Grant revenue is not revenue. I'm all for non-dilutive funding, if and only if the SBIR/STTR-funded project accelerates your strategy with development of a product that will be sold (so science fair projects). However... *grant revenue is not validation dollars on the top line.* What you have shown is an ability to write grants, the basis for the research that led to the startup (in the case of academic spin-outs) in the first place. What you have not shown is 💸 the desire for customers to purchase your product(s) ➡ an ability to articulate a go-to-market plan, or 🔐 a down in the trenches understanding of product-market fit. Startups are a game of the quick and dead -- take the time and money you would spend writing these grants early in the life of your company and hit the road, listen to your customers, learn where and how your products fit, and start selling. Your P&L shows me your real progress there -- As an investor and advisor, I would rather see $10,000 in revenue from sales from a handful of customers in 2 quarters than a X% chance you get a $1M grant in 9 months.
Complete and Comprehensive Cellular Profiling
1yI love the “get into the market… and do it NOW!” messaging, and I subscribe to it 100%. It’s worth highlighting too that if you’re writing for an SBIR, you owe it to yourself and the taxpayer to demonstrate the three points you’re listing in the grant itself. You will always be better off - grant or not - when you do the customer discovery/desire work, have a clear go to market plan, and know your scientific application deeply. So short response: Amen, brother Mike!