Paralysis by Analysis

In the process of thinking through how discovery-driven planning might apply to our venture Adrianto and I started thinking about some of our key assumptions.  A big assumption that we need to figure out how to test is related to the demand for our rain suits.  More specifically will consumers see the benefits of our design to the extent that they are willing to pay double or triple the price of a generic rain suit.  The most effective way to test this assumption would probably be to set up a stand or hit the streets of Jakarta with a couple of sample rain suits and see how they sell.  Of course this would actually require us to have rain suits already designed and manufactured not to mention that it would help significantly if we were in Jakarta to be able to pull this one off.  So Adrianto and I are brainstorming other ways to start to test the validity of our assumption from here in Pittsburgh without that ability to demo a physical sample to potential customers. 

One method we are considering using to test our assumption is a conjoint analysis.   This is a pretty cool survey technique for simulating markets that Peter Boatwright preaches in his New Product Management (Tepper) class.  This website, http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/conjoint-analysis-software, has a pretty boring but rather thorough short video of how conjoint works.  For our rain suit project we could easily set up a conjoint survey to determine how much consumers are willing to pay for our rain suit design as well as approximate market share our rain suit could capture relative to the other rain suits on the market.  This would help us eliminate some of the uncertainty surrounding our rain suit demand assumptions.  However one of the limitations for us taking a conjoint survey approach is that we are limited in the extent of which we can actually communicate the benefits of our design in words and pictures, however the results of a conjoint survey would probably be interesting and at least somewhat useful. 

Another limitation to a conjoint survey is that well at the end of the day it is still just a survey which asks people would they buy.  The risk here is that what people say they will buy may or may not match reality when they are actually faced with a purchasing decision.  To overcome this limitation we are considering actually asking people to buy.  We can do this by setting up a website that is meant to look real for our rain suit with pictures, specifications, and an option to purchase the product.  For only a couple hundred dollars we could generate some traffic with google adwords and when users click on the button to purchase our rain suit we will send them to a dummy page that indicates the item is currently out of stock but record their click in a database.  This will allow us to compare how many users who visit our page would actually be willing to buy the product.  Furthermore it would allow us to test various page layouts and prices to see what effect they have on sales.  This approach to testing a market was popularized by Tim Ferris in his NY Times best seller The 4-Hour Workweek.

In either case it begs the question how much time, energy, and dollars do we want to spend researching and testing our assumptions?  Both options I presented are rather resource intensive and the usefulness of the data received from these test is uncertaint and something we need to consider further.  

The importance of networking

I recently read the article How to get a social enterprise off the ground: The money trail, which was written by Esha Chhabra on July 12th, 2011 and can be found online at http://dowser.org/how-to-get-a-social-enterprise-off-the-ground-the-money-trail/. To be frank, this article is a must read for anyone trying to start a social enterprise in a foreign country. When you think of starting a social enterprise, I would imagine that most of your thought process would be pertaining thinking through the logistics of your idea. When thoughts came to financing your operation, you may think about how much money you might need and who would provide that money for you. However, what you might not think about is how to physically get the cash to where you need it.

This article addresses the problem of how to get the cash where you physically need it. This author is trying to start an enterprise in India and realizes the difficulty of physically getting the cash. The obvious first solution, which the author thinks of, is to wire the cash from another country to India. Unfortunately, she finds out that there is a wire fee of $45. We can easily see how getting multiple installments of cash which cost $45 each could get very expensive. When faced with that steep cost, the author inquisitively asks around and tries to find other ways she can get the cash. She finds out that it is very easy for established charities to get donations from non-resident Indians, but that these banks do not have established programs for non-established charities. After exploring this option, she disscovers that Wells Fargo Bank and ICICI have a partnership that allows people send money for only $5. However, even with this solution, she learns that she may need a FCRA (Foregin Contribution Regulation Act) license, which is difficult to get. One solution to get around this that she identifies is to partner with another organization that already has this license. Either way, she identifies that "setting up a strong money trail is the most challenging part of running an organization when your support is coming from abroad but your operations and costs are located closer to home". In order to help herself, she seeks assistance from various partners.

The main lesson that I take away from this situation is the need for a strong network of people who can assist you when starting any new venture, where profit or non-profit. You need people who can assist you in any problem you may face, especially when you don't understand how things work or really understand the lay of the land. If you can network with individuals who understand these intricate situations, you can have a much greater chance of having a successful venture. The best that the author does in this situation is that she does her research and seeks help and partnerships with larger firms/knowledgeable people. By doing this, she was able to find how other firms went through and solved the same problems. This is vital to having a successful venture.

Investing in MSMEs in Mexico

In recent weeks, I wrote about the opportunities to be a social entrepreneur in Mexico. International reviews about economic stability in Mexico gave support to that exercise. This week, I would like to write about why investing in the sector of the micro, small and medium size enterprises (MSMEs) could be a great opportunity. Recent news in Mexico has taken my attention regarding this point.

A few days ago a well-recognized think thank in Mexico – aregional – published a report about Mexican MSMEs. This report started a debate among specialists due to its conclusions. It concludes that only two of every ten MSMEs start-ups surpass the two years old line to be considered successful. The main problem is the lack of credit from development and commercial banks required to develop the MSMEs. Additionally, it sustains that poor management and lack of innovation in processes are two other issues for the low productivity of MSMEs, and their low rate of success.

In consequence, specialists from development and commercial banks react to the report by arguing that the problem is not the lack of credit itself, but the poor conditions of MSMEs to acquire these credits. They affirm that the poor management is linked to the lack of opportunities from government to support MSMEs. They believe that by giving advise to the MSMEs on how to save money and reinvest it in production and management technologies, MSMEs will have the opportunity to be more productive, and therefore have access to more credits.

Current debate on MSMEs describes the problems that these are facing in Mexico. It is clear that poor management and the inability of MSMEs to use technologies and innovate are two key factors to the low rate of success and productivity of this sector. However, government, banks, or other organizations are not advising MSMEs on how to do it.

Any entrepreneur that takes advantage of this crisis could ensure a big market. MSMEs in Mexico represent almost 30% of the GDP, every three of 4 workers are employed by MSMEs, which represent 99.6% of all economic units in Mexico. Investing in ways to improve productivity and success of MSMEs seems to be a great opportunity for social entrepreneurs, especially now that the debate is on the table.

The Art of Bootstrapping

The article, "The Art of Bootstrapping," was an excellent article and should be a read for any start up entrepreneur. This first rule, to mind your cash flows is essential - it always surprises me how often this is overlooked. I basically agree with all the rules asserted. Beyond the first rule, on a technical level I like the idea of bottom up forecasting. People are prone to look at top down always and it seems that even if the estimates that come with such forecasting are accurate (and that is saying something) capacity is often overlooked. It doesn't matter how much demand is if there is a cap on supply. Strategically I really thought the "pick your battles idea" is great. Many people who start businesses are independent and stubborn. This is usually an essential quality, but can lead to picking fights/taking stands that just aren't worth it. Sometimes you need to swallow your pride and take your licks. I also like the idea of position yourself against your competitor. I didn't think about this, but it makes a great deal of sense.

I do take issue with one rule, but only partially  This is the idea that you don't need a proven team. I disagree. While everyone need not be a polished expert, having one or two warhorses to  ride is a good thing. This can help get your name out and build your reputation. When trying to differentiate yourself, a little expertise is required to produce a differentiated product. I have found in smaller businesses that success is based upon the people and not some legacy infrastructure of brand. So I think you do need some high quality talent to boost yourself of the ground.

Other than the proven team aspect, I thought this article was excellent. It was succinct and understandable. While there is some need to just drive into ventures - it is easy to over think them - such a rubric helps an entrepreneur plan strategically and hopefully avoid some of the pain. And don't forget, cash is king!

Tying SIBs to Job Creation

We need to find a new way of product and service differentiation for our social impact bond project.  The reason being if the only point of innovation is a new payout mechanism, it is incredibly easy to replicate.  A competitive advantage is never sustainable if the barriers to entry are low and the potential growth potential is high.  So it occurred to me that we needed to find a competitive advantage though further segmenting our target market.  How are we going to do this? I just so happened to stumble upon an interesting fact that piqued my interest.

“Since the economy began its slow, slow recovery in late 2009, we’ve been averaging about 150,000 jobs created per month.” “In that same period every month, almost 250,000 people have been applying for disability.”

This was incredibly surprising to me given that more people have been applying for disability welfare than actually getting jobs.  Why is this occurring in the United States? Here are more surprising facts regarding the rise of individuals seeking disability insurance which was uncovered by Public Radio International a few weeks ago.

•   The federal government spends more money each year on cash payments for disabled former workers than it does on food stamps and welfare combined; America’s two largest disability programs, including health care for disabled workers, costs taxpayers $260 billion a year

•   In some parts of the country, such as Hale County, Alabama, one out of every four working-age adults collects a disability check

•   As of 2011, 33.8% of newly diagnosed disabled workers cited “back pain and other musculoskeletal problems” as their reason for being unable to work.  In 1961, the top reason for being disabled was “heart disease, stroke”

•   Disabled workers do not get counted in the unemployment figures. If they did, the numbers would be far higher

•   Less than 1% of people who went on disability at the beginning of 2011 have returned to the workforce

•   The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program—which covers kids and adults—has exploded.  SSI is now seven times larger than it was 30 years ago.

This last fact is particularly astonishing in that more kids are going on disability than ever before.  There are a variety of reasons for this new trend, and the federal government is searching for new ways to cut these expenses down. Here is an overview of the growing spending on disability payments as a function of welfare expenditures:

So how can our SIBs deal with the growing government spending on disability? We partner up with organizations that help those on welfare attain jobs, rather than going on disability. The government has buy in to reduce the amount of disability spending, and investors will see returns faster as it is easy to measure government spending on disability year over year.  Furthermore society is better off because more individuals are employed.  Our SIBs will specifically target high risk individuals who are fit to work but do not have employment options. This is a relatively new concept that needs to be explored, but it is a promising new start for a SIB application.  

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/business/economy/disability-insurance-causes-pain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/25/Govt-Spends-More-On-Disability-Than-Food-Stamps-And-Welfare-Combined

The Good, the bad, and the ugly

 It's always interesting to see how people react when you asked them about the start-up company, the excitement in their faces is always priceless. Yet, we do not see the daily struggles of most of these start-companies encounter. The up and downs of starting and owning your own company can often times resemble scenes from a movie; plenty of excitement, drama, and one hell of a roller coaster ride.

Having this in mind made me think of the possibility of launching our own venture sometime in the future. At this point, we have plenty of ideas and work to do. It seems everything we think will work. This is bound to be a success, we have everything in place. But of course after spending sometime with various entrepreneurs I should know better (well at least I think I do). If we were to ever launch our the venture I'm sure we think of the various challenges and risk associated project. Yet, I am sure there would be a skew of unforeseen challenges that would arise. 

As I was reading Kimberly Weisul article of running as risk business it brought a few thoughts to my head. With both Pedro and I focusing our project in Mexico City I am sure we could learn a thing or two from these African Entrepreneurs. Of course with any start-up company there's always risk associated with the venture. Yet if we attempt to crawl before we can walk, so to speak, the likely hood of success will be that much higher (I hope).

The three points that stood out for me were 1) decide what level of achievement counts for success or failure 2) keep cost low in the beginning 3) Establish specific measurable goals of what you plan to provide.  Given that we have not establish credibility with any small business these three key points will prove to be vital for us. From the beginning we have to set realistic goals for ourselves. Yes we need to be ambitious but we need to remain grounded. At the same time we need to focus on keep cost at a low for the organization. While it will defiantly not be easy to launch the venture, I'm sure it be a roll coaster ride doing it.

Bootstrapping

Looking ahead to this week I am anxious to learn “The Art of Bootstrapping”.  Financials are those topics that I always tend to avoid or think we will worry about them later but as the author quoted, ““The leading cause of failure of startups is death, and death happens when you run out of money.”- Craig Johnson

 

Money is such a pest in the way of achieving the greater good of our ventures.  Everyone should want to change the conversation about race or make teachers more effective for our students or make hugging machines available to every child that could benefit from one OR…whatever other fantastic ideas that will do “good.”  But it doesn’t work that way and thank goodness we ask each other those hard questions during stakeholder presentations because I would continue to not answer them and never get anything moving if I didn’t know there would not be someone to ask me those questions and that I have the right answers to them. 

 

The two points that resonated with me from the article:

1)      Start as a service business

I think Amber has done a great job of knowing what she is passionate about and adapting her idea to make the greatest impact.  It is easy to have an idea and not remain flexible as it continues to evolve.  Amber and Mike have already chosen to offer consulting services to meet the need.  I think as the web platform will go through several phases it is important to diversify the available services while working out whatever kinks arise from the platform.  FaceRace will be able to continue to keep the cash flow going while continuing to expand the platform. 

2)      Position against the leader

The conversations about race are hard and uncomfortable, and thus the reason this venture is necessary.  Most users will have some kind of perception of Face Race from a previous diversity training or seminar.  Instead of telling the whole story, we can position our pitch to being…Face Race is like those expensive sessions you have had to sit through before in a large group, but instead is affordable, effective and more personal so you can ask questions without fear of being labeled or misunderstood.  Face Race can also happen on your own time, making it more flexible and used as a  tool rather than an obligation.

Finances may be pesky to me, but understanding and managing them will be imperative to launching any venture.  Joining Amber and Mike has already been a beneficial move for me to learn from others that have far greater financial strengths, backgrounds and real world experiences.  Learning goal this week: Be more comfortable facing those financials and learning “The Art of Bootstrapping.”

Boardgames, Bootstrapping and BHAGs

I love boardgames.  My favorite is Acquire.  In Acquire, the objective is to maximize profit by buying shares of stock in a portfolio of up to seven companies.  Don't spend the money on shares if you can't get ROI.  Players compete against each other to win the cash bonuses that go to the person with the most and second most shares of a company.  Players create and grow the companies by placing adjacent tiles on a alpha-numeric grid.  As the companies grow, the shares grow in value.  When two companies "collide" on the board, the larger takes over the smaller and players can cash out their stock.  Managing cash flow is key--running out of cash guarantees a poor result.  Chasing an "arms races" for majority share of a slowly growing company is another great way to lose.  Over several years, I've come to prefer a strategy of avoiding tying my capital up in the large but eventually very valuable companies.  I've watched too many players--myself included--tie up all of their capital in assets that show great promise but never deliver.  Or they go after the company that is so obviously the most promising that they dash themselves against each other in a hyper-competitive market.

Playing the game in the way I do resonates with my nature.  I'm pretty risk averse and like certainty.  I like to limit my investment and limit risk.  In Acquire, this means I go after small companies that have a shorter cash-out horizon.  In social entrepreneurship, it means that Guy Kawasaki's bootstrapping article resonates strongly.  Cash flow is King, Queen and Prince.  Valuing smaller deals with shorter cash conversion cycles is better than big deals with longer horizons.  Limiting capital investment increases ROI (and limits the downside risk.) The farm I visited in Michigan followed this bootstrapping plan.  They farmed part-time for four years until the demand for their product led one of them to quit her job and go full-time into farming.  After another four years, he also quit his job and they took on their first debt to finance an expansion. 

In Acquire terms, Prof Z has been pushing me to go after the big company--to take the risk and make a larger investment for a larger potential reward in financial and social terms.  This goes against my nature, but his advice resonates with me in two ways:

1. Unlike in a board game, at some point this venture will have to pay its way.  I got bills to pay...
2. Compared to staying small, the marginal potential reward of going big is proportionally much greater than the marginal effort required. 

I think branding, sales and distribution are the most critical success factors early in the game.  Establishing initial high margin distribution channels and customer relationships is the first challenge.  This can be accomplished via bootstrapping.  It can probably be accomplished on a part-time basis.  With a brand and customer relationships established, the table becomes set to go big, to make the investment in energy efficiency, to tackle production methods that are more complex but more sustainable (aquaponics instead of simply hydroponics) to grow a more diversified set of crops.  To grow enough food in Pittsburgh to put the city on the map as a center of urban agriculture.  To a achieve the BHAG.

The question that links the bootstraps to the BHAG is this: how long is and what are the criteria for the test period that will provide the go/no-go decision on pursuing the BHAG?  I figure that I can only be a farmer for two years max: after that, the business needs to be big enough so that I can transition to a more strategic business/distribution role.  Furthermore, my wife and I plan to have kids in the next few years: we have to make decisions on whose career will provide health insurance and who will be the primary caretaker (we could go either way at this point.)  (I think the best case for divorcing our health insurance system from employers is arguing that it will facilitate entrepreneurship, by the way.)

Here's my back of the envelope schedule to link the bootstrap and BHAG phases.

1. Grow a very small amount of hydroponic lettuce this summer - no greenhouse, no fish, no heating.  Get our product and BHAG vision in front of customers and partners.
2. Shut down the operations this winter.  Find a used greenhouse and put it up.  Utilize a heating system that has low fixed costs but higher variable costs (natural gas heater instead of geothermal)
3. Graduate in Dec 2013.  On January 1st, make the leap.  Start hydroponic lettuce production.  If we couldn't find a used greenhouse, delay production until warmer weather. 
4. In the fall of 2014, make the decision on whether to go big.  Continue current production under the greenhouse, but assemble the pieces of the BHAG: geothermal heating, nicer greenhouses, pursue a partnership with Penn St. to perfect aquaponic farming in this climate.  Assemble funding.
5. Put up the additional 3-4 greenhouses in early 2015.  Wait until warm weather to start production.  Install the geothermal during summer/fall when heating isn't required so that cash flow from the spring/summer can finance as much of the investment as possible.  2015-2016 is the first winter of full-out winter lettuce production
6. Spend the summer of 2016 pursuing aquaponics/different vegetables.  Scale up from there. 

The Tension Between Bootstrapping and Grandstanding

“Do you have any questions?”

I asked knowing that he would likely be full of them.  He’s the CEO of a successful higher education start-up – he’s done all of this before.  I was nervous as I coordinated this meeting in the first place, not knowing if it was the right time to consult with an established entrepreneur in this field.  I had given him all of our updates, including steps we have taken over the past six months to prepare for where we are today.  He probably has tons of questions…maybe I shared too much at once?

“Actually I only have one question right now.”

Crap.  One question?  Are we that dull that our lifetime of existence as a company arouses a singular thought?  How bad will this sting?  I bet he’ll ask why we are even bothering to pursue this.

“How many customers do you currently have?”

Customers?  We don’t even have a website yet.  How can he ask us that?  I cannot credibly walk into a company’s office without any established system and expect credibility.  Did he expect that of us?

“We don’t have any.  We’re working to get the platf—“

“Alright, well that’s where you need to start.  Customers.  Stop everything else and focus there.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I learned a valuable lesson in bootstrapping that day.  I had earned a coveted time slot with the CEO of a successful higher education start-up, only to hear that all of our progress, meetings and development until now meant squat without some measure of customer interest.

The CEO rattled off ideas for testing our service as one might recite the alphabet.  Survey your classmates, ask for specific skill sets, find a champion at your school to assist in the development, give your service away for free at first…and on and on.  While I was relieved to have a new direction in which to move, I felt incredibly inadequate for not taking any of these steps earlier.

This week’s reading on bootstrapping was exactly what I was being taught in that meeting.  I had a grand vision for how a clean roll-out of our service would occur.  The website would look professional, the internal systems would all be in place, and our staff would be robust and ready for the response. 

And then pigs would fly, or so I was told.

The work of an entrepreneur is far from glamorous.  It is said that Jeff Bezos started Amazon in the lavish confines of…his garage.  He didn’t make a dollar of profit for six years.  How did I not anticipate my venture would start in a similar, gritty fashion?

My suspicion is that for as much as young entrepreneurs are expected to be scrappy, the availability of investors and angel dollars means that a veneer of professional stability seemingly needs to be maintained as well.  You don’t really know who might be interested in your business, so you might try and convey an image of sophistication, rationality and constancy.

By the end of that meeting, I was convinced that I would be better at promoting and selling my business if I could forget about most of that polished impression I was trying to create.  In reality, angels tend to like the ugliness of starting a business – it means you want something so bad that no amount of money, staffing or setbacks can keep you from making your business work.

Are you seeking to create an impression of your business that is antithetical to your progress?

Source:

“The Art of Bootstrapping” (Kawasaki, January 2006) at:

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_art_of_boot.html#axzz19dBNaSsa

A refinement of our venture's scope

Our discussion with Prof. Zak on our feasibility plan has generated new insights for us. We probably have missed addressing two crucial questions that might significantly impact our financial sustainability and attractiveness:

1) What plan do we have for the off-season/dry season?
2) Have we considered customization to make our product distinctive from our competitors?

Given the nature of our venture that sales will only occur during the wet season (from November to June), we need to look for other opportunities to keep our cash flow positive in the remaining six months since we will still have to pay for operational costs. This problem was quite hard to solve as initially we were focusing on how to generate revenues from our raincoat sales. But then I realized that some functions of the raincoat are still relevant to be applied in other motorcycle apparels. For instance, motorcycle is the number one cause of road accidents in Jakarta, so safety improvement is a nice selling point. We can sell similar products that have the same objectives, such as jackets with extra safety features. By similar products, I mean products that have a similar manufacturing process, so we don't have to invest on new equipment, although we also have to do a market research to determine which features should be added. (My answer to the second question can facilitate this need: Online shopping can perform as our market research.)

Furthermore, I agree that offering a standardized product might not be enough to differentiate our product from the competitors. We need to make a product that can be customized. I got this idea from Dell computer that sells customized laptops through their website. They’re not offering a completely different laptop, but by giving more freedom to customers to pick features they want for their computers, Dell has created a very distinctive selling point. I think this idea is very relevant for our venture. Why?

First, none of the established competitors offer a raincoat that is customizable. Even if they do, I suspect that the process would be cumbersome and the final price more expensive than a mass product. I think we can utilize our two potential distribution channels (bike shops and our website) to sell both mass and customized products. Our online shop is suitable to sell the customized products. We can provide an interactive app on our website so that customers can pick the colors they like for their raincoats, add extra features they want or create a logo. I think online shopping is a very convenient way to buy a customized product. The results of our online sales can also perform as a market research: In the bike shops, we can sell basic raincoats with most picked features from our online shop.

Second, by offering customized and mass products, we can target a broader price range. I initially thought that we have to target “in-between” price range, i.e. a price range between the generic and premium markets, in order to capture customers from both markets. However, by selling customized products, we give our customers more freedom to determine their own price. If they don’t need a flashy raincoat, they can eliminate extra features and get a lower price. Thus, this strategy allows us to penetrate both the generic and premium markets.

Rethinking Social Ventures

After spending more then half of the semester in this new world of Social Ventures, it seems that most ventures start with the idea of helping people in some capacity. After the entrepreneur fleshes out how they want to create social impact, they then build a business around it. I wonder if this is the only way to go about creating social ventures. I wonder if you can change the thinking - what if you started with a business concept and found a way to create social impact from the concept? It seems that most ventures fail because they are not financially sustainable. The entrepreneur spends too much time trying to make sure that the venture can create social impact and does not create a financially viable business. As a finance major, creating a financially viable business is my number one thought.

In order to decipher the feasibility of this, I want to start by starting a discussion around my friends new venture - Midnight Madness Distilling LLC. My friend, Anthony Lorubbio is the current CEO of Midnight Madness Distilling. He, along with his two partners are all CMU undergraduate students. Their main product is supposed to be Synth, a product marketed as an absinthe liqueur. However, in order to gain some cash while they flesh out the finer details of Synth, they launched their first product, fortis vida - a craft vodka distilled from 100% organic sugar cane. If you're interested in learning more about their product, feel free to check them out at http://fortisvodka.com. Currently, Midnight Madness Distilling is a for profit business. However, I think that it is possible to turn this into a social venture. As a finance major, the first social problem I see is unemployment. It is a huge problem for the economy when people cannot find work. I think in order to help solve this problem, Midnight Madness Distilling could only hire people to work in the distillery or hire people to join the salesforce who are currently unemployed. This would provide Midnight Madness Distilling with cheap labor, while helping unemployment go down. Another way to turn this for profit business into a social venture could be to allow people to return used bottles back to the store. Depending on whether Midnight Madness Distilling opens their own stores or distributes through retailers, they could offer some sort of incentive for returning the used bottle, such as a couple dollars of their next purchase. Midnight Madness Distilling could then recycle the bottle, which would help reduce waste, since most people do not recycle. Another benefit could be that Midnight Madness Distilling would get money from recycling. They could then use this money to create a charity fund. This fund could go to numerous amount of causes, such as finding a cure for caner or helping children in poverty.

Thinking about this one business and applying this thought process gave me what I believe to be some viable way to turn this for profit business into a social venture. I wonder if more social ventures would have a higher success rate as far as financial feasibility if other start ups employed this thought process.