I see there's a $199 entry fee. In the music industry there's some controversy over pay-for-opportunity style services (Sonicbids for example, although they say they're phasing that out). For a business this isn't a huge amount, but it's enough to make me stop and think. Maybe there's a better use of my money when I'm bootstrapping already. I guess it helps eliminate those who don't think they have a chance...
It's still pay to pitch. We had this fight on HN last year too. They're good people with good motivations, but it's still pay to pitch and, as a result, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
With endorsements entry fee can be waved, we paid nothing to enter last year because of endorsements. If you think you have a good idea write to me at ib [at] taskpoint.com and I will give you diamond endorsements 8 points and $50 off application fee.
It should be easier. Agreed. We have not yet mastered the operations side of MassChallenge (and I lose significant sleep over it).
But it really isn't that hard, and there is explicit logic in every step. If you are even remotely serious as an entrepreneur, you should be able to get 4 diamond endorsements with a handful of emails/phone calls - each of them with an expert in your industry who has an opportunity to publicly support you without spending a dime. That process encourages startups to network/pitch and is intended to create or strengthen bonds with helpful resources. These resources are not isolated to MA by the way.
Likewise, if you are even remotely serious about your startup, you should be able to get your friends/network to rate your company profile 5 stars very easily. This encourages you to promote your startup and seek support from your community. Easy stuff. No cost. Something you should be doing anyway.
Keep in mind, the endorsements and team ratings are worth only 10% of the judging score each. We had teams enter and win last year with zero endorsement points and zero ratings. (I don't recommend that as a strategy, but it's possible).
The application form itself is very basic: 10 questions, with short character limits. All standard stuff.
> If you are even remotely serious as an entrepreneur, you should be able to get 4 diamond endorsements with a handful of emails/phone calls
I dont think 'serious' entrepreneurship involves calling people and getting them to agree to give you a point in some scheme when it is of no cost to them.
How about putting your energy into getting users or finishing your product, is that an endorsement that 'serious entrepreneurs' should be pursuing?
I also don't understand why you are asking for an application fee, especially considering how expensive it can be for bootstrap businesses and international startups. You are, afterall, looking for companies to fund - putting a financial barrier to applying will only reduce the field. I am also not comfortable with companies who pay to apply and then who don't make it blowing that fee.
Your title is also misleading. It isn't $1M, it is up to 100k. Just be straight up.
The intentions here are good, but the model is totally backward
you should be able to get your friends/network to rate your company profile 5 stars very easily.
What makes my friends competent to judge my business? This is complicated and silly. If you want to drive traffic to your site and want publicity, just say it. It is a fair bargain for the deal. But to say 20% of a startups evaluation is based on such flimsy metrics is silly.
We are not relying on the expertise of the people making public ratings. The ratings account for a very small percentage of the judging scores. 80% of the scores are driven by ratings from expert judges. 10% by public ratings and 10% by endorsements.
The public ratings system encourages teams to ask for a small favor from people in their community (i.e. visit a site and rate my pitch).
The endorsements system encourages teams to ask for a small favor from known experts and network hubs in the community.
These are both devices designed to encourage networking, connectivity, pitching and collaboration. Many many teams from last year have indicated that they made critical connections via these processes, especially via the endorsements process, including meeting future investors, customers, service providers and team members.
These are easy steps but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable. They are starting points.
I think he meant if he liked it he'd endorse it, but he was willing to take a look. Not saying the endorsement/voting idea isn't flawed, but that's how I interpreted what he was offering.
Is it appropriate to cold-email people from your endorsement list? Just curious so we don't do anything faux pas.
I'm thinking that since it's a worldwide challenge, lots of companies applying won't have any real connection with a lot of these companies. And what about companies not on your endorsement list, is there a way to get external endorsements included too? Thanks!
The people on our endorsement lis are all collaborative and are interested in meeting and helping startups -- so it's definitely OK to cold email. (be polite, obviously, and provide them with context). We try to get endorsers around the country and world, but there are limits to our reach and ability to vet the universe obviously ... let us know whom we should add to our list if you think someone is missing and we'll investigate for next year. Our hope is that remote experts will be able to connect you to one of the existing endorsers in the meantime. Send an email to endorsements -at- masschallenge.org you have questions or problems. We are a very small team but are serious about reviewing and responding to inquiries. Thanks!
FTR, you can continue to collect diamond endorsements until May 20. All discounts (except the early bird discount) are applied via reimbursements. So, no need to rush it. Lock in the early bird by paying today before noon -- then you have plenty of time to find the diamond endorsements and get a full refund. Email endorsements -at- masschallenge.org if you still have questions. Looking forward to your entry. Thanks!
I am comfortable with the $199 entry fee, though I thought about it for a few days. I'll spend more in various false starts - services, contractors, software, and paths.
It is also a simple filter against people simply cutting and pasting their applications from other opportunities. The applicants may find this frustrating, but a smaller applicant pool means that the judges can invest more time in the people who do apply. That, for the people who do submit, is a big win.
I'm a founder of a (now) VC backed Boston startup who participated in MassChallenge. My team though it would be worth the time to pitch and get some no-strings cash in the bank. Even paying for our $5k/month office would have been awesome.
We made it to the first round (got enough votes online and whatnot). The tough part is you can get stuck with judges completely out of your industry that are clueless. Our judges were 2 lawyers and someone with a similar idea to ours ten years ago who thought his was superior. We didn't make it to the second round. I hope this year they make some changes based on everyone's feedback.
A couple friends of mine won $50K from this competition. Important to note that it's not $1M awarded to one person/team, it's split however the judges/board like.
As a semi-finalist last year, I too had a similar experience with the judging, however after getting feedback from those that completed the surveys, MassChallenge hired software entrepreneur Karl Buttner, who also served as a mentor last year, as Chief Mentorship Officer. He's helping to combat cases like ours, and improve the judging/mentorship experience. I think he's even somewhere on this comment thread...
We don’t think it’s fair to take equity from early-stage startups. Our goal is to help the world’s most promising entrepreneurs win, not to profit off their hard work. Period.
What? Phrasing is very naive.
Everybody wants something. They want people to help the world’s most promising entrepreneurs win in Boston. Taking money adds constraints. Insisting on a move to Boston adds constraints.
Your point is very true. They hope to stimulate innovation in Boston through the competition, but the main goal is to stimulate innovation nationwide. One of the winning teams last year, RelayRides, recently opened a second location in California, so you're not limited to Boston.
There really is no strings attached to the money if you win. You could go to Vegas and put it all on black if you wanted (although the judges would probably sense that was the plan you wouldn't make it through).
P.S. I was on a winning MassChallenge team last year (Rentabilities)
You can get through even with 0 votes from general public and 0 endorsements BUT if you cannot sell you idea to people to make them vote for it on the web site chances are that you would not be able to sell it for money, think about entry form as kind of MVP for your startup.
That does not fly for several reasons. Some ideas can be highly technical. Or have a niche market like control systems for nuclear reactors. Or can buck conventional thinking Copernicus would have a tough time getting those votes for example.
I think that the reason they are doing it is to drive traffic and publicity to their cause. In the video they mention again and again how many twitter followers they have etc.
Look, I don't want to be too critical. This is fantastic and kudos to them for doing a great job. It is just this one thing that seems silly other than that it sounds fantastic.
Even technical/niche startups should be able to find 5 friends who will visit and vote for them. Last year we had finalists working on airborne wind turbines (altaeros energies) and on desalination systems powered entirely by renewable energy (Resolute Marine Energies) and many other technical/niche plays. The public doesn't need to understand the depths of the technology to decide if it's a good idea or if it's well expressed.
Regarding driving traffic - sure, there is at least a minor "viral" impact from the system. Keep in mind, MassChallenge is a community. Driving traffic to our website helps the whole community, i.e. there are spillover benefits for other startups when one startup convinces their supporters to visit and browse the site. There's no profit at the center of the system -- so this isn't a selfish motive -- it's designed to benefit everyone.
We are still a relatively young startup ourselves and continue to refine our approach ... so there is definitely room for improvement in areas. On balance, though, we are confident that our processes work. We'll continue to refine and definitely appreciate the feedback.
I was with one of last year's winners, RelayRides, and believe me there were no strings attached. Our founder decided to move the company to San Francisco and he was able to do that. Being part of MassChallenge was a HUGE win for us. It very much helped us raise the $4.5 million we got from top tier VCs on the west coast.
Adding constraints is not the same as profiting off of your work. The two concepts are not joined.
Being in Boston doesn't do anything for them directly. Their indirect hope is that it will compel you to fall in love with the city, and perhaps increase the local economy there, but they don't get anything out of that, and it isn't a requirement.
MassChallenge does not require you moving to Boston - only for certain parts of the competition. They believe that if they can connect you to the right network (in Boston) you will want to stay.
Nobody is required to move. To get value out of the program, we expect at least one founder to spend significant time in the accelerator during the summer. We aim to make it as frictionless as possible for startups to enter and win.
Oh. Sorry for not getting that. I read the website and saw the video and it talked about job creation in Boston so I thought that there were those conditions. My bad.
After viewing the MassChallenge site and perusing the complex application process, I am reminded why I'm not excited about applying anywhere outside of Y Combinator.
I don't care about the money I care about the experience.
Will I learn anything from these people? From the other startups that are accepted? Outside some seed money, what is the upside?
*EDIT
My initial thoughts may have been harsh - and perhaps I'm being a hipster - but I don't get the feeling that this is something truly special/cool. I believe there are talented business people involved, but for me it doesn't appear to be a life-changing event as much as a cash prize.
That being said there is obviously a lot of support from those involved - they represent the bulk of the dialog here.
Mentors and speakers last year included the founders of billion dollar companies (Desh Deshpande - Sycamore/Cascade/A123, Josh Boger - Vertex Pharmaceuticals), billion pageview websites (Alexis Ohanian - Reddit), and successful entrepreneurs from all fields, including consumer web (Jeff Taylor - Monster.com), B2B software (Dharhmesh Shah - Hubspot), energy (Tim Healy - EnerNoc) and life sciences (Ken Bate - Archemix).
What makes you think you can't learn from these people?
Last year's finalists raised well over $30M in outside funding in the 7 months following day 1 of the accelerator program ... with 100+ startups on one floor, there is a lot of opportunity to learn (and teach).
I don't think his assertion was that he couldn't, but that he didn't know who would be there.
The first part of your post was very informative, but I downvoted you for the snark. If it wasn't intended the way I read it, please accept my apologies.
No worries. I was intentionally a bit snarky and deserved the downvote.
I have essentially poured my entire heart and soul into launching and running MassChallenge and I believe deeply in our mission and philosophy, so I took a little umbrage to the phrase "these people" -- they are, after all, my people and they are enabling something deeply important to me and many others.
I do believe that what we do is transformative and outstanding. But I also recognize that it isn't for everyone. Even if you don't end up entering, I encourage you all to come visit us at least once this Summer. I am sure you will find value in the experience and I promise to personally give you a tour and answer any questions you may have.
It's a brilliant mission, which I of course stand behind. The seed funds and accelerator programs which do mentoring are of incalculable value -- to offer them with no equity as recompense is as noble as it gets, though I don't think an equity stake is 'molestation'.
I'm ignorant to much of it, so I'm glad to see the discussion here where I can learn more. The website really is quite hard to follow for those just wanting to learn more.
I would say you will get probably the best line up of mentors you can get on the East Coast. We were one of the finalists last year (TaskPoint) and I cannot overestimate experience and publicity we got out of it
You'll learn a lot. The mentors are top notch. Upside is being part of the great MassChallenge eco system for a year (it's that long if you are a winner.) I was with one of last year's winners, RelayRides. It was all upside. And winning this helped us raise our $4.5 million Series A.
It runs from June 27 through Oct 1. Final judging takes place in the first two weeks of October, and the final ceremony is on Oct 20.
Founders do not need to be present for that whole period, but we do strongly recommend active participation -- surveys and data demonstrate pretty clearly that startups perform much more effectively if they engage in the accelerator rather than "dialing in".
There is zero obligation to stay in Boston following the accelerator.
Any serious entrepreneur should care about the money, every penny even, which is why MassChallenge offers no equity taken.
For a $199 entry fee (which is automatically reimbursed to the entrepreneur upon securing a few endorsements that help to validate that crazy idea of yours), an entrepreneur gets access to a growing network of top attorneys, investors, mentors and industry leading, seasoned entrepreneurs. Not a bad deal, BUT, it is up to the entrepreneur to make the most of this value by being proactive and engaged.
Just to be clear, MassChallenge had a YCombinator startup - embedly - make it to the finals in 2010, so you can apply to both..
Why not just take applications and accept participants without charging? Preload the endorsements and use your own judgement.
If you want to help founders, this is what you should do. If you're trying to make money from conference fees, you're doing it wrong: no one reading this thread will apply.
I agree with you that this is another strategy and one the MC founders probably considered, however I think the purpose of the entry fee and endorsement process is to avoid a "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario and ensure that only the best startups make it into the competition.
Also, even with an entry fee last year, MC still saw 450 startups apply - imagine what that number would have been if it were free to all that apply? With such a small staff and the reliance on volunteerism for much of the operations, it would be very difficult to review thousands of applications and not let a few great ones slip through the cracks.
As a startup founder myself, I see the $199 fee as merely a cover fee to an awesome party with lots of brilliant, like minded, enthusiastic entrepreneurs and mentors.
The application process is designed to make you do things that you need to do anyway, i.e. having an executive summary, networking, etc.
We (Architexa) were finalists last year and did not find the application process complicated.
As for the experience: I found it really helpful.
Especially talking to the other startups and working with them day-in day-out. We did not apply for the office space, but it definitely was very useful working right next to the the other teams.
Beyond the above, the MassChallenge team works very hard in connecting the startups to the right people in the industry - we got great feedback and made progress because of that.
Don't worry about the registration fee. It serves to eliminate people who are not serious about participating/developing their startup plans. You should register (with $199), and if you are serious about your plans you'll have many, many opportunities to get your full $199 back from MassChallenge. They make it easy to get reimbursed (e.g. give an informal pitch in one of the early pitch practice sessions, etc.). Last year we got our registration fee back very quickly (we could have gotten back even several times that).
Olivier Boss, Energesis Pharmaceuticals (a MassChallenge 2010 award winner)
I wouldn't be surprised to see this sort of comment from a random troll on HN, but I'm surprised to see it from one of the organizers of the program.
It suggests that as well as having rather bad judgment, you don't understand the math of equity. A "free" alternative is no bargain if you end up net worse off.
Paul, you are right. I should not have used such a strong analogy. My intention was to draw a clear distinction. I wanted to be playfully controversial to highlight the point, but the implication was inappropriate and contributed to a degradation of the conversation from functional to name-calling.
You have accomplished a great deal and have contributed enormously to the startup ecosystem. Techstars and other programs that take equity are also a great benefit to the community, and I would be remiss to leave a lasting impression on the community that I felt Y-Combinator or Techstars are anything short of remarkable.
MassChallenge is a unique model with huge promise. Clearly, there is room in the ecosystem for multiple models to coexist. We are proud to enable the type of community that Y-Combinator pioneered without taking any equity from startups, and we are excited about the opportunity to contribute to the mounting startup renaissance and to shift the broader economic discourse from one of value capture back to one of value creation.
Sorry everyone for the coarse commentary. As noted previously, you are all invited to visit us in Boston any time. Our deadline to enter this year is April 11, and we would be honored to help you win.
Is it really your position that one can string together multiple DH0 / DH1 arguments, add a DH6 argument, and be on the high ground? That sort of reasoning could only come from someone who is so narcissistic that he created a forum with all of the trappings of a reasonable place save the single essential one, just so that he could continue to delude himself and the hand-picked psychophants he surrounds himself with.
If that fails to make clear the weakness in the position, the point will be repeated.
If you're going to get nasty and hide behind one or more sockpuppet accounts, could you please promote your goods and/or services on a different forum?
I have only posted comments under one account - using my full name and prefaced with a clear indication of my role as the founder of MassChallenge. I have not influenced or attempted to influence any other comments on this thread offline, and I do not know who is writing comments under the name whatucantsay.
But if we offer a free alternative with equivalent benefits
That's the thing - you don't. Using the Coke analogy, YCombinator gives me a Coke, but asks that I share 6% of it back to them.
You want to charge me $200 for the Coke, which I can supposedly make back with endorsements, or recommendations, or 'engagement' somehow, but you're still charging $200. That it CAN be free, doesn't mean that it is.
Spelled out more obviously, ignoring travel costs and all incidentals, if I get in to MassChallenge and it doesn't get any traction, I'm out $200.
If I make it in to YCombinator and it doesn't get any traction, I'm out nothing. Also, YCombinator doesn't make any money off of me. They only get 6% IF I SUCCEED, which means that they really want to leverage their connections so that I do.
You might consider not taking equity as somehow more generous, but it's just a different strategy. I would rather you took equity on the backend than $200 on the frontend, because that assures me that you'll want to help me succeed.
What does the 6% on the back end do to your valuation in later rounds? Assuming you do expect to take on more growth capital upon successful completion of YC. Not very much Coke left to enjoy after that...
I think you're misunderstanding valuation -- valuation represents the potential revenue of a company. Who owns how much of it generally doesn't affect a company's valuation though, in the case of YC (or others known to be successful), it almost certainly chips the valuation up, due to the value add.
Who holds issuances of common stock isn't generally something that will negatively affect a valuation.
Valuation is also based on the prior investment to equity ratio. How much money is invested in X startup for 6% equity? That would certainly effect the pre on any term sheet, no?
That depends on so many factors really, but it's common to see money go into an option pool (that dilutes everybody's stock) as well as a fixed percentage go into the pool (which dilutes YC shares as well) -- meaning that if Sequoia comes in afterward and takes 20%, it dilutes the ownership shares that I have, as well as the ownership stake YC has.
The important bit is that they're in it just like the founders are -- if the founders get diluted, YC gets diluted. If the founders go broke, YC goes broke. If the founders make money on an exit, or a liquidity event, then so does YC.
You can argue all day long about 6% being 'greedy', or 'predatory' or whatever you like, but from what I understand, the value they add far exceeds the amount they take, and means that they're invested in your success.
I don't see YC's 6% as being greedy or predatory at all. It's just different economic theory.
What PG did with YC is LEGENDARY. He was the first and will go down in history as one of the most pivotal figures in the entrepreneurial economy. The best explanation I've heard on YC's value add (or TechStars, etc.), is that it's like bringing on another co-founder, which makes perfect sense - as does your explanation above.
Looking forward to seeing future entrepreneurs continue to benefit from great program's like YC, TechStars, MC, etc.
No one has mentioned that you can be a part of YC and still apply to MassChallenge. Why not do both and get even farther ahead? MC doesn't require you to be in Boston, so it's in your interest to place multiple bets.
Do yourself a favor: wait until you have a track record and reputation that's at least 5% the quality of YC's before you start bragging about how much better you are.
This isn't about me. I don't do this. MassChallenge is a community supported by literally thousands of volunteers foregoing value capture to support value creation.
After year 1, we asked our finalists this survey question:
How likely are you on a scale of 0-10 to recommend MassChallenge to another startup?
79% answered either 9 or 10. (Just about 60% answered 10).
One person answered 6 -- the lowest score.
For perspective, that means that our finalists are slightly more enthusiastic about MassChallenge than Apple customers are about Apple Computer ... see here for more details and other metrics:
I'd be curious to know what the results of this survey question were from companies that made it to the first round but were not selected for the incubation phase. I had the entry fee waived through endorsements last year, but had an experience during the pitch round similar to others who have commented here-- judges who had nothing resembling a clue. I've heard this story over and over and have no intention of participating this year.
I guarantee that the judging has been drastically improved from last year. It's still too bad that you feel the way you do. I wish you continued success in your venture.
I have a few questions and their website is spare on details:
1. What is the typical size of the check? I paused the video (http://www.masschallenge.org/) at the end to note that most checks were $50k and one was $100k. Are there smaller/larger amounts?
2. Getting votes and endorsements: They want startups to get votes from general people to improve their chances of getting selected. This is a bad idea. It is crowd-sourcing herd mentality. I think that is a waste of time for the startup. I saw a post (http://www.masschallenge.org/blog/how-make-it-masschallenge-...) about the things a company did to get those points and I would rather spend that time on the business. So if we get a 0 on each of those is there a chance that we will get through?
Thanks. I think that what they are doing is fantastic barring [2].
I was in last year's class. I don't believe the endorsement points matter that much in the application. I spent almost no time on them and we got in. I think they're really more of an excuse to engage with people you otherwise wouldn't. If you have a good idea and traction, you'll get in with 0 points.
I think that these two programs offer starkly different things. A focus on the money alone is very short sighted.
ycombinator has established itself as the "Harvard" of tech startup incubators. MassChallenge is... well... MassChallenge.
As an analogy, when I was deciding between business schools, I had the opportunity to take a scholarship to a lesser MBA program. Or I could pay full price and go to a much higher ranked program. The difference was minimum $50-60k of my own money.
I chose to go to the higher ranked program, because of the network that I would be able to build and the long term reputation that came with attending that program. Part of me wishes this wasn't the case; that one's success in life is purely based on their talents and how far they are able to propel themselves on their own steam, regardless of their affiliation with universities or other organizations. Unfortunately, that's not the real world. People care about which organizations you are affiliated with, regardless of whether the education at one is truly better than another. In truth, if you're motivated, you can probably get an equally good education at a community college as you can at an Ivy League school. However, the network you build at these different institutions is vastly different, and I would argue can't be replicated between the two.
ycombinator has a track record of producing successful tech startups. This leads to high demand, and the ability to set its own terms. Likening that to "molestation" is not only insulting to the program, but also to all the people who applied to the program (like me). It implies that we don't know what we're doing, and that we are suckers for giving away equity to Y Combinator. I would counter that, contrary to this assertion, I am fully aware of the equity stake that is taken, and believe that it is worth having the Y Combinator organization on my side, as well as the cache with future investors that comes from having participated in the program. I will admit that this decision was not taken lightly, however, and I talked with many founders and funders in the startup world before deciding to apply.
According to the Angel Capital Association, 60% of their members charge ~$400 to pitch. Also, no one complains about the $18,000 for 3 minutes at Demo. That's a pretty hefty fee, but many get value out of that event. The entrepreneur HAS to be the one to make that value judgement for themselves.
The MassChallenge team and others like them are providing a great service and it's up to the entrepreneur to figure out if their making the right decision, not some self appointed guru.
I have a hard time understanding those self appointed guru's who claim to have the interest of the poor struggling entrepreneur at heart. Entrepreneur's are a pretty tough lot. If an entrepreneur can't make the right decision about who they should work with, they will likely fail anyway.
After all, being a CEO is about making the right decisions. If you can't do that, it's better to find out early.
I have endorsed two companies each of which I've worked with for over a year as part of the Boston University Kindle Mentoring program. One of the founders told me this morning that -- in his "networking" to get more endorsements -- he's met some "movers and shakers" in Boston who will be a big help for his business. This is exactly the intended result when the MassChallenge Team added the "endorsement" step to the process. If nothing else, MassChallenge is well thought out. And last year it was well executed by a hoard of people volunteering their time and energy.
It's one of many opportunities around Boston, but compared to TechStars and others who "graduate" a dozen or two at most, this program actively accelerates 100+ companies who get to that phase. I've applied and am looking forward to the great learning and networking experience.
In general, I think the more incubators, the better it is for the whole start-up eco-system. Talk is cheap. Thus, there is no need to quarrel online. Let the success of MassChallenge and Y-Combinator start-ups speak for themselves which program is the best.
Also "Mass" as in "the world's largest" (play on words I guess). Funny though, maybe someone should start a LeanChallenge based on Eric Ries' methodology.
How do others here feel about it?