Co-founder of The Entrepreneurial Mind, serial entrepreneur and professor of entrepreneurship.
Author: Jeff Cornwall
Dr. Jeff Cornwall is the inaugural Jack C. Massey Chair in Entrepreneurship at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Cornwall's current research and teaching interests include entrepreneurial finance and entrepreneurial ethics.
Dr. Jeff Cornwall is the inaugural Jack C. Massey Chair in Entrepreneurship at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. Dr. Cornwall's current research and teaching interests include entrepreneurial finance and entrepreneurial ethics.
A new global study from The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) reports that women entrepreneurs are a key contributor to economic growth in low/middle income countries, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Among the findings:
There is no gender difference in the survival rate of women’s businesses versus those of men in high-income countries.
Women who are employed and have built a social network of entrepreneurs are more likely to become entrepreneurs. The social and economic benefits of working are driving women’s entrepreneurship more than increased education or household income.
Women tend to be less optimistic and self-confident than men about starting a business. But once involved in entrepreneurial activity, women’s confidence builds, and they are more likely to know other entrepreneurs, and exploit viable opportunities just like their male counterparts. Given difference in how various cultures around the globe view economic independence among women, the initial lack of confidence is not surprising. The good news is that once they take the entrepreneurial plunge, they gain confidence. Entrepreneurship has not only economic implications, but social implications for women as well.
Fear of failure is also higher for women in all country groups compared to their male counterparts. Women in Europe and Asia low/middle income countries had the highest fear of failure rates (40.3%) compared to women in Latin America and the Caribbean (34.2%), and women in high-income countries (27.1%).
A good way to help women entrepreneurs is to join with those of us who give micro-loans through Kiva. I just made eight micro-loans to aspiring women entrepreneurs around the globe.
The federal reserve announced that bank credit has tightened. Not startling news, but the implications might catch small business owners by surprise.
The first impact is on new loans. Tighter credit standards means that banks will be even more conservative on business lending. Higher standards for cash flow, personal credit history, collateral requirements, and performance standards. Business loans that might have been approved a year ago, might no longer meet this new standards.
The second impact is on existing loans. This is where the surprise might hit hard on many small businesses. Many entrepreneurs assume that business loans work like personal loans — you make your payments on time and the bank leaves you alone. Not true. Making payments on time is only one of several criteria that bankers will be watching. They will look hard at all of those loan covenants and performance expectations that many of us gloss over the the excitement of getting a loan for a new project.
During tight credit times, these restrictions become much more important for a bank to watch — they are judged on how well they meet performance standards by the federal regulators. For example, a common condition is to maintain a certain debt coverage ratio, which measures how comfortably your cash flow covers your loan obligations. If you dip below the agreed upon ratio, the bank may step in and require you to improve your performance. If you don’t, the bank can call your loan even if you never missed or were late with a payment.
The bank’s portfolio of loans comes under tighter scrutiny during tough times like this, and they will pass that scrutiny along to their business loans.
Once a bank asks you to move your loan, you have to find another bank that will take on your loan. During good economic times, this is somewhat easier. But during times like these, all banks are under the gun to improve, so this becomes a much more difficult task.
Yet another reason to get back to basics during tough economic times. It becomes even more critical to improve cash flow and bring down debt.
If the dot.com era taught us anything it should have been the difference between a financing scheme and starting a real business. A real business has legs. A real business lasts, endures, grows, adapts and prospers.
Sadly, I still see countless examples of people confusing simply raising a bunch of money and launching a business that creates real economic development. Andy Tabar sent along this link to a posting from the blog written by the company 37signals.
Suggesting startups — specifically tech startups — don’t need to look for revenue opportunities now is akin to spoiling a child and shielding them from the outside world: They’re far less prepared when they eventually have to leave the house for the first time.
A poorly run startup is a poorly run business. A wonderfully run startup is a wonderfully run business. I don’t believe there are many great startups that are bad businesses. Maybe less than 1%. If the business is bad the startup is bad. A great idea, maybe, but a great business, no.
So if you start something up, start a business, don’t start a startup.
I’ve been told that I have a face for radio and a voice for newspaper……
That being said, you can hear an interview I did for the podcast Patrons of Change here.
For those of you who are technology challenged just click the “play” button directly under the title. I say this only because it took this Luddite blogger about 10 minutes to figure out how to make it play….
Last evening we went to hear a group of songwriters at the Bluebird Cafe here in Nashville as part of the Folk Alliance (their website is folk.org, which seems to be down this morning as I write this post). One of them performing last night, James Lee Stanley, is one we first heard over thirty years ago — I blogged about him a couple of months ago.
What a wonderful evening of music and an affirmation that the music industry is alive and well. The three featured songwriters had all been writing and performing since the 1970s. Are they rich and famous? No. Have they been making a living pursuing what gives them passion? Absolutely.
There is a good lesson here for entrepreneurs in any industry.
Too much attention is given to celebrity and fame. We see it in entertainment and more and more we see it in the world of entrepreneurship. The vast majority of our economic growth is coming from order topamax online entrepreneurs working in small businesses across the country. It is hard work. It is not very glamorous. But, it has created economic independence for these entrepreneurs and the people working with them.
The same is true in music. There are thousands of songwriters and performers toiling away out there. Many are fortunate and have become successful enough to make a living at it.
The vast majority of entrepreneurs will not reach the heights of Gates, Dell, Jobs, and others whose little ventures grew into empires. In fact, most won’t even make their local list of “leading entrepreneurs” in their community.
But, most entrepreneurs don’t really care about fame and recognition. That is not what drives them. That is not how they measure their success.
What a blessing it is to be able to share in real success — the songwriters who continue to hone their craft — the entrepreneurs who pursue their passion and find fulfillment in the businesses they create.
The New York Times has a story that shows just how far entrepreneurship has come in the past twenty-five years.
Undergraduate courses in how to start and run a small business are becoming as ubiquitous as Economics 101. Gone is the conventional wisdom that running a small business cannot be learned by sitting in a classroom.
According to the Kauffman Foundation in Kansas City, Mo., more than 2,000 colleges and universities now offer at least a class and often an entire course of study in entrepreneurship. That is up from 253 institutions offering such courses in 1985. More than 200,000 students are enrolled in such courses, compared with 16,000 in 1985.
I first started teaching as a graduate student in 1981 and had my first full-time teaching position in 1982. Although I helped to launch an entrepreneurship program where I taught, it met with significant resistance from faculty, parents and even many students. I left in teaching in 1988 in part because I was frustrated by how resistant business schools were to teaching entrepreneurship and small business.
Entrepreneurship education come a long way in a short time when you consider the glacial pace of change in academia.
(Thanks to soon to be alumnae of Belmont and aspiring social entrepreneur, Janice Dotti, for passing this along).
The Brookings Institution has been busy pushing forward on an agenda for socialized entrepreneurship.
Two items from the National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship this week caught my eye (and raised the hair on the back of my neck).
First:
A new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and the Brookings Institution suggests that a new National Innovation Foundation could do a better job of structuring key Federal agencies to support innovation. The study recommends that a newly created National Innovation Foundation serve as the Federal government’s primary support mechanism and point of contact for issues related to innovation. The report proposes three possible structures for a new NIF: housed within the Commerce Department; a publicly-sponsored corporation similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; and, as an independent federal agency like the National Science Foundation.
A new Brookings Institution study contends that current Federal policies do too little to promote cluster creation, i.e. agglomerations of businesses, service providers, and other partners who operate in a particular field or sector. As part of a wider set of programs to spur innovation, the report recommends that policymakers initiate a new set of programs to catalyze cluster activity across the US. This effort would contain two components. First, a Cluster Information Center would help map cluster initiatives across the US and provide research and evaluation about these programs. This effort is modeled on a successful European effort, the European Cluster Observatory. Second, a new Federal grant program (of about $360 million) to help fund state and regional cluster initiatives. This effort would help seed state and local innovations and also build closer connections between Federal, state and local partners.
And while we’re at it, let’s create another federal agency promoting rent seeking and model it after a European agency that tries to steer business activity to advance social agendas.
No thanks, Brookings! Keep your hands off American free enterprise! Markets work. Federal bureaucracies do not.
Generally, a niche strategy is a good way to enter the market for a new business. It usually takes fewer resources for the startup because of lower marketing costs and the ability to start on a smaller scale.
Success rates tend to be higher for niche businesses since they have less direct competition.
Without much competition, niche businesses often can charge higher prices, which allows for quicker positive cash flow during startup and better margins once the company is profitable.
But, entrepreneurs also should be cautious when picking a niche. Here are some things to consider.
My column offers five key tips for finding success in a niche market.
Ideablob.com attracts a large number of ideas for social ventures. This one caught my attention as continue as guest advisor for this week. Seeding Labs reclaims and refurbishes laboratory equipment from universities, hospitals and biotechnology companies in order to equip talented scientists and clinicians living and working in the developing world.
Seeding Labs aims to transform the global map of scientific innovation hubs. By refurbishing laboratory equipment from universities and biotechnology companies in the United States, we equip talented scientists working in the developing world and reduce the environmental burden in the U.S. We believe that talent is everywhere, and that scientific research is the key to improvements in education, healthcare, environmental stewardship and a thriving modern economy. Our goal is to help our colleagues pursue the issues that matter most to them, at the same time connecting scientific communities across international borders. Visit us at www.seedinglabs.org.
My advice:
I would build partnerships with universities through their new interest in social entrepreneurship and service learning. Rather than just plug into their research labs, also tie into their academic programs dedicated to either social entrepreneurship and/or service learning.
Social entrepreneurship is popping up all over the country. Some schools have developed single courses, while others have developed full programs (for example, here at Belmont University we will be launching a Social Entrepreneurship major this coming fall).
Service learning is more established in academia. Using this pedagogy professors add service projects to classes that apply what students are learning to real situations that are tied to social issues in the community or around the world. Some schools have campus wide requirements for students to get involved in service learning (Duke just got millions of dollars for such an initiative).
Don’t assume that the research labs on campus interact with social entrepreneurship and service learning programs on their campuses. Universities are notorious for creating academic silos. You may need to create the bridge for them. Once you do, you will not only have access to the laboratory equipment, but to a ready army of skilled and talented volunteers. There is a good chance that they also have access to funding to help with each project.
The average start-up in the US has about $10,000 in funding to get things rolling. A common myth is that if you start small you will stay small. Not true. Even the most cash tight bootstrappers can build a business that is scalable. From Texasmonthly.com:
Founded Sweet Leaf Tea Company in 1998 with $10,000 and a recipe from his grandmother / Now markets ten flavors of bottled iced tea in all fifty states and has doubled sales each year for the past five years / Announced in April that he had raised $18 million in private equity.
This story is worth clicking through to hear about this success story from the entrepreneur’s own words.
(Thanks to Bro’ Steve for passing this along).
