Why StartUp Britain is nothing more than a government backed link farm
postdesk.com
postdesk.com
On HN and in the broader tech community, a Startup is almost exclusively a tech-based, scalable, early stage business. It requires entrepreneurial skills.
In the broader business community, a startup is just an early stage business. That cafe around the corner from your server-filled garage? It's a startup. The guy who washes Zuckerburg's porsche? Startup.
So we see a site like 'Startup Britain' and, combined with the whole Silicon Roundabout push, think it's exclusively about our type of startup - tech entrepreneurs, and no doubt the government here wants more tech startups. But the government will gain maximum roi from this project by targeting the broader definitions of startups - ie, all, early business.
By going after all early businesses, unemployment is reduced (at least by the founders, and some of them will hire staff), tax bases will rise etc. I still feel this project has been a waste of time and money so far BUT claiming that 'startups' don't need advice on logos and renting offices and buying MSFT software until they've developed an MVP and a revenue stream misunderstands the fact that a vast majority of startups are the local hairdresser, estate agent, or handyman, not the next Google.
(See also the E-Myth for a basic explanation of how this confusion affects businesses down the track.)
I've started my own response to StartUpBritain.org with startupbritain-done-better.com
It's a project done last night after work :)
Here is what startups need from government: nothing.
I don't mean no chance, I mean nothing as in the less the better.
Less paperwork, less harassment, less bureaucrats nosing around and screwing up things and creating a HOSTILE environment to do business so that their friends in the giant corporations don't have any pesky little upstarts upsetting their apple carts.
That's what small business needs to succeed. Less of everything, and preferably to be LEFT COMPLETELY ALONE.
Anytime the government is making pronouncements about helping small business and entrepreneurs and spending money on publicity campaigns and billboards and adverts and passing new laws with regulations to tell us how everything is going to be done under the new system, you can be sure of one thing. The intent is not to help small business at all. That claim is just a cover for whatever the real agenda is. Usually it is to protect big business who is entangled with various politicians.
One thing I'd add is that Government could make it easier for people to live on lower income. For instance, raising the nil band of income tax which they seem to be working on but it feels like that's more Lib Dem pressure. The Cons seem to just want to talk about the 50% tax rate, which means nothing to me. This will become more important as interest rates rise and those with mortgages are further squeezed.
However, advising people to check out patents, design logos, get stationery, rent an office, and so forth before actually proving the business model works by selling something is crazy. It's just "busy work" that wannabe entrepreneurs can do that costs they money and makes them feel like they're making progress. They shouldn't be doing this stuff - they should be making the first sale and figuring out how to repeat it if it happens.
Branson - one of the names on this project - never did any of this busy work. His first business - a student magazine - started with him calling people from a callbox selling advertising to a magazine that didn't even exist yet. His airline began when he got stuck in the Caribbean, chartered a plane to get him out of there, and he decided to sell tickets to the other stranded holidaymakers to cover his costs. You're not seeing anything like that in this campaign..
This scheme feels particularly slipshod in its execution. I'd welcome a £1500 bursary to start up a business - who wouldn't? - but looking at this, I discovered that an entrepreneur looking to set up any business through this site would, in fact, not actually get any sort of money to help them whatsoever.
Here lies the hamartia, the fatal flaw, of this site: it is not what it seems. Your article just confirms all of my fears.
I'm sharing this with some people I know, who have an interest in the scheme. This article will have a marked effect on their decisions. Thanks for bringing it here.
Having had a dig through the site myself too I was very disappointed at the total lack of meaningful support.
A bunch of recycled business link articles and useless vouchers worth nothing like £1500, most of which could be acquired elsewhere (the google one is especially crap compared to what you get elsewhere).
And yes, I thoroughly agree with your assertions about Labour, too. Right now, Parliament seems to be at its lowest ebb in terms of talent, honour, honesty or any kind of acumen.
We have not been led by so many, possessing so little clue, for generations.
Anyone with any talent or ability steers well clear of politics for good reason. The reason being that (almost) irrespective of what you do you'll be butchered by the press and the public.
If you have any substance then the likelihood you'll be voted in or accepted by either party is close to zero. I hope the vote on the 5th of May for AV helps address this a bit.
On the dole, he started to write software. Over the period of several years he created a number of titles and started distributing them.
Finally his reputation was good enough and income coming in so he was able to get off the dole, buy a house, rent a business location, and hire employees.
There were a few years there he was probably illegal since he was running a business when he was supposed to be unemployed. But once the business paid enough to live on he lived on it and went off the dole.
Based on this, I think that public welfare programs can work to assist startups. The reason is the person is getting living expenses, which is all a developer needs, and there are no requirements or equity lost or regulations or other BS that takes away from focusing on developing a product and building a customer base.
In some countries you see people starting very small businesses just to survive. Buying and selling goods or delivering services such as gardening, cleaning or maintenance.
Maybe they should give a bigger incentive so people can start these small businesses instead of receiving welfare.
Off course I'm not speaking in IT startups in particular.
Sure, National Insurance is a great bargain in comparison to Social Security, but the tax rates are staggering. Even as a consumer, I find myself saving rather than spending -- I'd rather accept a forex risk than eat VAT.
People and capital have legs.
Devaluing the design industry is one thing, but for many startups design just isn't core business and outsourcing (crowdsourcing, whatever) is a viable tactic to reduce costs. Sure, it's not bolstering the UK economy and is accordingly embarrassing to a government backed website, but the rest of the article seems to be saying it's a useless site for startups.
I'd content that outsourcing in startups is absolutely appropriate, and by extension offshoring is also okay. (Apologies to UK based design firms producing excellent, cost-effective work)
Yes, this money sometimes goes off shore - but if you compare it to the prices/quality that you may receive in cities such as London, sometimes the price does not fit the convenience. With a little creativity and perseverance, a startup can implement the building blocks (design/deployment/admin/software/etc) of a company for next to nothing, leaving them to focus on one thing - generating further business, which will help their country of residence (even if some is out sourced).
Too many adjectives and insinuations, not enough material. When you want to oppose something, the only thing you need to provide is a list of faults and possibly some explanation of why the faults matter.