Startup Weekend Toronto - My Two Cents
By Steve Poland • September 18, 2007
Overall the weekend was a blast — but not exactly what I expected. I had my own expectations of the weekend after hearing about the Boulder Startup Weekend.
I had expectations of a lot of fun, meeting new people (crazy people — entrepreneurs — like me), knockin back some beers, and building something cool.
There was way too much structure to the weekend. People were all assigned into functional groups prior to the weekend, there were about 30 ideas that the “facilitators” narrowed down to 8 that were pitched and voted on once everyone was together. I think there were some goodies that were missed from the 30, so I spoke up and said I think people should voice an idea if they have one — there were many people that hadn’t been on the wiki or forums for the weekend. The facilitators’ answer was that everyone was notified of the wiki/forums and structure of the weekend ahead of time — fair enough I suppose.
I also expected an even split on all the equity in the company we were collectively creating. Sure, you’re going to have some leeches, but whatever — there shouldn’t be certain people with a ton more equity in the company. How Boulder operated with Vosnap was they took 50% of the shares and divided them equally amongst the participants (each participant could earn up to 3 shares of stock — 1 for each day - Fri/Sat/Sun - that they participated in). The remaining 50% — 25% is being divided amongst a management team that will continue pursuing the business as a real company (those stock options mature over time) and the remaining 25% is being held for a future investment from an Angel or VC.
Toronto was structured to give the person who’s idea was selected 20% equity right off the bat — for having an idea! Ideas are shit, it’s all in the execution. We were required to sign a doc handing over the rights to anything we built over the weekend — and the shares didn’t even add up (they were 35k short; it turned out to be a typo, but still). The legal guy that apparently put this all together (and was also the guy whose idea “won”) explained to us (the 4 Americans that were “disruptive” as we were told the next morning) that “VCs invest $1-$3mm in ideas alone, so we wanted to reward the idea holder — and ensure that people submitted good ideas.” When I heard that, I knew it was just inexperience as to why the division of equity was the way it was — because also, equity was disbursed based on your time put in pre-event and post-event. Thus, I think the facilitators ended up with like 5% each, the idea guy had probably 25%, and the 30 others ended up with 0.02% each. 15% was reserved for future management and nothing for future investment — thus, that 0.02% would be diluted if an investment was ever made.
Well, that’s crap in my opinion — and thus, future official Startup Weekend events (put on by Andrew Hyde) will have a certain structure to them; including division of equity and less structure. In Boulder, leaders emerged within the groups — whereas in Toronto, leaders were preselected; and quite honestly it felt like they were “the boss”. I didn’t come somewhere on my weekend off to be bossed around. And not that I was, but I wanted to see leaders emerge — people that you start to trust and that you start to agree with.
This is all my opinion of course — I’m a Type B, so I’m not into tons of structure or organization.
So anyhow, some really great people in Toronto. And the organizers had very good intentions, I just didn’t agree with all of the structure — and I think the people spoke with their actions (60 people showed up Friday night and 30 returned on Saturday).
I look forward to this coming weekend in NYC — Andrew will be leading the effort and it’ll be tons of fun I know. I can’t wait! And Andrew needed this to all happen last weekend, so that all future ones will have the right vibe to them.
Comments
14 Responses to “Startup Weekend Toronto - My Two Cents”
Got something to say?
How many of these startup weekends are run that are worth attending? Have you got anything substantial out of one before?
@alpha — This was my first. I’m going to NYC and Purdue (West Lafayette, IN — Go Boilers!). I really want to be at ones with a few experienced entrepreneurs/VCs/Angels in attendance, those will be the best I think. I’m hopeful that NYC will be that way — and I’m looking forward to it being run the way Boulder was; I think it’ll be a blast!
Great write up. Come to ATL!
These weekends are all relatively new, yes? One would hope that the “standardized structure” would get put into place, and then when someone thinks of attending, they’ll have a better opportunity to know how to expect things to go. May not know just “what” to expect, but like you say, that’s part of the fun of it all. Going to have to see if any are coming my way…
@Steve
Thank for coming… I thought your input was valuable, particularly in helping sort out initial product ideas.
A couple of corrections:
1) The idea winner was *not* the legal guy… two different people. The document was roughed in by anyone who wanted to participate pre-weekend and jumped in (the “facilitators”).
2) 30 people didn’t not end up with only 0.02%. They ended up with much more than that depending on how much time they were in the building (you just had to be there to earn even if you didn’t do anything).
3) Several leaders did emerge (as was intended) that were not facilitators. In fact post-weekend, most of the people involved in the product are not facilitators (although some of them are involved as well).
…and a couple of things to point out:
1) 30 People on Saturday… more than Boulder.
2) We actually launched Sunday night. The beta is up if you want to play with it.
3) We had almost no viable ideas until a few days before the weekend. The extra shares were intended to get people to contribute, and it worked.
4) We actually had VCs in the building working with us. Our share structure was actually intended to keep them happy in case we wanted to go for venture capital later. (we may not have to as things turn out, but we’ll see).
Anyway, we’ll get an official analysis out as soon as everyone has had some time to themselves.
@Brill — as mentioned, I’m not saying things were wrong at SW-Toronto; just wasn’t what I had personally expected given what I heard with Boulder. I’m sure there’s people that loved the entire arrangement — and quite frankly, I felt like a bit of a dick to not be able to just get into the whole situation and just accept what was; but I wasn’t able to accept everything. I know it was all good people with good intentions.
Thanks for posting that Steve - I’m glad to hear my suspicions about the weekend were pretty spot on.
The 11th hour document, not to mention organization leading up to the weekend, actually dissuaded a LOT of folks from coming out (myself included).
It’s unfortunate, it’s a great idea just horribly executed and very unlike many of the events the Toronto community typically runs up here.
It was really fantastic to meet you Steve - and I look forward to seeing you again int he near future. I think your post here is spot on - and I’d like to say in response to @Brill that terms like “official analysis” are precisely what would keep people like me from ever attending another StartupWeekend Toronto hosted by the same folks.
The key to a Great StartupWeekend is fun! And lots of it - it’s Speed Dating for Startups - it’s not how to spend your weekend reliving Office Space. By the way, does anyone have that Red Stapler I’ve been looking for???
Steve,
You and I have not had the pleasure to meet, but I did want to comment on something I am beginning to see in all the StartupWeekend posts and comments: Boulder was lucky.
Why?
1) Nobody knew what we were getting into (no expectations). Even Andrew commented that he thought it would be 10 people he knew, and they would all end up at the bars the first night.
2) We had all the correct elements: Three investor types, several entrepreneurs, many doers, many thinkers, a large amount of people that knew only how to drive to success. (even when success was undefined).
3) No pre-conceived structure. Since the feeling was lets see what happens, there was no structure. Even the 7 minute meetings were decided on at the event. How we voted was decided at the event. What groups we would break into was decided at the event. Yoga was decided at the event. Kicking me in the balls was decided at the event.
4) The only process we had was Think then Do. No time for analysis, just think and do.
What did that get us? A fun weekend had by most (Brill, there were 50 people there on Saturday easily, and 30-40 on Sunday, and we were in the building until 2am each night. In fact, on Monday am, people went to another office to continue working.) but no product launch.
Would a bit more structure have been nice. Probably. Will every SW suffer from not being the first, probably.
But what seems to have gone wrong with SWTO, was the expectations set prior (or not set) the event changed at or during the event. Or communication and feedback loops stank.
They do have a open beta (Brill, thats twice you havent posted the link to beta.lobbythem.com), and it seems to work. Its about at the same point VoSnap was after the weekend, and I applaud their decision (which was the opposite of ours) to allow the world to see all their warts.
But, at the end of the day, what is the measure of a successful startupweekend? Probably that a company was formed and a product was launched. The day, weeks, and years after the weekend will prove out the best model for the weekend. SWTO’ers focus on your company. Make it work. Launch it. And be proud of it.
Steve, out of everything that startupweekend has to offer, both positive and negative, those last four words are the only ones that matter.
Come to DC, it will be nice to meet you in person.
great write up steve. i wasn’t there of course, but your thoughts seem spot on based on what i’ve read. any major consideration for the idea is of course a joke, and a typical sign that ideas are hugely overvalued.
i bet you that new york turns out to be quite different from boulder and toronto, and it will take 8-10 weekends for a “best practice” to emerge.
each startup weekend company will off course suffer from at least one of the two major startup killers, and will have to overcome it. a poisonous team is one of the major killers, and having 100 people involved makes this a near certainty that it will have to overcome. further, since the original idea is almost never right (another reason not to reward it so substantially) the product launched at the end of the weekend will often suffer from the ubiquitous “lack of market” problem until the “team” (which is likely to spin out of control as we’ve seen both in boulder and toronto) figures out how to morph the idea into something that makes more sense.
i’ll be shocked if startup weekend companies make it big beyond the natural rate of randomness for these reasons.
i think one has to look at startup weekend as an experience that you can learn from. we learn far more from failures than from successes, and there certainly there is no way to fail faster than in a weekend. so it’s a hugely valuable experience for all who engage in it.
Hey, nothing wrong with Fail Forward Fast Tom Peters
Steve-I enjoyed reading your post and think you’ve raised some interesting themes that came out of the weekend (for you, at least). I watched a video during which most people gave their SUW “title” and couldn’t help but laugh it off. It’s easy for the “type-a’s” (self-oft-included) to try and go the Get This Thing Well-Structured Fast! route. But, and I’m agreeing with you here, an organic team structure will begin to emerge in any situation given the right mix of people.
Another thing I noticed from the pictures is that there seemed to be more space, sunlight and room to move around than in Boulder. In Boulder I got the sense I could lean over and talk to anyone on any team at any time. It was a crucial part of the learning experience for me. The fluidity between teams, being able to talk and be heard, listen and learn, was what I most appreciated about it. Egos, for the most part, were left at the door. And thank God, b/c I don’t think there would have been enough room for 50+ egos!
The other thing that was huge for me, an element that I found to be missing from the Toronto Startup Weekend blog, was the constant commentary on the weekend. David Cohen rocked out more than 100 posts during SUW Boulder. It kept us informed (when we were doing something else and missed a meeting, for instance) and it kept the outside world engaged. One of the most important things about SUW, IMHO, is that people that can’t attend are able to watch/read about/listen to those of us participating. So a sort of synergy emerges between those present and those observing.
Well, I plan to be at SUW Houston & Boston, so would love to see you at one of those, if not both. Again, appreciate your “analysis” of the weekend as you experienced it. Well done!
Great write up. You may be interested in my retrospective debrief on the StartupWeekend recently held in Houston. It was an official StartupWeekend, hosted by Andrew, but I think some of the go forward/equity concerns remain…
@stevepoland: wow steve, I’ve been reading your blog for a while and only just found that you were a Boliermaker. way to go! from a boilermaker.
By the way, which year did you graduated? I was class 2002 West Lafatyette.