Indian B2B packaging marketplace Bizongo raises $30M

Bizongo, one of the largest business-to-business online marketplaces for packaging needs in India, has raised $30 million in fresh funding round as it looks to widen its footprint in the nation and serve more categories.

The new financing round, Series C, was led by Switzerland-based hedge fund Schroder Adveq, which manages assets worth $10 billion. Existing investors B Capital, Accel, Chiratae Ventures, and IFC also participated in the round, the startup said.

Mumbai-based Bizongo has raised about $56 million to date. It was valued at about $96 million in its Series B financing round in 2018, according to an analysis of its regulatory filings.

The five-year-old startup serves as a marketplace for businesses to identify, buy, and sell material packing solutions across industries. It also offers packing design, development, and procurement solutions.

Sachin Agarwal, chief operating officer and co-founder of Bizongo, said the startup offers a unique value proposition of promising a “100% availability of packaging material and no-stock-outs at very low inventory.”

“This helps clients to reduce their packaging material procurement cost by 2-5% and at the same time ensures better production planning for our supply partners. This creates a strong value proposition for all stakeholders across the value chain,” he said in a statement.

Bizongo did not reveal how many customers it has, but said they span across some of the nation’s leading e-commerce, retail, FMCG, FMCD industries. On its website, it claims it works with over 750 manufacturers in India, and has delivered 290 million packaging units to date. It also claims to have served over 350 brands.

In a statement, Aniket Deb, chief executive and co-founder of Bizongo, said the startup has witnessed a “significant improvement in operating metrics since the last round of financing and the current round will further help us grow the business in a sustainable way.”

The fresh fund will be deployed to ramp up technology infrastructure and to expand to newer sectors such as pharma packaging. Deb said the startup also plans to work on expanding its presence in the country.

“We believe in the vision of the founders who are transforming and digitising the highly fragmented B2B packaging marketplace by leveraging technology and a unique supply chain efficiency solution. Bizongo has demonstrated strong momentum by continuing to add marquee clients and we have been impressed with the company’s rapid growth trajectory over the past year,” said Kabir Narang, General Partner at B Capital Group, in a statement.

As the venture market tightens, a debt lender sees big opportunities

David Spreng spent more than 20 years in venture capital before dipping his toe into the world of revenue-based financing and realizing there was a growing appetite for alternatives to venture capital. Indeed, since forming debt-lending company Runway Growth Capital in mid-2015, Spreng has been busy writing checks to a variety of mostly later-stage companies on behalf of his institutional investors. (One of these, Oak Tree Capital Management in LA, is a publicly-traded credit firm.)

He expects he’ll be even busier in 2020. The reason — if you haven’t noticed already — is a general slowing down in what has been a very long boom cycle. “We’re in the late innings of a very long game,” said Spreng today, calling from Davos, where he has been attending meetings this week. “I don’t think the cycle is going to end this second. But where we went from a growth-at-all-costs mentality, boards are now saying, ‘let’s find a balance between top line growth and capital efficiency — let’s figure out a path to profitability.’ ”

Why is that good for Spreng and his colleagues? Because when a cycle ends, venture capitalists get stingier with their portfolio companies, writing fewer checks to support startups that aren’t hitting it out of the park, and often taking a bigger bite under more onerous terms when they do reinvest to counter the added risk they’re taking.

A founder’s guide to recession planning for startups

We are living through one of the nation’s longest periods of economic growth. Unfortunately, the good times can’t last forever. A recession is likely on the horizon, even if we can’t pinpoint exactly when. Founders can’t afford to wait until the midst of a downturn to figure out their game plans; that would be like initiating swim lessons only after getting dumped in the open ocean.

When recession inevitably strikes, it will be many founders’ — and even many VCs’ — first experiences navigating a downturn. Every startup executive needs a recession playbook. The time to start building it is now.

While recessions make running any business tough, they don’t necessitate doom. I co-founded two separate startups just before downturns struck, yet I successfully navigated one through the 2000 dot-com bust and the second through the 2008 financial crisis. Both companies not only survived but thrived. One went public and the second was acquired by Mastercard.

I hope my lessons learned prove helpful to building your own recession game plan.

Recession is an opportunity to leapfrog the competition

In entrepreneurship, the goal isn’t just to survive; it’s to win. Some founders think that surviving recession amounts to hoarding cash and sitting out the financial winter. While there’s wisdom in hoarding cash (see below), I strongly recommend against sitting idly when that time could be actively leveraged to strengthen competitive advantage.

I founded my first startup, Yodlee, in a strong economy with almost 20 competitors. Ten years and a painful recession later, we were the only game in town. Critical to our success was acquiring our largest competitor, something we never could have done in a strong economy because they never would have been willing to sell. The recession made it untenable for them to fundraise, enabling us not only to buy them, but to do so without cash in an all-equity deal. I recommend thinking ahead of time about which companies you would want to buy if the opportunity arose, and your goals for doing so, such as consolidating competition, acquiring customers or engineering talent, entering new markets or strengthening product offerings or distribution channels.

Recession is also an opportunity to improve

You can’t rebuild a plane when you’re traveling 500 miles per hour. During a strong economy, companies spend most of their energy on sales and growth. During a weaker economy, it’s easier to justify the investment in infrastructure and technical debt. Yodlee was built on PERL, which we knew would eventually need upgrading. Once the downturn hit, we took advantage of the slower sales cycles to totally retool in Java, an enterprise-class programming language capable of scale. And we didn’t stop there — we created six new products during the downturn.

Make yourself indispensable to customers and partners

The precipice of a recession is not the time to over-index on top-line revenue. You never want to be on your customers’ top five lists of easiest-to-cut products and services. Instead, take the time to understand your customers’ needs, embed yourself deeply in their operations or customer experience and invest significantly in top-notch customer success.

At my second startup, Truaxis, once recession struck, we pivoted from credit card customer acquisition for banks (which requires no help during a recession) to helping banks address churn. Our revised offering yielded a tremendous ROI for banks — a 10X increase in profit. Our product also became the cornerstone to their online consumer banking experience. If you figure out how to make your product indispensable or core to the customer experience, it won’t get cut, even during a recession.

Lock-in long-term customer contracts

Both of my companies started out with B2C business models. After each recession hit, I quickly pivoted to B2B2C. Here’s why: While consumers can react immediately to economic jitters, businesses must keep spending in order to keep operating. Plus, they work on annual budget cycles. Even when businesses want to reduce their costs, they typically can’t react very quickly because they have to wait out their contracts.

In a bull economy, short-term contracts are popular because they enable companies to keep raising prices. Don’t be tempted by short-term cash. B2B and B2B2C firms should take the potential revenue hit by locking in long-term contracts now while budgets and buyers are flush.

Consider diversifying revenue streams and customer segments

While the economy is still healthy, explore options for diversifying your revenue streams and customer bases to more recession-resistant segments. If your business is consumer-focused, consider a different distribution model via businesses or new consumer segments like affluent populations, which are less sensitive to economic fluctuations. If you have an enterprise-focused business, transition more of your revenue to larger enterprises, which are more financially resilient than smaller ones, or to enterprises that need your service for survival, especially in a down market.

Key to the diversification strategy is plotting your axis ahead of time. You don’t want to start your exploration when the market has already turned and you’re burning cash faster than you can get it. Upon exploration, you may find that no pivot is necessary — perhaps only the need to slow down. Now is the time to look for and deeply understand the signals in your business, though you may not need to act on them for a while — or perhaps even ever.

Raise a lot of money — and stash away more than you think you’ll need

It’s obviously a lot easier to raise money in a healthy economy than a weak one. If your coffers aren’t full going into a downturn, it doesn’t matter what you do; you’ve lost the game right there. Having enough cash can make the difference between emerging as the market leader (i.e. the only one still with cash in the bank) and going out of business — even if your company would have thrived in a strong economy. Be conservative when projecting how much money you’ll need to stay afloat. Many leaders underestimate how much elongated sales cycles, diminished average deal sizes and dwindling total sales transactions weaken total revenue.

Be thoughtful about valuations for your employees’ sake

I’m supportive of founders seeking aggressive valuations, but it’s important to realize the potential downside. Valuations soften during recessions, which can lead to corrections or recapitalizations. Recapitalizations create new companies in which the old stock is worth nearly nothing, leaving many employees’ options under water.

I learned this the hard way at Yodlee after raising a lot of money at a high valuation in 1999. We banked enough money that we could have lasted through most downturns without fundraising. Alas, while the average recession lasts 11 months, the dot-com crash lasted several years. Even though we were strong enough to fundraise during the recession, our high valuation forced us to recapitalize. This was crushing for the employees whose equity was suddenly worthless.

In a weak economy, startups struggle to retain their strongest employees who often retreat for safer work environments and more predictable incomes. Recapitalizations deliver an unwanted shove out the door to demoralized employees who feel they have no reason to stay. Inevitably after recapitalizations the people who are strong enough to get hired elsewhere do so. Surviving a downturn is challenging enough. Doing so without a strong, motivated team is nearly impossible.

While times are strong, choose the board you’ll want when things go bad

When my Yodlee board members suggested we pivot from B2C to B2B2C, I thought they were crazy. We had acquired 1 million users through word of mouth in only two-three months. I couldn’t believe they advocated such a significant pivot when things were going so well. I eventually came to understand that these seasoned board members were actually saving my business.

As my colleague Karan Mehandru said, “investors are your war partners, not your beer buddies.” When fundraising, think carefully about who you want around the table if the economy goes south. I recommend asking potential investors if they’ve weathered downturns before and how they’d help you navigate one. I’d ask the same questions of the firm’s other partners to look for consistency of answers and to gauge your investors’ standing and seniority within the partnership. All too many board members are lovely when companies grow rapidly, but challenging when speed bumps arise. Will your board members actively help you address these challenges or stand in passive judgment?

Being a founder is hard enough, but leading a startup through a recession catapults an already challenging job to a whole different level. Whether the recession begins tomorrow or in four years, I hope you’ll learn from my experience and be prepared either way.

Most tech companies aren’t WeWork

With the recent emphasis on Uber and WeWork, much media attention has been focused on high-burn, “software-enabled” startups. However, most of the IPOs of the last few years in tech have been in higher capital efficiency software-as-a-service startups (SaaS).

In the last 30 months (2017 2H onwards), a total of 21 U.S.-based, VC-backed SaaS companies have gone public, including Zoom, Slack, Datadog and others1. I analyzed all 21 companies to understand their fundraising and revenue-generating trajectories. A deep dive into the individual companies’ trajectories can be found in this Extra Crunch article.

Here are the summary takeaways from this data set:

1. At IPO, total capital raised2 was slightly ahead of annual run-rate revenue (ARR)3 for the median company

Here is a scatterplot of the ARR and cumulative capital raised at the time each company went public. Most companies are clustered close to the diagonal line that represents ARR and capital raised matching each other. Total capital raised is often neck-and-neck or slightly higher than ARR.

For example, Zscaler raised $148 million to get to $146 million of ARR at IPO and Sprout Social raised $112 million to get to $106 million of ARR.

It is useful to introduce a metric instead of looking at gross dollars, given the high variance in revenue of the companies in the data set — Sprout Social had $106 million and Dropbox had $1,222 million in ARR, a 10x+ difference. Total capital raised as a multiple of ARR normalizes this variance. Below is a histogram of the distribution of this metric.

The distribution is concentrated around 1.00x-1.25x, with the median company raising 1.23x of ARR by the time of its IPO.

There are outliers on both ends. Domo is a profligate outlier that had raised $690 million to get to $128 million of ARR, or 5.4x of ARR — no other company comes remotely close. Zoom and Datadog are efficient outliers. Zoom raised $161 million to get to $423 million of ARR and Datadog raised $148 million to get to $333 million of ARR, both representing only 0.4x of ARR.

2. Cash burn is a more accurate measure of capital efficiency and may diverge significantly from capital raised (depending on the company)

How much capital a company raised tells only half of the story of capital efficiency, because many companies are sitting on a significant cash balance. For example, PagerDuty raised a total of $174 million but had $128 million of cash left when it went public. As another example, Slack raised a total of $1,390 million prior to going public but had $841 million of unspent cash.

Why do some SaaS companies end up seemingly over-raising capital beyond their immediate cash needs despite the dilution to existing shareholders?

One reason might be that companies are being opportunistic, raising capital far ahead of actual needs when market conditions are favorable.

Another reason may be that VCs that want to meet ownership targets are pushing for larger rounds. For example, a company valued at $400 million pre-money may only need $50 million of cash but could end up taking $100 million from a VC that wants to achieve 20% post-money ownership.

These confounding factors make cash burn — calculated by subtracting the cash balance from total capital raised4 — a more accurate measure of capital efficiency than total capital raised. Here is a distribution of total cash burn as a multiple of ARR.

Remarkably, Zoom achieved negative cash burn, meaning Zoom went public with more cash on its balance sheet than all of the capital it raised.

The median company’s cash burn at IPO was 0.77x of ARR, quite a bit less than the total capital raised of 1.23x of ARR.

3. The healthiest SaaS companies (as measured by the Rule of 40) are often the most capital-efficient

The Rule of 40 is a popular heuristic to gauge the business health of a SaaS company. It asserts that a healthy SaaS company’s revenue growth rate and profit margins should sum to 40%+. The below chart shows how the 21 companies score on the Rule of 405.

Among the 21 companies, eight companies exceed the 40% threshold: Zoom (123%), Crowdstrike (119%), Datadog (76%), Bill.com (56%), Elastic (55%), Slack (52%), Qualtrics (44%) and SendGrid (41%).

Interestingly, the same outliers in terms of capital efficiency as measured by cash burn, on both extremes, are the same outliers in the Rule of 40. Zoom and Datadog, which have the highest capital efficiency, score the highest and third highest on the Rule of 40. And inversely, Domo and MongoDB, which have the lowest capital efficiency, also score lowest on the Rule of 40.

This is not surprising, because the Rule and capital efficiency are really two sides of the same coin. If a company can sustain high growth without sacrificing profit margins too much (i.e. score high on the Rule of 40), it will over time naturally end up burning less cash compared to peers.

Conclusion

To apply all of this to your favorite SaaS business, here are some questions to consider. What is the total capital raised in multiples of ARR? What is the total cash burn in multiples of ARR? Where does it stack compared to the 21 companies above? Is it closer to Zoom or Domo? How does it score on the Rule of 40? Does it help explain the company’s capital efficiency or lack thereof?

Thanks to Elad Gil and Denton Xu for reviewing drafts of this article.

Endnotes

1Only includes U.S.-based, VC-backed SaaS companies. Includes Quatrics, even though it did not go public, as it was acquired right before its scheduled IPO.

2Includes institutional investments prior to the IPO. Does not include founders’ personal capital investment.

3Note that this is not annual recurring revenue, which is not a reporting requirement for public companies. Annual run-rate revenue is calculated by annualizing quarterly revenue (multiplying by four). The two metrics will track closely for SaaS businesses, given that SaaS revenue is predominantly recurring software subscriptions.

4This is a simplified definition as it will capture non-operational uses of cash such as share repurchase from founders.

5Revenue growth is calculated as the growth rate of the revenue during the last 12 months (LTM) over the revenue during the 12 months prior to that. Profit margins are non-GAAP operating margins, calculated as operating income plus stock-based compensation expense divided by revenue over the last 12 months (LTM).

What’s the right pace for raising capital?

A common question in the minds of many SaaS founders is the pace of raising capital. How much is too much too early? What amount of capital raise is typical for comparable peers? How capital-efficient are the best-in-class companies?

In the last 30 months (2017 2H onwards), a total of 21 SaaS U.S.-based, VC-backed companies have gone public, including Zoom, Slack, Datadog and others1. To answer the above questions, I analyzed all 21 companies to understand their fundraising and revenue-generating trajectories.

The charts below show each company’s annual run-rate revenue (ARR)2 and cumulative equity funding3 over time. Read endnotes for details on data source4 and methodology5. The backup for the full analysis can be accessed here.

I divided the companies into four patterns:

Where top VCs are investing in adtech and martech

Lately, the venture community’s relationship with advertising tech has been a rocky one.

Advertising is no longer the venture oasis it was in the past, with the flow of VC dollars in the space dropping dramatically in recent years. According to data from Crunchbase, adtech deal flow has fallen at a roughly 10% compounded annual growth rate over the last five years.

While subsectors like privacy or automation still manage to pull in funding, with an estimated 90%-plus of digital ad spend growth going to incumbent behemoths like Facebook and Google, the amount of high-growth opportunities in the adtech space seems to grow narrower by the week.

Despite these pains, funding for marketing technology has remained much more stable and healthy; over the last five years, deal flow in marketing tech has only dropped at a 3.5% compounded annual growth rate according to Crunchbase, with annual invested capital in the space hovering just under $2 billion.

Given the movement in the adtech and martech sectors, we wanted to try to gauge where opportunity still exists in the verticals and which startups may have the best chance at attracting venture funding today. We asked four leading VCs who work at firms spanning early to growth stages to share what’s exciting them most and where they see opportunity in marketing and advertising:

Several of the firms we spoke to (both included and not included in this survey) stated that they are not actively investing in advertising tech at present.

Thundra announces $4M Series A to secure and troubleshoot serverless workloads

Thundra, an early stage serverless tooling startup, announced a $4 million Series A today led by Battery Ventures. The company spun out from OpsGenie after it was sold to Atlassian for $295 million in 2018.

York IE, Scale X Ventures and Opsgenie founder Berkay Mollamustafaoglu also participated in the round. Battery’s Neeraj Agarwal is joining the company’s board under the terms of the agreement.

The startup also announced that it had recently hired Ken Cheney as CEO with technical founder Serkan Ozal becoming CTO.

Originally, Thundra helped run the serverless platform at OpsGenie. As a commercial company, it helps monitor, debug and secure serverless workloads on AWS Lambda. These three tasks could easily be separate tools, but Cheney says it makes sense to include them all because they are all related in some way.

“We bring all that together and provide an end-to-end view of what’s happening inside the application, and this is what really makes Thundra unique. We can actually provide a high-level distributed view of that constantly-changing application that shows all of the components of that application, and how they are interrelated and how they’re performing. It can also troubleshoot down to the local service, as well as go down into the runtime code to see where the problems are occurring and let you know very quickly,” Cheney explained.

He says that this enables developers to get this very detailed view of their serverless application that otherwise wouldn’t be possible, helping them concentrate less on the nuts and bolts of the infrastructure, the reason they went serverless in the first place, and more on writing code.

Serverless trace map in Thundra. Screenshot: Thundra

Thundra is able to do all of this in a serverless world, where there isn’t a fixed server and resources are ephemeral, making it difficult to identity and fix problems. It does this by installing an agent at the Lambda (AWS’ serverless offering) level on AWS, or at runtime on the container at the library level,” he said.

Battery’s Neeraj Agarwal says having invested in OpsGenie, he knew the engineering team and was confident in the team’s ability to take it from internal tool to more broadly applicable product.

“I think it has to do with the quality of the engineering team that built OpsGenie. These guys are very microservices oriented, very product oriented, so they’re very quick at iterating and developing products. Even though this was an internal tool I think of it as very much productized, and their ability to now sell it to the broader market is very exciting,” he said.

The company offers a free version, then tiered pricing based on usage, storage and data retention. The current product is a cloud service, but it plans to add an on prem version in the near future.

Snyk snags $150M investment as its valuation surpasses $1B

Snyk, the company that wants to help developers secure their code as part of the development process, announced a $150 million investment today. The company indicated the investment brings its valuation to over $1 billion (although it did not share the exact figure).

Today’s round was led by Stripes, a New York City investment firm with Coatue, Tiger Global, BoldStart,Trend Forward, Amity and Salesforce Ventures also participating. The company reports it has now raised over $250 million.

The idea behind Snyk is to fit security firmly in the development process. Rather than offloading it to a separate team, something that can slow down a continuous development environment, Snyk builds in security as part of the code commit.

The company offers an open source tool helps developers find open source vulnerabilities when they commit their code to GitHub, Bitbucket, GitLab or any CI/CD tool. It has built up a community of over 400,000 developers with this approach.

Snyk makes money with a container security product, and by making the underlying vulnerability database they use in the open source product available to companies as a commercial product.

CEO Peter McKay, who came on board last year as the company was making a move to expand into the enterprise, says the open source product drives the revenue-producing products and helped attract this kind of investment. “Getting to [today’s] funding round was the momentum in the open source model from the community to freemium to [land] and expand — and that’s where we are today,” he told TechCrunch.

He said that the company wasn’t looking for this money, but investors came knocking and gave them a good offer, based on Snyk’s growing market momentum. “Investors said we want to take advantage of the market, and we want to make sure you can invest the way you want to invest and take advantage of what we all believe is this very large opportunity,” McKay said.

In fact, the company has been raising money at a rapid rate since it came out of the gate in 2016 with a $3 million seed round. A $7 million Series A and $22 million Series B followed in 2018 with a $70 million Series C last fall.

The company reports over 4X revenue growth in 2019 (without giving exact revenue figures), and some major customer wins including the likes of Google, Intuit, Nordstrom and Salesforce. It’s worth noting that Salesforce thought enough of the company that it also invested in this round through its Salesforce Ventures investment arm.

Uber sells food delivery business in India to Zomato

Uber said on Tuesday it has sold its food delivery business, UberEats, in India to local rival Zomato as the American ride-hailing giant continues to shed lossmaking operations and become profitable by next year.

As part of the deal, Uber would own 9.99% of Zomato, the companies said. The deal valued UberEats’ India business between $300 million and $350 million, a person familiar with the matter told TechCrunch. TechCrunch reported last month that the two were in advanced stages of talks for a deal.

Satish Meena, an analyst at Forrester, told TechCrunch that despite the Uber deal, Zomato still lags Prosus Ventures -backed Swiggy, which services more number of orders each day.

More to follow…

Israel’s cybersecurity startup scene spawned new entrants in 2019

As the global cybersecurity market becomes increasingly crowded, the Start Up Nation remains a bulwark of innovation and opportunity generation for investors and global cyber companies alike. It achieved this chiefly in 2019 by adapting to the industry’s competitive developments and pushing forward its most accomplished entrepreneurs in larger numbers to meet them.

New data illustrates how Israeli entrepreneurs have seized on the country’s reputation for building radically cutting-edge technologies as the number of new Israeli cybersecurity startups addressing nascent sectors eclipses its more traditional counterparts. Moreover, related findings highlight how cybersecurity companies looking to expand beyond their traditional offerings are entering Israel’s cybersecurity ecosystem in larger numbers through highly strategic acquisitions.

Broadly, new findings also reveal the Israeli cybersecurity market’s overall coming of age, seasoned entrepreneurial dominance and greater appetite for longer-term visions and strategies — the latter of which received record-breaking investor backing in 2019.

Breaking records