"Sorry Bob, I think you're wrong," was how it started. Me, a first year in a Computer Science degree, and him, the one and only Sir Bob Geldof. Back then, I hadn't even the wherewithal to use "Sir Bob". I thought he was wrong, and I felt it my duty to tell him.
The stage was an event organised by my university's business incubator unit - an event centred around one of the buzzwords of the mid-2010s: "entrepreneurship." I often wonder if such events still capture such large student audiences today. I hope so.
The Call for Entrepreneurial Government
Sir Bob passionately championed the idea of entrepreneurial government. Though my memory of his exact words have faded over time, his message revolved around the need for the public sector to take more risks and be more innovative - it was all about behaving like a start-up.
I didn't agree, and I couldn't resist challenging his opinion. I've always lived by the principal of surfacing and settling, or at least understanding, disagreements... am I wrong? Have I missed the point? Are they wrong? Is their logic right, but their dataset flawed? Are we dealing in fact or opinion? Is this perspectives thing? Could we both be right/wrong? Is there even a right answer? I have a deep, visceral need, during conflicting opinion, to work out which of those conditions applies, otherwise how will I grow and develop, and how can I influence positive change? (My biggest challenge in life is knowing when to leave this question unanswered... it takes sustained and ongoing effort to pick my battles, and even then, its only "reasonably effective").
So, I raised my hand and projected my biggest, most confident voice, channelling my inner Trent Crimm (The Independent): "Sorry Bob, but I think you're wrong. The start-up mindset belongs in the private sector. If government acts like start-ups, we'd see a 30% failure rate every year, and it's taxpayers who would bear the brunt."
The room fell into a stunned silence. My fellow audience members - unlike me - realising that this was more of a lecture than a two way thing. Nobody expected an appearance from a less handsome, less sophisticated, Trent Crimm - partly because of the obvious lecture format, and partly because Ted Lasso wouldn't hit our screens for another two decades or so.
We all wondered what would happen next… would he demand I give him the flipping money? Would he shout me down? Would he quip about my inexperience? Would he just shoot me down in flames? Panic set in.
Sir Bob acknowledged my point, and he was really kind about it. Ultimately, he was there to talk to young people, people attracted to the entrepreneurial life, people who had ideas, people who wanted to change the world, and he has the stage skills, the experience, and the thoughtfulness to carry off the inevitable overly enthusiastic audience member.
We spent a few minutes having a lively discussion on the subject of risk and reward, that 70% of start-ups are successful and that we should focus on that rather than the 30% failure, that "nothing ventured, nothing gained", and then, a few minutes later, I returned to my seat, content with my contribution, unaware of the social faux pas I'd just committed.
I'm grateful to this day, that the age of "everyone videoing everything on their iPhone" wasn’t quite upon us yet!
Looking back, reflecting
Over the years, I've revisited that conversation countless times, particularly during my tenures in various public sector organisations. My perspective on Sir Bob's message has really changed.
He wasn't advocating for government to embark on wild, profit-seeking ventures. Instead, I realise now, he championed measured risk-taking, taking ownership, weighing cost-benefit analyses, committing to change, and exploring unconventional approaches.
Fast forward two decades, and I found that over time, my perspective came full circle. I credit that conversation with allowing me to remove the mental-block, to dip my toe into public sector roles, where I've championed innovative thinking, making continual improvements, and risk assessment. I've successfully navigated and delivered big, high impact projects and programmes by embracing these entrepreneurial principles.
But if you asked 20 year old me "hey, would you go work in the public sector?", I'd have said an emphatic "NO", I'd have regurgitated the aged stereotypes, and I've have assumed that my way of thinking (re: neurodiversity, and re: being quite comfortable taking risks) was just fundamentally incompatible with something that I perceived to be a slow, crawling, mess of red tape and corporatisms. I wanted to take on tough challenges, make big change, see visible differences... how could you possibly do that in the Civil Service?!
In the experiences I've had, like every company, the public sector has its challenges. But it turned out to be wholly unlike what I'd expected, and I saw some amazing transformations, innovations, and successfully executed risk-taking during my time, and I had the pleasure to work with some of the smartest, most dedicated, passionate people I've ever met. If a friend asked me whether they should go into a Public Sector job, I'd say now, emphatically, yes, even if only for a few years, and I've seen a lot of amazing people retire having spent their entire careers there.
I've learned through experience that if you can gain the credibility, accountability, and confidence to take calculated risk, that the sum total of the outcome of those risks, can still end up very net-positive. It's not about avoiding risk, it's about grabbing the big opportunities, and minimising the impact of the risks that go the wrong way. I've learned that avoiding risk means avoiding innovation. And that means getting left behind.
If you only ever eat peanut butter sandwiches for lunch because you know they're a solid 5/10 sandwich, how will you ever find out that you'd rate a lunchtime ham and cheese croissant at 8/10? You might rate it a 3/10. Are you allergic to dairy? Do you eat ham? What's the worst that could happen? Worst case, it's one lunchtime you didn't enjoy as much as the trusty PB widge. It's a dumb analogy, but that way of thinking permeates through how we're building apps here at RCH, with guardrails to ensure technical safety, security, and privacy.
Without trying something new, you never do anything new, nothing changes, nothing gets better, the thing you have (whether it's knowledge, or a physical thing), in most cases, continues to depreciate, and becomes worth less and less... so really, failure to innovate isn't standing still, its moving backwards, losing relevance (as with everything, some exceptions apply... e.g. if you're making Trappist beer...).
In hindsight, I can confidently say that Bob Geldof unknowingly became one of my earliest angel investors.
His words are still echoing around my mind, some 20 years later, and have influenced my work throughout that time. "Be bold!"
The After Party
Following that event, I found myself in conversations with various players in the investment landscape. Venture capitalists, angel investors, investment coordinators - these interactions posed a simple yet crucial set of questions: "What's your idea? How much do you need? When's the payback? What do the numbers look like? ", or "We really like you - what are you working on? Can we work with you?".
One particular angel and I delved deep into two ideas. One involved a Bluetooth-based key-attached device-finding beacon, a concept I'd begun patenting (a decision I still regret not following through on—it was eerily similar to Apple's AirTag product). The other idea involved around purchasing and running a popular local music venue. These may seem unrelated, but my background encompassed both technology and music during my teenage years. It's fair to say I wasn't sure exactly what I wanted to do with my life, other than "something I love", and as my own worst critic, I wanted myself for a boss.
What Do Investors Even Want?
Venture capitalists seemed primarily to look for stable, forecastable, robust financial investment - numbers on a sheet, delivering new, higher numbers, on a timescale. The standard of evidence a little lower than "beyond reasonable doubt" (that was reserved for the banks!).
The angel investors felt like they were looking for similar, but with a little less focus on pure money, and an increased co-focus on the person, the capability, the potential. The standard of evidence here was more "balance of probabilities" - they were asking whether the people, and their idea are more likely to succeed than not, and whether, on balance, it was likely to make money, or at least not lose money (or if they really loved the idea... not lose too much money!).
Government schemes wanted to give loans, grants and advice that led to private organisations contributing to UK plc, they wanted to inject small amounts of money, to make returns, tangible or intangible (think tax income vs job creation vs sector advancement vs innovative product development), that helped it to advance its goals.
It was a simpler time, but then came the financial crash—a year that dried up funding streams, drastically reduced risk tolerance, and, unfortunately, smashed my attempts to launch either business. Everything changed, including my personal circumstances, and my life took a different route for a while.
I don't see those setbacks with much regret anymore, though they stung at the time (and stung again when Tile and AirTag launched), I see those experiences as ones that taught me valuable lessons.
They taught me how to construct robust financial plans, build compelling business cases, and adapt to changing circumstances. They taught me that sometimes things fail for reasons you can't control, and they taught me how to expect the best, plan for the worst, and prepare to be surprised. They taught me the concept of backstops. They taught me the importance of patents and non-disclosures!
That 2008 situation is what makes me appreciate a good, high quality plan and financial model, whilst also making me permanently tuned in to risks that might be about to pop out of the woodwork - or as an old lecturer of mine called them the "OSINTOTs" (Oh [Sugar] I Never Thought of That). Being aware of the risks helps me to see the risks that might whack the project off tracks, and also the opportunities that might put a rocket booster under it.
My hope is that this series of posts, particularly those on business and financial planning, pass on some of these insights and structures, and that they're useful to at least one person, if not two, or if I'm lucky... three.
The Changing Landscape of Business Financing
Fast forward to 2023, and the world of business financing as I'm experiencing it, has transformed as much as the programming languages powering my current projects. Yet, my review is mixed.
Widgets! Flutter and React! Wow… what I would've given to have had those languages at College, where I learned C++, Java, and, gulp, Assembly for Beginners. Programming languages are just spectacularly better now, IMO.
Sir Bob's wisdom encouraged taking financial risk and embracing change, and when I looked at the 2007 financing processes, the venture capitalists and angel investors at the event shared a similar mindset, albeit with a comforting level of rigor befitting the fact the Angels and VCs had real skin in the game.
Cue the Era of Impersonality
But as I reflect on some of today's business financiers, my experiences have felt notably more impersonal. It's akin to a conveyor belt, and without the negative, character building experiences of 2006-2008, I fear I might have fallen into traps along the way.
It has felt at times like the priority is on short term gain over long term relationships, and "goal hanging" for the safe bets. The relationship dynamics feel less partner-y now.
Embracing Real, Genuine, Valuable Support
Since the inception of Random Creation House, I've had the privilege of engaging in remarkable conversations with a lot of exceptional individuals. One noteworthy encounter was with Seedrs, the Crowdfund company. They took a soft-sell approach, offering advice, transparent costs, an offer to help, and an invitation to maintain an open dialogue. I truly appreciated their approach.
However, I've also encountered situations with other organisations that left me uncomfortable. One pre-seed and seed investment firm, for instance, requested a detailed plan, and a long presentation, only to respond with, "Our pre-seed and seed investment is primarily for firms reaching mass-production and mass-growth. Build your product, monetise it, then come back when our high net worths might be interested in helping you grow".
It felt deeply impersonal to hear the clients referred to as "high net worths". To me, an investor is a person with a name, skills, interests, and a desire for their investments to succeed. If I were to sign up with an Angel investment firm as an investor, I'd surely be disappointed to hear them talking about me as one of their "high net worths". As if they owned me, and as if I was just a financial attribute.
And as a company founder, I fear for how I'm described to the community. Am I a "share", am I an "asset", am I an "opportunity"? The depersonalisation of investment makes me wonder how an effective relationship can be built. Business - to me - is all about relationships, and it runs counter to everything I believe in to dehumanise that relationship, and yet, this has been my experience.
And "they might be interested in helping you" - come on. They're either interested in the idea or not. The idea doesn't change once it becomes its profitable or loss-making. If they're only interested in an idea (regardless of the idea) on the criteria that it's profitable... then that's not that helpful. I can get that from a VC.
The whole point, to me, of bringing Angels onboard, is that they have an interest in the financials, the idea, *and* the creative team. And if that's the case, then it should be discussable at the *idea* stage. They are the guiding light, the leg-up in your time of need, and your trusted partner. If they come along at the end to grab the coat tails of a successful business, they're not seed or pre-seed angels.
The Conditional Investment Agency
I also had an encounter with a "facilitator" whose role was to match start-up tech firms with suitable investors. Seemed perfect, right? But as I dug deeper, red flags emerged. I'd already accepted the meeting, and I went along hoping I was wrong.
A 30-minute sales pitch awaited, coupled with an ask for a substantial upfront payment for "market research" (nearly £5k), and the chance to enrol in a course to enhance my pitch deck. It was disheartening to realise the wasted time and resources. It was all a grift.
Yearning for the Angels of Yesteryear
In some strange way, I began to long for the venture capitalists I met back in 2007—individuals who prioritized returns on investment and had very clearly drawn delineation, it was what it was. They were so cold and calculating, that the simplicity and clarity of it all made the encounter very plannable.
I yearned for the old angel networks, those interested not only in the financials and the idea but also in the person / people behind it, those angel investors who brought experience and connections to the table, with a focus on the softer aspects of business, and on partnering for success.
I'd started to lose hope that those people existed anymore, and that it'd all become about quick bucks, goal hanging, and smoke and mirrors.
Embracing a Supportive Network
Today, I'm thrilled to have connected with organisations like Switchplane's CHALK network in Eastbourne, Wired Sussex in Brighton, and the Joyfully Different network in Brighton.
These connections have provided invaluable support. Wired Sussex, for instance, helped us reshape our business plan to tackle more directly the challenge of short term financial sustainability—it's a key concern for investors, and we needed to show more clearly how we could deliver on our top focus of solving everyday problems and delivering a great service to the public, treating our users with respect, without running at a sustained £500k operating debt for 2 years. It's a fair point.
Locate East Sussex has facilitated new opportunities, made valuable introductions, and guided us through the intricacies of tax incentives for our investors - with their advice, and working closely with HMRC, we're able to use Government Industrial Growth schemes to reduce the risk associated with investment in Random Creation House, which makes it less risky to invest in us.
CHALK by Switchplane has plugged us into the thriving Eastbourne tech community, while Joyfully Different has offered essential support to our founder, who happens to have ADHD (did we mention that before?!).
Those networks have also provided amazing outlets for us to share our experiences with the broader community - we don't benefit just by getting given things, it's immensely satisfying to be able to give advice, guidance, support, to help troubleshoot, to help generate ideas, for others in the community.
The SMEs are our innovation engine
So, what's the lesson here? Sir Bob's message about innovation, boldness, and risk-taking still holds true. Venture capitalists, angels, and regional development funds play a pivotal roles in supporting private businesses, no doubt about it.
Government entities, over time, have also become more open to calculated risk and innovation - in 2020 The Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy even released a paper about "Innovation in Government". Through my own eyes, I've seen some really incredible innovation, led by government departments - a formidable and underestimated force, particularly when partnered up with high quality, forward looking companies (I'm lucky, most of the ones I worked with have fallen into that category).
As a start-up tech company, Random Creation House constantly look to our peers and supporters, nurturing those relationships. What's striking is how many groups masquerade as seed/pre-seed VC and angel investors, capitalising on these needs for startups to form early relationships, but turn out unwilling to deliver on the associated risks - trying to build relationships during the "high risk" stage, to capitalise on it during the "lower risk" future.
Those groups seem more interested in latching onto successful businesses as they hit growth - the disguise of growth-funds under the banner of seed/pre-seed. These, to me, are the demons in the angels' realm, making it harder to find "the good ones", burning up valuable time and money in the process, and, I don't doubt, one of the reasons that so many startups struggle to make it through their formative years.
What's the advice?
If I were to offer advice to someone following a similar path to mine, as I said in a recent publicity interview, I emphasised the importance of continual learning, curiosity, and having a deep understanding of your strengths, weaknesses, and product dynamics, listening and learning, asking questions, and trying to remember that most people are inherently good.
I'd also add a new lesson I've learned - beware of quid pro quo and conditional investment agencies. Be vigilant for red flags and anything that doesn't sit right.
Don’t let the commitment to your business idea, or the power imbalance, cloud your judgement: you can always walk away, and there's probably alternatives. These relationships are relationships, and you should be able to look at your relationship and say "yes, I'm happy that this is in balance, and mutually beneficial".
Celebrating the Right Approach
I have tremendous respect for the approach taken by Seedrs. They reached out to me because they liked the idea, they asked if I wanted their help, laid out their offerings transparently, provided clear information on what they can do, and when they can do it, and the associated costs. It's a superb soft-sell model, one I'm inclined to explore further when the time is right.
I also took a look at the SeedLegals website (at the time I was doing a lot of research... Crowdcube, CrowdfundUK, so many more, all with their relative strengths), where I got a load of background and guidance on how to apply for UK Gov Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) - resources like these are incredibly useful, and helped us to get our Advanced Approval quickly, and first time around.
(And no - I'm not on commission, nor am I getting any favours for saying so, nor are either Seedrs or SeedLegals aware that I've intended to mention their approach in a post).
I also cherish the support from the small businesses - including the ones I can't name yet for reasons covered by non-disclosure (in a good, extremely exciting way) - the invaluable advice, coding hackathons, risk mitigation tips for investors, the networks, the sounding boards, and even the possibility of delivery partners helping us to bring our app to life.
2023: The Year of the SME
Here in 2023, my perspective is clear - from a start-ups perspective, there's a massive amount of innovation, support, and growth being driven from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) - probably the least able to afford it, but, in my experience, the ones most willing to offer it.
Traditional banks aren't even on the field as a primary source of funding, and its not hard to see why. Angel investor networks have become challenging to distinguish from opportunistic quick-money schemes. Venture capitalists may still be out there, but I've drifted out of those circles over the years, and my experiences there tended to rely on strong-trust, long term relationships to be really fruitful.
Seek Genuine Human Support from Humans
So, my advice to fellow founders is this: seek investors who are people, who view you as a person, who recognise the value in your idea, and avoid those who see you merely as shares, a "high net worth," or an opportunity to be sold. That said - my experiences are limited to the few dozen investment groups I've spoken to recently, and they might not represent the broader market. Your experiences might be entirely different, you might have a completely different personality, your appetite might be totally different to mine; so maybe my advice is just to *consider* the alternatives, and resist being drawn into a bad deal. That's tough to disagree with, right?
Healthy business relationships are based on mutual respect, as well as shared risk, shared reward, and shared contribution. I start to see red flags when one of those four metrics starts to get out of balance.
Random Creation House is well on its way to building a viable Proof of Concept and initial software release, propped up by the powerhouse that is the South Coast Tech Communities, and we haven't needed to succumb to one of the Demon investors to get there. We've started off a great relationship with a crowdfunder who I'm confident will help us to grow, when the time is right. We've got some great partners helping us to solve problems - to me - that’s how I think business should work. I hope we'll be able to pay this help forward, in future, to help people to avoid the grifters, offer help and support, and make introductions to good, honest, real supporters, like the ones that helped us to start up.
As we get further down the line, we'll probably start to look at the local government "inward investment" initiatives - they're a powerful way to get help when you need to grow, and UK Gov runs a load of initiatives aimed at helping private companies to contribute to UK Plc. Check out the Gov Grants finder if you think you might qualify - we haven't used this option yet, but I've seen lots of companies collaborate with Gov in this way.
In closing, that little scuffle I had with Sir Bob remains a constant inspiration, guiding me through changing landscapes for almost two decades - that risk and opportunity are opposite sides of the same coin, that risks are there to be taken, that my ADHD-afflicted brain might have a place in the public sector - a sector where I've polished my rough diamond of creative meets technologist meets programme deliverer meets disrupter. His words at that event, about getting out and enacting change, creating visions, and coming through on that vision, provide the boost that I need when I start to wane. He unwittingly became one of my earliest angel investors, and for that, and the lessons I learned through my 2007/8 rough-patch experiences, I'm forever grateful.
But if I had my time again, I'd probably go with "Sir Bob" instead.
Are you a business founder or investor? What's your experience with financing rounds? What do you think has changed over the last 10-15 years? Have you had experiences polar opposite to mine? What advice would you give the "other side"? Let me know in the comments, or over on LinkedIn.
Comments