Paul Walsh, the Irish Opportunist

Paul good article, and a subject close to my heart, I deal with startups, who are startups, Volantis was one of my customers five years ago when I dealt with Enterprise ISVs in Telco space, even though startup essentials focuses has a wide ranging remit to support all, what I would define as a startup is

*Bootstrapped not funded - credit card/savings/wages funded
*No glitzy office, maybe a rented desk, but more than likely no location of substance
*A great idea and a Go to market plan, focusing on execution.
*Looking to secure funding, to gain a wider foothold out in the market.
*1-5 people working together…

Yesterday we held a press roundtable debate, with 5 startups and 3 hosting companies, the companies around the table mainly had 1-2 employees, there were two that had been funded and not a huge amount, but still growing their user base, and looking to gain revenue streams now.

The perception needs to change and get out to the events and hear from the likes of fav.or.it, tactile crm, bookingbug etc….focused companies who deliver a service or product to an audience, similar to wubud, does what it says.

There is a vast amount of untapped potential out in the UK startup scence, software city in Liverpool yesterday demonstrated that entirely, with Richard F from Dragons Den commenting on the quality of small companies pitching.

I think a startup is a company who have yet to prove that their business model is sustainable. Beyond that point, they are businesses; before then, they are still in the realm of ideas and projects.

I’m glad you’d like to see more of a line drawn so that genuine startups can continue to take advantage of the generous support available to them.

I think a start-up is a business less than 36 months old ie starting up. If the business is over 36 months it is an SME - simple as that. The term startup is and should be just for new companies, the example above of an 8 year old company is established SME - Google is only 10 years old, anyone call that a startup?

Sulake, too - great business, but well beyond being a start-up.

One distinction is that a ’start-up’ is not the same as a small business. There has to be some idea that a start-up is going to grow in some way. A plumbers is a small business; but isn’t a start-up because it’s likely to stay with the same size forever. For the same reason, you can’t define start-ups by their turnover.

Is there a time-period? I’d say no - your business might not have grown for five years, but that might be because you’re lazy or unlucky.

Main thing is that start-ups are small but with an expectation of growth. If they are not going to grow, then they have stopped starting, if you see what I mean.

Just check the advisory board list who helped compile this report and then check the company names again. For the sake of transparency it would be nice to see this list again with the names of the VC’s who have funded those companies. I wonder how close the two lists would be?

Most start-ups seem to be people with ideas but no actual business plan of how to make money! Something I still cannot get my head around.

That’s most, not all of course.

Agree with everything in the first post.

Great post Paul
I second Sams note above,a start-up should be defined forget this pre-beta, beta, crap, if you launched you are a start-up for two years. that’s it
Love the European focus of the list also
66% from UK
2% from Ireland
So much for European
Another blow job special list

I was going to say 3 years, but thinking about it I don’t think its as easy as that.

I think Stuart Townsend sums it up pretty well, though.

What seems to be the case for lists like the Mediatech 100, is that they only recognise businesses that have already had serious investment… surely if you are a start-up then by the very definition you are probably looking for “start-up” funding?

I’m going to collate all your comments when I have a little more time and articulate what I/we think a startup is. I deffo think there needs to be a time frame - companies that have great growth ongoing, could be a startup for many many years. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

I’ll also compile the list of advisors and companies as best I can and as soon as I can. But if any of you could make a start on it, I’d be very grateful.

Interesting discussion. It’s difficult to define, but I would disagree (respectfully) with the first comment that taking funding means you are no longer in a startup. We just closed a seed investment round, but count ourselves very much as a startup - we work remotely, have two founders and just one full time employee, bootstrap etc. But I think what really defines a startup is that entrepreneurial spirit that runs through everything you do. When that stops, you are no longer a startup.

I can think of some startups that are making serious revenue and have millions of dollars of funding. They are still startups, just with substantial cashflow!

I consider Rummble a (great) start-up and they’ve been going 3 years.

I think putting a time frame on it is quite difficult - maybe someone’s not a start-up simply once they’re cash positive/making a profit?

I thought it would make sense for us at Library House to comment.

We fully agree that, as clear from some of the comments made above, there is no universally accepted definition of ‘startup’.
Although the NMA editorial loosely uses the word ‘startup’, if you read our report and Mediatech 100 material, you’ll notice that the list is not one of Mediatech startups but a list of private Mediatech companies (the word startup is barely used in the report and only in reference to specific companies; i.e. Cuil, CyberSports and Google in the early days).
Our objective was to produce a list of interesting companies (‘’hottest private media technology companies likely to have the biggest impact on the industry in the future’’ to quote ourselves) and to spark a debate of this kind.

Our aim is to be impartial and for those interested in the selection process please refer to page 10 of the Mediatech 2008 report. You can also find the full list of advisors at the bottom of the following page: http://www.libraryhouse.net/report.
This is the first Mediatech 100 and we welcome more feedback to refine the process for next year.

Best
Andrea

I’m about as far from a startup as it gets so here is my shot at it albeit somewhat idealistically

* less than 2 years old
* not sustaining anyone’s real liveliehood yet
* < 5 people
* diversity of talent
* taking smart risks

but most of all pursuing a dream

Thanks Andrea. Did you edit the Library House Web site to play down the term ’startup’?

I don’t think NMA should have been permitted to use the term startup, if in fact, the focus wasn’t on startups.

Hi Paul. I may be wrong, but I think when I read that article it talked about top 100 private companies, not top 100 startups. I’d accept Volantis is no longer a startup, based on most definitions one could come up with, but it is still a private company.

> Thanks Andrea. Did you edit the Library House Web site to play down the term ’startup’?

Er, no Paul. But if you’d bothered to get your story straight by contacting us at LH, you’d have known that already. Instead you’ve gone off half-cocked, so now you’re resorting to sarcasm and accusation to keep the morale high-ground?

We’ll be sure to get in touch with you when looking at the ‘Startup 100′, but quite frankly this is the ‘Mediatech 100′ and we’re proud of the *intelligent* report, the list representing companies big AND small, and the forthcoming event.

Later, Mike@LH

@Mike - what’s with the attitude? Sounds like I’ve hit a nerve. I wasn’t sarcastic, I was being serious with my question. I wouldn’t have thought badly of LH for editing the Web site - in fact, I thought it was a good move… Don’t make assumptions!

I’m not a journalist so why would I get in touch with LH? I simply wrote my personal opinion on the matter. If you don’t like it, lump it quite frankly.

@Mark - taken from NMA:

Mediatech 100

Research firm Library House has selected the top 100 media technology **start-ups** with the potential to be the names of tomorrow, as selected by a panel of VCs and analysts. Here the top then how they hope to realise that promise…moreAuthor: Charlotte McEleny | Source: NMA magazine | Article Type: Features | Channel: Internet | Published: 06.11.08

What’s with the attitude Paul? Let me tell you.

We’ve worked hard as a company to put together a great report and event, and we get somebody like you calling us unintelligent (to paraphrase) and insinuating that we’d be less than honest by changing our materials to win an argument.

Why did you do that to us? To look the big shot on your blog? For a bit of an ego boost? Why couldn’t you just apologise for being too quick to judge us after Andrea posted to clarify? Saying ’sorry’ too tough for you?

‘Thanks Andrea. I didn’t realise the report was across all private mediatech companies.’

vs.

‘Thanks Andrea. Did you edit the Library House Web site to play down the term ’startup’?’

Tell me how that is not sarcastic? It’s a cheap shot.

I work on the software side in the LH team, so I’m not directly involved with any of this. The attitude is all my own, and not endorsed. I’ll probably get in trouble tomorrow. Considered this raw and unedited.

You’ve hit my nerve. I’m an employee who is angry at his team being insulted, and I personally don’t take well to people like you trying to big themselves up at my company, my team’s expense when it’s unfair. So go figure my attitude.

How exactly do think this pseudo tabloid journalism of yours makes my colleagues feel? They’re working hard, but you feel like interrupting them, insulting their work to have a pissing contest about how unintelligent they are and what a start-up know-it-all you are?

I don’t go round having a go at your company or any other in a public forum. What exactly gives you the right to insult mine without making sure your facts are straight? Because you’ve got a blog, your own soap box to go off half-cocked whenever you feel like it? Maybe you should think about how you use that blog as a responsible citizen?

You’re right, you’re not a journalist, but you sure like to play one. So get your facts straight. Stop being so bloody tabloid. Learn to apologise.

Wow Mike, you need some lessons in how to interact with blogs and in particular, negative comments. I’ll reply properly after the weekend. But you can be sure it won’t include an apology. It has been a while since coming across such an arrogant response as yours. It doesn’t reflect well on your brand, which up to this point, looked perfectly ok.

Woah… how not to make friends and influence people. Mike not sure you *get* blogging much do you? It’s all about opinion, comment etc. So while you’re entitled to yours about Paul’s views, surely you can’t really criticise him for having his?

Anyway… what’s a start-up? Depends who you’re talking to and in what context.

I’d say from a tech and entrepreneurial context, early stage (first two years) but with serious ambition for fast growth and obviously privately owned. I’m not sure funding or lack of it should be a factor - can think of lots of classic ’start-ups’ on both sides.

On a broader scale I’d say a start-up is simply ‘a very new business’, probably up to a year old. I’d certainly find it hard to disagree with someone who’s opened a shop and is battling to compete with Tesco Metro et al saying ‘It’s difficult establishing myself as a start-up’, even if they’ve no plans to ever open a second shop.

Before I stopped editing Startups.co.uk (which is for the wider business user) I put together the ‘Startups 100′ list on an unashamedly unscientific criteria and as such it was a massively varied, yet well read rundown. http://www.startups.co.uk/6678842907816868643/criteria.html

Of course, by doing so, I also exposed the list and myself to criticism by others who felt ‘Start-up’ should be more tightly defined. But I was fine with this. No big deal, everyone can have a view and it all contributes to a healthy wider discussion on business, enterprise, and a shitload of great new companies. Where’s the problem?

Mike
Seriously bad response
I have seen Paul accused of arrogance before, its an easy shot but your response is appalling.
I also questioned the list
There is no way this list could be dressed up European/start-ups
It should never have been called this
66% UK is not European

Reminds me of the flamewars. @PaulWalsh - I still think all this social networking gear is just rehashing stuff that was already done fifteen years ago… people still getting inducted on the hot spit of public self-immolation. Bring back BBS I say, at least you only got to see it if you elected to - this one came at me via Twitter!

Maybe a start-up should be defined as a company that’s so new it thinks it really is innovative, or am I being overly cynical?

For me there is a clear distinction on what makes a startup, if you are covering your costs, and have been doing so for at least 6 months (i.e. proven the revenue model will survive) then you are no longer a startup. This removes any distraction of involving funding (be it VC or Angel).

You could put in a caveat for size (e.g. less than 5 people) but look at plentyoffish - 2 people, millions in revenue, is that a startup.. NO.

Special mention to Mike from LH, holy cow man you need to take a serious chill pill, we all get flak from one time or another (its called debate) - but Paul had many valid points and you just came back with lots of serious hate, defending your teams work is one thing, but you seriously need to look at what you wrote. If you had as Paul suggested ‘engaged with startups’ - you would know how to respond, and made a better job of the list.

I would also put a big ‘thumbs up’ to Matt + the startup crew because they did ’some research’ - we made it into the top 25 of their list, why? because although a lot of what we do is not public they networked, and actually ‘used the phone’ to do some real due-diligence.

Rant over..

good post Walshy. Monsieur Moss you really don’t get it do you?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blog

Hi Paul. I’m not trying to be arrogant, but I do admit I have a bit of an attitude when I write so sorry about that.

It’s just I am deeply disappointed by your insults to my colleagues’ intelligence and integrity. So disappointed, I have made comments to show my raw frustration, because otherwise you will never realise it and you will never think it through carefully.

I am standing up for my friends on my own terms, not my brand’s. If you think it’s about Library House then you’ve got it all wrong. It runs deeper than that.

It’s about standing up for my buddy who’s worked on that report and is in the office now slogging his guts out on our next report, the manager who’s built that event and list through long hours of hard work, the real people you insult when you post and comment without thinking carefully. They might not have the confidence or time to respond to the bully mocking them in public, but if there’s one thing I learnt from my childhood, it’s to stand up to bullies. Because bullies don’t know how to deal with the small guy who stands up to them.

I am sorry if I have broken the rules of commenting. It seems a funny set of one-sided rules you follow. You insult us. Andrea responds in a balanced, carefully considered way and you get to make a snide, negative final comment to him? I stand up to you and you call me arrogant and tell me you’re going to teach me a lesson?

You wouldn’t walk into a pub and insult my friends’ intelligence and integrity without expecting an equal response in return. You certainly wouldn’t call me arrogant for standing up and telling you where to go in that situation. You’d call me a loyal friend.

I don’t get why I’m the bad guy here for standing up to you insulting my friends.

None of you guys are insulting people’s intelligence or integrity though. You’re giving feedback that’s fair and we at LH will take those points on board. And to be fair, it’s not your blog, but can’t I expect more from the owner who puts their name to it?

I mean the central topic of this post is a great question, but why the cheap negative shots at us? I’ll admit that the story is all the more readable because of the negative angle on us, but that’s exactly why I called it tabloid.

And I’m sorry maybe I don’t get this blogging thing. I’m not in the in-crowd here as I tend to follow news blogs rather than personal.

It just seems like if it’s your personal blog you can bully away with the rest of the school ground cheering you on and putting the occasional boot in too. When you do stand up for yourself like Andrea did, you continue to get abuse from the blogger because it’s their territory.

Screw that.

“it’s their territory” :P.

Paul should change the blog name to “United territory of walshy”! Just a jock.

Sorry to interject here, but Mike, this isn’t about who’s place you’re visiting, it’s about being a) correct and b) polite. Paul has said absolutely nothing out of order - though you may have thought he did - and he does have stuff in print to back him up.

I’m nobody’s bully, but if you’re not going to be polite then few people are going to be happy with you.

General rule for internet usage, which applies to Newsgroups, Blogs, anywhere in fact where there’s conversation: assume that people are being straight with you. If someone is being sarcastic, there are emoticons that say so. Likewise, if someone is joking, they will use a smiley or a wink.

We all get ourselves in trouble (I once bollocked someone for telling an Irish joke I thought was racist, and it turned into a 187-message flame war that later got published on a website, and I don’t think I came out of it well), so for me I’ve learned along the way to be circumspect, to count to 100, not to take anyone too seriously and above all never, ever to infer an insult. Someone wants to insult you, they’ll say so.

Have a better day.

I work in Cambridge and know a few of the LH team. They try really hard, and run the excellend Mediatech seminars and events. They do network with entrepreneurs, and I am sure they would be first to admit that it is easier for them to reach out to UK companies then the wider EU.

I think the word “start up” means different things to different people, and in my view it means “not yet paying for its people from revenue”. Others disagree and would draw the line at pre-funding.

What I would like to see is some objective criteria: speed of execution of a business plan, user growth, revenue growth (like the Deloitte Fast 50), management potential, power of the idea as judged by a network of peers.

The deeper question of VC and investor influence over reports and prizes is a tough one. I’m all in favour of radical transparency and full disclosure, and hope LH will comply with the suggestions above. The UK, and Cambridge in particular, are small communities for entrepreneurs and investors and it is vital that any suggestion of influence is dispelled.

For examples, I’d cite Gartner Magic Quadrants, Deloitte Fast 50 (again - I used to work for Deloitte, dislosed!), Demo09/09, TechCrunch lists, Startups.co.uk.

Hope the personal elements of this thread can die down and we can all focus on ways that reveal the real talent and opportunity in techmedia startups and their management

Wow, what began as a sensible discussion has become incendiary, and sorry Mike Moss, but that seems to be all down to your commentary? Andrea’s response was measured and responsible, but your comments later seemed to do nothing but fuel the fire.

Think the questions on what make a start up are sensible, but respectfully disagree that a Start Up needs to consist of less than 5 or 10 employees. I am a member of staff at ShortList Magazine, which launched about 15 months ago. We are privately funded outside of the major publishing giants of Bauer(formerly Emap) and IPC and are certainly a startup. Obviously not in the tech/social networking scene, but would definitely consider ourselves a startup.

Feel the love in this room. LOL

I’d actually have to disagree with Shortlist being a start-up (great mag BTW). You’re a profitable, established (albeit new) company and most importantly brand.

Maybe that’s a key point - Shortlist, for example, is a recognisable brand. Once someone is known outside of our techy world by joe public, once someone has an established “brand”, surely they’ve “made it” and are no longer a start-up??

How about a start up is any business until it gets to a point where it has had paying customers for some time - say 12 months?

This is different to a ‘dead duck’ which is a company, that seems to have lost all the customers and 90% of staff and now seems to rely on VCs and corporate finance houses to ramp their own portfolio companies. No wonder Mikes mate is so busy.

I’ve already contributed once to this discussion, but I think it is worth weighing in again.

It seems that people are very interested in defining a startup so it encompasses their project, which is fine, and this suggests that if you self-identify as a startup you’re expressing a need for the kind of infrastructure that claims to support startups. Many types of support, such as funding, help with developing the business and access to a pool of talent, are common across all levels of a business’ development. So something is different about a startup which means that they need special help.

As I mentioned before, I believe startups stop being startups when they are sustainable. To put this another way, you build a ship and then you launch it - once you’re out there you’re not a startup anymore, you’re a business.

@ Jonathan Lister

I understand the principle notion of what you mean. This is a good subjective way of putting it.

If I remember this correctly, the formal or objective definition of a start-up is that of being younger than 3 years. I think this is the definition that most academics and governments use when dealing with this subject.

This is not a question of being small or large or how fast you grow or don’t or whether you are cash flow positive or not.

BTW, this is not to be confused with SMEs or SMBs, who are exclusively defined by their size, not by their age.

Disclosure: I used to work at Libray House and I am still a shareholder, but I have no direct involvement with the company anymore. I track LH on Google Alerts, and found this discussion that way.

A start up is a start up until the founders realise they have a real business. This involves a change in mindset. This is relevant to the people within the business not the people outside.

Successful start ups generally present themselves as ‘real businesses’ to the outside world from their foundation as it can give customers a sense of doing business with something substantial although the Web 2.0 world seems to be making a virtue out of the fact that a company is a start up. In Web 2.0 world this seems to say, ‘We are cool, we are new, be an early adopter’. Older customers may take this, perhaps cynically, as code for, ‘We want you to do business with us but are not really ready for customers so if this breaks, don’t come running to us with your complaints, you are on the bleeding edge baby.’

Should have said, in defence of Library house, I don’t think they ever said this was start up focused - was just lazy journo at NMA who probably thought start ups, venture backed, private, beta stage, up coming, world changing, high-potential, SME, SMB, blah, blah all meant the same thing - companies that think they are important but have not really made a major impact in the real world - yet.

Is there a site that can send a virtual (or real) ‘E’ to all of the commentators on this site to get them to all chill out and start loving each other again? That would be worht starting a fight for.

Should have said, in defence of Library house, I don’t think they ever said this was start up focused - was just lazy journo at NMA who probably thought start ups, venture backed, private, beta stage, up coming, world changing, high-potential, SME, SMB, blah, blah all meant the same thing, companies that think they are important but have not really made a major impact in the real world, yet.

Is there a site that can send a virtual (or real) ‘E’ to all of the commentators on this site to get them to all chill out and start loving each other again? That would be worth starting a fight for.

@Mike – as Felix suggests, you should “assume that people are being straight with you”. I told you that I wasn’t being sarcastic with Andrea, who I may add, was adding value to the debate. In fact, had she replied to say that the site hadn’t been updated to reflect my comments, I’d have taken that at face value and summed up my post by saying NMA was the one who got it all confused and not Library House. Very large organisations have modified business processes as a result of this and many other blogs. So, it wasn’t that far fetched to have thought it possible for Library House to have edited a few Web pages.

Instead, you waded in after Andrea and I were having a perfectly normal conversation, making assumptions and firing acquisitions. You (try to) tarnish my blog as a tabloid and that of all blogs as a place for negativity. In your own words “And I’m sorry maybe I don’t get this blogging thing” – you are correct, you don’t get this blogging thing and until you do, I suggest you allow Andrea and others within your company, to leave comments. That is of course, unless you want everyone to think Library House is little more than a bully itself.

Even if you come across a blog that uses bullying tactics, it’s always best to raise above it by being constructive and professional.

I know a few people who once worked at LH and in fact, I was invited to reside on one of your expert panels at an event with 450 people.http://www.libraryhouse.net/web07/speakers/

It’s a shame your company’s opinion of me and my ‘expert opinion’ has been reduced to your sledge hammer-like commentary. I am assuming you won’t want my contribution or that of anyone with a negative comment on this blog… who I may add, are far more qualified than most to comment on the startup scene.

For what it’s worth, I run and attend a lot of networking events and I haven’t met a Library House person in over a year. So I’d like to know what entrepreneur related events you attend.

Perhaps you should address some of the other comments made on this blog. For example, Pat Phelan has made a very serious allegation about your handling of the report:

I second Sams note above,a start-up should be defined forget this pre-beta, beta, crap, if you launched you are a start-up for two years. that’s it
Love the European focus of the list also
66% from UK
2% from Ireland
So much for European
Another blow job special list

To summarise my thoughts:

• Library House never intended this report to be about Startups. But it’s shit at handling negative publicity on blogs.
• NMA got it wrong.

A successful startup ought to promptly break the criteria for being one.

I used to work with Mike at Library House before I left 18 months or so ago. I think your summary of the situation (Comment 38) is right.

I did want to say that in my experience, Mike is an incredibly intelligent, hard working, loyal guy who can wear his heart on his sleeve sometimes but commands respect from the people that know him and gets stuff done. I have seen Mike work 100 hour weeks and do whatever it takes to do the job he has to do. I personally prefer to work with people with passion for what they do rather than drones who do the 9-5 for money, even if that means that passion sometimes come out in unexpected places. I know that the vast majority of the readers of this blog are passionate people as well - passionate people make start ups fly.

Jeez dudes - I can confirm any allegations of a ‘b*** j** special list’ are false but seriously amusing! LOL

@Felix - Right on. I have paid attention.

@Paul - I’m sorry for winding you up. It was stupid. It’s a pity you weren’t involved in our panels this year. You should give Alex a call on 01223 500550 to discuss the report, why the low Irish percentage, and maybe LH could run a piece on the Irish start-up scene in our weekly newsletter? Probably more constructive than us trading insults!

In answer to your question regarding events, I try to go to all of the four or so weekly / monthly Cambridge business events, plus I’m going to start going regularly to Mashup after enjoying their free one last month. I also went to a startups / developers matchmaking event at a pub in London just recently. Six events in one month seems OK going?

I know Alex made the FOWA and the web expo Berlin after-parties, but I can’t say what else he’s been going to, and I’m sure you’ll probably run into him eventually.

But give him that call to talk about his work. Just don’t mention ‘intelligence’ or ‘bj’ on the phone!

The serious allegation being that oral sex was involved during the composition the list? hmm…

I don’t want to add too much controversy to the debate but weigh in on the fact that it is a challenge to create a list of European companies without significant involvement from European advisors. (something which is difficult to do in a short time frame considering they have to travel from their home country to take part in the advisory board) - It is a point we are very keen to address next year and is therefore very much a learning experience and work in progress. Thank you kindly for counting the companies out of the 100 to provide percentages for each country Pat

However - in the discussion on web startups at Essential Mediatech yesterday, the question of geography became fairly irrelevant - if you actually look at some of the UK based companies in the Mediatech 100, many have non-UK entrepreneurs at the helm - Playfish, WAYN, King.com, Webjam to skim but a few off the top of the list. Whether or not the UK is a more attractive place to start and base the HQs of a web based company than other places in Europe is an entirely different issue.

It would be great to have more “mainland Europe based” in the list next year; but I think it is a fair comment to state that even many of the UK companies have a pedigree grounded throughout Europe. Indeed, in todays hyper-connected world, one often needs to be able to attract the best talent, investment, clients and interest globally to build a great company. Many locations throughout Europe are great for this, not only the traditional centres like Paris, London, Berlin, Munich, Brussels, Stockholm, but even small regions where all that is needed is a few driven individuals with a positive outlook and great idea (and an internet connection).

I tend to agree with Jonathan and Jens above that although a startup (like other buzz words in common use like clusters, the cloud etc) is a pretty darn malleable word - it usually means a small business with a fresh proposition, combined with the state of mind or self-definition as a startup of the small few that work at the company. I suppose one clear threshold is when the founders stop calling their enterprise a startup and everyone else politely follows suit.

btw - I work at Library House and controversy is great PR. I think this thread has been awesome as such!

@Mike - you didn’t wind me up. I’m well used to troll-like comments on this and other blogs.

@Mark - I don’t doubt Mike is passionate, but passion is only one ingredient.

My thoughts on the definition of a startup

‘A company that is less than 3 years old’. I’d settle for 2 if it got a majority vote.

That’s it.

I don’t think it matters whether funding has been secured or not, or how many staff are employed.

How about we keep it simple?

@Paul - er OK well sorry for having a go at you, but I guess you knew that was what I meant and it was in good faith.

Don’t let my offer of a beer or five go warm… mind you we can always do a flaming sambuca or two if you’re up for it!

If you prefer not to go for a drink, then I wish you well, and all the best in promoting the Irish scene.

@Mike - of course I want to do a beer with you. I’ll reply to your email this afternoon

Also, take a look at OpenSoho to see if you can make it. It’s on December 4th. http://tinyurl.com/6cgnga I realise not everyone is on Facebook so there’s a Web site being built as I type.

Never really been into blogging that much but this one seems worth getting on board for.

I was at Library House until July and was delighted to get Paul involved on one of the panels for the Essential Web event last year and catch up with him for a few beers in other meetings.

The mudslinging seems to have died down a bit now but think the ‘troll-like’ reference to Mike’s conciliatory post was fairly unnecessary.

Interesting debate regarding start-up definitions and generally agree with the final summaries put forward.

Interesting when you venture out of the realms of web/media companies and examine early stage pharma/life science companies who very rarely generate any revenue and generally require exit or serious funding before any kind of commercial product is even finished (although have seen a few Web 2.0 companies that might fit this definition also

Now everyone kiss and make up

Darren - if it has died down a little you shouldn’t have come in with “but think the ‘troll-like’ reference to Mike’s conciliatory post was fairly unnecessary.”

I stand by that comment. His comments were troll-like at best. That however, doesn’t mean I think he is a troll. I’m more than happy to go for a beer with him, so that we can chat this through and put this post behind us.

To all Library House employees and ex-employees who agree that their comments were justified… please take a look at how HSBC, the world’s biggest bank, handled negative comments on this blog. http://paulfwalsh.com/?s=hsbc

I now have one of the most senior guys as my relationship manager and they have put in place a review of their processes used for opening up business accounts in the UK. They (I’m purposely not using ‘it’) reacted by asking what could be improved.

The outcome? £160k deposited to my new business account within a week and today I opened up another business account with them.

That’s how to deal with negative comments - not fire personal insults after taking my comments ‘personally’. I questioned the report, not the people.
Now, can we put this behind us and continue the debate on ‘what is a startup’? I’d really like for us to come up with a definition that we all agree on.

start-up = any new/ish company not hung up on conventions, e.g. defining a start-up. who cares?

Very enjoyable post on “What is a startup?” and “How to deal with negative comments” both of interest to me.
Thanks,
Joe

@liam - indeed! With the collective energy expended here, we all could have created another one

@liam I agree that it doesn’t matter for the purpose of this conversation. But it matters when it comes to awards. I’m simply trying to see if we can reach consensus amongst the people who run such awards.

To be fair, we probably shouldn’t have used the word ’start-up’. But the
definitions of such are very loose and we are not factually incorrect in doing so.Just look at the myriad of definitions on here! That being said, we probably should have used ‘private media companies’ instead of startup.

Thanks Andy. There are two different conversations here if you exclude the personal stuff; 1) what is a startup? and 2) the report. It’s fair to say that the report is about private media companies. Some of those companies are startups and some aren’t.

I’d like those who provide such lists, to have a similar definition for startups, if possible. A company that’s less than x years old is enough for me. Everything else is suplurfus, even if helpful.

For the benefit of those who don’t know, Andy is the Publisher at NMA. And someone I like and rate highly (for what it’s worth :))

[...] their own business. The second post, by Paul Walsh, asks a more fundamental question of What is a Startup? Scattered through the discussion, there are useful [...]

[...] I know it’s difficult to put a time-frame on say, a clean-tech startup. But it’s not that difficult to put some boundaries in place for tech startups. I recommend no more than two or possibly three years. Definitely no more than three. Otherwise the same companies could end up winning every year, meaning it could take more than three years for a company to win - which makes no sense if we’re talking about a ’startup’. Here’s a previous post I wrote entitled ‘What is a startup?’. [...]