Bootstrapping is back. And it’s not just for start ups..
Be inspired to keep frugal to by some of the most resilient entrepreneurs
Bootstrapping is back. I have attended two conferences recently where the idea was centre stage and have heard it being discussed on my favourite business podcasts, so something must be in the air. In these continually strange economic times, perhaps it's unsurprising that founders and investors are returning to this cost constrained concept.
At its most simple, bootstrapping means building a business from scratch with little or no external capital. As someone who has spent a vast amount of time in her career slogging through the process of raising money, it has appeal. Instead of relying on investors or loans, bootstrapping entrepreneurs use personal savings, credit cards, and revenue generated by their business to fund growth. This approach is simple in many ways because you retain complete control over the company and you do not have to worry about potentially pesky investors.
There are lots of interesting examples of bootstrapped companies. The email marketing platform Mailchimp was founded in 2001 by Ben Chestnut and Dan Kurzius, who funded the company with their own savings. They focused on building a product that customers loved and reinvested the revenue generated by the business back into its growth. They rejected multiple acquisition offers and today Mailchimp has over 12 million users, generates over $700 million in annual revenue and is valued at £4bn.
Less well known is the Polish giant, Inpost, whose extraordinary founder Rafal Broska I met recently. His story is a testament to the power of persistent bootstrapping. While still at university, he spotted a golden opportunity in the postal and courier industry which was dominated by state-run entities. So, with savings of just a few thousand dollars and from a rented apartment that doubled as an office, Brzoska founded Integer.pl Group. He started delivering letters and worked all the jobs himself from van driving to finance to marketing.
He soon realized that there was a need for more efficient package delivery services and invented innovative parcel lockers. These self-service kiosks allowed customers to send and collect parcels at their convenience. As e-commerce boomed, so did InPost. In 2021, he finally got outside funding when he went public with enormous success. Rafal told me how he had constantly chosen to keep total control and was obsessive about every euro he was spending.
Fast forward to 2023 and stories of founders choosing the Rafal route seem rarer. We are more used to reading about huge fundraising rounds in new companies, some of which spectacularly blow out.
Last month, Mistral AI, the latest headline grabbing AI startup raised £105m - in a seemingly total rejection of all bootstrapping philosophies. It is one of the largest seed rounds ever raised by a European company.So are bootstrapped stories increasingly a thing of the past?
I hope not. It doesn’t feel ideal for investors or companies to have to make such big bets purely because of escalating infrastructure demands. Matt Friedman, an investor based in the US has addressed this problem by buying compute resources that all his portfolio companies share. This strikes me as smart. Founders should demand more of this sort of creativity from investors.
And before you think all of this is only relevant for start ups, It’s not just in these small businesses that bootstrapping can be a valuable idea. It is useful even in a large company and even if the original founder is long gone. The creativity that comes from constraints can be very powerful. We are using it as a guiding principle in a company I work with at the moment. We are trying to prioritise free software, social marketing and shared services where possible. Justifying any expenses from new hires to larger capital investment to free office food is proving effective especially at a time when the business is facing tough economic headwinds.
There are, of course, significant trade offs. It’s hard to grow a company at warp speed without the power of investment and the networks of support that can come with it. You may sacrifice ground to your competitors by doing so. The bootstrapper also wears many hats – sometimes the entire haberdashery. This can lead to phenomenal stress and difficulties in scaling as you hire more people.
In writing this, I now realise I am an old business romantic. I love stories of the long sighted, hard grafting entrepreneurs who plough on through thick and thin without much help. Given the tough current climate for raising any sort of capital, it might not be a choice you have right now and you have to bootstrap with bravery. If so, I hope you can take some comfort from the fact that you are in very inspiring company.
This reminds me of a model for building science and technology businesses, proposed by financier Matthew Bullock, former Master of St Edmund's College, Cambridge. To succeed, entrepreneurs need to bootstrap patiently, rather than using impatient investors.
In 2012, while giving evidence to the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee, Bullock described his “soft company model” for creating innovative technology businesses. It is based on the empirical fact that most early stage technology companies have a low probability of commercial survival over the medium term. This poor success rate is caused by their adoption of a so-called ‘hard model’ - the traditional model for technology startups, involving the sale of innovative products into target markets. However, most startups attempt to do this while lacking experience in both the product technology and the market. Hence, they quickly run out of money.
The improved model that Bullock proposed involves making a calculated transition from a ‘soft company’ into a ‘hard company’. This means beginning commercial operations as a consulting or research business (i.e. a ‘soft’ company). Innovative ideas emerge as by-products from client project work. This strategy buys time for the company to gain further skills, experience and market knowledge. Eventually, internal product development may be attempted, with a greater likelihood of success.
According to a report by the East of England Development Agency, a “classic example of a soft start company” was Cambridge Antibody, which began as a small R&D outfit in the early 1990s. Over the course of fifteen years it slowly transitioned from contract work to developing its own IP. This “gradual ‘hardening’ of its business model” made it an attractive prospect for acquisition, completed around 2005 by AstraZeneca.
(This is based on an extract from my forthcoming book 'Strategic Ideas for Technologists and Engineers'.)
This article fills me with hope!
Another added benefit of bootstrapping, as Mike Salguero (Founder of ButcherBox) said recently in a HBR interview, is that without investment he could focus what and where they prioritise. During Covid-19, BB saw a surge in demand for its packed meat delivery boxes. If he had a VC investor, he would probably been advised to prioritise growth over ensuring he could service his existing customers. As a result, Mike made the decision to prioritise the existing customers, most of which had been with the company since the very start, over supplying new customers - unless there was surplus.
Even to this day he gets letters from customers thanking him for 'sticking by them' during uncertain times. You can bet most of them will now do the same for Mike!