“so ideally we would convince civic leaders/funders to back a new kind of organization that helps people start and sustain tech businesses – mostly product companies. No offense to@ElizabethEadie, but service businesses are way easier to start and we already have many of them in the area. We need some more high risk, high reward product companies.”
I received some interesting responses to my post about the GBTC shakeup. The quote above was taken from a chat room that was supposed to give GBTC a direct line to we, the outspoken. What I got was called out by someone (who I don’t believe represents the GBTC) for essentially being unworthy of their group. Of course, this happens when I’m offline.
1. Let’s define “product.” A car part? A medical device? I don’t know, a greeting card? Or a digital product? Like an app. Or a website? Tax purposes aside, there is a nice fat gray area where one’s website can be a product or a service.
2. Any business ecosystem that says they already have enough will stagnate. Keep using the same designers and your designs will keep looking the same. Baltimore business & tech scene, of all places, should never try to shut anyone out. It absolutely cannot afford to.
It’s funny, I left this part out of my story about when I first met Sharon (former GBTC Executive Director). I told her how I didn’t feel like there was a place for me to fit into this ecosystem. I’m here because of my husband’s career. Who in their right mind would leave LA for Baltimore? And if I had a choice, I would leave. Move my business elsewhere.
That was in January of this year. In the months that followed, I was passed over for design work in the tech scene. Ignored by others even after they’d called me in for meetings. But I also got accepted into the Founders Institute as an individual (designers have ideas, too, you know). And I started a greeting card company that’s growing. And I was asked to blog for the CBS-Baltimore website. I openly credit some of these successes to being in Baltimore.
So, where do I stand now?
Still in business.
I’m not interested in joining a women’s networking group, don’t want a life coach, not interested in going to business classes in another county, starting a fashion-anything, or speaking at events.
I want to making a living by making things. If paper things are too low tech and apps and websites aren’t products, fine.
Maybe GBTC’s just not for me. And really, that’s ok.
It has been an “interesting” week to say the least, Elizabeth… an emotional roller coaster for those of us close to what’s happened at GBTC.
My update: Things are still fluid, but after some conversations over the last couple of days and into last evening, it is clear to me that GBTC is actually going to move quickly in a *more* inclusive direction than even I had hoped. I’ll report back with details as soon as they are hammered out, but that will happen in a matter of days, not months.
In semi-defense of the person quoted above, I’d say it is very easy for rapid-fire chatroom-style discussions to come off as an unintentionally glib. My personal view is that, sure, different kinds of businesses have different needs, but I haven’t met anyone in any line of work in Baltimore who couldn’t use some support, connection, and encouragement. “High-risk, high reward companies” have some critical needs that have been lacking in Baltimore, but they don’t make up the entire picture (nor do small software shops or large corporations). I think of it as a coral reef teeming with different species. Do they need one another? Probably much more than they realize.
I believe that designers, design services, and design thinking are *essential*, not optional components of a healthy tech-driven business ecosystem.
As an aside, from 3D printing to ETSY sellers online, isn’t there an increasingly blurry distinction between those “in tech” and those who are “makers of things.” Are “scale” and “craft” still opposites?
Great post! I love your attitude about saying, “screw it, I’m going to focus on what I want to make and not talk about it.”
I’m right there with you.
M
Elizabeth, interesting read. I’ve been building web stuff in Baltimore for about 4 years an never felt quite at home in the start-up focused Bmore tech scene. Like a lot of the people, but it seems to be focused heavily on things I’m less interested in as far as starting my own company, etc.
There’s obviously a place for us here, but I wonder if there is enough of a difference between startup tech folks and web site makers (or whatever you would call those 2 or more groups) to be worth a closer look.
hi Elizabeth, I’m composing a larger response on my own blog but I need to sit on that post for a day or two to make sure I don’t compound the error I made on Convore. I was speaking in the heat of the moment when we thought GBTC was abandoning entrepreneurs and startups. I apologize for being too glib and implying that Baltimore doesn’t value what you do. That’s completely not what I meant to say. I do think you quoted me way out of context (like all of the other statements I made in Convore where I supported this contention more reasonably). I’m going to provide that context in a day or two.
Thanks for sharing Elizabeth. This is a hot topic for debate; am I a company offering services, one offering products, or a hybrid in between? I remember reading some great descriptions and advice on these different entities on Mark Suster’s blog, http://bit.ly/dH0UJr (« HIGHLY recommend reading this entire post)
You seem to be building both a service business (Wellmade Design Co.) and a product business (Social Proper). From what it appears, you have no interest in raising any venture capital for either of these businesses and rightfully so. Raising money = debt. But, from an investor’s perspective, Social Proper is a much more interesting investment. You’ve created a brand around those products that could be easily scaled with investment and before you know it, you’re competing with Hallmark and American Greetings. It’s clear that you would rather keep Social Proper a lifestyle business while continuing to consult under Wellmade, which is totally fine. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Regarding where you see yourself fitting into the “Baltimore Tech” community, it’s clear that there are a lot of different definitions circulating who and what this community is. The truth is, the tech community is ubiquitous. There is no definition or boundary. For example, my barber uses a lot of technology in his business and maybe he considers himself part of this community, and that’s fine. You shouldn’t feel shut out and I’m sorry if you do, especially if I’m personally to blame for that.
The GBTC is having a bit of an identity transition so I wouldn’t – in fact none of us should – assume that they are the governing powers of #BmoreTech. They’re just another support structure that may or may not cater to your needs. Therefore being a member of the GBTC should have no correaltion to your sense of inclusion in the tech community. If you realize they aren’t of any value to you, pay them no attention and focus on finding ways to leverage the much greater #BmoreTech.
Finally, I know you said you went to Sharon to talk about how you feel snubbed by our community. I’d imagine she was wearing her GBTC hat when talking with you and not her #BmoreTech hat. If I’m wrong, she’ll still be a resource for you. I like to ask myself, “Is this person passionate about building community or being paid to?” Typically those who fall in the latter category will help you find what’s best for *you*.
Chin up. You’re talented as hell from both a design and professional point of view. You’re truly a doll and one of my favorite voices in #BmoreTech.
“Latter category” should read “former category”.
Up front: I’m really grateful that we’re earnestly engaged in this conversation. I think it speaks to the underlying health of the Baltimore community that we’re grappling carefully with some pretty deep, pretty personal (and emotional) questions of self-identity.
I’ve often been vocal about my personal preference for going small, instead of going big. I’ve pushed back on the lionization of startups. Sometimes I’ve probably pushed back too hard.
I’ve had enough conversations with Mike Subelsky that I feel confident he didn’t mean to come across the way his quote sounded. (He has actually helped me develop my own respect for the health and power of small business.)
And yet I also instantly wanted to share Elizabeth’s post, because I recognize in her experience aspects of my own experience.
It’s a tricky thing to find the right balance.
Case in point: Mike Brenner, you’re one of the most hard-working, positive, and constructive guys in town. We’ve talked about these kinds of things in the past, and I feel like you really understand what we’re trying to do at Figure 53, and genuinely respect the approach we’re taking. Simultaneously, I’m really excited to see the work you’re doing on the “big bold startup” side of Baltimore, and at the end of the day I think it’s a crucial part of a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem. Yet even with all that, when I read your (good, constructive) reply above, and I got to the phrase “lifestyle business”, I had a little emotional flare-up, like “GAH, I hate that phrase!”
To me, “lifestyle business” is a phrase that captures some of what is fueling the emotional conversation over the last few days. It’s dismissive, and replaces a spectrum of entrepreneurship with a false dichotomy.
- When I worked full time in Columbia, and did Figure 53 on nights and weekends, was that a lifestyle side-business?
- When I started working full time on Figure 53, that was probably a lifestyle business, right?
- Now that it’s 7 full-time positions, is that a lifestyle business?
- In three years when Tixato becomes a leading theatrical ticketing service, and we’ve hired 20-30 more people to support, develop, manage, and market it, that’s probably not a lifestyle business, right? But it’s too old to be a startup….
Finally, behind all of these questions of self-identify, philosophy, goals, and entrepreneurial styles, the last few days include a “background radiation” of gender dynamics. I’m going to take a wild guess that the GBTC board is mostly white males. A female leader was abruptly kicked out of her job by a group of men in a male-dominated field, after very little time in that position. In a conversation about who is welcome and who is not welcome, who is included and who is not included, that isn’t an incidental fact. It necessarily becomes a part of the message the GBTC sends to the community.
It’s similar to the subtly mixed messages that I’d argue are to be found in your last paragraph. Unpack the word “doll” there a little bit – does that word send the right message? I’d argue maybe it doesn’t. And unpacking that sort of thing is important if we’re going to have a tech community where everyone feels they are welcome and can contribute in their own unique way.
Chris — respect your points, but just one point of clarification. First, there is a lot of diversity on the GBTC board, including several smart, accomplished females and people of color with diverse backgrounds. The changes there have nothing at all to do with gender dynamics. I’d put that line of thinking out of your mind. The only goal of the board is and has been to find the best candidate for the task at any given time.
Second, I want to say that I am on the GBTC board but due to my own personal travel schedule and business obligations had little to nothing to do with the recent events at hand. That said, I understand the choices made by Jason Pappas and the board and agree with them, and suggest that they are motivated by nothing less than a sincere desire to move things forward. I’d discourage folks from reading anything else into these changes.
Thanks for the reply and additional perspective Dave.
Dave, based on the GBTC’s website ( http://www.gbtechcouncil.org/?page=Board ) there are a 4 or 5 women on a board of 35 people. I don’t agree that this represents a lot of diversity.
To be clear, I’m not saying that gender was a conscious motivating factor in the decision. Nor would I have any reason to disbelieve that the board was making a good faith effort to simply find the best candidate at the time. But gender is unavoidably part of the story, and owning that is the first step to making it a healthy part of the story instead of an unhealthy one.
(Sidenote: I say this keenly aware that at the time of writing my own company is composed of 100% white men.)
Here’s my response (and apology) to this post:
http://www.subelsky.com/2011/12/what-is-tech-community-and-who-belongs.html