Since the launch of this site, we have included, in the start-up submission forms, categories to help the readers, the start-upers and us understand better the state a start-ups is currently in.
These categories were a bit mixed up in the beginning (product status was mixed with start-up status).We have recently separated them and trimmed some of the possible values. And, as of now, we made them, also, obligatory.
In this post, we will try to clarify one of the taxonomies employed: the start-up status.
By "start-up status" we mean the stage of the start-up financing: where the funds injected in the start-up have come from.
This piece of information is essential for potential investors, and, therefore, the start-ups themselves.
Seed
Knowing the conditions in Greece and the start-up scene itself, we expect that most of the start-ups registering to be in this stage: either funded by the creators themselves, or by their friends and family. We would also classify here those start-ups that are not really start-ups yet, in the sense that they are simply projects and they haven't incorporated.
Bootstrapping
Start-ups that already generate income that can sustain their operations, should be classified here.
A,B,C.. Rounds
To our knowledge, no start-ups in Greece, have received institutional financing yet, so use these terms with caution. Unless you are completely sure of their meaning and that it applies to your case, avoid using.
IPO, Initial Public Offering
This should the final stage of financing of a start-up, when it enters a stock market, and obviously, applies to none at the moment
.
About Status...
Very good idea and really useful to include these categorizations for startups.
Two comments:
1. I would take out the IPO category.
IPO is just one form of Exit Strategy for a VC (usually within 3-7 years of investing). Others include management buy-outs and buy-ins, replacements, debt refinancing, M&As etc (these account for almost 6% in the greek market). By singling out IPO, you misguide the startup in thinking it is their only option (long shot for greek startups anyhow and in any case to be co-decided with the VC – note: no IPOs in Q4 2008 and Q1 2009 in the USA!!).
2. Just to propose an alternative category structure:
(to avoid everybody falling under “seed” and be more inline with international lingo)
Seed
Knowing the conditions in Greece and the start-up scene itself, we expect that most of the start-ups registering to be in this stage: either funded by the creators themselves, or by their friends and family. We would also classify here those start-ups that are not really start-ups yet, in the sense that they are simply projects and they haven't incorporated.
Startup
Start-ups that already generate income that can sustain their operations (“bootstrapping” as you call it but is not a generally used term) and are in need to finance an initial stage (organization, production, marketing, sales) to start becoming profitable.
Expansion
The firm is likely to be already profitable. Capital needed to grow beyond critical mass, for expansion of production capacity, sales, new market entry etc.
Late-stage
The firm is profitable for a number of years and is considering mergers, buy-outs, recapitalizations, IPOs etc. (no company at this stage will register here, but just to have it as an option)
http://goulandris.wordpress.com
On your proposal
Point 1 is very reasonable. We need to take it into account.
Point 2: bootstrapping is a widely used term. I am surprised you haven't heard of it considering the rest of your knowledge in the subject. The startup status 'Startup' sounds very ... repetitive. I think we should stick to bootstrapping.
'Expansion' is a rather vague term for our need here. Remember, we are trying to reflect the financing stage, not the business stage.