Go Slow on venture Capital – Tech Start-ups


Each time I interact with those involved in the Tech Start-up space I always struggle to assimilate some of the reasons they advance for not making much progress beyond romanticising about their projects. One of those reasons is the much touted one of Venture Capitalists. Many have been led to believe by their mentors, App Competition Judges and Key Note speakers that our Innovation ecosystem is being greatly hindered by the lack of Venture Capitalists (VCs) ready to invest in the various mushrooming ideas on the local tech scene.

In this article I want to share with you the tech start-up founder or co-founder why you need to seriously reconsider this school of thought. I am not entirely trashing the need for VCs, my hope is that by the time you complete reading you’ll be in a better position to make a decision in this regard.

What idea do you have and at what stage of implementation is it?

It’s common to find people with unimplemented ideas already hunting for VCs even before test running their thoughts. Others have taken time to test run their ideas and have a practical feel of what to expect. If you are in the former category, the likelihood of getting a funder is much lower than the latter category. The possibility of shortchanging yourself is also very high to the extent that when success beckons, you might be left with crumbs while the funders have a laugh all the way to the bank.

For those with already implemented ideas, most times you don’t need to be in a rush to seek funders since a good number of the challenges you face are more likely to be solved if you put much thought and time into them. Throwing money at problems in most cases doesn’t solve them.

What is your Vision for the start-up?

Do you have a clear vision for the business? Is it something you have been able to crystallise and won’t just easily shift goal posts to appease individuals? Remember when you get funders in, you definitely have to be ready to reassess your business vision. They bring in money, you are passionate about an idea. In most cases the two perspectives tend to lead to serious boardroom clashes.

An innovator is usually driven by the need to provide product or service excellence before money becomes a priority even if it means taking years to achieve. A funder is more concerned about how much their money multiplies per set period of time. If it doesn’t meet those metrics, they start pressing the panic button. This happened to a good friend of mine who set up an international business with his brother. They were so keen on innovation and quality in what they did and this quickly led them onto the runway of growth, eventually attracting investors who pumped in millions of dollars. Within two years of their entry, the investors kicked out these brothers from the business and are now trying to pursue profits over innovation and quality. The result, is a struggling business.

What is your corporate governance setup like?

From one man to team run businesses, start-ups take various forms. What is important is the corporate governance setup you have in place. How professionally do you run your outfit? You want to attract investors to inject at least 100,000 US Dollars, what are you doing to achieve that when you don’t even have any books of accounts for the past few months that you have operated?

Sometimes we spend so much effort and time trying to set up these corporate governance structures in order to appeal to these funders but is it worth it? Could that time, effort and money be better spent on growing the business in the short-run? There are things which evolve with time in business and corporate governance is one of them.

Why did you choose to be an entrepreneur?

The path of entrepreneurship is motivated by many drivers. From the unending desire to innovate, being self employed, self accounting or working one’s way out of employment, the reasons are inexhaustible.

Attracting venture capital brings with it some positive and negative changes. One of the most obvious negative changes is the loss of overall influence. The new partners with the money always want to take control especially of the key functional areas of the business like financial management, strategic planning, Operations and any other they deem of interest. This is likely to relegate you to just another employee. Are you ready for that?

How much of your equity are you ready to give up?

How much of the business ownership are you ready to give up and for what level of investment? These things matter a lot. Most times people with stellar ideas tend to underlook the value of their ideas and end up glorifying the investors with the money simply because they are led to believe that the money is the most important thing for them to achieve success. When the success trail is reached, they then realise that actually it took much much more than the money to get there and discontent creeps in because the ideas person feels shortchanged in the entire arrangement.

If you can get money through other sources other than VCs, well and good even if it means altering your growth projections to spread out over a much longer period. It doesn’t help you to build a fascinating brand in one year and yet be eaten up with discontent internally because you feel you settled for less.

What are your work ethics?

Work ethics are key to the success of any enterprise especially if it is going to bring together people from different backgrounds. Changing someone that is used to strolling into their work place at any time of the day into an 8 am to 5 pm worker can be a pain. Having to work with people who believe in using kickbacks to gain key accounts yet you don’t believe in a similar approach will definitely give you the worst headache. Many other aspects of ethics at work are key here and it is essential that as you consider VCs this can be one of the filters to be used.

Ensure that there is proper alignment of work ethics between you and the funder.

When the quest for money supersedes the desire for innovation

This time always comes and it comes sooner than you expect it. While you’re still romanticising on how beautiful you want that next product to be, the demand for generating finances crops up. This is usually from the funders who want to ensure that something is earned as soon as possible. While they may have bought into your dream, they ted to change goalposts once on board and crystallisation of your dream into income is what they end up pursuing like hell.

This is definitely going to happen, what will you do? Do you exit from the business? Do you try to edge them out and regain control? Do you bow to the pressure and become another headless chicken focusing on mere survival?

VC’s understanding of target market

Does the VC understand your target market? Will they be of much more value than merely availing the money? If they cant help you much beyond raising funds, you will most likely be better off avoiding them since when the demand time for returns comes, they are likely to heap unrealistic expectations on you.

What promises did you make?

Sometimes it’s us the startup owners that make all sorts of unrealistic promises and build these clouds of hope. Any funder once strategically mis-informed at the time of entry is likely to mess you up big time in the future because of the kind of projections they end up making. If you have to promise, under promise, over deliver.

James Wire is a Business and Technology Consultant based in Kampala

Follow him @wirejames on Twitter

Email – lunghabo [at] gmail [dot] com

When Money Muzzles the Media. Ezee Money Vs MTN Uganda.


Ugandans have been known as an entrepreneurial lot and over the last five years it was common news seeing Uganda listed among the top entrepreneurial nations in the world. Buoyed by the high unemployment rate and lately the zeal to innovate, many Ugandans are coming up with initiatives that are changing the way we do business.

It is also a known fact that big business tends to prey on small start-up entrepreneurs either by suffocating them into oblivion or ‘stealing’ their ideas. In 2003, a pioneer IT Software Development company, Digital Solutions developed an Airtime Sharing solution that they dubbed Me2U and proceeded to interest MTN Uganda. After some back and forth communication, they got a chance to present the product to MTN and eventually were requested to deploy a laptop on the MTN network in order to test the service for two weeks. After the testing period, MTN expressed lack of interest in this service but turned around later in 2004 to launch a similar service. Digital Solutions dragged MTN to court and battled with the giant until an out of court settlement was made. During all this time, no media house had the guts to publicise the case save for one article I came across written by the Observer Newspaper.

Ten years later, Ezee Money a multi-national company offering mobile financial services to individuals and businesses dragged MTN Uganda to court. For What?

The issues at hand were;

  • Whether MTN breached statutory duties owed to Ezee Money under the Communications Act 2013

  • Whether the exclusivity agreements between MTN and Mobile money agents were lawful

  • Whether MTN committed unlawful torts (A civil wrong which can be redressed by awarding damages) of causing loss by unlawful means and unlawful interference with contractual relations

  • Whether Ezee Money is entitled to the remedies it seeks

This case has been on since 2013 and was eventually decided on the 6th of November 2015 in favour of Ezee Money. This is exactly twelve (12) days ago from the writing of this post. There-in lies the problem I want to tackle.

During the reading of the Judge’s ruling, many media houses were present and their reporters were seen keenly taking notes as expected. However, it surprised me when I learnt that none of the media houses went ahead to report to the public what had transpired. They all kept silent and internet searches that I have done on this case show the absence of any information on this ruling until the 16th of November when Ezee Money paid for advertising space in the New Vision newspaper to make public this information. It is even more disturbing that online media outlets like Chimp Reports, The Investigator, Big Eye among others that have established a brand for fearlessly publishing information took a step back and conveniently ignored this ruling. A quick visit to their websites in a way confirmed to me why they could have decided so.

Why was this a land mark case in Uganda?

mtn_kiosk

MTN Agent Kiosk

  • By ruling that the exclusivity agreements between MTN Uganda and it’s agents infringe Section 53(1)(b) of the Communications Act 2013, hence are illegal, many dealers whose ability to generate additional revenue had been stifled by an unfair dominant partner have been liberated. Imagine having a self funded outlet and you are restricted to dealing in services of only one operator. The over 15,000 MTN Agents and those of other Mobile Telecom companies have been landed an opportunity to diversify their business operations.

  • By further preventing MTN Uganda from inducing any third parties (In this case Yo Uganda) to breach their contract with Ezee Money, the impunity with which large market players have been acting to frustrate new businesses has been arrested. More details on this shall be shared in a subsequent article that will show how MTN Uganda orchestrated the plot to frustrate Ezee Money.

Now to the tough question, why was the media silent about all this?

Apart from a single article that I came across online published by the Daily Monitor, in 2013 when the case was unfolding, nothing much has been served to the public in this regard. I have always heard media practitioners share their experiences about how money rules their industry and that those with deep advertising budgets can always have the leverage to determine what is published about them. When MTN Uganda was fined by the Uganda Communications Commission in March 2015, what was expected to be headline news remained buried in inner pages.

Peter Osborne the former Chief Political commentator of the Telegraph resigned after realising the double standards the newspaper had regarding reporting about some organisations. Articles on HSBC Bank couldn’t be published for fear of losing advertising revenue and in a scathing article, Why I have resigned from the Telegraph he stated, “… HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is “the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend.”” Are we in a similar situation already? Are there advertisers that just cant be irked? One of the leading business moguls in the country is known for using his influence to determine what gets reported about him hence helping keep undercover most of the slippery deals he’s involved in.

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist in his article Corporate Media and the Intellectual Cleansing of Journalists, states “We understood, and our profession’s own mythologising encouraged such an understanding, that investigative reporting was the purest form of the journalist’s craft. In many ways it was the ideal. The investigative reporter is the exception in journalism rather than the model. He or she is the loose cannon whose reports can bring the paper great acclaim but only if the reporter is kept on a tight leash. The honour they bring the paper can equally turn disastrous if the wrong subjects are pursued or the story leads in unpredictable directions that threaten powerful interests.” Are there powerful interests that are No-Go for our media today?

Selective coverage of issues pertaining ‘powerful interests‘ is another form of fraud on us the readers. The duty of a media house is to bring the news to its readers, how then can corporate or political interests be placed at the fore? “A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.” Says Peter Osborne.

As you read this article, an entrepreneur can’t help but shed tears because they relate with the kind of treachery that has been exposed by the Ezee Money experience with MTN Uganda. MTN isn’t the only culprit in all this. I am sure there exist many similar stories across various sectors of the business landscape in Uganda. Many are not only cheated but also being manipulated into settling for less at the expense of perpetuating a very unhealthy business co-existence with larger industry players. Their only hope would be the media which if it genuinely stood for the truth could have helped expose their circumstances. It takes deep pockets as exhibited by Ezee Money and Digital Solutions to confront a heavyweight player. Pursuing a court case for three years is no mean feat and when faced with the choice of survival and an unending court case, the latter pales in significance.

Whenever they are faced with State inspired muzzling, the media is so quick to remind us about it’s independence and how it’s the Fourth Estate. However, what happens to the same independence when the very media is faced with wads of Dollars in potential advertising revenue?

It’s time to think hard, really hard.

Twitter: @wirejames

Follow this Blog by submitting your email address in the top left corner of this page.