6 Common Areas Where a Tech Company Startup Budget is Wasted

One of the most important skills that an early-stage technology management team really needs to have is the ability to objectively manage the startup budget. This is a very difficult task, as senior managers are dealing with so many unknowns. It is often hard to know where to spend – and where not to. Although it may be counter-intuitive, the where not to is usually the more important of the two.

That’s because, above all else, it is critical in the early days to extend the company’s runway. At least until traction is obtained in the market. The number of zeros in the budget varies if the company is bootstrapped vs. venture-funded. But the basic principle remains the same. Don’t run out of startup capital before your product is producing significant revenue. At least enough revenue for the company to become a going concern. Below, we’ll take a look at some specifics of that principle.

Excess staff in the startup budget

This is a delicate issue in any startup. Generally, there is a yearning for more people. Rarely do early-stage CEOs feel like they have too many staff members.  So there is a tendency to hire when a particularly good individual becomes available. Or when there appears to be a bit more money in the budget than expected. But care must be taken to ensure that at this very early stage, the hiring candidate is absolutely NEEDED. The only exception is if you fortuitously run across that RARE individual. Where you have a high level of confidence that that person will ALMOST IMMEDIATELY increase revenues or reduce expenses. Well above and beyond their salary and benefits costs. I consider this an unusual circumstance. Not one that you should talk yourself into believing very often.

Staff expenses SHOULDN’T be treated the same as a new marketing program. Or a desk chair that can be jettisoned easily if not needed. At this stage, my usual advice to “hire slowly, fire slowly” becomes even more critical. Staff is an ongoing expense that drains the precious, finite startup capital base every month. It shouldn’t be viewed in the same light as short-term or one-time expenses are.

Maybe you treat your people like a physical asset or a promotional program, so you feel you can reduce them easily. This is ill-advised. It can have an even greater negative effect on your short-term and long-term prospects by hurting morale and damaging your company culture. The bottom line is that every startup executive can complain about a lack of people resources.  But for budgetary reasons, it’s critical not to surrender to these natural feelings and hire someone you’d “like to have”. Not unless the situation CLEARLY, objectively warrants it.

Excess Product Features

Most startup CEOs likely don’t think they have too many people. They also probably don’t think that they can build “too robust” an initial product either. Obviously, everyone wants to get to market with the best possible chance of gaining traction. If the product is better, that’s great, right? The biggest problem with this viewpoint is that “nothing comes for free”.

There is inevitably a trade-off between features and time-to-market. As well as a trade-off between features and the reduction in startup budget available for other, often critical activities. For example, I often see one tendency in startup software companies that are led by management teams from a technical background. That’s a tendency to keep developing well past the minimum viable product (MVP). Again, on one level, this seems rational. But there are three major problems with this approach:

1. More extensive development leads to less startup budget available for sales & marketing. In extreme cases, I’ve seen “less” turn into “none”.
2. It is often difficult to ascertain in a startup exactly WHICH features are important to the market.  So the best feedback usually comes after the initial product hits the market. This makes an extensive initial product feature set often inefficient with respect to market needs.
3. Extensive feature development usually also delays the market introduction of the initial product.  This allows new competitive product introductions to move ahead of your offering. As well as further depleting the startup budget by extending the number of months with a deep burn rate.

The takeaway here is yes, you need to introduce a product you believe will have a differential advantage in the marketplace. But don’t pile on every last feature you can think of. Save those for consideration in version 2.  And get to market!

Legal expenses in the startup budget

This category is again a very reasonable expense for a going-concern company. Everyone wants their policies, procedures, and other documentation to be on solid legal footing. In addition, some software and hardware companies base their business plans on significant innovation. Here, it may seem CRITICAL to file patent applications to protect that innovation. The issue is that before you have created a viable, ongoing business, every dollar that you spend on legal is a dollar you can’t spend on sales activities. Or on marketing and product development to create an operating business.

So, in my opinion, it usually makes sense to accept a bit more risk than maybe is comfortable on the legal front in these early days. The exception to this advice is a technology business that relies solely on IP licensing. Since licensing is really your “operating business,” protecting that IP early on is critical. But for everyone else, you might be able to delay filing that patent application. While in product development, protect the IP as a trade secret in the market. Then maybe file a provisional patent once you have some early revenue flowing. And maybe a full filing before you go out to raise an “A” round of funding. I’m advocating slight delays, not forgoing protection completely.

Other early-stage legal saving examples

The above advice is just one example of how to minimize IP protection expenses in the startup phase.  Every situation is different, and your mileage may vary. Other ways to save money on legal matters are by taking advantage of the many free boilerplate examples of important (but common) documents. Such as partnership agreements, channel contracts, and sales rep agreements that can be easily obtained via industry colleagues. Or on the Internet. Your attorney will caution you about this. He would like to charge you $300-600/hr to create a custom contract for you. In reality, he’s usually reaching into his file and giving you a boilerplate agreement that his firm has used for 50 other clients. Adding value with minimum customization. If you’re a B2B SaaS company, chances are your channel contract will look pretty similar to another B2B SaaS company in a non-competitive market segment.

You can also consider saving money early on with a local, sole practitioner attorney who charges $250/hr. Rather than that name-brand tech law firm that may charge several times that. Finally, if you just must use that name-brand firm, they may be excited enough about your prospects that they will sometimes defer their charges until you reach a funding event. If you aren’t successful in raising an institutional round, you may not owe them at all. And if you do raise that round, you’ve deferred this large expense until you can actually afford it.

Travel Expenses

I’m not at all against travel in startups. Strategic use of travel can be an important component of a startup tech company’s success. But over the years, I’ve seen a number of startup founders take this expense to excess. It’s 2026. A lot of business can be transacted via email, phone, and video services such as Zoom. I fully support hopping on a plane. IF you have good, objective reasons to believe it will make a difference in closing a big customer early. Or forming a critical strategic partnership.

I’m much less excited about the CEO who hops on a plane and travels cross-country on a hunch or a whim. A startup budget gets crushed quickly with this type of behavior. And it’s unfortunately more common at early-stage companies than one would expect. So I advise, when at all possible, to take discussions as far as you can go with less expensive means of communication before committing to travel. Not only is it more cost-effective, but it’s also more time-efficient in many cases.

Sales or Marketing – too soon or too much

This is a startup budget expense item that reminds me of the old Revolutionary War saying: “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes”. Sales and marketing (at least one, usually both) are functions CRITICAL to every tech startup company. As I’ve discussed elsewhere in this article, it’s crucial that other less-critical expenses don’t deplete the funds needed to adequately sell and market in the early days. The issue that sometimes goes unnoticed is that if you begin these activities prematurely, they can become wasteful expenses themselves.

Until the product is ready to sell, resist the temptation to spend a lot of money on marketing. A few inexpensive test campaigns are ok. But definitely don’t overdo it. Also, make sure that you don’t commit scarce resources to major marketing campaigns tied to a prospective product introduction date. Introduction dates can be cancelled or delayed. Product introductions slip – ALL THE TIME. On the sales side, it is usually VERY premature to hire sales reps if the founders haven’t closed some initial deals. This is a critical, preventable error. Hiring reps, especially in quantity, before there is a repeatable sales process to train them on is one of the most common mistakes I see in the early days of technology companies.

Premature International or Distribution Channel Development

I’m a big fan of getting into international markets as early as possible. I have written about it extensively. I’m also a big proponent of leveraging your expensive IP by selling via every sales channel available to you. The problem is that some folks want to get there so badly that they expend scarce startup budget resources before they are ready. International sales development is great. Except when you do it before you’ve built a reference list of customers in your home market. Or even worse, before the product is actually ready.

Channel development usually needs to wait even longer. Channels are notoriously demand-driven. Don’t start this until:

1. You’ve really debugged your sales process so that it’s easy to train a channel on how to sell the product.
2. Have a good customer reference list and have created some pent-up demand for your product.

Being too aggressive too early hurts in multiple ways

Prior to hitting these two milestones, money spent on channel development will likely be wasted. It’s somewhat counter-intuitive. Channel resellers will often be happy to discuss your new product and sometimes even sign up as an authorized partner prematurely. But until the conditions above are met, they will almost never SELL the product. Certainly not in volumes to warrant depleting the startup budget and other resources at this early stage.

That’s my take on some places NOT to invest your scarce early-stage capital.  Every startup budget situation is different. So these may not apply to you. And there may be other areas critical to avoid spending capital on. If you have your own experience or wisdom to share on this topic, please do so! Or if you have a question, please post it as well. Either way, leave a comment below with your contribution to the discussion.

Follow Phil Morettini and Morettini on Management via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, RSS, or subscribe to the Morettini on Management Newsletter hosted by LinkedIn. Contact Phil directly at info@pjmconsult.com