Is the venture builder model better than traditional VC?
The venture builder model is growing. It seems to be better than venture capital. Whilst both have their merits, venture builders are more enabling and beneficial for a promising startup, especially one which lack expertise of a certain area.
It is no news that the chances of getting Venture Capital funding is getting tougher and tougher. Actual hard results are, more often than not, required before a Venture Capital would commit. Today, digital technology has lowered startup cost. Therefore entrepreneurs find it difficult to justify raising fund solely based on business expense and hiring.
Venture Builder as a bridge to Venture Capital
Whilst entrepreneurs may struggle to get venture capital, venture builder companies like Ant Internet stand a higher chance to secure one. Simply speaking, Venture Builder fills up the gaps between an entrepreneur and Venture Capital.
An entrepreneur may have a brilliant idea but may not have the resources and know-how to develop a Minimum Viable Product or even a prototype.
Hence, we hear many still fail to secure funding.
However, a Venture Builder has in place, with built frameworks and infrastructures to manufacture products, funds, marketing strategies, human resources, company culture, and the expertise to accelerate growth. Naturally, Venture Capital will rather invest in a Venture Builder simply out of lower risk.
If a Venture Builder finds a workable idea in a team of trusted and capable co-founders to run the business operations, it may seal a new venture, and another great business can spring out of it.
Venture Capitals may not want to dwell into the hard sweaty work of a Venture Builder and like a typical investor, only provide X amount of funds and expect Y in return.
But a Venture Builder, as the word “builder” speaks for itself, often builds child products of all digital and technology kinds. They build stuff. They have the builder DNA in them.
Route to fundraising
Direct methods (cash injection, etc)
Indirect funding (salary, product development, marketing expenses)
A prototype, if not a MVP, is required beforehand
Can be jointly or entirely done by Venture Builder core development team
Workspace & Hiring
Venture Capital can recruit executive and advise. No work space
Co-working space and talents available in place
Solely entrepreneur’s initiative
Early marketing strategy and setup will be done by Venture Builder
Trainings & mentorship
Trainings and mentorship
Administration and Legal
Solely entrepreneur’s initiative
Plugged into Venture Builder infrastructure
Defined by Entrepreneur
Venture Builder culture, until the business stands and run on its own with its own staff.
Proven track record or user size
Required. Traction should have been kick-started
Not pre-requisite. Strategic partnership, commitment, and experience are more important
Venture Capital takes less equity
Venture Builder takes more
Venture Capital takes less risk, thus a harder selection process
Venture Builder takes on much more risk.
Portfolio of Venture Capital can be diverse
Venture Builder likely to be very selective.
Expectation on entrepreneur
Return on investment
Execution; Speed to scale is important
Whilst it seems Venture Builder has more advantages, there are very few able to work with Venture Builders. Execution speed is the cornerstone to its success. Therefore, often the lack in sense of ownership by entrepreneur might account for its pressure mounting from Venture Builder side.
Despite the pros and cons, which side will you choose?
Echelon Asia Summit 2018 is e27’s flagship platform that brings together startups, investors, corporates, governments, tech ecosystem players and customers.
e27 publishes relevant guest contributions from the community. Share your honest opinions and expert knowledge by submitting your content here.
Featured Image Copyright: miloszg / 123RF Stock Photo
The post Venture builder model vs. venture capital, what are the differences and advantages? appeared first on e27.