I was at a dinner recently in Chicago, and the table discussion was about building great companies outside of Silicon Valley. Of course this can be done, and of course I am a big proponent of the rise of startup centers across the country as the Internet has moved from the "infrastructure phase" to the "application phase" dominated by the three C's: content, communications and commerce. But the dinner discussion included too much denial for my liking.
I think startup communities being simple cheerleaders doesn't help anyone. Those of us outside Silicon Valley need to make an effort to effect change, not just wish for it.
At the dinner some argued that Chicago has everything it needs now that it has built: GroupOn, Braintree, GrubHub. Others contended that it has "come along way" and "will never get the full respect it deserves just because it's not Silicon Valley." But I think this misses the point. I'm a very big fan of Chicago. I started my career at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture), so I went to Chicago many times a year for nearly nine years. I then got my MBA at University of Chicago, so I secretly pull for local entrepreneurs as long as they don't make me visit in the winter any more.
But no community can become complacent with the wins that it has. It's not the great companies you build. The silent killers are the companies that should have been built locally and weren't. It's the thousands of jobs that weren't created, but you don't even know it.
Think about Facebook had it stayed in Boston. Could it have become the behemoth that it is today? Who knows? But I'll bet the Boston community would take 50 percent of the success of Facebook built locally. And the truth is that successful startups beget more successful local startups, wealthy VPs who go on to build their next startups, etc. Even Mark has acknowledged moving wasn't the be all, end all in this famous interview:
"If I were starting now, I would have stayed in Boston. [Silicon Valley] is a little short-term focused, and that bothers me."
Boston is still a great tech hub. But wouldn't it want to be great PLUS have Facebook?
We have similar stories in LA, and most people don't know it. For example, Lookout is a mobile security company that was founded by three talented graduates of USC. They started their company in LA but a couple of years after raising capital from Khosla Ventures in the Bay Area, they ended up relocating there. A few years later they announced $150 million in a funding round at $1 billion+ valuation and are ramping up jobs to secure their market-leading position. You could say the team would have gone north anyways. Perhaps. Who knows? But I know with local funding and local support that's certainly less likely.
And consider Snapchat, one of our hometown favorites as they're based in LA (Venice Beach). Luckily for our community the founders decided they wanted to build their company in LA regardless of not having local funding from LA.
That's our great gain as Snapchat has also raised a lot of money at a monster valuation ($10 billion reported) and has been scooping up talented Stanford engineers and relocating them to LA. Locally we call it "the Snapchat effect." The VPs of Snapchat will be LA's great founders five years from now.
Silicon Valley is littered with startups where the founders were originally in LA. Klout was an LA company--sold for $200 million to Lithium. As was FarmVille (sold to Zynga) and many, many others.
Local capital matters. Local mentors matter.
That was my original idea behind Launchpad LA. I figured if we couldn't fund every company locally we should at least embrace them as a community and show that we're willing to mentor them whether they raise their money in town or not.
So what can a community do?
I often point to the story of when we raised our fourth fund a few years ago. I went to see several LP funds in Boston. At least twice I had conversations that went like this: "Yes. It's true. Your fund performance has been great. But there's also several great funds in Boston and while our first priority is to returns we have an equal responsibility to local funds and local jobs."
LA public pension funds and endowments have historically been the opposite. I think government and community members need to understand that capital formation is an incredibly important part of economic revival. People often say, "Great entrepreneurs will build a community and the capital will follow." I don't see much evidence of that. I think it's a combination of the two. It's clear that capital with no talent ends up having to travel to do deals. But talent with no capital is another word for migration.
And then there is public policy. Historically the City of LA has been hostile to startups. I'm reminded of LegalZoom, which was founded in LA but moved its headquarters to Glendale and much of its operations to Austin, Texas. Meanwhile, LA was trying to impose archaic taxes on the firm and seemed to care less about its existence since it was a "startup." The first lady of Texas welcomed LegalZoom to Austin by picking up the CEO at the airport on his first visit there. It's no wonder hundreds of jobs migrated. Luckily since then we elected Mayor Eric Garcetti who understands the importance of startups and of technology and venture capital on job creation.
But we still need more funds. No, I'm not worried about the competition. We'll win our fair share of deals. But when you remember the Snapchat effect you see that I gain even from the deals we didn't get to do. I'm guessing the future leaders of Lookout will build companies in the Bay Area.
Communities can make a difference. I wrote about the awesome efforts of Cincinnati to stimulate its startup community and the role of Paddy Cosgrave in Dublin, Ireland, as well the entire Irish business community, the IDA, etc. who woo businesses to put their headquarters there. I also covered the impact of Brad Feld in Boulder or Fred Wilson in NYC as observed from my keynote on a trip to Seattle, which I felt could have a huge boom if its elder statesmen embraced startups a bit more.
Don't get me wrong. Chicago has made strides. The Pritzker Family has been very active and the opening of 1871 as an entrepreneurial hub is a great example. But my conversations with countless Chicago entrepreneurs suggests it has similar issues to all non-Silicon Valley centers: not enough venture capital, too few tech angel investors, not enough talent for product management or engineering, not enough local tech powerhouses to drive local biz dev / keiretsu. I think this is true of LA, NY and many other tech communities, so I'm not singling out Chicago.
My point is this ... cheerleading isn't enough. We need to help create local venture capital funds who may be national in investment strategy (as we are) but who will do more than their fair share of fundings locally (for us that's 50 percent). Fund formation + local mentors + local talent = a shot at creating successes that drive the future job growth of our great cities.
This article was originally published on Mark Suster's blog, Both Sides of the Table.