You wanted detail on the London TechCity LaunchPad? Here it is.
by Guest Author
on April 7, 2011

This week the UK’s Technology Strategy Board, run by the government as a booster of the tech business world, unveiled a new £1m fund to support “digital businesses” in the area around Old Street and Shoreditch in east London (‘Silicon Roundabout’ to you and me) which the government has decided to call “TechCity” as a way of ‘branding’ an area which has over the years produced a natural cluster without any government help. Announced by Universities and Science Minister David Willetts, the news has left a number of people confused as to the real down and dirty detail of how it will all work. They could of course read the PDF, but we decided to give them the chance to explain it on TechCrunch Europe. If anyone still has questions they can email the guys running the competion, David.Bott[AT]tsb.gov.uk and/or Nick.Appleyard[AT]tsb.gov.uk

The TechCity LaunchPad is designed to support and extend the cluster that has grown up in the East End of London. Companies will have the opportunity to apply for funding of up to £100,000 for their projects through a competitive process.

The Technology Strategy Board has worked to tailor this opportunity for small and micro companies that often struggle for capital or easy access to finance. We are doing this because we want to help the UK digital and creative industries grow by offering targeted support in the right areas. We know that the UK economy needs more successful creative and digital companies, and that they need to last long enough to go through a growth phase before they are snapped up by larger companies. With so many young and successful businesses in one small area, we see the TechCity as a good place to start.

Successful applicants will be supported in attracting funding to match that provided by the Technology Strategy Board. By being the first to pledge financial support, we hope to make it easier for successful businesses to secure co-funding either from new business partners or from angel or venture capital investors.

In addition to this, we are allowing a 12-month ‘period of grace’, in which companies can find the match funding. There will also be an investors event where companies will be able to pitch in a bid to secure the additional 50% funding. We think that for many companies, we have created an opportunity that de-risks the prospect of applying and running a project.

This is a pilot that may lead to a series of local competitions to support growth clusters across the UK. It was designed through consultation with various members of the London based digital community and uses elements of the competition we ran last year as part of Innovate 2010. Later schemes will look to focus more strongly on other parts of the country and other sectors of activity.

Although companies from anywhere in the UK can apply, with this pilot we are focusing on the Tech City/East London area, and it will be advantageous for business to be able to come and take part in events and activities and to be part of that community and leverage off the community and facilities that exist there.

The TSB traditionally favours investing in collaborative projects as it is seen as the best way to build and create strong industries. However with the LaunchPad we appreciate the size of the grants combined with the early stage nature of many of the businesses means that collaboration is often not an option or even desirable. So even though we believe in the advantages of collaboration, for this scheme we will also be accepting single company applications – which should alleviate the concerns of many entrepreneurs.

1. To enter the first stage of competition all you need to do is submit a two-minute video. This worked well last year because it allows you to present your idea in a cost effective manner and allows us to see both the basis of the idea and the person behind it. It is not intended that you disclose all their intellectual property – the most compelling videos last year described the market and what was wrong with the current offering into it – or the absence of an offering – and promised an innovative solution. The competition would remain open from the beginning from 6th May until 26th – just three weeks.

2. The videos will be posted openly for the wider community to view, make comments on and perhaps even offer support or partnership. Last year, there were some initial worries about the possibility of plagiarism, but we believe a good video pitch will attract support rather than any negative action. However, if this aspect does worry you, we can offer the option of loading as a private video and sending us the key. You will miss out on the community feedback to improve your idea and the potential for accessing other means of support, but it’s your decision. The videos will stay up for two weeks.

3. On the basis of last year’s experience, we anticipate marked oversubscription, so a simple down-selection process is vital. The comments provided by the community will be incorporated into the assessment process, but the assessment at this stage will be carried out by independent assessors, who are all experts in the digital and creative areas. This will take two-three weeks.

4. We will ask those successful in the first assessment to submit what is effectively a short business plan for their project. This proposal will be assessed in the same way as in our normal competitions. Each proposal will be assessed by 3 assessors and rank ordered based on composite score. There are 4 criteria we use – the size of the market, the capability of the company, or companies, to address the market need, the timeliness of the idea and the difference getting financial support from the Government would make to the progress of the idea. These criteria are on our website (www.innovateuk.org). We will allow three weeks for the companies to write their business case, and we expect the assessment to take two-three weeks.

5. As with the majority of Technology Strategy Board support mechanisms, the funding can only be for 50% of the costs of the project. However, a major change from our normal competitions is that the extra funding does not have to have arranged beforehand. The only requirement is that the other 50% is from the private sector. Those successful in this second round will have the offer of a grant up to £100k, dependent on them being able to provide matched funding and they would have up to 12 months to find that funding.

6. To speed up the process of the successful companies finding this extra money, they will all present at a pitchfest organized at a venue in the Tech City area, and we will invite angels, venture capitalists, corporate venturers and others from the private sector who could support by providing the other half of the money.

7. Once the funding is acquired, there is a short due diligence procedure (based on financial status) and then the work can be started. Usually, the money is paid quarterly in arrears, but we can make other arrangements if this is really important.

If this pilot is successful, we might seek to run LaunchPads in other parts of the country (possibly in conjunctions with LEPs and/or Growth Hubs. We might even make it an annual Shoreditch event!

This begs the question, how will we judge success? There are three elements to this. The first is the number of applications we receive. We are looking to connect and support the community, so expect a good response. The second is the assessment scores in the second stage (written) proposal. Since we are using our standard procedures and independent assessors, we can judge the quality against all the other proposals we have received in the digital area over the last couple of years. The third is the speed with which the successful companies get funding. If they are actually still looking after 12 months, I think we will all feel disappointed.

As I said at the start, this is a pilot. We started with ideas from the community, and have tried to respond to some of the feedback we got at the launch last Monday. As with all the Technology Strategy Board does, we are aiming to support companies to be more innovative – and therefore more successful. Are you up for it?

Advertisement
  • Jackson

    Could you please explain the restrictions, if any, on how the funds can be spent. In previous TSB competitions there have been limits on the amount of contract workers vs PAYE employees and it’s been paid in arrears for receipted expenses.

    Further, previous competitions had a focus on funding “research projects” – can the funds be used for product development, sales and marketing ?

  • Anonymous

    Really good to see a lot more clarity here; and in particular relaxing the restriction on the forcing of collaborative projects makes this a far more useful offering for startups. Good stuff.

  • http://twitter.com/Squadify Squadify.com

    I was at the event and it was quite to very confusing, my understanding after the event was you could get the money but only if you were to collaborate with other companies. I’m glad this has been cleared up.

    There is one concern though, it says above one can make the video they upload private, but then later it seems that the public reaction to the pitch will be taken into account. Does that mean then that if you make your pitch video private will you lose out because you’re unable to get the publics opinion.

  • http://twitter.com/Squadify Squadify.com

    I was at the event and it was quite to very confusing, my understanding after the event was you could get the money but only if you were to collaborate with other companies. I’m glad this has been cleared up.

    There is one concern though, it says above one can make the video they upload private, but then later it seems that the public reaction to the pitch will be taken into account. Does that mean then that if you make your pitch video private will you lose out because you’re unable to get the publics opinion.

  • Dave

    Frankly £1m is just pissing in the wind. If this country really wants to get behind innovative startups it should look to provide funds on a similar scale used to bail out the banks (an entirely non-productive albeit necessary use of public money).
    I also wonder how much the administration of this fund will cost compared to its size…

  • http://www.taxisurfer.com Andrew Lawson

    Personally I think this is brilliant. Is it perfect, no – I’m sure it’s got more problems than anyone can imagine, but it is a start. Would you prefer the Government just gave more money to the banks, or is it better for them to start and investigate as many schemes as they can. If you gathered 100 top entrepreneurs into a room and asked them all to put forward a proposal you would never get any agreement, so lets not knock a bunch of bureaucrats on their first couple of attempts – eventually they might come up with something that helps us all!

  • Stephen Price

    I think this clarifies what was a very confusing launch on Monday. Much better that single companies can apply. I’m really not sure about the whole public video thing. If its not carefully handled it certainly could be an opportunity for others to copy especially since many of the pitches will describe embryonic, undeveloped ideas/opportunities. As such there will be no barriers preventing others from exploiting. The ability to exclude the videos from public scrutiny should not disadvantage those that choose this. As a VC investor I would welcome the TSB funding but would be keen to know who the assessors are to understand the value of their due diligence.

  • http://www.daniellight.co.uk Dan Light

    £1m is all it costs to take political ownership of everything good that’s already happening here? And for that all most of us get is a SillyName for the area. Daylight robbery.

  • http://twitter.com/IqbalGandham Iqbal

    I like it. Actually much more clear than before. Can’t argue with a 2 minute video, open for public scrutiny, well so much for stealth startups :-) . But all good, and who cares its only £1mn its only a pilot, and if it works, am sure we can pay more from our taxes into the scheme :-)

    Iqbal

  • http://stevefarnworth.com stevefarnworth

    Not a bad concept for a pilot, but if people really want to talk about having a British Silicon Valley, I point them towards this – http://howbigreally.com/dimension/industrial_age/silicon_valley

  • Davidsmith633

    “The money is paid quarterly in arrears.” – I guess nobody on this project understands cashflow then!

  • Davidsmith633

    “The money is paid quarterly in arrears.” – I guess nobody on this project understands cashflow then!

  • David Bott

    Jackson

    The official (and full) response is:

    However there are some points which are generally valid for grant-related competitions (rules may differ significantly for procurement/SBRI competitions)
    · Sub-Contracting – General guidance is that where sub-contracting is more than 30% of total project costs, this level of sub-contracting would need to be justified in the application and would be considered as part of the assessment process by independent assessors. Questions asked would be why this is sub-contracting vs their inclusion as a partner in the consortium (assuming this is not a procurement contract). Sub-contracting outside of the UK requires particularly strong justification as to why the work can’t be done in the UK and again would be a consideration within the assessment process. Some competitions state a maximum level of sub-contracting so applicants would need to check the Guidance for Applicants to see if a maximum level applies.
    · Payment in Arrears – the vast majority of Technology Strategy Board competitions state that claims will be paid quarterly in arrears and must be against costs incurred and paid (defrayed). Applicants need to have sufficient cashflow to incur and pay costs and subsequently claim these back from the Technology Strategy Board within the agreed project funding levels. Some competitions do allow an element of initial up front payment for smaller funding levels but this is typically a small percentage of the total grant.
    · Sales and marketing are ineligible costs for grant competitions (procurement competitions are generally different but assessors would still be looking at whether spend on sales & marketing constitutes good value for money from a public funding perspective). Product development – it depends on what this means and whether it was a core part of the proposed project. If the enquirer can provide more information on this, we could be more helpful in confirming whether it is considered to be an eligible project cost.

    The general guidance would be for anyone considering applying for a competition to register to receive an application form and the competition documentation including the Guidance for Applicants, which details the rules of the competition and eligible/ineligible costs. Its also worth noting that the deadline for registering for a competition (i.e. to receive an application form) is one week before the deadline for submitting a completed application.

    It’s a bit detailed, but better than being vague. I hope it helps.

    David

  • David Bott

    Flag

    If last year is anything to go by, then people will comment on some videos, ignore others and criticise others. If you “go private” you might miss positive comments, but then again you might avoid criticism. Worst of all, people might ignore you! It’s really down to you. The video is an opportunity to present your idea and pique the interest of the assessors so that you get through to the second stage.

    David

  • David Bott

    Dave

    Sorry you feel that way. We don’t have that much money.

    We are budgeting £70k to run this competition.

    David

  • David Bott

    Andrew

    Thanks. We did get a fair amount of contradictory advice about the best format/size/approach. It looks like we managed to upset most people though. :-)

    David

  • http://www.timjoslyn.com Tim Joslyn

    Much clearer and whilst I agree that there still needs to be some clarification around what the money can be used for (hopefully execution as well as research) and what type/stage companies can apply. Whilst maybe not perfect, it can only be a positive move.

    Seems to be a lot of negative comments, but how can the fact that 10 start-ups probably based in and around Silicon Roundabout will each have £100k made available to them be a bad thing?

    It’s so easy to sit back and say the pot should be bigger, the process should be confidential, it’s all about politics etc, but it is a start and surely better than the government doing nothing at all?

    We are so good at complaining, but here’s an idea. How about we just to make the best of the situation and push forward? I am pretty sure that 10 companies will and they probably won’t be the people sniping from the sidelines…

  • David Bott

    David

    Most of us spent our careers in industry, both big and small, so we do understand the problem. On the other hand it keeps the overheads of running the scheme down. If there is a real problem, people can talk to us about other ways to help.

    David

  • http://twitter.com/rodolfor Rodolfo Rosini

    If you were the TSB what would you do to achieve the maximum impact with a limited budget? Fully knowing that all the government is draining too much money on the economy.

  • http://www.ind-tech.com Brian Milnes

    That all looks really quite straightforward and useful – in stark contrast to the reaction from Monday night’s launch.
    Looks like someone (with a £200k salary) could do with a communciations course…

  • http://www.ind-tech.com Brian Milnes

    That all looks really quite straightforward and useful – in stark contrast to the reaction from Monday night’s launch.
    Looks like someone (with a £200k salary) could do with a communciations course…

  • Katy Turner

    I tend to agree here with the people who say ‘lets give this a chance’. Ok £1M is not a great deal of money, but lets remember this is a pilot and therefore if successful presumably David’s team will be given more £ to play with in future and will be given the opportunity to run the scheme outside of London in other parts of the UK. As an investor, I would be happy to be receiving matched funding from the govt into a startup I was interested in backing. Look at the example of France – many french startups receive significant support from the French govt which means that they want to stay HQed in France and therefore the talent and the profits of the business stay within the French economy. Lets get give it a go and see what happens. It sounds as though David and his team are very open to consultation so the community has a responsibility to keep feeding back and through an iterative process maybe we can get to something which has more positives than negatives.

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    A bit more background about the thinking that brought us here: https://ktn.innovateuk.org/web/nick-appleyard/blogs/-/blogs/adding-heat-to-the-bonfire

  • http://twitter.com/tadeyoola Tom Adeyoola

    Great to see that the collaboration requirement has been removed. However, I do still have a question mark, albeit it a cynical one on the criteria and ethos between choosing projects.

    I have seen 4 applications at 3 first rate ventures rejected for TSB support. These are all companies that have attracted tier 1 VC funding and the applications have been in scope and prepared by experienced grant getting organisations. On the flipside I have seen another friend at a digital agency win 3 awards in one competition for projects like a feasibility study for the creation of the hoverboard from Back to the Future 2 in collaboration as a schools project. Is this an indication that TSB views their role as supporting tier 2 tech ventures or social worthy projects that cannot attract substantial VC or general funding support and that venture success is actually counterproductive for these bids? It would be great to know the thinking behind TSB support and the success rate of the businesses and projects funded.

    From my anecdotal experiences of these examples above I wouldn’t be diverting important internal resources towards a competition of this nature.

  • http://twitter.com/tadeyoola Tom Adeyoola

    Great to see that the collaboration requirement has been removed. However, I do still have a question mark, albeit it a cynical one on the criteria and ethos between choosing projects.

    I have seen 4 applications at 3 first rate ventures rejected for TSB support. These are all companies that have attracted tier 1 VC funding and the applications have been in scope and prepared by experienced grant getting organisations. On the flipside I have seen another friend at a digital agency win 3 awards in one competition for projects like a feasibility study for the creation of the hoverboard from Back to the Future 2 in collaboration as a schools project. Is this an indication that TSB views their role as supporting tier 2 tech ventures or social worthy projects that cannot attract substantial VC or general funding support and that venture success is actually counterproductive for these bids? It would be great to know the thinking behind TSB support and the success rate of the businesses and projects funded.

    From my anecdotal experiences of these examples above I wouldn’t be diverting important internal resources towards a competition of this nature.

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Katy,
    Of course we all aspire to be more French.
    It’s good to see that this works from an investor point of view. As well as the purely money aspects, does it give you confidence to know that the companies you’re investing in have succeeded in a competition, and are judged to have the most innovative ideas with the best business potential? What’s the value of this independent ratification to you?

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Thanks Iqbal,
    When asking for more money in government initiatives, it’s so easy to forget that the money has to come from somewhere. The cost of this one is 5p from every household in the UK. So how will we all make it worth their investment?

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Tom,
    Our (independent, external, mostly business-based) assessors score against several criteria. For the most part these are the same that any investor qould look at: the newness of the idea, the business plan, the project plan, the market size and positioning, … We also ask about the extent to which public investment is appropriate, as opposed to private finance.

    It’s not the only consideration, but if a VC is already willing to back a company and its ideas without our involvement, then we’ll be cheering from the sidelines. Is the case for investment of taxpayers’ money then stronger? Or weaker? Do we add any value by adding to the company’s funds, or do we just displace private investment? We’re looking for evidence that a grant actually will make things bigger, faster, better… not just cheaper.

    It’s a thorny one, and something we have to look at case by case.

  • David Bott

    Tom

    Many of our competitions are oversubscribed up to tenfold, so often good projects go unfunded. However, your description of the projects you claim we have funded sound way out of our scope. Our intention is to support the economic growth of the UK and projects have to have a strong commercial slant and never involve schools. We also look hard at the capacity of companies to deliver, so it is highly unlikely we would have supported the same company 3 times in one competition. Can you send me more details?

    If you are interested in how we think, you could start with this blog post on our website – http://www.innovateuk.org/content/blog/the-right-tool-for-the-job.ashx

    The upfront costs of entering this is producing a 2 minute video. Is that really not worth a punt for £100k?

    David

  • http://twitter.com/tadeyoola Tom Adeyoola
  • Katy Turner

    Hello Nick,
    I think access to governmental funding has to be a good thing because it fosters an environment of collaboration and support between govt and the entrepreneurial community, and if there is access to more money that does not involve startups being tied up in bureaucracy to access the funds then I would see it as a positive. Do we think the independent ratification is valuable? Well in all honesty it depends on the criteria for evaluating the business via the competition. If your criteria for assessing not only innovative ideas but also market opportunity and more importantly teams matches with ours and the rest of the investment community then a competition can be a good thing. We are strong supporters of Seedcamp, Springboard etc where startups do go through a competitive process and in these mechanisms it is very important that there is a clear and bought in view about what a ‘winner’ looks like and the criteria against which they are judged. Such competitions however also polish the skills of startups, expose them to core skills like pitching and building business plans and also give them access to a peer network of startups and mentors with whom they can share experiences and learnings – so in many ways the process is more important than the outcome.

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Couldn’t agree more. We do assess mainly on the business potential of the idea and its owners (see my reply to Tom on this thread), so there should be a good fit between what we think success looks like and what you think success looks like.
    As for pitching practice… well, our first round competition entry is a 2-minute video pitch. When we’ve tried this previously, we’ve found this a very good way to do the first sift: a clearly articulated presentation of the ideas is very good place to start.

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Hi Tom,

    At risk of diverting this thread I’ll say a little about Sidekick Studios.

    They did indeed win three grants in one competition for feasibility studies this year, which is unique in my memory. I was with their CEO, Adil, just a week back, looking at some of what they’ve made. They have prototypes already. They’re getting ready to take them on to market and are in advanced negotiations to build their supply chains with some major players that they’re planning to partner with. They’re just the kind of business we were looking to support, and which we are again targeting now, and we’re over the moon with what they’ve done with the 3 x £25k seeds that we planted just a few months ago.

    There’s a social angle to the things that they’ve developed, which by the way has seen them invited for tea at Number 10, but Technology Strategy Board wouldn’t have supported them because of this alone, as we’re mainly interested in the business potential of what they’re doing.

    Sadly they’re south of the river, and don’t seem inclined to move, but you can’t have everything, eh?

  • http://www.daniellight.co.uk Dan Light

    It’s a low-cost attempt to hijack something good that’s already happening in the UK and flip it into something the Government can take credit for. See also: ‘The Big Society’.

  • http://twitter.com/nanodome Nanodome Ltd

    I’m genuinely pleased by the tweaking you’ve done since Monday night’s somewhat calamitous Launchpad launch: requiring collaboration (however much of a social good it is) was always going to lead both to IP ownership confusion and to unbackable Frankenprojects, so I think on balance it’s good that that particular aspect has since been dropped from the mix.

    However, having seen a fair few video pitches, I think you’ll find them surprisingly hard to judge. How to decide between (a) a well-rehearsed precis-to-camera of a great exec summary (with 12 Likes) and (b) a ‘Hoxton Special’ hiply-narrated Flash extravaganza (with 2845 Likes)? Needing to choose between style and substance would be tricky even without 10 x £100K riding on it.

    You might therefore think about specifically limiting what kind of video pitches you’ll allow in: I know this won’t be popular with people offering high-end video services & hip Flash animations to startups, but… it may well quickly prove to be a blessing both to the assessors and to entrepreneurs, too. Something to think about, anyway.

    Finally: though I realize this is still a pilot, saying that your aim is “to support companies to be more innovative” is arguably back-to-front compared to where nearly all Tech City startups (and indeed tech startups all over the UK) are really at right now: trying to help innovation to be more company-like. The TSB seems to be applying a “third base” focus to a “first base” context, and that remains a genuine mismatch.

  • http://www.groupay.co.uk GroupayMatt

    Thanks very much for the clarification David, extremely helpful. Two quick questions:

    1) I understand that grants can be up to 100k and assume that you will develop a portfolio of different sized investments. I was just wondering if you had any stated preference for the portfolio you develop? e.g., a large number of small investments with a small number of large ones

    2) I’m still not entirely clear on what you see as a “collaborative project”, could you give a couple of examples? Also could you help me understand in a little more detail the basis of your predilection for collaborative projects?

    Cheers!

    Matt

  • http://twitter.com/Squadify Squadify.com

    Matt,

    I think they’ve removed the need for collaboration, or at least it seems that non-collaborative compaies will be able to apply for the scheme too. I understand it’s a legacy thing.

    I’d also like a response to question 1.

  • http://www.groupay.co.uk GroupayMatt

    Thanks Squadify but they still seem to favour collaborations so I was interested to know what kind of projects this would include and (more as a matter of interest than anything else) the rationale for this preference.

    Cheers!

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Hi nanodome,
    We’ve used video pitches in similar circumstances a couple of times in the past 6 months, so we sort of know what to expect.
    My own experience is that, once you’ve watched a hundred or so of them back-to-back, it’s not the production values that catch your notice, but rather clarity, wit and originality. My personal favourite was a short 2-hander sketch format; one of the entries that we recently funded in the IC tomorrow digital innovation contest was just a chap talking into his webcam.
    It doesn’t have to be all HD and CGI to make an impression.

    On your “finally” point, I don’t disagree. Much of our assessment is about business potential, not just of the ideas, but of the ability of the people to exploit them. The coolest tech in the world isn’t going to have any impact unless you can work through these things. We’ll have a think about how we frame the messages.

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    Matt, Squadify,

    The proposals can be awarded “up to” £100k of grant, which can be “up to” 50% of the project. Anywhere down from these figures is therefore allowed.
    You should put in the right costings for what you want to do. Don’t inflate it just to reach these limits, but rather do an honest assessment. We don’t have a strong preconception about what the portfolio spread of project sizes will be, and we won’t try to engineer a balance (if we had intended to do this, we would have said so – that’s only fair!)
    However, if when you cost up your project it has a different number of zeros on it compared to this guidance, then maybe this isn’t the right funding vehicle for you.

    We do favour collaborations, and we make no bones about that, because by encouraging companies to work with one another we strengthen the ties between them, build trust, cement supply chains, encourage knowledge sharing, and all sorts of other things that look good from our point of view.
    Formally, a collaboration means two or more distinct organisations working together on a project, with an agreement between them about how to handle the IP. At least one must be a company, and they can partner with other companies, universities, public bodies or 3rd sector organisations (with some restrictions as to how the grant money is divided).

    However, as the main post above says, we’ll accept applications that aren’t collaborative into this competition, and we’ll assess these against the collaborative ones. It complicates things from our point of view (multiple assessments against different criteria etc), but if that’s what you all tell us you want, then we are here to serve ;-)
    It’s not something we’ve done before, to have these two streams running side by side, so we don’t know yet what the the balance will be between collaborative and single-company projects to be funded. We probably won’t know this until we see what comes in, and where the high quality proposals are.

  • http://www.groupay.co.uk GroupayMatt

    Thanks for such a detailed response Nick, appreciate you taking the time.

    Matt

  • http://twitter.com/IqbalGandham Iqbal

    David/Nick

    Is there anyway you can remove the concept of pitching your idea and having it reviewed in public. Not that I am shy, by any measure :-) , but I think it will lead to spam, the voting of an idea should only be allowed to people who have submitted their own ideas.

    I am unsure of what value public voting has on the idea, especially since all of us have differing views on what is good/bad/ugly

    In addition do you have a preference for B2B or B2C, i.e would you be more inclined to fund something such as a SAAS service for SME’s or an app called ‘color’ for consumers to share pictures

    Iqbal

    P.S David do you have a twitter account….

  • http://twitter.com/nick_appleyard nick_appleyard

    We are @david_bott and @nick_appleyard. Unimaginative, perhaps, but easy to find.

    B2B and B2C are both good – whatever area you’re already established in. In either case, we’ll be looking for evidence that you can put together upstream and downstream supply chains so that what you develop actually has a place in the market.

    Is this a good opportunity also to point you towards IC tomorrow? http://www.ictomorrow.co.uk/ This is a facility that we’re setting up for businesses who have a prototype that they want to trial in front of a user group, to tune it ahead of market launch and to gain some confidence and evidence to show to investors. You can also get help there with several other things, eg rights clearance on commercial media content, or access to open public data…
    The trials aspect is mostly B2C, but if you’re interested in assembling B2B2C chains then there’s lots of opportunity to do so there.
    Doors open next month.

  • http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/04/09/why-british-geeks-just-cant-bare-to-look-a-tsb-gift-horse-in-the-mouth/ Why British geeks just can’t bare to look a TSB gift horse in the mouth

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://jetlib.com/news/2011/04/09/why-british-geeks-can%e2%80%99t-bear-to-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth/ Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | JetLib News

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • David Bott

    Iqbal

    Nick seems to have missed your first question, but we will accept private video postings – you can send us a key and only the assessors will see it. The idea of public posting got a lot of positive feedback when we used it last year – because people found they were contacted by potential collaborators, customers and funders.

    We are well aware of the fact that there are different viewpoints out there – this week has been particularly instructive :-) – and we are trying to set up something that supports companies going beyond their comfort zone.

    David

  • http://trendoloji.com/?p=1770 Neden İngiliz Geeks Mouth A Gift At aramak için Bare Can’t

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://brettmbell.com/2011/04/09/why-british-geeks-can%e2%80%99t-bear-to-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth/ Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | BrettMBell.com

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://www.txtjive.com/blog/?p=944 Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | TxtJive.Com

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://mobilion.co.cc/?p=41 Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://www.qibug.com/2011/04/why-british-geeks-can%e2%80%99t-bear-to-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth/ Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | Tech stuff center

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://www.bitmag.com/2011/04/09/why-british-geeks-can%e2%80%99t-bear-to-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth/ Why British Geeks Can’t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | Bitmag

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://trendoloji.com/?p=1774 Neden İngiliz Geeks Mouth A Gift At Look To Bear Can’t

    [...] The announcement was badly handled as it lacked detail. But instead of asking for more detail (and getting it), the tech community has let loose with both barrels. Why, asks Daniel Tenner, the founder [...]

  • http://besttechreviews.info/?p=267 Why British Geeks Can?t Bear To Look A Gift Horse In The Mouth | Tech Reviews

    [...] &#1110t lacked detail. B&#965t instead &#959f asking f&#959r more detail (&#1072n&#1281 getting &#1110t), th&#1077 tech community h&#1072&#1109 &#406&#1077t loose w&#1110th both barrels. Wh&#1091, [...]

  • http://www.paschershoxchaussures.com/ chaussures converse

    The third is the speed with which the successful companies get funding. If they are actually still looking after 12 months, I think we will all feel disappointed.

  • http://rooreynolds.com/2011/06/03/fornotes-13/ Fornotes 13 – Roo Reynolds

    [...] an a really interesting Nokia campaign and appearing in a promotional video for for walls.im’s TechCity Launchpad [...]

  • http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/07/07/government-doubles-matched-funding-to-2m-for-early-stage-silicon-roundabout-startups/ Government doubles matched-funding to £2m for early stage Silicon Roundabout startups

    [...] Applicants can get up to £100,000 in match funding, with the other half coming from a private inestor(s). So, get the private investment first, and then double it with government cash, if selected. Win. (Here’s more detail). [...]

  • ahmet tayfur

    In addition to this, we are allowing a 12-month ‘period of grace’, in which companies can find the match funding. There will also be an investors event where companies will be able to pitch in a bid to secure the additional cilt bakımı

blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement