marketing

Jan 13 2021

Rewards Network Partners With Womply to Facilitate Restaurant Applications for the Next Round of Paycheck Protection Program Loans

Rewards Network, a provider of financing, marketing, and loyalty services to the restaurant industry, announced on Wednesday it has formed a partnership with software and API company serving local businesses and app developers Womply to facilitate restaurant applications for the next round of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loans. According to Rewards Network, Womply helped more than 50,000 businesses get their PPP loans in 2020, and are now partnering with Rewards Network to help restaurants streamline the application process to secure their 2021 PPP loan before funds dry up.

While sharing more details about the partnership, Steve Fusco, President of Rewards Network, stated:

“In 2020 we created several resources to help restaurants manage their businesses, and now our partnership with Womply will help restaurants get ahead by swiftly applying for and obtaining the new PPP loans they need.”

Toby Scammell, CEO of Womply, further commented:

“We’re excited to kick off our partnership with Rewards Network in an effort to make it easier for restaurants to submit for the new round of PPP loans, as we understand it can be an overwhelming process. We look forward to seeing many Rewards Network restaurants taking advantage of this partnership really soon, while bringing more awareness of our streamlined application solution to the restaurant industry.”

Rewards Network added that the partnership will also provide a free, six-month Womply Pro subscription ($774 value), and no-fee processing with Womply Pay (up to $226 in savings) for approved loan applicants

Source

Jan 04 2021

India-Based Fintech CRED Secures $81 Million Through Series C Funding Round Led By DST Global

CRED, an India-based fintech startup, has reportedly secured $81 million through its Series C funding round, which was notably led by DST Global with participation from Sequoia Capital, Ribbit Capital, Tiger Global, and General Catalyst. The investment round brings CRED’s post-money valuation to $806 million. Founded in 2018, CRED describes itself as a member-only mobile app that rewards users with exclusive rewards for paying credit card bills.

“We’re a team of creative, driven and persistent people. We want to create a community of the creditworthy. We want to re-imagine the ideal way of life that works on two way trust and respect. Every partnership, collaboration or idea we create works towards providing an experience beyond imagination. Every member is passionate towards this goal. This passion seamlessly drives us forward.”

During a recent interview with TechCrunch, Kunal Shah, Founder of CRED, stated that CRED earns funds by cross-selling financing products with more than 1,300 brands (including Starbucks, TAGG, Eat.Fit, and Nykaa) have joined the platform.

“We realized that we were able to solve the discovery problem for customers. We are approaching this with themes — work-from-home and coffee — and it’s working out well. We are now playing matchmaking role between customers and brands that otherwise had to spend a lot of money in marketing.”

CRED is planning to use the funds to continue the growth and development of its platform and products.

Source

Dec 27 2020

SEC vs. Ripple: A predictable but undesirable development

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has not been kind to crypto in the past year. In March 2020, in the SEC v. Telegram case, the Commission won a worldwide injunction against the proposed issuance of Grams by Telegram, undoing years of innovative work even in the absence of any allegations of fraud. Then, on the last day of September 2020, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein dashed the hopes of Kik Interactive by ruling in favor of the SEC’s motion for summary judgment in SEC v. Kik Interactive, halting the sale of Kin crypto tokens. Both of these actions were filed in the Southern District of New York. On Dec. 22, 2020, the SEC decided that it was time to initiate another high-profile action, filing in the same district against Ripple Labs and its initial and current CEOs, Christian Larsen and Bradly Garlinghouse, respectively, for raising more than $1.38 billion through the sale of XRP since 2013.

The initial fallout from this action has been swift and severe: 24 hours after the lawsuit was filed, the price of XRP was down almost 25%. This still left XRP ranked fourth on CoinMarketCap, with a total market capitalization of over $10.5 billion.

The complaint

In its complaint, the Commission paints a straightforward pattern of sales of XRP that were never registered with the SEC or made pursuant to any exemption from registration. From the perspective of the Commission, this amounts to a sustained practice of illegal sales of unregistered, non-exempt securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

For readers not familiar with legal procedure, it might seem unusual for the case to be brought in a New York federal court, especially since Ripple is headquartered in California, and both named individuals reside there. However, Ripple has an office in the Southern District of that state, some statements were made by Garlinghouse while he was present in New York, and significant sales of XRP were made to New York residents. In legal parlance, this would make venues in the Southern District of New York appropriate.

In addition, it might be surprising to some that both Larsen and Garlinghouse were named personally in an action that seeks primarily to recover for XRP allegedly sold illegally by Ripple, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, XRP II LLC. They are named both because they individually also sold significant volumes of XRP — 1.7 billion by Larsen and 321 million by Garlinghouse — and because the SEC contends they “aided and abetted” Ripple in its sales.

Aiding and abetting is a cause of action that depends on a primary violation by a third party, in which the aider and abettor voluntarily and knowingly participates with the goal of assisting in the venture’s success. In this case, Ripple would be the primary violator, and both Larsen and Garlinghouse are alleged to have substantially participated in the pattern of Ripple’s XRP sales, with the goal of allowing the company to raise funds without registering XRP under the federal securities laws or complying with any available exemption from registration.

The bulk of the complaint provides an overview of digital assets, details the SEC’s version of the history of Ripple and its marketing efforts with regard to XRP, illustrates how in the opinion of the Commission, XRP satisfies the elements of the Howey investment contract test under the federal securities laws, and seeks to demonstrate how Larsen and Garlinghouse participated in the on-going sales efforts.

In addition to disgorgement of all “ill-gotten gains,” the requested order would permanently ban the named defendants from ever selling unregistered XRP or participating in any way in the sale of unregistered, non-exempt securities. It would also prohibit them from participating in the offering of any digital asset securities, and it seeks unspecified civil monetary penalties.

A brief history of Ripple and XRP

The idea behind the current XRP dates back to late 2011 or early 2012, before the company changed its name to Ripple. The XRP Ledger, or software code, operates as a peer-to-peer database, spread across a network of computers that records data about transactions, among other things. In order to achieve consensus, each server on the network evaluates proposed transactions from a subset of nodes it trusts not to defraud it. Those trusted nodes are known as the server’s unique node list, or UNL. Although each server defines its own trusted nodes, the XRP Ledger requires a high degree of overlap between the trusted nodes chosen by each server. To facilitate this overlap, Ripple publishes a proposed UNL.

Upon the completion of the XRP Ledger in December 2012, and as its code was being deployed to the servers that would run it, a fixed supply of 100 billion XRP was set and created at little cost. Of those XRP, 80 billion were transferred to Ripple and the remaining 20 billion XRP went to a group of founders, including Larsen. At this point in time, Ripple and its founders controlled 100% of XRP.

Note that these choices represent a compromise between the fully decentralized, peer-to-peer network that was envisioned when Bitcoin (BTC) was first announced and a fully centralized network with a single trusted intermediary such as a conventional financial institution. In addition, Bitcoin was never designed or intended to be held or controlled by a single entity. In contrast, all XRP was originally issued to the company that created it and that company’s founders. This hybrid approach to a blockchain-based digital asset and more conventional assets created and controlled by a single entity led some crypto enthusiasts to complain that XRP was not a “true” cryptocurrency at all.

According to the SEC’s complaint, from 2013 through 2014, Ripple and Larsen made efforts to create a market for XRP by having Ripple distribute approximately 12.5 billion XRP through bounty programs that paid programmers compensation for reporting problems in the XRP Ledger’s code. As part of these calculated steps, Ripple distributed small amounts of XRP — typically between 100 and 1,000 XRP per transaction — to anonymous developers and others to establish a trading market for XRP.

Ripple then began more systematic efforts to increase speculative demand and trading volume for XRP. Starting in at least 2015, Ripple decided that it would seek to make XRP a “universal [digital] asset” for banks and other financial institutions to effect money transfers. According to the SEC, this meant that Ripple needed to create an active, liquid XRP secondary trading market. It, therefore, expanded its efforts to develop a use for XRP while increasing sales of XRP into the market.

At about this time, Ripple Labs, and its subsidiary, XRP II LLC, came under investigation by the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, acting pursuant to its mandates in the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA. Acting in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, the two companies were charged with failing to comply with various BSA requirements, including failure to register with FinCEN and failure to implement and maintain proper Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer protocols. According to FinCEN, Ripple’s failure to comply with these FinCEN requirements was facilitating the use of XRP by money launderers and terrorists.

This action did not proceed to trial, with Ripple Labs settling the charges by agreeing to pay a $700,000 fine and further agreeing to take immediate remedial steps to bring the companies into compliance with BSA requirements. The settlement was announced by FinCEN on May 5, 2015. The major contention of FinCEN throughout its investigation was that XRP was a digital currency. Ripple acceded to this position and has since worked to comply with BSA requirements.

At the same time, as noted in the SEC’s complaint, from 2014 through the third quarter of 2020, the company sold at least 8.8 billion XRP in the market and institutional sales, raising approximately $1.38 billion to fund its operations. In addition, the complaint asserts that from 2015 through at least March 2020, while Larsen was an affiliate of Ripple as its CEO and later chairman of the board, Larsen and his wife sold over 1.7 billion XRP to public investors in the market. Larsen and his wife netted at least $450 million from those sales. From April 2017 through December 2019, while an affiliate of Ripple as CEO, Garlinghouse sold over 321 million XRP he had received from Ripple to public investors in the market, generating approximately $150 million from those sales.

XRP is not like Bitcoin or Ether

The preceding description paints a picture of a digital asset that is widely held by persons scattered around the globe. In the case of both Bitcoin and Ether (ETH), this kind of decentralization was apparently enough to convince the SEC that those two digital assets should not be regulated as securities. As Director Bill Hinman of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance explained in June of 2018:

“If the network on which the token or coin is to function is sufficiently decentralized — where purchasers would no longer reasonably expect a person or group to carry out essential managerial or entrepreneurial efforts — the assets may not represent an investment contract. Moreover, when the efforts of the third party are no longer a key factor for determining the enterprise’s success, material information asymmetries recede. As a network becomes truly decentralized, the ability to identify an issuer or promoter to make the requisite disclosures becomes difficult, and less meaningful. […] The network on which Bitcoin functions is operational and appears to have been decentralized for some time, perhaps from inception. Applying the disclosure regime of the federal securities laws to the offer and resale of Bitcoin would seem to add little value.”

This kind of analysis does not really work for XRP, most of which continues to be owned by the company that created it, where the company continues to have significant influence over which nodes will serve as trusted validators for transactions, and where the company continues to play a significant role in the profitability and viability of the asset. Part of that role will now, of course, involve responding to this latest SEC initiative.

The court’s probable reaction

Unfortunately for Ripple and its former and current CEOs, the SEC has a strong case that XRP fits within the Howey investment contract test. Derived from the 1946 Supreme Court decision in SEC v. W. J. Howey, this test holds that you have bought a security if you: (1) make an investment (2) of money or something else of value, (3) in a common enterprise, (4) with the expectation of profits, (5) from the essential managerial efforts of others. Most of the purchasers of XRP, or certainly a very large number of them, would appear to fit within each of these categories.

Ripple raised more than $1.38 billion from the sale of XRP, so it is abundantly clear that purchasers were paying something of value. Moreover, as there was no effort to limit purchasers to the amount of XRP that they might reasonably “use” for anything other than investment purposes, that element appears likely to be present as well. The fact that the fortunes of all the investors rise and fall together along with the value of XRP in the marketplace should satisfy the commonality requirement.

The complaint highlights a number of things that Ripple has done to promote profitability, including statements that it has made, all of which suggest that a reason for purchasing XRP is the potential for appreciation. The limited functionality of XRP in comparison to its trading supply is another reason to believe that most purchasers were buying for investment, seeking to make a profit.

Finally, the significant on-going involvement and role of the company, especially given its huge continuing ownership interest in XRP, means that there is a strong case to be made that the profitability of XRP is highly dependent on the efforts of Ripple. All of this points to the reality that, under the Howey Test, XRP is likely to be a security.

Ripple’s response to the SEC’s action

Ripple’s response to the SEC’s enforcement action came even before the SEC’s complaint was officially filed. On Dec. 21, Garlinghouse tweeted out a condemnation of the SEC’s planned action, criticizing the agency for picking favorites and trying to “limit US innovation in the crypto industry to BTC and ETH.” Soon after, Ripple’s general counsel, Stuart Alderoty, gave a strong indication of how the company was likely to respond in the pending matter by pointing out the 2015 FinCEN issue, which he claimed was a government determination that XRP was a digital currency rather than a security under the Howey Test.

Unfortunately, classification as a digital currency does not necessarily preclude regulation as a security. As another New York district court decided in the 2018 case of CFTC v. McDonnell, in the context of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority to regulate digital assets, “Federal agencies may have concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction over a particular issue or area.”

Thus, even though FinCEN regulates crypto as a digital asset, the CFTC may treat it as a commodity; the SEC may regulate it as a security; and the Internal Revenue Service may tax it as property. All at the same time.

Conclusion

This comment should not be taken as approval of the SEC’s current approach and relative hostility to crypto offerings. As the SEC’s complaint notes, the XRP sales that are now being questioned took place over many years. The initial sales date back to 2013, which had happened considerably before the SEC first publicly announced its position that digital assets should be regulated as securities if they fit within the Howey investment contract analysis, which did not come until 2017 with The DAO Report. Moreover, since 2015, Ripple has been proceeding in accordance with the settlement reached with FinCEN. Since that time, Ripple has worked to bring its operations into compliance with BSA requirements, operating as if XRP is a currency rather than a security.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Carol Goforth is a university professor and the Clayton N. little professor of law at the University of Arkansas (Fayetteville) School of Law.

The opinions expressed are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University or its affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

SEC vs. Ripple: A predictable but undesirable development

Source

Dec 10 2020

XRP price action imminent? A closer look at the market’s #3 crypto

As the second-largest altcoin by market capitalization, XRP is hardly far from consideration during periods of significant bullish enthusiasm in the cryptocurrency market. Despite being 85% down from its January 2018 high, recent price spikes have sparked noticeable interest in XRP as investors consider viable diversification candidates for their crypto portfolios.

Any discussion about XRP often includes criticisms of Ripple, a blockchain payments firm that originally created the XRP token. Furthermore, XRP critics argue that Ripple’s ownership of the majority of the token supply, as well as its penchant for dumping “coins” on the market, is likely to erode any significant value for XRP holders.

As a firm located in the United States, Ripple is also contending with the lack of regulatory clarity in the country. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is yet to state whether the XRP token is a security, a ruling that could have significant implications for the firm.

In the absence of clear-cut regulations, U.S.-based investors appear reluctant to risk significant exposure to XRP. Also, traders who bought above $1 back in 2018 might be expecting considerable selling pressure as they attempt to recoup their initial investment, likely keeping prices lower.

Meanwhile, several countries are working toward creating their own central bank digital currencies. Intergovernmental economic and financial establishments continue to espouse the claim that sovereign digital currencies are preferable to private cryptos. With Ripple marketing XRP as a bridge currency for cross-border remittance, it remains to be seen what the future holds from a utility standpoint for the third-ranked crypto by market capitalization.

XRP up twofold since November

The XRP price has more than doubled since the start of November on the back of significant tailwinds in the crypto space within the period. A flood of institutional money into Bitcoin (BTC) triggered bullish advances that also translated into a renewed interest in the altcoin market as well.

XRP is currently at its highest price mark since September 2018 as the popular altcoin broke through a multi-year resistance, opening up the possibility for a parabolic advance at least in the short term. Indeed, XRP did reach the $0.9 level on Coinbase as retail interest peaked in late November.

However, the sudden spike to $0.92 was followed by an even sharper 45% decline, with XRP hovering between the $0.50 and $0.60 price bands since then. According to crypto analyst and Cointelegraph contributor Michaël van de Poppe, if the XRP price stays above the support level at $0.45, then an assault on the $1 price mark is not unlikely, especially amid tailwinds from another Bitcoin push toward a new all-time high.

The last major crypto bull run, which occurred between late 2017 and early 2018, saw altcoins experiencing significant gains even after the Bitcoin pullback began. However, the price correction for the likes of Ether (ETH), XRP, Litecoin (LTC) and other altcoins was slightly higher than that of BTC.

Indeed, the average decline in the altcoin space was 90% during the year-long bear market period of 2018. Thus, while Bitcoin is less than 10% from its ATH, altcoin tokens like XRP still trail their price records by a considerable margin, typically between 60% and 90%.

XRP eyeing a move toward the $1 price mark

For XRP, the price path upward appears to hinge on two important milestones: the $1 psychological level and the $3.82 ATH. Presently, there exists a few driving forces that could fuel a move toward and above the record.

However, a sustained parabolic advance that would push XRP north of its ATH appears unlikely at least in the short term. “From a technical perspective, calling for new all-time highs for XRP at the moment seems far-fetched,” Konstantin Anissimov, executive director at crypto trading platform CEX.io, told Cointelegraph.

According to Anissimov, XRP’s November breakout triggered the formation of a bullish flag-pattern on its price action. Flag patterns typically indicate areas of tight price consolidation, and XRP is currently range-bound below the $0.60 level. He clarified:

“If the buying pressure behind this cryptocurrency continues mounting, another breakout may take place in the same direction of the previous trend. As a matter of fact, the bull flag pattern anticipates that XRP could rise more than 65%. The bullish impulse could take this altcoin beyond $1.00.”

The upcoming Flare network airdrop is also likely providing an incentive for sustained XRP buying. On Dec. 12, multiple exchanges that support the airdrop will take a snapshot of their customers’ XRP balances as the basis for distributing Spark (FLR) tokens. FLR is the native token of the Flare network, a project developed by Ripple to introduce “Ethereum-like” capabilities to the XRP ledger. The project, reportedly compatible with Ethereum smart contracts, is expected to go live before the end of Q2 2020.

With Ripple excluded from the airdrop, crypto enthusiasts might be more inclined to increase their XRP holdings or become owners of the token for the first time in order to receive the airdrop. The DeFi craze of Q3 2020 demonstrated how valuable some air-dropped tokens can become, particularly for projects that manage to cultivate significant network effects.

For Mostafa Al-Mashita, executive vice president at crypto-focused merchant bank Global Digital Assets, the upcoming FLR airdrop is sufficient enough to provide an upward push for XRP. In a conversation with Cointelegraph, the executive identified $0.93 as a short-term price mark for XRP on the back of the airdrop snapshot.

Possible institutional interest, coin burns and token dumps

Bitcoin has enjoyed considerable institutional attention in 2020, with Wall Street firms and noted investors alike buying into the value proposition of BTC. Reports are also emerging of investors casting a broader glance at the crypto market beyond Bitcoin. Grayscale managing director Michael Sonnenshein recently revealed that there is a growing class of “Ethereum only” investors. The emergence of the DeFi market in 2020 is seemingly improving Ethereum’s appeal among institutional players.

With XRP being the third coin by market capitalization, perhaps the token is primed for an institutional push as well. In its 2020 shareholder letter, financial risk management firm FRMO Corp singled out XRP as “one of the more intriguing [crypto]currencies,” adding:

“If the transaction velocity of XRP were to rise greatly, the number of currency units would decline greatly, thereby creating a substantial return even if the coin itself did not experience an increase in market capitalization. It would, however, experience an increase in value per unit.”

It’s perhaps important to point out that FRMO’s analysis relies on an exponential increase in XRP utility, which would cause transaction fee payments to rise significantly. According to the XRP tokenomics model, transaction fees, which are in themselves small fractional units of the token, are burned. On the contrary, this amount is paid to miners and network validators for mined cryptocurrencies.

In theory, a rising utility for XRP would mean a major increase in the total amount collected as fees. Since this amount is inevitably destroyed, XRP’s circulating supply would begin to decline constantly, thus creating a situation where token demand outstrips available coins. This significant decline could be accelerated by the XRP community voting for Ripple to burn all of its XRP token holdings. Earlier in December, Ripple chief technical officer David Schwartz hinted at such a possibility, adding that the company would be unable to stop the move.

Ripple has long been accused of diluting the XRP supply with incessant token sales, with critics saying the company has outright tanked the value held by coin holders. Apart from Ripple’s actions, XRP also suffers downward selling pressure from former Ripple co-founder Jed McCaleb, who routinely sells off his token stash.

As part of McCaleb’s acrimonious departure from the company in 2014, the ex-Ripple chief technical officer was awarded a 9 billion XRP settlement for his role in founding the company. The only stipulation attached to the deal was that McCaleb could not dispose of the entire sum in one go.

With XRP experiencing a significant increase in retail trading activity, regulatory uncertainty surrounding Ripple and the token itself still means the market attention is not translating to actual utility for the coin, at least in the United States. Earlier in December, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse claimed that about 95% of the company’s clients are overseas.

According to Garlinghouse, XRP’s perceived limited adoption in the U.S. comes from the lack of regulatory clarity from the SEC about the status of the token as a security or a currency. Indeed, in October, Ripple revealed plans to move out of the U.S., with Japan and Singapore suggested as likely relocation candidates. While still maintaining frustration at the “regulation through enforcement” policies of U.S. agencies, Garlinghouse has since remarked that the company will wait and see which changes the Biden administration will implement.

XRP price action imminent? A closer look at the market’s #3 crypto

Source

Dec 04 2020

A Day in the Life of Entrepreneur Sian Murray, Co-Founder of Pleasant State

Running your own business is no easy feat. It takes a healthy dose of passion, discipline, and commitment. Ever wonder what a day in the life of a small business owner and founder is like? We’re here to give you a glimpse!

This week, we’re featuring Sian Murray, the co-founder of Pleasant State. Pleasant State is a female-owned Australian business that wants to create a sparkling clean world free of single-use plastics. One garbage truck of plastic waste enters our oceans every minute, totaling eight million tons each year. Sian and her co-founder have created a line of all natural, concentrated, just-add-water cleaning products that let users clean their homes without plastic waste and harmful ingredients.

Read on to learn about a typical day for Sian as she runs Pleasant State’s popular crowdfunding campaign. Then scroll down for a brief Q&A to get to know her better and get inspired!

Sian Murray (right) and her co-founder Ami Bateman.

5 A.M. – The sun rises at around 4.30 in summer here in Australia so it’s pretty hard to sleep in. My alarm normally goes off at 5.15 and after a few hits of the snooze button I’ll eventually climb out of bed. The first thing I do every morning is check the Pleasant State Instagram and Facebook for any new messages. I then check in on how our ads are performing and, of course, take a look at the surf cams. Then it’s straight into my swimmers, I throw my board in the back of the ute and go for a surf. There is honestly no better way to start your day.

6 A.M. – Still surfing.

7 A.M. – I normally get home at around 7.30, have a shower, make myself a giant smoothie and have a piece of toast while sitting outside on my phone and catching up on any team comms that may have come through overnight. I’ll also look at what’s going on in the world and check in on other brands we love.

8 A.M. – If I really have my life together, I’ll make time for a 10 min stretch/ light yoga before I head to my desk just to prevent getting sore while I sit at a computer all day. But most of the time, as I work from home, I just turn on the Bluetooth speakers and head straight to my desk. (I love to work with loud music — I’m not sure my housemates love it, though).

9 A.M. – The Pleasant State team all work remotely, so we rely heavily on tools like Slack and Asana to communicate and manage our projects together. Ami Bateman (my fellow co-founder) lives just half an hour away so we catch up a couple of times a week. But most days, we work separately — though I can’t wait until we have our own space to work together. I generally spend the first hour of my day on community management, emails and reviewing our ads in more detail.

10 A.M. – I manage the majority of Marketing here at Pleasant State. We’re a very small team so this means I work on strategy with the team but then have to implement the bulk of those deliverables on my own. I like to put aside an hour each day to create social content, engage with our customers and create Instagram stories as our customers love that ‘face-to-face’ contact.

Pleasant State reduces plastic waste by making super concentrated, just-add-water cleaning products.

11 A.M. – As we’re in the InDemand phase of our Indiegogo campaign and our product is due to arrive in just a couple of months we’re also doing a lot of planning for our product launch. No two days are the same! Today I’m working with our Graphic Design Intern to finalise the design of our mailer boxes and A6 comp cards that will go inside each box.

12 P.M. – As Pleasant State grows, we’ve been lucky enough to receive some awesome opportunities for events, media interviews, and features so I will usually take an hour to write back to inquiries or prepare my responses. Today, for example, I am writing this interview. 🙂

1 P.M. – Lunch time! Yum! (I live for food). Today I’m having honey soy tofu in a vermicelli noodle salad. My housemates have a new puppy so I will normally take 30 minutes to go outside with him, eat my lunch and have a little run around.

2 P.M. – This is usually when I look at my list of things to do and say, “Oh dear.” Which means I often take a minute after lunch to reassess my timings and make sure I’m on track for the rest of the day. Today I’m creating a brief for our Graphic Design Intern that will cover all design elements of our upcoming Christmas campaign. This means I will need to have the strategy mapped out, the copy written and the channels selected, plus give her design guidance for the whole campaign so she can format it nicely and I can then schedule it into all our channels. This includes things like email, social posts, ad content, website updates etc.

3 P.M. – The above job is quite a big one so I’ll still be pulling all this information together for our amazing intern.

4 P.M. It’s been a few hours since I’ve checked in on community management. Our audience is pretty active so it’s important to check it regularly. Part of our current planning phase as we transition from crowdfunding to product launch is ensuring brand consistency throughout all our channels, so today I’ll be looking at our Instagram and Facebook bios to ensure they are aligned with our key messaging.

5 P.M. – I’m very big on work life balance so don’t like to go overtime too much, but today is a big day as we head into the weekend. I like to make sure I’ve ticked off everything on my list before I finish. Pleasant State has been lucky enough to have a Facebook rep providing us with support across our ads lately so after a phone call with them yesterday I’ll make some of the changes they recommended to finish off the day. Conversion ads have been a huge revenue driver for us so it’s important they’re constantly optimised.

6 P.M. – It is so hot here during the day, we don’t have an air conditioner so I’ll usually finish off work by grabbing a beer and quickly running down to the beach for a sunset swim to cool off. We’re very lucky to live walking distance to the beach, even though it can also be a bit distracting.

Sian and Ami, the Pleasant State co-founders, celebrating their Indiegogo campaign.

7 P.M. – Well what do you know, it’s food time again! Today’s Friday which means I’m heading out with my partner and friends. My Friday night classic is a fancy pizza accompanied by a couple of margaritas. Now that’s living.

8 P.M. – On to my second margarita.

9 P.M. – Who knows — depending on my mood, there might be a third, haha! But I have a bit of work to do this weekend so it’s home and an early night for me.

10 P.M. – Last check over socials to make sure all is well in the world of Pleasant State and then I’m off to sleep.

11 P.M. Can’t talk, sleeping. 🙂

How and why did you become an entrepreneur? Was it something you always intended for yourself?

I always said, “I want to own my own business, but I don’t know what it will be.” I suppose that’s the beauty of it: You just have to open yourself up to the possibility. One day the opportunity will present itself and it’s up to you to jump at it. For me, that opportunity was Pleasant State. To be honest, though, it definitely wasn’t a chance encounter that led Ami and Pleasant State to me. I studied Journalism and Professional Communication because I wanted to launch my own magazine, which I ended up doing straight out of university. But once I realised a magazine wasn’t going to do it for me, I put a lot of effort into upskilling in digital marketing. I knew it would be a huge asset when it came to launching my own business again, which it definitely has been. Years of working in a digital agency and building my own personal brand led Ami to me so I wouldn’t have been presented with this opportunity without the ground work.

Sian attacking plastic waste on the beach, and with good reason: 8 trillion tons of plastic waste end up in the ocean every year.

What makes your Indiegogo project unique?

I love this question! There are so many things that make our project unique. I feel that crowdfunding in general isn’t as common in Australia as it is in places like the UK and US, so the fact that we went down this route for funding in Australia is quite unique in itself. More broadly, we’re a female-founded start-up based in a small town on Australia’s Sunshine Coast. We’ve worked really hard to not take on investors and ensure that in all aspects of our business we are putting people and the planet before profits. At the end of the day, Pleasant State is and will be more than just a cleaning brand. We’re here to demonstrate that doing good is good for business. I would also say that our general energy makes our project unique. We have put so much time and effort into building Pleasant State from the ground up — so much research, so much creativity and so much face-to-face contact to build a relatable, honest brand that brings hope to our customers. Oh, and our crowdfunding video is a beauty. 😉

What’s your biggest piece of advice for women who want to start their own business?

Always remember that you are enough and that you’ve 100% got this. Even when you don’t have it, just know that if you believe in the back of your mind you can get it done, you will. Ami and I often laugh about how out of our depth we’ve been with certain elements of launching Pleasant State. We’ve never designed products or worked with manufacturers, and I barely even knew the meaning of most business Jargon (which can feel super embarrassing sometimes). But don’t be hard on yourself and don’t hold back from asking for help. Don’t know the answer? Just ask! It’s something I have really struggled with, but I’m working on.

Sian and Ami packaging up Pleasant State perks.

What tools (gadgets, apps, books, podcasts) would you recommend to anyone starting their own business, crowdfunding campaign, or project?

The most important tool is happiness! The start-up world is filled with people telling you that you need to work all hours of the day to be successful. That’s just not true, nor is it healthy! Make time for you. But as for podcasts, there are a few really interesting ones that I enjoy. I really like some of the interviews they do on Female Startup Club and Business Chicks. As a digital marketer, I spend a crazy amount of time on socials so unfortunately I don’t find the time to read enough. But I would 100% recommend finding brands and businesses that you admire and following them religiously. Stuck for an idea? Why not see how they communicated it? Taking inspiration from other amazing brands and making it your own is a huge help when you have a small team. Just make sure you’re not just copying other brands. The key is to find new ideas and then think about how you can make them your own or even better! In terms of gadgets, Loomly has been great for all our scheduling, Asana for team management and, of course, playing loud music to get me through it all!

What’s your favorite Indiegogo campaign, or a campaign you’ve recently supported?

I’m not sure I have a favourite but there were definitely a few that inspired me in a big way throughout our initial campaign. Like I said in my previous response, I’m big on taking inspiration from those around me and for us that was Hitch. I loved their video and the way they set up their story. It was genius! And, of course, back here in Australia I loved the campaign by Who Gives A Crap, their tone of voice and video just got me. It was definitely the inspiration for the comedic relief in our campaign.

Want to support Pleasant State? Check out the crowdfunding campaign today, or explore their website, Instagram and Facebook to learn more!

<!–

Comments are closed

–>

Source