I think there's a bit too much obsession with astronomical growth. There's got to be something to be said for a company that produces dependable profit, living within its means. Not every enterprise needs to be massive.
"...where matter is defined as the company (relatively) promptly going from founding to $100 million in revenues."<p>If I can found a company that provides financial security to myself and one or more employees, that matters... at least to me. $100 million in revenues is great, but it doesn't necessarily matter to me.
My definition of a company thta matters: Assuming aboout 3-5x earnings for a sale price for most small companies. If I wanted to retire on about $70,000/yr and the market returns about 6% I'd need $1.2 million in earnings assuming 10% profit that's about $12 million in revenue for 4 years which is $3 million in sales.
A lot of "tech" companies are in those two sectors.<p>Amazon is consumer discretionary for example. I don't have a list of holdings per sector in front of me right now, but a bunch of stuff you wouldn't expect is in consumer discretionary.<p>Most industrial companies have technical competitive advantages.
"Yes, the American Southeast, the powerhouse of economic growth, apparently. At least by this measure."<p>Well, duh. It shouldn't be that astounding. The Southeast has for a long time been a "powerhouse of economic growth", because, as much as we don't like to admit it, the US is still a highly manufacturing-reliant economy. And where is the biggest manufacturing region (especially in new development)? The Southeast.
"One more bit of data from this study for Boston folks: when Kedrosky looked at the incidence of high growth IT firms by state, taking into account GDP and other factors, Massachusetts came out ahead. In other words, it was the state that had more than would be expected based on its population and economy."<p>Awesome. Go Boston.
I wonder how many of these new companies come from large companies that are just rearranging themselves? So that first year's revenue is based on pre-existing revenue or assets?
I'd be interested to know how many companies were started in each of those sectors and be able to see the "success" rate rather than just the absolute numbers.
It's actually kind of surprising to me that as many as 200 companies founded in any year will go on to reach $100 million in annual revenue. I suppose it shouldn't be--I wonder how many new companies are founded each year?
I currently work with a company that is simply blowing up. A startup in the automotive industry. It uses software to provide its main product/service, but I wouldn't call it a tech company. Last year it made a couple of millions in profits. The current year is going to be at least 5X that thanks to some new systems I'm putting in place. Did I mention its privately owned, and in the middle of nowhere? Did I also mentioned it is owned by someone who does not know much about computers? At this rate, it will corner the market it caters to in one or two years. All while running under the radar.
It's an interesting article, but this title is ridiculous. The notion that a startup doesn't "matter" unless it does $100M+ in yearly revenue is just plain wrong.
Hmm Summly may not make a massive dent in the US economy. But it mattered to some folks.<p>There' may be hundreds if not thousands of tech startups which don't "matter" because they end up as failing, an acqui-hire or minor exit. But in sum each of those startups have created jobs, paid taxes and added something to the economy.