Louisville, we have a problem (actually any place with a bunch of funding competitions).
From startup funding awards to grant RFPs, we’re turning everything into a competition. What’s wrong with competitions like these? Glad you asked!
- Competitions weaken the community. Instead of using application processes as a means of forming a community of support, these processes keep teams siloed. Worse, post-competition losing teams become jaded and bitter.
- Teams waste valuable time on the application process. Whether it’s a non-profit or a startup, time is incredibly precious, and asking for intensive applications or grant proposals is not time well spent for these groups.
- As someone who has served as a judge many times across different competitions, the sad reality is the quality of the application makes a massive difference in how an idea is judged. In other words, we’re placing too much emphasis as judges on the polish of the application and how well it communicates, rather than purely judging the actual idea that the application aims to describe. This process damages the equitable treatment of applicants.
So how can we do better? How can we reinforce the power of community, save these tiny teams time on applications, and make the judging process more equitable? Glad you asked that too!
- To strengthen the community, turn the application processes into rolling opportunities and create a Slack-like channel into a forum for those considering applying. Use a buddy or mentor system to foster collaboration between teams. Let people learn from each other on best practices to apply. (Cohort-based accelerators will struggle with a rolling process, but Y-Combinator has figured this out with seasonal cohorts, the ability to apply post-deadline, and an on-demand “school” to help teams prepare).?
- To save time on application processes, use a two-step application process like SBIRs. Teams can submit a really short form as the first step to qualify that the idea fits, before wasting time on a deep application (or pitch). Once qualified, then invite them into the community to prepare for the 2nd step. Note: it’s ok to reject teams at this early stage — a quick NO is invaluable feedback and saves everyone a lot of time.
- To make the process more equitable and remove the unfortunate emphasis on the quality of writing of grants or polish of pitch decks, stop asking for these and instead use an interview for the 2nd step. In a 30-45 minute voice-only call, one-on-one interview (one team and one interviewer), you can get all the information you need. No cameras, just audio — the focus should be on the idea. Record the session, transcribe it — then have a 3-person committee review. If 2 of the 3 people give the thumbs up, then include the team as a finalist for a wider committee to review (Tip: Add a 3rd step to track progress and commitment to the idea at a later date as another decent indicator of quality, before a final review).
Hopefully, this is food for thought. Louisville is an incredibly supportive and compassionate town. There are really good people behind all the competitions. I look forward to seeing the processes evolve for the better (and for everyone)!
B2B SaaS Growth & GTM Marketing | Scaling Revenue Through Lifecycle & Product Marketing
2 年Agree! You missed a big one I'd encourage you to append. The judges themselves are almost always problematic. By that I mean: (1) Judging idea-stage companies as though they're Series A — a brutal exercise of ego — serves the judges, not the companies. Most are, frankly, ignorant to how fundraising, company-building, and tech stacks actually function in 2022. This yields harmful "feedback" that's often untethered from what investors and customers care about most — yet sold as gospel. Many are still bizzarely dogmatic about lean startup methodology. (2) The judges are always the same group of people. They're still often mostly white, male, and local-born. Racial, economic, and gender biases are continuing to shape access to the things founders need in our community. Gatekeeping power is a toxic legacy in this city and it impedes economic development in unfathomable ways that harm all its residents. Until more of us are willing to acknowledge and challenge that, I expect we will be stuck in a loop of self-aggrandizing delusions about the quality and scale of support available to business-builders here.
Innovative thinking, integrative solution development, cross-functional mindset, assertive leadership, effective cross-cultural communication/leadership, business development, and financial management
2 年Thank you for sharing this. Aging2.0 is in the middle of a Global Innovation Search. An interview will be part of the second round of the competition.
Storyteller | Experience Crafter | Brand Definer | Revenue Generator | Strategy Builder
2 年Thanks for this great post! I have seen far too many companies and NPOs waste hundreds of (collective) hours completing applications that got them nothing - not even any feedback about why they were not accepted/selected. We can do a better job in outlining criteria and expectations. We can also do better at making some of the resources available to those that didn't make the cut. - Virtual Programs are an incredible way to handle this: They might not get the 1-1 mentorship, or specific discussions, but would still grow from a 1-many type of assignments and archived material.
Great post, Charley. ???? I’d also add: Mix up who gets asked to judge these startup applications. Panels are typically sourced from the same pool of folks, which brings the same odds of bias and “shiny object syndrome” to these things. It would be great to have judging panels reflect a broader set of the community, including industry and lived experiences. Imagine if we made room for judges with first-hand knowledge and experience with the problems being solved.
Helping you scale with storytelling
2 年Some good thoughts on here. One conflicting take that I had while reading it: If you’re getting jaded over losing a pitch completion, you may not be built for startup life. At the very least, you should have a learning opp. At most, it’s a learning opportunity + fuel to prove them wrong (maybe I’m just a spiteful SOB?). There are way harder moments in the process of building a company, and if losing out on a soft process of a theatrical pitch taints your attitude, I’m not sure that team has the stomach for the long haul. I’ve been through one sizeable accelerator too, and I think the process of the pitch has a lot of value. You could “lose” the pitch competition and still get value out of it. Hell half my leadership philosophy is built on finding the lessons in failure. That said, I love your points on making these things more fair. I do think technical founders struggle with these things and that doesn’t make them bad founders (OBVIOUSLY).