Silicon Valley and the Internet community in general gets a lot of criticism and jeering over some of the absurd ideas that turn into venture funded startups. People make fun of the business plans (or lack of business in the plans), the vowel-free company names and the wide variety of copycats that pop up any time a service gets even a smidgen of traction. But memory fades fast, it seems. Because no matter how silly some of today’s startups are, they’re nothing compared to the laugh-out-loud nonsense that was treated seriously less than a decade ago.
I’m not just talking about three massively funded pet food delivery services. Nor am I talking about blowing a billion dollars on home grocery delivery. No, I’m talking about possibly the most absurd idea to come out of the bubble years: Incubators for incubators.
Startup incubators are businesses that help startups get on their feet. They supply office space, human labor for things like legal and human resource expenses that are easily outsourced, and other services. In return they get equity in the startup.
The incubator model, which has been infinitely tweaked, can work. Some great startups came out of well known incubators like idealab, such as GoTo.com, which later changed its name to Overture and was bought by Yahoo for $1.63 billion. But for the most part incubators have been the punch line in bad jokes about the bubble, and deservedly so.
But they were hot in the late nineties, particularly off the back of perceived idealab success. So when, in 1999, a slew of startups decided to not just be incubators but rather incubators of incubators, it sort of made sense. At least, it made sense to Red Herring writer Sarah Lai Stirland, who wrote a masterful article on the flowering niche. The article is long gone but was preserved at Vault.com and I’ve copied it below for historical hilarity (I have no idea what the copyright status of this is, but if someone has a fit we’ll gladly take it down – but I won’t delete it from my hard drive, no way).
The article profiles not one but a whopping four “incubators of incubators,” or companies that would incubate companies that would incubate startups: Incubatorincubator.com, KnowledgeCube, InQbiz, and The Atlantic.
The article begins with “Jonathan Abrams has a cunning plan: capitalize on the incubator craze by starting an incubator of incubators.” (yeah, that Jonathan Abrams, who’s now the founder of Socializr). Everything that follows is absolutely hilarious.
An early quote from Abrams: “It used to be that after you sold your company to Yahoo (Nasdaq: YHOO) or Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for $200 million, you might start another company. But now that has become passe, and anyone with a glimmer of pseudo-success is starting an incubator.” When told about the other three incubators of incubators, Abrams said “Wow, I had no idea I had competition.”
Before you stomp on Abrams: he says it was all a joke and he was amazed Red Herring took it so seriously. He says in an email yesterday explaining the article “i was working on my first startup HotLinks, a social bookmarking company circa 1999, and was talking to an editor at Red Herring about HotLinks and he kept going on about incubators (which were a hot topic at the time) and I spontaneously made a joke that I was gonna start an incubator for incubators. This is typical nerd/programmer recursive/meta humor, like when I did FriendFeedFeed.com. anyways, some writer from Red Herring calls me about it and wants to write a serious article about it, so we went along with it as a joke, not really 100% believing they were gonna take it seriously. at least I think thats about what happened, this was a while back… the whole thing was pretty silly”
I believe Abrams, since his quotes are so off the wall. But the rest of the article is apparently serious. I’d highlight the best parts but, really, the whole thing is the best part. Just read it all.
Here it is:
Who will incubate the incubators?
Jonathan Abrams has a cunning plan: capitalize on the incubator craze by starting an incubator of incubators.
For-profit incubators are a form of training-wheels venture funding that are supposed to help novice entrepreneurs along before they receive larger sums from traditional venture capitalists. Idealab founder Bill Gross is seen as the pioneer of commercial Internet incubators, but investors tend to view them as nascent CMGI (Nasdaq: CMGI)s, the publicly traded venture capital fund that had its share value increase 19,541 percent since starting its venture activities in 1995.
“It used to be that after you sold your company to Yahoo (Nasdaq: YHOO) or Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) for $200 million, you might start another company. But now that has become pass?, and anyone with a glimmer of pseudo-success is starting an incubator,” notes Mr. Abrams.
Part of the attraction comes from the business model: incubators routinely take 50 percent equity stakes in new ventures, and they also establish the value of the services that they provide their companies, according to research done by Ben Cary, a second-year student at Harvard Business School, for the Cambridge Incubator. On top of that, incubators can boost their valuations when and if they go public, since they can claim that all their companies work together to provide each other services and assets, increasing the value of the companies and by extension that of the holding company.
Without a trace of irony, the 30-year-old Mr. Abrams proposes to leapfrog that process himself by helping would-be business hatcheries beat their competitors. Mr. Abrams, who launched an Internet search portal called Hotlinks last September and who is funded by @Ventures, a subsidiary of CMGI, says that his incubator of incubators will help to speed up the whole process. He already has gone so far as to reserve the domain name Incubatorincubator.com, although he hasn’t figured out a schedule for implementing this idea yet.
“Incubatorincubator.com will be taking perhaps 5 to 10 percent of the equity of the incubators. This will in turn mean we indirectly get a stake in the companies those incubators incubate, since the incubators will take stakes in those companies, and we will have a stake in the incubators. This will provide us with a very large portfolio!” Mr. Abrams says.
THE RACE IS ON
Though Mr. Abrams’s idea sounds surreal, he isn’t the only that has it. Groups with names like KnowledgeCube, InQbiz, and The Atlantic are doing it, as well.
“Wow, I had no idea I had competition,” says Mr. Abrams.
He does, and his competitors are going global. A small group of financiers, working independently, are starting to incubate incubators around the globe by providing their own resources and packaging these resources with local and global technology partnerships.
In effect, they’re spreading the commercial model of incubation by teaming up with and training local management teams to establish their own incubators, which eventually will become nodes of global incubator networks. While bigger companies such as Softbank, CMGI, and Hong Kong’s Pacific Century Cyberworks are also busy setting up global venture networks, the deals being set up by incubators are typically smaller, ranging from $50 million to $500 million.
GOING GLOCAL
Each of the incubators has its own gimmick. KnowledgeCube is an eight-month-old New York company that calls itself an e-technology accelerator and aims to go “glocal,” which means making the most of both local and global business relationships.
“We’re really training these people to run local incubators,” explains Matt Bruck, KnowledgeCube’s vice president of corporate development. “So we incubate both technology companies and local incubators. We believe we have created the prototype for incubation.”
KnowledgeCube directly incubates technology startups in New York, Boston, and Seattle, but also is building satellite “Cubes” around the globe.
The local incubators will be set up like traditional venture capital funds in which KnowledgeCube is both an investor and a partner, says Mr. Bruck. As he describes it, KnowledgeCube incubates the local incubators in the traditional sense of incubation by providing them with the expertise, funding, and connections to get them up and running quickly. Other partners in the local venture fund/incubator will be local conglomerates who have the connections and expertise within those specific markets, Mr. Bruck says.
Mr. Bruck says that deals are in place for Cubes in Hong Kong and S?o Paolo, Brazil. The effort is so new that the company won’t disclose how much it aims to spend or who will be involved, since terms still are being negotiated and the intended executives have yet to give notice at their current jobs. But Mr. Bruck says that managers of the regional offices will have local business connections and American business experience (one is an investment banker, the other an entrepreneur, and both are currently living in New York).
KnowledgeCube’s management has good pedigrees. President and CEO Max P. Michaels was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (Nasdaq: MWD) and a McKinsey consultant, while senior vice president of technology and operations Dave Tottle was most recently an executive at Lucent Technologies (NYSE: LU). Mr. Tottle, Mr. Michaels, and Mr. Bruck are all MIT alumni and have snagged Ed Roberts, an MIT Sloan School of Management professor and former partner and cofounder of Boston-based venture capital firm Zero Stage Capital, as the chairman of the advisory board.
NO GARDEN-VARIETY INCUBATOR
Sitting in his Hong Kong hotel room speaking on the phone with Redherring.com, John-Michael Lind is loath to call his startup, InQbiz, an incubator, but that is effectively what his business is — a global incubator of incubators. Mr. Lind prefers to call it a global network of incubators, though even then he dislikes using the term, saying it’s overused and abused.
“What’s happening is if anybody provides any portion of the range of services needed, they’ll call themselves an incubator,” he says in disgust.
For his part, Mr. Lind sees himself in the business of exporting and importing intellectual capital from various countries around the world to places where it’s applicable. For example, companies within the InQbiz network will have most of their IT support outsourced to India, where such support is cheaper than elsewhere in the world, while some of the business plans for the startups may be modeled after U.S. Internet startups. Like other incubators, his ultimate aim is to create a network between the various startups in order to share their knowledge, users, technology, and expertise.
InQbiz invests money in startups around the world and hooks international professional services and technology companies such as Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) up to local entrepreneurs. Like KnowledgeCube, it also will establish local incubators through strategic partnerships with local companies. Mr. Lind, an entrepreneur who in 1997 founded Strategic Partners, an emerging markets corporate finance firm specializing in telecommunications and finance, has so far established InQbiz incubators in Bombay, India, and Cape Town, South Africa. He was in Hong Kong to interview candidates to help him to set up an incubator there. He also has plans to set up an incubator in Singapore and to partner with local firms in Japan and Korea.
The local InQbiz incubators typically take a 50 percent interest in the incubated companies. Companies that are being incubated in InQbiz India include StrategicNewspapers.com, a sort of Verticalnet (Nasdaq: VERT) of India; eEngineering, a portal for outsourced engineering workforce solutions; Findstone, a business-to-business site for trading industrial stone; and SoulKurry.com, a portal for Indian women.
Mr. Lind expects most of these startups to complete IPOs on their countries’ main stock exchanges, rather than on Nasdaq. He anticipates InQbiz completing an IPO sometime within the next year to fund the growth of its network.
OVER THERE
On the other side of the world in Greenwich, Connecticut, a global asset management firm called The Atlantic is just gearing up to establish a global incubator of incubators.
The Atlantic, which just started a holding company called eMIT Capital (short for emerging markets technology), plans on taking a 50 percent stake in local incubators that it partners with. The markets that it’s eyeing include Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, South Africa, and China. Since the managers were still fund-raising at the time, they declined to provide any more details about their plans.
But Scott Gordon, CEO of eMIT Capital and former president and CEO of ING Emerging Markets Investors, does say that with such low consumer penetration rates in emerging markets, the best opportunities are in the so-called business-to-business arena. Again, the company’s pitch to local entrepreneurs is its ability to provide seed capital, in addition to a global network of business connections.
All the activity surprises one person who’s prominent in the incubator business.
“Is there such an animal out there?” asks Alberto Saavedra, who sits on the board of advisors for a number of incubators, including Venture Catalyst in Santa Monica, California; Software Greenhouse in Barcelona, Spain; and Talentum in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Incubating runs in the family: his wife is a taxonomies manager at Business.com, a company being incubated by the Jake Winebaum/Sky Dayton incubator eCompanies.
While making pizza at his house in Los Angeles, Mr. Saavedra says he’s been cooking up ideas for two such incubators of his own: one perhaps for IBM (NYSE: IBM) and another for the government of Uruguay. He claims individuals working for those entities have told him that they have large sums of money to invest.
“The point is to train management teams to start incubators, since there aren’t enough of them,” he says. “That’s my thought process — I haven’t thought that much about it.”
Meanwhile, he says that he’s also coined another new term for the incubator lexicon: the one-man incubator.
“For some reason, a lot of people who want to do startups come to me for advice, so I provide it in exchange for shares,” he says. “This is a bit of fun, so I’m doing it. Next week I might not care about other companies though, and I might start my own.”
Hmmm, self-incubation. Wonder what the market will think of that?
TROUBLE AHEAD?
The market’s reaction is key. While the current market turmoil doesn’t seem to scare any of the people to whom Redherring.com spoke, incubators — let alone incubators of incubators — have the most to lose, since the majority have little or no track records of success.
InQbiz’s Mr. Lind says that his confidence stems from his belief that incubation as a business model is a fundamentally new way of doing business, though a volatile market might mean slower expansion and less acquisition currency for the Internet companies.
“The emerging markets are tough after [Tuesday]; it’s like the tail wagging the dog,” he says, referring to Tuesday’s bizarre market volatility, which saw the Nasdaq Composite Index drop 575 points, or 13.6 percent, at one point, only to rally back to finish the day down less than 75 points.
Back in Mountain View, California, Mr. Abrams shrugs off the Nasdaq’s wild wobbles.
“It’s a just a blip,” he says.
Time, and the market, will tell.








Back in 1999 though the startup costs were really high, rent was expensive. so incubators made sense. Nowadays startup costs are lower so they don’t make sense.
Inspired by the incubators of the past. but adapting it to the modern product development methodology (agile, open source based, partly outsourced, iterative) we created OutCubator which helps founders accelerate the product conception by combining OutCubator’s expertise in building products with its ability to stretch a seed funding further via global talent. And it has been working out quite well with 3 successful launches so far. The more startups we help the faster we learn and the value we can deliver. I think between the first startup and the last, there’s a big difference in speed and quality. Incubation is not that bad from a product development perspective. It’s just that in 1999 the valuations of the companies within the incubators were heavily manipulated by the investors that caused their demise.
Only if you have time at hand to build the product successfully.
the biggest asset that incubators provide are the human resources… not the rent/other expenses (most startups uses garages anyway).
so in that sense, they still make sense.
and if you need more proof that, check out the track record of these guys… http://qzip.in/n3
well yes, but those guys are the exception to the rule
people might take you more serouis if your site was complete before you pitched it… You can’t even get your own business off the ground why would I trust you to help me?
Your jobs section still has Test link, test link, and jobs for “php nija” and “php rockstar” that ohh don’t work.
Your portfolio has 4 logos with the same repeated crap text and ohh links that don’t work..
Before you pitch your service you might want to finish it, I would never trust my affiars with a company that does not have the ability to handle their own first.
ouch
Good stuff Mike. I’m saving it on my hard drive too.
Poor Sarah. Someone somewhere is hoping the ground will open up and swallow her.
On a serious note, do incubators still have a role in modern startup economics? Bootstrapping is several orders of magnitude easier to do.
Consumers and businesses are increasingly price-sensitive and open to working with startups.
Whilst incubators can still add significant value, aren’t the signs spelling the incontrovertible demise of the genre?
Such a long post. I stopped after 2 paras. Phew
ya, sesamestreet.org is more your style.
idea for a startup: “content shortener” – while we are all so busy and reading such a long article may be of a hassle (even though it is interesting!), we need some kind of an online processor that will digest this artcle, and split out short summarize, or just bullet-by-bullet layout.
that would be sooo coool!!
Better idea: site to shorten everything: content, links, movies, comments. Don’t super-size, mini-size!
See: Twitter
wow dude this is one long article to read
booz helps me get down the stairs with style
http://www.epic.../load/8-1-0-309
What does the sign language saty?
/too lazy to look it up
The sign language says “WTF”. I’m sure you recognize that the first letter is a “W” and that there are 3 letters.
also see name
Pathetic MA.
Get off your ass and find something with real meat to write about. You are far too talented to waste your time and ours thumbing through the past to criticize the inane.
We love you for pulling the covers back on what’s going on.
easy to look back on something 5-10 years later and call it stupid… much harder to do while it’s occuring and the froth about it is screaming that it’sgoing to be the next big thing…
so is twitter the next ‘incubator of incubators’ or the next netapp/linkedin…
by the way… given the cost that it now takes on the resource side, and that these costs have seriously dropped, an incubator’s most important function would probably be to hook people up… ie, a biz/developer hook up function…. which would allow the resources to easily find/vet each other to come together in a sense..
as as been mentioned numerous times, it’s pretty easy to start building something with the right team, with the team working on a project after hours.. it’s a matter of getting the right team/resources, with the right idea…
peace..
I got my start at an incubator in Toronto in 1999. My job was to review business plans. I was hired right out of university without ever having worked on anything Internet related. Needless to say, the company did not work – but it inspired me to do my own thing. 10 years later I’m posting on TC anonymously. Success!
I’m not sure what to think of this article – except that I remember that buzz in 1999, and can totally relate. Brings me back. There were a lot more incubators than most people are aware. I was tracking 4 just in Toronto alone at the time.
I never understood the incubator thing. If you’re not capable to hire an accountant, get an office space, get an office manager, then why are you capable of creating the next big thing? The nuts and bolts of business are not that complicated.
Pets.com IPO or BUST oops…or should I say IPO AND BUST
Yo dawg, I herd u like incubators..
The biggest value of an incubator or investor is the “connections” or network they bring with them. Its as simple as that.
That value remains today as it did in the 90’s and shall remain till end of time.
Even on non internet related such as dragons den, its easier to get the cash for a startup via banks, other sources but the network and the people the incubator can open doors to is the key factor.
I am launching incubatorincubatorincubator.com in 2011.
Traditional (can I use that word?) incubators that don’t evolve the “needed services” side become ghost towns… and from the curb, they look just like any building or office park…. maybe just a funkier looking one.
One of the primary confusions people have with incubators is the following: leased space providers are not incubators.
Having a spiffy sign, sales people pushing flexible leases, or being known as startup “friendly” does not an incubator make.
Solid broadband, a flexible IP centrex system, access on site to modern (this decade) conference rooms and equipment, and access controls are just a start on the bottom rung of the facilities side — you have to include the services and people that aren’t attached to the plate of the structure and they have to have value, drive, and determination to make the endeavors that they host a success.
So, for those that might want to comment about an incubator: Is there one in your city? What is the reputation? What are the terms?
Why should people looking to make a buck be limited to gouging startups? Why can’t we gouge the people looking to gouge the startups? For future reference, we’ll just call it “Comprehensive VC consulting services” to avoid the incubation^2 shame.
Sadly, “angelangels.com” is already taken.
Incubator model/venture capital = same difference. Semantics, man, that’s all it is. Word games, anyone?
While illuminating more recent excesses, your article doesn’t go back far enough to spot a very successful incubator of incubators — Teknekron Corporation. Teknekron incubated vertically focused technology services businesses in the 70’s and 80’s during a period of expensive capital. Entrepreneurs either became profitable and self-funding within a year, or dismissed; once a going concern, your goal was to incubate proprietary IP, productize, and exit in an all-cash deal. TIBCO is the best known direct descendent.
Reference to the “taxonomies manager at business.com” stated in this post is incorrect.
I am the Director for Information Architecture and Search at business.com and am not married to (and have never met ) Alberto Saavedra. As far as I know there has never been a Mrs. Saavedra at business.com.
Also, business.com is currently a division of R.H. Donnelley Interactive; it was sold to R.H. Donnelley in 2007.
I think that you are playing it slightly tongue-in-cheek but it is a relevant question. Who will incubate the incubators? Not every new venture needs the same expertise from the same domain.
Actually, that’s an open question of mine right now. Where do you go for expertise? http://www.dyna...e/identify/guru