Crowdfunding ROI: $813 per hour invested

https://www.kickstarter.com/download/kickstarter-badge-funded.png
image via kickstarter.com

We’ve all seen and heard about people and companies with novel ideas getting funded on sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo. There are many anecdotes of ideas going viral and raising lots of cash. There are also plenty of ideas that either don’t get funded at all or fail to reach their target. A new study reports that in terms of crowdfunding ROI, you can expect to receive about $813 for every hour you invest in a successful crowdfunding project.

It would be helpful to look at crowdfunding at a high level and get some questions answered about this relatively new fundraising alternative. Forbes magazine recently reported on a new report about crowdfunding published by Capital Crowdfund Advisors (CCA). In August 2013, CCA interviewed several hundred organizations in North America, Europe and Africa that had completed successful crowdfunding campaigns.

Here are some of the most relevant questions asked by CCA and reported by Forbes:

  1. Does crowdfunding increase sales?
  2. Does crowdfunding create jobs?
  3. Does crowdfunding help attract follow-on investment?

First of all, yes, crowdfunding does have a positive effect on sales. The effect was modest when considering all three crowdfunding modes: rewards, debt, and equity. (Yes, you can now raise equity with crowdfunding. Be sure to speak to a savvy attorney first!) The sales increase for the equity crowdfunding mode was dramatic: an average of 341% increase in quarterly sales after the successful campaign.

Crowdfunding was shown to have only a small positive effect on job creation with 39% of those surveyed hiring an average of 2.2 new employees and an additional 48% planning to increase hiring by an unspecified amount.

As for helping to attract new investors, it appears that successful crowdfunding has positive effects: 28% of those surveyed completed rounds of traditional investment with angels or venture capitalists within three months of the conclusion of their campaigns and 43% more were in talks with institutional investors.

How much was raised in a typical crowdfunding project? From the Forbes article:

In this report’s sampling, the average raised across all methods was $107,810 (with a mean of $40,300, as some results were exceptionally large). For an equity raise, the average was even higher, producing the U.S. equivalent of $178,790. In the process, firms sold between 5% and 50% of their companies, with an average of 15%.

Kickstarter even publishes its latest stats on projects and funding. Projects on Kickstarter have raised $985 million to date for 133,565 projects from 5,648,063 individual backers. This is microfunding on a major scale.

Read more: New Report: The ROI Of Crowdfunding – Forbes.

Takeaways: Fundraising for early stage medical device companies continues to be challenging. Federal government grant money has been shrinking and more companies than ever are competing for the same pot of cash. Angel investors and venture capital firms have become more risk-averse as have the strategic investment activities of the large medical device companies. Crowdfunding, while no panacea, may be an another funding option for early stage medical device companies.

Keep in mind that you will probably not be able to launch your medical device using just the proceeds from a crowdfunding campaign. Medical device commercialization is costly. Crowdfunding proceeds should be earmarked for a specific purpose such as building an early prototype or conducting an important test In other words, reduce risk so you can attract follow-on investment from more conservative investors.

While Kickstarter specifically prohibits medical products, other crowdfunding websites are more open. Here is a very cool (and useful) road map from Inc. Magazine that identifies the ideal crowdfunding site for your Big Idea. Not mentioned by Inc. but nonetheless specific to medical devices and medical technology, Medstartr is another crowdfunding site to investigate and consider.

Ranking the best places for healthcare startups

http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1Top50ExitsNew.png
image via CBinsights.com

Silicon Valley is Mecca for technology companies. When it comes to ranking the best places for healthcare startups, however, the global technology hub seems to be not as dominant.

A common method for ranking the best places for startups is to quantify the number of exits and aggregate valuation in a given time period. A recent report by CB Insights, an investor service focused on early stage companies and emerging industries, says that Massachusetts and not the Bay Area has been more successful in exits for VC-backed healthcare startups.

Healthcare startup categories included medical device, biotech, and pharmaceutical companies.

The analysis also shows that other regions are competitive as well. Southern California had the next highest number of exits in the same time period, 2012-present.

http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/5ValueCreationTableNewFinal.png

The CBinsights report looked at the startup exit data in another way that highlights differences between the regions more clearly. They defined another metric, “Value Creation”. Value Creation is the ratio of the average exit value of a company in the region to the average VC investment in a company in that region. So bigger is better.

As seen in the table, New York comes out on top in this ranking while Silicon Valley lags at little more than half of the New York number. My home state of Washington is even lower on the list. This ranking may reveal why certain regions seem to have an easier time attracting venture capital investment than others. One last and very interesting note: the Value Creation metrics for technology companies are much higher than for healthcare companies. It starts to become clear why there is a dearth of capital investment in the healthcare space. If you are a VC, would you put your money in healthcare or technology?

Takeaways: Although no single city or region in the U.S. dominates when it comes to a great location for healthcare startups, there are a few conclusions that can be drawn from the report.

The East Coast  – Massachusetts in particular but also the New York/New Jersey/Pennsylvania tri-state areas are very strong in healthcare startups. Obvious reasons include major population centers for access to a talented and experienced employee pool, large numbers of world-class research universities and medical centers, and close proximity to financial hubs.

Of course, other locations such as Minneapolis, the San Francisco Bay Area (including Silicon Valley), Southern California, and the Seattle Metro area have their drawing power as well. Some of the additional factors include lifestyle, proximity to the FDA and other government officials, and being part of an industry “cluster” (medical device in Minneapolis, biotech in the Bay Area for example).

Read more:

Silicon Valley doesn’t dominate when it comes to VC-backed healthcare exits.

Silicon Valley is Second to Massachusetts for Venture Capital-backed Healthcare Exits.

MedTech Startup Red Flags to Watch Out For and to Guard Against

Red flagIn an amusing series of articles and blog posts last week, biotech veterans and observers traded their favorite red flags that investors must watch for when considering biotech investment.

Most of these caveats also apply to medical device companies. On the flip side, startup CEOs should be forewarned and forearmed to not make the same mistakes when pitching and/or structuring their companies. They are on to you…

Here are a few of my favorite caveats:

[from Luke Timmerman at Xconomy]
  • Watch out for weak science or results that can’t be reproduced by third party researchers.
  • The company story is too complicated and can’t be reduced to an elevator pitch.
  • “There is no competition.”
  • No plan to demonstrate outcomes or show clinical and financial benefits to the healthcare system.
  • “Rent-a-luminaries” make up the Medical/Clinical/Scientific Advisory Boards.
[from David Sable, physician and venture capitalist]
  • CEO is clueless around investors
  • CEO is inflexible and won’t deviate from the rehearsed pitch
[from Christopher Henney, co-founder of Immunex, Icos, and Dendreon]
  • Too many VCs on the board
  • Family members in key management or board positions

I’m sure these three veterans have seen and/or interviewed dozens, if not hundreds of startup CEOs and their pitches.

Takeaways: Simple is best. Use a template to develop your pitch – they are easily found. Don’t deviate (at least not too much) from standard practices for startups in your industry segment and in your geographic area. It’s easier than ever to get a negative reputation. You may be able to get past one round with a sketchy pitch or objectionable governance. The stakes keep going up, however, and you risk everything by not being able to secure financing all the way to market launch. Do yourself and all of your stakeholders a huge favor and address the red flags before the investors see them.

Read more:

21 Red Flags to Watch for in a Biotech Company | Xconomy.

Six Red Flags to Watch Out For in a Biotech, From Dendreon Co-Founder Chris Henney | Xconomy.

A few more biotech red flags (h/t @ldtimmerman) – David Sable .

Prosthetic Hands May Soon Gain the Sense of Touch

Someday in the not too distant future, amputees with prosthetic hands may gain the sense of touch.
image via discovery.com

This research being conducted at the University of Chicago could be a major advance in robotics and prosthetic technology. Amputees today have no way to “feel” their prosthesis except to watch it as it moves. Someday in the not too distant future, amputees with prosthetic hands may gain the sense of touch.

Using monkeys, the researchers first identified specific areas of the brain that corresponded with their fingers. Then the scientists connected electronic strain gages in the prosthetic hand to those specific areas in the brain. Using software, the scientists were able to successfully identify a “contact event” at the prosthetic hand from the monkey’s brain and to create a sense of pressure.

An important next step would be to control the prosthetic hand with the brain and to be able to apply force with feedback so the brain can sense what and with how much force the hand is touching.

The research work was partially funded by the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is well-known for sponsoring high risk, long term research activity. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in large numbers of U.S. military amputees, creating an ongoing and increasing need for improved prosthetic technologies.

Takeaways: There are non-obvious sources of funding early technology development work. DARPA is a great example but there are plenty of others. In the government, NIH, CDC, and NSF have ongoing research grant programs. There are other military programs as well, for example, TATRC. Yes, there is competition for these grant dollars so you need to make a strong case for the technology and the problems it solves. There is also the possibility that the researchers have no intention of commercializing their technology. In that case, it is possible for a company to license and commercialize the technology on its own.

        Read more: How to Give Prosthetic Hands Touch Sense : Discovery News.

Medical Device Startup Fundraising: 5 keys for your pitch

Woman presentingIf you are leading a medical device startup, fundraising is your top priority. Here are five key points that you must address in every pitch that you make, no matter if it’s for a grant, seed investment from friends and family, angel investment, venture capital funding, or strategic partnerships with multinational medical device companies.

From the article:

  • Be clear on what your product is, right up front
  • Articulate the important problem you are solving
  • Define your customers
  • Spell out how you will create value with the $$ you are raising
  • Instill confidence in you and your team

Another way to look at the pitch is to think of it in terms of risk reduction. Most experienced investors talk about three main areas of risk in startup investing:

  • Technical Risk
  • Market Risk
  • Execution Risk

Investors will not move forward with an opportunity unless they believe that these key risks have been addressed and are below their personal threshold. Of course, you will never know that threshold so you must work to convince the investor that you have mitigated the three risks to the maximum extent possible.

Technical risk is all about the product or solution. Does your product solve the customer’s problem? Have you built a working prototype? Do you have an animal model? Have you performed animal testing? Are there important technical issues yet to be resolved? Do you have any intellectual property protection? Have you conducted a freedom to operate analysis? Does your product or solution depend on products or IP owned by other companies? Have you conducted beta testing? What’s your regulatory classification and plan? Are there more products in the pipeline?

Market risk is about the customer(s). Have you identified the problem? Is the problem a large one? Is the market opportunity big enough to justify the investment? Who are the customers? Why will they buy from you? What’s the competition (and don’t make the rookie mistake of saying that there is no competition)? Do you have evidence of demand? Do you have testimonials or at least interest from Key Opinion Leader customers? How do you plan to distribute and sell your product? How does your product or solution fit in today’s environment of managed care, healthcare reform, and evidence-based medicine? What’s your reimbursement strategy and plan?

Execution risk is about you and your team’s ability to convince investors that you can use their money to execute your plan. Does your team have the talent and experience to successfully commercialize your product? Do you have experienced and knowledgeable advisors, both business and clinical? Do you have a credible business model? What are your key milestones? What’s your exit strategy? Do you have a detailed pro forma income statement, especially for the period up to launch and for the two years after launch? Will you execute it exactly as conceived? Of course not, but you should be confident in your plan and your ability to execute. You should also have detailed contingency plans for the inevitable crisis when things go awry. 

Takeaways: Like many things, being successful at medical device fundraising requires being a great salesperson. Whether it’s a surgeon or an investor you’re selling to, put yourself in the place of that person. Be sure to address the five key points with details, evidence, and background information: product, problem, customer, milestones, team. Also keep in mind the risk tolerance of the investor. Your ability to communicate mitigation of technical risk, market risk, and execution risk will determine your success in fundraising.

Read more: Medical Device Startups: 5 essentials for your pitch deck | MassDevice.

A Cautionary Tale: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | The Seattle Times

Atossa Genetics is an early stage biotechnology company in Seattle developing breast cancer diagnostic tests and medical devices using molecular diagnostic technology. The publicly traded company ran afoul of FDA regulations earlier this year and last week announced a voluntary recall of its products, causing its stock to tank.

The company bills itself as “the breast health company (TM).” Atossa is small, with only ten full-time employees (at least five of whom are senior management executives) according to Yahoo Finance.

Here’s a timeline of company events:

  • November 8, 2012 Atossa Genetics, Inc. Announces Initial Public Offering (NASDAQ exchange, IPO value $4 million). That’s not a typo. It really was $4 million, 800,000 shares at $5 per share.
  • February 21, 2013 Atossa Genetics, Inc. received a Warning Letter from the FDA regarding its Mammary Aspirate Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) System and MASCT System Collection Test. From the company’s press release:

“The FDA alleges in the Letter that following 510(k) clearance the Company changed the System in a manner that requires submission of an additional 510(k) notification to the FDA.”

  • March – September 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. continues marketing its products, announcing numerous distribution and partnering agreements as well as supporting women’s health events.
  • September 18, 2013 The company’s stock closes up almost 21% in one day at $6.00 on volume of more than 8.4 million shares traded when it announces a distribution agreement with medical distributor McKesson.
  • October 4, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. initiated a voluntary recall to remove the ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and the Mammary Aspiration Specimen Cytology Test (MASCT) device from the market. This voluntary recall includes the MASCT System Kit and Patient Sample Kit.
  • October 7, 2013 Atossa Genetics Inc. stock opens at $5.32 and quickly drops to $2.66 (down 50%) on the news of the voluntary recall. The stock closed today at $2.45, an all-time low.
  • October 7-8, 2013 At least six law firms have announced initiation of shareholder lawsuits in the aftermath of the recall.

Apparently, the company and the FDA disagreed on whether a new 510(k) was required after the company changed the Instructions for Use (IFU) on its product. The company seems to have decided to continue marketing without submitting a new 510(k). What happened next is unclear but the “voluntary” recall ensued.

The company told The Seattle Times that it currently has “sufficient cash for the next 8-12 months of operations without raising additional capital,” though it cautioned that the cost of the recall and other associated expenses is not yet known. Sales revenues were about half a million dollars for the first half of 2013. Atossa reported a $2.2 million loss for the same period.

According to The Seattle Times, Atossa is continuing to develop other diagnostic tests but “will be reassessing the regulatory status of these products … in light of our recent experience,” said CEO Quay. Seems like a prudent action given their recent history…

Takeaways: Do not disregard the FDA. They have the power to shut down your company. If you have a fundamental disagreement with FDA, hire a regulatory consultant and attorney and take their advice.

Make sure you have people with experience in commercializing medical devices, especially regulatory affairs, on your executive team and board of directors.

Think carefully before deciding that an IPO is your best financing option. There are very large fees to be paid and the reporting requirements (Sarbanes-Oxley, etc.) are much more revealing – and onerous – than anything required if you remain private and use VCs or angel investors as your sources of capital.

As the article points out, there are plenty of attorneys waiting to represent disgruntled shareholders. Perhaps you can prevail against all of this adversity but think of the opportunity costs in lost time and cash spent on lawyers and regulatory revisions instead of product development or marketing.

Read more: Biotech firm Atossa recalls its only product | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times.

Frazier Healthcare raises $377M venture fund, surpassing target | GeekWire

Wow, looks like a repeat of the 1990s! A new venture fund from Frazier Healthcare is seriously good news for the healthcare startup community. I hope it’s the beginning of a trend and that we’ll see a few more VCs make fund announcements.

For the past few years, VCs have been pretty much absent from the market. Angel investors were left as one of the few financing options for early stage medical device and biotech companies.

Perhaps we will see a return of past practices where angel investors concentrated on very early financing rounds and then VCs stepped in. Who knows? But I believe it’s on balance a positive development for the industry.

Takeaways: There is a lot of money out there “on the sidelines.” Frazier may be taking a leading role in revitalizing healthcare startup financing. At least it shows that a lot of wealthy individuals and fund managers believe in the future of healthcare as an investment opportunity. Startup CEOs, keep pitching!

Read more: Frazier Healthcare raises $377M venture fund, surpassing target – GeekWire.

Fundraising advice for medical device startups – 7 tips for angel funding, 3 more for VC funding

Not that this advice is any guarantee of success in fundraising but it’s fun to read what an angel investor and a VC fund manager have to say about how startups approach them, position themselves, and make their pitches.

Both articles are from MedCity News and were written at AdvaMed 2013. The angel investor article is a brief interview with Allan May, the founder and chairman of Life Science Angels who spoke at the Angel Investment Forum. The VC advice comes from Paul Grand, managing director at Research Corporation Technologies Ventures, a life sciences firm focused primarily on medical devices.

For startups fundraising from angel investors,

  • Your intellectual property (IP) may be the most important indicator of valuation and whether you will be successful in your funding quest. Investors need to plan an exit before they invest. Because the most likely exit is via acquisition by a larger medical device company, and medical device companies hoard patents like misers, it’s in everyone’s interest to have the strongest possible IP portfolio.
  • Unless you have a successful startup track record, a stellar team, and potential for a very large exit in 3-5 years, avoid VCs and focus on angel investors. They are willing to invest in smaller, less perfect deals than VCs.
  • Whether you want it or not and whether you like it or not, expect your investors to take a personal interest in your startup and the way you run it. That means lots of phone and face time giving updates and answering questions…and listening to advice.
  • Because angel investor consolidation has become the norm in raising Series A and beyond, investors will know each other. They won’t invest with others they don’t like, trust, or respect. Same holds for your board members – choose them carefully as they are a direct reflection on you.
  • Mr. May also said “This isn’t about picking technologies, it’s about picking people.” My experience suggests that for most early stage entrepreneurs, your technology qualifies you for consideration while your reputation, track record, and interpersonal skills can usually disqualify you.
  • As for how much money you should raise, “The amount of money you should raise is the smallest amount of money that can have the biggest impact on your valuation in the shortest period of time.” That’s a cute way of saying it’s easier to raise the next round at an increased valuation…because you executed your plan and achieved your goals.
  • This last bit of advice is my favorite and probably the most practical in the interview:  Get someone who knows the angel investor to take the business plan to them. . . “Getting into the pile [of business plans] is not a success.”

From the VC fundraising perspective,

  • Be sure to research the VC firm and the partner before the pitch and adjust appropriately. Every VC is different. Do your homework online and through your network. If you are at the level of pitching to VCs, there should be no surprises.
  • Make sure your startup team has the right experience and is correctly sized. These days, you can run a virtual or lean company a long way toward commercialization without expensive full-time executives. There are plenty of freelancers, contractors, and consultants ready and eager to help…”at the beginning, you just need the founder and the engineers…”
  • If all you have is an idea and technical/clinical skill you should wait a bit before approaching VCs. You are unlikely to get a signed nondisclosure agreement, much less early stage financing from VCs if you make your pitch too early. There are incubators and seed investors who can help you become ready for VC investment. As discussed above, consider angel investment as an alternative to VC funding.

Takeaways: Medical device fundraising is hard but there are steps you can take to improve your chances of success. Make sure you know the expectations and criteria of the people and firms to whom you are pitching. Make sure your startup is a good fit with your prospective investors. Just like Goldilocks and the three bears, you must position the opportunity you’re presenting as not too small, not too big…not too early, not too late. 

Read more:

Need angel funding for your early-stage healthcare startup? 7 smart tips from investor Allan May – MedCity News.

Three big mistakes medical device companies make when pitching VCs – MedCity News.

How to Get Payors to Pay For Your Medical Device | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News

You and your medical device development team have created an exciting new widget. You’re gearing up for a costly product launch. How do you make sure health insurers will reimburse hospitals for purchasing your device?

It’s a very important question because hospitals will not purchase your device unless they are confident that they will receive reimbursement from the payor (insurance company).

If your widget is the same as existing products except it’s cheaper, congratulations. You’ve developed what could be considered a commodity product. You can take advantage of existing reimbursement codes (CPT and DRG) and explain the codes to the physicians and decision-makers at the hospital. You can sell your device on the basis that it saves money.

If you have created a really new widget that is unlike other devices, congratulations again. You’ve developed a differentiated product. Your reimbursement effort is just beginning.

If you haven’t done so yet, now would be a good time to engage with a reimbursement consultant. Perhaps your new widget can fit within existing reimbursement codes. If not, the path will be long and involved to get a new code – a topic worthy of its own post, perhaps even a chapter in a book.

In a discussion at AdvaMed 2013, Alan Muney, chief medical officer at Cigna, said Cigna asks three questions when considering coverage for a new device:

1. Has the new technology been proven by studies in peer-reviewed journals?
2. Has the new technology produced better outcomes than current technologies?
3. Does the new technology produce the same outcomes as current technologies but at a lower cost?

These seem like reasonable questions. Although Dr. Muney did not explicitly say so, I’m assuming that you need only answer “yes” to one of these questions in order to be considered for coverage for your device. The questions all have implications, however.

First, to have a study published in a peer-reviewed journal generally means you must conduct a randomized clinical study with enough statistical “power” to make a definitive conclusion. In this context, “proven” means that the new technology has equivalent or superior clinical efficacy to the existing “gold standard” technology. And you already know that clinical studies are expensive and take a long time to conduct.

Second, “outcomes” are more focused on patient health than on a comparison with other technologies. You will need to conduct a clinical study, but with different endpoints measuring different things. The study may last longer and involve more patients, all of which will cost more money and involve more risk to you, your company, and your investors.

The third question adds costs to the equation, not just the procurement costs of your device but the Big Picture costs: does your technology reduce or increase overall costs to the healthcare system? At this point, you may need to consult with a healthcare economist to determine what to measure and how to measure it. And proving cost claims usually involves conducting a big, expensive clinical study. Of course, if you prove better outcomes at reduced cost to the healthcare system, congratulations again. Your product should be adopted rapidly and your focus will shift to keeping up with demand.

Takeaways: Obtaining medical device reimbursement is complicated and risky. It increases costs and time to market for many medical devices. You can’t go to market without knowing how (or if) your device will be reimbursed by insurers. During your business planning process, you should have an idea as to which of the three questions raised by the Cigna CMO you can positively answer for your device. That response should also help inform the size, cost, and duration of the clinical study you will need to conduct. And that will be an important component of the capital you need to raise for commercialization,

Read more: Cigna CMO Explains How to Get Payors to Pony Up For Your Device | MDDI Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry News Products and Suppliers.

Startups beware. A potential “death sentence” awaits the uninformed.

A fine example of unintended consequences, the JOBS act (Jumpstart Our Business Startups) was supposed to make it easier for startup companies to raise capital and to talk about their financing needs without getting into hot water with the SEC. The law was passed with bipartisan support, and was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012.

As this GeekWire article points out, the new law has made it somewhat easier for startups to conduct IPOs. Unfortunately, that’s the last thing a startup does before it gets transformed into a public company.

The provisions of the JOBS act can actually jeopardize the fundraising activities of a startup during the critically important early stage, before significant capital has been raised and probably before the companies can afford expensive attorneys to advise them.

The main issue with the JOBS act from a startup perspective is that it has complicated rather than simplified the rules around “general solicitation,” the prohibition against publicly offering equity in the company in exchange for investment. The prohibition applies to participation in pitch events, very common forums where startup CEOs present their pitches to a crowd containing a mixture of people, including (it is hoped) a few angel investors.

At least one Internet-based angel investor “crowdsourcing” site, Poliwogg, is counting on the new law to attract novice angel investors to its online marketplace for healthcare company investment opportunities. It remains to be seen if the details of the regulations have a chilling effect on what could be an important resource for early stage startups and for prospective angel investors.

Dan Rosen, a prominent Seattle angel investor who was interviewed for the GeekWire article, pointed out that the “death sentence” can occur if a startup makes two mistakes regarding general solicitation. The penalty from the SEC is a one year prohibition against fundraising. That would sink most startups.

What’s next? A number of organizations are lobbying for changes to the law or at least a more lenient interpretation by the SEC. Given the polarized climate in Washington, D.C., it may take some time for this issue to be resolved.

Takeaways: Startup CEOs should educate themselves about the provisions of the JOBS act as it applies to them. As the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’ve been reading the blog of a Seattle attorney who has a special interest in this matter, William Carleton. You can reach his blog here: http://www.wac6.com/ It’s also wise to engage a corporate attorney who is experienced in startups and startup financing law. Yes it’s expensive but it may be the best insurance you can buy for your startup.

Read more: The messy side of the JOBS act, and the potential ‘death sentence’ for startups – GeekWire.

Crowdfunding for Medical Devices

The notion of crowdfunding early stage medical device development is spreading. By now everyone is familiar with Kickstarter and the many examples of companies that have successfully raised funds by appealing to large numbers of “average Joe/Jill” supporters. There are more than a few copycats now that Kickstarter has been successful. Most, however, do not encourage or permit crowdfunding of medical devices.

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/85broads/files/2012/03/crowdfunding-photo.jpg
Image from Forbes.com

There is obviously a funding gap for many early stage medical device companies. Venture capitalists have abandoned the early market except for blue chip prospects. Angel investors have become extremely risk-averse in my opinion and have functionally replaced VCs (although not the big VC investments of 10-15 years ago). Between federal budget sequestration and increased competition, grants from NIH, CDC, NSF, and DoD have dried up and take too long to be a reliable source of funds for most startups.

As usual, savvy entrepreneurs to the rescue! Here are a few specialized sites that are crowdfunding medical device startups:

  • Medstartr “Patients, Doctors, and Companies Funding Healthcare Innovation.”
  • Poliwogg “Put Your Money Where Your Passion Is”
  • indiegogo “The world’s funding platform. Fund what matters to you.
  • b-a-medfounder “A uniquely positioned crowdfunding platform dedicated to medical device invention and innovation projects.”
  • healthfundr “Accelerate health innovation. Invest in the companies shaping the future of health.
  • microryza “FOLLOW & FUND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Many of these sites and organizations are new and do not have a track record. Most are focused on investors who want to put in a small amount of capital. Perhaps they are angel investment neophytes who are just starting out or maybe they prefer to make lots of small investments. Who knows? Others seem to focus on “donors” who are essentially giving a gift to the company, again, for very personal reasons. In any event, all of the crowdfunding sites seem like resources to investigate for early stage startups looking for that first $100k or so of seed funding.

It will be interesting to see how these services develop. As many of you know, early stage investors can get diluted down to almost nothing in terms of equity very quickly. And although medical devices cost only a fraction of what a biotech drug might cost to develop, it still requires a minimum of a few million dollars in capital to get a Class II device to market. If that funding is stretched out over a few rounds, the early stage investors almost certainly won’t get much, if any, return on their investments.

It remains to be seen if a relatively obscure and small niche like medical device development can attract sufficiently large numbers of investors. It’s also a big unknown if the proliferation of crowdfunding sites prevents any of them from reaching a critical mass of investors.

There are caveats in using these services, of course. Just as investors perform due diligence on you and your startup, so must you conduct your own diligence on the crowdfunders. Keep in mind also that these are for-profit businesses, not charities. They will take a percentage of the funds you raise. One popular crowdfunding model takes a percentage if you raise your target amount and a larger percentage if you fail to achieve your fundraising goal. I suppose that’s intended to be an incentive for you to work hard to promote your offer.

There is also some uncertainty about how these sites screen for accredited investors and avoid the laws against general solicitation. I’m certainly not well-versed in these matters but I’ve been keeping up with recent new regulations issued by the SEC on a blog written by a Seattle attorney, William Carleton. Read it here: Counselor @ Law.

There is also an older, more established online funding presence at AngelList.

Takeaways: Crowdfunding is a relatively new funding option for medical device startup CEOs and CFOs to consider. Add this option to your fundraising toolbox. Keep in mind that these investors may be less financially sophisticated and less experienced than the typical angel investors you are accustomed to dealing with. Some of these investors may be making decisions based on emotion. I strongly recommend consulting an attorney before signing up with any of these services and at least getting a thorough review of the service’s terms and conditions.

Read more: Inventor launches crowdfunding hub for medical devices – FierceMedicalDevices.