Posted on

Circles.Life to go global with investment from EDBI and Facebook’s early investor

The Singapore-based mobile data plan operator is planning to launch in over five countries, starting with Taiwan and Australia

Circles.Life Co-founder Abhishek Gupta

Less than four months after securing US$50 million in Series C from Sequoia India, Singapore’s mobile data plan operator Circles.Life has closed another round of funding from government-backed fund EDBI (lead investor) and Silicon Valley-based Founders Fund.

This round will help Circles.Life — which claims to have grown its subscriber base by more than 9X from Q1 2017 to Q1 2019 —  expand its presence across APAC and beyond, starting with Taiwan in June 2019. This will be followed with the launch of services in Australia.

In both Taiwan and Australia, the plan is to roll out digital mobile solutions as the first step in creating a platform of personalised digital services. In total, it will launch services in more than five countries over the next 18 months.

The new financing round will also be used to build a tech hub in Singapore and continue to innovate in the personalised digital services space in the country and beyond. It aims to grow the global team with the Singapore engineering team expanding by 50 per cent by the end of 2019.

“We have raised the bar in Singapore’s telco space and will continue our effort to digitise the global mobile services industry — delighting consumers with highly personalised digital services,” said Abhishek Gupta, Co-founder of Circles.Life.

Also Read: Circles.Life raises Series C from Sequoia India to expand abroad

With support from EDBI Circles.Life aims to align itself with the country’s ambition to make the smart nation a reality. “Homegrown Circles.Life is reinvigorating Singapore’s telco industry with its customer-first, data-driven approach enabled by its innovative digital platform. Built from ground-up, the platform not only provides a more flexible mobile service but also personalised lifestyle experiences for the consumer. As a strategic investor, EDBI looks forward to supporting Circles.Life in its next phase of growth to be a regional champion, leveraging Singapore as their springboard,” said Chu Swee Yeok, CEO and President of EDBI.

Established in 2005 by a group of technology pioneers including Peter Thiel, the San Francisco-based venture capital firm has notably been the first investor into Facebook and SpaceX, both currently leading the technology revolution in their respective fields.

“Circles.Life is demonstrating a new model for how telcos should operate. By being a digital-first telecom, they are able to provide superior customer experience, something that is very uncommon in an industry dominated by oligopolies who outsource the work on their technology stack to consulting companies,” said Jeff Lonsdale of Founders Fund.

Founded in 2016, Circles.Life’s strategy is to launch an innovative digital mobile solution and use this as the platform to build more personalised digital services. At the core of Circles.Life’s unique business model is Circles-X, a proprietary software platform in the cloud which delivers a highly flexible and completely digital customer experience across the entire service journey.

Circles.Life operates by purchasing bandwidth from the local telco M1 and then selling it to customers at discounted prices (or giving a huge amount of data). For example, in February the company pulled a clever marketing stunt by announcing it was killing its 20GB for US$20 plan at the end of the month. Then, a day later, it announced that it was offering unlimited data for US$20 a month.

Circles.Life claims to have crossed 5 per cent mobile telco market share in Singapore since its launch.

The post Circles.Life to go global with investment from EDBI and Facebook’s early investor appeared first on e27.

Posted on

Why PR firms need to think more like startups

Never lose sight of your vision, always stay true to your DNA

The public relations (PR) firm I work at, Asia PR Werkz, is 23 years old, making it one of the oldest in Singapore. Contrary to deriving our own ethos, the way we think and act has been shaped by working with so many founders.

Our firm works across several PR verticals such as government, property, education, consumer and most recently, startups. But, unlike other firms, we aren’t as ‘traditionally-tuned’.

How did this happen?

Along the years, I started to see our firm’s startup accounts team (myself included) thinking more like a startup and less like a PR firm. Was it the founders working closely with us that made us think this way? Or was it the startup media? We didn’t know.

When we started working with some of these startups, they were young, nimble, small teams with a single country presence. Their story was different, and so was their stage of growth.

They compelled us to think non-traditionally, just like how they broke barriers when they first got off the ground.

Over the years as they grew, so did we. When they expanded regionally, we realised it was imperative for us to then study and understand the media landscape in the region. We needed to be as nimble and agile as them. Being adaptable became one of our key strengths.

What makes a startup grow exponentially?

Just over a year ago, this startup was half its current size and was only in one market outside Singapore. So, did they get lucky? Did they do something right? Was it because of the industry they were in? Was it their team dynamic? Did their DNA play a role in their growth?

I would say all of the above.

Without a doubt, the founder always plays the key role of sitting in the driver’s seat. They set the pace and define the ‘DNA’ of their firms. We often meet founders who are extremely passionate and in a big rush to build their brand.

For startups, PRs can be an important tool during growth to build up credibility.

Establishing a brand is easier said than done today. In the earlier days, when I was a young PR practitioner, all it took to build a brand were a few press releases, key editor meetings and top line advertising.

Fast-forward 20 years and today, building brands require help from PR firms, digital marketing, top line advertising, events, trade shows, below the lines and what not. This can truly be an overwhelming feat for founders who have never done brand building before or startups that have just begun to scale.

Building up the brand’s origin story on the home ground becomes key as this leads to pure brand and image building.

Some questions founders often ask when we meet for the first time include: “When should I start doing Public Relations? How will it affect my growth? Will it help me attract talent? Will my investors be influenced?”, and “how long will this all take?”

Also Read: Learning from early failures: Inside our startup Outside

Unfortunately, these questions will only continue getting more complex as the startups begin to scale. The startup needs to be taken across multiple markets while still keeping true to the story and, the biggest challenge would be to hold the narrative close to the DNA of the firm and never be in a rush to get it done.

We believe that our DNA comes from how the founders think, where they want to get to (sadly this is often more short term than long term), how their story can be best portrayed with the brand, how we can ensure consistency, who we are impacting and how effective we are in building the brand.

We often tell the founders that large corporations have the luxury of time and money to build a brand. Unfortunately for startups, that journey is short and has to be done right. Most campaigns need to focus on business challenges with clear goals and impacts.

Sometimes, the tactical short-term campaigns can have deep influences on the long-term growth of the firm, as long as the strategy is clear and effective.

For example, about a year ago during a casual catch up with one of our founders, he discussed some of the challenges he faced at a business level in another market where the firm was scaling. He revealed that he now saw how social impact had been a key player for their growth and their potential to grow even bigger.

Hearing this first-hand got our minds ticking. After all, there was a problem the startup was striving to solve and identifying it and quantifying the impact was the answer.

The same issue could have come to us in a page-long brief but we doubt we would have understood it as clearly then. The founders play a key role in helping us stay close to that DNA.

The campaign development went on for a year across multiple cities and played a crucial role in accelerating the pace and growth for that firm in a market. It’s just a small example of how the non-traditional approach works for startups and how just one campaign can have such a deep impact on the business.

A founder’s key role is never to lose sight of the idea that got them this far. Focusing on short-term business goals is important but linking it back to the overall business goal is more critical.

From launching a product to on-boarding a key partnership, all these factors are slowly bringing the firm closer to its core identity; its DNA — the reason why it even took shape.

Also Read: Asset tokenisation platform STP Network raises US$7M; to launch IEO on Bittrex

To bring out the overall message and give context to the problems you are trying to solve is truly the role of public relations. And, to build up a brand from scratch is that of the startup’s.

A startup is usually borne out of a wild idea, over a coffee in a café or beer in a bar. If that idea got you this far, make sure you never lose sight of it as it is the core purpose of your startup’s existence.

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

e27 publishes relevant guest contributions from the community. Share your honest opinions and expert knowledge by submitting your content here.

The post Why PR firms need to think more like startups appeared first on e27.

Posted on

How to apply cognitive biases into the fundraising process

Humans make logic leaps to help process the world around us. Understanding how this works can be a game changer in the funding process

 

“Each of your brains creates its own myth about the universe.”
― Abhijit Naskar, Autobiography of God: Biopsy of A Cognitive Reality

The above quote is the truth. There is no one world – each of us lives in a world. And just like in anything, when it comes to money and fundraising for our projects, we live in our little world with our own idea of what an efficient fundraising process looks like.

We do our research, then follow some steps we find convincing and voila! We fail.

Generally speaking, startup fundraising is inefficient, lengthy and for most part fruitless, minus the few (statistical) exceptions. 95 per cent of all startups launched die within the first 3 years, top second reason being shortage of capital.

Capital is the oxygen to a startup, powering its launch and growth, and yet this oxygen turns out to be very hard to come by.

Why do most startup fundraising efforts take long time and frequently fail? Two reasons:

  1.  Founders don’t understand, let alone incorporate, behavioural insights governing investors’ decision making process into their pitch deck and pitching process.
  2. Investors fail to see salient points and potential of startups thanks to lack of their time and focus, and not in small part, lack of founders’ lack of investors’ decision making process and mindset. i.e. point 1 above.

One fundamental insight helps solve both issues: most decision making (of investors and human being in general) is instinctively guided and controlled by mental shortcuts (called cognitive biases), without them even being aware of those.

What are cognitive biases? Cognitive biases are mental shortcuts. They are bits and pieces of human character and behaviours that evolved over thousands of years to help us survive, initially in the context of hunter-gathering against predators and in the wild nature. While much time has elapsed, these biases are still present with us in the modern world.

Broadly speaking, cognitive biases can be split into two types: information processing and emotional biases.

Also Read: Learning from early failures: Inside our startup Outside

Information processing biases are statistical, quantitative errors of judgment that are easy to fix with new information. Emotional biases are much harder to change or fix as they are based on attitudes and feelings, consciously and unconsciously.

Both types can have implications when you are a startup founder trying to fundraise because they operate to keep you within your comfort zone. The underlying belief that you’ll be safer, more secure and more comfortable with less uncertainty and risk dominates decision making.

To fundraise efficiently and effectively, we need to do the opposite, by going after investors and selling our story(narrative bias), showing our vision (confirmation bias, clustering illusion) and getting them to buy into our team (halo effect) and product (distinction bias, zero-risk effect, pro-innovation bias).

Top seven biases

Understanding the following biases is critical for successful fundraising. They cover all aspects of successful pitch and pitching process. Entrepreneurs would be wise to incorporate these insights into their pitch decks, giving them the best shot at achieving their fundraising targets.

Narrative fallacy.

What is it: humans (including investors) have a tendency to look back at a sequence of events, facts or information in a linear and discernable cause-and-effect way. Cause-and-effect morph into a story.

How to apply: make your pitch deck – at least the beginning part talking about Problem, Opportunity and Solution – into an inspiring story, with clear causes, effects and inspiration.

Clustering illusion.

What is it: investors tend to observe patterns in what are actually random events.

How to apply it: you must showcase your team’s credentials, previous or relevant successes of exiting (or failing) startups or a successful career in an MNC, which will create a clustering illusion in an investor’s head that your team has been on a roll, and your current project’s vision will be achieved based on your team’s previous success.

Also when you show traction/data to investors, make sure your case is compelling enough, even with little data using the clustering illusion to your advantage, by citing trends as validation of your vision.

Confirmation bias

What is it: investors believe what they believe based on experiences and expertise they have accumulated in startup investing.

How to apply it: include all the main points investors expect to see in your pitch deck, resulting in an investor “confirming” that your project is commercially sound and to have a serious consideration of investment.

Lastly, in your deck, show your present solution as consistent with investor’s prior beliefs (i.e. in line with the investor’s current former portfolio investment) and avoid contradicting any strongly held opinions of the investor during pitching.

Pro-innovation bias

What is it: novelty or “newness” are generally considered good by investors, hence showing a product innovation is a good idea.

How to apply it: Pitch innovative features of your product and how they give you an edge over competitors, especially a competitive advantage.

However, a caveat – investors know this well – is that you need to be very careful when pitching a business model innovation, as investors’ inclination is towards favouring business models that have proven track record, as opposed to completely new ones.

Halo effect

What is it: this is the psychological tendency many people (including investors) have in judging others based on one trait they approve of. This one trait leads to the formation of an overall positive opinion of the person on the basis of that one perceived positive trait.

For example, people judged to be “attractive” are often assumed to have other qualities such as intelligence or experience to a greater degree than people judged to be of “average” appearance.

How to apply it: show (in the pitch deck) or inform (during pitching) of achievements (former exit, speaking at a prestigious event, etc) in order to create a halo effect in an investor’s head, which will then colour his/her judgment positively for the overall project, and in conjunction with other factors, might lead to an investment.

Also, if you can show a testimonial by a celebrity or a well-known business person of your product or one similar to yours, halo effect will do the rest!

Zero-risk effect

What is it: this is a tendency to prefer the complete elimination of a risk even when alternative options produce a greater reduction in risk (overall).

How to apply it: in your pitch deck, it is important to either not show potential risks (scale up or product) or show a risk with a full mitigation of it.

This is one of the main reasons that investors might not speak out or question you, but also decide not to go ahead with investment due to perceived risks in your product.

Distinction bias

What is it: this is a tendency to view two options as more distinctive when evaluating them simultaneously than when evaluating them separately. It can magnify the near meaningless differences between two very similar things to the extent they become decisive in which one we choose.

How to apply it: in your pitch, compare your product with one or two competing products next to which yours has clear benefit. This comparison will clearly sway the investor to your product as a preference.

A more complete list of biases (excluding the ones mentioned above) affecting entrepreneur’s pitching ability can be found below.

  • Availability heuristic
  • Information bias
  • Expertise trap
  • Attribution error
  • Framing bias
  • Bandwagon effect
  • Hyperbolic discounting
  • Sunk cost fallacy
  • Planning fallacy
  • Omission bias
  • Choice-supportive bias
  • Illusion of truth effect
  • Superiority bias
  • Self-serving bias

Cognitive biases are particularly challenging for fundraising process as they have a profound impact on the creative right-side brain which is critical for creative ideas.

Also Read: Circles.Life to go global with investment from EDBI and Facebook’s early investor

Right brain thinking is more risky and prone to biases as it deals with abstract unknowns vs. left brain thinking which deals with more logical concrete knowns.

The post How to apply cognitive biases into the fundraising process appeared first on e27.

Posted on

In India, should you buy a car or just Uber/Ola everywhere?

Ridesharing involves a lot of micro-transactions, but how does it compare to the one-time purchase of a car?

As Uber and Ola continue to grow and compete for rider demand in India, some may wonder which is the cheaper ride hailing service to call when they need a lift.

However, a much bigger question is whether one could substitute ride hailing everyday for car ownership altogether. This is a complex question that depends on multiple different variables particular to one’s unique situation.

To provide some guidance in answering the question, we compared the monthly cost of using UberGo or Ola Micro everyday to the costs associated with purchasing a similar vehicle, namely a Datsun GO.

Car Ownership Wins for Medium/Long Average Distances, RideShare Wins for Short Average Distances

Upon running through various scenarios, we found that car ownership may be more affordable if one typically drives medium-to-long distances, such as around 20km, while ridesharing may be more affordable if one typically drives short distances around 7km or less.

However, these findings require a bit of explanation because the cost of car ownership depends primarily on the on-road price of the vehicle, the loan one takes out (if necessary), maintenance costs and fuel efficiency & prices.

To explore our question, we assume an individual buys a Datsun GO for Rs. 400,000 and takes out a 5-year car loan with a 10% interest rate.

Also Read: Shopee takes aim at Lazada with live streaming play

Second, while the Datsun GO requires Rs. 32,100 of maintenance over 6 years, we conservatively assume this full cost is incurred over 5 years to account for potential car issues, which can be common for vehicle owners.

Last, we assume an owner could conservatively recover Rs. 100,000 by selling the car after 5 years.

This table shows Datsun GO 5-Year Ownership Costs & Sale Proceeds.

Medium/Long Average Trips – Car Ownership Wins

For an individual who typically takes medium-to-long trips, we found that car ownership is 24-44% cheaper than ridesharing over 5 years depending on location.

For this case, we assume an individual takes an average of two 20-km trips (lasting 40 minutes) per day over 5 years, which would require Rs. 149 of fuel cost per day. On top of the abovementioned expenses, car ownership would cost Rs. 706,124 over 5 years.

In contrast, UberGo or Ola Micro would cost an average of Rs. 1,050,173 in India’s 5 largest cities, assuming the rider experiences 1.5x surge pricing 25% of the time.

This table shows transportation costs by city.

Short Average Trips – RideShare Wins

On the other hand, if someone typically takes short trips, we found rideshare is 4-24% cheaper than car ownership over 5 years depending on location. In this case, we assumed that the individual’s twice-daily rides are only 7 km (lasting 15 minutes).

Due to the lower distance, the 5-year cost of car ownership declines by 25% to Rs. 529,072, reflecting lower fuel consumption.

However, the cost of riding Uber or Ola everyday becomes 56% cheaper versus the first case, illustrating that rideshare cost is very dependent on how much one uses it.

This table shows transportation costs by city.

Is RideShare a Feasible Replacement?

Our exercise suggests rideshare may only be a feasible replacement for car ownership if one typically travels short distances on a regular basis. Of course, the cost considerations we examined could vary greatly by individual, and a few others to consider could be car upgrades, parking prices or cost-saving rideshare subscriptions.

Additionally, one could surely supplement car ridesharing with motorbike ridesharing, buses or rickshaws. Purchasing one’s own motorbike could be another, cheaper option for vehicle ownership, too. Apart from financial costs, someone may find car ownership provides more flexibility, while others may find it burdensome.

Or, someone else may feel safer owning a personal vehicle versus riding with strangers. In all, one should carefully examine one’s specific circumstances when making this decision.

How to Get the Most Value Out of Car Ownership and RideShare

Using a credit card responsibly for all possible purchases ensures one gets the most value back on spending. Further, one could consider a subscription with Uber or Ola to save money.

Use a Credit Card

In general, using a credit card to pay for daily purchases, including rideshares, is the best way to get the most out of your spending due to the valuable rewards offered like cashback, airline miles or even fuel rewards.

It might even be possible to use one’s credit card for a car down payment, but make sure to do so responsibly. It’s possible to incur a fee for this type of transaction, so make sure it wouldn’t outweigh the rewards received.

RideShare Subscriptions

Using one’s Paytm wallet, one can buy a Ride Pass within the Uber app for assured trip savings. This program also comes along with discounts on UberEats and offers on flights and movies. However, Uber does not disclose comprehensive numbers on its website, so it appears savings and pricing vary by individual and location.

Also Read: Temasek, Tencent inject US$35M into open-banking software company TrueLayer

Second, with Ola Select a rider gets no surge pricing on certain vehicle types, booking queue priority, Prime Sedan for the price of Mini and free Wi-Fi. Last, Ola Share Pass allows a rider to lock in the same fare each day (no surge) within a city.

As with Uber, it appears one would need to check the Ola app for pricing on both of these subscriptions.

Photo by Sri Jalasutram on Unsplash

This article originally appeared on ValueChampion’s blog

The post In India, should you buy a car or just Uber/Ola everywhere? appeared first on e27.

Posted on

What you need to know before taking Venture (or Vulture?) Capital

VC investment cannot guarantee you success. Here are four reasons why you need to think (more than) twice before picking the right VC partner

venture capital

Editor’s Note: Here’s a story from our archives we feel is relevant even today and deserves your attention.

Venture Capital (VC) is often regarded as Vulture, Vapour and Vampire Capital. Although VC investment is a great startup tool, it can become a real pain at times. Things will go fine as long as your company is growing steadily. But when you start differing with your VC’s views on your product, hiring, market, etc., that’s when the bubble bursts.

The VCs may not agree with you when you take an unconventional route (but this scenario is fast changing, and now VCs encourage entrepreneurs to take the unorthodox path). This is why experts say that you should not take VC funding unless and until you really need it and are ready for it.

Few entrepreneurs I interviewed in the past told me that VC investments can be a ‘pain in the **s’. However, a majority of them believe VC funding is their path to success. Maybe, this is because they don’t understand the implications of venture funding. And maybe, there is something to studies that says only one out of 10 VC-funded companies succeeds.

Here, we list four key things that every startup entrepreneur needs to know before receiving fat cheques from investors.

VC investment cannot guarantee success
A majority of entrepreneurs feel that VC investment can guarantee them success, but statistics tell otherwise. According to Micah Rosenbloom, a venture partner at Founders Collective, historically only one out of 10 companies getting investments succeed; whereas some others like Tomasz Tunguz, Partner at Redpoint Ventures, feel that typical portfolio company failure rates across the industry — defined as either shutdowns or returning capital — are roughly 40 per cent to 50 per cent.

Also Read: Andreessen Horowitz’s lessons for Asian VCs and founders

So, the success of your startup depends on a lot of things. You may have a great product, but if you don’t have a market to sell it, what is the point? Hence, the startup life is a roller-coaster ride where you may have to go through ups and downs, and pivot the product multiple times before it becomes a hit.

For instance, India-based Seedfund invested in Bangalore-based Innoz Technologies, which provided offline Q&A services to feature phone users, in 2012. But as the smartphone penetration grew, the product lost its relevance and eventually became obsolete. Innoz later pivoted to Quest, a people-powered answering app that enables mobile phone users to ask a question via a text message and Android app, post which other users can reply to the same. The startup eventually shut down and the founders started a new product.

You can fire your co-founder, but not the VC!
There are many examples for startups firing their co-founders for disagreement with the Board, malpractices, mismanagement or misbehaviour. Steve Jobs, who once got fired from his own company Apple, is the best example. In yet another instance, Gurbaksh Chahal, Founder and CEO of US-based RadiumOne, was fired from the company after he pleaded guilty to domestic violence charges for assaulting his girlfriend, in April last year. So firing your partner is simple, but you can never fire your VC.

Also Read: E-commerce is passé. Yes, you read that right!

Indeed, as an entrepreneur, you need to think of your VC firm as another partner in your business. This leads to one of the single-most important aspects of your startup — VC relationship. Make sure your goals for your company line up with your VC’s goals for his or her investment, or at least convince them when you have a completely opposite view. By aligning your goals with those of your VC, you can help potentially avoid a disaster scenario.

The disaster scenario is that the founding team wants to do something different than the Board, Tunguz says.

The risk/reward curves are different for entrepreneurs than they are for VCs, and Board members (including your VC) have a legal responsibility to take into account the goals of the investors. So, if your company is losing steam and an acquisition opportunity comes along that is in the best interest of your investors, they might push you to take it, even if it means you don’t get paid.

But, of course, you can avoid all that potential heartache by not taking funding to begin with (Source: TechRepublic).

VCs may end up owning more than you do in your business
Do you know that Co-founders Sachin and Binny Bansal together own less than 10 per cent of Flipkart?  Here, VC investment means that you will have to dilute your stake in the company.

According to Jason M Lemkin, Managing Director of Storm Ventures, VCs often try to own 20 per cent of each portfolio company as a firm. But as individuals, they own a lot too. If the firm owns 20 per cent of each company, and the VC takes 20 per cent of the gains, that’s four per cent effective ownership in your company. Multiply that by say eight investments per VC per fund, that’s 32 per cent effective ownership of one composite company. That’s more than you. Plus, those management fees. (Source: Quora)

VC = Vulture Capital
Vultures come when they smell blood. Likewise, many VCs descend into a company or even a vertical industry just when the first signs of success seem to be clear.

Alok Kejriwal, Founder of online gaming company Games2win, recounts his ‘vulture’ experience with a VC investor. The story goes like this: VC fund Clearstone India gave him a term sheet to invest in the firm. Around the same time, he had a meeting with another VC. The VC asked him,

Alok, what will it take to over turn Clearstone’s term sheet and replace it with ours?

In his view, this is classic vulture behaviour. While the real VCs do the hard work, sniff out deals and get to the bottom of an industry, the vultures who have been sitting lazily, wake up and pile on. They try and bribe their ways into deals.

He advises that startups need to look at the term sheets carefully and figure out who is genuinely taking a bet on him/her and who is just circling above you — the prey. It is very important that startups do extensive research before picking the right VC partner. Otherwise, they end up being a bane and not a boon (Source: Quora)

Also Read: Here’s a Qyk way to find your nearest local service provider in India

Image Credit: Jeff Cameron Collingwood/Shutterstock

The post What you need to know before taking Venture (or Vulture?) Capital appeared first on e27.