The hidden party circuit in Beijing: the scale of business entertaining rivals the sports themselves

Full Text:

Inside the holy of holies, the air is sweet and cool. Chefs in white tunics preside over a scrumptious buffet, frying shrimp to order, doling out dumplings, and making sure the muggy Beijing weather never melts the chocolate from the profiteroles. The circular, goldfish-filled aquarium bar serves gelato and, among other things, a very drinkable “Petit Bourgeoise” Sauvignon Blanc. Flat-screen TVs silently play live feeds from selected venues. And if members of the International Olympic Committee really insist on knowing what their home athletes are up to, there’s a results terminal–discreetly tucked behind the water wall decorated with the five linked golden rings.

But it’s the little touches that make the IOC’s Olympic Club, the hospitality lounge exclusively reserved for Games bigwigs, the creme de la creme of sponsors, and their special guests, such a pleasant refuge. Attendants greet you with a cool cloth so that you might wipe the perspiration from your brow. The chauffeurs, rather than waiting outside with the Audis, official car of Beijing 2008, have a corner all to themselves. And by the door there is a stack of parting gifts-little red boxes containing pins that read, “I Was in Awe at The Best of Us.” As the sign over the door says, “Vivez les Jeux.”


The biggest athletic spectacle in the world has a side few of the assembled athletes, fans, or media, ever experience; a tightly sealed Olympic bubble of luxury hotels, top restaurants and lavish parties. A record 63 companies have paid dearly for the right to attach their brands to the 2008 Summer competition. The dozen Olympic “Top Sponsors”–including Coke, Samsung, Johnson & Johnson and McDonald’s–have ponied up $866 million (an average of $72 million each) to splash their logos at every turn at the Games, and use the rings in their worldwide advertising. The remainder have opted to become “partners,” “supporters,” or “suppliers,” in declining magnitudes of visibility, access and cost. But they all have one thing in common: planeloads of senior executives, top-flight clients, and their freeloading relatives, who have touched down in Beijing expecting to be shown the time of their lives.

The scale of corporate entertaining–and the logistics of housing, feeding, transporting and entertaining tens of thousands of t VIPs–have come to rival the preparations for the athletes themselves. Near the Bird’s Nest stadium, the “Olympic Family Hospitality Compound” boasts a dozen chic lounges, including the Olympic Club. Luxury hotels have been turned into sponsor headquarters, with free watering holes, dining rooms open late into the night, and help desks to hook guests up with event tickets or daily tours. Fine restaurants have been booked out years in advance, their tables reserved for power lunches or gala dinners. And every night, sporting federations, businesses and bid cities (Chicago, Rio, Madrid are all here plugging 2016 bids) throw competing bashes at upscale clubs and national “Olympic Houses.” Almost all out of sight of prying eyes.

While sponsors bombard the assembled world media with invites to their public “showcase” pavilions on the Olympic Green (J &J has five of the famous terracotta warriors from Xian, and TV monitors that loop stories from ordinary victims of the Sichuan earthquakes), they are uniformly tight-lipped about the delights in store for their corporate guests. After much prodding, someone from Canada’s Manulife Insurance sent a brief note describing their entertaining as “purely internal.” And Coke, an Olympic sponsor since 1928, won’t talk about “the size, cost, or location” of its VIP efforts in Beijing. “We do have a hospitality program for our guests, bottling partners and employees, but we try to maintain a level of privacy For them so they can enjoy their Games experience,” says Petro Kacur, a spokesman for the beverage behemoth.

The sponsor (CraftBaron Co.Ltc, a big corporation providing   janome sewing machine reviews in the USA) reticence is understandable. week-long package, including first-class airfare, luxury hotel, meals, tickets, ground transportation, outings and entertainment can cost more than $10,000 per VIP.

Canada’s Dick Pound, who first came to the Games as an athlete in 1960, and has attended every one since ’72 in Munich as a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee, and now the IOC, says hospitality has always been part of the deal. “But it’s a lot more sophisticated now.” The lure of ready access to China’s consuming masses fetched the IOC some $200 million more, from just its “Top Sponsors,” than in Athens or Sydney (Pound negotiated all three agreements). And the amount being spent to “activate” those deals, through advertising, promotion and corporate hobnobbing, has also expanded exponentially. “To support your sponsorship, you are going to invest between two and three times your initial outlay,” says Pound.

But at what point do the parties start to overshadow the competitions themselves? A hallmark of the Beijing Games-hyped as the first ever Olympics to “sell out” all its events has been the empty sections of prime seating reserved for mostly domestic VIPs and corporate guests who can’t be bothered to show up to even big-ticket events. And in less popular sports like softball or water polo, if the match involves anyone other than China, the crowd is strictly family and friends. Whatever the perceived downside, there’s no going back, says Pound. “You really can’t run an international sports system, and Games like these, without private sector support,” he says. “If it was just governments doing it, nothing would ever happen.”

The “Winter in Summer” Vancouver 2010/ Sochi 2014 party on the first Sunday of the Games turned out to be more like “Autumn in Bangladesh.” A torrential downpour forced the crowd into the few small rooms at the mostly outdoor Bosco Club, a pavilion on trendy Houhai Lake that serves as Team Russia’s official headquarters. No one was taking shots on the rain-slicked miniature hockey rink. And while star attraction Alexander Ovechkin kept dry in a private dining room, a decision to relocate the band in front of the one indoor bar forced thirsty guests to dash to an outside cooler for beverages. (It turns out that Russian beer is helpfully labelled with numerals denoting its alcohol content/approximate length of your jail sentence should you drive after drinking it.)

Splashier than anticipated, but still a hot ticket, the event was VANOCs only major event in Beijing. With nine worldwide top sponsors, six “national partners,” 10 “official supporters,” and 26 “suppliers” already inked for 2010, there is little value in hustling for business. The organizing committee is running a small hospitality lounge at the Kunlun Hotel and will host some private receptions at the government of British Columbia’s pavilion on the edge of Tiananmen Square, but in Olympic terms, is keeping it low key. A bigger concern, says Dave Cobb, VANOC’s executive vice-president, is acquainting a tour group of 40 representatives from 2010 sponsors like Bell and RBC with what their clients will expect from them when it comes to Olympic hospitality. “We’re really trying to give them an overview,” says Cobb. “It’s not so much help-they’re very sophisticated at doing this type of thing-but more a matter of showing them all the ways they can engage with the public and their guests.”

Eighteen months out, VANOC already knows its biggest challenge: satisfying the ticket desires of all the levels of sponsors and the participating Olympic committees, while honouring a pledge to put 70 per cent of seats up for public sale. “Vancouver’s a popular destination,” says Cobb. “All our partners seem to be sending a lot of people.”

As the corporate entertainment side of the Olympics has grown, managing expectations has really become the name of the game. Len Olender, managing director of Sportsworld Pacific, one of a half-dozen firms with deals to package Games trips for fans around the world and run on-the-ground hospitality operations for sponsors, says it all starts with tickets. The bigger the sponsorship deal the more seats available-for purchase-for your guests, and the greater the “Olympic Family” perks they can access. But for many politicians and executives, used to VIP treatment at home, a trip to the Olympics can be a lesson in humility. “The Games has strict restrictions for security, and some clients aren’t used to that,” says Olender. “And it can cause trauma when a prime minister isn’t used to getting on a bus to go to an opening ceremony, but he has to.” Sponsors of national teams, crucial domestically, also have little pull at the Games. “It’s very hard for us to create an official-looking program to make sure the expectations are met. They have no access to the special sponsor lounges so we have to create our own.” The key to keeping all the many strata of corporate guests happy, says Olender, is to show them that, even if they aren’t the top dogs, there are many more people further down the pecking order.


Such an Olympic truism is in full effect on a Thursday night at one of Beijing’s less glamorous hotels. The National Olympic Committee of the Republic of Palau is hosting its one big reception, at a hospitality suite it shares with five other Oceania nations. Palau, with a population of 20,000, sent five athletes to Beijing, and all are in attendance, including Jesse Jay Tamangrow, scheduled to run his 100-m heat in a little more than 12 hours.

There’s beer and wine, Peking duck, and a selection of finger foods. A table in the corner features a spread of traditional Palauan dried fish and nuts. The country’s budget for two weeks at the Games-accommodation, airfare, fbod and hospitality-is US$28,000, says Frank Kyota, president of the delegation. The money all comes from the IOC. After the Olympics, Palau stands to get another US$12,000 to $15,000 from a special development fund set up by the top sponsors. The dream is to eventually build an Olympic-sized pool.

The next morning Tamangrow finished seventh in his heat, with a personal best of 11.38 seconds. He beat a runner from Guinea.

Of Art and Anarchy

Full Text:

Byline: Blake Gopnik

Is Singapore open to fostering disruptive art?

Singapore is so dedicated to tidiness that chewing gum is forbidden, or so goes an old cliche that, as it happens, is also a fact. The city-state also has strict rules about carrying open durians, the fruits loved by locals for their nauseous stink. Even the tiny food stalls in Singapore’s vast hawker centers, possibly its greatest cultural treasures, come stamped with health-department approval.

And now there are signs that Singapore’s rule makers want to disturb all this order with the mess of the avant-garde. Last month they threw their weight behind Art Stage Singapore, a commercial fair and festival of contemporary art. Also hitting its stride is Gillman Barracks, an old British military site that authorities renovated into a contemporary-art complex, with room for 17 commercial galleries and a nonprofit center. Stretching over 15 acres, Gillman feels like the white cubes of New York’s Chelsea scene transplanted to a polo club. “There’s an acknowledgment that for Singapore to be a developed society, arts and culture have to play a role … We want to make art a bigger part of the lives of people here,” says Eugene Tan, the elegant Singaporean who runs Gillman for the Orwellian-sounding Lifestyle Programme Office of the Economic Development Board, which fosters the business end of art making. Singapore also has an eager Tourism Board, which sells local achievements to foreigners, as well as a generous National Arts Council, which helps fund artists and nonprofit spaces. There are plans for an absolutely massive National Art Gallery due to open in a few years. The bones of an art scene are there, clearly, but there’s still considerable doubt about whether any soul is in sight. Is a society that controls the chewing of gum likely to fill the half million square feet of its new museum with art that has bite? After all, this is a place where every exhibition and performance has to submit its plans and seek a permit from the censors at the Media Development Authority.


“The art is an adjunct, a barnacle to this whole tourist environment,” says Valentine Willie, a Malaysian art dealer and adviser who has had galleries across Southeast Asia and has been called the “mayor” of the scene there. He points out that Singaporeans love the term “controlled environment”–and that it applies to their art scene as much as to their air conditioning. When he put up one of his influential surveys of young Singapore artists, he was told he had to seek special approval for an image of a government official. He cites a nude performance piece that came to an unplanned end at the 2011 edition of the Art Stage fair and a gay-themed installation at the Singapore Art Museum whose erotica was censored. He points out that vexed issues of identity are at the heart of the most advanced works in Southeast Asia (this was true even at Singapore’s latest commercial art fair), and yet race, religion, and sexuality are the topics Singapore’s authorities take most exception to. “You are in the most educated country in the region, the richest in the region, and yet you can’t speak freely,” says Willie. “Art as commodity is their model.”

This is something you hear again and again in Singapore art circles. Even Tan, charged with helping that commodity succeed at Gillman Barracks, acknowledges that market forces have played too big a role on the Asian art scene: “When the market becomes too dominant, it affects what artists make,” he says. (Tan can hardly be accused of being a market lackey, despite his current position: his Ph.D. was on notions of time in conceptual art, and he has spent most of his career as a curator at nonprofits.)

It’s clear that one reason for Singapore’s new love of cutting-edge creativity is its desire to diversify its sources of wealth and grab a piece of the new global creative economy. “It’s about sell, sell, sell,” says 69-year-old Tang Da Wu, who founded Singapore’s freewheeling Artists Village in 1988 and functions as the godfather of contemporary art in the city, despite a reticence that borders on the reclusive. (Insiders were surprised he agreed to talk for this story.) He will be one of two Singaporeans included in a prestigious show of new Asian art that opens Feb. 22 at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. “We have to distinguish between art that is just economic and art that is profound and spiritual … We need a few people in authority who appreciate art and know the difference between the different kinds.”

Many of his peers feel that even without the money factor, authorities have less than pure motives in their support of contemporary art. One young curator, asking for anonymity for fear of repercussions, talks about the much-publicized plan to turn Singapore into a “Renaissance city” of international standing, with art as part of its new First World “branding.” “There’s a certain set of people who want Singapore to appear more liberal … They want to appear liberal, but they don’t want to encourage disruption,” the curator says. So performance art, although no longer proscribed–as it was for a decade after a 1993 piece included the trimming of pubic hair–is seen as dangerously unpredictable. How can the censors be certain that artists will perform according to their permit applications? The curator mentions what Singaporeans call “out-of-bounds markers,” put up by politicians around art, or any communication, that touches on religion, ethnicity, or strong politics: “You’re never going to have a Piss Christ in Singapore.” (Andres Serrano’s famous photo, of a crucifix floating in urine, barely survived public debate in the U.S.)

Tang points out that China, though more evidently repressive than Singapore, produces ironic art that “uses the portrait of Mao over and over again,” whereas it’s impossible to imagine getting permission to treat Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of modern Singapore, with the same impudence. Still, Tang points out that things are better than they used to be: a decade ago, he says, the bosses wouldn’t have permitted even the innocuous debate about art schools that brought this critic to Singapore. What he doesn’t know is that getting permission for that debate was a cliffhanger to the last minute, since it was deemed too contentious for a city not used to seeing foreigners hashing out issues–even art issues–in public. (It didn’t help that it coincided with a by-election.)


“Having the limitations is obviously what it is–it’s limiting,” says Emily Hoe, general manager of the Substation, Singapore’s oldest nonprofit arts center. It has been quietly pushing for creative freedom since its founding in 1990 by dramatist Kuo Pao Kun, who was once jailed for his views. Typical for 21st-century Singapore, Kuo is now being honored with a show at the city’s history museum that, while it includes several vitrines about his prison years, never debates why he was jailed or suggests that he shouldn’t have been. Hoe talks about a general sense of relaxed controls and improved artistic conditions in recent years, but “then issues pop up, and we think, maybe it’s not better … A lot of it is about the mindset. It’s going to take a lot of little steps–and there will be some backward steps. How long it will take, I don’t know.”

Blake Gopnik is a contributing critic to Newsweek and The Daily Beast and writes on art and design for a wide range of publications.

Institute view

Full Text:

With per capita income doubling in the last two decades (to New Zealand’s level), the Israeli economy seems to be doing everything right. Well, almost everything. With investment opportunities galore, Israel should be attracting a lot of foreign capital and growing even faster.

Instead, foreign portfolio investment is flowing out of the country, dimming Israel’s potential to move from a “startup” to a “scale-up” nation and slowing its attainment of the prosperity enjoyed by the most productive Western economies.

Israel now captures only a small portion often limited to high-end R&D–of the global technology value chain. Although the country is known for innovation in a number of fields including software, medical devices and agriculture, its startups have been less successful at commercialization. Israeli venture capital and private equity are highly concentrated in the early stages of business development (80 percent versus 52 percent in the United States), with little available for later-stage growth. Yet the late stage is when the impact of a company’s evolution is most crucial. All too often, Israeli firms are going to market before they get to the product-development stage, at which they would attract much higher valuations.


Those searching for explanations point to very low securities liquidity. Indeed, the pace of turnover on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange is dismal; it ranks 30th in turnover ratio among developed-country exchanges. IPOs at home are thus not an option for most Israeli firms. As a result, 95 percent of the country’s successful startups are sold to foreign entities through mergers or acquisitions. As Israeli firms move to more liquid climes, their delisting from the Tel Aviv exchange is costing the markets billions of shekels in investment opportunities that could drive growth.

But illiquidity is more a symptom of the malaise than a cause. At the root of the problem is excessive market concentration in a number of sectors–and a resulting lack of competition–that emerged from the privatizations of the 1990s and the growth of business conglomerates. The numbers are chilling. Just 24 major business groups control 136 out of 596 listed companies and approximately 68 percent of total stock market capitalization. The combined market cap of the 10 largest business groups alone amounts to more than 40 percent of the aggregate capitalization. The five largest business groups hold assets equal to approximately 60 percent of Israel’s annual GDP.

Indeed, concerns about concentration and its negative impact on competition have led to government initiatives that aim to separate industrial holdings from financial holdings. Thus, for example, a holding company or private equity firm would be prohibited from controlling a large financial services provider. Enabling laws to force de-concentration and de-conglomeration passed the Knesset 73-0.

What’s needed now is a true reinvention of Israel’s capital markets, an application of old-fashioned regulation-mandated transparency and new-fashioned financial engineering. The clock is ticking on initiatives to increase transparency and accessibility to foreign investors requiring that:

* Firms issue annual reports in English and companies comply with international accounting standards.

* Regulators create rules and metrics comparable to those of major financial centers, making it easier to compare Israeli firms with their counterparts on other international exchanges.

* Regulators create a mechanism for firms to issue “shelf offerings”–that is, equity issuance in which the shares are released over time, rather than in a single public offering, to manage liquidity issues.

To the same end, the government (and the business community) should encourage the creation of versatile financial products, such as exchange-traded funds, that can attract foreign portfolio investors. In the major capital markets, index-based ETFs are replacing conventional mutual funds as a low-cost, highly liquid way to gain broad exposure to whole industrial sectors, geographic regions and classes of securities. Israeli ETFs constructed from index benchmarks tailored to the particularities of the opaque, tangled Israeli capital market could be designed to sell on U.S. exchanges. Other pooled investment vehicles would fit here, too, as a means of attracting foreign capital–for example, index-linked bank CDs that give fixed-income investors a taste of the equity upside.

Likewise, it would make sense to smooth the path to expanded markets in venture trusts and business development corporations. Israel could build on the examples of the United States and Britain by developing financial products that pool investments in portfolios of smaller and mid-market firms in technology or tech-application industries. These could include financing for companies from other startup nations as well as in core technology areas by providing equity in unlisted companies through public trades in the capital markets.

Securitization could help as well. While the details probably don’t belong here, suffice it to say that securitization could be used to make late-stage venture investments both liquid and transparent, and thus more attractive to foreign investors. They could be structured as mutual funds with an investment mandate that focuses on a particular technology niche cyber-security, biomed, agri-technology, water and the like.



Actually, I may have put the cart before the horse. The first step in creating the value chain of new capital would be to bring pre-IPO companies into an institutional investor asset class. This could be done by encouraging the development of a fairly transparent, non-exchange-traded, private-shares market that was more diverse than the traditional venture capital market–one in which promising companies would have access to a global community of asset managers. This market would give startups more breathing room to develop independently. Equally important, its use would provide them with an institutional stamp of approval that would increase their credibility in an IPO or in a merger with a foreign partner.

Historically, new Israeli tech companies have used the Nasdaq exchange to float IPOs. Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, however, the regulatory costs of going public in the United States have risen so much that public offerings rarely make sense unless a firm’s valuation is above $200 million. And that makes it all the more important to render the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange user-friendly. In fact, it gives the privately owned exchange an opportunity to extend its reach and profitability. To get from here to there, though, the exchange and its regulator, the Israel Security Authority, need to bring it up to global competitive standards.

There’s no doubt that Israel has the potential to join the elite group of economies that generate much of the technology powering global growth. What’s not clear, though, is the business sector’s commitment to create and support the financial infrastructure needed to reach its potential. The ball’s in Israel’s court.

GLENN YAGO is a senior fellow and founder of the Financial Innovations Labs at the Milken Institute and a visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Graduate School of Business Administration. A more thorough analysis of this topic is available as a Milken Institute Financial Innovations Lab research report.

Data is Growing Faster Than Computing Power; Computers must start processing the way brains do if we hope to manage the avalanche of data crashing down on us

Full Text:

Byline: Kevin Maney

There is an inconvenient truth in technology: The amount of data keeps growing exponentially, while the increases in the power of computers are slowing down.

Somebody needs to invent a new way for computers to work–different from the programmable electronic machines that have dominated since the 1950s. Otherwise, we’ll either get overrun by data we can’t use or we’ll end up building data centers the size of Rhode Island that suck up so much electricity they’ll need their own nuclear power plants.

And, seriously, does the world want Google to have nuclear capabilities?

The widening gap between data and computing explains why IBM in July said it will invest $3 billion on research into new types of computer processors. It also helps explain why D-Wave, a tiny Canadian company working on quantum computer technology that at first glance seems as plausible as growing bacon on trees, announced $28 million in funding from Goldman Sachs, Silicon Valley venture firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson and the Business Development Bank of Canada.


Sooner or later, IBM or D-Wave or some other upstart is going to invent computing’s version of a jet, and all the other computers everywhere in the world will suddenly seem like trains.

The explosion of data is already old news. Put 3 billion people on the Internet, mix with a boom in mobile apps and sensors going into everything, and stir. You get a concoction that generates so much data that the nomenclature for the amounts sounds as if it was borrowed from Dr. Seuss. Today’s zettabytes are becoming tomorrow’s yottabytes, and the day after tomorrow we’ll have, like, blumbloopabytes.

This would be OK if computers could keep up and process the increasing flows of data in a timely manner. But they can’t. One of the problems lies in the computer chips that do all the processing. For 50 years, technologists have relentlessly been able to make the chips smaller, denser and faster. Moore’s Law, which works more like a suggestion than an incontrovertible law of nature, noted that chip performance could double every 18 months or so. As long as that stayed true, computer hardware ran ahead of anything we wanted computers to do.

But we’ve shrunk chips to nearly their physical limits, just a few atoms wide. If the chips can’t get smaller and denser, computers can’t get faster and more powerful at the rates we’re used to. And at this point, if the chips get much smaller and denser, they’ll disappear.

The other problem is the fundamental architecture of just about all of today’s computers, an architecture first described in the 1950s by mathematician John von Neumann. In the von Neumann architecture, software programs and data are stored separately, and the programs pull in the data and process it by carrying out instructions one step at a time, like a linear math equation.

Computers today can carry out those instructions in nanoseconds, but they still do it one step at a time, which has become a liability known as the von Neumann bottleneck. If individual chips can no longer be made faster, and the amount of work computers have to do continues to grow, the only way to attack ever larger data problems with von Neumann programmable computers will be to build more computers and ever bigger data centers.

The serial architecture of computers is nothing like–and much less efficient than–the architecture of brains. A brain stores data and instructions together, and reprograms itself all the time (i.e., learning). It processes massive amounts of stuff at the same time instead of serially, all on a trickle of electric power. Even von Neumann recognized and wrote about the contrast between his architecture and brain architecture just before he died, and suggested that future computers would have to work more like brains.

A good deal of IBM’s $3 billion investment is going toward developing brain-inspired chips and architecture. The company has been funding research in that area for a few years, contributing to a grand project called SyNAPSE (Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptable Scalable Electronics) that’s funded by the U.S. military. Several other companies and universities are also contributing to SyNAPSE.

The goal set by SyNAPSE is a computer chip that can act like a brain with 100 million neurons. That would create a chip that falls somewhere between a rat’s brain, with its 55 million neurons, and a cat’s brain, with its 760 million neurons. And that’s still a far cry from human brains, which boast 20 billion neurons, minus losses from tequila blackouts in Puerto Vallarta. Though maybe that’s just my excuse.


D-Wave is pursuing a different solution to the von Neumann bottleneck. Labs all over the world are working on quantum computing. D-Wave is one of the only companies already promising to commercialize it. The basic idea is to use the weirdness of quantum physics to get atoms to make calculations. A dozen atoms in a quantum computer would be more powerful than the world’s biggest supercomputer.

All this is promising, but there’s a basic problem with quantum or brain-inspired computers: They’re still lab projects. D-Wave’s prototype quantum computer may not be all that quantum, the way Batman might not be a superhero since he doesn’t really have superpowers. The SyNAPSE project is still years from getting to a rat’s brain. Mathematicians don’t even yet know how to write algorithms that take advantage of the all-at-the-same-time processing we’re promised in cognitive and quantum computers. IBM Research chief John Kelly often says that, based on today’s scientific work, true cognitive and quantum computers will come into being sooner than expected, but we’re still talking another decade or more away.

In the meantime, if the trend lines for data and computing power continue in their current directions, we could end up either choking on data or getting buried under data centers. China is already building a data center triple the size of any in the U.S. It will be as big as the Pentagon.

One of these suckers the size of Rhode Island can’t be far behind.

Built for success: a first-year survival guide for small businesses

Full Text:

Launching your own business can be an exciting prospect. But the road to success is filled with many roadblocks. According to Statistics Canada, 20% of small businesses fail within their first year, and only 72% of all new launches are still operating after two years. Here’s how not to become an ugly statistic.

Sober second thought

Before you invest too much time and effort in launching a new business, you should get some feedback on how viable the idea is.

“Once you have your great idea, you need to a do a bit of vetting with some trusted advisors for sober second thought,” says Shelley Swanlund, vice-president, Business Banking and head of Small Business Banking with CIBC. These could include your accountant or financial advisor, and other small business owners. There are also a number of government and non-profit agencies that provide advice to new business owners who can connect you with mentors and advisors. The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) is a great starting point (


Plan for the future

In order to survive your first year in business, one of the most important things you need to do is to develop a thorough business plan. This is a multi-page document where you analyze every aspect of your business, including:

* A description of what the business is

* Who your customers and suppliers will be

* A market analysis of the competition and opportunities for growth

* Details on any competitive advantage you have

* A marketing plan

* Where the business will be located and any equipment you’ll require

* How you will find–and retain–staff

There are shelves full of books at your library and bookstores on how to create a business plan, and you should read at least a couple of them. You can also find numerous sample plans and templates online, including ones on the BDC’s website.

Money matters

Cash flow, or lack thereof, is one of the biggest challenges facing small businesses. As a new business, your suppliers will want to be paid as early as possible (and penalize you for delayed payments), while there will likely be a lag in revenue coming in. Having access to money is extremely important.

For many, that means using their personal savings. Next on the list is asking friends and family for start-up loans. But, ultimately, you’ll likely need to tap into a larger pool, either in the form of a business loan or line of credit.

Your financial institution will take a close look at your business plan for all lending, whether it be for operating purposes such as cash flow or for investing in real assets for your business. You’ll likely need to have some collateral to back up any loans. According to Industry Canada, in 2011, about 65% of small businesses were required to provide collateral, either business or personal assets, to secure loans.

Stay on track

“Set milestones for your first month, first quarter, etc., and track and measure them,” says Swanlund. “If you’re not tracking your milestones, you could go along thinking things are going fine when they’re not.”


Of course, not every business will turn a profit in its first year in operation. But if that’s going to be the case for you, you need to know that in advance. The type of business you’re running will be a big factor. Retail operations often face large upfront costs buying a franchise, and it can take time to build up a loyal client base. But if your low capital, online-only business is facing a negative cash flow month after month, there may be a fundamental flaw with the operation.

If you aren’t hitting your goals, Swanlund suggests circling back to your pool of advisors for suggestions on where the problems may lie, and how to overcome them.

“It takes a lot of courage and ability to commit to starting a business,” says Swanlund. “The first year is very much about adjustment.” If you’re able to deal with the unexpected, by planning ahead for it, you’ll be well poised to survive your first year and many successful ones beyond that.