Entrepreneurs, Are You Sticking to Your New Year’s Resolution? [Infographic]

A new year, a new you. It’s such a commonplace mentality once January rolls around, but how many of us have already lost momentum and broken our resolutions? The first month of 2013 is almost over, and it’s around the time co-workers, friends, and family stop asking about your resolutions, causing us to push them to the back burner ourselves. But all is not lost. It’s still important to set goals, even if you know you won’t always stick to them perfectly or achieve them within a year’s time. This infographic by OnlineEducation provides some interesting facts and figures about goal setting, including tips that could be helpful when it comes to keeping your resolutions this year.

For example, they suggest writing your goals down. Having clear and documented objectives made individuals 10 times more likely to achieve them. And yet, statistics indicate that only about one in five individuals actually write down their New Year’s goals. But also remember to pace yourself, trying to making too many changes too quickly could backfire or create only short-lived results. Additionally, make sure to re-evaluate your goals and ensure they are for you alone, and not dependent on other people. This makes them much more attainable, and more rewarding as well. Above all, know that if you have lapsed a bit, you are not the only one. It’s not too late to get back on track for the rest of 2013!

Top 10 blunders when developing and managing mobile apps…from a puppy

“As long as the world is turning and spinning, we’re gonna be dizzy and we’re gonna make mistakes.” – Mel
Brooks

This is Devie. Besides being the avatar of cuteness he’s an eccentric mobile app developer. Devie is quite
skilled when it comes to the mobile landscape in general and as such it would be wise to pay attention to
what he says.

The mobile app world has passed its infant phase but it hasn’t quite reached full maturity yet and many
developers and companies still make mistakes when it comes to putting out apps on the market.

To this end, Devie has helped us in making a list of the top 10 overlooked mistakes when developing and
managing apps. Heed his words carefully, otherwise, you will make the same face when disappointing your
clients and users, the same face Devie makes when he tips over the coffee cup (which happens roughly twice
a day).

Without further ado, let’s take a look at the top 10 mistakes:

# 1 Forgetting that you’re developing for real people

Apps are built for real people and not ,,the idea of people”. In other words UX or user experience. User
experience doesn’t mean just the interface. The UI is just a part of it. UX is everything from the moment
when the user finds out about the app, reads the description, installs it, sees how it works, when he needs
it, if he smiles, if he frowns in confusion, etc. When designing an app, think about how your regular user will
react to it.

Your app should have a precise functionality in mind, a natural flow like opening a book and an intuitive
design. A user shouldn’t be forced to study an app manual to use a mobile application. Especially if he pays
for it. Always remember : the end user experience is your primary goal.

# 2 Your mobile app looks like a quantum mechanics diagram

In other words, complexity doesn’t necessarily imply cool design no more than simplicity means the absence
of it.

In the case of smartphones, think about the iPhone for example. Do you really want to put 20 buttons and
features on a small screen? Just because you can code your app to do anything you’d like, doesn’t mean
you should. Unless you need an app with a lot of details (such as a media and entertainment app), your
app will take time away from a user instead saving time. Often times, simplicity wins 9/10 over complexity.
App functionality and design shouldn’t be drowned in useless buttons, unnecessary scrolling and being so
complicated that it makes you forget how you got to a certain section within the app.

# 3 Don’t make people squint, the screens are small

So you have a brilliant idea about creating an app. You’re going to corner the market. People will praise you
and cheer you on the streets. You’re the new Michelangelo. You might have created the new Sistine Chapel,
but unless you find a way to put it on a 3,5 inch screen you’re just going to let all that work go to waste.
Instead of trying to paint as many details into your app as possible, let them appear one at a time so your
users aren’t faced with a maze of buttons and too much detail. Let them savor the experience.

# 4 No app scalability

There are a lot of apps out there that have the potential of growing but they were built with only a few users
in mind. Unless you’re intentionally putting out one time apps, you should take into consideration that one
of the reasons you are developing mobile apps, is because you want to reach as many people as possible.

Think about this one. What would have happened if the moment when Angry Birds really got popular,
the app was only designed with limited playability and only for a few thousand users? it would have
become ,,One of those games I played for a couple of days and that’s all“. ,,That’s all” isn’t the phrase you
want to hear when your app is reviewed.

# 5 The app itself isn’t your main source of revenue

The main source of profits isn’t the mobile app. In-app purchases and in-app advertising are. In 2012, more
than 3/4 of the global app revenues came out of in-app purchases. Don’t forget the interactive feature of in-
app currency, for example customer points when shopping. Most apps are sold for 99 cents or $3. You might
reach 2000 users, but your only going to make $2000-$6000.

Developers aren’t different from rockstars. No, developers, you’re not the next Jimi Hendrix…yet. We’re
talking about the fact that most money rockstars make isn’t from cd’s and songs (especially with torrents
nowadays) but from concerts. They make their daily bread from offering interactivity and memorable
experiences.

,,Fact : Apps don’t make a lot of money. The content they deliver does.” – Devie

Such as it is, most apps are free anyway and all apps should be free. Why? Because psychologically speaking,
why would someone buy a product they haven’t even tested based on a 3 line description of how awesome
it is. If it isn’t free, then a free trial should be implemented so customers can know what to expect.
Monetizing mobile apps isn’t about selling the app. The app is a medium for revenue and not the end goal.

# 6 Ads can make or break an app

Not all mobile apps are madefor mobile ads. First of all, the smartphone or tablet is not a desktop pc. When
building an app, say for a restaurant chain, an ad that offers coupons or discounts might work. But right now,
banners and spray and pray ads are most likely to backfire on your user experience.

Another thing you should never do is integrate ads that have buttons looking like a natural extension of
the app. Spammy and intrusive ads that gobble up the screen when the user is in mid-use of the app often
begets negative reviews and complaints. Mobile ads are a tricky business. The question you should ask
yourself is :,,Will the ads cut into the user experience and make monetization impossible or not?”

Mobile app success stems in the first place from the user reaction and not just from the fact that your app
was downloaded – Devie

# 7 No points of contact, no user feedback, no improvements = no cookies for developers and companies

There are a lot of apps out there that stand only to gain from updates and improvements that never seem to
arrive. Not all apps have to implement points of contact for developers /companies (such as a mail address
or forum), but it doesn’t hurt when you want to ,,actually!” see how your app is perceived and how it can
be improved from the users themselves. No points of contact sometimes means that you’re telling the
users ,,That’s all we offer and nothing more, so don’t bother us”.

# 8 Poor push notifications pushes users away

Or even the very lack of push notifications for that matter. Apps such as news apps stand only to benefit
from the smart integration of PN’s and they keep users retention at good levels. However, poor PN planning
can ruin your app. PN’s should be relaxed like when a friend calls you and tells you about a good movie that
just came out. But if he’d call you every 5 seconds to tell you about every TV channel, you’d think about
choosing your friends more wisely wouldn’t you?

There are apps for example, that help you find coffee shops on the map. A badly planned PN would be when
every 2 minutes when a user walks an extra 600 ft, an annoying update about a coffee shop a few streets
away suddenly breaks his train of thought. Or if even disturbing users while sleeping is a guaranteed way

to screw up your app. For more details on what you should and shouldn’t do with push notifications, check
out Push notifications, the do’s and don’ts.

# 9 No analytics and no idea what your app is doing on a saturday night at 3:00 a.m.

Analytics or another way of saying app behaviour and user behaviour is a must when you want to understand
what’s happening when your app is ready to grow u p and see the world. The ability to monitor and study
app usage, users characteristics, how long do they use the app, how many times and so on is vital.

Without analytics an app faces fully fledged uncertainty on the part of developers. Not knowing whether
your app really becomes popular or it has been slowly dying leaves you with a blindspot that’s going to affect
investment and results.

# 10 Targeting too many platforms or too few

Apps are fickle children and sometimes they want all flavors of the ice cream or other times just one.
Consider the value proposition of your mobile app. If you’re going for native on multiple platforms, then
really really take a few steps back and consider if it’s worth it. A lot of business /enterprise apps are
preferred to be on tablets due to the wide screen that allows presentations, pitches, reports and getting
quick news from business blogs and magazines.

Rather than developing for 3-4 mobile platforms, such as iPhone, Android, Windows Phone or Blackerry,
make careful considerations about this next question : Can I waste valuable resources such as time and
money developing for multiple platforms while my competition puts out an app before me?

Going for a one size fits all is good in a lot of businesses but the technology for doing this in mobile apps isn’t
here yet. Rather than targeting a lot of platforms, develop an good and polished app for one or two main
platforms such as iOS and Android.

Conclusions : These are just a part of the big questions and mistakes you can make when developing and
managing mobile apps. Other things we could highlight would be : little or no integration with the device’s
native features, apps that are developed requiring user immobility which is the exact opposite of ,,being
mobile”, lack of social network implementations and so on.

The main key ideas you have to keep in mind is UX and targeted needs. Like Rebecca Flavin , CEO of Denver-
based Effective UI said some of the elements of UX: usable, useful and enjoyable. The three cherries of
creating an interactive and engaging user experience.

Take heed of what Devie said and as a company or developer you’ll be able to brag to your friends that you
saved thousands of dollars and created stunning apps because you listened to a puppy.

P.S. – We wanted to put the cherries on top but Devie would have ate them before we got to the end.

This is a guest post by Appscend (www.appscend.com) — the all-in-one cross-mobile performance based
application platform. Appscend offers its customers the fastest cross platform development technology
available on the market today together with a complete list of backend technologies that ensure application
& user management, a powerful push notifications platform as well as app analytics, ad-integration, in-app
purchases and over-the-air distribution services.

Are Accelerators from “Everywhere Else” Better at Producing Groundbreaking Innovation? Maybe. Here’s Why GUEST POST

There’s been a lot of press lately about the lack of true, groundbreaking innovation in Silicon Valley. I don’t think that’s completely true, but reading about it made me think a bit about the nature of innovation and whether the current system is built to foster it.

I live in this little city called Memphis and we have a small but growing tech community and a great little startup accelerator called Seed Hatchery that is currently taking applications for its third class.

Now the thing about Seed Hatchery is that it doesn’t get near the number of applicants as a Y Combinator or a TechStars or even some of the less well-known accelerators. They’re okay with that and they’re okay with plugging along and making improvements year after year and meeting goals and milestones that are at a somewhat smaller scale. And there are a lot of accelerators just like Seed Hatchery, all over the world.

There have been arguments made that these accelerators will die out. That may be true for some. But I happen to think that before they do they will have trained and produced more innovative entrepreneurs than some of their larger counterparts. Why? Because, generally, the enrollees in these programs have a high appetite for risk to begin with, and because they won’t have that appetite beaten out of them by the time they finish.

True innovation typically happens at the knife’s edge between failure and success. It doesn’t come from the safer and satisfied middle. That’s good news for tiny accelerators, and may be bad news for some of the more successful ones.

A program that gives me a ton of money, a good to great chance of raising more, and an almost 100% chance of landing softly even if I fail tends to convince even big risk takers to play things a bit more safe. It seems like the opposite should be true, right? I have all these benefits with virtually zero chance of absolute failure, so why shouldn’t I give it a go? But, as we see time and time again, that kind of thinking just doesn’t happen very often.

For these programs, getting in is the big challenge, and once you’ve achieved that you’re granted superstar status. Your success rate jumps to 70% or more. And if the success rate is 70% or more, then beating everyone else isn’t as important as not being in the bottom 30%. So, often enough at least, you don’t build something that has a 10% chance of glorious success. You play it safe. You try not to f$%k it up.

For other programs, by contrast, getting in is potentially easier, but success after graduation is much much harder. A lot of smaller accelerators have one or two companies out of ten successfully raise follow-on funding. When the success rate is that low, the companies tend to take bigger chances in the hopes of finding themselves among those one or two success stories. Except in extraordinary cases, it doesn’t matter what kind of human being you are. The company you build will be different based on whether you’re motivated to succeed above all others or motivated to not screw things up.

Now, before you jump all over me, I will say that there are things that continue to make Y Combinator and TechStars amazing programs, and you would be a fool not to join them if invited. The mentor networks, and the advice participants receive from those mentors, are probably by themselves worth the price of admission. But, imagine for a moment the kinds of companies that might be produced by a Y Combinator should, say, only five to ten of the 80 companies receive follow-on funding. Might that look different? My bet is yes, and that they would be much more groundbreaking.

I’m also betting that the smaller accelerators—so long as they don’t measure success by Y Combinator standards—can produce these kinds of companies. There will be more failures, sure, but that’s okay by me. The near certainty of failure is one the most compelling features.

Author Biography:

Cliff McKinney is CEO of Work for Pie, a company that is changing the way software developers get recruited and hired by changing the way they communicate with

Here’s another take on accelerators “everywhere else” from nibletz.com

Learning from Instagram’s Faux Pas! Guest Post By Moe Glenner

Once again, a technology-based company has exposed to the world their classic misunderstanding of change. In Instagram’s case, the failure was two-fold: a failure in planning and an even bigger failure to communicate. In late 2012, Instagram tried to generate revenue by sharing its users’ photos. (The new policy has since been retracted.) Unfortunately, the company’s new policy was not communicated properly and resulted in a predictable firestorm of bad publicity and the loss of a number of users. Instagram’s public change failure can provide important lessons for anyone or any organization pursuing change.

Lesson 1 – Planning for Risk can Make-or-Break the Change Initiative

While we would like to believe that Instagram planned for potential risk emanating from their new policy, it’s clear that if they did, they didn’t do it very well. Instagram’s risk planning failure is especially poignant given recent missteps by Facebook and Netflix. The media and users closely scrutinize any and all policy changes, especially those involving privacy. As users, we have become very educated and involved with changes to the technology platforms we use most. Similar to many technology applications, Instagram struggles with revenue generation. The attempted policy change was undoubtedly, an attempt to generate revenue. Somehow they didn’t plan for any backlash and their immediate retraction only served as direct proof of this lack of risk planning. All changes must plan for probable risks and have ancillary planning for other risks. Ignoring this rule, will most likely lead to change failure with its resulting costs.

For organizational changes, risk management is a serious endeavor and must be handled appropriately. While it is impossible to identify every possible risk, it is possible to identify risk categories. By this identification, response plans are put in place to immediately address a risk pending its categorization. The key to successful identification is communication.

Lesson 2 – Honest, Relevant and Timely Communication is Critical

Unfortunately for Instagram, the only communication was in full damage control mode. While appropriate, the communication was much too late to save the change and did little to mollify many users who subsequently defected. The time for communication is prior to, during and after the change has been implemented. This communication must be honest as to intentions and goals. It must be relevant to the specific change initiative being forwarded and it must be timely to the current stage of the initiative.

Communication must be honest, constant and consistent between the project sponsor, team leader, team members and those affected by the change. In the planning stage, a wide array of resources must be utilized to establish categories and then identify probable and potential risk. Honest communication allows for robust dialogue between team members and subject matter experts and the formation of a realistic risk plan. Once the change initiative is started, communication becomes especially critical. Lack of relevant and timely communication will lead to confusion, fear, resentment and even pushback to the otherwise appropriate change initiative. All of these negative results will severely and potentially fatally impact the likelihood of success. Thus, there is no such thing as over-communication but lack of communication is real and must be combated.

Above all, this is the time to be brutally honest and realistic with ourselves and our colleagues. We have a tendency to take on goals and internal change projects that are overly ambitious. Once the initiative is started and the going gets tough, we start compromising with ourselves and questioning the likelihood of success. Honest communication, internally and with our support team, allows for greater probability of realistic goal-setting and realistic achievement.

If Instagram’s goal was to generate revenue, their change initiative should have planned for a potential backlash and it should have been communicated in a manner that incorporated the risk strategy and allowed for meaningful dialogue during all stages of the change initiative. By learning from Instagram and others like it, we can effectuate successful and enduring change in the future.

Moe Glenner is the founder and president of PURELogistics, a leading consulting firm that specializes in organizational change. He earned his MBA at Lake Forest Graduate School of Management and a Lean Six Sigma Black Belt Certification from Villanova University. Glenner’s new book, Selfish Altruism: Managing & Executing Successful Change Initiatives ($13.95 | Amazon), explores best practices in organizational change. For more information, visitwww.moeglenner.com.

The nibletz.com team is at CES 2013 Check out all the startup stories out of the International CES

Steal Time Back From Social Media with “Productive Sharing” – James Sposto Founder Of Xtrant

How much do time do you spend on social media? How many hours a week does Facebook take from you? How often do you pause to tweet, to post a photo, even to send a group text?

Yes, you enjoy it.

Yes, there is networking to be done.

Yes, Twitter is part of the fabric of your life…we all get it.

But as those hours get sucked away there are things that need to get done, things you are putting off: It could be that novel you are writing, right? Or that report that’s due on Friday. Or this blog post – the one you are reading now – the one that I put off a few times, and you’ve found thanks to social media (don’t feel guilty, this counts as research.) Social media – or “Social Sharing” is addictive because it’s so useful – so easy to adopt. But like any opiate, it steals from our personal productivity, and in the aggregate it steals from humanity’s productivity as well – deep down you know the millions of hours spent on FarmVille could be used to cure the disease of your choice.

Okay, you can argue that most of the folks who sit and while away the hours on social media wouldn’t be doing much anyway, and it’s better to keep some of them occupied instead of stirring up trouble – but that’s another essay.

Let’s be idealists here – and cite an artificial statistic (I know, damn lies and all.) “When Twitter goes down, worker productivity skyrockets 50%.”

continue reading at the xtrant blog

James Sposto is a film maker, designer, entrepreneur, co-founder of digital creative agency Sposto Interactive and the co-founder of Xtrant, the official project management startup for everywhereelse.co The Startup Conference.

Month One In A Startup Accelerator, Cliff McKinney CEO, Work For Pie

“This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.”

So I’ve started a couple of companies before. Okay I say “started companies,” but I don’t really
mean either of those words. I just incorporated some ideas I had. I got business cards with my
name on them. I built a little website for interested people to sign up. One of them even earned
me a little play money. But in truth, I was just playing house.

When I walked in the door a month ago at Seed Hatchery, a startup accelerator in Memphis,
TN, I hadn’t discovered that yet. In my mind, I was kind of a badass. I had read more books
about entrepreneurship than anyone I knew. I had listened to every episode of This Week in
Startups. Hell I even suffered through a few episodes of This Week in Venture Capital. My
team had a GREAT idea that NOBODY ELSE was doing (or doing well, at least), and I had this
awesome, undiscovered savant of a co-founder and we were just going to waltz in there and
kick serious butt.

And day one was awesome! I was part of a special fraternity of entrepreneurs, and we were all
going to change the world. It was all champagne and roses. And I really felt that way. It was
wild man. Like livin’ on Haight in ’67.

Then the rest of the week felt something like this:

“Your idea sucks. No one is doing it because it sucks. You haven’t thought it through, you
haven’t done a bit of customer research, and it’s amazing that you didn’t have the good sense
to realize it before you walked in this door. You are only slightly less likely to fail because you’re
here than you were before you got here, which is to say that the likelihood of your failure just
went from 100% to something closer to 99.5%. Your pitch sucks. It’s too long. Where’s the
real pain? Are you solving a real problem? Your presentation isn’t that great either. Too many
words, not enough substance. You’re half as talented as my mother and you’re in Memphis-
freaking-Tennessee. They don’t give money to stupid people here. They don’t even give it
to smart people. You have 90, 89, 88, 87, 86 days to make a great product, and you haven’t
shown me anything that makes me believe that will happen yet…”

Thank you Drill Sergeant, may I have another?

It was an awakening, to say the least. Turns out everything I thought mattered didn’t, and
everything I thought was true wasn’t (except for the bit about the genius co-founder), and
everything I had learned wasn’t relevant anymore. By the end of that first week, I was huddled
in a corner with my rifle, crying, hoping the whole thing would just blow up and take me along
with it.

“Okay, forget everything we just said.”

But I kept coming back, because it was the most awesome thing I had ever done. Humbling,
yes, but awesome nonetheless. I was doing THIS. I was being brought to my knees HERE,

doing OUR THING. We didn’t answer to anyone but ourselves. We were keeping late nights
because we wanted to, not because some freaking busybody micro-manager in another
department needs her TPS reports by noon tomorrow. We were living the dream!

And we were getting better. Bit by bit. By week two the pitch had improved. We met mentors
who had been there and were willing to guide us through the trials and tribulations. We were
doing customer research and starting to turn our crappy little idea into something that just
might work. We had this amazing, awesome group of cohort companies, each with great
entrepreneurs and talented individuals, helping us along the way. We were making progress,
and we were doing it at a speed that my counterparts in “the real world” wouldn’t even be able
to comprehend.

So three weeks in we said “okay, forget about everything we just said,” and changed just about
everything about our original idea. Three days (and about 12 hours of sleep) later, we pitched
that new idea to investors for the first time. We had come far enough to be able to say “yeah,
this one is going to be better, and it’s okay that we have to scrap a bunch of stuff to make it
work.” It was progress, and the investors noticed. It IS a better idea, and they knew it. And we
had survived. It wasn’t pretty, but we had survived. At least the first battle.

“You think Grendel’s a bear–you should meet the mother!”

Things aren’t any easier these days. Not at all. Sleep still comes in short bursts. The pressure
is building as we get closer and closer to demo day, and the expectations are higher because,
somehow, we’re infinitely better than we were when we walked through the door a month ago.
We’ve got a month to build a product that thousands of people will one day use. 31, 30, 29, 28
days. They pass before we even know what hit us.

But the false hope that got turned into realistic doubt in that first week is creeping into the
territory of realistic hope. And what we’re hearing in week five sounds a bit more like this:

“Your idea sucks, but you’ve got time to make it better. You haven’t thought it through, but
you’ve got the tools to do that now. You haven’t talked to your customers enough, but we’re
going to help you do that. And no matter what you think, we didn’t bet on your idea. The only
thing you brought with you was you, and you are what we bet on, not your stupid idea. You’ve
got a shot at this. Keep going.”

Here’s hoping that kind of talk continues…

Author Biography:

Cliff McKinney is CEO of Work for Pie, a company that is changing the way software developers
get recruited and hired by changing the way they communicate with companies. He and his
team have conducted countless interviews with both developers and the companies that hire
them. You can find him on twitter at @cliffmckinney.

Linkage:

Learn more about Seed Hatchery, the accelerator WorkForPie went through, here

Are you coming to “everywhereelse.co The startup conference”

Check out Work For Pie here

The Altsie Report: Summary Of A Startup That Didn’t Quite Work Out Part I

Editor’s note: We covered Altsie, a Minneapolis startup that helped promote and drive independent films and local commerce around the films. During that time we got to know Lucas Rayala, the startups founder. A few weeks back Rayala announced that he was shutting down Altsie and shared his thoughts on it with TechCrunch. Rayala wanted to give other startup founders an inside look at a startup that “didn’t quite work out”.

His insightful report is very valuable to any startup founder and we will be publishing the report in four parts over the next two weeks. Anyone that feels this information is mission critical and would like the entire report in a downloadable format can simply email startups@nibletz.com and we will gladly send it to you.

Overview:

What’s Altsie?

Altsie was a new way to go to the movies. Altsie partnered with hip neighborhood businesses across the country to create alternative screening venues and bring customers a new, exciting theater experience. Using some web 2.0 magic, businesses could, in minutes, set up a profile and schedule show times through our site. Altsie’s vision was to disrupt the old Hollywood theater model; with the help of overnight shipping, we had the ability to create a hundred micro theaters overnight.

It just didn’t work out that way.

Incorporated as a Minnesota LLC, Altsie showed films from April to November of 2012. During that time, Altsie partnered with seven businesses across three states and has had thirty screenings of seven award-winning films. Altsie made money through online ticket sales.

We closed in November of 2012 for various reasons, including a need to reinvent the original idea, a lack of funds to do so, and other personal reasons.

This paper describes some market observations we made during our short existence, some of the problems we ran into, and potential areas we think other startups might be interested in exploring. This paper is written from our limited perspective, but we believe that a perspective from someone with their boots on the ground is pretty valuable.

Market Summary:

The Universe of Theater Ticket Sales and the Cost of a Theater

The MPAA Annual Report states that in the US/Canadian market, theater admissions were 1.3 billion in 2011, totaling $10.2B in sales ($32.6B worldwide sales). Attendance has fallen steadily over the last decade, down from 1.6 billion admissions in 2002, while sales have remained relatively stagnant due to increased ticket costs. 1

We wanted to position Altsie as a nationwide alternative to traditional big-box theaters, and we believed we had a significant cost advantage. To put things in perspective, an owner today will spend $2M to build and equip a standard movie theater2. For $2M, a business like Altsie could install HD projectors, screens, and speaker equipment in one thousand businesses across the country. That would instantly make that business, by location, the largest theater system in the United States, surpassing Regal and AMC combined.3

There’s a lot of power in small.

Competitors

Altsie was the first company to partner with small businesses to create ticketed screenings on any scale. We were excited to be the first to explore this space. Other companies license films for non-theatrical venues, but securing the rights to show a movie through these companies is a byzantine and expensive process. Swank and The Criterion Collection are the two main competitors in this arena. Neither site caters to small businesses. Both are built for larger organizations like cruise lines, colleges, and prisons. These larger clients are allowed to screen movies concurrent with a film’s normal theatrical release; however, neither Swank nor Criterion will license a film to a small business until after it has been released to DVD.

Small businesses we spoke to did not like to work with either Swank or Criterion. They’re too expensive, starting at $175 to license a movie for a single showing. This makes it difficult for businesses to break even on an event. Small businesses have limited time and resources to procure films—Altsie knew this and made procurement easy, licensing straightforward, and event-creation a snap.

Altsie Audience Demographics

The majority of Altsie’s customers were between 20 and 40 years of age. Anecdotally, they almost all attended our events as a “date night,” and the majority of tickets were purchased by women. Customers generally bought meals and drinks at our showings—this is in line with industry studies, which show that 43% of moviegoers go to a sit-down or fast food restaurant immediately before or after their movie.4

Footnotes:

1 MPAA Annual Report, Theatrical Market Statistics, 2011, http://bit.ly/HH1VzH

2 Reed Construction Data, Movie Theater: Construction Cost Estimating, http://bit.ly/P7E68B

3 As of this writing, Regal and AMC are the two largest theater systems in the US, with 548 and 378 locations, respectively. http://bit.ly/dFuOQP

4 The Arbitron Cinema Advertising Study: Appointment Viewing by Young, Affluent, Captive Audiences, 2003, http://bit.ly/NGo3gO

Market Summary Continued:

This was a big sell to businesses who wished to partner with Altsie, and locations that paired specials with their showings were effective at pushing food sales. Our first show had 35 guests and created the highest Sunday-night sales “in memory” for The Nicollet’s owner, Jeremy Konecny, whose café did record pizza sales because of the special he offered with his tickets. While Altsie used group buying to get the word out about our service, for our business customers, Altsie wanted to position itself as an alternative to services like Groupon or LivingSocial.

What market trends made us believe Altsie would succeed?

Decreasing Number of Theaters

The high cost of showing a movie in a traditional venue has led to fewer, larger theaters as owners consolidate costs. The number of indoor movie theaters has gone from 7,151 in 1995 to 5,561 in 2009, a 22% decrease5. The decrease in locations means, necessarily, that theaters are moving farther away from customers. You can quote any number of theories as to why attendance has decreased, but increased travel-time will limit physical attendance. However, because of the unchallenged position this model has in the live-screening market, theaters have been allowed to continue this unhealthy pattern. And this trend isn’t stabilizing, it’s accelerating. At a minimum of $65K per projector, the conversion to digital will be the final straw for many small theaters. “Convert or die,” is a maxim repeated by John Fithian, CEO and president of the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO), the largest exhibition trade organization in the world. He’s right, for the traditional market. Large distributors will soon discontinue using film as a medium—Fox Pictures intends to do so in the next two years. NATO estimates that 1,000 venues will go under as other distributors follow suit, eliminating another 20% of our nation’s theaters. 6

This trend is sad, but the gaps left by the retreating theaters leave room for a new business model. Altsie wanted to be a model that brought movies back into neighborhoods, at a reasonable price and cost structure. There’s another growing trend we tried to take advantage of to do this.

Increasing Number of Films

There are over 10,000 films created in North America every year. The Sundance Film Festival reports 12,000 submissions (both national and international) to their contest annually. Of that, they screen 200.7 In 2009, only 3 films that participated in our nation’s flagship festival were offered theatrical release, as reported in a roundtable discussion by industry experts in McSweeney’s San Francisco Panorama. 8 The discussion participants went on to talk about the need for a new method of distribution for this growing market. As the costs to create a film decrease, they note, directors do not need to rely as heavily on production companies. The sheer number of films now available made it relatively easy for Altsie to find quality work for our audiences.

Footnotes:

5 National Association of Theater Owners website, http://bit.ly/5lxs5

6 Hurley, Michael, We’re About to Lose 1,000 Small Theaters That Can’t Convert to Digital. Does It Matter?, IndieWire, Feb. 23, 2012, http://bit.ly/AzLtuB

7 Sundance Film Festival Website, Film and Events page, http://bit.ly/gckpzb

8 McSweeney’s San Francisco Panorama, Jan. 1, 2010, http://bit.ly/ntA8sT

Market Summary Continued

Decreasing Projection Costs and Changing Markets

While professional equipment has gone up in price, home theater equipment has decreased in price and increased in quality. Six years ago, a high definition 1080P projector cost over $10K. Today, higher quality units are around $900. The rapidly decreasing cost presents an inevitable problem for the film industry. It’s a problem the record industry was caught famously unprepared for with the rise of MP3s—technology has created a new method for distribution, and unless a business model exists to harness this new technology, illegal screenings will become more common. Altsie, of course, hoped to head off that trend and meet the market need.

Increased Online Buying and “Going Local”

Concepts which would not have been possible ten years ago have become realities because of a recent critical mass of internet users and the expansion of mobile. “Local” is the new buzzword for internet businesses. Customers are excited to use the internet to discover new adventures in their cities, as exemplified by the rapid adoption of services such as Groupon, FourSquare, Yelp, and more. Groupon’s 2011 Letter to Shareholders states that they have 33 million active users worldwide who purchased 170 million deals last year.9 “Going local” works, and there is a large market for online and social purchasing that Altsie tried to tap into. To do this, Altsie used its website as a tool to automatically organize businesses and show times, creating a flexible framework for event creation that made it easy for consumers to get local, find relevant information, and minimizes the number of clicks necessary to purchase a ticket.

Rural and Underserved Markets

Finally, not every city has an independent theater, and rural markets are underserved with respect to movie theaters in general and independent films in particular. This opens up several opportunities. Certain geographies cannot support traditional movie theaters. Altsie wanted to bring a theater experience to smaller geographies by partnering with pre-existing businesses. There is less competition with other entertainment options in these regions. Altsie saw rural communities as a major expansion point for our business and believed this had the potential to be our largest market.

There’s a second market consideration with regard to rural communities. Altsie spoke with distribution companies interested in expanding their footprint beyond the indie theaters they’re currently restricted too. They do not, of course, want to cannibalize or otherwise compete with established markets, but they see value in a separate market offering outside the urban areas. We believe this is a still an area of growth.

Footnote

9 Groupon 2011 shareholder letter, http://bit.ly/KoqnIL

We will continue to bring the rest of this report to you over the next few days! If you would like the report in it’s entirety simply email us at startups@nibletz.com

Fair & Square How To Divide Equity In A Startup (Guest Post)

How to Use a Dynamic Equity Split Program in Your Start-up

You and a partner start a company and split the equity 50/50. You do all the work and your partner flakes out. He owns half your company and wants to keep it. Now what?

This is called a fixed equity split program and it is the most common method of splitting up equity among founders. However this painful situation is very common. It is virtually impossible to design a fixed split equity program that doesn’t cause problems. A dynamic equity split program, on the other hand, provides most fair way to divide up shares in a start-up company among founders, early employees, partners and anyone else that deserves a slice of the pie. It will allow you to determine exactly the right number of shares each person deserves based on (and here is the key) the relative value of their individual inputs.

In a dynamic equity model the founder or founders who provide 90% of the great ideas, early seed money, sweat equity and other resources will wind up with 90% of the reward and the junior developer who provides only 2% of the great ideas, early seed money, sweat equity and other resources relative to the founders will receive 2% of the reward. This is how it should be; anyone who thinks differently is probably someone who wants more than their fair share.

The book, Slicing Pie: Funding Your Company Without Funds, is essentially a user guide to dynamic equity splits for entrepreneurs. It provides detailed instructions on making one work. However, here is the nutshell version of how a dynamic equity spilt model works:

Step One: Have (or be) a trustworthy leader

Only join a start-up company where you can trust the other people, especially the leader. The leader will control 100% of the equity while a dynamic model is being used. This means that an unscrupulous leader can take advantage of everyone. The leader is responsible for tracking the shares and keeping things fair. He or she will provide the appropriate cap table to the lawyers who create the formal equity agreement when the time is right. The right time to issue the equity is when the company shows real, actual, concrete evidence of value.

The leader will also make sure that when a person leaves they are treated fairly. I’ve posted a summary of how to treat people fairly when they leave a company on my blog at SlicingPie.com.

Step Two: Assign values to the various inputs provided by each participant relative to other inputs

A relative value is not the same thing as an actual value. Actual values in a pre-money start-up company are pretty much impossible to determine. Relative values are much easier to calculate and much more meaningful. The key is to set a relative value that is fair given someone’s background, experience and job responsibilities. For instance, the sweat of an experienced CEO with a couple of homeruns under her belt is relatively more valuable than that of an entry-level graphic designer. However, two founders with similar skill-levels may have a similar value to the firm.

When it comes to the value of someone’s time the relative value should not only take into account their skills and experience, but also the requirements of the job. You should be sure to subtract any current compensation the person receives in cash. Equity compensation is provided in exchange for what people put at risk in a new company. If you pay them a fair salary you shouldn’t have to give them any equity because they aren’t risking anything.

Time isn’t the only input an individual can provide. Other inputs include cash, loans, ideas, intellectual property, important resources (like equipment and supplies), strategic relationships and even things like office space. Nearly everything in a start-up company that can’t be bought with cash (if you don’t have it) can be acquired with equity. A dynamic model will tell you exactly how much each is worth relative to other inputs. Everything has a relative value that is fair to the provider and the other participants. Over time these relative values really add up. I’ve posted a summary of how to calculate relative values on my blog at SlicingPie.com.

Step Three: Calculate shares by dividing an individual’s contribution to the company by the total contribution (individual value ÷ total = shares %)

This will give you exactly the percentage of equity a person deserves. No more and no less. I call the total contributions to the firm a “Theoretical Base Value” or TBV. It’s theoretical because it’s not real. It simply adds up the values of the inputs based on the value you assigned in step two. So, you may determine that a founder is “worth” $200 per hour. But, if he works 1,000 hours the company may not actually be worth $200,000 more. I hope it’s worth a lot more than that, but the point is that the value of inputs are only important as a relative measure. I’ve posted a calculator spreadsheet on my blog at SlicingPie.com to help keep track.

This means that over time the potential equity split will change depending on what someone contributes. This is why it’s called a dynamic split. When you get a major investor or start generating enough cash flow to pay people you can calculate the equity, issue official shares, sign a shareholders agreement and be on your way. So, the sooner you raise money or the sooner you make money the sooner you can “lock in” the equity.

Dynamic equity splits make no assumptions about the future value of a company. It doesn’t matter what the future value will be. All that matters is that when you actually create future value everyone who risked something to help you get there should get their fair share of what’s created. Only a dynamic equity split can achieve this. Only a dynamic equity split provides a framework of fairness and respect for all participants. All other methods are prone to failure in their ability to treat people fairly. When I say “all others” I mean all others and “others” is what is commonly used today. That means the model you used or are planning to use in your start up is putting you and your team at risk of unfair equity allocation.

Sorry!

Dynamic equity splits are very uncommon, however, because the process isn’t well understood. Additionally, the dynamic nature of the split scares people who want to grab the biggest possible piece for themselves. Even the founder who errs on the side of generosity will ultimately fail because they, themselves, will be treated unfairly.

I’m on a personal mission to make sure that every entrepreneur on the planet understands dynamic equity models before they make the horrible mistake of using a traditional fixed model. Too many start- up companies are destroyed due to conflicts that arise when people on the team are treated unfairly. The dynamic model can accommodate all possible outcomes in a way that motivates and inspires a person who is treated with fairness.

To learn more about dynamic equity models visit my blog at SlicingPie.com and buy my book, Slicing Pie. If you can’t afford it let me know and I’ll give you a copy!

Mike Moyer is the author of “Slicing Pie: Funding Your Company Without Funds”

Linkage:

Moyer’s Blog

Get the Book “Slicing Pie: Funding Your Company Without Funds” here at Amazon

Everywhereelse.co Be here!

Guest Post: Observations from a Demo Day Junkie

This guest post comes to us from Patrick Woods. Woods is a director at a>m ventures, the venture capital arm of archer>malmo a regional leader in advertising, pr and marketing. Disclosure: nibletz.com is one of a>m ventures portfolio companies.

I’ve been to five six demo days already this year in my travels for a>m ventures, and many more over the past 18 months. The following points are my observations on the good, bad, and nasty of startup accelerator demo days.

No one of these points will sink your demo day ship, but taken together, when done right, these elements will help to give your teams better odds of getting to that next step on and following the big day.

The idea is to reduce the variables involved in your event in order for you to craft a meaningful experience.

Caveats

These are my observations, not gospel.
If you’re YC or TechStars, these points apply less to you; these are for everyone else.
Yes, there are a lot of seemingly minute details here, but that’s the point.
We can all agree there’s no substitute for great companies, and none of these observations are meant as such a substitute.

In general, be mindful of your goals for demo day, and curate all experiences to achieve those goals. Some goals might include:

Connect investors to companies
Connect investors to investors
Strengthen your ecosystem’s network of founders, angels, VCs, services providers, and those on the periphery
Generate buzz at various levels by raising the visibility of early-stage activity in your region
There are plenty more; the point is that you should be aware of what the goals are, then align every facet of demo day to achieve each goal.

Your accelerator is a marathon, demo day is not

3 hours is pushing the upper limit of peoples’ attention span.
Limit team intros to something really short, like, 60 seconds or less.
Sorry sponsors, no one cares about you. At least not anyone in the audience.

Relatedly, more pitches, less bravado, fewer speeches

Yes, we all get it: your city is a great place for starting up. Being a mentor is an amazing experience, and you always need more. Okay. Now let’s get on with it.
Remember that running an accelerator isn’t an end to celebrate, but that it’s a means to an end that will produce celebration-worthy events.
Everyone’s got an accelerator these days, so let’s reduce the back-patting and celebrate the big wins.
That said, brief updates from alumni can be a great point of pride.
Also, no student “idea” pitches, please. Or anything else irrelevant to investors.

Pitch quality matters

Stage presence, pitch structure, and pitch content are all really important.
The companies shouldn’t be delivering bullet-point fact transfers, but rather telling a relatable, investable story.
Slides should be used as visual aids, not as core components of the presentation.
Long before demo day, require your teams to write a script for their pitch. They don’t necessarily have to recount it verbatim onstage, but the process of formalizing their thoughts will prove invaluable.
Coach your teams and enlist mentors who know how to pitch, like successful founders, folks who have been onstage before, and advertising people, many of whom pitch for a living.
Strongly consider bringing in a speaking coach a couple of times: first at an early point and later, closer to demo day to track improvements.

Continue reading at Patrick’s Tumbler here

Linkage:

Patrick Woods’ Tumbler

Here’s some of our own demo day coverage

Are you in?

Mike Muhney: Business Is A Contact Sport, Your Mobile Device Gives You A Competitive Edge

Business is a contact sport. And every contact counts, as does the way you treat them. After all, your customers are your competition’s potential customers. And those you’ve yet to reach, well, their business is only one good play away. The competitor who wins their business will most likely do so by utilizing whatever means possible to reach them first and best. Make no mistake about it, whether your competition considers you a threat or not, they want you to be a casualty.

More often than not, the success of your business efforts depends on more than the product or service that you provide. It’s also determined by the attention that you deliver to customers and potential customers in order to grow your business. As you prioritize building effective relationships, you’ll not only gain, you’ll maintain a powerful, competitive edge. So how can your mobile devices be used to help you to compete more successfully? Three words: Mobile relationship management. With the powerful tools available on mobile devices, there is no longer an excuse for not building better business relationships.

Back in the mid-80’s, the laptop computer and its mobile technology enabled people to have access not only to their spreadsheets and word processing documents at all times but also their contact information, both business and personal. It’s no coincidence that of all the applications professionals had with them at all times, they found having the breadth and depth of information about each of their contacts most useful. They were the first business “competitors” to recognize that business was truly a contact sport. They could deal with more people, more effectively than those who relied on paper systems and were faster and better than their competitors at leveraging that information.

For the first time, professionals could take along their digital files for anytime/anywhere access to their entire filing system of all the pertinent contact data and their entire relationship history with those contacts. Compared to those who didn’t use mobile devices for the purpose of disciplined contact management, they had a significant edge in demonstrating their concern, credibility, and competence. Today’s competitor has even more efficient means at their disposal, the tools available on their smartphones and tables.

When they first emerged, laptop adoption was slow, and the number of users harnessing the power of mobile computing for contact management was even smaller. Those days are long gone. With millions of people carrying a mobile computing device, a smartphone or tablet, there has never been a better time or means to manage your relationships, calendars, and communications on-the-go, all with the goal of winning more business.

Imagine if, in addition to all the other fun ways you use your mobile devices, you now have instant recall with photographic-memory-like detail regarding every contact in your network, and everything you know about them. Sure, your competitors can see that stuff, too. Not much of a competitive advantage there. Instead, you can go above and beyond by capturing, recording, and following up on the information you exchange privately.

In addition to this insider-information, a mobile relationship manager is the best personal assistant…ever! It helps you schedule important meetings and calls, alerts you of impending deadlines, or even reminds you of a little detail that could mean a lot to your contact. Even if you’re lucky enough to have a full-time personal assistant, they probably aren’t on-call 24/7. But your mobile device is!

Whether you work for yourself, a small company, or even a large one, everyone is his or her own business. Your “employment” is dependent on results, most of which don’t occur without a strong network of real relationships. Further, whether you like it or not, everyone is in sales. That’s right, whether you’re an accountant, attorney, or architect, what you are is a salesperson. Why? Because even if you’re not selling a product or service, you’re selling your ideas or your methodology, even if it’s just to your supervisor. The bottom line is that we all deal with people and are therefore relationship-centric to some degree. Managing those relationships more effectively than your competitors, even those in your own organization, gives you a competitive advantage.

Don’t forget that every person with whom you have a relationship also represents countless others, the people in their networks, with whom you could potentially reach, as well. Demonstrating concern, credibility, and competence could determine whether or not you obtain access to them. Who would risk their own reputation by recommending someone whom they don’t know or who hasn’t earned their recommendation? For that reason alone, using your mobile device to build and strengthen relationships gives you a competitive edge in growing your business, by turning existing customers into repeat and perhaps even into referring customers.

The playing field is more level than ever before, because we all have similar access to existing tools. The advantage now goes to the competitor who adopts and implements those tools in the most effective manner. When you use your mobile device to manage your contacts, calendars, and communication, you’ll have the “right stuff” when it comes to the quantity, and more importantly quality, of your relationships.

Mike Muhney is a recognized expert in the field of relationship management. He is the co- founder and co-inventor of ACT!, the software product that created the entire Contact Management software category and is acknowledged as the catalyst that started the entire CRM (Customer Relationship Management) industry. Today, he is the CEO and co-founder of VIPorbit Software, creator of the Mobile Relationship Management category for users of smartphones and tablets, beginning with the iPhone and iPad. VIPorbit provides full-featured, affordable solutions to today’s mobile device user. VIPorbit can be downloaded from the iTunes App Store or www.viporbit.com.

Win! Alcohol Discovery From New York Startup Drynk.me

This story doesn’t really need any fancy dressing up. You go out. You like to drink occasionally or perhaps more than occasionally. You try great drinks, but maybe you’re too tired (read drunk) to remember what drink it was you tried, or what was in it.

New York startup Drynk.me is here to help.

Whether you’re a beer connoisseur (or beer snob), or a purveyor of fine wines, or you just like a great new cocktail, you want to remember it right? Drynk.me allows you to do all that, share it with friends, crowdsource new drink ideas, take pictures of your favorite drinks all on your smartphone. You can even geo-tag your drink so you can remember where you were when you had that wonderful concoction. Yes, drinkers, this is your app!

Who has made such a great idea a reality? Well the co-founders behind Drynk.me are Fernando Garza, Chevon Christie and Preston Hall. They took a break from their extensive customer validation and market research to talk to nibletz.com, check out the interview below: