
Why I got kicked out of Seedcamp 2009 - madmotive
http://blog.crowdstorm.co.uk/why-i-got-kicked-out-of-seedcamp-2009
======
plinkplonk
From
[http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/09/21/seedcampweek09-recession...](http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/09/21/seedcampweek09-recession-
era-startups-emerge-blinking-into-the-light/)

"It’s worth pointing out also that the slight ambiguity of past Seedcamp years
has now gone. Seedcamp T&Cs now state that a startup cannot go into the
programme unless they will take the investment offered. To remind you, that’s
5-10% equity (stakes are flexible) for a 50,000 Euro investment. That’s
totally fine. They’ve assembled an awesome network of mentors. It would be a
huge waste of everyone’s time if a startup got all that great advice and then
effectively threw it back in the faces of the organisers and didn’t take the
investment."

WTF?

I read that as saying teams _have to_ take investment if offered? Is that even
legal? But why should "I just decided not to take investment" be " throwing it
back in the faces of the organizers"?

Shouldn't each party enter a transaction because they think it is a good thing
_at the point of transacting_? This looks like it is possible for a team to be
saddled with investors they don't like.

( I could be completely off base. Please correct me. Thanks in advance)

~~~
borism
from seedcamp site:

"It is important that if you decide to accept the invitation for Seedcamp
Week, that you participate with the intention to accept a Seedcamp investment.
We have streamlined this week and process to help entrepreneurs and speed up a
historically unnecessarily lengthy investment process. As such we believe
teams should provide the same good faith and participate with the intention of
bringing Seedcamp on board as an investor."

~~~
anamax
How does one learn enough about the value of the seedcamp folks before
seedcamp to know whether one would want their investment?

~~~
borism
my guess: they don't.

but actually 5-10% stake and upper limit of 50000 should leave quite a bit of
wiggle room...

~~~
jacquesm
It is extremely stupid, not to put too fine a point on it to accept any cat in
any bag at any price. You need to _know_ your potential investor quite well
before going with them.

That's also to the investors advantage, so to see a clause like this is a big
red flag.

What if you really don't connect on any level and they still want a part of
your company ? What if you feel you simply can not trust them ?

Better to have no deal than a bad one any day.

------
crowdstorm
Reshma outright told me that I had to leave the judging session as I had not
put money into seedcamp, as had all the others sitting in that room. She asked
me to leave before the next pitch began too. Mentors were not allowed in full
stop.

~~~
andrewparker
According to Saul's post, you were not a mentor and you said yourself you were
not an investor, so I don't understand the misunderstanding... Why were you
there?

Is Saul's post true? Where's the ambiguity?

------
Harj
this kind of thing was why i moved from the UK to SV. the british culture is
closed, there's a constant search for ways to exclude the majority for the
benefit of an 'elite' minority. i found SV had no concept of the elite. could
you ever imagine this kind of scene happening at YC?

there have been huge strides in the Uk scene since I left in '07 and it
saddens me to see something like this happen.

~~~
daleharvey
this is exactly what happens at YC, I dont think anyone has demanded that they
be allowed to sit in the yc interviews and participate in choosing the yc
teams.

I think the confusion is over what the last seedcamp day is about, it isnt
demo day, it is the interview process, seedcamp have just made the interview
process more transparent and open to help others and not just the teams that
get funded, which has obviously introduced some confusion.

Seedcamp holds 2 more open demo days along the same lines of YC, one at the
middle and one at the end of the cycle

~~~
wavesplash
From what I understand, that's not the YC model at all. YC takes a bet on the
team w/ zero prior coaching and the company can turn down YC - no obligation.
If the company says yes, then dinners, coaching, etc. commence.

Clean, simple, no misalignment.

It seems that Seedcamp is goofy by front loading the deliverables but won't
commit to the investment. That's awkward for the mentors and the companies
that are accepted/obliged to take whatever deal is given to them.

That feels like a poor place to negotiate vaulation from, and a major
misalignment for the non-investing mentors.

~~~
c3o
Saul Klein: "Y Combinator, by virtue of being in the valley, has a built-in
network, a built-in infrastructure. In Europe, we got none of that ... We have
a real problem of fragmentation, so Seedcamp was really trying to solve for
that issue as much as anything else, bringing people together in a cohesive
network." <http://tr.im/zLzH>

That's why there are lots of networking and mentoring events (local Mini-
Seedcamps, Seedcamp week) up front that many dozens of teams profit from, even
though only 5-7 receive an investment.

I'm sure the selected teams aren't actually legally obliged to take whatever
deal is offered, at least it wasn't at all that way for us last year.

~~~
wheels
As I understand things, this was a change from last year, specifically because
some of the teams rejected the terms that they were given in the past.

~~~
plinkplonk
"some of the teams rejected the terms that they were given in the past."

If some startup founders rejected 50,000 Euros and great advisers, for a 5-10%
share , there is something broken in the model. At least from the pov of the
(vetted, chosen) people doing the rejecting if 50,000 Euros is not providing
enough value they ae well within their rights to reject it.

Fixing the broken parts may pay off more than making arbitrary rules that
people have to accept whoever puts up 50k Euros. This is like saying people
have to accept jobs because "we put so much effort into interviewing you".
Such rules are probably unenforceable anyway and make the proposers look like
idiots.

~~~
c3o
Why would you say "whoever puts up 50k Euros"? Seedcamp Investments LLP does.

~~~
plinkplonk
"whoever puts up 50k Euros" covers Seedcamp LLP.The key concept is putting
pressure on people to accept.

My (simple) point is that people should be able to sign or not as they please,
without psychlogical pressure to do so.

If people back off, figure out why and fix it vs "changing the rules this
year" or whatever)

------
crowdstorm
I can tell you for a fact that mentors were not allowed in that final day of
presentation - only vc's and angels who had paid a large amount (50k+) into
the "seedcamp fund" - whatever that meant. What you have is a project that is
pitching as being a transparent ecosystem to help startups - when in fact it's
just an investment vehicle milking the goodwill of advisors and mentors to
serve the aims of those funds.

~~~
jacquesm
To put 50K into ANY fund is not a large amount, that's the little league (from
an investors point of view).

From a startup point of view it is reasonably serious but for a single
investor 50K is small, very small.

If a fund had an entry ticket that low I would definitely look elsewhere, I
would be very worried about small time investors coming on board with very
little experience and a risk profile that does not belong in the venture
capital world, especially not the seed world.

~~~
jedc
The whole point is that there are a number of solid VCs with small stakes
involved.

If it was operated by large investments by a small number of VC's, the model
could provide problematic signals. Specifically, if those VC's get early and
in-depth looks at these companies and choose NOT to invest, it would be a
negative signal to other investors. By spreading this across a large number of
VC's, this potential is diluted.

The investors in Seedcamp are well known and respected investors... they're
not "small time" with "very little experience". And many of them are long-time
seed investors.

~~~
jacquesm
A 'well known', 'experienced' and 'respected' investor would _never_ force
their presence in a company onto a company that did not want them.

------
marklittlewood
Bleating is easier than building.

It feels to me that there is something strangely self serving about this whole
'debate'.

Seedcamp was great and has done a huge amount to catalyse an early stage
ecosystem across Europe. It takes a huge amount of energy to put something
like that together. I think Reshma should get some slack here.

Someone got the hump because they were somewhere they shoudln't be then bleats
bitterly about it and says their rules should change. If people feel that
strongly about it, go and do your own thing and make up your own rules. The
entrepreneurial community as a whole should benefit as a result.

~~~
crowdstorm
You're missing the point - my post states that it is confused about whether it
is an early stage open ecosystem to benefit everyone or actually just a way to
benefit a closed network of investors with their "seedcamp" fund.

As a small note, I'm a serial entrepreneur with successful exits and an avid
advisor, mentor, and investor in a range of UK startups.

~~~
marklittlewood
I respect our achievments and don't doubt you meant well by being there
although I am not clear what RIGHT you feel you had to attend. If you have
such a big problem with what happened, perhaps it would have been better to
speak to Resham privately after the event when she was less stressed and had
more time to discuss. Instead, you started Tweeting to the world about the
injustice and then blog about it thus stirring up a shitstorm totally out of
proportion to the incident. By offering people a right to reply when they are
actually running an event seems to demonstrate an inflated sense of
importance.

I stand by my point that if you feel this is so wrong, and are no doubt an
accomplished entrepreneur, then set up an alternative. I would be equally
happy to support yours, or other quality activities that support the growth of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem. <http://thebln.com> By making this such an
issue, you run the risk of alienating some of the people and organisations
that would be inclined to help.

~~~
marklittlewood
Errm, that should have read 'your achievements' not 'our achievements'. None
of the achievements in this Hacker News thread are anything to do with me.

------
fallentimes
> _What I hadn’t seemed to realise (and I’m sure I’m not the only one), is
> that this fourth day is where angel funds and VC’s pay upwards of £50,000 to
> attend (no kidding!)_

£50,000!? Can anyone else confirm this?

~~~
daleharvey
its a pretty disingenuous of phrasing it, the panel that sees the final
pitches are limited to the people who have invested into seedcamp (or are part
of the seedcamp team etc)

and while I am at it they dont pay for "exclusive access" to the startups
plans either, there is an entire week at which you can ask the startup any
questions you like.

whether having an open or closed investor day is the best solution I certainly
dont know, but I am pretty sure the motives arent as insidious as implied

~~~
fallentimes
So it's like saying Sequoia paid $2 million to come to YCombinator's demo
days?

~~~
daleharvey
actually those were bad explanations

its like complaining that I wasnt allowed in the room when pg / jessica
interviewed and decided on the yc teams, there are 2 other events much more
along the lines of demo day later on.

~~~
zaidf
Your explanation does not seem all that accurate either.

What if pg/jessica had allowed a bunch of people to sit through interviews?
Then, some administrative staff decides to kick out one guy.

That would be a more accurate description from what I read here(based on the
OP + Seedcamp's response).

Philosophicals--like whether investors should be in the room or not--are
totally irrelavant here. What matters is what was promised and whether
Seedcamp broke that promise for one individual(for whatever reason).

It seems like Seedcamp has too many cooks in the kitchen. The whole idea of
having "official" mentors seems to have backfired here. You have a mentor
complaining that investors are treated better than them. The solution to that
is to get rid of this whole "mentor" label.

You never hear much about weekly YC speakers. That YC keeps it a low key
affair is telling I think.

~~~
daleharvey
reshma is not "administrative staff", she is the ceo

since the format is more formal than a sit down interview I imagine they didnt
want to disrupt a team half way through a presentation to ask someone to
leave.

~~~
zaidf
That's even worse. A CEO should have better judgement and understanding.

It _sounds_ from Saul's post that this is part of the package for mentors and
that Seedcamp was on the wrong.

------
hoggle
Uninteresting! Financially oriented issues like these don't bother me at all.
Who needs so much money these days when everything (services, hard- and
software) is so damn cheap. I don't need anybody investing in our venture.
I've got a part time day job which supports me at least up to the RMS standard
of living. Who cares about all this bloated so called financial
infrastructure. This is just distracting and I don't get it. Create something
you love first - if you need some money beyond that for investing in your
infrastructure or the likes then do the good old credit card bootstrapping.
Should be enough. Don't hire people do it together with some capable people
you trust and like to be with. I thought this place would be more about
hacking than plain old "dirty" money. P.S. sorry for OT ranting but I couldn't
resist, pipe to /dev/null if you please

------
jedc
Saul Klein's response is here: <http://blog.seedcamp.com/2009/09/awaiting-
moderation.html>

~~~
jeroen
One big commercial with this content embedded in it:

"One quick factual point – of course mentors are able to attend the judging
sessions, several did this year and have done every year. I think what
happened yesterday was a pretty innocent misunderstanding – you came into the
room mid-pitch and as you’d not been a mentor during the week, I guess that’s
why Reshma asked very politely for you to not join the session."

which Philip Wilkinson then disputes:

"Reshma outright told me that I had to leave the judging session as I had not
put money into seedcamp, as had all the others sitting in that room. She asked
me to leave before the next pitch began too. Mentors were not allowed in full
stop."

What seems somewhat unclear is whether Wilkinson was a mentor or not.

------
maxniederhofer
To squarely address the concern about transparency: I think the model is
highly transparent and has previously been well communicated.

The issue he raises, i.e. that the investors in Seedcamp are the ones choosing
the winners on the final day of Seedcamp week, seems a fair arrangement: these
investors have invested money in Seedcamp to provide capital for the winning
startups. Hence they should have an input on where their money goes.

Note that investors do not pay to have exclusive access to Seedcamp companies
on the final day. Seedcamp does not sell its services as a "gatekeeper".
Instead, the investors have put equity into Seedcamp and Seedcamp invests in
the winning startups. The amounts invested in Seedcamp are about 50K for
individuals and 200K for institutions. Everyone is free to invest in Seedcamp
(he should talk to them!).

Saul's point that the final day is closed except for the investors and invited
mentors/advisers makes sense to me. It's a special day where the winners of
Seedcamp are chosen, i.e. Seedcamp makes its investment decision. This needs
to be a small session and behind closed doors.

Finally, any mentor or investor is absolutely free to invest in any company
accepted to Seedcamp week or part of the final 6 - or indeed those that have
been rejected by Seedcamp. You can invest before, during or after Seedcamp
week. Everyone is totally free to choose where to put their money. The one
exception is that as part of the selection process, Seedcamp does not want
companies in Seedcamp week that already know they don't want investment from
Seedcamp. Seems sensible.

So I guess this whole thing was just somehow handled badly or he was invited
on another day and it wasn't really clear when that was. I am sure no one
meant to "kick him out of Seedcamp". Part of the reason Seedcamp thrives is
that there is this awesome network of mentors and advisers who aren't
investors in Seedcamp and see the non-financial benefit of donating their time
- for the ecosystem, for karma, for encouraging entrepreneurs, for improving
startups. This is a completely voluntary process and mentors do it because
it's fun. I think startups can benefit immensely from the advice, but I also
find it hard to believe that any individual advice from a mentor can be
measured in a potential equity return to Seedcamp and the Seedcamp investors
down the road. The companies that deal best with mentors' advice are the ones
that would probably have been successful anyway.

Disclaimer: I unfortunately wasn't at Seedcamp this year, so I also wasn't in
the room when this happened. My employer, Atlas Venture, is an investor at
Seedcamp. Usual disclaimer on personal opinion and the like.

------
daleharvey
mentors arent allowed in the final sessions for logistical reasons, the line
has to be drawn somewhere as to who can participate and the fund investors
seems like an obvious line.

 _Firstly, I don’t see why mentors are invited at all._

Most to all of the mentors have a vested interest in the startup community
thriving, lawyers, marketers, investors and angels who were not part of the
main fund but still get direct access to the startup, a phone call isnt going
to help until you figure out who you are calling, thats where seedcamp and
such events help

~~~
jedc
According to Saul Klein, mentors are allowed in.

From: <http://blog.seedcamp.com/2009/09/awaiting-moderation.html>

"One quick factual point – of course mentors are able to attend the judging
sessions, several did this year and have done every year. I think what
happened yesterday was a pretty innocent misunderstanding – you came into the
room mid-pitch and as you’d not been a mentor during the week, I guess that’s
why Reshma asked very politely for you to not join the session."

~~~
crowdstorm
That's completely untrue. AS the pitch ended, I was asked to leave. Reshma
asked me "are you an investor in seedcamp?" - I replied "no, do I have to
be?". Reshma: "Yes, everybody else in this room has paid to be here"

~~~
jedc
I don't have a stake in this argument... just thought it would be relevant to
re-post Saul's reply.

------
FreeRadical
Not many decent companies have come out of seedcamp. Mybuilder is the only
success story.

~~~
jedc
Zemanta has done okay, getting funded by USV, at least.

~~~
adw
Patients Know Best are going to be massive.

------
maxniederhofer
/popcorn

