Profiting from inefficiencies in markets with high transaction costs; a reminder that value is created at the edges but captured at the hubs.

Michael Karnjanaprakorn, Ari Gold for Entrepreneurs?

Do you think there’s a need for young entrepreneurs to have an agent/manager? In Hollywood, the agent finds the work with the major studios, and the manager makes the deal for the talent. That’s the relationship that Ari Gold (Agent) has with “E” (Manager) for Vincent Chase (Talent) on HBO’s hit show Entourage.

How would this work with entrepreneurs? I think you would have an agent that deals with all the annoying things for the entrepreneurs such as raising capital, looking over business plans, act as a sounding board for the startup team, etc. You can also have a manager that acts as the closer and negotiates and plays hard ball with every single deal. This allows the entrepreneur to focus all of their time building their business.

Also, the “entrepreneur agency” can play connector and hand over their Rolodex for any connections, curate small events for them to network, creatively help them solve their problems, etc. Maybe a simple company structure would revolve around an agent, manager, and client services. The agent would find deals, the manager would close them, and client services would meet with the entrepreneurs every month to stay updated, etc.

Much like the movie industry, the agency would never charge any upfront fees, but a percentage of either capital raised or small percentage of revenue throughout the year. Agents in Hollywood take a 10% cut of all jobs but I think it’s because business is a lot more clean with them (you get a job or you don’t).

But, thinking about it a little more, I think it would work better if this “entrepreneurial agency” acted more as a manager. In Hollywood, a manager’s job is to take raw talent and turn that person’s aspirations and goals and turn them into a successful career. Managers are prohibited from acting as a Talent Agent as I’m sure there are a lot of potential conflicts. They also settle for 15% but can go to a much higher percentage for newer talent.

From my conversation with Edward Harran on the topic:

These people exist: we usually call them consultants.

A big difference is timeframe: agents serve a very valuable purpose because there are high transaction costs associated with finding new work (films, shows, gigs, etc.). But entrepreneurs are generally expected to stay involved with one single company for a longer period of time, leading to less need for an agent to continually find new gigs. The question then becomes: how can an agent match up entrepreneurs, investors and employees more efficiently than today? And what compensation structure for agents would create the best incentive structure?

Venture capitalists often play a similar role, bringing in talented entrepreneurs without current positions as “entrepreneurs-in-residence” to help evaluate ideas and investment opportunities, providing entrepreneurs with a platform for their next startup and connections into the venture capital / entrepreneurship fishbowl, a potential win-win for bother parties.

But taking the notion further, Y Combinator recently showed the potential for making a market in ideas and execution with their Request for Startups, using their a) hub for entrepreneurs, developers and people with ideas (people with minds, skills, interests and time), b) their proven ability to pick, fund and dconvert ideas into startups, and c) their platform for executing investments (e.g. standard termsheets and processes) to reduce some of the transaction costs in the highly inefficient market for ideas and execution.

Remember, inefficient markets with high transaction costs are great business opportunities.

Related:

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

  • This is a great topic and one I'm dealing with everyday. I think the contrary point I would make is that it's no longer required for entrepreneurs to stay with their ideas/company. What does "their ideas" even mean anymore? It's reminiscent of the old Strategy vs. Execution debate. There is an abundance of intellectual and social capital (Strategy) and an abundance of physical and human capital (Execution) to bring ideas to fruition. This means that the transaction costs for Strategy and Execution have both been driven quite low. Which is lower isn't necessarily important; neither is particularly scarce. However the burden for entrepreneurial success probably falls more on execution since the concept just isn't valuable until it has been fully screened by the market.

    My struggle is with "ideas as a platform". I truly believe that is the case we're dealing with everyday. The platform may be easily co-opted by lots of people and used in other ways. The "strategy" entrepreneur has little protection against this, save legal action.

    It seems to me that what we're going to see is more open-source strategy and value creation will shift more towards execution for a highly targeted audience. This underscores the funding dilemma you've been talking about as well.
  • Why is it "no longer required for entrepreneurs to stay with their ideas/company"? I don't see that.

    While employees may be more fungible, founders (benevolent dictators, if you wish) may be even more important.

    I would say entrepreneurial success has always fallen more on execution than strategy.

    Leading me to ask, what is a "strategy" entrepreneur?

    I'm betting on collaboration driving an increasing share of value creation; the real question is how economic returns and accounting profits will flow to the hubs (entrepreneurs, founders) and the edges (employees, fans, customers). Can compensation be distributed / allocated by the edges rather than the hubs? What collaboration structures will be most effective and efficient? What metrics do we / will we pay attention to and use?
  • Lots of good questions in that; wish I had that many good answers. :) I'll try to focus on the strategy entrepreneur question.

    At the risk of entering a conversational black hole...

    It's not so easy to say strategy trumps execution or vice versa in an endeavor, although I'm definitely guilty of that. There is evidence that a firm with solid execution and poor strategy has less chance of short run success versus a firm with good strategy and poor execution. Think MySpace or Friendster. Or even think Twitters problems in the beginning. A truism I had a professor tell me once is that "you can buy execution...if you can buy it and so can your competitors then it's not strategy." The strategy vs. execution thing gets more blurry in the long run as more operational efficiencies correlate more strongly to success (eg profitability). Compare the lack of strategy, but superb execution, displayed by Japanese car manufacturers (circa 1985) with their German counterparts. These are the Michael Porter debates, rehashed, but the general idea I take from it is that you really have to be excellent at operationalizing a solid strategy.

    As it relates to smaller-scale entrepreneurs, the point is that strategy or execution is more important based on the innovation model the entrepreneur is pursuing. If an entrepreneur is going for marginal improvements or expansion for an existing offering, sure, execution is key. But if you're going for something seriously new and disruptive, it's got to be strategy. That's even sorta from the tao of Google. We have to agree that early adopters will put up with more headaches if the strategy is genuinely new.

    In short response to your first question about entrepreneurs staying with a firm to lead to its success, I think this goes back to the strategy vs. execution continuum. In my opinion, the early stages of a venture involve 90% market focus. This is where the strategy is set and the venture is defined. Over time, that 90% declines as more focus is placed on financial structure, growing pains, new management teams, etc. The founder has less role and influence over strategy and therefore less to add to the company.

    Your compensation question is a great one and one I have to think long about.
  • Noting up-front a lack of interest in the debate, and at the risk of entering a conversational black hole, I'll simply comment that "strategy v. execution" isn't an either-or question: strategy and execution are both required for success.

    I would argue the seriously new and disruptive changes come from execution, not strategy, for the simple reason that truly disruptive changes come from unexpected responses to the heretofore unknown.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Posts by RSS: Taylor Davidson / Photography, Travel, Innovation & Entrepreneurship
Posts by Email: Taylor Davidson / Photography, Travel, Innovation & Entrepreneurship
@tdavidson
Facebook: Taylor Davidson
Flickr: taylordavidson
LinkedIn: Taylor Davidson