 |
|
|
|||||
In Silicon Valley, it seems that everyone’s aspiration is to “Be A Founder.” I chatted with Jon Westenberg, who thinks that most people should focus on building a small business instead of chasing the startup dream. Why do you think Silicon Valley culture encourages startups over small businesses? JW: Silicon Valley lives and breathes on VC money, and no fund is able to justify investment without the promise of a 100x return. I don’t have any real criticism of that process or system. The angle that I come from is that while every VC firm needs to be funding high growth companies, not every entrepreneur should be trying to build one. Do you think there are general differences entrepreneurs who aspire to be founders and those who want to be business owners? JW: I think founder is a title that people want because it has connotations, it has prestige and it has that “cool” factor. We’ve reached a point in entrepreneurship where startups are mainstream now. It’s like a reality TV singing contest. This is an example I use all the time. When you read about the wannabes who go on X Factor or Idol, they’ll always say that their life long dream is to be a singer. They never say their dream is to sing. And this is because what they really want is the success and the lifestyle and the glamour of being a singer. That’s why they’re jumping in front of a camera. If what they really wanted was to sing – they’d be out there every night playing gigs and building an audience and doing what they love. Even though you’d advise most people to focus on building a small business, are there any situations when you believe that they should pursue a startup instead? JW: I think if you want to achieve success in certain verticals, you can’t operate as a small business. Uber, for example, are a sticky growth company that needed huge levels of funding to build their user base among drivers and riders. Facebook, Twitter, Vine – platforms like that can’t grow as small businesses. So, the first thing you’d consider is whether or not the business needs to scale in order to succeed. JW: Starting a big, huge, fancy, sweating tech company isn’t the be-all and end-all, and choosing not to do that doesn’t make anyone stupid. In fact, going in the opposite direction is likely to make you happier, healthier, wealthier and a [lot] wiser. I don’t disagree that startups are the cause of a lot of heartbreak but you’ll have to walk us through what you mean by “it’ll make you happier.” JW: You Can Focus On Simplicity:You’re literally building something small, within clear limits and boundaries. There’s no giant pressure to add features, meaning you have the freedom to focus on the smaller things that matter deeply to you and your users. People Matter More: When you stay small, you can spend more time with the people who really matter in your business. A small business is about people. Keeping Things Personal Is Easier: I love seeing a personal touch in every business and every product. You can take the time to ensure that your users and customers are given a little magic every time. Small Doesn’t Mean Poor: Small means lower overheads, lower cash burn rate–and the chance to keep all profits within your own company and your own pocket. You Don’t Have To Stay Small Forever: If you do want to grow, you’ll have a much better chance of doing it from a position of power with a successful, profitable smaller company. If you’re just talking about being profitable enough that you don’t need investors, then that’s called bootstrapping. JW: I don’t think that necessarily captures it. To me, bootstrapping just means funding a company yourself. Starting a small business means funding a company, setting boundaries and limits, understanding your product or service and what you want it to accomplish and working to a plan of meeting your limits. If you do that, you’re not going to be a billionaire. But you could be a very happy millionaire. And to me, that’s a pretty good option. By Cynthia Than This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
The European Union’s trade deal with the United States could cost the pharmaceutical industry between $13 billion and $19 billion as branded medicines become subject to a tariff of 15%, analysts said on Monday. The added costs could raise prices for consumers unless pharmaceutical companies take action to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, one of the analysts said. Pharmaceuticals had historically been exempt from duties. Medicines are the largest European exports to the United States by value, and the EU accounts for about 60% of all pharmaceutical imports to the U.S. On Sunday, European officials said that a bilateral trade deal for an across-the-board 15% tariff included pharmaceuticals, except for some generic drugs, which would be subject to no tariffs. The U.S. has been conducting a national security investigation into the pharmaceutical sector, and the industry has been bracing for separate sectoral tariffs. President Donald Trump said earlier this month, before negotiating the bilateral deal, that pharmaceutical tariffs could be as high as 200%. Some Wall Street analysts said that they do not expect additional tariffs on the EU as a result of the investigation, but others cautioned that the deal was not yet signed and that several questions remained unanswered. UBS analyst Matthew Weston said that he expects details of the trade deal to include protective measures for EU pharma exports from the U.S. investigation, especially since such measures are being discussed in negotiations with the United Kingdom and Switzerland. ING analyst Diederik Stadig also said that while tariffs on top of the 15% were not expected, even after the conclusion of the national security investigations, nothing is completely clear “until a trade deal is inked.” Stadig estimates that these levies could add $13 billion to industry expenses without any mitigation strategies, and some of that could be ultimately borne by the consumer. Bernstein analyst Courtney Breen puts the additional expenses at $19 billion for the industry, but she notes that companies might be able to absorb some of the costs with the measures they have been implementingsuch as stockpiling of drug products and new deals with contract researchers. Earlier this month, Sanofi said it will sell a manufacturing facility in New Jersey to Thermo Fisher, where the French drugmaker’s therapies will continue to be manufactured. Roche’s CEO Thomas Schinecker said last week that the company was increasing its U.S. inventories to avoid any immediate disruption from tariffs. UBS’s Weston said that it was not immediately clear which generic drugs were exempted from duties under the deal, but any impact for generic drugmaker Sandoz for this year should mostly be manageable. Shares in pharmaceutical companies Sanofi, Roche, and Sandoz Group all closed up between 0.5% and 1% on Monday. By Bhanvi Satija, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump is asking a federal court in Florida to force Rupert Murdoch to give a deposition for the president’s lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal within 15 days, citing the media mogul’s age and physical condition. Trump sued The Journal, owned by Murdoch, in U.S. District Court in southern Florida on July 18 for its story reporting on the Republican president’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and alleged child sex trafficker who died in a New York jail in 2019 before trial. The president’s motion to the court on Monday noted Murdoch is 94 years old, is believed to have suffered several health scares in recent years, and is presumed to live in New York. Taken together, these factors weigh heavily in determining that Murdoch would be unavailable for in-person testimony at trial, Trump’s request to the court said. A spokesman for Murdoch’s News Corp. did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump’s motion said that, in a telephone conversation, Murdoch’s lawyer indicated he would oppose the effort.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||