4iP pushing forward, the right way...

[Sam Collins]

All too often I hear about ideas where the success of the project lies in having a large number of users – the usual “and then with all these users it works amazingly like this and that and opens up the potential for so and so”. This is the point where in mid-conversation I frown; I’m not listening to the potential, I’m listening to the mechanisms that get it to the point of providing this potential.

This is really a simple thing: a huge following of people can pretty much make anything successful. Making cool features with a huge community isn’t the challenge, and if you think it is, go back and think some more. The challenge is in providing something really useful or compelling, that works for small numbers of users and as it grows it just becomes better.

Listening to Ewan present the concept of 4iP in Edinburgh on Wednesday, and in subsequent discussions with him, it’s clear to me, that this is a new kind of support. It sounds like people are throwing all sorts of questions at him and are really confused as to what 4iP is. This is because it’s not your traditional investment body, it’s different, and I’m really glad to see this starting to happen.

The problem with innovation – is that it’s new. Creating something new presents the following hurdles:

a) It’s very hard to think of; you can’t just replicate, you need to think.
b) You have no historical comparisons to show how it might evolve.
c) You need to understand all the elements in the foundation of the idea, the factors leading to growth and most importantly, the factors leading to failure. This provides an estimate for b).
d) They are hard to get financial support for until the impressive growth is recorded and a business model is verified, at least with traditional investment bodies.

In my opinion, and referring to media based projects, 4iP now provides a resource for this innovation. And the selection criteria make sense, so listen to the feedback. Yes of course you need confidence in your project to bounce off the critics’ harsh words, but not blind confidence. You should be listening to everything and if you can explain why a criticism is invalid, then you may continue with your journey, if you’re stuck for a justification, go fix what was just pointed out to you.

This is completely subjective, and I accept all criticism, but many projects that I would give a mid-conversational frown to get support and a boost of confidence to push forward instead of fixing the flaws. If we’re going to be really big and great, and push the envelope, we shouldn’t be looking at creating a new LinkedIn or a more elaborate Flickr. We should be pushing past that and not striving to create a destination site, but deliver a functional or compelling product or service. If your product or service is very, very successful, then it may evolve into a destination site, but you can’t aim for this as a critical step in the success of your project.

Nigel Eccles from Hubdub explains how the economic disruptions provide the perfect circumstances for us (the innovative startups) to push forward and deliver exceptional ideas. The biggest problem is obtaining cash to get your idea running; it was tough before, now it’s rubbish. But here is where I feel 4iP can help, if you truly have a bright new project (bearing in mind everything I have just said) – go speak to them, they aren’t existing as a fund to make 10x returns, they’re here to help us push the envelope.

[Stuart Cosgrove]

Listening to Ewan present the concept of 4iP in Edinburgh on Wednesday, and in subsequent discussions with him, it’s clear to me, that this is a new kind of support. It sounds like people are throwing all sorts of questions at him and are really confused as to what 4iP is. This is because it’s not your traditional investment body, it’s different, and I’m really glad to see this starting to happen.

I also think we have been quite poor at articulating it. The first five or six live projects will help. Although we are in a new space, and trying to balance partnerships, innovation beyond TV, public purpose and business growth, it can confuse. We are also prone to a daliance with the coded-language of digital media, which loves itself and fetishises new ways of saying quite simple things.

Its also true as you say that because its not a VC Fund and not led by the idea of maximising for profit it sits aside and aprt from many other funds. That said so did Channel 4 when it first came along. No one could imagine a TV company with no studios, that didn't make shows and worked only with formative small companies.