Not quite….yet.
Although Atlanta is home to numerous talented and brilliant minds – fresh graduates from the likes of Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia State University and outside-the-box thinking young entrepreneurs – the challenges facing young technology startup companies are quite steep. I’ve narrowed down some pointers which I consider foremost for Atlanta to overcome these challenges that are hindering Atlanta’s growth as a technology innovation hub of the Southeast.
THEOLOGY
Theology, or religion, does not have anything to do with technology and yet it’s heavily embedded in Atlanta’s technology scene. Should theology be the foundation for technology and innovation? More importantly, should it be practiced in a field that require pure science? How do you decide which school of theology will be embraced and which will be rejected given ideas arise from minds that may or may not practice diverse schools of theology? Ideas thrive in openness and has little, if any, boundary. Ideas cannot be predicted or controlled. Nor can any one entity, individual or organization determine the source of next best idea. It may originate from a completely unforeseen or unheard of source – a nobody is a somebody in waiting, to quote Guy Kawasaki (?). It’s only smart to nurture and encourage ideas in an open, transparent and fair environment. An idea by itself is useless if not executed. Compelling ideas must be embraced, supported, nurtured and advocated for success and sustainability, regardless of the person’s gender, race, religion (or non-religion), social and economic status.
Atlanta’s challenge: Eliminating theology from technology scene. It’s easier said than done, but, it’s possible. When theology is embedded in organizational structures, both established and startups, it limit possibilities.
Solutions: Provide and practice an environment and build a foundation that is completely devoid of religion and politics – that is if you are an organization claiming to serve the technology community at large. Limit religious breakfast classes and/or weekly religious practices to personal choice and not be a sponsor/supporter of any one religious institution – it opens the gate for more questions than provide solutions/support, rightfully so. Otherwise, it may be perceived as favoritism and those technology institutions and/or organizations does not serve the community at large but special interest group(s).
AMBIGUITY
There is confusion and ambiguity in distinguishing between technology innovation and marketing/sales initiatives as well as “service”, “solutions” and “products”. Same may be said of differentiating between investors and startups seeking funding. Both established and startup organizations discourage and/or exclude people from “service” industry. What does that mean? Does IBM fall in that category, given a large sector of their business is service? How about technology staffing firms and companies that provide social media services? Are all of these service-oriented businesses excluded? Not exactly. Companies and individuals are randomly included (or excluded as may be the case), effectively by organizations (who themselves fall under service industry) contradicting their very own statements. It is so in both established and startup organizations.
Example: Startup Riot*. On their FAQ page, it clearly states “Who can’t attend”. Now if service industry is excluded, IBM, staffing companies (or their representatives), social media providers should have also been excluded. But, they were not. What’s more confusing is, if an industry is excluded, how can organizers expect that same industry to be sponsors? Is that not a contradictory statement? Now to be fair, I’ve not attended any of their events and am unaware of unpleasantness that may have transpired in 2008 (as an inclusive person, I’m reluctant to attend or support events/organizations that exclude people). But, FAQs pages should be designed to clarify and not confuse – that is if events are open to the general public and not to a selected few.
Atlanta’s challenge: Avoid ambiguous statements and practices that hinder growth. Embracing of certain personalities from the same industry (service, just as an example) while rejecting others of similar and/or equal strengths send discouraging message and create obstacles for innovation not to mention unfair practices.
Solutions: a) Clearly define technology innovation and marketing initiatives. Social media platforms are merely a new medium for marketing, sales, communication, branding. Usage of that platform is not technology but marketing innovation. b) Broaden investor prospects. Do not underestimate the influence and/or ability of new and unknown investors – many investors are private and maintain low profiles. c) Use “target” audience vs “exclusive”. While the former approach is inviting and specific, the latter closes the door on potential innovative minds. Innovation cannot survive (or grow) in confined and closed environment. An inclusive approach and environment energizes and motivates communities opening the door to endless possibilities – a haven for innovation.
LACK OF LOCAL SUPPORT
Atlanta technology startups have failed to gain support from local investors, enterprises and the community. I am not sure of the reason but I’ve a theory – bear with me a little.
Will every idea lead to next Google or E-bay? Absolutely not. But, there are startups who command innovation and are no less than their counterparts in any way. While Mashable, a social media guide (effectively marketing) boasts huge reader-base and corporate partnership, Regator provide an impressive platform that aggregate blog posts and categorize them according to topics and has a searchable archive of more than 3.5 million posts. With the right support and patronage, Regator may very well be next success story in the world of blogs. But, reasons unknown to me, local businesses and deep-pocket investors are attracted by similar innovative initiatives of other cities, primarily. Same comparison may be made between Constant Contact, based in Waltham, Massachusetts and MailChimp based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Of course, businesses are not expected to support local grown startups by default. But, why do companies pay twice as much (sometime more) in engaging out-of-town services/products when exact same solution is available in Atlanta at a much discounted rate? Perhaps a Venture Capitalist and/or an enterprise will be able to answer that question. I personally think, one of the reason is lack of exposure by mainstream media, be it television or newspaper. While groups or personalities from outside of Atlanta are heavily promoted in local media when they visit the city, same cannot be said of local talents of equal and/or more qualifications.
Examples: a) Mashable in Atlanta, were interviewed by local media and gained corporate partnership as mentioned earlier while Regator, a partner host, was left out of the equation. b) While on a book tour Chris Brogan received huge followings from the Atlanta technology community. It should be noted here, neither Mashable nor Brogan are technology innovators – former providing blogs related to social media while the later is the president of a new media marketing agency, according to his site. The platforms that they both use are technology innovation – they are merely utilizing these new mediums for marketing, very effectively, mind you. Now, why same exposure is not granted to local talents, be it Barbara Giamanco, Taryn Pisaneschi or smart and bright recent graduate Courtenay Bird, is beyond me. When local talents are engaged, without sacrificing quality, companies essentially contribute to economic growth and boosts innovation and sustainability.
Atlanta’s challenge: Embracing and adopting ideas and innovative solutions initiated by Atlanta startups by local businesses and investors alike.
Solutions: a) Build a strong relationship with businesses by listening to their needs. Solutions should be based on demand. b) Listen to your community and businesses. Understand what is missing and build around those needs. c) Gain the trust of local companies – Atlanta is the home to many large companies’ headquarters – and initiate reaching out to provide a sustainable solution. d) Execute ideas that meet a demand, existing or future, with a focus on sustainability. Investors look for products/ideas that hold promise in the long run and not some fly-by-the-hour-quick-cash-scheme initiatives.
In a separate post I’ll highlight few other pointers that will help expedite the growth of technology startups. Inspite of the above challenges, there are many technology success stories which prove that any challenge may be overcome with determination, persistence, confidence. Belief in yourself is the ultimate key to success. Finally, network, network, network – know your market, competitors, buyers.
Will Atlanta be a hub of innovation for technology startups in the near future?
*I’ve taken Startup Riot as an example because it’s founded on the ground of providing a platform for mainly technology startups seeking funding.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, February 28th, 2010 at 11:42 am
and is filed under Business, Technology.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Pages
[...] Atlanta Tech Startups: A Hub of Innovation? | Insight [...]
I didn’t present OtherNumber at StartupRiot because I was looking for funding. In fact, if you had been there and seen the 50 pitches you would know that only some of the companies went there to do that. Others were there looking for customers, technical talent, co-founders etc…
Get your facts straight.
That’s just my point – it’s not clear from the info on the site. Of course, if target audience is “known” or “inner” circle of people and communication is sent privately, then that’s different. My observation is geared towards tech events that are “public”. Good example of inviting while being specific of target audience – http://www.mitcio.com/
not sure what is so confusing about startup services being excluded from startup riot. The idea is that the event is for the startups to make connections with people who arn’t trying to sell them something. As a presenter for Savont.com it was nice to not have to worry about whether your time is being taken by someone with nice things to say, but only to sell you a product.
I think that if you gave Startup Riot a fair shake you would find that it is exactly the type of event that facilitates all of your fairly vague (but good) recommendations.
If the message and/or concern is about selling, I would highlight “no solicitation” instead. Thanks for your thoughts.
This is exactly the concern, but your method would prove to be unenforceable as Startup Riot includes several hours of networking and a networking lunch. If 1/2 of the attendees were telling me about their business plan writing, marketing, patent writing (though this was one sponsor in 2010), or similar services the event would be annoying and not worth my time.
To counter your “knowledge” of the event though, in 2009, part of my lunch group was a developer from Yahoo who came to hear the interesting ideas and made for great conversations about what Yahoo was doing. And while I have a small SaaS private venture, telling people about it opened at least one contract programming opportunity that I wasn’t soliciting. Most of the companies aren’t close to the idea or revenue stage where IBM Consulting would join in – but would be tiny investments for IBM if they really thought the ideas were great.
I agree with Austin. Having been to startup events in other major markets, I can say that it’s fairly common procedure to exclude services companies. The events that do not exclude services providers are generally overrun with lawyers and accountants, which lowers the caliber of overall dialogue and connections. So while IBM engineers are generally welcome, it’s not usually cool for the IBM recruiters to show up and try to hire everybody at an event.
I think you also need to compare apples to apples. I love MailChimp, but you compared their bootstrapped success to a venture-backed company that is traded on the NASDAQ. By the same token, your firm may be successful but it (correctly) gets less press than IBM.
Startup Riot is a great event, and it will definitely have an impact on improving the caliber of the startup economy in Atlanta. Let’s try to support it and others like it, instead of impugning it with incorrect data.
Constant Contact wasn’t traded on NASDAQ overnight, http://3.ly/oUkL, nor was Mashable a huge success from day one. Support from community helped. Same applies for IBM which dates to 1880s and was not a success story instantly – http://3.ly/A42b. I agree target is very important but it helps to be specific and to stand by those rules – if a public event.
Startup economy no doubt needs a boost, but that cannot be gained in a closed and confusing environment. Debate is good for improvements – there is always room for that – it’s not designed to impugn….constructive criticism itself is support, unless of course, organizers feel they are perfect and expect 100% thumb-up. That’s unrealistic. Thanks.
M –
You’re making a moving target. Your original post compared the press/attention garnered by publicly-traded venture-backed companies to bootstrap companies with shorter track records. I explained why it’s easier to get press when you’re on the NASDAQ than when you’re not.
I agree with the constructive criticism, but please criticize on the merits. Why not stop by some of the other local startup events and see for yourself (the MIT event does not fall into this category)? There certainly are events where service providers are welcome (I believe @atlsuds is one, and perhaps also the OnStage events, but don’t quote me on that).
I’m not affiliated with SR or MailChimp or any other companies mentioned here.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by sanjay: love how someone who knows nothing about @startupriot indicts the event. and you’re wrong, it isn’t just about funding. http://j.mp/94MAog...
see response above re: “knows nothing..”. Thanks.
Moving out of the city resulted for me in a distancing from Atlanta’s tech community. What I remember from my TAG membership in particular is a fragmented community, in which individuals were highly supportive of and generous toward each other and the business community at large could not have cared less.
Regarding your observations on religion’s intersection with technology, this is not limited to the technology sector; it permeates all segments of business all over the Southeast. For those of us who did not grow up here and who were brought up in cultures in which religion is a private matter, this is a rather startling phenomenon that, I believe, leads to an impoverishment of ideas, thus restricting vision, development and growth.
I found your posting from the chatter on twitter. Not quite sure what triggered the commentary regarding technology and theology, because other than a bible study run by Charlie Papparelli, the annual HighTech Ministries Breakfast, and the quarterly Christian Business Lunch and a hodgepodge of other networking groups and job hunt groups, I haven’t seen a lot of criscrossing of business/religion and technology myself. However, I am very familiar with the your other key points about the fragmented startup tech community and the fiefdoms that have been created by startup oriented groups/events with good intentions but incredibly ostracizing outcomes that are either blissfully ignorant because they are basking in their own self created glory or have fallen victim of Bush-syndrome – when ego-itus prevents one from modifying their chosen course of action when faced with valid criticism. I’m guessing you did try to attend Startup Riot and were rejected because of your immediate classification as a service provider, rather than someone who in fact might have a business opportunity to integrate another company’s innovation into your current successful business offerings. I have grown weary of pointing out their inconsistency—Why the ABC Tech Startup journalist cannot attend but the Technlinks editor can? Why the managing director of a local angel group and president of an early stage advisory group cannot attend, but the partners of investment banking firms that always charge big fees when “representing” non-startup companies to the capital markets can attend? Why align with one incubator and one university when there are probably a dozen incubators and university commercialization programs in Georgia? On one hand, credit must be given because at least there is one faction of the startup community in Atlanta that is creating a buzz, just too bad they are too busy standing in a circle, patting themselves on the back to jerk the other way and see all the other startups wanting help and all the other well intentioned people trying to help them, invest in them, ….just doing it steadfastly and quietly.
I’m not sure that I see much theology in the Atlanta Tech scene – in fact, often enough, I find the inner city technology enthusiasts almost against religion. BarCamp is perhaps the best example of this as one of the more identifiable groups was skeptics who found common ground.
Thanks for all your views. My overall recap around this post is at http://wp.nu/e4. Thanks.