Archive for the ‘Funding’ Category

Mind the Startup Leadership Team Gap, Investors Say

Monday, May 16th, 2016

Startup entrepreneurs know going it alone is seldom a good idea. But a senior “team” with only one kind of speciality – be it engineering or product development – can be equally as difficult.

Sonia Strimban, manager of venture operations at Toronto’s MaRS Discovery District – an accelerator, said one of her first interventions when a company joins is to make sure the right blend of leadership is at the top.

techPortfolio_Quote_May_15

“You absolutely need a team,” Strimban says. “Nobody is going to give you money for an overdeveloped product without a business model.”

Strimban adds that it’s important to plan your leadership team for growth at different stages.

“At series A, typically, we see the most benefit in an executive in sales and marketing. If you’re not selling and you can’t accelerate growth, you’re pretty much toast. [You need] somebody who has revenue growth capability.”

This is particularly true now that VCs have pivoted away from startup unicorns in favor of the unstoppable cockroach.

Other investors concur about the risks inherent in single-person or unbalanced startups.

David Cohen, a co-founder and managing partner at Techstars Ventures, said in a 2007 blog post that he won’t rule out sole entrepreneurs, but holds them at a disadvantage. “Look for someone who compliments your skills,” Cohen said. “If you’re great at coding, find someone who’s great at selling or marketing.”

Cohen’s investment instincts proved astute as Techstars became an early investor in Uber just two years later.

Location is a Factor

Location can also often become a factor in finding the right senior team lineup.

“The U.S. definitely has many layers of experience of people in robust urban areas,” explains Gregory Melchior, Founder/CEO of startup 4D Virtual Space.

Some areas such as Greater Boston or Silicon Valley have a wider spread of skills at founder level. “There seems to be a correlation between the top universities – institutions have a ripple effect – that allows for a robust labour force.” Melchior adds.

However, finding co-leadership you can trust is now almost as easy as swiping right. Sites such as FounderDating aim to bridge the leadership gap by connecting leaders with different and complementary skills.

And true to their word, these platforms screen applicants so their base doesn’t get top-heavy with engineers.

WIRED: Magic Leap Stands Out Among Giants in the Artificial Reality Race

Friday, May 13th, 2016

Artificial reality is making waves throughout the tech industry, and Magic Leap has made one of the biggest splashes in terms of financing. The company has secured what may be the largest C-round in history: $793.5 million.

techPortfolio_Fact_May_12

Fort Lauderdale, FL-based Magic Leap will need to spend wisely to compete with the tech giants of the west coast and Asia.

A recent profile of Magic Leap in Wired noted that “Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung—have whole groups dedicated to artificial reality, and they’re hiring more engineers daily. Facebook alone has over 400 people working on VR.”

By 2020, the augmented and virtual reality markets are expected to be worth about $150 billion. This is creating hardware and software development opportunities for startups in just about every industry and facet of life, from film to education to day-to-day office administration.

But the potential applications could spill over combine with other emerging technologies. As we enter virtual worlds, the demand for IoT devices and smart-connected spaces could increase. The combination of virtual space and IoT tools has the potential to revolutionize industries such as skilled trades, healthcare, and tourism.

As startups plan for the future, it is worth considering if virtual reality will disrupt their business and how technologies like Magic Leap might impact them. Until Magic Leap unveils what it’s hiding, the true extent of its impact can’t be measured, but until then, it doesn’t hurt to imagine.  

What Do You Call a Canadian Unicorn?

Thursday, May 12th, 2016

The ups and downs of unicorn valuations have dominated the Twitter conversation around tech for much of the past year, both in Canada and elsewhere. How does Canada differentiate itself when referring to startups valued at $1 billion or more?

The mighty narwhal.

While this carnivorous whale – distinguished by its single tusk – is an actual creature as opposed to a mythical one, try to find someone who’s seen a narwhal in the flesh. The animal’s scarcity makes it an appropriate metaphor.

There have been more than 1.8 million impressions from 175 mentions by 124 users between October 31 and April 30. Here’s what the conversation looks like:

 

techPortolio_chiclet_Cloud2_May_12

 

Narwhals Are the Unicorns of the North

 

Carl Franzen, Online director at Popular Science, likely found that paragraph of text in a syndicated version of this story from the Canadian Press: Evolving B.C. Tech Startups Threaten to disrupt ‘dinosaur’ industries. Indeed, one of Canada’s most famous unicorns narwhals is Vancouver, B.C.-based Hootsuite.

Who are the other narwhals? Check out Visual Capitalist’s handy infographic from October 2015:

Unicorns & VCs

Unicorns haven’t been completely sidelined in Canada, though. The unicorn conversation often includes talk of venture capital. One example is this tweet from Startup Canada, which appears in the Twitter conversation:

The episode featured here is an interview with David Nault, a principal at  iNovia. You can listen to it here:

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/242734638″ params=”auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true” width=”100%” height=”450″ iframe=”true” /]

VCs are not only talking about the industry on podcasts. Another story that bubbled up in the Twitter conversation was this PE Hub Network’s article on 2016 predictions for Canadian tech startups and venture capital.

Written by Jim Orlando, the piece explores IPOs, virtual reality and augmented reality, and an increase in activity from U.S. venture investors.  

For more on startup monikers, check out our piece here on how the cockroach crawled into tech sector parlance.

Why Canada’s Tech Scene is Worth Getting Excited About

Tuesday, May 10th, 2016

Editor’s Note: This piece was re-printed from a LinkedIn Pulse item with permission from the writer, Jeff Booth, who is Co-Founder, President and CEO of BuildDirect. The original version lives here

Earlier this year, Microsoft added its fourth development office to downtown Vancouver, joining a who’s who of U.S. tech names that have set up shop in Vancouver in recent years, including Amazon.com, Salesforce.com and Facebook.

It’s tempting to say the city is blossoming into Silicon Valley North but, to truly earn that title, Vancouver — or any other Canadian city for that matter — must build its own ecosystem of successful, home-grown tech companies. In fact, we’ll know Vancouver has made it when tech companies from here are setting up outposts in other places.

Of late, it’s become fashionable to point out all the reasons this will never happen. Canadian tech naysayers point to troubles finding experienced senior management, a shortage of funding and a university system not pumping out enough research and engineering talent as reasons Canada will never compete with hubs like California and Washington. Some of those critiques are valid, but do they predict the future or do they just describe the present?

techPortfolio_Quote_May_10

Early on when building BuildDirect, I was asked to sit on a Conference Board of Canada roundtable on boosting tech innovation, comprised of leaders in industry, academia and government. Although the group was set up to help Canada win, the discussion always felt like an endless circle of laments: why entrepreneurs sell out too early, why Canada doesn’t celebrate our successes, etc. What frustrated me most was it seemed everyone got it backwards.

It’s the entrepreneur who starts the whole cycle by having a vision bigger than himself and carrying it out. That act, the vision of a different future, is what creates the value that attracts the rest of the ecosystem.

The reality is these are early days for aspiring technology centres like Vancouver, Toronto or Waterloo. It’s easy to look to established ecosystems and see countless shortcomings in comparison: there isn’t a giant anchor company like Google to spin off ideas and talent; soaring housing prices and border bureaucracy sway top talent from moving; start-up capital can be in short supply.

But that’s a near-sighted approach. Looking at the bigger picture, Vancouver and other Canadian cities hold enormous promise and advantages even Silicon Valley didn’t have in its infancy. We should be looking to leverage those advantages instead of wallowing in our shortcomings. The more apt comparison for Vancouver isn’t the Seattle or Northern California hubs of today, but where those centres were at their beginnings.

From Prunes to Electronics

A century ago, the Santa Clara Valley’s export specialty was a plum variety that could be processed into prunes. In fact, it wasn’t until 1971 when the Silicon Valley moniker was first used. The area’s technology industry began with World War II-era government investment into radar and electronics research at Stanford University. More government money flowed throughout the Cold War to the Valley and to Massachusetts’ Route 128, fostering the growth of now-famous companies like Hewlett-Packard and Xerox PARC. Seattle’s smaller hub was built around companies like Boeing.

Often overlooked is the fact that Silicon Valley’s tech sector didn’t overtake Massachusetts in profits and innovation until the 1980s — proving that a smaller, weaker player can grow and win. Even then its economic output was a fraction of what it is now. It’s easy to see the economic powerhouse that Silicon Valley has become, but it’s worth remembering the long road it took to get there and the many failed companies it left along the way. The vibrant ecosystem we see now is a byproduct of those struggles.

It’s also important to point out the role that determined, focused individuals played in these early histories, when success was anything but a surefire bet. Silicon Valley literally began in a Palo Alto garage rented by Stanford University graduates Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, who started the Hewlett-Packard Company in 1939 with $538 in working capital and a used Sears Craftsman drill press.

Elon Musk, Stewart Butterfield

Canada does not lack people with great ideas and grand vision. It’s often overlooked that one of the most esteemed innovators of the 21st century, Elon Musk – the mind behind PayPal, SpaceX and Tesla – is a Canadian citizen and attended Queen’s University in Kingston before ultimately moving to the U.S. Vancouverite Stewart Butterfield created the original photo-sharing site Flickr in the mid 2000s and went on to build the office social platform Slack, now headquartered in San Francisco and valued around $4 billion.

At the same time, dedicated entrepreneurs can achieve great success within Vancouver’s ecosystem, and help the ecosystem as a whole flourish. This is the difficult path that Silicon Valley’s founders took, and that local companies like D-Wave Systems, Hootsuite, Shoes.com, Mobify and my own company are committed to taking. We might have reached a steeper growth trajectory by moving to the U.S., but wanted to build something great here.

Yes, there’s room for improvement on a variety of fronts north of the border. We need to ramp up investments in education, loosen red tape for importing talent and build up our funding infrastructure. But true entrepreneurs see opportunities where others see problems. They go where everybody isn’t.

In that sense, there are more opportunities in Vancouver in 2016 than in the Silicon Valley of today, precisely because not everybody has seen them. Investment opportunities here are under-exploited compared to the sky-high valuations seen in more prominent centres, a fact that many of smartest (and best funded) VCs are clueing into, bringing new sources of funding to the city. Not all home-grown companies will succeed, but some will — and the payoff is going to be more than just money.

Self-sustaining Engine

We’ve seen that building a technology hub takes time, resources, and innovation, but those investments combine to create a self-sustaining engine for economic growth and advancement. The sum is far greater than the parts.

Vancouver is a young ecosystem, but it’s a closely knit community whose leaders reach out and support one another. It can achieve greatness if it holds to the kind of faith that built Silicon Valley from its humble start. And the same goes for Waterloo, Toronto and the other emerging and established tech hubs in Canada. The potential is, in fact, enormous, if we can see beyond the early hurdles.

There will always be shouts from the sidelines from people who say things can’t be done. But, to borrow a line from Teddy Roosevelt, the credit belongs with he who “spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.” This may seem melodramatic, but for entrepreneurs dedicated to building a tech ecosystem in Canada, business is truly more than just business. This is a project fueled as much by passion as by profit, and one that promises extraordinary things in the years ahead.

Investors Weigh in on Programming Language Choice

Thursday, May 5th, 2016

As a startup, your choice of programming language may not be top of mind for potential investors, but it can affect funding potential under some circumstances. We asked tech investors about factors to consider when making that choice.

For Federico Wengi, a venture capital associate with Paua Ventures in Berlin, startups should consider their comfort level with the language, where the market is going and if the language they choose is the best one to reach their goals. While VCs usually don’t try to change decisions around programming languages, the way programs are written could affect investment decisions.

“If we don’t like what we see in the tech [due diligence], we walk away,” Wengi said. “It is important that we can establish proof that the team has built a sustainable backbone of tech on top of which the first customers can be won.”

A CTO, for example, might be comfortable using Scala, and that language might also be suitable to reach the startup’s goals. “But once you scale who are you going to hire?” said Wengi. “According to GitHub, Scala is one of the least popular languages. On the other hand, if you are building a robotic prototype you have little use of a language like Java, regardless of the quantity of talent you might be able to acquire.”

techPortfolio_Quote_May_5 (1)

For Leo Polovets, a partner at Susa Ventures and former software engineer at Google and LinkedIn, the programming language isn’t a factor for his fund unless the choice is clearly inappropriate. “If someone is trying to build cutting-edge deep learning APIs, then PHP is not the right language for that,” he said. “But PHP, while somewhat out of style, is perfectly fine for many other applications.”

The most popular programming languages for startups are Javascript, Ruby, Python and Java, according to Polovets’ analysis of AngelList data. He found that JavaScript is by far the dominant programming language choice for startups, followed by Ruby, Python and Java; Ruby on Rails is the top choice for front-end technology.

Polovets also correlates stronger startups with modern or functional programming languages, such as Go, Scala, Haskell, Erlang and Clojure. PHP, on the other hand, is on the decline, and several sites list developer pain points, such as PHPWTF and PHP Sadness.

Overall, though, VCs generally have no say over a startup’s tech stack, said Polovets. Most VCs are adept at evaluating founders, markets and business models, but don’t have the tech knowledge to recommend programming languages.

“Most investments happen after there’s already some code in place, or even a live product,” Polovets said, “Changing programming languages at that point would be a huge, unnecessary time sink.”

Startup Simulations: The Future of VC Funding

Wednesday, May 4th, 2016

Startups understand survival of the fittest. But some might find themselves weeded out of the ecosystem faster than expected if artificial intelligence is deployed to evaluate them.

Recent advances in gaming and AI are adding another layer of complexity to an already competitive landscape in the form of “startup simulations.” As finance becomes more data-driven, simulations – which have been long been leveraged for gaming – serve a new purpose: determining whether or not a startup receives funding.

Business and economic simulations have been around since the 1990s, including well-known examples such as SIMS and Capitalism. In the past, these games catered to a leisure market, while simulations created for business applications have predominately served training and modelling purposes. Their potential now exceeds that.

techPortfolio_Quote_May_3

Games have the ability to test a startup’s performance before it goes to market. Using real-world and real-time market and economic data, these simulations mimic the conditions a startup encounters at the time it seeks funding. Based on those conditions and predicted trends, VCs could watch the life-cycle of a startup play out within a game before deciding to invest.

Tweaking the parameters to resemble different geographic markets can  help VCs gauge where and when a startup might achieve success, or if it will fail regardless of the circumstances. Armed with that information, the risk of investing in any given startup could be lowered.

The current approach to valuations includes basic tools such as formulas, calculators, and spreadsheets, all supported  by a VC’s intuition.  While these tools may never completely vanish as part of a VC’s due diligence, they lack the predictive capabilities and rich-picture approach a simulation can provide.

Simulations aren’t just theoretical, futuristic ideas. Growth Science, a data science firm founded by Thomas Thurston, already uses them. Thurston’s simulations, he claims, correctly predicted that Snapchat, Uber, and Airbnb would be big  and that their accuracy  when predicting whether or not a company will still exist in five years is 66 percent.

“Comparing our ‘quant’ [quantitative] approach to traditional VCs is like comparing a qualitative stock picker with an algorithmic hedge fund,” says Thurston. “Our process is mechanical. We use data, math and rules to try and isolate the specific percentage probabilities that any business will hit our goals as investors. We invest based on quantified probabilities, rather than intuition.”

The implications for startups are huge.

According to Thurston, Growth Science can “not only make probability-based predictions about whether a startup will succeed or not, but they also let us run ‘what if’ scenarios and to test-drive multiple strategies. This way, we not only know what’s likely given the startup’s current assumptions, but we can also identify trouble spots and help the startup course-correct to be more successful.”

Growth Science claims to draw on private and public databases across industries, and has “guided billions of dollars in organic growth, acquisitions and corporate venture capital.” according to the company’s website.

What further implications might the prevalence of startup simulations have?

  • Venture capitalists might require a successful simulation from a reputable source before confirming investment and releasing funds. Valuations could be determined entirely by algorithms within simulations.
  • A startup’s international viability could be tested in advance, and used to determine the strategy and suitability for expansion into one market over another.
  • The gaming industry might follow suit and develop nuanced, AI and data-driven games for corporate clients who want an edge in formulating strategies, creating processes, risk management, increasing motivation/engagement, driving customer engagement, and developing talent.
  • Predictive analytics: Games could be used to identify real-world gaps and market opportunities, informing which businesses and services need to be created next.

Startup simulations have a broad economic impact if they are robust, realistic, and accurate. As the use of simulations becomes more widespread, the concept has the potential to alter how businesses are established, and how they grow beyond the early stages.

Startup simulations might not just predict future outcomes — they’ll create them.

Some details for this article were provided through a research project done as part of OCAD University’s Masters of Design, Strategic Foresight and Innovation program.

Cockroaches Rise, Unicorns Fall as Venture Capital Plays Moneyball

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016

Two straight quarters of declines in VC funding globally show how tech sector money has pulled away from growth-at-all-costs unicorns in favor of the slow-and-steady “cockroaches.”

Now that sobriety has set in, the tech world sees in hindsight how a nearly indestructible creature, able to live on dust, would be more attractive to investors than something that doesn’t exist – like profits among some of the most well-known tech plays of the past few years. Think Pinterest, Yelp, etc.

“We like businesses that are able to fuel their own growth,” said David Crow, a tech industry consultant and former OMERS Ventures Director. “The ones that are able to show strong unit economics, strong margins and strong customer growth.”

techPortfolio_Fact_May_2_1

Leading the devaluation charge, Fidelity Investments wrote down unicorns including Dropbox and Cloudera, companies that had gorged on VC money for putting growth ahead of profitability.

To qualify as a unicorn, a private startup must have achieved $1 billion in pre-IPO funding. A cockroach, by contrast, is a business that builds slowly, focusing on the fundamentals, keeping a close eye on revenues and profits, and limiting spending on fixed assets so that it can withstand economic and competitive headwinds. Shopify, which took 11 years to get to unicorn status, is a classic example.

The pivot away from unicorns has been quick. According to KPMG, only 5 new VC-backed companies entered the unicorn club in the first quarter of this year – less than half that of any of the first three quarters in 2015. And not one VC-backed tech IPO made it to market. Aggregate VC activity fell to 1,829 deals, the lowest since Q2 2013. Total VC funding globally dropped 33 percent from a quarterly high of $39 billion in Q3 2015 to $25.5 billion in Q1 2016.

Sex in the Stairwells

Zenefits is emblematic of the trend. One of the fastest growing startups ever, the online insurance broker went from launch in 2013 to $583 million in funding and 500 employees by the beginning of 2015. By September that year head count had exploded to 1,600.  The story of its decline – the parties, the power struggles, the flawed products and processes, the lack of legal compliance, the lies told to clients, the sex in the stairwells – is just waiting to be turned into a Netflix series.

By February 2016, Fidelity had marked down Zenefits by nearly two-thirds below what it paid for its stake in the company less than a year earlier.

VCs are looking at startups with more  attention to business fundamentals than they did in the heady days of mid-2015. The difference between then and now is like the difference between New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and Oakland A’s manager Billy Beane.

techPortfolio_Quote_May_2_2

In the late ‘90s, Steinbrenner had the financial clout to swing for the upper decks in pursuit of baseball’s biggest hitters. But the financially strapped Beane (whose story was the basis of the film Moneyball) focused on signing lesser players with one thing in common: a high on-base percentage. The crew he assembled went on to win 20 straight games in their first season together. In the 2016 game of startup investing,  investors are looking for Billy Beanes.

In the words of KPMG/CB Insights’ Venture Plus Q1 2016, it’s the startups with positive margins, controlled expenses and a clear path to profitability that will get the funding. In other words, well-grounded, like cockroaches.

Andrew Light, Managing Partner for the Americas at Melbourne-based VC firm EatonSquare, echoes the sentiment. “For us it always comes down to people on the management team. Have they done this before? Did they have success? Is the business solid enough to inspire the confidence of investors? For a lot of venture capitalists, taking on early-stage stuff is too risky because if it doesn’t turn out it damages their reputation and makes it harder to sell the next bet.”

Cybersecurity

So where does one find these low-lying, long-lasting diamonds in the rough? One place where cockroaches seem to congregate is the cybersecurity space. Network and enterprise security provider Paloalto Networks took 7 years to get to IPO, while threat forensics and malware protection firm FireEye took 10 years.

Managed security services provider Trustwave, which was just acquired by Singtel, was founded in 1995. Trustwave launched its first managed security product in 2002 and spent the next 13 years slowly building out a global infrastructure of operations centers while growing its customer base.

Up and comers to watch in this space include smartphone security firm Lookout and cloud-based network security service firm Cloudflare.

techPortfolio_Quote_April_29_2

It’s no surprise that many cockroaches are innovating in the cyber security space as opposed to social sharing or other areas that aren’t obvious bets when it comes to monetization. Global spending on information security is expected to more than double to $170 billion by 2020 from $75 billion in 2015, according to estimates compiled by Forbes.

Companies innovating successfully on expensive problems that require solutions as a legal imperative will have more luck getting funded than those coming up with gimmicks.

As Flickr founder Caterina Fake warns in her widely shared article The Age of the Cockroach: Companies that want to outlast the coming funding crisis will need to “plan for a future without much money in it.”

 

Toronto is a Cockroach Nest

Sunday, May 1st, 2016

The University of Toronto and RBC recently announced ONRamp, an initiative that will include a startup incubator meant to help entrepreneurs network with investors and each other. ONRamp’s RBC Innovation Hub is the newest among many multilaterally funded programs meant to help startups in a city endowed with world-class academic and financial resources.  

Toronto distinguishes itself as Canada’s financial center, the fourth-largest metropolis in North America, and its namesake university ranks in the world’s top-20. Toronto is also one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world, a metric that McKinsey & Co. says supports corporate success.

So where are the Toronto-bred unicorns?

techPortfolio_Serbinis_Quote_May_2_1

Ranked 17 in the 2015 Global Startup Ecosystem Report by Compass, Toronto has yet to produce a pre-IPO company valued at $1 billion or more. There’s no unicorn pasture in Toronto; it’s more of a “cockroach” nest. But given the shift away from frenzied VC funding of any startup that grew its user base, this might be a good thing.

Toronto’s Flixel exemplifies the cockroach, a moniker for startups that prioritize revenues over users when it comes to growth. Others include UberFlip and Wattpad. The city has also produced a number of reputable exits, including Kobo, which was bought by Japan’s Ratuken for $315 million, XE.com, and VerticalScope.

“It’s about shots on net, and muscling the good shots through i.e. you need a healthy number of seed/A stage companies, and when it comes to scaling you need growth capital,” says Kobo’s founder Michael Serbinis. “Toronto-Waterloo has the former now, but there are few funds here that can write big, later stage cheques.”

Serbinis currently serves as board director for the Toronto-based MaRS Discovery District, an innovation hub that connects startups with investors and corporations and is a founder of LEAGUE, a personal health management platform.

Endangered Species

If VC funding in the first quarter of 2016 is any indication of what’s in store for startups this year, unicorns are becoming an endangered species. KPMG’s latest Venture Pulse report noted that the first quarter of 2016 saw $25.5 billion invested across 1,829 deals, marking the second-straight quarter in which investors dialed back VC funding and activity.

Only 5 new unicorns were minted world-wide in the first quarter of 2016. By comparison, the fourth quarter of 2015 produced 13, while the second and third quarter each produced 25.

techPortfolio_Quote_April_29_1 (2)

Mark Skapinker, co-founder and managing partner at  Brightspark Ventures, says: “If you look at locations outside of Silicon Valley that have had huge successful companies, it is quite devastating to the surrounding market if they fail at a later stage [like] Nortel in Ottawa, Nokia in Sweden, Blackberry in Waterloo. So, having a unicorn is not always amazing for a city.”

The tougher funding environment will play to Canada’s strengths. The country’s banking system withstood the global financial crisis that began in 2008 while U.S. financial institutions went bust or survived on government support. However, the robust regulatory regime that kept Canada strong throughout the turmoil is a reflection of the conservatism that makes it difficult for all but the most self-sufficient startups – cockroaches, in other words – to get funded.

“Toronto does have a number of cockroach-type companies,” Skapinker said. “It is much harder to get funded in Toronto than somewhere like Silicon Valley and we have a [startup financing] infrastructure that is not very ‘robust’ so companies need to work much harder and be ready for hard times at every stage. That makes them ‘cockroach’ like.”

 

Toronto has the Entrepreneurs. Imagine If It Had the Cash.

Thursday, March 31st, 2016

Canada’s Toronto-Kitchener-Waterloo corridor has the three key components of a strong startup ecosystem: entrepreneurs, academia, and investors. However, the last one lags relative to Silicon Valley and other top-ranked tech ecosystems.

VC investment in Canada rose to $2.3 billion (Canadian) in 2015, and 42% of that went to Ontario companies, according to data released by the Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association. While that represents a 12% increase year-on-year, the number is a fraction of the US$13.5 billion (CDN$17.6 billion) captured by San Francisco Bay Area companies, according to research by Richard Florida and the Martin Prosperity Institute.

venture north, toronto, entrepreneurs, startup, startup ecosystem

Cities outside of the world’s largest VC concentrations need to innovate to create conduits that tap these hubs. The C100’s Venture North event in Toronto addresses this problem. The C100 runs programs, including Venture North, which aim to do this by connecting Canadian entrepreneurs with compatriots active in Silicon Valley to foster partnership and investment.

Watch this for more details about the event and why it’s needed.

What Matters for Startups in Social Media and IRL: Funding

Thursday, March 31st, 2016

For startups in Canada, raising capital is a major talking point both in social media and in the real world.

A funding roadshow and an article by BDC’s Matt Roberts on the current state of VC investments show up prominently as key topics of the current startup ecosystem social media conversation in Canada.

Over the past three months, the conversation has been active and diverse with 1,067 tweets from 636 accounts, and a combined reach of 5.1 million potential impressions.

Here’s what it looks like: 

techPortolio_chiclet_Cloud1 - April20 - Chiclet 1 (1)

The Fundica Roadshow appears near the center of the word cloud as people attending the event have shared actively in social media. The roadshow is a Canadian initiative by Montreal-based financial services company, Fundica. With stops in 10 Canadian cities between February and May, the event aims to “to educate entrepreneurs on funding opportunities and facilitate connections between funders and startups.”   

BDC’s associate director of venture capital Matt Roberts is another large term in the word cloud. Roberts sparked social media activity and conversation with this post:

In the post, he says 2016 won’t be as good as 2015 when it comes to funding for Canadian tech companies. The key issue? “The collapse of the Canadian Dollar, hitting a low that hasn’t been seen since the 2003,” he writes, which will impact talent and venture capital funding.

One of the most retweeted pieces of content in the conversation was from the Feb 23 launch of the City of Toronto’s #StartUpHereTo project, which aims to create awareness of, and support, Toronto’s startup ecosystem.

Capturing Canadian entrepreneur stories also emerged as a popular part of the conversation. Another top retweeted message was about Startup North’s entrepreneur survey.

The top shared articles in the startup ecosystem conversation online include: