This is actually the first time we've run the programme properly. We did a test run about 12 months ago but at that stage didn't have the money to invest. Even so the teams got a lot out of it I hope. Good Gym (www.goodgym.org) has probably progressed the most but it was a different set up then - they're a not-for-profit.
The value for teams will definitely come from our network which we're still adding to the site to show who's involved. I think maybe we're underselling ourselves by being a bit British about the whole thing. Any advice gratefully received.
You can try but it’s very unlikely that we’ll fund you. We’ve found that a startup is much more likely to succeed when it’s started by a small team rather than just by one individual.
Is a big load of bollocks then?
You're passing yourself off as experienced when you're anything but.
To be honest that comes from our experience from Social Innovation Camp. We've watched a lot of people trying to get ideas of the ground struggle if they don't have a team around them. It can be a pretty lonely business.
+1 to this. I accept that the pg-anointed wisdom is that single-founders are less likely to be successful, but I wouldn't take advice like that as dogma. Assuming it's true 'because Paul said so' is a little weak.
The value for teams will definitely come from our network which we're still adding to the site to show who's involved. I think maybe we're underselling ourselves by being a bit British about the whole thing. Any advice gratefully received.