Search

What does "Who wants to be my partner" on M6 teach us?

10 years after Shark Tank, 15 years after Dragons' Den and almost 20 years after Money Tigers ("Mane no tora" in Japanese), here comes on M6 the French version of this cult show for any entrepreneur / investor.


Many analyses of the show itself have been published in the specialized press. For my part, the idea is simply to review the different situations encountered by investors and entrepreneurs during the show (here episode 1) and to make some personal comments regarding my daily activity...


- Mehdi, entrepreneur in the field of suitcase repair: interesting personality, with a bluffing career path, starting from nothing, which immediately seduced Marc Vanhove who recognized himself in him... The business case is similar to that of Save, which had developed very quickly in the repair of smartphones, particularly in shopping mall corners, before going into receivership. Here, the gross margin is high, the risk of theft is lower than at Save and the degree of technicality to repair the cases does not seem to be too high, which is an advantage for Mehdi and his company, but also a disadvantage because the barriers to entry are then low. The pure service company where the quality of the execution will be the key and will make the difference!


- Y Brush: typically the "inventor" or "engineer" project, interesting on paper in itself, but whose founders completely underestimate the resources needed for the massive adoption of a new usage such as this. It's the kind of project that is easy to get funded by the BPI but difficult to get funded by private funds afterwards and almost impossible to deploy commercially on a large scale.


- Lulu's cards: although the business here is still very small and the subject may have been seen elsewhere, Marc Simoncini has still invested. What we can say about this investment is that it is clearly an investment in the person, in this case Lucie. She is only 20 years old, speaks very quickly, is inhabited and carried away by her project, finances it by working as a cashier... In short, she embodies everything we want to follow: dynamism, work, passion...


- TibTop : interesting project of connected shin guards allowing to come back on the actions and trajectory of the players of a soccer match. Bakary the founder asks for 40k€ for 5%. Marc Vanhove makes him an offer of 120k€ for 20%, which is a lower valuation than the one asked by Bakary, but a higher amount. Bakary declines and accepts instead the offer of Catherine Barba, of 40k€ for 5%, that is to say exactly his demand. At first sight one could say that this is a strange choice considering Marc Vanhove's skills and network in soccer (his company Bistro Régent is the main sponsor of the Girondins de Bordeaux). However, if I understood his explanation correctly, which was not completely clear after editing, Bakary would have already raised money and would only be a shareholder of 58% of his company. And so by opting for Catherine Barba's offer at 5% dilution, he remains a majority shareholder in his company, whereas he would have become a minority shareholder with Marc Vanhove's offer at 20%... This is therefore rather wise!


- De Blangy : unfortunately, this is the perfect example of an entrepreneur who does not master his key figures, and who therefore does not appear very credible to seasoned investors. We can't say it enough: repeat your pitch and know your key figures inside out.


- The bakery: an interesting case. The founders have done a good job with their branding, it's a nice and colorful project. Except that when the Business Angels ask questions, they realize that the team already has a €1m turnover event company and that they only want to raise money on the new structure, without including the event business which is doing well. And so Eric Larcheveque says that he would like to invest in the whole, and not only in the new structure. Of course, it is understandable that he also wants to be a shareholder in a company that is already working, as well as in a new one that has not yet really proven itself. But above all, what you have to understand is that no investor wants to put money in a company knowing that its founders are not working full time on it. Because it is obvious that these 2 founders live thanks to the income from the event company. But a company takes time to run. And therefore this time will not be invested in the "bakery" project...


- Constant & Zoé: I won't go into the substance of the subject here because it's already been written! On the other hand, what is interesting to note from an "investor" point of view, is that Sarah comes in saying "my historical investors are back in the pot", which is reassuring for newcomers. Another interesting point here is that Marc Vanhove finds that the turnover generated is low compared to the money that has already been injected into the company: this is a notion of "capital efficiency". Indeed, some companies have an intrinsic tendency to consume more capital than others, and investors will often prefer the least capital-intensive companies proportionally, those that are the least "capital intensive".


Moreover, in this case, we are obviously in the presence of an exceptional entrepreneurial personality, with a mind of steel and that is an additional point in the balance of investors ...


Corentin Orsini - founder of Super Capital and Angel investor


To receive 1 or 2 great investment opportunities in startups every Wednesday, register your email here >>

13 views0 comments