| It should be easier. Agreed. We have not yet mastered the operations side of MassChallenge (and I lose significant sleep over it). But it really isn't that hard, and there is explicit logic in every step. If you are even remotely serious as an entrepreneur, you should be able to get 4 diamond endorsements with a handful of emails/phone calls - each of them with an expert in your industry who has an opportunity to publicly support you without spending a dime. That process encourages startups to network/pitch and is intended to create or strengthen bonds with helpful resources. These resources are not isolated to MA by the way. Likewise, if you are even remotely serious about your startup, you should be able to get your friends/network to rate your company profile 5 stars very easily. This encourages you to promote your startup and seek support from your community. Easy stuff. No cost. Something you should be doing anyway. Keep in mind, the endorsements and team ratings are worth only 10% of the judging score each. We had teams enter and win last year with zero endorsement points and zero ratings. (I don't recommend that as a strategy, but it's possible). The application form itself is very basic: 10 questions, with short character limits. All standard stuff. |
I dont think 'serious' entrepreneurship involves calling people and getting them to agree to give you a point in some scheme when it is of no cost to them.
How about putting your energy into getting users or finishing your product, is that an endorsement that 'serious entrepreneurs' should be pursuing?
I also don't understand why you are asking for an application fee, especially considering how expensive it can be for bootstrap businesses and international startups. You are, afterall, looking for companies to fund - putting a financial barrier to applying will only reduce the field. I am also not comfortable with companies who pay to apply and then who don't make it blowing that fee.
Your title is also misleading. It isn't $1M, it is up to 100k. Just be straight up.
The intentions here are good, but the model is totally backward