I think its more complex than that - first the article starts by talking about startups, but later on makes it clear it only means TECH startups, which is a small subset of all startups. I do mostly mentoring of technology (not "tech") startups with an impact focus - that's a whole other category. In the startup mentoring space we often use the terms SME (Small to Medium Enterprise) - current size ~2 success is doubling in size; versus SGB - current size ~2, success is 10x or 100x. These could be what the author has rediscovered an called Silicon Valley Small. With the VCs increasingly chasing mythical unicorns i.e. very low likelyhood of success, but billion+ exit, there are of course a bunch of startups chasing that. The risk from a startup entrepreneur perspective look much worse. The VC gets to spread their risk across multiple potential unicorns, the entrepreneur only gets one chance and most will fail with a zero (or negative) return. With VCs focused on potential unicorns, there are lot of good, very investable, SGBs that are not getting funding, even though they have the a high likelihood of delivering the 10x return previously sought by VCs. Most of my mentees (and my previous companies) fall in that category.
Kyle, you asked for comments about what I would do differently as a founder. I have an ESG consulting firm that I started two years ago. I was then keen to build out a more extensive tech client portfolio to grow my expertise since my background is in consumer goods. I have had the good fortune to work with tech clients since then but have been disappointed at the infancy in which ESG is occurring. Tech companies trail other industries in ESG and think very small regarding social impact. The connection between ESG and business value has not been made strong which is why these programs (e.g. human capital, diversity and inclusion, social impact) are seeing layoffs and budget cuts.
Agree with the more global framing that @Mitra offers up, the SGB that’s ambitious in its growth aspirations but doesn’t want or need VC funding. A while back we distinguished businesses that have that and a number of other characteristics from the mythical unicorns of Silicon Valley by calling them zebras 🦓 🤩❤️. Zebra companies come in many different stripes, as do their animal counterparts, but they share the focus on profitability, capital efficiency and revenue-based funding that @Kyle describes. We’re growing a global co-operative of these businesses: https://zebrasunite.coop/
Mine at the time was a lifestyle biz formula for growth. I genuinely appreciate the blend of both. Makes the best of both growth styles - and the worst of them, too, I would presume - available to the small business owner and builder.
We are definitely a lifestyle business, and have no desire to be a Silicon-Valley style business, but this new hybrid may be just right for helping us realize our ambitions.
I think its more complex than that - first the article starts by talking about startups, but later on makes it clear it only means TECH startups, which is a small subset of all startups. I do mostly mentoring of technology (not "tech") startups with an impact focus - that's a whole other category. In the startup mentoring space we often use the terms SME (Small to Medium Enterprise) - current size ~2 success is doubling in size; versus SGB - current size ~2, success is 10x or 100x. These could be what the author has rediscovered an called Silicon Valley Small. With the VCs increasingly chasing mythical unicorns i.e. very low likelyhood of success, but billion+ exit, there are of course a bunch of startups chasing that. The risk from a startup entrepreneur perspective look much worse. The VC gets to spread their risk across multiple potential unicorns, the entrepreneur only gets one chance and most will fail with a zero (or negative) return. With VCs focused on potential unicorns, there are lot of good, very investable, SGBs that are not getting funding, even though they have the a high likelihood of delivering the 10x return previously sought by VCs. Most of my mentees (and my previous companies) fall in that category.
I suffered three Silicon Valley style, we're was difficult to differentiate ambition from greed, passion from obsession, effort from toil.
Kyle, you asked for comments about what I would do differently as a founder. I have an ESG consulting firm that I started two years ago. I was then keen to build out a more extensive tech client portfolio to grow my expertise since my background is in consumer goods. I have had the good fortune to work with tech clients since then but have been disappointed at the infancy in which ESG is occurring. Tech companies trail other industries in ESG and think very small regarding social impact. The connection between ESG and business value has not been made strong which is why these programs (e.g. human capital, diversity and inclusion, social impact) are seeing layoffs and budget cuts.
Agree with the more global framing that @Mitra offers up, the SGB that’s ambitious in its growth aspirations but doesn’t want or need VC funding. A while back we distinguished businesses that have that and a number of other characteristics from the mythical unicorns of Silicon Valley by calling them zebras 🦓 🤩❤️. Zebra companies come in many different stripes, as do their animal counterparts, but they share the focus on profitability, capital efficiency and revenue-based funding that @Kyle describes. We’re growing a global co-operative of these businesses: https://zebrasunite.coop/
Poorly informed opinions in this article. Stay in your domain
Mine at the time was a lifestyle biz formula for growth. I genuinely appreciate the blend of both. Makes the best of both growth styles - and the worst of them, too, I would presume - available to the small business owner and builder.
We are definitely a lifestyle business, and have no desire to be a Silicon-Valley style business, but this new hybrid may be just right for helping us realize our ambitions.