In the papers today that Leah's business has allegedly lost 50k in a year so don't hold out much hope for marks junk business this time next year
If leah has lost 50k in a year I don't hold out much hope for mark
1 of 2
So what? Many businesses lose money in their first year, as they have to invest in start-up costs - Leah has had to invest in premises, equipment etc. And Mark's business is completely different to Leah's, It's actually much closer to Ricky's, who Sugar said in the previous episode is now profitable in its second year.
The article you referred to was written by a journo with zero knowledge of how business works.
The article you referred to was written by a journo with zero knowledge of how business works.
The point being is that are you are very much on your own and marks "business" is not anything exactly niche.
Originally Posted by DUNDEEBOY:
“The point being is that are you are very much on your own and marks "business" is not anything exactly niche.”
“The point being is that are you are very much on your own and marks "business" is not anything exactly niche.”
Yes, and there are plenty of other small digital agencies out there. Some do very well, others don't. You don't necessarily need to be niche or unique to succeed as a smallish business start-up. What's unique about, say, a small PR agency? Nothing. Doesn't stop (some of) them succeeding.
Mark will need a large client base to make this a success. Yet his USP was a personal account manager for every client and 2 personal visits a month.
Is he limiting his travel radius and therefore his customer base or is this a very localised internet marketing business ? Doesn't sound sustainable.
Is he limiting his travel radius and therefore his customer base or is this a very localised internet marketing business ? Doesn't sound sustainable.
Someone once told me that most new businesses tend to fold during second or early third year if they still fail to establish a steady income or consistent profit margin.
He was a business advisor for the youth enterprise scheme (I think that's what it was called?), though. I don't know if his observation applies to the usual business world.
He was a business advisor for the youth enterprise scheme (I think that's what it was called?), though. I don't know if his observation applies to the usual business world.
Originally Posted by Takae:
“Someone once told me that most new businesses tend to fold during second or early third year if they still fail to establish a steady income or consistent profit margin.
He was a business advisor for the youth enterprise scheme (I think that's what it was called?), though. I don't know if his observation applies to the usual business world.”
“Someone once told me that most new businesses tend to fold during second or early third year if they still fail to establish a steady income or consistent profit margin.
He was a business advisor for the youth enterprise scheme (I think that's what it was called?), though. I don't know if his observation applies to the usual business world.”
That's often the case - although many businesses that go under are actually profitable, they just run out of cashflow. Of course, a business can go under at any time, even ones that have been running successfully for years.
Originally Posted by square_eyes:
“Mark will need a large client base to make this a success. Yet his USP was a personal account manager for every client and 2 personal visits a month.
Is he limiting his travel radius and therefore his customer base or is this a very localised internet marketing business ? Doesn't sound sustainable.”
“Mark will need a large client base to make this a success. Yet his USP was a personal account manager for every client and 2 personal visits a month.
Is he limiting his travel radius and therefore his customer base or is this a very localised internet marketing business ? Doesn't sound sustainable.”
Without going into the detail of the numbers, they do stack up. And I think we can be sure that Sugar will have ensured that the business case numbers were looked into in some detail before he made his decision.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“So what? Many businesses lose money in their first year, as they have to invest in start-up costs - Leah has had to invest in premises, equipment etc. And Mark's business is completely different to Leah's, It's actually much closer to Ricky's, who Sugar said in the previous episode is now profitable in its second year.
The article you referred to was written by a journo with zero knowledge of how business works.”
“So what? Many businesses lose money in their first year, as they have to invest in start-up costs - Leah has had to invest in premises, equipment etc. And Mark's business is completely different to Leah's, It's actually much closer to Ricky's, who Sugar said in the previous episode is now profitable in its second year.
The article you referred to was written by a journo with zero knowledge of how business works.”
True. But the issue would be how that fits in with the Sugar criteria for choosing the investment option in the first place, and the arguments he's used to refuse others.
Obviously if he has spent more than 250k , its difficult to rule out spending more elsewhere. He also can't argue against waiting for profits to grow elsewhere. He also clearly would have been better off so far taking something that offered much lower returns.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“True. But the issue would be how that fits in with the Sugar criteria for choosing the investment option in the first place, and the arguments he's used to refuse others.
Obviously if he has spent more than 250k , its difficult to rule out spending more elsewhere. He also can't argue against waiting for profits to grow elsewhere. He also clearly would have been better off so far taking something that offered much lower returns.”
“True. But the issue would be how that fits in with the Sugar criteria for choosing the investment option in the first place, and the arguments he's used to refuse others.
Obviously if he has spent more than 250k , its difficult to rule out spending more elsewhere. He also can't argue against waiting for profits to grow elsewhere. He also clearly would have been better off so far taking something that offered much lower returns.”
Sure. The key is whether Leah is on track versus her business plan. I remember she had a very thorough plan. I would assume that she expected to make a loss in year 1 for all the reasons I said above. If she projected a loss of, say, £80k and has lost £50k, then she'd actually be ahead of plan. It's not the absolute number that matters - it's where she is versus the forecast agreed with Sugar that matters.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“Sure. The key is whether Leah is on track versus her business plan. I remember she had a very thorough plan. I would assume that she expected to make a loss in year 1 for all the reasons I said above. If she projected a loss of, say, £80k and has lost £50k, then she'd actually be ahead of plan. It's not the absolute number that matters - it's where she is versus the forecast agreed with Sugar that matters.”
“Sure. The key is whether Leah is on track versus her business plan. I remember she had a very thorough plan. I would assume that she expected to make a loss in year 1 for all the reasons I said above. If she projected a loss of, say, £80k and has lost £50k, then she'd actually be ahead of plan. It's not the absolute number that matters - it's where she is versus the forecast agreed with Sugar that matters.”
Indeed i imagine she has to buy quite expensive clinical facilities upfront, and hire and train staff. But if he accepts that with her he can't really make a point if somone else doesn't offer an early profit.
He's made a lot of promises regarding 'the personal touch' so I assume he is going to have to invest a fair bit of money in getting a decent number of staff in to help go out and do these meetings with people. I think it can be successful but he is going to have to live up to the promises he has made, if I signed up with him and then didn't get the one on one support that they promised I know I would not be happy and word would soon get around that the company wasn't doing what it said it would.
Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe:
“Indeed i imagine she has to buy quite expensive clinical facilities upfront, and hire and train staff. But if he accepts that with her he can't really make a point if somone else doesn't offer an early profit.”
“Indeed i imagine she has to buy quite expensive clinical facilities upfront, and hire and train staff. But if he accepts that with her he can't really make a point if somone else doesn't offer an early profit.”
It's not really an issue. Different businesses will have different business plans. For some businesses that require a lot of up-front investment and where revenue is slow to come on-stream, you might expect to lose, say, £200k in year 1 and not turn a profit until year 3 or later. For businesses with relatively low start-up costs - like Ricky's recruitment business - you might only make a small loss or even break even in year 1, and be profitable by year 2.
It's a common mistake to assume that the financial model is the same for different businesses - there are as many variations as there are industries.
1. annual accounts can be posted up to 9 months after the year end, average filing period is 3 months so it's unlikely that you'll have her accounts to date.
2. All business make losses in year 1, the more comlicated businesses tend to have a longer period to profitability, unless you're an ebay business or a market trader where you can make a profit in the first week.
3. Her accounts are made up to June 2014. her p&l is -£49K which is probably because of acquisition of capital assets which is very expensive for a surgery.
https://www.duedil.com/company/08610855/dr-leah-limited
2. All business make losses in year 1, the more comlicated businesses tend to have a longer period to profitability, unless you're an ebay business or a market trader where you can make a profit in the first week.
3. Her accounts are made up to June 2014. her p&l is -£49K which is probably because of acquisition of capital assets which is very expensive for a surgery.
https://www.duedil.com/company/08610855/dr-leah-limited
I was surprised that the business names appeared to be chosen in the final programme. Surely if you are passionate about a business idea, and have written a detailed business plan, you would have chosen a name? I also thought - but may be mistaken- that I saw the name Climb Online on Mark's folder in the interview prog anyway.
Originally Posted by Winchester Lady:
“I was surprised that the business names appeared to be chosen in the final programme. Surely if you are passionate about a business idea, and have written a detailed business plan, you would have chosen a name? I also thought - but may be mistaken- that I saw the name Climb Online on Mark's folder in the interview prog anyway.”
“I was surprised that the business names appeared to be chosen in the final programme. Surely if you are passionate about a business idea, and have written a detailed business plan, you would have chosen a name? I also thought - but may be mistaken- that I saw the name Climb Online on Mark's folder in the interview prog anyway.”
I don't remember seeing that but you may be right. In the edit last night we never actually saw who suggested Climb Online, so it may be that Mark simply put forward his own name in the end and ran with it. To be honest, the company name doesn't really matter that much in the episode itself - remember that there was all the fuss over Leah's brand name last year, and ultimately between the episode and You're Hired they ended up rebranding as Dr Leah anyway.
I would assume this business could be turned into a Franchise with each taking a new city/area so could work out well.
The problem I see is they can't actually deliver what they promise! Why? well what happens when you have 2 businesses that sell/do the same thing, both can't be top and if you have several businesses doing the same thing then they all can't be on page one. The only way it really works is if you constrain them to area/regional search's, so for instance you search "car mechanics, Brixton" etc, but again what if there are 2 or more in Brixton. I notice they cover their tracks by then claiming "we'll get you higher up on the search engine" instead of the original "we'll get you to the top"
The problem I see is they can't actually deliver what they promise! Why? well what happens when you have 2 businesses that sell/do the same thing, both can't be top and if you have several businesses doing the same thing then they all can't be on page one. The only way it really works is if you constrain them to area/regional search's, so for instance you search "car mechanics, Brixton" etc, but again what if there are 2 or more in Brixton. I notice they cover their tracks by then claiming "we'll get you higher up on the search engine" instead of the original "we'll get you to the top"
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“I don't remember seeing that but you may be right. In the edit last night we never actually saw who suggested Climb Online, so it may be that Mark simply put forward his own name in the end and ran with it. To be honest, the company name doesn't really matter that much in the episode itself - remember that there was all the fuss over Leah's brand name last year, and ultimately between the episode and You're Hired they ended up rebranding as Dr Leah anyway.”
“I don't remember seeing that but you may be right. In the edit last night we never actually saw who suggested Climb Online, so it may be that Mark simply put forward his own name in the end and ran with it. To be honest, the company name doesn't really matter that much in the episode itself - remember that there was all the fuss over Leah's brand name last year, and ultimately between the episode and You're Hired they ended up rebranding as Dr Leah anyway.”
I wouldn't be surprised to see Climb Online rebranded either. The domain names haven't been acquired and does an online business really need the word "online" in its title? It just sounds too late 90s dot com. The logo was rubbish too and looked like a piece of Clipart.
As above, it does seem unlikely that they had been working on their business plan for months and yet the brand name is thought up in a few minutes.
It may not be the most original of ideas but it has a good opportunity for making money in the short term at a fairly low risk. Sugar will give it a few years, get bored of it and then sell it to one of the big boys for a good profit. The tights (or "stockings" as Mark insisted on calling them) business was far more risky. £250,000 was nowhere near enough and any of the established manufacturers could bring out a competing product easily. The fact that they haven't already suggests that maybe the market isn't there.
Sugster said on YF last night that all 3 previous finalists now had profitable businesses so he's a bit of a fibber if the news about Leah is true.
Originally Posted by Shappy:
“Sugster said on YF last night that all 3 previous finalists now had profitable businesses so he's a bit of a fibber if the news about Leah is true.”
“Sugster said on YF last night that all 3 previous finalists now had profitable businesses so he's a bit of a fibber if the news about Leah is true.”
Can you prove otherwise ?
One of the losers is also in a partnership with Sugar and she's making money too.
1 of 2
