4 The Hampton Roads Messenger Editorial Six Steps to Startup Success


a success. This team may include an accountant, an attorney and any other expert whose advice may be necessary to the success of the business.


BY ANGELA JONES


Since 2006 the Hampton Roads Messenger has helped launch successful startups in Virginia and North Carolina by providing support through media outlets in both states, as well as through business conferences, pitch contests and networking events. This month, which includes National Small Business Week, we created a guide for startup businesses titled “Six Steps to Startup Success.” The six steps to startup success are Study, Search, Save, Start, Share and Succeed.


The first step in launching a successful startup is to “Study.” Whatever business idea one has, even before the decision is made to turn the idea into an actual business, there is a certain amount of research which should take


place. Demographic


information for the region where the business would be launched is one example of what should be studied. If the business will be online, avenues to best reach the target customers should be studied. The only way to know one’s customers is to study them and their buying habits. All of the information gathered in the study process can be compiled into a business plan.


The second step in launching


a successful startup is “Search.” An entrepreneur who wants to start a new business will need to search for the optimal location for his business, the best experts available to assist him and the best pool of employees.


A business location can be as


simple as setting up a website; however, a great deal of thought should go into the finding the best domain name. If the business will be a traditional brick and mortar business, it is important to find a location that will suit the needs of the business while considering size, location and price.


One of the most difficult tasks and probably the most important is surrounding one’s self with a team of experts who can help make the business


The third step on the road to a successful startup is to “Save.” Lack of capital is the number one reason many businesses fail. There are varying views as to which source of capital should be used for business ventures. Some experts steer entrepreneurs towards getting business loans while others believe customers should fund the business venture even before it is launched. Crowdfunding on websites is one way entrepreneurs are funding their


ventures. Where ever startup


capital is garnered, there seems to be a general consensus among experts that one should not use their personal funds to start a business. The SBA and USDA are a couple of government agencies who guarantee loans made by banks to individuals to start businesses. Entrepreneurs often have to specify that they are interested in those types of loans when speaking with a bank loan officer.


The fourth step to a successful startup is to “Start.” Before the doors of a business are open, the proper paperwork should be filed with federal, state and local agencies. A business attorney or accountant should be able to let each entrepreneur know which forms should be filed with which agency. Websites like legalzoom. com can also be helpful. Additionally, LegalShield offers this type of support for small businesses.


“Share” is the fifth step on the ladder to reaching the goal of a successful startup. “Go big or go home” is a popular mantra these days and it certainly applies to launching a startup. Making the most of a “Grand Opening” is so important that many companies have more than one. New businesses should use press releases, social media and paid advertising, if necessary, to let people know that they are open for business. Never under estimate the power of a great network. Startup news should be shared with family, friends, neighbors and anyone else who will listen.


The sixth and final step in launching a successful startup is to “Succeed.” It may sound like a cliché but determination is often the only thing that separates entrepreneurs who succeed from those who fail. There are times when a business idea should be revised or abandoned; however, if one has invested time and effort in to the first five steps to a successful startup, succeeding should be automatic.


Volume 10 Number 9 False Claims FROM PAGE 1


that kids living in areas with lead contaminated water also had elevated blood lead levels.


Using their own data, Edwards’ work found increased lead levels in water, while Hanna-Attisha’s “Hurley Report”


concentrated on elevated


blood lead levels in children under 5. But the MDHHS contested these findings until Oct. 1, 2015, arguing its data didn’t show the same trends.


Since then, state and city officials


have come under criticism for their slow response to the crisis, which so far has resulted in charges against three public officials for official misconduct and other offenses.


According to the World Health Organization, “Young children particularly


are vulnerable to the toxic


effects of lead and can suffer profound and permanent adverse health effects, particularly affecting the development of the brain and nervous system.”


At an April 13 U.S. House


hearing, Rep. Gene Green asked Nick Lyon, director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, about a Feb. 22, 2016, letter that Green and three other House Democrats sent to Lyon. That letter cited the initial July 2015 MDHHS analysis(pages 10-11), and correctly stated that the analysis “confirmed a spike in blood lead levels” in children under 16 during the summer of 2014. Green then asked Lyon a question that was originally posed in the letter. The exchange starts at 1:03:45:


Green, April 13: Why did the Michigan Health and Human Services conclude that the spike was not related to the water supply?


Lyon: Well, I think when that


initial analysis was done the staff that worked for me felt that it was, there was seasonal fluctuations within that, within the data that drove the changes over that first summer [2014]. When they compared it to prior years, it was within range of years before.


But the MDHHS’ initial analysis showed the opposite. In the next section we’ll explain how and why the MDHHS’ initial analysis of children’s blood lead levels for summer 2014 didn’t conform to seasonal variation or fall “within range of years before,” as Lyon claimed.


Can’t Blame the Seasons Lead levels in children and water


do normally fluctuate seasonally for a number reasons, researchers Edwards and Hanna-Attisha told us by email. “Warmer temperatures mean more lead leaches out of lead pipes – that’s why you should never use warm tap water,” said Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician at the Hurley Medical Center in Flint.


Established 2006 Angela Jones, Publisher Chris Parks, Editor


Rae Willis, Graphic Designer Ida Davis, Contributing Writer


PO Box 10414 ● Norfolk, VA 23513


Sales and Information 757-575-1863 info@hamptonroadsmessenger.com


Copyright pertaining to contents of this edition. All rights reserved.


In the summer, kids may also be exposed to more lead from soil because they tend to play outside more, said Edwards, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech. There is also increased lead exposure from dust because people tend to keep their windows open in summer, both researchers noted.


Overall, it’s “[v]ery common to


see a peak [in blood lead levels] in summer,” said Edwards. Still, even summer lead levels


fall within an


expected range — what scientists call the upper and lower control limits. If data fall outside of that range, researchers have reason to believe that


May 2016


factors other than the normal seasonal variation are at play.


aimed question,


MDHHS’ July 2015 analysis to address exactly namely, did blood


this lead


levels in children under 16 fall within the normal seasonal range for July, August and September 2014 compared with the same months in 2011, 2012 and 2013?


Cristin Larder, the MDHHS


researcher who conducted the analysis, concluded in her analysis memo (page 11) that among those dates, only July, August and September 2014 had proportions of elevated blood lead levels “higher than that expected from random variation over time.”


Larder told colleagues in a July 28, 2015, email (page 6) that her analysis “shows that the three months in question are the only ones that lie outside the control limit: in fact, they are the only points that lie well above the mean at all. This doesn’t say anything about causality, but it does warrant further investigation.”


Both Edwards and Hanna-Attisha


agreed that the MDHHS’ July 2015 analysis of children’s blood lead levels


in summer 2014 didn’t fall


“within range of years before,” as Lyon claimed during the hearing. In particular, Edwards told us the “spike was scientifically conclusive” and was “a missed opportunity” to resolve Flint’s water issues earlier.


It was more than two months


after Larder’s memo that the Genesee County Health Department declared a public health emergency and told residents not to drink the water.


by


When we contacted the MDHHS email


and asked discrepancy about the between Lyon’s claim


and the July 2015 analysis conclusion, Jennifer Eisner, a public information officer at MDHHS, didn’t answer our question directly. She said, “We are looking at all aspects of this and internal


and external reviews


ongoing.” We also asked Eisner


are why


MDHHS chose to include children under 16 in its analysis, instead of just children under 5. Both Edwards and Hanna-Attisha told us the norm is to only consider lead levels in children under 5. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes children under 6 are particularly at risk to lead exposure “because they are growing so rapidly,” among other reasons.


But Eisner didn’t directly answer


this question either. She replied that the “data Dr. Larder was provided and asked to analyze was for children younger than 16.”


Why is this important?


“Including kids under 16 dilutes the effect of lead in water” and “makes it harder to find the problem,” said Edwards. “But not many people know this.” Regardless, “even in their analysis which included older kids, [MDHHS] still had the proof that there was an increase” outside of the norm for summer, Hanna-Attisha told us.


We don’t know why Lyon gave the House committee information that was contrary to the July 2015 memo’s conclusion. But we can say Lyon falsely claimed this initial analysis showed blood lead levels in Flint children under 16 for the summer of 2014 fell “within range of years before.”


Factcheck.org


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16