The Art and Science of the Small Exit

February 4, 2009

Is the “era of the small exit” upon us?

I haven’t looked at any data to determine if smaller exits are becoming more common – I would venture to guess that they’re becoming more public by virtue of the publicity surrounding Web-based startups. But regardless of the past, opportunities are growing for smaller exits, and trends will likely point in that direction.

Y Combinator and its subsequent “incubator” programs like TechStars and others, popularized the small exit by providing small amounts of capital, laser-focusing entrepreneurs on launching products, and turning a number of those companies into quick exits.

I think there are quite a few people – in the startup and venture worlds – that look down upon, or largely ignore small exits, but the reality is that they can be bigger wins for people (particularly the founders) than exits from venture-backed startups.

But don’t assume that a small exit is any easier.

For starters, companies that exit successfully in the $5M-$10M or less range (my impromptu definition of a “small exit”) generally can’t raise a lot of venture capital to get there. That means succeeding on a small amount of angel financing or bootstrapping. Neither is easy. Mark MacLeod has a great interview with Defensio founder, Carl Mercier, about his recent sale of Defensio to Websense. Defensio was bootstrapped using Carl’s money from a previous startup — insanely tough to do and insanely risky. The interview does a good job at looking inside the mindset of a startup entrepreneur aiming for a “big win, small exit.”

So what’s it take to run a bootstrapped or angel-backed company and have a “big win, small exit”?

  1. Remember, strategy counts. Just because you’re running a small, bootstrapped startup doesn’t mean you ignore strategy and planning. In fact, you have to be more strategic with everything you do, because the margin for error is considerably smaller. In this case, your strategy has to be focused on an acquisition. I didn’t say “a quick flip” but ultimately it’s very unlikely that a bootstrapped or angel-financed startup is going to IPO. So a win means being acquired.

    Focusing strategically on an acquisition for a bootstrapped startup means you have to really have the perfect fit with the acquirer. They probably won’t be buying revenue or customers – they’ll be buying technology, people and opportunity. So look at the following things:

    • List of potential acquirers.
    • Past acquisitions of those companies.
    • Fill an immediate need with top quality technology.
  2. Go for quick traction. Gaining immediate, quick traction is important. Revenue is less important, because it’s unlikely you can scale revenue on your own to the point where you want to be acquired for a multiple on that revenue. So quick traction is key – it gives you the leverage to build a toehold in your market, get enough customer feedback to iterate quickly, and become recognized as a player.
  3. Get on people’s radars early. Carl mentions that he had very early “get to know you” conversations with Websense, which later evolved into acquisition discussions. That’s important. Having identified the potential acquirers and what they’re looking for in the perfect fit, it makes all the sense in the world to build bridges with those companies. Get on their radar. Bigger companies like to know who is out there, what they’re doing and you want to feed them the story, and tell it on your terms.
  4. Small doesn’t always mean quick. You can’t assume that a small exit is a quick flip. This is important, because if you focus on nothing but a quick flip and it doesn’t materialize you’re in a heap load of trouble. You want to be strategic – identifying acquirers, learning about them, getting on their radar – but you don’t want to put the cart before the horse. Ultimately you have to find ways of building a legitimate business that you can sustain for a few years, otherwise you’ll die before your time.

    And remember, a small exit doesn’t necessarily mean a crappy take for the founders. Three founders exiting at $10M with no investment is just as big a win (if not bigger) than a $50M exit with $5M invested.

  5. Run extremely lean. I suppose this is obvious, but it’s worth repeating. Carl mentions paying $270/month for rent. That made me laugh out loud! But it shows you how focused he was on running a successful business. It shows you how he was thinking long-term about survival, all the while looking for the right opportunities to exit at the right time and right price.

We will continue to see more and more “small exits” over time. For a lot of companies it makes the most sense – and I think it gives startup entrepreneurs a great opportunity to go through that experience, learn a ton, and come out swinging for the next round. And I don’t think it’s a debate between venture financing and angel financing or venture financing and bootstrapping – I think it’s a question of what’s best for the company. Some companies are more likely to require financing, others won’t. Some are designed for a $100M win, others are built for a $10M win. You have to know what’s right for your company, and build your plans accordingly.

Please share this post via email, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Click the tweet button to the left or click here: To follow me on Twitter click here. To subscribe via RSS click here.

  • This is a great article, I completely agree with trying to keep costs low it makes such a huge different as everything cuts into your profit. I always have the rule when I buy something for the company, I ask myself what benefit does this have for my business, and this tells me if it is something I would just like or if its something I need!
  • Cutting cost will not benift as other people will do the same, only quality sticks till the last.
    ink coupons
  • As always Ben, awesome article! Congrats!
  • I like this form of exit. As a hardcore entrepreneur, the fun leaves the equation when it comes time to look at financials and discuss liquidity ratios, and leverage as a corporate entity. The game changes at a certain point, and as it grows it become exponentially hard to stay creative as a company. I would opt for start grow sell repeat any day of the week.
  • It's important to understand that TechStars doesn't specifically "target" early exits. However, I do think some early exits are the sign of a healthy portfolio. In the VC model in general, you'd expect about 20% early exits and the other winners to become more mature before exiting. That's what we're seeing. But again, we're not targeting that exclusively or even primarily as a strategy. We are simply hoping to fund and further companies that can have a real impact and create real value and this is a natural result of that effort.
  • @David Cohen - I understand completely. I think the emergence of small venture fund incubators like TechStars has further popularized the possibility of creating startups with less, and doing so faster. And the result, in some cases, has been fairly "quick" or "small" exits - which get publicized extensively because of where they're coming from (and also because the companies funded tend to be B2C focused, with good viral traction.)

    Thanks for stopping by...
  • Thanks for sharing. I totally agree. The small exit is definetly the way to go.
  • Great post, Ben. There is definitely an uptrend in smaller exits. I think a better term is 'early exits'. Some of them, like Club Penguin, are not small at all - eventhough in that case it only took 2 years to get to a $750 million exit. It's surprising to me how often people will respond negatively to the idea of an 'early exit'. From what I have seen, early exits are always a good thing: http://www.angelblog.net/Early_exits_are_a_good...

    I am so excited about early exits that I have written a book that will be out next month to help entrepreneurs and angels capitalize on this under-utilized strategy http://www.early-exits.com/.

    (Please dont' think this is just an SEO leach. Can I send you a prepublication copy? I'd really appeciate your input before the final draft.)
  • If the purpose of setting up and funding a company is the EXIT strategy, then the company has started on the wrong intention.
    The goal of a company is not the EXIT.
  • Martin
    Engago: well, not in tech. Most if not all internet startups are founded with the exit in mind. Nobody's telling you that, however. It's kind of taboo. But that's really how it works.
  • Basil - Send me a copy of the book, I'm happy to take a look and provide feedback.
  • @Engago Team: Why do you say that? If the goal of a company - that's been venture backed - isn't to exit, what is the goal?

    @Martin: I don't really think the exit is taboo, but what worries investors is when startups think they can snap their fingers and exit because "so and so exited" and it "looked pretty fast and easy." The focus on the exit can lead to a false sense of entitlement or ease with which it takes place.
  • I like the idea of running on a tight budget and making a few bucks until the right exit come along. That way there are two payoffs.
  • I like that you mentioned 3 founders splitting 10 million is still a great pay off. I think making a small exit is also related to the ambition and ego of the founders. Some people really believe that they can make their company worth a lot and do not want to sell at 5 to 10 million. In the case of Facebook, they didn't even want to sell at 1 billion, and that might have been a bad move. I think that sometimes having some humility and selling when you can is a bigger win.
  • @Basil - great book topic. I'd be willing to give it a read too if helpful. reach me at david at techstars dot org
  • @xin yep 10 million between 3 founders is definetly a great reward. Depends on the whole facebook thing. Maybe Mark Zuckerberg had other thoughts and motivations in mind and selling wasn't one of them. Not selling isnt neccesarily a bad thing.
  • We must remember there are some hungry people out there who want to make a living as well. Great thoughts on strategy. Must have.
  • Yeah we all have to remember how hungry people is to be living so good, what a musthave.
  • Great article, I especially thought the "get on people's radar" section was great for small business because its very true. The more people that know about you earlier the better! The last sentence was also a great quote to live by: "You have to know what’s right for your company, and build your plans accordingly." This is so true in a small business, I just might have to borrow this motto in the future. Thanks for the info!
  • yes when get on peoples radar was introduced , its really a point where even if you just started a business but you have lots of connections who can introduce to them whats your goals the everything follows coz friends can make a difference
  • Great article, Ben.

    Here are my points:

    1. Start ups definitely need money, however, too much money may hurt the start ups in the far future or in the big picture.
    2. Traditional thinks always regards of start-ups as : Idea - Fund raising - Team & Progress - Earn money, however, actually the real situation would be short, quick with low or zero financial supported. I highly suggest the book <> by 37signals team for all.

    Good luck to all :)
  • Dan
    This is the exit type I prefer. I consider myself a startup freak. Things changes at a certain point, and as it grows it becomes hard to stay fresh and creative as a company. I like to start and split.
  • The "tight budget" is a must. And I totally agree about "getting on the radar screen" early. Remember Apple Computer in the 80s? That's exactly what they did.
  • I didn't realize getting acquired was such an important goal for so many businesses. Also, I hate to admit it, I didn't know what an "exit" even was before reading this post and subsequently reading further on another website. Now it all makes sense!
  • My experience supports your point that too much money from investors often keeps your hands handcuffed without really being able to manage your own company. So I really prefer the small exit with little investor money too...
  • I think the biggest thing is having a system in place that runs without you being there. This is where the real value of the business lies, otherwise, you are the business.
  • Strategy is definitely more important for small, bootstrapped companies - we cannot rely on size or muscle to win. However, that reliance of mid-sized competitors who overstate their muscle gives us opportunity.
  • I look forward to my next startup and I will learn this lesson way to many times. It's better to be small and agile then big and inflexible. Thanks for the wisdom Ben.
  • Interesting article - I think statement number 5 holds particularly true! Running lean is absolutely key to early start-up survival - guess some banks could use this lesson once in a while :-)
  • We will witness more of such small exits in the near future. The reason being large companies can hardly go from 0-60 in a short amount of time. Startups are lean & mean and they have a niche expertise. They understand the problem they are solving, which is extremely valuable to large organizations. Once in they can fuel growth rapidly.
  • Hey, just thought you might wanna know that your blog looks a bit messed up with Opera.
  • @Ben Yoskovitz: You normally start a company because you have a solution to solve a demand of a certain market.
    Setting up a company with the sole purpose to get acquired is like setting up a trap.
    Moreover if the companies doesn't get acquired, there is no sustainable business: then bankruptcy is the only way out.
  • i learned alot i currently in search of funding as well.
  • Strategy is always required for either small of large companies. There's no difference between the two especially when both have the same intention of "exiting" eventually.
  • @David Krug- "It’s better to be small and agile then big and inflexible..."- absolutely agree!
  • "[...] Thoughts about the acquisition, by Ben Yoskovitz [...]"
  • Good article there. Stumbled across this randomly but i liked it very much.

    Cheers!
  • Great article, I especially thought the "get on people's radar" section was great for small business because its very true. The more people that know about you earlier the better!

    Read more: "The Art and Science of the Small Exit" - http://www.instigatorblog.com/the-art-and-scien...
  • Great article, I especially thought the "get on people's radar" section was great for small business because its very true. The more people that know about you earlier the better!
  • Thanks man..
  • A lot of this advice could just be boiled down to "Know what is right for your company" but good points nonetheless.
  • Keeping costs low but the eye on the horizon is a must. You must always know where you're at but see where you are going!
  • I am working on an exit strategy now and i think that a small exit would be a viable option in our next business but this current one I want big due to all of the work and I did not watch costs very closely throughout our initial investment.
  • Keeping costs low but the eye on the horizon is a must. You must always know where you're at but see where you are going!
blog comments powered by Disqus