It has been several times over the last 2 years that I see start-up projects that do not respect (or destroy) one or more regulations. In fact it seems fairly recent (last three or four selection committee that I could participate), and this is really interesting. I do not know if this is really new, but it's has probably something to do with the emergence of the Y-generation into business.
Why naming them Churchillpreneurs ? Because these entrepreneurs (mostly Y-gen persons, under 35) are embarking on business ideas that everyone thought impossible due to a law (or several laws), and they ignore it (or are deliberately ignoring it) and succeed (or win a residency strap).
The last one on the news made me take the step of writing this article: www.camping-garden.fr in the same edge as "leboncoin" mixed with "air bnb", in a nutshell : pitch your tent in my backyard and give me a few euros.
Not to take too much risk, the promise is sold, but not the end result : only linking the good people here, selling advertising space.One can say it is good: it allows people who have no money to go on vacation, it allows property people to meet people and create social bonds, or to use their garden to supplement their pension for example.
One might also ask: is that garden money will be declared? Is the neighborhood will enjoy the comings-goings? You can already forecast the possible self-regulation...It may also come from Camping owners, whose jobs are concerned, and who obviously alerted journalists (which is even more making advertisement for the killet concept). Will the government be able to follow technically and verify that the law is respected, tenable in time? Not obvious.
In any case, the dynamic "let's start, we'll see" make entrepreneurs experiment. This will put the balance in the supply-demand relationship, buyers can see the differences in services and judge by themselves how the law protects, or otherwise reduces their purchasing power.
In the longer term, even with many users, what are the exits of this type of start-up? Not sure a buyer will see these start-ups as jewels, because the legal dues will enlight possible threatening of future benefits. Another note: most revenues captured by the groups, rely on legal aspects and maintenance of favorable laws. The churchillpreneurs will probably upset all that, protected by the web and speed of dissemination.
Why naming them Churchillpreneurs ? Because these entrepreneurs (mostly Y-gen persons, under 35) are embarking on business ideas that everyone thought impossible due to a law (or several laws), and they ignore it (or are deliberately ignoring it) and succeed (or win a residency strap).
The last one on the news made me take the step of writing this article: www.camping-garden.fr in the same edge as "leboncoin" mixed with "air bnb", in a nutshell : pitch your tent in my backyard and give me a few euros.
Not to take too much risk, the promise is sold, but not the end result : only linking the good people here, selling advertising space.One can say it is good: it allows people who have no money to go on vacation, it allows property people to meet people and create social bonds, or to use their garden to supplement their pension for example.
One might also ask: is that garden money will be declared? Is the neighborhood will enjoy the comings-goings? You can already forecast the possible self-regulation...It may also come from Camping owners, whose jobs are concerned, and who obviously alerted journalists (which is even more making advertisement for the killet concept). Will the government be able to follow technically and verify that the law is respected, tenable in time? Not obvious.
In any case, the dynamic "let's start, we'll see" make entrepreneurs experiment. This will put the balance in the supply-demand relationship, buyers can see the differences in services and judge by themselves how the law protects, or otherwise reduces their purchasing power.
In the longer term, even with many users, what are the exits of this type of start-up? Not sure a buyer will see these start-ups as jewels, because the legal dues will enlight possible threatening of future benefits. Another note: most revenues captured by the groups, rely on legal aspects and maintenance of favorable laws. The churchillpreneurs will probably upset all that, protected by the web and speed of dissemination.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire