GrowthCraft

Author name: Isaac Krasny

3 Types of Startup Accelerator: Pros & Cons

3 Types of Startup Accelerator: Pros & Cons

Startup accelerators come in many forms—each with its own set of benefits, costs, and expectations. Whether you’re bootstrapping or raising venture capital, the right accelerator can give you the mentorship, connections, and momentum to move forward. In this post, we break down the three main types of accelerators—community-based, equity, and corporate—to help you figure out which model fits your goals and stage of growth.

Community-Based Startup Accelerator

Sometimes, all a founder needs is guidance from experienced mentors and a space to connect with other entrepreneurs. Community-based accelerators offer many of the same perks as traditional accelerators—mentorship, peer support, and networking—without the high costs or equity requirements.

Unlike equity or corporate accelerators, which often select startups based on investment potential, community-based programs are typically open to more founders and focus on increasing overall founder success. They may not carry the same brand recognition as larger programs, but they can be just as effective.

For example, GrowthCraft offers members access to expert mentorship, founder mastermind groups, and regular networking—all online, with no equity required.

Since these programs often don’t have strict cohorts or time commitments, they’re especially helpful for founders who are part-time or not yet ready to commit full-time hours to accelerator activities.


Equity-Based Startup Accelerator

Equity accelerators are probably what most people think of when they hear “startup accelerator.” These programs provide a small, fixed investment in exchange for equity, then support your startup with structured mentorship, workshops, and investor introductions over a set time frame.

Examples of equity accelerators:

These programs are a great fit for startups planning to raise venture capital. The advice, exposure, and momentum can help you build traction fast—and being associated with a top-tier accelerator can boost your credibility with investors.

However, equity accelerators are highly selective, often admitting only a tiny percentage of applicants. They may also require relocation and a full-time commitment during the program. Most importantly, giving away equity is a significant decision—sometimes worth it, but always worth careful consideration.


Corporate Startup Accelerator

Corporate startup accelerators are run by large companies looking to support startups in their industry. These programs are a way for corporations to connect with new technologies, emerging talent, and potential investments.

Examples of corporate accelerators:

If your startup aligns with a corporate accelerator’s focus area, the potential benefits are strong: mentorship, industry connections, customer access, and the branding bump of being associated with a big-name company.

Many corporate accelerators don’t take equity, but there are still trade-offs. Some require in-person participation or involvement in mandatory sessions that can take time away from building your product. Like equity accelerators, these programs are selective and may not be accessible to all founders.


Final Thoughts

No accelerator is one-size-fits-all. Whether you join a community, equity, or corporate program depends on your goals, your availability, and whether you’re ready to give up equity in exchange for growth. The key is choosing the model that best supports where you are today—and where you want to go next.

3 Types of Startup Accelerator: Pros & Cons Read More »

How Startup Founders Can Be Remembered, Not Forgotten

How Startup Founders Can Be Remembered, Not Forgotten

In the world of startups, your first impression often is your only impression. Whether you’re pitching to investors, networking at events, or explaining what your company does to a potential partner or client, the way you communicate matters. And the psychology of communication gives us a major edge.

Let’s break down how to craft a powerful 30-60 second commercial—one that’s rooted in how the brain processes information, builds trust, and creates connection.

1. The Brain Decides Fast—So You Have to Grab Attention Immediately.

Psych Principle: First Impressions Are Formed in 7 Seconds
Your brain is wired for speed. In just a few seconds, people decide whether to pay attention or move on. That means your commercial can’t start with a generic job title or company name.

Instead of:

“Hi, I’m Sarah, CEO of AppTrack, a SaaS platform for applicant tracking.”

Try:

“We help fast-growing startups cut hiring time in half without losing candidate quality.”

This phrasing activates pattern interruption, a technique that disrupts predictable language and makes people more attentive. It also focuses on the result, not the title or tool.

2. Tell the Brain a Story, Not a Spreadsheet

Psych Principle: The Brain Loves Stories Over Stats
Human memory isn’t designed for data—it’s designed for narrative. Rather than listing features or services, paint a picture.

Instead of:

“We offer analytics dashboards, real-time alerts, and onboarding tools.”

Try:

“Imagine you’re sipping coffee while your dashboard alerts you to a critical customer issue—before they churn. That’s what our platform makes possible.”

The brain processes images 60,000x faster than text. Tapping into imagination creates emotional involvement—and emotional involvement is what makes you memorable.

3. Use the Reciprocity Trigger: Offer First

Psych Principle: People Remember Those Who Add Value
According to Dr. Robert Cialdini’s work on influence, the rule of reciprocity means that when someone gives us value, we instinctively want to return the favor.

In your commercial, rather than ending with a vague “Let me know if you need X,” try offering something specific and useful.

“By the way, we’ve put together a quick checklist for small businesses who want to tighten their hiring process—it’s totally free. Just grab me after this if you want it.”

This does three things:

  • Positions you as a giver, not a taker
  • Creates a reason for follow-up
  • Reinforces your authority and generosity

Your Commercial Isn’t About You—It’s About Their Brain

Startup founders often fall into the trap of over-explaining or listing too many facts. But the most effective pitches—and the ones that get remembered—are shaped around how people listen, think, and decide.

So next time you’re prepping your intro for a networking event, accelerator pitch, or investor meeting, ask yourself:

  • Am I opening with a hook that makes them curious?
  • Am I painting a picture they can see or feel?
  • Am I offering something that makes them want to continue the conversation?

If the answer is yes—you’re not just building a pitch.
You’re building a relationship.

How Startup Founders Can Be Remembered, Not Forgotten Read More »

a dna helix made out of dolla rbills

4 Answers to Key SBIR Questions in 2025

4 Answers to Key SBIR Questions in 2025

a dna helix made out of dolla rbills

There have been a lot of reports in the news recently about changes in Federal grant policies. Even those who are only casual tourists to this world will have heard about pauses in grant reviews at the various funding agencies, potentially drastic cuts in funding levels, and other general rumblings that the sky is about to fall.
The policies of the new administration vis-à-vis R&D funding are still being finalized, instituted—and, in some cases, litigated.  But enough information has now emerged that we can start to draw some reasonable inferences about what all this means for the ~ $4.5B in SBIR/STTR grants that is disbursed every year and that is such an important source of non-dilutive funding for high tech startups.  And the answer is…not much.

That’s right.  Carry on, nothing to see here, folks.

At AwardIT, we have been getting regularly contacted over the past month or so, with varying levels of panic, about potential changes in SBIR/STTR policies. We thought it might help to gather up a few of the questions and try to answer them as clearly and concisely as possible. 

Question 1: I’ve heard that the NIH is going to limit Indirect Costs to 15%?  Isn’t that a big deal?

Answer: for Institutes of Higher Education (IHE), it sure is. They have become accustomed to getting >50% (in some cases, up to ~90%) on top of the dollars that directly support the research program being funded at their Institution.  That is going to be a wrench to do without—which is why they are challenging the ruling in the courts.

We are grant consultants, not lawyers, but FWIW our view is that this is a legal battle the IHEs are unlikely to win.  The executive branch really does have Constitutional authority in these matters. But no matter how that ruling shakes out, it seems clear that this change in IC rates is intended ONLY for IHE grants.  We’ve read the NIH Guidance on the recent change in IC policy NOT-OD-25-068: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates (we do stuff like this so you don’t have to).  The CFRs cited in that Guidance, such as CF 75.414, make it clear that IHEs and nonprofits are regulated under a different budgetary policy than SBs and for-profit entities.  

The above is, more or less, the same policy for the other agencies with the largest SBIR/STTR budgets (NSF, DOE, DOD)

Takeaway: Indirect Cost rates for SBIR grants, as far as we can tell right now, can be expected to remain in the 20%-40% range, where they have always been.

Question 2: is overall funding support for SBIR/STTR going down?  

Answer: for Institutes of Higher Education (IHE), it sure is. They have become accustomed to getting >50% (in some cases, up to ~90%) on top of the dollars that directly support the research program being funded at their Institution.  That is going to be a wrench to do without—which is why they are challenging the ruling in the courts.

We are grant consultants, not lawyers, but FWIW our view is that this is a legal battle the IHEs are unlikely to win.  The executive branch really does have Constitutional authority in these matters. But no matter how that ruling shakes out, it seems clear that this change in IC rates is intended ONLY for IHE grants.  We’ve read the NIH Guidance on the recent change in IC policy NOT-OD-25-068: Supplemental Guidance to the 2024 NIH Grants Policy Statement: Indirect Cost Rates (we do stuff like this so you don’t have to).  The CFRs cited in that Guidance, such as CF 75.414, make it clear that IHEs and nonprofits are regulated under a different budgetary policy than SBs and for-profit entities.  

The above is, more or less, the same policy for the other agencies with the largest SBIR/STTR budgets (NSF, DOE, DOD)

Takeaway: Indirect Cost rates for SBIR grants, as far as we can tell right now, can be expected to remain in the 20%-40% range, where they have always been.

Question 3: review/funding of my grant has been delayed.  How long will I have to wait?

Answer: Applicants at all of the big 4 agencies have experienced some delay in processing of grants since January.  This is not that unusual during a change in Administration.  It’s been a little more pronounced (and announced) this time around, but the reality is a lot of the focus for the internal audit is on academic grant funding, not SBIR/STTR grants.  As fas as SBIR/STTR goes: the latest feedback from NIH  is that study sections are being convened, reviews are being issued, happy grants are getting funded.  Similarly, at DOD SBIR grants have been largely unaffected (Pentagon says small business programs not part of grant funding pause)

The exception is NSF, which is currently undergoing a significant transformation in its overall structure. Budget cuts and personnel layoffs have already taken place at the agency, and more are likely to follow. In the latest twist, on April 24 the NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan announced he would resign (Trump’s first-term pick to run the National Science Foundation quits: ‘I have done all I can’). 

So much change was sure to have an impact and the agency’s April 16 announcement that grant review would be paused was perhaps not a huge surprise.  But again, SBIR/STTR seems to be largely sheltered so far: Project Pitches and applications for the upcoming July 2 NSF SBIR/STTR application deadline are still being accepted.  Most importantly, as of this writing, the NSF budget for SBIR/STTR grants remains where it was (see above).

Takeaway: if you have a grant application in the queue for Spring 2025, expect some amount of slowdown in getting your review or for funding to flow.  This is especially true at NSF.  But overall things are still moving forward.

Question 4: You are telling me that things are OK for now. But can’t SBIR grants be abolished by Executive Order?  Could they just vanish overnight?

Answer: In a word–no. The SBIR program was established by an Act of Congress over 40 years ago. It has been renewed, with bipartisan support, every 3 years since that time. Our representatives may not be able to agree on much, but they seem to consistently agree on maintaining the SBIR/STTR program, and Federal law cannot be changed just with the famous “stroke of a pen”.  

In summary: there is no doubt that US R&D funding priorities have changed with the advent of a new administration. What else is new? The answer is to stay flexible and shift grant strategy in response to the new realities. We at AwardIT have been grant consultants for a long time and have seen this happen more than once. Despite alarmist reports, it does not appear that any of the recent news will have much impact on Federal agencies overall SBIR/STTR spending or review processes. Onward!

Want to learn more?  Reach out to AwardIT at https://awardit.net/ or email me at neal@awardit.net.  It’s a world of smart ideas, we look forward to learning more about yours.

4 Answers to Key SBIR Questions in 2025 Read More »

Scroll to Top