Perhaps this sports analogy will help you to understand
some of what's happened in the past. I say to the investor:
"You're at bat. Try for the base hit. Don't swing for the
fence. Get to first base, then, once there, look around, see the
situation, then we can can establish a plan for getting you home."
They see me as the opposing pitcher, that's the error, I'm the first
base coach. I want to get the investor into the game. They
want to hit a home run, sign a few autographs, and head back to the
showers with their lucrative contracts in place. They want to jog
the bases, waving to the fans, I need them to hustle to first, and be
ready to run hard for second. They think they know my whole lineup, but
they haven't got a clue, because they won't look.
One day I wanted to find out how many sources
of Venture Capital there are out there in Cyberspace...
Still far too many to talk to individually. That's why I can
speak freely here on my site without fear that I'll say the wrong
thing to the wrong person and queer the deal. What I'm saying here
will resonate with the right person, and result in a far better working
relationship that either of us might have otherwise thought possible.
We've been playing games since 2001 looking for investors with
insight & intelligence to back this little enterprise. None
have come forward, except a few predators who've tried to leverage their
way into the picture.
Don't get me wrong, greed is good. Motivated self interest
is beneficial for both parties. But one fundamental difference
is in the opening attitudes. Investors see all entrepreneurs as
the same, they see widgets. They believe that any product or
service is fundamentally the same as any other product or service.
I suppose from an investment point of view this is true. After
all, it's about management, capital, inventory, labor... The details are
I see it the other way. Money is fungible; that's it's
purpose. Setting up a company is the same whether it makes
"salsa or oven mitts". The differences in the financial
world are tiny, the similarities are huge. Could the CFOs of
Boeing and GM trade places tomorrow? Almost certainly. How about
ADM & Microsoft? Again, I'd say without a doubt.
Now, could their CTOs trade jobs? I think we'd all agree the
answer is a resounding no. (Sorry guys, no offense, but
agriculture & software are about the most polar opposites as I could
think of.) Sure their IT managers could swap, so could any number
of technical specialists. My point is could Bill Gates and Paul
Allen have traded places with George Archer and John Daniels (ignoring
the 70 or so years in between)? Again I think we have to say the could
Before this becomes a paper on comparative economics,
please let me ask you these two questions.
- Are you ready and willing to learn, work hard (thought not labor),
invest wisely and profit heavily?
- Are you convinced that money talks, is all that matters and how
it's made is rather unimportant?"
My answers are Yes, and No. If your answers are the same
we should talk. If yours are Yes & Yes, then we can still
talk. If you answered No to both then, why are you here? And
if you answered, No & Yes, then either make an offer, or get off my
web page. I'm tired of wasting time with "interested
parties" that aren't.
I've met too many potential investors that simply need to
fill a quota of business plans read per month. And, too many
agents that say they'll talk it up, or show my plan around to believe
the line any more. I hope this little speech has served to clear
the air. If it has, drop me a line, or use the contact form.
Then knock the mud out of your cleats, walk up to the plate, survey the
infield, and get ready to hustle. Look at the guy down the line
(see I'm waving). I reach down and apply power to the pitching
machine the mound (or perhaps this website). The machine springs to
life... Now here comes the windup... Let's see if you can swing the bat;
there's only 1,059,999 guys behind you!