Enter the MassChallenge competition
startupamericapartnership.org
startupamericapartnership.org
How do others here feel about it?
But it really isn't that hard, and there is explicit logic in every step. If you are even remotely serious as an entrepreneur, you should be able to get 4 diamond endorsements with a handful of emails/phone calls - each of them with an expert in your industry who has an opportunity to publicly support you without spending a dime. That process encourages startups to network/pitch and is intended to create or strengthen bonds with helpful resources. These resources are not isolated to MA by the way.
Likewise, if you are even remotely serious about your startup, you should be able to get your friends/network to rate your company profile 5 stars very easily. This encourages you to promote your startup and seek support from your community. Easy stuff. No cost. Something you should be doing anyway.
Keep in mind, the endorsements and team ratings are worth only 10% of the judging score each. We had teams enter and win last year with zero endorsement points and zero ratings. (I don't recommend that as a strategy, but it's possible).
The application form itself is very basic: 10 questions, with short character limits. All standard stuff.
I dont think 'serious' entrepreneurship involves calling people and getting them to agree to give you a point in some scheme when it is of no cost to them.
How about putting your energy into getting users or finishing your product, is that an endorsement that 'serious entrepreneurs' should be pursuing?
I also don't understand why you are asking for an application fee, especially considering how expensive it can be for bootstrap businesses and international startups. You are, afterall, looking for companies to fund - putting a financial barrier to applying will only reduce the field. I am also not comfortable with companies who pay to apply and then who don't make it blowing that fee.
Your title is also misleading. It isn't $1M, it is up to 100k. Just be straight up.
The intentions here are good, but the model is totally backward
What makes my friends competent to judge my business? This is complicated and silly. If you want to drive traffic to your site and want publicity, just say it. It is a fair bargain for the deal. But to say 20% of a startups evaluation is based on such flimsy metrics is silly.
The public ratings system encourages teams to ask for a small favor from people in their community (i.e. visit a site and rate my pitch).
The endorsements system encourages teams to ask for a small favor from known experts and network hubs in the community.
These are both devices designed to encourage networking, connectivity, pitching and collaboration. Many many teams from last year have indicated that they made critical connections via these processes, especially via the endorsements process, including meeting future investors, customers, service providers and team members.
These are easy steps but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable. They are starting points.
I'm thinking that since it's a worldwide challenge, lots of companies applying won't have any real connection with a lot of these companies. And what about companies not on your endorsement list, is there a way to get external endorsements included too? Thanks!
(hey, pays to be frugal ;)
It is also a simple filter against people simply cutting and pasting their applications from other opportunities. The applicants may find this frustrating, but a smaller applicant pool means that the judges can invest more time in the people who do apply. That, for the people who do submit, is a big win.
We made it to the first round (got enough votes online and whatnot). The tough part is you can get stuck with judges completely out of your industry that are clueless. Our judges were 2 lawyers and someone with a similar idea to ours ten years ago who thought his was superior. We didn't make it to the second round. I hope this year they make some changes based on everyone's feedback.
A couple friends of mine won $50K from this competition. Important to note that it's not $1M awarded to one person/team, it's split however the judges/board like.
What? Phrasing is very naive.
Everybody wants something. They want people to help the world’s most promising entrepreneurs win in Boston. Taking money adds constraints. Insisting on a move to Boston adds constraints.
There really is no strings attached to the money if you win. You could go to Vegas and put it all on black if you wanted (although the judges would probably sense that was the plan you wouldn't make it through).
P.S. I was on a winning MassChallenge team last year (Rentabilities)
Deleted comment
I think that the reason they are doing it is to drive traffic and publicity to their cause. In the video they mention again and again how many twitter followers they have etc.
Look, I don't want to be too critical. This is fantastic and kudos to them for doing a great job. It is just this one thing that seems silly other than that it sounds fantastic.
Regarding driving traffic - sure, there is at least a minor "viral" impact from the system. Keep in mind, MassChallenge is a community. Driving traffic to our website helps the whole community, i.e. there are spillover benefits for other startups when one startup convinces their supporters to visit and browse the site. There's no profit at the center of the system -- so this isn't a selfish motive -- it's designed to benefit everyone.
We are still a relatively young startup ourselves and continue to refine our approach ... so there is definitely room for improvement in areas. On balance, though, we are confident that our processes work. We'll continue to refine and definitely appreciate the feedback.
To get cash, office space and a network without giving up any equity is a relatively remarkable thing.
Being in Boston doesn't do anything for them directly. Their indirect hope is that it will compel you to fall in love with the city, and perhaps increase the local economy there, but they don't get anything out of that, and it isn't a requirement.
I don't care about the money I care about the experience.
Will I learn anything from these people? From the other startups that are accepted? Outside some seed money, what is the upside?
*EDIT
My initial thoughts may have been harsh - and perhaps I'm being a hipster - but I don't get the feeling that this is something truly special/cool. I believe there are talented business people involved, but for me it doesn't appear to be a life-changing event as much as a cash prize.
That being said there is obviously a lot of support from those involved - they represent the bulk of the dialog here.
What makes you think you can't learn from these people?
Last year's finalists raised well over $30M in outside funding in the 7 months following day 1 of the accelerator program ... with 100+ startups on one floor, there is a lot of opportunity to learn (and teach).
The first part of your post was very informative, but I downvoted you for the snark. If it wasn't intended the way I read it, please accept my apologies.
I have essentially poured my entire heart and soul into launching and running MassChallenge and I believe deeply in our mission and philosophy, so I took a little umbrage to the phrase "these people" -- they are, after all, my people and they are enabling something deeply important to me and many others.
I do believe that what we do is transformative and outstanding. But I also recognize that it isn't for everyone. Even if you don't end up entering, I encourage you all to come visit us at least once this Summer. I am sure you will find value in the experience and I promise to personally give you a tour and answer any questions you may have.
I'm ignorant to much of it, so I'm glad to see the discussion here where I can learn more. The website really is quite hard to follow for those just wanting to learn more.
It runs from June 27 through Oct 1. Final judging takes place in the first two weeks of October, and the final ceremony is on Oct 20.
Founders do not need to be present for that whole period, but we do strongly recommend active participation -- surveys and data demonstrate pretty clearly that startups perform much more effectively if they engage in the accelerator rather than "dialing in".
There is zero obligation to stay in Boston following the accelerator.
For a $199 entry fee (which is automatically reimbursed to the entrepreneur upon securing a few endorsements that help to validate that crazy idea of yours), an entrepreneur gets access to a growing network of top attorneys, investors, mentors and industry leading, seasoned entrepreneurs. Not a bad deal, BUT, it is up to the entrepreneur to make the most of this value by being proactive and engaged.
Just to be clear, MassChallenge had a YCombinator startup - embedly - make it to the finals in 2010, so you can apply to both..
If you want to help founders, this is what you should do. If you're trying to make money from conference fees, you're doing it wrong: no one reading this thread will apply.
Also, even with an entry fee last year, MC still saw 450 startups apply - imagine what that number would have been if it were free to all that apply? With such a small staff and the reliance on volunteerism for much of the operations, it would be very difficult to review thousands of applications and not let a few great ones slip through the cracks.
As a startup founder myself, I see the $199 fee as merely a cover fee to an awesome party with lots of brilliant, like minded, enthusiastic entrepreneurs and mentors.
We (Architexa) were finalists last year and did not find the application process complicated.
As for the experience: I found it really helpful.
Especially talking to the other startups and working with them day-in day-out. We did not apply for the office space, but it definitely was very useful working right next to the the other teams.
Beyond the above, the MassChallenge team works very hard in connecting the startups to the right people in the industry - we got great feedback and made progress because of that.
To me that is molestation.
It suggests that as well as having rather bad judgment, you don't understand the math of equity. A "free" alternative is no bargain if you end up net worse off.
You have accomplished a great deal and have contributed enormously to the startup ecosystem. Techstars and other programs that take equity are also a great benefit to the community, and I would be remiss to leave a lasting impression on the community that I felt Y-Combinator or Techstars are anything short of remarkable.
MassChallenge is a unique model with huge promise. Clearly, there is room in the ecosystem for multiple models to coexist. We are proud to enable the type of community that Y-Combinator pioneered without taking any equity from startups, and we are excited about the opportunity to contribute to the mounting startup renaissance and to shift the broader economic discourse from one of value capture back to one of value creation.
Sorry everyone for the coarse commentary. As noted previously, you are all invited to visit us in Boston any time. Our deadline to enter this year is April 11, and we would be honored to help you win.
If that fails to make clear the weakness in the position, the point will be repeated.
Paul omits a discussion of opportunity cost. Sure, buying a coke for 50 cents is great ... but getting it for free is much better.
Remember that at 6.4% improvement, you end up even with ycombinator. At 6.4% improvement with MassChallenge, you end up 6.4% ahead.
After year 1, we asked our finalists this survey question:
How likely are you on a scale of 0-10 to recommend MassChallenge to another startup?
79% answered either 9 or 10. (Just about 60% answered 10). One person answered 6 -- the lowest score.
For perspective, that means that our finalists are slightly more enthusiastic about MassChallenge than Apple customers are about Apple Computer ... see here for more details and other metrics:
http://www.masschallenge.org/2010_metrics
Again, please visit some time. I'm sure you will understand why we are so excited about MassChallenge if you do.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2388691
I guarantee that the judging has been drastically improved from last year. It's still too bad that you feel the way you do. I wish you continued success in your venture.
That's the thing - you don't. Using the Coke analogy, YCombinator gives me a Coke, but asks that I share 6% of it back to them.
You want to charge me $200 for the Coke, which I can supposedly make back with endorsements, or recommendations, or 'engagement' somehow, but you're still charging $200. That it CAN be free, doesn't mean that it is.
Spelled out more obviously, ignoring travel costs and all incidentals, if I get in to MassChallenge and it doesn't get any traction, I'm out $200.
If I make it in to YCombinator and it doesn't get any traction, I'm out nothing. Also, YCombinator doesn't make any money off of me. They only get 6% IF I SUCCEED, which means that they really want to leverage their connections so that I do.
You might consider not taking equity as somehow more generous, but it's just a different strategy. I would rather you took equity on the backend than $200 on the frontend, because that assures me that you'll want to help me succeed.
Who holds issuances of common stock isn't generally something that will negatively affect a valuation.
The important bit is that they're in it just like the founders are -- if the founders get diluted, YC gets diluted. If the founders go broke, YC goes broke. If the founders make money on an exit, or a liquidity event, then so does YC.
You can argue all day long about 6% being 'greedy', or 'predatory' or whatever you like, but from what I understand, the value they add far exceeds the amount they take, and means that they're invested in your success.
What PG did with YC is LEGENDARY. He was the first and will go down in history as one of the most pivotal figures in the entrepreneurial economy. The best explanation I've heard on YC's value add (or TechStars, etc.), is that it's like bringing on another co-founder, which makes perfect sense - as does your explanation above.
Looking forward to seeing future entrepreneurs continue to benefit from great program's like YC, TechStars, MC, etc.
1. What is the typical size of the check? I paused the video (http://www.masschallenge.org/) at the end to note that most checks were $50k and one was $100k. Are there smaller/larger amounts?
2. Getting votes and endorsements: They want startups to get votes from general people to improve their chances of getting selected. This is a bad idea. It is crowd-sourcing herd mentality. I think that is a waste of time for the startup. I saw a post (http://www.masschallenge.org/blog/how-make-it-masschallenge-...) about the things a company did to get those points and I would rather spend that time on the business. So if we get a 0 on each of those is there a chance that we will get through?
Thanks. I think that what they are doing is fantastic barring [2].
ycombinator has established itself as the "Harvard" of tech startup incubators. MassChallenge is... well... MassChallenge.
As an analogy, when I was deciding between business schools, I had the opportunity to take a scholarship to a lesser MBA program. Or I could pay full price and go to a much higher ranked program. The difference was minimum $50-60k of my own money.
I chose to go to the higher ranked program, because of the network that I would be able to build and the long term reputation that came with attending that program. Part of me wishes this wasn't the case; that one's success in life is purely based on their talents and how far they are able to propel themselves on their own steam, regardless of their affiliation with universities or other organizations. Unfortunately, that's not the real world. People care about which organizations you are affiliated with, regardless of whether the education at one is truly better than another. In truth, if you're motivated, you can probably get an equally good education at a community college as you can at an Ivy League school. However, the network you build at these different institutions is vastly different, and I would argue can't be replicated between the two.
ycombinator has a track record of producing successful tech startups. This leads to high demand, and the ability to set its own terms. Likening that to "molestation" is not only insulting to the program, but also to all the people who applied to the program (like me). It implies that we don't know what we're doing, and that we are suckers for giving away equity to Y Combinator. I would counter that, contrary to this assertion, I am fully aware of the equity stake that is taken, and believe that it is worth having the Y Combinator organization on my side, as well as the cache with future investors that comes from having participated in the program. I will admit that this decision was not taken lightly, however, and I talked with many founders and funders in the startup world before deciding to apply.
According to the Angel Capital Association, 60% of their members charge ~$400 to pitch. Also, no one complains about the $18,000 for 3 minutes at Demo. That's a pretty hefty fee, but many get value out of that event. The entrepreneur HAS to be the one to make that value judgement for themselves.
The MassChallenge team and others like them are providing a great service and it's up to the entrepreneur to figure out if their making the right decision, not some self appointed guru.
I have a hard time understanding those self appointed guru's who claim to have the interest of the poor struggling entrepreneur at heart. Entrepreneur's are a pretty tough lot. If an entrepreneur can't make the right decision about who they should work with, they will likely fail anyway.
After all, being a CEO is about making the right decisions. If you can't do that, it's better to find out early.