract micro-investors?
The idea of attracting millions of people to the project continues logically in attracting them to work on the project to the best of their own abilities. In ordinary joint-stock companies, in order to vote on any issue, it is necessary to have a certain block of shares. In our case, everything is different, even one vote, constituting a thousandth of a percent, should be taken into account when voting, more than once a year, but as the most important issues arise. In addition, working groups can be formed to work on small tasks. Question number 3. Will people appreciate the new features? How to convey the reality of personal participation for co-owners and explain the importance of each investor and his voice for the development of the project?
It is clear that first there must be a firm hand in order to give the project all that it is necessary to prescribe the procedures and regulations and bring it to the mass market. If you look at this project more broadly, then its value is much higher than a commercial social service. Therefore, question number 4. Should there be any restrictions on the size of the share of one person in the long term?
I have been looking through all the posts of Habra almost every day for a long time and I see that there are many reasonable people here who can help with advice and take part in good undertakings, so I’m waiting for real statements, as it is, without diplomacy.
UPD (March 2017): Already forgot about this article. What it all ended with: We did the project, we even sold it, though with an effort. Due to the lack of imputed investments, development was slow and there was no chance to conquer the market outside our region, so in the end, the project was closed, well without serious losses. But the experience is wonderful. Everything was not in vain.
So, today we have:
1. An excellent (in my deepest fanatical conviction) idea and development plan.
2. A working prototype launched in the microregion, covering a small part of the functionality.
3. Modest revenue from the sale of project services.
What we want:
1. Fully implement all conceived functionality.
2. Go to the vast expanses of the Internet.
3. Ensure stable and safe operation under heavy loads.
4. Get a high profitability of the project.
5. Never stop there.
')
What is necessary
To implement the project while maintaining competitive advantages, resources are needed. By the way, money is not the most important thing and more on this in our further discussions.
Where to get the resources?
1. Self-financing.
It’s obviously not enough money, and at the same time, earning and promoting a project is not very effective, you need to invest all your mental abilities, and not according to the residual principle.
2. State support of innovative projects.
A couple of times I tried to participate in state competitions to support innovations, but, firstly, the majority of old frauds who do not understand the Internet are on the jury, and secondly, they are overgrown with connections and draw out their projects. There was even a case when the project submitter himself was in the competition commission, in general, guys were not embarrassed, but it’s not about that, so don’t get distracted.
3. Venture funds and business angels.
There were, I admit, a few attempts to contact such people / organizations. In some cases, I did not reach out to those whom I identified as potentially useful for the project, somewhere I received the answer that at this stage of development the project is not yet interesting. I will draw attention to such a nuance - applications are sometimes received by performers who have a lack of qualification and desire to delve into the application. On the one hand, it is a pity to have time for such work, but on the other hand, this is the only way to gain experience and, most importantly, you better structure the idea and think through a development strategy.
For the first (experimental) stage, I attracted a few third-party investments, but for the full development of the project, in order to earn millions of dollars, more substantial funds are required. I search for them now.
Super short about the project
Business communications service, through which company representatives can tell everything about their organizations and products, and users can evaluate and recommend to others. And the fundamental point - all the basic features are free and even small business representatives, if desired, can attract the required number of customers.
He retold the idea in part and very blurry, but it is impossible to say more so as not to get away from the essence of the discussion.
An alternative way to attract investment for the development of the project
In the process of thinking about the project, I had an idea - why everyone is looking for one investor, why not attract millions of people as co-founders ? After all, this is the Internet, here you can automate the application process and reduce costs. Those. The project has millions of investors, each of which, in addition to money, can give its recommendations to the developers and influence the popularity of the project. In fact, there will be a blurring of the commercial model in the direction of a self-regulating organization that carries an important social function.
Cons ideas:
1. It is necessary to allocate funds for a small website where you can buy a stake in the project and work as a shareholder on the development of the project, vote for certain decisions.
2. It will require resources to promote the idea itself (advertising)
3. Add a small offline costs for the legal registration of multiple transactions.
Pros:
1. Savings on promotion. The project receives not just money, it receives a lot of supporters of the idea - a powerful core capable of providing the project with such vitality and popularity that you cannot buy with any money.
2. One head is good, but two is better. The owners are the users, so decisions will be made based on real needs. The project will be developed in exactly the right direction without excessive marketing research.
3. The best workforce. The community will nominate the best experts to work on the project. People will be able to work on a project that belongs to them, respectively, the return will be completely different.
So, question number 1. Is the idea of attracting millions of investors who will be interested in the development of the project real or is it a utopia?
Question number 2. What marketing tools to use to attract micro-investors?
Rationalism ethics and reality
The idea of attracting millions of people to the project continues logically in attracting them to work on the project to the best of their own abilities. In ordinary joint-stock companies, in order to vote on any issue, it is necessary to have a certain block of shares. In our case, everything is different, even one vote, constituting a thousandth of a percent, should be taken into account when voting, more than once a year, but as the most important issues arise. In addition, working groups can be formed to work on small tasks. Question number 3. Will people appreciate the new features? How to convey the reality of personal participation for co-owners and explain the importance of each investor and his voice for the development of the project?
It is clear that first there must be a firm hand in order to give the project all that it is necessary to prescribe the procedures and regulations and bring it to the mass market. If you look at this project more broadly, then its value is much higher than a commercial social service. Therefore, question number 4. Should there be any restrictions on the size of the share of one person in the long term?
I have been looking through all the posts of Habra almost every day for a long time and I see that there are many reasonable people here who can help with advice and take part in good undertakings, so I’m waiting for real statements, as it is, without diplomacy.
UPD (March 2017): Already forgot about this article. What it all ended with: We did the project, we even sold it, though with an effort. Due to the lack of imputed investments, development was slow and there was no chance to conquer the market outside our region, so in the end, the project was closed, well without serious losses. But the experience is wonderful. Everything was not in vain.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/97403/
All Articles