The Real Difference Between VC and Crowdfunding? Investment Marketing

A few weeks back the value of VC’s for the crowdfunding industry was extensively discussed. Why? Because there are lot of areas where crowdfunding and VC’s can connect. And though traditional funding and alternative funding are not as rigorously separated as many want to believe, there are some inherit differences that characterise crowdfunding as a different form of funding.

Tanya Prive in 2012 wrote an article on Forbes describing crowdfunding as “the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.”. Rachel Chalmers refers to as VC money as “fuel for hypergrowth”. In addition, VC’s are in the business of making money for their own investors. Besides the target audience (crowd vs. VC) there doesn’t seem to be clear difference if we look at equity crowdfunding.

In both cases the investor profits financially, entrepreneurs are requested to deliver certain information and investors need to be convinced. Then why worry about the differences? Because, despite being marketed as the go-to Holy Grail of funding, most crowdfunding campaigns fail, only 1 in 10 succeeds on IndieGoGo (according to The Verge’s great article). And not because they were all bad investment opportunities. The problem was marketing.

Timing of the money

A first, very well visualised differenced can be found via Startup Guide: the timing. As you’ll see the type of funding for each phase varies a lot. Of course there’s some overlap but in general, VC’s won’t invest in anything that isn’t creating revenue yet. Crowdfunding on the other hand, has the reputation to be solely for start-ups. In my everyday job as Symbid‘s proposition manager where I coach the entrepreneurs in their funding, I see very different companies.

Small companies that have been in existence for quite a time (between 5-25 years); film funds that have a million dollar budget but want to do some form of inspiring marketing; individual entrepreneurs who still have to write down their business plan; growing start-ups that come back every year for another round and companies want fast forward their growth, using the money for “hypergrowth”.

Because crowdfunding lets the entrepreneur be in control of their own funding trajectory, it can be used any time they feel the time is right. Of course there are some exceptions (if you have no time for it, then don’t do it), but it is the entrepreneur that is fully responsible for the how and when of the funding process.

The reputation and differences in outcome

Crowdfunding was the first aid kit for capital when no one else will give you money. Crowdfunding is a necessary evil, having a VC is a luxury. But is that true?

Chalmers gives five very compelling reasons why you’d want to stay away from Venture Capitalists as an entrepreneur. In summary, a loss of control and narrowing down business development options. The idea that most successful companies raise money via a VC is a urban legend in Entrepreneurship Town; lots of companies succeed without that money.

Again, via crowdfunding the entrepreneur stays in control for the most part. Though a good VC investment can bring lots of good for a company, the company is a product that the VC needs to make money in. While in crowdfunding, there’s a sense of togetherness, sharing and support backed by money. Different ways of funding your company that have different results and different outcomes for you company. And with all the sustainable, social and consumers as “fans”, one might start to think equity crowdfunding is starting to become the epitome of involving your customer.

Self regulated fund raising as a basis for the process & dynamics

Entrepreneurs prepare a campaign when starting with crowdfunding, instead of a single pitch that appeals to all VC’s alike. This also means “one at a time” vs. a full blown marketing crusade: that’s a VC funding quest vs. a crowdfunding process. Whereas getting the right network and subscriptions to VC-networks gets the entrepreneur one appointment at a time, crowdfunding requires to think about ways to reach your audiences and target markets as successfully as possible.

Questions like: what am I selling to whom, who is my target audience, is my own network a seperate group, is there a difference between my customers and investors, where are they, how should I address them, should we send out a press release, and so forth are not at all uncommon during crowdfunding. Whereas a entrepreneur wouldn’t send out a press release about his appointment with a VC, nor would he continuously (almost obsessively) update his network about the progress.

Though the information used as a basis of communication (business plan, financial projections, etc.) is often the same, the ideas and literal message are very different. If an entrepreneur decides to root for VC, their business will be tailored for a specific payback. In crowdfunding, the campaign in itself, a small ROI and the opportunity to make something possible, are the expected outcomes.

Instead convincing the VC’s the entrepreneur engages; instead of saying “your investment makes ABC possible” and entrepreneur has to focus on “together we can..”; instead of talking to a superior or someone the entrepreneur is dependent on, they’ll talk to their peers. Crowdfunding is weeks of continued marketing efforts in order to gather funds bit by bit, while VC money are intermittent,  singular conversations that aim to get a large amount of money at once. These differences highlight the difference between the characterizing dynamics for each type of funding.

Investment marketing

In short, whereas VC’s money is hauled in by “closing the deal” and single selling moments, crowdfunding really is investment marketing. If we look at the dynamics during the campaign I could swap “the company” for any other product and it wouldn’t be called “crowdfunding” but “marketing”. Analysing and setting up various campaigns, the 4 (or 7) P’s are a great way to make entrepreneurs think about what they’re selling and how they’re attracting enough customers, emphasizing the strong marketing dynamics that really separate crowdfunding from VC funding raising.

The Real Difference Between VC and Crowdfunding? Investment Marketing

A few weeks back the value of VC’s for the crowdfunding industry was extensively discussed. Why? Because there are lot of areas where crowdfunding and VC’s can connect. And though traditional funding and alternative funding are not as rigorously separated as many want to believe, there are some inherit differences that characterise crowdfunding as a different form of funding.

Tanya Prive in 2012 wrote an article on Forbes describing crowdfunding as “the practice of funding a project or venture by raising many small amounts of money from a large number of people, typically via the Internet.”. Rachel Chalmers refers to as VC money as “fuel for hypergrowth”. In addition, VC’s are in the business of making money for their own investors. Besides the target audience (crowd vs. VC) there doesn’t seem to be clear difference if we look at equity crowdfunding.

In both cases the investor profits financially, entrepreneurs are requested to deliver certain information and investors need to be convinced. Then why worry about the differences? Because, despite being marketed as the go-to Holy Grail of funding, most crowdfunding campaigns fail, only 1 in 10 succeeds on IndieGoGo (according to The Verge’s great article). And not because they were all bad investment opportunities. The problem was marketing.

Timing of the money

A first, very well visualised differenced can be found via Startup Guide: the timing. As you’ll see the type of funding for each phase varies a lot. Of course there’s some overlap but in general, VC’s won’t invest in anything that isn’t creating revenue yet. Crowdfunding on the other hand, has the reputation to be solely for start-ups. In my everyday job as Symbid‘s proposition manager where I coach the entrepreneurs in their funding, I see very different companies.

Small companies that have been in existence for quite a time (between 5-25 years); film funds that have a million dollar budget but want to do some form of inspiring marketing; individual entrepreneurs who still have to write down their business plan; growing start-ups that come back every year for another round and companies want fast forward their growth, using the money for “hypergrowth”.

Because crowdfunding lets the entrepreneur be in control of their own funding trajectory, it can be used any time they feel the time is right. Of course there are some exceptions (if you have no time for it, then don’t do it), but it is the entrepreneur that is fully responsible for the how and when of the funding process.

The reputation and differences in outcome

Crowdfunding was the first aid kit for capital when no one else will give you money. Crowdfunding is a necessary evil, having a VC is a luxury. But is that true?

Chalmers gives five very compelling reasons why you’d want to stay away from Venture Capitalists as an entrepreneur. In summary, a loss of control and narrowing down business development options. The idea that most successful companies raise money via a VC is a urban legend in Entrepreneurship Town; lots of companies succeed without that money.

Again, via crowdfunding the entrepreneur stays in control for the most part. Though a good VC investment can bring lots of good for a company, the company is a product that the VC needs to make money in. While in crowdfunding, there’s a sense of togetherness, sharing and support backed by money. Different ways of funding your company that have different results and different outcomes for you company. And with all the sustainable, social and consumers as “fans”, one might start to think equity crowdfunding is starting to become the epitome of involving your customer.

Self regulated fund raising as a basis for the process & dynamics

Entrepreneurs prepare a campaign when starting with crowdfunding, instead of a single pitch that appeals to all VC’s alike. This also means “one at a time” vs. a full blown marketing crusade: that’s a VC funding quest vs. a crowdfunding process. Whereas getting the right network and subscriptions to VC-networks gets the entrepreneur one appointment at a time, crowdfunding requires to think about ways to reach your audiences and target markets as successfully as possible.

Questions like: what am I selling to whom, who is my target audience, is my own network a seperate group, is there a difference between my customers and investors, where are they, how should I address them, should we send out a press release, and so forth are not at all uncommon during crowdfunding. Whereas a entrepreneur wouldn’t send out a press release about his appointment with a VC, nor would he continuously (almost obsessively) update his network about the progress.

Though the information used as a basis of communication (business plan, financial projections, etc.) is often the same, the ideas and literal message are very different. If an entrepreneur decides to root for VC, their business will be tailored for a specific payback. In crowdfunding, the campaign in itself, a small ROI and the opportunity to make something possible, are the expected outcomes.

Instead convincing the VC’s the entrepreneur engages; instead of saying “your investment makes ABC possible” and entrepreneur has to focus on “together we can..”; instead of talking to a superior or someone the entrepreneur is dependent on, they’ll talk to their peers. Crowdfunding is weeks of continued marketing efforts in order to gather funds bit by bit, while VC money are intermittent,  singular conversations that aim to get a large amount of money at once. These differences highlight the difference between the characterizing dynamics for each type of funding.

Investment marketing

In short, whereas VC’s money is hauled in by “closing the deal” and single selling moments, crowdfunding really is investment marketing. If we look at the dynamics during the campaign I could swap “the company” for any other product and it wouldn’t be called “crowdfunding” but “marketing”. Analysing and setting up various campaigns, the 4 (or 7) P’s are a great way to make entrepreneurs think about what they’re selling and how they’re attracting enough customers, emphasizing the strong marketing dynamics that really separate crowdfunding from VC funding raising.

 

Equity Crowdfunding Needs Educated Investors

Crowdfunding is hopelessly dependent on traditional funding sectors to educate a new generation of investors and fully develop the industry.

Locke Education 1693

The alternative funding industry values its’ own innovative and somewhat ‘rebellious’ character – two characteristics the traditional financial industry isn’t well known for. On top of that, “the wisdom of the crowd” is going to guide crowdfunding towards full development. I wonder what “wisdom” is referred to, as most crowd-investors are not at all educated enough to estimate company success rates.

Larger investors, with whom I’ve spoken a lot as a campaign manager for Symbid, often consider crowdfunding a drop in an ocean, or simply “fun”.  And large investors are right in saying so. According to The Economist, after 2008 USD 2.2 trillion less has been lent then in the previous years. While the traditional industry is capable of experiencing such enormous losses, the alternative sector still has to develop the size, which should have accumulated around USD 5 billion in 2013. 

The lack of recognition of crowdfunding as a serious industry often tempts the crowdfunding industry to emphasize their assets as “real” industry, featuring bold headlines proving crowdfunding matters and basking in the glory of growth percentages like 81%. Though it might be true that the traditional industry is not featuring, banks, VC’s, investment clubs, Angels and Angel Networks and online investment platforms have a lot more experience of funding trajectories, knowledge about specific industries, risk calculation, the meaning of (startup) KPI’s in company development and startup survival rates(which are pretty low, only 50% is still existing after year 5).

This is knowledge the crowdfunding industry desperately needs if it want to develop into the grown up industry it claims to be. So what can we learn from these financial giants and how can we create a hybrid funding process where both investors and entrepreneurs gain maximum benefits?

The crowd is not accredited for a reason

Stop Reckless Gambling Now Wall Street

Though accreditation of investors is admittedly holding back the (U.S.) equity-industry, making accreditation of investors a frustration for many, there’s a reason this legislation exists: to protect investors. Though money limits are no way to ensure the investor has enough knowledge, some form of protection is needed. Society was outraged when we found out what ‘banks had done to us’, by selling us flawed financial products without properly informing their customers. The crowdfunding industry is doing exactly the same thing.

The industry hasn’t fully developed yet and we’re not sure about the exact rules of the playing field, yet we ask investors for money without giving them the proper education to make informed decisions. Investors trust that their money is well spent via crowdfundingplatforms. The attitude of some platforms stating they are in no way responsible for failed campaigns is at least partially untrue and most certainly an easy way to let down end endanger investors. Platforms and crowdfunding experts have the obligation to educate new crowd-investors about the risk they’re taking.

Crowd-investors cannot perform due-diligence

Even if crowd-investors want to double check their investment, this is often hard. Most investors understand their money is put into a high risk- high return project, they don’t know what makes a company flawed and when they do, they don’t have the tools to do so. Where VC’s have financial officers that can do a check, or are generally well informed about success rates in a certain industry, crowdfunders generally don’t have this information or a decent financial background. They have to make a decision based on a digital business plan, a pitch video and some financial projections that could be true, or not.

They don’t have a financial background

Discounted Cash Flow Valuation Firm ValueBefore you drive a car, you have a decent intake process which leads to you understanding what all the buttons you press actually do. You gain insight in traffic behaviour and learn to read the signs. Likewise, VC’s, banks and Angels make sure they understand business finance before they invest money. They understand not only the differences between debt and equity, several liability, securities etcetera, but also how internal financial developments influence the success rates of companies in different life cycle stages. Not something most crowd-investors are fluent in.

Crowd-investors have wrong expectations 

They expect money fast. Investing is not like lending money, the payback takes somewhere between 3 to 7 years at least. Instead of a quick win, portfolio management requires patience and resisting the urge to dive in deep when mass hysterics spread (“I want to sell my shares nów”). Speaking of portfolio management and spreading risks: most crowd-investors only invest in one or two propositions without giving prior thought how to make the most profit on the money they have available.

Deutsche Fotothek‎ Climb Rock Climber Hard Challenge 

A good exit is hard

Currently investors are locked into their investment most of the time. This doesn’t have to be bad as an investor will have to wait for his exit quite some years anyway. However, when the time is there, it’s hard to sell the shares in equity-funded companies unless there is one large investor taking over all the shares at once. The other problem about exits is that most crowd-investors haven’t even thought about that. In the years working for Symbid, I’ve only seen this question a few times, which is a really serious issue because it indicates investors don’t know how to make money on their shares, how a good exit is defined and when they indeed should sell their shares to optimize their benefit.

There’s no industry knowledge 

Generally crowd-investors have industry knowledge about the industries they’ve worked in themselves but it’s reasonable to expect investors not to stick to only those industries. In addition, even when they do, they usually have no idea about starting a business in that industry. Most of the crowd-investors are employed and don’t usually industry performance KPI’s (how many members within what period of time, etc.) at hand. Of course the business plan should rule out the most important questions, but investors have to assume that data is correct or depend on knowledgeable investors to share their questions with entrepreneurs and other investors.

Crowdfunders invest in products, not in teams

As Rags Srinisavan from Iterative Path has correctly pointed out, VC’s don’t invest in products but in teams. And though “the team” might produce a great pitch video, there is hardly ever a face-to-face meeting unless the investments are substantial. This can be often successfully devised via pitch events and the like, but most of the crowdfunders invest in a pitch based on the pitch presented, the ROI and whether or not they judge the product or industry to be interesting to them. However, no matter well the business plan has been developed or how stringently the financial test, if the founders end up fighting or the team breaks down, all the plans are worthless.

So what do we need from traditional funders? 

In one word: guidance. Crowdfunders have the right to make well informed investments. There will always be a difference between the ways traditional and alternative funders decide to invest: it’s what makes the two funding strategies inherently different.

AngelGuidance from Angels, Angel Networks, banks, VC’s and other consists of sharing knowledge, for example, explaining the reasons why they did or did not invest in specific companies. Or better, make an investment in a crowdfunding proposition and share what they liked about it and what not, and what chances of success they think the startup has.

Another way traditional funders can help crowd-investors is by performing a (first) due diligence. Though a VC might not want to take it all out for a proposition he won’t invest in anyway, a handout in terms of focus points that investors should try to aim at is very achievable. Asking a traditional funder to give a pitch a “Go/ No Go” and publishing it (“This startup received a “Go” from our VC/ Angel team”), is a sign for crowd-investors a professional with the same interests as they have, increasing the investors’ security and the chances of success for the entrepreneurs.

More options are an educative forum or program for crowd-investors and professional investors, to professionally track crowdfunding developments (e.g. how many crowdfunded companies still exist after x years?, is the crowdfunded money used to its intended goal?, etc.), creating affiliate programs between crowdfundingplatforms and traditional institutes (like crowdfunding as a first phase towards debt funding via the bank) and integrating the overall crowdfunding industry as part of a hybrid funding trajectory.

This article is not at all meant to describe crowdfunding investors as a bunch of uneducated people who should keep their hands off crowdfunding and investing. On the contrary; it’s a great development that people now have the freedom on how to invest their money. But alternative funding experts should definitely work towards a more professionalised, better informed and safer version of the current crowdfunding landscape if we want to create sustainable value creation for our companies, investors and our economies. The best way of doing that is looking at sectors who’ve already built up an immense industry: the traditional funding industry.

This article was previously published on CrowdfundInsider