Cyclicality of SME finance Cyclicality of SME finance - European
Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms: Research ...
104
ENGAGING USERS FOR BUSINESS TRANSFER Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms: Research Outcomes of 12 European Countries June 2016
Transcript of Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms: Research ...
ENGAGING USERS FOR BUSINESS TRANSFER
Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms:
Research Outcomes of 12 European Countries
June 2016
2
Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms:
Research Outcomes of 12 European Countries
June 2016
www.eu4bt.eu
www.transeo-association.eu
Lex van Teeffelen, PhD
Professor of Finance and Firm Acquisitions, HU Business School Utrecht
Principal Researcher
Edwin Weesie, Msc
Doctoral Researcher Business Transfers, HU Business School Utrecht
Researcher
Marie Depelssemaker, Msc
General Secretary Transeo
Liège, Belgium
Oriol Alba, Msc
Project Coordinator EU4BT
Barcelona, Spain
Nicolas Pirotte, Msc
Manager Sowaccess
Liège, Belgium
This report has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union under the Entrepreneurship and
Innovation Programme (EIP). The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of EU4BT consortium and can
under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union or of the Programme’s
management structures.
The Entrepreneurship Innovation Programme (EIP) objective is to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
This particular call aims to support the implementation of the Small Business Act where business transfers are
specifically mentioned under the first principle: (To create an environment within which entrepreneurs and family
businesses can thrive and entrepreneurship is rewarded).
3
Index
Preface………. .............................................................................................................................. 5
Introducing EU4BT (Engaging Users for Business Transfers) ..................................................... 6
1. Promising Features and Main Issues ................................................................................... 8
1.1.The potential features of matching platforms ............................................................... 8
1.2.Some complicating factors in matching ........................................................................ 9
2. Defining Matching Platforms ........................................................................................... 12
2.1.Methodology ............................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1Round 1: Discussion at Transeo General Assembly ............................................ 12
2.1.2Round 2: 1st Expert Group Meeting .................................................................... 13
2.2.Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 18
3. Evidence-Based Standards for Digital Matching .............................................................. 20
3.1.Trust and privacy issues .............................................................................................. 20
3.2.Online dating ............................................................................................................... 21
3.3.Success of matching platforms ................................................................................... 21
4. Building a Framework ...................................................................................................... 23
4.1.Content quality ............................................................................................................ 23
4.2.Design quality ............................................................................................................. 25
4.3.Organizational quality ................................................................................................. 26
4.4.User-friendliness ......................................................................................................... 27
5. Selection of Quality Indicators ......................................................................................... 30
6. Survey Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 32
6.1.Sampling, data collection and descriptive statics ........................................................ 32
6.2.Analyses and Reliability ............................................................................................. 33
6.3.Outcomes on Relevant, Authority and Multi-language .............................................. 35
6.4.Outcomes on Timeliness ............................................................................................. 38
6.5.Outcomes on Accuracy ............................................................................................... 39
6.6.Outcomes on Security , Privacy and Customization ................................................... 46
6.7.Outcomes on Links, Usability, Techincal Reliability and Multilanguage .................. 47
7. Survey Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 48
8. Interpretation with Platform Owners/Managers................................................................ 53
9. Main Learnings ................................................................................................................. 59
10. Quality Standards and Implementation ............................................................................. 61
10.1.Proposed Standards ................................................................................................... 61
10.2.Good Practices .......................................................................................................... 62
10.3.Policy Implications ................................................................................................... 63
4
10.4.Additional Policy Implications ................................................................................. 64
10.5.Synthesis Table ......................................................................................................... 66
Epilogue…….. ............................................................................................................................ 69
References…… ........................................................................................................................... 70
Annex 1: European Commission’s Criteria (2006) ..................................................................... 73
Annex 2: Qutob and Van Teeffelen’s Criteria (2009) ................................................................. 74
Annex 3: EU4BT’s Criteria (2015) ............................................................................................. 75
Annex 4: Survey questionnaire and frequencies ......................................................................... 76
Annex 5: List of approached platforms ....................................................................................... 92
Annex 6: List of Expert Group Members .................................................................................... 94
Annex 7: European Code of Conduct for Matching Platforms ................................................... 95
Annex 8: Research Limitations ................................................................................................. 100
Annex 9: Signing Matching Platforms ...................................................................................... 102
5
Preface
The European Commission supports Member States by providing them with
recommendations, guidelines, information and good practices. For years, the European
Commission has stimulated Member States to develop matching platforms to efficiently
support sellers and buyers of SMEs in ownership change.
A matching platform is a valuable link in the sale/acquisition chain of SMEs. Over the
ten past years, not only the European Commission has been pointing out the essential role
played by platforms. In many Member States matching platforms started or matured,
either in the public sector, by private organizations or both (semi-public).
Matching platforms are mentioned in all the EU business transfer reference documents
and more particularly in the Small Business Act and its Review in 2011, the 2006
Communication, the 2013 Expert Group on SME Transfers and the recent
Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Special attention is devoted to the important
challenge of efficient matching platforms in Europe.
As observed in the latest (2013) EU Expert Group on Business Transfers:
There is no development in the type of matching platforms recommended by the
2006 Expert Group.
The “landscape” of matching platforms in Europe has changed over the past 10
years, with, among others, the co-existence of private on-line platforms alongside
the public platforms.
There is a need for an update in quality standards and for the consultation of
matching platforms themselves in order to understand their working and identify
good practices.
6
Introducing EU4BT (Engaging Users for Business Transfers)
The EU4BT project aims to develop standards related to buyer-seller matching platforms
for business transfers to ensure the quality of the services provided. At the same time, it
looks at the potential platform features to provide for more exposure, a better transparency
and the type of services provided. It finally touches on all complicating factors, which
prevent matching platforms to realize their full potential.
The research methodology combines:
An academic study to obtain an up-to date state of the art of matching platforms,
to understand their working in details and point out good practices.
A partnership with matching platforms from all over Europe to take into
consideration their reality and needs: we involved matching platforms through
on-line surveys, in an assessment and in 2 expert group meetings.
All the information collected on matching platforms is anonymized, but at an aggregated
level all outcomes are reported. Please note that our objective was not to provide a ranking
of the best platforms in Europe. First a validated standard needs to be developed. Though
direct studies on business transfer matching platforms are extremely rare, the EU4BT
project provides for academic models and outcomes on quality standards in digital B2B
markets (see Chapter 3 to 5).
EU4BT has overcome important past hurdles. Platforms have hardly been evaluated by
impartial parties over the past three decades. If standards were discussed, only a limited
number of public or semi-public matching platforms were involved (European
Commission, 2006). Throughout Europe, 60 matching platforms have been identified (see
Annex 5). The EU4BT project invited all European platforms, both private and public,
pre- and post-2006 platforms, to share on their insight on working methods and quality
standards.
In setting market-based standards, it is believed, cooperation between matching platforms
and transparency is an important catalyst (European Commission, 2013; p. 110). To
develop a mutual language and understanding on quality standards, EU4BT chose to
interact strongly with some of the users and 15 platform owners/managers (see Chapters
2 and 8). This enabled EU4BT to get full information on working methods and the
7
functionalities of participating matching platforms in 12 countries. The survey outcomes
have been cross-validated by accessing all digital platforms directly (see Chapters 6 and
7).
The academic and empirical outcomes have been reviewed by two independent
academics, not being member of the consortium of EU4BT. All outcomes have been
shared, discussed, interpreted and validated by a core group of 15 matching platforms
owners/managers.
The Consortium
EU4BT is financed by COSME program (Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and
Medium-sized Enterprise) from the European Union. The project has been carried out by
an international consortium composed by Transeo Association and 3 of its Members:
Hogeschool Utrecht (Netherlands).
Centre de Reempresa de Catalunya (Spain).
SOWACCESS (Belgium).
Transeo, the EU Association for SME Transfer, gathers SME transfer (sale/acquisition)
experts from the private, public and academic sectors, with the objective of improving
SME transfers by exchanging good practices and stimulating collaboration between
experts from different sectors and different regions and countries. Since its set up in 2010,
Transeo has been working closely with the EU Commission. Transeo increases awareness
of the business transfer issue at regional, national and European level. Transeo works on
solutions and projects to improve business transfer at a European scale.
The authors like to express their gratitude to Céline Barredy, Associate Professor of
Finance and Family Firm Governance (Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense),
Miguel Meuleman, Professor of Entrepreneurship (Vlerick Business School) and
Beverley Pasian, Associate Professor (University of Applied Sciences Utrecht) on their
academic and editorial reviews. The authors also like to thank Martijn Westerlaken and
Rosalie van Rijk as Transeo Board Members for their comments and active role as
moderators in round tables meetings with platform users and platform owners/managers.
8
1. Promising Features and Main Issues
It is important to get a better understanding of workings and differences between
matching platforms in the market for SME business transfers. In this chapter, we will
outline the promising features and main issues in SME ownership change of matching
platforms. This chapter will also define the research scope, its purpose and some aspects
of the chosen methodology. Chapter 2 will define matching platforms.
1.1. The potential features of matching platforms
Figure 1 represents the most important parties in business transfer: the selling party, the
buying party, their advisors and financial institutions (Van Teeffelen, 2012). Matching
platforms have been inserted and are capable to connect all central players. For that
reason, they are added to the model with interrupted lining.
1st potential feature: Improved exposure of firms for sale while guaranteeing
confidentiality
Smaller firms for sale are hardly identifiable in the market in many countries (European
Commission, 2006; 2013, Stone et al., 2004; Van Teeffelen, 2010). A first important
feature of matching platforms is that they are able to increase exposure for sellers and
buyers.
9
2nd potential feature: Reduction of information asymmetry and improved
transparency
In SME ownership transfers, there is a strong tendency for information asymmetry
between sellers and buyers, sellers providing little or incomplete information needed by
buyers (e.g. Dyck et al., 2002; Howorth et al., 2004). The vast majority of SMEs are
unlisted and privately owned. There are hardly obligations to share (financial)
information publicly. Intermediary parties like matching platforms need to check, verify
or provide information in order to validate or formalize the market information. By
providing better insights and validated information, digital matching platforms can
improve transparency in the market of SME business transfers.
3th potential feature: Hub for affordable (advisory) services
Policy-makers and researchers notice market failure to provide affordable and competent
business transfer advisory services. In overviewing literature and research, Van Teeffelen
(2012) concludes that the call by the European Commission (2002) for better and
affordable business transfer support is still pending, especially regarding micro and small
firms. Matching platforms may connect (inter)national parties and are capable to offer
affordable one-stop shop services. Services can be provided one-to-many, by digitized
tooling, group wise or by do-it-yourself kits. We do not know however to what extent
these potential features have been realized by matching platforms.
1.2. Some complicating factors in matching
In realizing their potential, matching platforms meet some challenging market
circumstances. This paragraph lists some of the most persistent complicating factors that
prevent matching platforms to realize their full potential.
Complication 1: Still too few companies “for sale” on matching platforms?
Knowing micro firms with employees (1-9 employees) are as wanted as small firms (10
– 49 employees) by buyers (Amaral et al., 2007; Stone et al., 2004; Van Teeffelen, 2010;
Wennberg et al., 2010), why is this segment of the market still so invisible? If we look at
all listed sellers on Dutch matching platforms - a well-developed market for digital
matching - only a minority of all sellers is active on matching platforms (Qutob and Van
10
Teeffelen, 2009). The fear for public exposure in a sale could be an obstacle in small
firms’ transactions (Transeo, 2014; Van Teeffelen, 2010).
Complication 2: The key role of advisors
Succession and a change of ownership are complex and a once-in-a-lifetime event for
most entrepreneurs (European Commission, 2002; Meijaard, 2005; Van Teeffelen, 2010).
Most entrepreneurs lack knowledge and experience of the process of selling, buying and
acquiring capital for the transaction. The large majority of buyers and sellers need
assistance of several advisors (Allison et al., 2007; Bruce and Picard, 2006; Geerts et al.,
2004; Van Teeffelen, 2012). We have to consider the implicit threat that matching
platforms pose on relative expensive one-on-one advisory services. Maybe advisors,
sharing their selling and buying profiles on matching platforms, are at the same time a
major customer of matching platforms and an important competitor. Hence, are platforms
suited and willing to offer active (digital) matching services that might compete with
existing advisory services?
Complication 3: How do matching platforms create trust?
Privacy is a vital element of all web-based matching platforms and transactions (Beldad
et al., 2010), yet privacy considerations did not prevent the enormous growth of other
types of web-based matching platforms, like in the real estate sector, auctioning, the retail
sector, the traveling and tourist sector, the dating sector and alternative financing.
Matching platforms in other sectors have overcome these fears by attractive appearances,
showing their previous and present results and impartial third party assessments (see Van
Teeffelen and Weesie, 2015). How do matching platforms generate trust and do they
actively build on reputation by publishing their track records, results and involve third
parties to assess their platforms?
Complication 4: Older business owners may be unwilling to use new technologies
Another explanation of the invisibility of small firms on matching platforms could be
because of the target group of matching platforms: older owners selling off their firms,
not ready yet to use newer digital technologies. The unfamiliarity and inexperience of
firms’ owners in succession and sale is a recurring theme (e.g. Le Breton-Miller et al.,
11
2004; Transeo, 2014) and adds up to the reluctance of firm owners to put profiles on
matching platforms.
Complication 5: A viable business model for matching seems a challenge
Perhaps also the business model of online matching is hardly viable, since Qutob and Van
Teeffelen (2009) report most platforms ask very low subscription fees, having no
additional revenue streams. What is their business model? Are matching platforms self-
sustaining? Which innovations are due and are there enough resources for (digital)
innovation available?
Complication 6: What services should be provided by a matching platform?
Should matching platforms restrict to a passive bulletin board function, just listing
available profiles of sellers, buyers and advisors? Or should they offer all kinds of
additional digital and non-digital services to prepare, support and actively match? And
are there distinctions support services between privately-owned or government supported
platforms?
Complication 7: Can matching platforms work together internationally in a realistic
way?
The cross-border transfers of small companies are confronted with major challenges but
cross-border buy-outs are increasingly important for external growth of SMEs (PwC,
2014). Do matching platforms already act as international players? And is cross-border
pooling of sellers and buyers feasible?
12
2. Defining Matching Platforms
To define business transfer matching platforms, we looked into previous descriptions by
the European Commission (2006) in Annex 1, Qutob and Van Teeffelen (2009) in Annex
2 and the definition the EU4BT (2014) partners in Annex 3. These descriptions are rather
a mix of requirements and wished for quality standards, without directly addressing the
needs and expectations of sellers, buyers and advisors acting on these platforms. For
example, the European Commission (2006) wishes for national platforms by neutral and
impartial party, preferably by the Chambers of Commerce. Qutob and Van Teeffelen
(2009) and EU4BT (2014) building on the European Commission criteria mention
standards like up-to-date and checked profiles, direct contact and complaint procedures,
as well as transparency of platform ownership and business models. They also mention
ICT-tooling, matching methodologies and additional services.
2.1. Methodology
The collection of qualitative data has been done in 2 rounds. The objective was to try to
define matching platforms and their requirements among business transfers advisors and
15 owner/managers of matching platforms.
2.1.1. Round 1: Discussion at Transeo General Assembly
On May 21st 2015, 30 experts active in the business transfer market from 10 EU countries
participated in a discussion at the General Assembly of Transeo. These experts were
mainly business transfer advisors of different disciplines, complemented with few
platform owners, SME representatives and academic business transfer researchers.
Nearly all participants are engaged in business transfers on a daily basis.
The total group was divided in 5 tables of 6 discussants and a moderator. Each table
discussed 3 out of 5 questions on:
Defining matching platforms.
Their expectations of services.
Difference between buyers and sellers.
Important features and quality standards.
13
The moderators’ role was to let all professionals talk in an orderly fashion and make notes
of the most salient details offered during the 45 minute discussions. All participants were
asked to fill in the questionnaire with the open questions first and after that elaborated on
their answer in the discussion. After the 45 minutes’ discussion, all individual
questionnaires were collected.
The questionnaires were analysed in a qualitative fashion. Atlas.ti 2013 was used to
import all the documents.
Coding took place in three steps:
1. In the first coding step, one of the researcher openly coded all the comments of
all the filled in questions except for the main researchers involved to avoid bias.
As a result, 198 individual codes emerged in 30 completed open questionnaires.
2. In the second step the two researchers discussed the main themes of the various
questions and decided on a data reduction process resulting in 170 codes.
3. In the third step, all codes were imported into a word cloud.
2.1.2. Round 2: 1st Expert Group Meeting
On June 16th 2015, owners/managers from 15 European matching platforms met in
Brussels to add meaning to the main outcomes and to cross-validate the findings of the
1st Round.
The platforms are based in Germany (2), UK (1), France (2), Spain (2), the Netherlands
(3), Finland (2), Belgium (2) and Luxembourg (1). The group of 15 was divided into 3
tables of 5 discussants and a moderator.
Each table discussed on 3 questions:
1. Typologies of matching platforms and their business models.
2. The type of services offered.
3. The quality minimal and maximal quality standards.
All participants filled in the three open questions first and after that elaborated on their
answer at the roundtable. After the 45 minutes’ discussion, all individual questionnaires
were collected.
14
The similarities in the individual and moderators’ notes, and the overall summary given
by each group in rounding up discussion, were used as main inputs for the additional and
more in depth comments on the word clouds presented.
Outcomes on the open questions of the 1st Expert Group:
1. What is your definition of a matching platform for business transfers?
Some of the 15 owner/managers of matching platforms, gave very brief descriptions of
matching platforms like “a database of sellers and buyers and a search engine” and
“brokerage of buyers, sellers and advisors”. They differentiated typologies of matching
platform and business models, like type of ownership (private, semi-public, public),
markets (regional, national, cross-border), partnerships, different target groups of SMEs
(sector specific or specialized platform, firm size like micro firms, small firms and
medium-sized firms), the importance of the main stakeholders (bankers, advisors, legal
parties, government agencies, shareholders) and the number of selling profiles available.
They also distinguished between (full) digital services, limited digital services and all
types of non-digital services, like courses, networking activities and/or awareness-raising
activities on SME business transfers. The survey questionnaire (see Annex 4) has taken
in the mentioned business models and typologies.
Figure 2: Definition of matching platforms by advisors
15
From the above keywords mentioned by business transfer advisors, the description arises
that a matching platform for business transfers are regulated online and offline platforms
where buyers and sellers are matched, providing matching information and services. At
several round tables phrasings like “qualified information”, “a validated process” and “a
place to do real transactions” are mentioned. (Note that it is not clear who regulates the
platform.)
Both the owners/managers of platforms and advisors use quality criteria to describe
matching platforms or services. At all tables, several expert group members mentioned
terms like “transparent information” and “clear matching methodologies”, “up-to-dating
procedures”, “validated” or “checked” information or propositions, tags of “date of
placement”, “new” or “replaced” and “license to operate” as bottom-line procedures. The
survey questionnaire also assesses these standards (see Annex 4).
2. What do you expect from matching platforms?
Figure 3: Expectations from matching platforms
This open question concerning expectation, gives us a similar open set of requirements.
The main expectations of business transfer advisors are that there is a place where all
parties come together, with all kinds of available services to provide for transfers between
buyers and sellers.
16
The 15 owner/managers of matching platforms added on minimum and maximum of the
services being offered. They contrasted “passive” and “active” matching of buyers and
sellers or advisors.
Passive matching: Matching without any active involvement of the platform, by
easy to use search engines, digital process information and “do it yourself” tips
and tricks.
Active matching: Involves contracted services to look for certain buyers or
sellers, on-line and off-line.
The second dimension involves few versus many digital or non-digital platform services
in finding or providing support, diagnostic services like valuation, tax and legal or
connecting buyers /sellers to advisors or other network parties.
Questions on passive or active and the types of services provided have been included in
the survey (Annex 4).
3. Will there be differences in what buyers, sellers and advisors wish for?
The word cloud did not reveal meaningful content. From the notes of the 30 advisors, it
showed that buyers and their advisors want as much as possible quality information.
Sellers, on the other hand, want full confidentiality first and provide initially very limited
information of their firm to protect both their identity and firm name.
4. According to you, what is important in a matching platform?
Figure 4: Important features of matching platform
17
Most importantly, active profiles, checked and easy accessible, available profiles and
information are mentioned.
5. What should be the minimum quality standard?
Figure 5: Minimum quality standard for matching platform
The answers on this question show the importance on good information, availability of
advisory services, clear criteria and up-to-date and a sufficient number of profiles.
There is additional wording on the criteria such as: references, reliable and accurate
information and enough numbers of profiles available. In addition, words like “control”,
“filters”, “closed” and “confidentiality” refer to a limited disclosure of seller’s firm
information.
As previously mentioned, the expert group members consider:
Bottom-line standards:
o Transparent information and clear matching methodologies.
o Up-to-date profiles.
o Validated and checked information or propositions.
o Tags of date of placement or replacement and license to operate.
Medium and maximum quality standards:
o Automated profiles alerts.
o On-line trading.
18
o Secured data rooms.
o Business performance data.
o Fast process.
o Success rate of deals.
o Connecting with other platforms/networks.
o Life events.
Dedicated and qualified valuation, legal and tax tools, test and/or advisory services.
2.2. Conclusions
Most importantly, matching platforms are meeting places for all parties concerned in
business transfers.
When defining business transfer platforms and their services, our discussants included
quality standards referring to qualified information and a profile validation process in
particular. There is additional phrasing on active profiles, reliable, accurate and up-to-
date selling profiles. Online and offline services are both seen as part of the services
provided on matching platforms.
This leads us to the following working definition:
A matching platform for SME business transfers is an open marketplace for (certain
types of) sellers, buyers and advisors, providing digital and possibly non-digital
additional services, with clear information on their matching methodology, business
model and costs, a search engine for matching, with certain kinds of validations and
checks in place towards the listed profiles on the platform.
Another way of defining matching platforms is to contrast them with business brokers
portfolios. Business brokers portfolios are limited to their own contracts only. A
matching platform lists profiles of many business brokers and also displays profiles of
sellers and buyers who have not contracted business brokers.
Four important dimensions are to be noticed of these open marketplaces:
19
1. Passive or active matching: Passive matching is matching without any active
involvement of the platform. Active matching involves contracted services to look
for certain buyers or sellers
2. The mixture of and number of on-line and off-line services may vary: Where
some platforms work fully or mainly digital, others provide both digital services
and non-digital services.
3. Market type and specialization may vary: Platforms may operate regionally,
nationally or trans-nationally but also can be selective on certain types of sellers
and buyers, like the firm size, sector and minimal or maximal selling price.
4. Ownership may vary: Private, private-public and public organization may differ
in mission, type of services provided and their main partners/stakeholders.
Buyers and sellers have opposite wishes for disclosure of information on the platform.
Buyers like to have as much high quality information as possible. Sellers like to disclose
a minimum of initial information to protect their firm and identity. Trust and
confidentiality seem to be of great importance to match sellers’ profiles.
20
3. Evidence-Based Standards for Digital Matching
So far overviews on academic studies - discussing characteristics and standards to
improve success of matching platforms - are not available. The study of Van Teeffelen
and Weesie (2015) reviews 150 studies on digital matching platforms in B2B markets
resembling business transfers. The summary of the outcomes is presented here. These
outcomes are integrated in the market-based indicators for quality of matching platforms
in Table 6 and the questionnaire (see Annex 4).
3.1. Trust and privacy issues
Trust is vital for any digital service. Appearances of websites in presentation, but more
importantly the easiness to use and content quality have proven to increase trust.
Empirical outcomes corroborate Sztompka’s (1999) set of criteria to build trust. These
are:
Appearance: refers to attractive and easy to understand content.
Performance: includes present conduct and currently obtained results.
Reputation: refers to a record of past deeds and increases trust strongly. A track record
of matching platforms, a seal of approval and third party recognitions, have shown to
enhance online trust dynamically, both as part of reputation and obtained results.
Additional services and offline presence by matching platforms seem to be of importance
in the long run, since they generate more familiarity of users, word-of- mouth promotion
and a variety of services to be assessed by customers.
Inferences for matching platforms:
Show a track record of success for buyers and sellers to increase traffic and trust.
Add user-friendliness and a content quality also increase trust in e-commerce.
Create a seal of approval or invite independent third party ratings to increase trust
and transactions on matching platforms.
Provide for additional services and offline presence to generate more familiarity,
trust and usage.
21
3.2. Online dating
Sellers finding buyers on the web have characteristics of online dating. The online dating
research indicates that the fact of assessing implicit preferences and previous similar
transactions increases predictions of matching success hugely. A well-organized search
procedure and easy to use search engines are vital to match profiles.
Presenting an infinite number of profiles leads to “choice stress” and less commitment of
buyers and sellers. Fewer initial outcomes generated for a first assessment increase a
better likelihood of first contacts and commitment.
No heuristic so far can predict matching success, because real life interactions are best
predictor in any match. Computer Mediated Contact (CMC) services with mutual
consent, like skype, SMS or e-mail contact, overcomes part of the superficiality of
matching profiles and speeds up first real life meetings.
Inferences for matching platforms:
Introduce procedures to assess implicit preferences.
Introduce smart matching tools showing few rather than a lot of profiles.
Introduce Computer Mediated Communication services on matching platforms.
3.3. Success of matching platforms
An overview study on success of matching platforms is missing. Initial results indicate
that in the beginning when business transfers platforms appear, the quantity of profiles
increases transactions. However, if the market becomes more developed, the quality of
the portfolio prevails in increasing transactions.
Private and public platforms use other types of guiding principles and governance. Where
competition/market share and price/profits prevails for private platforms, behaviour of all
stakeholders and reputation prevail for public platforms. This may complicate the
cooperation between private and public platforms.
The development of dominant parties in the market does not have to interfere with
collaboration. Two conditions seem to favour collaboration:
The less similar the platforms, the most likely the collaboration.
22
The more dominant a platform, being secure of leadership, the more likely
collaboration with rivals.
Direct network connections seem to be most profitable for collaborating parties, leading
to more transactions. Technological upgrading of low-tech platforms is not favourable for
them in a highly competitive market.
Inferences for matching platforms:
Collaboration with other (dominant or smaller) platforms seems possible. The less
similar the platforms operate and the more secure dominant platforms are on their
leadership, the more likely collaboration is to be successful. Collaboration
between platforms and even rivals seems to lead to more transactions.
Matching platforms in less developed markets are likely to be more successful in
matching by increasing the number of profiles on their platform first. For
matching platforms in developed markets, it seems wiser to develop the quality of
the profiles, rather than the quantity of profiles.
Cooperation between private and public platforms may be complicated by different sets
of governance principles. Rather than profit and market share, public platforms will also
assess the behaviour of all partners for reason of reputation and the public good.
23
4. Building a Framework
In order to build a framework for generic properties of matching platforms, we rely on
the study of Hasan and Abuelrup (2011), examining 50 previous studies.
Content Quality Design Quality
Organizational Quality User-friendliness
They extract four dimensions, completely in line with the earlier findings of Aldawani
and Palvia (2002). The proposed dimensions contain in total 22 main indicators. In
looking in more detail to these indicators, we will also specify or add indicators from
other studies.
4.1. Content quality
The full set of content quality indicators by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Indicators for Content Quality
Indicators Check list
Timely Up-to date information
How frequently the website is updated
When the website was updated
Relevant Organization's objectives
Organization's history
Customers (audience)
Products or services
Photography of organization's facilities
Multilanguage/culture Use different languages
Present to different cultures
Variety of presentation Different forms (text, audio, video….)
Accuracy Precise information (no spelling, grammar errors)
Sources of information identified
Objective Objective presentation of information
Authority Organization's physical address
Sponsor (s) of the site
Manager (s) of the site
Specifications of site's managers
Identification of copyright
Email to manager
24
Timely: This indicator looks at how up-to-date the visible website is. Besides the
general platform information, this indicator seems to be very relevant for all
profiles posted on the matching websites from sellers and buyers. How recent are
profiles, were they shown before?
Relevant: This indicator refers to the extent to which websites information is
comprehensive, complete and provides the right level of detail. Organisations are
expected to provide information on their objectives. In case of business transfers
matching platforms, that could include their business model. Are they public,
quasi-public or private and who is the legal owner or what is the legal entity and
affiliations? Organizations need to present their origination and history, define
their customers or audience present their products or services. The customer’s
trust can be enhanced by adding pictures of their facilities.
Multilanguage/Culture: Information is available in different languages, suitable
to different cultures and meets the needs of all customers regardless of their
country. Clearly the authors have a corporate multi-national setting in mind.
Depending on width of the customer base, platforms might consider to make
(parts of) their platform accessible to interested buyers or sellers from abroad.
Variety of presentation: Information is presented in different forms, such as:
text, video and audio. This indicator is evident, though it might be hard to rate
objectively. What would be the ideal webpage with the optimal text, video and
audio ratio?
Accuracy: Information is precise, there is no spelling error or grammar error.
More importantly, what are the sources of information, can they be identified?
The matching procedure should be clear. It is important for buyers to know if
selling profiles are checked at the minimum level, such as: the firm owner’s
identity, chamber of commerce registry and previous fraud or bankruptcy (Qutob
and Van Teeffelen, 2009). Additionally the completeness of the information
memorandum and valuations could be checked. Pricing and costs of services,
success fees , should be transparent. Another feature of accuracy could be the
success ratio of the platform in matching, which should be well predefined.
25
There is evidence that content quality of an e-vendor’s website, referring to the
usefulness, accuracy, and completeness of the information offered, increases
customers’ trust in online transactions (Liao, Palvia and Lin, 2006).
Objective: Information is presented in an objective manner without political,
cultural, religious, or institutional biases. This indicator reveals a corporate
international mind-set as well. Depending on the target group of customers, the
information is expected to be more or less biased, towards certain target groups.
If matching platforms have a business model, including private or public
sponsoring, affiliated services or parties, this should be stated clearly, so visitors
are aware of certain biases.
Authority: The details of the organization, i.e. address, management and sponsors
should be clearly mentioned. Pictures of employees, management and board and
contact info will add to transparency as well. This indicator closely resembles the
relevance indicator.
4.2. Design quality
The set of indicators for design quality is shown in Table 2. Design and image seem hard
to objectivise and score, other than users’ ratings, hence we skip these indicators.
Table 2: Indicators for Design Quality
Indicators Check list
Attractive Innovative
Aesthetic effects
Appropriateness Emotional appeal
Appropriate to the type of website
Image used within it serve functional purposes
Balancing (images, colors, and text)
Color Number of screens per page
Background color
Image/sound/ video Text color
Number of image/ sound/ video
Provide alternative text for all non-text elements
Text Consistency (type, style)
Readability
Relative seize
Capital letters
Breathing pace
Multiple headings
Scrolling text
Sequential appearance of text and images
26
4.3. Organizational quality
These indicators deal with the grouping, categorization, or structure of websites elements.
It helps the user to reach for the required information quickly, navigate easily within the
website and keeps him informed if he is still on the same website. Table 3 provides all
indicators mentioned by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011).
Table 3: Indicators for Organization Quality
Indicators Check list
Index Index or links to all website's pages
Mapping Adequate website map or navigation bar/ menu
Current page
Consistency General layout
Links Working links
Assistant links (back to home, top, back to original website)
Worthy links (to other related websites, no dead links)
Visiting pages
Logo Organization's logo is clear and noticeable
Index: Is there an index or a link to all the website’s pages from the main page,
so that the user sees all main categories of the website?
Mapping: Is an adequate website map or navigation bar/menu available in each
page to facilitate navigating the website?
Consistency: Is there a general layout of each page consistent through the
website?
Links: Do the links work properly? Are there assistant links available in each
page so that the user can get back to the main page from every section of the
website or to top of the page within the long pages of the website? Can the user
return to the original website when he/she follows external link of any page?
Are other worthy links available that take users to other related websites and are
these links coloured? Do they change of colour after the user has visited it?
Cross referral to other matching platforms or profiles is seen as a distinct
organizational quality of a website by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011).
Logo: Organization logo is clear and noticeable in every page of the website.
27
4.4. User-friendliness
Table 4 provides indicators for User-Friendliness provided by Hasan and Abuelrup
(2011).
Table 4: Indicators for User-Friendliness
Indicators Check list
Usability Ease to use, understand, operate, find, or navigate
Easy to find using search engines
What's new
Reliability Appropriate and easy to remember URL
Short download speed
Multi browser support
Work properly using different screen settings
Fewer ads
Measuring efficiency
Availability
Interactive features Clear instruction
Help function
FAQ
Effective internal search tool
Feedback between user and website (email, chat , online community,
suggested forms)
Review transactions
Tracker order
Security Secure transactions
Privacy
Customization Tailoring content to the needs of specific users
The user-friendliness indicators help users regardless of education or experience to find
the needed information within a reasonable time. The impact of perceived “ease of use”
on the formation of trust in e-commerce is supported by several studies (Bart, Shankar,
Sultan, & Urban, 2005; Chen, 2006; Flavian, Guinaliu & Gurrea, 2006; Koufaris &
Hampton-Sosa, 2004).
Usability: The website is easy to use, understand, operate, find information on, or
navigate. It is easy to find the website using external websites and it is clear to the
user that new information is added to the website. This also means that new
profiles are easily found.
28
Reliability (technical): The content reliability belongs to the content quality
indicators and is not a part of the user-friendliness indicators. Reliability is more
about the technical reliability of the web-platform.
The website’s address is appropriate and easy to remember, short download time,
multi browser support and works properly using different screen settings. Few
adds are in the website’s pages to avoid long time downloading of website’s pages
and there is a way to measure its efficiency by counting the number of visitors.
The website is also available 7 days/week, 24 h/day.
Interactive features: The website has clear instructions to use different sections.
The help function and clear error messages are available. FAQ is available, it
summarizes frequently asked questions and their answers.
There is an effective internal search tool to search the content of the website. Most
importantly there is a communication channel and feedback between user and
website through phone, email, chat rooms, online community or suggestion
/complaint forms.
Records and sequence of transactions should be available as well.
The interactive features for matching platforms are very important. It means that
buyers and sellers can easily make, change or find profiles. Qutob and Van
Teeffelen (2009) previously rated matching platforms on their capacity to find
profiles on sector, number of employees, legal entity, sale turnover, price
indication, region/city, postal code, date of placement, keywords and/or profile
ID. The more entries possible, the higher the ranking on user-friendliness.
Optional extra or additional services should be mentioned. Are there webinars
available, training and support, advisory services, interactive additional support
tooling?
Security/Privacy: In order to gain users’ trust, effective mechanisms are used to
keep the secure matching and transactions. Confidentiality needs to be guaranteed,
privacy of personal information needs to be safe and not transmitted without
consent to third parties, so that information cannot be handled or read by
unauthorized users.
29
Customization: The process of tailoring the content of the website according to
the needs and performances of specific users. This also includes the platform’s
cookie policy.
30
5. Selection of Quality Indicators
The quality criteria are the building blocks for both a survey and the assessment of
matching platforms in EU countries (see Annex 4). Not all 4 dimensions and all 22 main
indicators provided by Hasan and Abuelrup (2011) are of the same importance for
matching platforms in business transfers:
Trust and confidentiality are important for matching platforms in business transfers (see
Chapter 2). As pointed out in Chapter 3, reputation - a record of past deeds - and
performance - present conduct and currently obtained results - as well as user- friendliness
and content quality contribute to increase trust. These aspects are largely covered by
Hasan and Abuelrup’s (2011).
Table 5: Quality indicators for matching platforms
Indicators Quality Optional
Content Quality Timely x
Relevant x
Multilanguage x
Accuracy x
Objective x
Authority x
Design Quality Attractiveness -
Appropriateness -
Color -
Image/Video/Sound -
Text x
Organizational Quality Index x
Mapping x
Consistency -
Links x
Logo -
User-Friendliness Usability x
Technical Reliability x
Interactive features x
Security/Privacy x
Customization x
Although Design Quality is also an important aspect of websites, it will be difficult to
assess this objectively. Design quality is a matter of taste and assessment may differ
31
widely per user group and culture, for this reason we exclude it. In comparing websites,
the indicators in Table 5 will be leading in our survey.
Out of the original 22 indicators of Hasan and Abuelrup (2011), we suggest using 13 core
indicators. An optional 2 indicators are standby to explain poor (technical) accessibility.
The selected indicators in Table 6 are enriched by the findings in the Chapters 2 and 3.
All quality indicators are slightly rearranged in Table 6 with the additional characteristics
in blue.
Table 6: Quality indicators and characteristics restructured
In our survey questionnaire, we will focus on all charaterisics in italics. The survey will
exclude parts of Index and Mapping, Links, Usability & Web-interaction, Text and
Technical Reliability.
Relevant & Authority Multi-language & Text Security/Privacy
Clear indication of ownership Accessible in other languages Secured applications
History Readable Secured databases
Number of available profiles Easy to understand Clear privacy protection policy
Contact details Timely Customization
Business model Date of placement Subscription services
Sponsors Identifiable replacements Cookie policy
Listing of staff members Up to date website
Accuracy
Clear matching procedure Success ratio Seal of approval
Type of checks of sellers Type of checks buyers Third party recognition
Type of checks advisors Transaction records Prices
Variety of non-digital services Variety of digital services Success Fees
Interactive services
Search by Sector Communication with platform User rating and satisfaction
Search by fte Phone, e-mail, chat Secured data/dealing rooms
Search by sales turnover Response time Limited search engine outcomes
Search by Region/city Easy to find profiles Direct contact buyer/seller
Search by price indication Sharing of profiles Check for implicit preferences
Search by date of placement Complaint forms available Easy to make/change profiles
Links & Index & Mapping Usability & Web-interaction Technical Reliabilty
Links to other parties Appropriate/easy URL Short download time
Do links work Clear instructions Tablet
Clear index FAQ Smart phone
Clear website map Help and search functions Multi browser support
Easy to navigate Uptime
32
6. Survey Outcomes
This chapter provides the outcomes on the survey (see Annex 4) held under all
identified European matching platforms.
6.1. Sampling, data collection and descriptive statics
Transeo (the European Association for SME Transfers) registers all known matching
platforms in Europe. Before contacting the platform owners or managers to fill in the
survey, the full list of platforms was re-checked by Transeo for new initiatives and
changes in contact persons. Annex 5 lists all contacted matching platforms.
The platform owners and representatives were informed in March, June and October 2015
about the intention and the general set-up of the survey. The final digital invitations were
sent the first week of November and platforms had 6 weeks to respond. Platform owners
or managers were reminded digitally twice and finally called by the authors of this report
if no response was given. 60 matching platforms were invited, 37 responded which
resulted in the exceptional high response rate of 62%.
Table 7: Participating matching platforms per country
Country Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Be 7 20,0 20,0
Dk 3 8,6 28,6
Fin 2 5,7 34,3
Fr 3 8,6 42,9
Ger 4 11,4 54,3
It 2 5,7 60,0
Lux 2 5,7 65,7
NL 6 17,1 82,9
No 1 2,9 85,7
Pol 1 2,9 88,6
Sp 3 8,6 97,1
UK 1 2,9 100,0
Total 35 100,0
33
The sample for analysis includes 35 matching platform operating in 12 European
countries (see Figure 7). In countries with more than one platform, most report to operate
in developing markets. Only platforms in Italy, the Netherlands and France deviate.
Italian platforms consider the market in its early beginning, while Dutch and French
platforms consider their markets as mature.
Two out of the three platforms in our dataset are privately funded and owned (68%).
Usually private platforms are under-represented in European policy papers on business
transfers (EC, 2006; EC 2013). In the early start of this EU4BT project, a fair share of
privately owned platforms were involved to give input on the chosen methodology and
the data protocols. As a result, most private platforms were willing to disclose competitor
sensitive information.
The platforms operating in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are overrepresented
in the dataset, (48% of the total), due to their excellent response on our call. Response
was also high in Austria, Denmark, Finland and Luxemburg. Other countries like France
and the United Kingdom, with a wide range of matching platforms, responded at a lower
rate (see Annex 6).
Nearly half of all platforms (46%) report to have (foreign) subsidiaries operating under
different names or sharing technology. This means that the dataset includes many
subsidiaries. E.g. Bedrijventekoop.nl is active in five countries. The platforms Sowaccess,
MKBase and RetailRijk operational in the Netherlands and Belgium used to share their
technology. Likewise, the Belgium platform Overnameweb/Société à Vendre and the
Finnish platform Yrityskaupat operate under different labels and URL’s in nationally
different market segments.
3 platforms charge no fees at all for profile placements. 15 platforms charge a fee for
sellers and buyers per period (3 – 6 months) or a flat fee at € 70 to € 345.
6.2. Analyses and Reliability
To present the outcomes, we use the quality indicators and sequence of Table 6 of the
previous chapter. We tested for differences between private and public matching
platforms and for platforms with and without subsidiaries mainly. These groups were
34
large enough for statistical testing1. Since differences or relations must be large in a small
dataset to become significant, the threshold for statistical (double sided) significance is
set at p < 0.10.
Public platforms are defined as being funded for at least 50% with public funds, whereas
private platforms are 100% privately funded. On 198 survey items, only 34 items show
significant differences between private and public platforms. This means that 83% of all
items outcomes provide similar outcomes.
Since the outcomes of the survey are reported by their owners/managers, the answers are
subject to their perceptions and possible biases. To control for possible biases, the
researchers visited all platforms digitally to rate various items such as: the easiness to find
the platform on the internet, the easiness to use the search engine in order to find selling
profiles, the availability of the explanation of matching methods, the owner and history
information of each platform, fees mentioned and finally the availability of privacy and
cookie policies on the website.
All direct assessments of the researchers, visiting websites, have been made on the public
accessible pages of the platforms only. These direct assessments are also reported in the
tables. The interrater reliability between the two researchers was 0.90 or higher on
selected items. Non-digital services could not be assessed by the researchers.
An additional set of three specific items: multi-language, date of placements available per
profile, availability of facts and figures, were triangulated, both being reported by the
platform owners/managers in the survey and assessed by the researchers. The researcher
ratings deviate very little. Multi-language deviated 0%, date of placement deviated 1%
and fact and figures 9% in the frequencies from the respondents. Moreover, we compared
individual responses of managers/owners of matching platforms with the researchers’
ratings on multi-language of platforms and date of placement available of the profiles.
We found an 81% and 79% consistency of individual platform owners’/manager answers
compared to the researcher’s observations. This is on par with the preferred standards for
consistency in scientific research of 80%.
1 Chi-Square was used to compare nominal variables. Correlations, T-tests or one-way ANOVA were
used on ordinal and interval variables.
35
6.3. Outcomes on Relevant, Authority and Multi-language
This section contains history, markets, availability of resources, number of profiles per
platform, their business model and language characteristics of matching platforms.
The matching platforms in our database are founded between 1985 and 2014 (see Table
7). Half of the platforms are established before and half after 2006. 2006 is also the year
that half of the platforms were already active on the internet. The older the platform, the
more mature they consider their market (r = 0.62). Table 7 presents all general
information on resources available to matching platforms.
Table 8: History and matching platform resources
Lowest Highest Median
Founding year 1985 2014 2006
Year of digital appearance 1996 2014 2006
Owner and history
(checked by researchers)
100% 100% ---
Employees in FTE 0.2 31 2
Turnover < € 250 K (77%)
< € 500 K (14%)
€ 1 - € 2.5 M (4%)
€ 2.5 - € 5 M (4%)
< € 250 K
Private Profits
Increasing/stable
Break-even
Stable losses
48%
4%
48%
Break-even
Public Budgets
Well within budget
Break-even
Under budgeted
23%
8%
69%
Within budget
Innovation budget
in % of revenues the past three years
< 10% (43%)
> 21% (35%) 11% -15%
Innovation plans for coming 12 months No (24%)
Yes (74%) ---
All platforms display ownership and contact information on the web. The outcomes show
the median values of 2 FTE on employees, a turnover below € 250 K per platform, a
break-even situation for most private platforms and modest budgets for innovation. It
36
seems that most matching platforms are minimal viable businesses. Note there are no
differences found between private and public platforms in Table 6.
In Annex 4 platforms report to operate mainly nationally (68%), a minority operates
regionally (29%) or internationally (3%), but nearly half (46%) of the matching platforms
operate in 2 or more countries. A third of all platforms (32%) even operates in 4 or more
countries.
Upscaling digital services seems to be important for most platforms. Platforms report the
following priorities in innovations the coming 12 months in Annex 4:
1. Expanding, improving and restyling digital services (N=19/35)
2. Restructuring or integrating back-end IT (N=18/35)
3. Partnership or use of other parties (N= 4/35)
We tested the assumption of the economy of scales, since platforms with subsidiaries are
able to pool their resources. One might expect that platforms with subsidiaries are prone
to have higher revenues, profits and are more inclined to innovate, pooling their resources.
We found no evidence for this assumption after statistical testing. A determining factor
for innovation seems to be the number of advisors that are registered on the platform. The
number of registered advisors is strongly related to innovations of digital services. The
more advisors are registered, the smaller the budget for innovations (r = -0.62, p < 0.01)
per matching platforms.
Available profiles
Very few platforms are limited to specific sectors. Annex 4 shows that most platforms
(66%) are open for all sellers. The minority (34%) of the platforms use a minimum sale
price (23%) in the range of € 10K - € 700K and/or a maximum (14%) sales prices of €
100 K - € 500K. The number of registered profiles per platform is listed in Table 8.
Table 9: Number of profiles available per matching platform
Registered Profiles Lowest Highest Median
Sellers 5 68.000 400
Buyers 0 500.000 117
Advisors 0 3.000 60
37
Table 8 shows an enormous range in number of profiles. The median score is reported,
the mid-value, so half of the platforms have fewer/more registered profiles. Average
scores would give misperceptions, since only three platforms show very high number of
profiles and only one shows very low numbers of profiles. The number of sellers are best
represented with a mid-value of 400 profiles per platform, the number of buyers follow
with 117 profiles, the number of advisors at 60 profiles.
Private and public platforms attract different types of buyers. Private platforms attract a
mixture of all sorts of buyers (55% mixture, 20% management buy-in). Public platforms
attract more management buy-in candidates (27% mixture, 40% management buy-in).
Business models, revenues and innovation
Table 10 shows their principal and supportive business models.
Table 10: Business models of private and public matching platforms
(more than one answer possible) Yes Partly No
Trade model (% of all the transactions on the platform) 77%
Subscription model (subscription fees) **** Private Public Public
Advertisement model (web-advertisements) **** Private Public
Meta-data generation (selling data to third parties for money) 93%
Advisory model (paid services for sellers and/or buyers) 73%
Broker model (success fee from sellers or buyers) ** Private Public
Freemium model (first free then paying services) ** Private Public
Not-for-Profit model (no break-even for our services) **** Public Private
Sponsor model (sponsors pay part of all costs made) *** Private Public
statistical significant difference at * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
38
Both private and public matching platforms acquire most of their revenues with digital
services (52% fully/mainly, 19% at least half). Yet they differ in their business model.
Private platforms use a more differentiated business model, with a subscription model as
their principal revenue model, supported by advertisements, success fees, sponsor money
and freemium models. Private platforms ensure their revenues from sellers (57%),
advisors (22%), buyers (15%) and advertisements (6%). Public platforms use a not-for-
profit model as principal revenue model, partly supported by some subscription fees.
Public platforms have clearly less alternative revenue streams and seem more vulnerable.
Publicly funded platforms depend proportionately for 84% on regional, national or
European funding, having only some additional subscription revenues from sellers (10%),
advisors (5%) and buyers (1%).
With different revenue models, one expects correspondingly different principal
stakeholders. Indeed, for public platforms, governments are more important stakeholders,
for private platforms, advisors are key stakeholders. The influence of advisors cannot be
underestimated. There is a next to perfect positive correlation in the total dataset (r = 0.96,
p < 0.001) between the number of advisors registered and the number of employees
working at matching platforms. Advisors prefer longer existing matching platforms (r =
-0,72, p < 0.001). The presence of advisors is also strongly related with the number of
profiles available on the platforms. The more registered advisors on a matching platform,
the more sellers (r = 0.69, p < 0.001) and buyers registered on the platform (r = 0.48, p <
0.01). It seems that advisors are key to the size of and number of profiles on the platform.
6.4. Outcomes on Timeliness
Table 11 provides information on visible dates of placement of profiles and possible
replacements. Nearly 50% of all platforms do no publish a date of placement at selling
and/or buying profiles. In addition, 60% do not mark replacements. Most platforms check
for doublings though.
39
Table 11: Date, replacement and sharing
Yes Other No
Date of placement visible
Observed by researchers
52%
52%
48%
48%
Checks for doublings 75% 25%
Replacements recognizable 31% 9% never replace 60%
Do you share profiles with
competitors?
31% 10% sometimes 59%
Do you have a blacklist?
Private platforms
Public platforms
61%
10%
39%
90%
Sharing of blacklist with other
non-owned platforms
Private platforms
Public platforms
0%
0%
47% sometimes 53%
100%
The far majority of the platforms do not share profiles with competitors, nor share
blacklists of unreliable sellers, buyers and advisors. The most important reasons given by
platforms owners/managers for not sharing is the (fierce) competition and/or the lack of
a financial compensation. Private platforms though are more willing to share a blacklist
than public platforms.
6.5. Outcomes on Accuracy
This section provides information on provided services, matching procedures, validation
of profiles and third party recognition. Table 12 presents all digital services available.
One may conclude that digital services are restricted to an alert service. Compared to
public platforms, private platforms offer more frequently the possibility of direct contact
via the platform of sellers/buyers with their advisors, online valuation and online
contracting tools.
40
Table 12: Digital services of matching platforms
Total Private Public
Frequently available
Alert services sellers/buyers 83%
Hardly available (less than 35%)
Direct contact buyers/sellers with advisors 31% 43% 9%
Secured data or dealing rooms 26%
Online valuation tools 23% 35% 0%
Screenings and (financial) information 11%
Online contracting tools 11% 17% 0%
Webinars and course ware 9%
Online legal services 9% 13% 0%
Online financial services 6%
Online tax services or tools 0%
Cross validation by another item, assessing if direct communication between buyers and
sellers is possible, shows that direct communication services between sellers and buyers
are unavailable on 4 out of every 5 platforms. Also other digital services are not or hardly
provided: webinars, financial, legal and tax services. These services are also missing in
the additional non-digital services listed below.
Table 13 shows that most platforms provide a wider variety of non-digital services.
Connecting buyers/sellers to advisors, the writing of sales propositions and networking
facilities dominate these additional services. Notably private and public funded platforms
show no differences in awareness-raising activities and courses.
In all we see that private platforms offer more digital and slightly more non-digital
services to sellers and buyers than public platforms.
41
Table 13: Non-digital services of matching platforms
Total Private Public
Frequently available
Connecting sellers/buyers to advisors 71%
Writing sales memorandums 66%
Writing sales propositions 60%
Networking facilities 49%
Awareness raising activities 46%
Connecting sellers to selected buyers 43%
Hardly available (less than 35%)
Courses for buyers and sellers 29%
Valuation services 29%
Financial arrangements 15%
Courses for local/regional/national agencies 11%
Due diligence services 9% 13% 0%
Legal services 9% 13% 0%
Tax services 6%
Courses for advisors 6%
Matching procedures and profile validation
The majority of the matching platforms (51%) have no clear statements about what kind
of profile information is checked by them. Generally, four parties can list, change and
delete digital profiles: sellers, buyers, advisors and platform owners/manager.
Table 14 shows that advisors have a very strong position here, especially on private
platforms. Advisors list, change, delete and validate sellers and buyers’ profiles. On
public platforms, the staff is in charge of changes and deletion of profiles and validations,
advisors have hardly any role there. Then again, private platforms are more keen to
validate advisors profiles themselves, compared to public platforms.
42
Table 14: Listing, changing, deleting profiles and checks
More than one answer possible
Buyer/
Seller Advisor Platform Nobody
Priv Publ Priv Publ
Who puts profiles on the platform 66% 69% 37% ---
Who changes profile on the platform 63% 83% 66% 36% 69% ---
Who deletes profiles on the platform 60% 63% 57% ---
Who checks and validates:
sellers profile
buyer profile
advisors profile
---
---
---
52% 40% 18%
52% 37% 9%
--- --- ---
63%
60%
78% 66% 45%
20%
29%
6%
A minority of platforms, only 20%, does not check the profiles of sellers while up to 29%
of the platforms do not check buyers’ profiles.
Table 15 provides more insights in what is validated exactly. These outcomes show that
checks and validations are quite minimal. Only the existence of the firm for sale, the
identities of the seller and the advisors are checked by the majority of the platforms. The
(far) majority of the matching platforms do not check on credentials and credit/default
registers of sellers, buyers and advisors, the quality of the sales memo and valuation.
Public platforms score lower on the checking credentials of sellers and the identity check
of advisors than private platforms.
43
Table 15: What is exactly checked on the part of seller, buyer and advisor?
On the part of profiles of sellers Private Public
Is there a check on the existence of the firm for sale? Yes 66%
Is there a check on the identity of the sellers Yes 66%
Is there a check in the credit/default registers? Yes 3%
Is there a check on the credentials of sellers? Yes 32% Partly No
Is there a check on the quality of the sales memo Yes 25%
Is there a check on the valuation of the firm for sale? Yes 23%
On the part of profiles for buyers
Is there a check on the identity of the buyers? Yes 44%
On the part of advisor(s) on your platform?
Do you check the identity of the advisor(s)? Yes 74% Yes Partly
Do you check the credit/default registers? Yes 15%
Do you check the credentials of advisors? Yes 44%
Search engine technology, number of hits and success rate
Table 16 displays all search engine properties. Though at least 8 out of 10 matching
platforms provide simple and clear search criteria, the researcher found out that only 52%
of the search engines provide easy findings if researchers enter two very common search
requests on firms for sale (a restaurant, a retail shop).
Remarkably 80% of the matching platforms do not regularly check on success rate, and
71% do not publish any facts or figures. Platform owners that do report or occasionally
check on success rates, use simple but effective tools to establish success. They ask for
the reason of ending the seller’s subscription or deletion of their profile. Alternatively,
they send out digital surveys among advisors, sellers and buyers to check on success rate.
The median success rate of platforms is estimated at 35%. Search outcomes are presented
at matching platforms without any limit on the number of outcomes. It can be a few, but
also dozens.
44
Table 16: Search engine properties, number of hits and success rate
Yes Other No
Methods explained
(checked by researchers)
74% 26%
Search engine properties
Sales turnover 93% 7%
Number of employees 97% 3%
Sector 100% 0%
Legal entity 79% 21%
Region/place 100% 0%
Sale price indication 84% 16%
Easy to find 2 specific profiles
(checked by researchers)
52% 48%
Number of profiles shown if
available per search
Unlimited
90%
Regular checks and publishing
on success rate
20% 80%
Facts and figures on website
(checked by researchers)
29%
71%
Estimated success rate
Lowest
Median
Highest
10%
35%
75%
45
Third party recognition
Table 17 shows only few platforms (12%) are assessed by third parties. There is a clear
difference in the need and kind of approval by private and public platforms: public
platforms agree more on organizing certification among platforms themselves, but like
private platforms, the far majority regards third party approval not as a priority.
If platforms have third party recognition, an assessment and approval of an independent
party, private platforms use different types of approval than public platforms. Private
platforms use user testimonials or ratings of their website, where public platforms use
government recognition. The large majority of all matching platforms has no formal third
party recognition.
Table 17: Third party recognition by type of platform
Total Private Public
Is your platform yearly assessed by third parties? 12% Yes
Seals of approval by third parties
User testimonials or ratings 32% Yes 45% 9%
Government recognition 9% Yes 0% 27%
Professional associations 9% Yes
No formal or informal recognition 59% Yes
Should platforms organize certification themselves?
Yes, definitely
Maybe, but no priority
No, wait for other parties to decide
12%
49%
39%
4%
48%
48%
30%
50%
20%
46
6.6. Outcomes on Security , Privacy and Customization
Digital security is more of a priority for matching platforms than validation of profiles.
Table 18 shows that testing of applications and servers is done monthly by most
platforms.
The researchers additionally checked for a clear privacy policy and a cookie policy on the
websites: 40% of the platforms lack a privacy policy, 60% a cookie policy. The changing
of passwords is relatively at a low frequency for half of all platforms.
Table 18: Digital security in percentages of yes
Do employees/management change their passwords regularly? 80%
50% once per year, 50% twice or more per year
Are all applications tested on security issues regularly? 96%
57% every month, 43% 1-4 per year
Are your company servers tested on security issues regularly? 92%
86% every month, 16% 1-4 per year
Can employees assess all data(bases)? 48%
Are data collected in one database? 77%
Is/are your database(s) secured? 100%
If users log in, does your website use encryption? (https-protocols) 77%
If users change their profiles, do you ask for (extra digital) confirmation? 74%
Are internet users disconnected if they are inactive for 10 minutes or longer? 63%
Clear privacy policy on the website (checked by researchers) 60%
Clear cookie policy on the website (checked by researchers) 40%
47
6.7. Outcomes on Links, Usability, Techincal Reliability and
Multilanguage
As mentioned at the end of Chapter 5, the survey only addresses a few characteristics of
these quality criteria. Table 19 lists the main outcomes.
The far majority of platforms are easy to find on the internet (91%) and link to other
service providers or matching platforms (62%). There is support on office hours (94%),
most so by phone and e-mail (70%).
Though complaint forms are hardly available, complaints are generally addressed within
2 days.
Table 19: Miscellaneous features
Yes
Easy to find on the internet 91%
(checked by researchers)
Does your platform link to other service providers 62%
Is your website accessible in different languages? 27%
Ditto item (checked by researchers)
Additional platforms with translated profiles
(checked by researchers)
26%
14%
Is there user support on office hours
By phone and email 70%
By phone, email and chat 15%
By chat and email 9%
Can users see their invoices on the web? 26%
Is there a complaint form available at your platform?
Address complaints in 2 days
36%
Is your full website functionality adjusted for?
Tablets
Smart phones
52%
49%
27% of the platforms can be assessed in different languages. The researchers though noted
that an additional 14% of the platforms provide translated profiles of other countries if
these countries are entered in the search criteria. Which means that 41% of all platforms
are either accessible in different languages or provide translated foreign profiles.
48
7. Survey Conclusions
For the very first time 35 business transfer matching platforms in 12 European countries
(both private and public) have rated their own platform quality. The outcomes have partly
been cross-validated by two research authors. Reliability scores show that platform owner
perceptions are consistent with impartial researcher’s observations. The overview of
Table 20 shows the rating on quality indicators of business transfer matching platforms.
Table 20: Rated quality indicators and characteristics
Relevant & Authority Multi-language & Text Security/Privacy
Clear indication of ownership Accessible in other languages Secured applications
History Readable Secured databases
Number of available profiles Easy to understand Clear privacy protection policy
Contact details Timely Customization
Business model Date of placement Subscription services
Sponsors Identifiable replacements Cookie policy
Listing of staff members Up to date website
Accuracy
Clear matching procedure Success ratio Seal of approval
Type of checks of sellers Type of checks buyers Third party recognition
Type of checks advisors Transaction records Prices
Variety of non-digital services Variety of digital services Success Fees
Interactive Services
Search by Sector Communication with platform User rating and satisfaction
Search by fte Phone, e-mail, chat Secured data/dealing rooms
Search by sales turnover Response time Limited search engine outcomes
Search by Region/city Easy to find profiles Direct contact buyer/seller
Search by price indication Sharing of profiles Check for implicit preferences
Search by date of placement Complaint forms available Easy to make/change profiles
Links & Index & Mapping Usability & Web-interaction Technical Reliabilty
Links to other parties Appropriate/easy URL Short download time
Do links work Clear instructions Tablet
Clear index FAQ Smart phone
Clear website map Help and search functions Multi browser support
Easy to navigate Uptime
Green = Good Quality Grey = Limited Quality Red = Insufficient Quality
scores of 60% or higher scores between 40%-60% scores below 40%
Black = Not Rated
49
In green are the good quality scores, where more than 60% of all platforms comply with
the indicators conceptualized in Chapter 4 and 5. Grey scores show limited quality,
platforms comply between 40-60% with the standards. Red scores indicate insufficient
quality; platforms comply at a lower than 40% rate.
The strengths of matching platforms are clearly in the quality indicators Relevant,
Authority and Security. A mixed picture is present at Interactive Services and Technical
Reliability (more precisely the access by tablets and smart phones) and Interactive
Services. The weaknesses of matching platforms prevail on the quality indicators Timely
and Accuracy.
Platforms Realize (Inter)National Exposure
The far majority of matching platforms are open to all sectors and have no thresholds on
minimum and maximum sales prices. Matching platforms contribute to (inter)national
exposure of SMEs. Having a median number of 400 sellers, 117 buyers and 60 advisors
listed profiles, one may assume more exposure for sellers, buyers and advisors. Using
average scores, the number of sellers (4730), buyers (16027) and advisors (356) are
distorted but substantially higher, due to three (collective) platforms with an enormous
amount of profiles. Since only 29% of the platforms publish on facts and figures, exact
figures on exposure can’t be established.
Most platforms are inclined to address their customers nationally in their general
information, even when they have foreign subsidiaries. 41% of all platforms can provide,
however international information or profiles partly hidden in their search engines. On
top of that half of all platforms have foreign subsidiaries. This adds to international
exposure.
41% of the platforms share (some of their) profiles with other non-owned platforms. The main
reasons for not sharing profiles is competition and a lack of financial compensation.
Platforms Don’t Realize Transparency
Platforms are transparent in their history, easy to find and have accessible and clear
matching methods available on site. They provide a complete set of search criteria and
provide easy to use search engines for buyers, sellers and advisors. Most platforms are
easy to contact during office hours and have a short response time to complaints. The
50
digital security is well organized, though open for further improvement at a minority of
the platforms, they link to other service providers or matching platforms.
So far matching platforms are unable to overcome information asymmetries between
buyers and sellers in business transfers. The minimum requirements of “up-to-date
profiles”, “validated” and “checked” information or propositions, tags of “date of
placement” and “identifiable replacements” have yet to be met. There are few checks on
the listed profiles, and it not clear what is checked and by whom. Only the existence of
the firm for sale, the identities of the seller and the advisors are checked by the majority
of the platforms. The far majority of the matching platforms do not check on credentials
and credit/default registers of sellers, buyers and advisors, the quality of the sales memo
and the valuation. Overall public platforms score lower on checking credentials of sellers
and the identity of advisors than private platforms. Clearly visible dates of placement and
identifiable replacements are lacking on most platforms.
Also the success rate (number of ownership transfers) is not known nor published by the
large majority (80%) of the matching platforms. The median estimate on success given
by platform owners/managers is 35%. This is hardly based on evidence gathered by the
matching platforms, since only 20% of all platforms check their success rate. There is no
third party recognition of most platforms, nor for that matter the sense of urgency of
platform owners/managers to organize third party recognition. Customer testimonials,
mostly used by private platforms, are not given by impartial third parties. Most platforms
seem to have other priorities or are unaware of the fact that these measures are likely to
boost both trust and reputation.
Platforms Don’t Realize Hub Function
The desired “one-stop-shop” for sellers and buyers is not in place. Although subscription
fees are generally very low in the ranges of € 70 to € 345, few digital services and non-
digital services are provided by matching platforms. On the digitized side, services
provided are predominantly automated alert service. Non-digital services are limited to
connecting buyers/sellers to advisors, the writing of sales propositions and networking
facilities. Most platforms limit their services to “passive” matching not providing active
matching or brokerage - connecting buyers /sellers to particular or specific network
parties - and abstain in diagnostic services like valuation, tax and legal.
51
If we look at the pre-defined medium and maximum quality standards “on-line trading”,
“business performance data”, “fast process”, “success rate of deals”, “life events”,
dedicated and qualified “valuation”, “legal” and “tax” tools, none of the matching
platforms meet all of these standards. There are however developments on “secured data
rooms” and “valuation tools”, being available digitally at a third of all platforms.
Finally, the unlimited search findings provided by matching platforms could be
counterproductive, since there is strong evidence in other fields of matching that
unlimited outcomes may delay first contacts and slow down the transaction process.
Minimal Viable Business Model and Lagging in Innovation
The present business models gear limited revenue streams for matching platforms, both
for private and public platforms alike. Median scores indicate a revenue stream below €
250.000, break-even results and only 2 FTE. Public platforms are more vulnerable in their
revenue streams than private platforms, being fully dependent on public money. Private
platforms have a more diversified revenue stream, but gear most income from
subscription fees.
Digital business provides most of the revenues of matching platforms. Digital businesses
ask for medium to high IT innovation budgets. A score of 11 – 15% of a low revenue as
budget for IT innovations will not suffice. While willing to innovate and grow digital
services mainly, most platforms are constrained growers (Wiklund and Sheperd, 2003),
lacking the necessary resources.
Though most matching platforms are largely IT-driven in their plans for innovation, most
of their IT services are lagging: half of the platforms have limited functionality on tablets
and smart phones, most platforms provide few digital services, facts and figures are not
reported, there is a lack of impartial testimonials and third party recognition.
It is puzzling that economies of scale are absent. Platforms with subsidiaries are unable
to pool their resources to obtain higher revenues and profits compared to stand-alone
platforms. Innovation budgets are also similar to stand-alone platforms.
On matching platforms advisors are the most important stakeholder, more so on private
than public platforms. The number of listed advisors is very strongly related to the number
52
of employees and profiles available. The increased presence of advisors on a platform is
strongly related to lower resources for innovations at matching platforms.
Public and Private Operate Similarly
On the whole, there are few differences between private and public platforms: just 17%
of our items showed different outcomes. Public and private platforms differ mostly in
business model, their principal stakeholders, the type of buyers they attract and the
perceptions on markets they operate in. Private platforms operate in mature and
developing markets, have a more diversified business model with advisors as principal
stakeholders and attract mixed types of buyers.
Public platforms also operate in developed markets, but more frequently in developing
and undeveloped markets. Public platforms have a not-for-profit business model, have
governments or public agencies as principal stakeholders and attract more management
buy-in candidates. Private platforms attract a more heterogeneous group of buyers. Also,
the markets of private and public markets overlap in those countries with a multitude of
platforms.
Assumptions that public services (European Commission, 2006) are more in the common
interest of sellers and buyers for SME are not corroborated. We observe that private
platforms provide a wider spectrum of digital and non-digital services and do more
checks than public platforms. Public platforms though seem to be more independent or
neutral on the input of advisors to validate profiles, compared to private platforms.
53
8. Interpretation with Platform Owners/Managers
EU4BT chose from the beginning to work closely together with platform
owners/managers to develop a set of quality standards. This is needed to develop a
common language and a better understanding of the working methods of all matching
platforms. Development of trust among all matching platforms was also an essential pre-
requisite to get access to specific details of working methods and business models of
matching platforms in a survey.
Since matching platforms are competitors, all outcomes of the survey were reported on
an aggregated level, ensuring the anonymity of each individual platform. Researchers
know aggregations limit specific variations among individual private and public
platforms. Regional, national and cultural differences and situations on the home markets
of matching platforms may fade away. It is important to discuss outcomes with the
matching platform owners/manager before conceptualizing recommendations.
Two full day sessions were organized with the Expert Group of platform
owners/managers. The outcomes of the first day are described in Chapter 2. The second
full day session was organized with the Expert Group of platforms/owners on March 8th
2016 in Brussels (see Annex 6). The participants represented 16 matching platforms in
11 European countries.
Finland (1)
Denmark (1)
Germany (2)
The Netherlands (3)
Belgium (2)
Luxemburg (1)
United Kingdom (1)
France (3)
Italy (1)
Spain (1).
54
The platforms were:
Cédants & Repreneurs
d’Affaires France
Chambre de
Commerce
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
SOWACCESS Belgium
Bedrijventekoop.nl The Netherlands
MKBase The Netherlands
Federation of Finnish
Enterprises Finland
Centre de Reempresa
de Catalunya Spain
Businessesforsale.com United
Kingdom
55
BPI France France
Nexxtchange Germany
Transentreprise France
Danks Firma Bors Denmark
Overname Markt Belgium
Union Camere Italy
Brookz The Netherlands
Deutsche
Unternehmberbörse Germany
56
After presenting the main survey outcomes and giving room for questions, the largest part
of the day was used to discuss and draw final conclusions on the main outcomes. Five
tables with each 4-5 platform owners/managers were set, having a moderator sending
main outcomes of each discussion directly to two ICT facilitators to compile all
discussion outcomes. All compiled results where then giving back to all platform
owners/managers and outcomes were exchanged and further discussed upon for
implications. Also common grounds were explored to come to final and shared
recommendations:
On Transparency
Minimal checks on sellers, buyers: Most platforms agree that minimal checks
of real buyers, sellers and advisors need to be in place. Since most platforms opt
for passive instead of active matching, they see fact checking as the role for the
advisors or buyers bringing profiles to the platform. Still platforms agree upon
providing information on what information in profiles is checked and by whom.
Dates of (re)placement: Platforms have this information for themselves, but
sometimes it is concealed in their search engines, having to possibility to select
for latest or recent profiles by week or month. Most platform owners agree upon
the statement that up to date profiles are more important than date of
(re)placement. They also share the opinion that only sellers and buyers should be
visible on the platform that are still open for a transaction.
Public listing of facts and figures: Most platform owners/managers are not
eager to share facts and figures concerning individual profiles views or success
rates. They like to keep this information for themselves. The number of profiles
views doesn’t mean contact was made or a business transfer did happen. More
importantly, platform owners/managers fear for competition, as well as for
exaggerations and cheating on facts and figures due to the competition in the
market. Customer satisfaction is seen as more important than success rate, so
providing testimonials on the platform is advisable.
Limitation of search engine outcomes: The general feeling is that not the
number of outcomes, but the quality of the outcomes is more important.
57
Direct contact with consent of buyers and sellers: There is no clear agreement
among platforms owners/managers on providing more direct contact possibilities
on consent between buyers and sellers. Some see it as desirable, others as
undesirable, since advisors won’t like it, yet other see it best working for micro
firms only.
Privacy and cookie policies: There is a general consensus that privacy and cookie
policies are necessary.
Third party recognition: Most platforms owners/managers resent possible
bureaucracy and red tape in being able to get third party recognition by an
institute. There is a genuine concern this will overstretch the available resources
and will further decrease budgets for innovation.
There is however recognition that there are players in the market with low ethical
and professional standards. Platforms representatives feel they share similar
values. Instead of a regulatory body, a manifest of self-regulation is seen as a
better alternative. There should be minimum requirements in it preferably, not
pushing platforms to disclose data they do not want to.
Passive Hub and Limited Services
Most platform owners/managers opt for passive matching with a limited number of
services.
Passive matching is matching without any active involvement of the platform. Platforms
connect sellers, buyers and advisors by their search engines or methods, digitized alert
services, support in writing the profile/proposition and providing network facilities
mainly. There is a recognition that more support services could improve preparations and
checks of sellers and buyers before entering the market.
Main reasons for not extending (digital) service to active matching is the lack of resources
to develop them and/or losing advisors as important customers, since active matching
competes with advisory services. Platforms have to try to be neutral and balance between
passive and active services. It could be different depending on the market situation.
58
An exception is made for micro firms, since they have very limited budgets to hire
advisors and/or advisors find micro firms a less attractive party to work for. Distinct extra
services could be provided for micro firms.
International Collaboration
There is a general agreement that only for some sectors, there is an international market
but there is no business model in place for sharing profiles. If all profiles are
internationalized, it would not be relevant. Platform owners/managers diverge in options
for internationalization: some prefer dedicated one-on-one partners while others feel an
interface between platforms could work. There are also some legal obstructions since
some overall national platforms are legally prohibited to share profiles with foreign
platforms. Finally, an EU marketplace is perceived as false competition by some private
sector platforms.
Private and Public Platforms
As survey outcomes already indicated, there are few differences between private and
public platforms. Representatives clearly indicate there is no best way to serve the market.
If the market is large enough, there is room for many players. One approach could be to
use public platforms as a means to implement social policies to support the development
of given sectors. But in the end, representatives say that the objective of a matching
platform is to match sellers and buyers, and this works for every type of platform.
Main Obstacles
Four main obstacles surfaced to increase transparency and the hub function of matching
platforms:
A preference for passive matching, needing no checks by the platforms, and a
relative small number of core (digital) services,
Restraint resources for innovation and service development,
A dislike for red tape and bureaucracy in getting third party recognition and
Distrust within the sector itself on providing fact and figures for marketing reasons.
59
9. Main Learnings
The EU4BT project aims to develop standards, good practices and policy implications,
related to buyer-seller matching platforms for business transfers to ensure the quality of
the services provided.
It is believed that similar standards ease cooperation between platforms. An evidence-
based framework to assess quality of matching platforms has been designed and is
established by adding specific indicators for SME business transfers in co-creation with
platform owners/managers.
Main learnings of the project are:
1. A clear matching platform definition
When defining business transfer matching platforms and their services, our discussants
included quality standards referring to qualified information and a profile validation
process in particular. This led us to the following definition:
A matching platform for SME business transfers is an open marketplace for (certain
types of) sellers, buyers and advisors, providing digital and possibly non-digital
additional services, with clear information on their matching methodology, business
model and costs, a search engine for matching, with certain kinds of validations and
checks in place towards the listed profiles on the platform.
2. Matching plafroms increase exposure of sellers and buyers
It is clear that matching platforms increase exposure of sellers and buyers. A substantial
part of all platforms provide for international exposure. Half of all platforms have foreign
subsidiaries and 41% display multi-language functions (sometimes hidden in their search
engine methodologies). 41% of all platforms share (search engine) technologies with non-
owned partners. Having in mind this unexpected internationalization, platforms
owners/managers dislike to be pushed in cooperation, they prefer to find their own
partners.
60
3. Platforms are unable to overcome most information asymmetries
So far matching platforms are unable to overcome most information asymmetries
between buyers and sellers in business transfers. The minimum requirements of “up-to-
date profiles”, “validated” and “checked” information or propositions, tags of “date of
placement” and “identifiable replacements” have yet to be met. Also necessary facts and
figures are missing to show the performance of matching platforms. Matching platforms
do not live up to a self-defined minimum of quality standards. The positive news is that
matching platforms are willing to set a common standard (Code of Conduct) by self-
regulation.
4. One-stop-shop for sellers and buyers is not in place
The desired for hub as “one-stop-shop” for sellers and buyers is not in place. Most
platforms limit their services to “passive” matching with a few core services, abstaining
from more sophisticated support or diagnostic services like valuation, tax and legal or
actively connecting buyers /sellers. On the digitized side, services provided are
predominantly automated alert services. Non-digital services are limited to connecting
buyers/sellers to advisors, the writing of sales propositions and networking facilities.
Though platform owners/managers recognize the importance of more support services,
especially for micro firms, they lack resources to innovate and/or fear the loss of advisors
as key customers.
5. The present business models gear limited revenue streams
The present business models gear limited revenue streams for matching platforms, both
for private and public platforms alike. Median scores indicate a revenue stream below €
250.000, break-even results and only 2 FTE. Platforms with subsidiaries are unable to
pool their resources to obtain higher revenues and profits compared to stand-alone
platforms. Innovation budgets are also similar to stand-alone platforms. While willing to
innovate and grow digital services mainly, most platforms lack resources to do so.
6. Private and public platforms
Private and public platforms have more similarities than differences and platform
owners/managers see room for both in the market. In more mature markets, they are
competitors.
61
10. Quality Standards and Implementation
The proposed quality standards, good practices and policy implications have surfaced
from the academic study, the results of the survey and meetings with platform
owners/managers. The following factors of success for matching platform and the
mentioned minimum standards are recommended:
10.1. Proposed Standards
Transparency in services
Clear information on the terms and conditions of all services.
Clear expression and information on the matching methods used.
Easy to use, accessibility and multi-functional search engine services.
Confidentiality and (IT) Security
Arrangements in place to detect fraudulent or misleading profiles.
Full confidentiality of buyers and sellers, unless they consent in direct interaction.
Regular safety controls online and off-line to minimize security risks in
databases, internet access and all IT-applications.
Clear privacy and cookie policies.
Third party recognition
Ratings of customer satisfaction, best by independent customer or business-to-
business rating platforms.
Additional access to support services
The commitment to give access for more one-to-many or one-to-one (digital)
services. These provisions aim to lower thresholds especially so for micro firms.
The commitment to share on anonymized sellers and buyers profiles if this is
legally permitted and if this is in the user’s direct interest and by consent only.
Up to date and checked profiles and information
Ensure up-to-date profiles and the possibility to search on the period of placement.
62
A clear statement on what is checked in the profiles, by whom and in what
frequencies.
Self-regulation and cooperation among matching platforms
An agreement on shared values in a defined Code of Conduct.
Most of these obstacles seen by platform owners/managers (see Chapter 8) can be
taken away by a voluntary set of rules of self-regulation. Rather than instructions
on the way platforms should operate, self-regulation contains a pragmatic Code
of Conduct on platform behaviour. A shared Code of Conduct as conceptualize in
Annex 7 is expected to increase trust of the users, but also to lower thresholds for
cooperation among matching platforms.
10.2. Good Practices
The provided and above mentioned minimum standards can be strengthened by including
the following good practice recommendations.
Transparency on performance
Business ethics in providing facts and figures to prevent cheating on performance
Sharing of blacklist of users: sellers, buyers, advisors.
Public listings on success rate and the way this is measured by the platforms.
Implement agreement procedure or ethical committee to agree and monitor
advisers who collaborate with the matching platform
Third party recognition
Matching platforms generate trust and actively build on reputation by publishing
their track records, results and involve third parties to assess their platforms.
A track record of matching platforms, a seal of approval and third party
recognitions, have shown to enhance online trust dynamically both as part of
reputation and obtained results.
63
Wider access to support services
Implement agreement procedure or ethical committee to agree and monitor
advisers who collaborate with the matching platform and provide additional
support services.
In the future, for younger generations especially, more experimentation of
possibilities for direct contact possibilities on consent by buyers and sellers. It will
speed up contacts and reality checks for certain types of transactions, most likely
for micro firm transactions.
Self-regulation and cooperation among matching platforms
Develop cooperation with other national or international matching platforms to
exchange good practices and experience and manage risk (sharing blacklists).
10.3. Policy Implications
Provide for (inter)national innovation budgets:
Matching platforms are resource depleted in their innovation ambitions. In order
to develop or improve services, one-to-many services, group services and public
courses, do-it-yourself services and international cooperation, additional funding
will speed up progress. It will also reduce transactions costs for sellers and buyers
considerably and improve preparation, especially so for the micro firms segment,
being unable to hire expensive advisory services.
Launch an international standardized customer satisfaction survey:
EU4BT couldn’t test on desired or wished for functionalities of platforms by
sellers and buyers (see Annex 8). This is a serious gap in knowledge on wished
for services by the users. Organizing a standardized international customer
satisfaction survey would enable to give better insight in the market demands. In
other sectors, users have overcome fears for digital transaction by building trust,
reputation and impartial third party recognition (see Van Teeffelen and Weesie,
2015). Do sellers and buyers trust matching platforms? How do they rate the
services and reputation of matching platforms? A survey could also answer the
pending question if older micro- or small business owners selling off their firms,
are ready to use newer digital technologies? A final pending question is whether
64
sellers and buyers, especially in the micro- and small firm segment, are interested
in international parties for a transaction.
Repeat this survey on quality standards periodically:
The reported results only reflect a snapshot, results might stay valid for a short
period only. Platforms are competitors and they can improve their services or raise
(some of) their quality standards. It is unclear if the reported survey outcomes
reflect progress, stagnation or decline. Only repeated measurements can tell.
Consider public and private matching platforms as complementary actors
and promote cooperation between platforms:
Private and public services on the whole are more similar than different. They are
competitors in countries with developing and mature markets in SME business
transfers. Both have been supportive to develop the markets. Private platforms
seem to be in the lead at the moment, both in total numbers active in Europe and
in the number of provided services. Only when social policies are necessary to
support the development of given sectors or in early markets, lacking a viable
business model for private matching, publicly supported matching platforms may
be preferred.
Organize specific conferences for matching platforms:
Organize a specific conference for matching platforms yearly to exchange good
practices, to discuss business models and innovations.
Raising awareness among platforms about importance of transparency and
business ethics.
10.4. Additional Policy Implications
3 Additional policy implications recommended by Transeo, based on its expertise in the
field of business transfer and the experience of its Members would be:
Promote thirdparty recognition by public certification and provide subsidies
to encourage this.
65
Consider incentives or subsidies to lower the threshold for micro firm buyers
and sellers to have access to additional support services and private advisers
services. Implement an ethical committee to agree and monitor advisers who
collaborate with the matching platform.
Look into different possible business models between matching platforms to
create a European marketplace.
66
10.5. Synthesis Table
Key factors of success for
matching platforms
Standards Additional Good practices Policy implications
Transparency in services - Clear information on the terms and
conditions of all services.
- Clear expression and information on
the matching methods used.
- Easy to use, accessibility and multi-
functional search engine services.
- Ratings of customer satisfaction, best
by independent customer or
business-to-business rating
platforms.
- Business ethics in providing facts
and figures to prevent cheating on
performance.
- Sharing of blacklist of users:
sellers, buyers, advisors.
- Public listings on success rate and
the way this is measured by the
platforms.
- Implement an ethical committee to
agree and monitor advisers who
collaborate with the matching
platform.
- Raising awareness among
platforms about importance of
transparency and business
ethics.
- Recognition and participation in
the Code of Conduct.
Confidentiality and Security - Arrangements in place to detect
fraudulent or misleading profiles.
- Full confidentiality of buyers and
sellers, unless they consent in direct
interaction.
- Regular safety controls online and
off-line to minimize security risks in
databases, internet access and all IT-
applications.
- Clear privacy and cookie policies.
- Sharing of blacklist of users:
sellers, buyers, advisors.
- Implement an ethical committee to
agree and monitor advisers who
collaborate with the matching
platform.
- Provide for (inter)national
innovation budgets.
- Recognition and participation in
the Code of Conduct.
67
Third party recognition - Ratings of customer satisfaction,
best by independent customer or
business-to-business rating
platforms.
- Matching platforms generate trust
and actively build on reputation by
assessment by third independent
party.
- Promote third party recognition
by public certification.
- Grants to facilitate third party
assessment of matching
platforms.
- Launch an international
standardized customer
satisfaction survey.
Additional access to support
services
- The commitment to give access for
more one-to-many or one-to-one
(digital) services. These provisions
aim to lower thresholds especially
so for micro firms.
- The commitment to share on
anonymized sellers and buyers
profiles if this is legally permitted
and if this is in the user’s direct
interest and by consent only.
- Implement agreement procedure or
ethical committee to agree and
monitor advisers who collaborate
with the matching platform and
provide additional support
services.
- Give incentives and subsidies to
help buyers and sellers to have
access to additional support
services and private advisers
services.
- Recognition and participation in
the Code of Conduct.
Up-to-date and checked
profiles and information
- Ensure up-to-date profiles and the
possibility to search on the period of
placement.
- A clear statement on what is
checked in the profiles, by whom
and in what frequencies.
- Provide for (inter)national
innovation budgets.
- Recognition and participation
in the Code of Conduct.
68
Self-regulation and
cooperation among
matching platforms
- An agreement on shared values in a
defined Code of Conduct.
- A shared Code of Conduct is
expected to increase trust of the
users, but also to lower thresholds.
for cooperation among matching
platforms.
- Develop cooperation with other
national or international matching
platforms to exchange good
practices and experience and
manage risk (sharing blacklists).
- Consider public and private
matching platforms as
complementary actors and
promote cooperation
between platforms.
- Organize specific
conferences for matching
platforms.
- Recognition and
participation in the Code of
Conduct.
- Look into different possible
business models between
matching platforms to
create a European
marketplace.
Epilogue
On May 24th during the Transeo Summit 2016 in Cologne, the results, conclusions and
recommendations of this report were presented to 120 participants.
One of “deliveries” of the EU4BT was to have a signed agreement among 6 matching
platforms on quality standards. To our great joy, our methodology to involve matching
platform owners/managers from the very start of the project, payed off. In total 19
matching platforms in 9 European countries signed the agreement to use and implement
the Code of Conduct for SME Business Transfers Matching on May 24th.
All platforms owners/managers having signed the Code of Conduct are represented on
this picture.
Also 4 other platforms, not present at the Transeo Summit, have shown strong intentions
to undersign the Code of Conduct before the end of this project (end of June 2016).
70
References
Aladwani, A.M., and Palvia, P. (2002), Developing and Validating an Instrument for
Measuring User-Perceived Web Quality, Information & Management, 39(6), 467-476.
Akehurst, J., Koprinska, I., Yacef, K., Pizzato, L., Kay, J., & Rej, T. (2012). Explicit and
implicit user preferences in online dating. In: New Frontiers in Applied Data Mining,
Springer Berlin, 15-27.
Amaral, M. and Baptista, R., (2007), Transitions from paid employment into
entrepreneurship: An empirical study, In: Dowling, M. & Schmude, J. (Eds), Empirical
Entrepreneurship in Europe: New Perspectives, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005), Are the drivers and role of online
trust the same for all web sites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical study,
Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 133–152.
Beldad, A., De Jong, M.and Steehouder, M. (2010), How shall I trust the faceless and the
intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust, Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(3), 857–869.
Benedicktus, R. (2011), The effects of 3rd party consensus information on service
expectations and online trust, Journal of Business Research, 64(8), 846–853
Bruce, D. and Picard, D. (2006), Making Succession a Success: Perspectives from
Canadian SMEs, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(2), 306-309.
Chen, C. (2006), Identifying significant factors influencing consumer trust in an online
travel site, Information Technology and Tourism, 8(3-4), 197–214.
Dyck, B., M. Mauws, F.A. Starke and Mischke, G.A. (2002), Passing the baton: the
importance of sequence, timing, technique and communication in executive succession,
Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (2), 143-162.
Eastlick, M. Lotz, S. and Warrington, P. (2006), Understanding online B-to-C
relationships: An integrated model of privacy concerns, trust, and commitment, Journal
of Business Research, 59(8), 877–886.
71
European Commission (2002), Final Report of the Expert Group on the Transfer of Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises, Brussels.
European Commission (2006), Markets for business transfers; Fostering transparent
marketplaces for transfer of business in Europe, Brussels.
European Commission (2011), Review of the “Small Business Act” for Europe, Brussels.
European Commission (2013), Evaluation of the implementation of the 2006
Commission communication on business transfers, Brussels.
EU4BT (2014), Engaging Users for Business Transfer, COSME project proposal.
Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006), The role played by perceived usability,
satisfaction, and consumer trust on website loyalty, Information & Management, 43, 1–
14.
Finkel, E., Eastwick, P., Karney,B., Reis, H. and Sprecher, S. (2012), Online Dating: A
Critical Analysis From the Perspective of Psychological Science, Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
Geerts. A., Herrings, W. and Peek, M. (2004), Change of ownership creates new prospects
in SME sector, SME special 2004, ING, Amsterdam.
Hasan, L. and Abuelrup, E. (2011), Assessing the quality of web sites, Applied
Computing and Informatics, 9(1), 11–29.
Howorth, C., Westhead, P. and Wright M. (2004), Buyouts, information asymmetry and
the family dyad, Journal of Business Venturing, 19 (4), 509-534.
Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004), The development of initial trust in an online
company by new customers, Information & Management, 41(3), 377–397.
Le Breton-Miller, I., Miller, D., and Steier, L. (2004), Toward an integrative model of
effective FOB succession, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28 (4), 305-309.
Meijaard, J. (2005), Business Transfers in the Netherlands, In: Snijders, J. and Haane, Y.
(Eds), Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, Business Transfer: a new start, EIM,
Zoetermeer.
72
Qutob, I. and Van Teeffelen, L. (2009), Web-based databanken voor bedrijfsoverdracht
en –overname: Stand van zaken voorjaar 2009, BOBB/KvK Nederland, Utrecht.
PwC (2014), Global Family Business Survey, http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/pwc-family-
business-survey/assets/family-business-survey-2014.pdf
Stone, I., Allinson, G. & Braidford, P. (2004), Passing the baton – encouraging successful
business transfers, Evidence and key stakeholder opinion, Small Business Service/DTI.
Sztompka, P. (1999), Trust: A sociological theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Transeo (2012), Report Working Group Matching Platforms, Liège, Belgium.
Transeo (2014), Awareness raising of the seller, Liège, Belgium.
Van Teeffelen, L. (2010), Exploring success and failure in small firm business transfers,
Nyenrode Press, Breukelen, The Netherlands.
Van Teeffelen, L. (2012), Avenues to improve success in SME business transfers:
reflections on theories, research and policies, HU Business School Utrecht, Utrecht, The
Netherlands.
Van Teeffelen, L. (2015), Fast growing impact of business transfers on Dutch economy,
HU Business School, Utrecht.
Van Teeffelen, L. and Weesie, E. (2015), Evidence-based criteria for successful digital
matching: Inferences for SME business transfers, EU4BT, Utrecht.
Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. and Cardon, M. (2010), Reconceptualizing
entrepreneurial exit: Divergent routes and their drivers, Journal of Business Venturing,
25(4), 361-375.
Wiklund. J. and Sheperd, D. (2003), Aspiring for and achieving growth; the moderating
role of resources and opportunities, Journal of Management Studies, 40 (8), 1919-1941.
73
Annex 1: European Commission’s Criteria (2006)
74
Annex 2: Qutob and Van Teeffelen’s Criteria (2009)
Reliabilty
Up-to-date profiles
Checked profiles
Direct contact and complaint procedure on the website
Transparancy of platform ownership
Anonimity garantueed for sellers
User friendliness
Search indicators
Support services
Access to all type of firms
Number of profiles
No threshold for expected sales price
Other criteria
Clear policy or business model
Cooperation with other platforms
Fee structure and pricing
Set of Search Indicators
Nu
mber
of
emplo
yee
s
Sec
tor
Pro
fit
or
net
-
mar
gin
Sal
es
turn
ov
er
Pri
ce
ind
icat
ion
Dat
e
pla
cem
ent
Po
stal
cod
e
Pro
file
ID
Leg
al e
nti
ty
Reg
ion
Typ
e o
f fi
rm
Tra
nsa
ctio
n
typ
e
Key
wo
rds
www.bedrijvendatabank.nl ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.bedrijventekoop.nl ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.brookz.nl ● ● ● ●
www.business4sale.nl ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.diligence.nl ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.koopmijnbedrijf.nl ● ● ● ● ●
www.mkbase.nl ● ● ●
www.mkbnext.nl ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.omzetbeurs.nl ● ● ●
www.ondernemingsbeurs.nl ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
www.overnamebedrijven.nl ● ● ●
75
Annex 3: EU4BT’s Criteria (2015)
Business model: how is the platform financed, what are the charges (staff costs to run it,
cost of the ICT tool, etc.) and revenues (fees from sellers, buyers, advisers and for public
platforms: subsidies, for private platforms: sponsors?) What is needed to reach the budget
balance?
ICT tool
Search criteria
How to create of profile – who creates the profile
Information in the profile - Reliability, quality of information in the profile
Updating of profiles
User-friendliness of the profiles to be consulted
Number of profiles on the platform
Fees for the seller, the buyer, the adviser
Success fee?
Matching methodology
How are the seller and the buyer matched? Self? Active matching by a team?
How about confidentiality? How are sellers and buyers connected to one another?
What is the success rate (how is it determined)?
Promotion of the platform to sellers & buyers: communication actions to bring them
on the platform
Partnerships (fuelling the platform with profiles)
Partnership between public platform and private platforms/brokers
Partnership with local organizations, business associations, ...
Additional services (e-newsletter, on-line tools, advisory services, training, ...): what are
the additional services proposed by the platform and what is their respective added value
to the quantity/quality of profiles?
International connections (how do they connect with platforms from other countries).
76
Annex 4: Survey questionnaire and frequencies
Introduction
This questionnaire is part of the EU4BT-project (www.eu4bt.eu) and is designed to
investigate good practises in digital and non-digital services of matching platforms for
SME business transfers.
With the outcomes EU4BT aims to develop quality standards and good practises related
to buyer-seller platforms, also facilitating (international) cooperation between platforms.
Completion of the questionnaire, mostly multi-choice questions, will take approximately
20 - 30 minutes.
All information you provide will be treated as strictly confidential. All results will be
reported aggregated and anonymized. You will be invited to the seminar that discusses
the preliminary outcomes, being compensated for your traveling expenses (up to 500
euro).
For any questions regarding this survey you can contact Professor Dr. Lex van Teeffelen,
Chair of Finance and Firm Acquisition at HU Business School Utrecht, The Netherlands,
[email protected] or +31 6 38762797
What is the name of your platform? ………………........................
What is your name: …………………………………………..
e-mail: ……………………………………………
Skype or mobile number: …………………….
After web visits of your platform and possible interviews, we will separate this data sheet
from our dataset, assuring your and the platforms anonymity in our database.
60 matching platforms were invited, 37 responded after repeated messaging and personal
calling in a period of 4 weeks. Response is at a high rate of 62%.
Two platform were deleted, B2Match and Deal Nexus. The first was not a matching
platform for business transfer but for seminars and conferences. The second used for all
transactions another non-owned national platform, already represented in the sample.
The total sample for analysis is 35 matching platform, including 12 European countries.
77
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Be 7 20,0 20,0
Dk 3 8,6 28,6
Fin 2 5,7 34,3
Fr 3 8,6 42,9
Ger 4 11,4 54,3
It 2 5,7 60,0
Lux 2 5,7 65,7
NL 6 17,1 82,9
No 1 2,9 85,7
Pol 1 2,9 88,6
Sp 3 8,6 97,1
UK 1 2,9 100,0
Total 35 100,0
78
All Participating platforms, alphabetically:
Name Country
Affaires à suivre Belgium
Bedrijfsovernameplein Netherlands
BedrijfsovernameRegister Netherlands
Bedrijventekoop.be Belgium
Bedrijventekoop.nl Netherlands
Bizalia Spain
Bourse d'entreprises de la Chambre des Métier Luxemburg
Bourse nationale de la Transmission France
Brookz Netherlands
Brutrade Belgium
BusinessesForSale United Kingdom
Centre de Reempresa de Catalun Spain
CRA France
Deutsche Unternehmerboerse Germany
Firmenzukauf.de Germany
Fisker.dk Denmark
Gess Norway
Global Broker Poland
Overnameweb Belgium
Incontrerete Italy
Match-online Denmark
MKBase Netherlands
Nachfolgebörse Germany
Nexxt-change Germany
Opportunet Luxemburg
OvernameMarkt Belgium
Plan de Apoyo a la Transmisión de Empresas Spain
RetailRijk Netherlands
Sociéteàvendre Belgium
79
Sowaccess Belgium
Studio Centro Veneto Italy
Transentreprise France
Yrityskaupat Finland
Yrityspörssi Finland
Part 1: General information and services provided
1. In what year has your matching platform been founded? 2006 (median)1985-2014
(range)
2. In which year did your platform operate web-based? 2006 (median)1996-2014
(range)
3. How many people in Full Time Equivalents work at your matching platform:
2 FTE (median), 0,2-31 (range)
4. Has you platform subsidiaries (platforms with similar or different names)?
Yes, we also operate under different names 46%
No 54%
5. Is your platform technology or method also used by other non-owned platforms?
Yes 46%
No 54%
6. How many selling profiles are registered on your platform at this moment?
400 (median), 5 - 68.000 (range)
7. How many buying profiles are registered on your platforms at this moment?
117 (median), 0 - 500.000 (range)
80
8. What type of buyers does your platform attract? (T-test)
Mainly management buy-in candidates 28%* (Pri 20%, Pub
40%)
Mainly other SME owners 23%
Mainly investors/financial buyers 3%
A mixture of all sorts, no predominant type 43%* (Pri 55%, Pub
27%) Frankly, we do not know 3%
9. If your platform registers advisors/intermediaries, how many are registered on your
platforms? 60 (median), 0 – 3000 (range)
10. If buyers contact sellers, what is the average response time for sellers or their
representative? 2 (median) working days
11. Is your platform open for all sellers?
Yes >>>> go to question 13 66%
No, we have a specific target group/segment 34%
12. What is your specialisation or what are the minimum requirements?
…………………………………………….
13. Is there a minimum or maximum price before placement?
Yes, minimum sales price is 23%, between 10 - 700 K (overlap with
max price)
Yes, maximum sales price is 14%, between 100 - 500 K
No
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
14. Does your platform operate
Mainly for regional deals 29%
Mainly for national deals 68%
Mainly for cross-national deals 3%
15. In how many countries does your platform operate?
54% in 1 country, 46% in 2 or more countries, 32 in 4 or more countries
81
16. Does your matching platform offer different kind of subscriptions?
Yes, my platform provides different types of subscriptions, 45%
each with different types of services.
No, my platform has just one type of fee 55%
>>>> go to question 18
17. What kind of premium services does your platform provide?
Advisory services, support services, full package for ownership transfer (7 out of 15)
18. What is the fee structure for buyers, sellers and advisors? ** (Chi Square) Pri Pub
26% no fee 9% 71%
29% placement fee 41% 0%
29% subscription fee 32% 25%
10% success fee 9% 13%
6% full services 9% 1%
19. Which of the following digital interactive services do you provide on your
platform? (more than one answer possible) (T-test) Pri Pub
Alert services for buyers and sellers 83%
Secured data or dealing rooms 26%
Webinars and course ware 9%
Screenings and supply of additional (financial) information 11%
for interested parties
Direct contact facilities by Skype/Video/Chat or Social Media 31% *** 43% 9%
routed by your platform between buyers, sellers or advisors
Online contracting tools 11% ** 17% 0%
Online legal services 0%
Online valuation tools 23% *** 35% 0%
Online financial services 6%
Online tax tools 0%
Online tax services 0%
Other………………......................................(open space to fill in)
None of these services
20. Does your matching platform provides for non-digital additional services?
No, my platform works fully digitized >>>> go to question 22 17%
Yes, my platform provides also non-digital services but few. 40%
Yes, my platform provides both non-digital and digital services. 37%
Yes, my platform provides mainly non-digital services. 6%
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms
* p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
82
21. What are the additional or non-digital services that your platform provide
(more than one answer possible)? (T-test) Pri Pub
Writing sales propositions 60%
Writing sales memorandums 65%
Valuation services 29%
Due diligence services 9% * 13% 0%
Legal services 9% * 13% 0%
Tax services 6%
Connecting sellers to selected buyers 43%
Connecting buyers to selected sellers 40%
Connecting sellers and buyers to selected advisors 71%
Courses for buyers and/or sellers 29%
Courses for advisors 6%
Courses for local, regional and/or national agencies 4%
Networking facilities 43%
Financing arrangements 15%
Awareness raising activities 46%
Other .....................................................................................(open space to fill )
22. How mature do you consider the market(s) for SME business transfers in which you
operate? (T-test) *** Pri Pub
Mature, many platforms are operating in our segment. 41% 52% 18%
Developing, some other platforms operate in our segment. 41% 35% 55%
Early beginnings, there are no hardly or no platforms 18% 13% 27%
operating in our segment.
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
83
Part 2: Mission, business model, innovation and security
1. What is your platform’s mission?
.................................................................................................................
2. Is your platform privately of publicly funded?
My platform is 100% privately funded. 68%
My platform is mainly privately funded (at least 51%) 0%
My platform is 50% privately funded, 50% publicly funded 3%
My platform is mainly publicly funded (at least 51%) 6%
My platform is 100% publicly funded. 23%
3. Which stakeholder(s) has/have most influence on your business decisions?
(more than one answer possible) (T-test) Pri Pub
Wishes of sellers and buyers 83%
Wishes of advisors 91%** 65% 27%
Wishes of other private parties, ………………. 9%
Wishes of government (agencies) 34%
Investors in my platform 3%
Sponsors
…………………………...
4. Are your revenues (also if publicly funded) mainly coming from digital or non-
digital
services?
Fully or mainly from digital services. 52%
50%/50% 19%
Fully or mainly from non-digital additional services. 16%
Hard to differentiate between digital and non-digital services 10%
Other, no revenues 3%
5. What business model is used by your platform? (based on average score)
Business model (more answers possible) (T-test) Yes Partly No
Trade model (% of all the transactions on the platform) 77%
Subscription model (subscription fees) **** Private Public Public
Advertisement model (web-advertisements) **** Private Public
Meta-data generation (selling data to interested parties) 93%
84
Advisory model (paid services for sellers and/or buyers) 73%
Broker model (success fee from sellers or buyers) ** Private Public
Freemium model (first free then paying services) ** Private Public
Not for Profit model (no break-even for our services) **** Public Private
Sponsor model (sponsors pay part of all costs made) *** Private Public
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
6. Which parties ensure the most of your revenues (more than one answer possible)?
(T-test) Pri Pub
Sellers of companies **** 44% 57% 11%
Advisors/external experts * 18% 22% 6%
Buyers of companies **** 11% 15% 1%
Governmental parties *** 9% 0% 34%
Subsidized **** 7% 0% 28%
Advertisers 5%
Sale of (meta)data to third parties 0%
Regional/EU funding ** 6% 1% 37%
Note: total revenues are 100%
7. For private platforms only
Is your platform making a profit?
My platform is increasing its profits year by year. 26%
My platform has stable profits. 22%
My platform operates break-even. 48%
My platform has stable and affordable losses. 4%
My platform has increasing losses year by year. 0%
For public or public/private platforms only
Does your platform perform within budget?
My platform is well within budget year by year. 69%
My platform operates break-even 23%
My platform uses more money than budgeted year by year 8%
8. What is the total revenue for matching activities 2014 in euro’s.
1 - 250.000 77%
251.000 - 500.000 15%
85
500.001 - 1.000.000 0%
1.000.001 - 2.500.000 4%
2.500.001 - 5.000.000 4%
5.000.001 - 10.000.000 0%
10.000.001 or more 0%
9. How much of your total revenues is spent the past three years on innovations?
By innovations we mean entering new markets, new ways of ICT processing or
new services.
Close to 0% 8%
5% - 10% 35%
11% - 15% 19%
16% - 20% 3%
21% or more 35%
10. Are you planning for new innovations in the coming 12 months?
No, we have no plans >>> continue to question 12 24%
Yes, we have plans to innovate our platform, namely …... 76%
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms
* p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
Please rank your plans on innovation on importance? (Open question)
1. Expanding, improving and restyling digital services (N=19/35)
2. Restructuring or integrating back-end IT (N=18/35)
3. Partnership or use of other parties (N= 4/35)
11. Do you share profiles with other non-owned digital matching platforms?
Yes, we share propositions and information 31%
Sometimes we share propositions and information 10%
No, we don’t share propositions with other digital platforms. 59%
12. What are the main obstacles for cooperation?
Competition and financial reasons (14/21)
13. How do you secure your website, applications and database?
(Yes/No/Not Applicable)
86
Do employees/management change their passwords regularly? Yes 80%
How often per year? 50% once per year, 50% twice or more
Can employees assess all data(bases)? Yes 48%
Are data collected in one database? Yes 77%
Is/are your database(s) secured? Yes 100%
Are all applications tested on security issues regularly? Yes 96%
How many times per year? 57% every month, 43% 1-4 per year
Are your company servers tested on security issues regularly? Yes 92%
How many times per year? 86% every month, 16% 1-4 per year
If users log in, does your website uses encryption? (https-protocols) Yes 77%
If users change their profiles, do you ask for (extra digital) confirmation? Yes 74%
Are internet users automatically disconnected if they are inactive ` Yes 63%
for 10 minutes or longer on the website?
14. Can users see all of their invoices on the web? Yes 26%
15. Is your full website functionality adjusted to the use of tablets? Yes 92%
16. Is your full website functionality adjusted to the use of smart phones? Yes 49%
87
Part 3: Matching, validation and third party recognition
1. Who puts profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
Buyers and/or sellers themselves 66%
Advisors or intermediaries 69%
We ourselves after interviews with buyers/sellers 37%
We ourselves after some checks with the advisor 23%
Other, other platform 23%
2. Who changes profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
(T-test) Pri Pub
Buyers and/or sellers delete their own (firm) profile 63%
Advisors or intermediates delete them on our platform ** 66% 83% 36%
We change them 63%
Other, ………………………….. 3%
3. Who deletes profiles on your matching platform? (more than one answer possible)
Buyers and/or sellers delete their own (firm) profile 60%
Advisors or intermediates delete them on our platform 63%
We delete them after the deal is done 63%
We delete them automatically after ending subscription 57%
4. Who checks and validates the sellers’ profiles?
Nobody 20%
Advisors or intermediaries ** 40% 52% 18%
We ourselves after interviews with sellers 63%
4. Who checks and validates the buyers’ profiles?
Nobody 29%
Advisors or intermediaries *** 37% 52% 9%
We ourselves after interviews with buyers 60%
5. Who checks and validates the advisors’ profiles?
Nobody 8%
We ourselves * 88% 100% 60%
Others, …………. 4%
6. Is there a clear statement on your platform what kind of information is checked by
whom?
Yes 43%
No 51%
88
7. Do you have a black list of seller, buyers or advisors, not wanting them on your
platform?
Yes, we have a black list 49%
No >>>>> go to question 9 51%
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
8. Do you share this list with other platforms? (T-test) **** Pri Pub
Yes 0% 0% 0%
Sometimes **** 44% 47% 0%
No 56% 53% 100%
9. What is checked? (Yes/Partly/No)
` On the part of profiles of sellers
Is there a check on the existence of the firm for sale? Yes 66%
Is there a check on the identity of the sellers Yes 66%
Is there a check in the credit/default registers? Yes 3%
Is there a check on the credentials of sellers? * Yes 32% Partly No
Is there a check on the quality of the sales memo Yes 25%
Is there a check on the valuation of the firm for sale? Yes 23%
On the part of profiles for buyers
Is there a check on the identity of the buyers? Yes 44%
On the part of advisor(s) on your platform?
Do you check the identity of the advisor(s)? * Yes 74% Yes Partly
Do you check the credit/default registers? Yes 15%
Do you check the credentials of advisors? Yes 44%
10. What type of information is publicly available of firms for sale on the internet?
(Yes/No)
Sales turnover Yes 93%
89
Number of employees Yes 97%
Sector Yes 100%
Legal entity Yes 79%
Region/place Yes 100%
Sale price indication Yes 84%
Reason for sale Yes 86%
11. If profiles are placed, is there a date of placement visible on the website?
Yes 52%
No 48%
12. Does your platform checks for doublings in profiles?
Yes 75%
No, this is not our responsibility 25%
13. If profiles are replaced is it clear this is not a new profile?
Yes, replaced or adjusted profiles are never listed as “new” 31%
No, this is not visible for web-visitors 60%
We never replace propositions 9%
14. How does your matching procedures work? (more than one answer possible)
Visitors use the search engine of our platform, then contact buyers or sellers
directly
Visitors use the search engine of our platform, then contacting the listed advisors
Visitors give us a direct assignment to select buyers and sellers for them
Others, …………………………..
15. If (payed) visitors use your search engine, how many propositions does the engine
generate, assuming looked for profiles are abundantly available?
Max. 5 profiles per session 0%
Max. 10 profiles per session 3%
Max. 30 profiles per session 7%
They get as much as available without any limitation 90%
16. Can sellers and buyers contact each other directly via Skype/Video or other
communication via systems on your platform
Yes, direct communication via our platform is possible 18%
No, not yet, but we are working on it 9%
90
No, not possible 73%
17. Does you platform link to other service providers or info on SME business
transfers?
Yes 62%
No 38%
18. Is there user support available by your platform on office hours?
Yes, by phone, email and chat 15%
Yes, by phone and email 70%
Yes, by email and chat 9%
No 6%
19. Is there a complaint procedure available if customers are dissatisfied?
Yes, we have forms available and deal with it within 2 (median) days 27%
No, users can contact us 73%
20. Is your website accessible in different languages?
Yes, in 2-9 (range) languages 27%
No, only in one language 73%
21. Do you check and publish the success rate of business transfers via your platform?
(success = number of accomplished business transfer transactions)
Yes, regular checks and we publish it 3%
We occasionally check and publish it 17%
We occasionally check but don’t publish 59%
No, we do not check on this 21%
22. How do you track success rate? 7/25 interview/survey/contact
7/25 reason for deletion is asked
23. What is (or would be an estimate) of the success rate? 35 %
(median)
91
24. Is your matching platform yearly assessed by third parties? (T-test) Pri Pub
Yes, yearly 12%
Occasionally but not yearly 15%
No 73%
25. Does your platform have “seals of approval” or official recognitions by third
parties?
(more than one answer possible)
European recognition 0%
Government recognition * 9% 0% 27%
Professional association recognition 9%
Federations of employers/entrepreneurs 6%
Other platform recognitions 3%
User’s satisfaction rates comparing other platforms ** 3% 45% 9%
User’s testimonials or ratings 32%
Media prizes 0%
None of these formal or informal recognitions 59%
26. There is no trusted 3rd party recognition/ accreditation/ certification body in Europe.
Should platforms organize this among themselves? **
Yes, definitely, platforms should organize this themselves 12% 4% 30%
Maybe, but it is not a priority 48% 48% 50%
No, better wait for external parties to decide on this 48% 48% 20%
27. Is there any other information, suggestions or comments you like to share with us?
………………....................................................................(open space to fill in)
N=4/35
How long can profiles stay on platforms? I miss this question.
Most of the market is not covered.
No big problems.
Do not try to control/regulate platforms, but stimulate, facilitate, support.
statistical significant difference at between private and public platforms * p < 0.10, ** at p < 0.05, *** at p < 0.01, **** at p < 0.001
92
Annex 5: List of approached platforms
Platform approached Country
Vlaio/Flemish Government Belgium
Cédants et Repreneurs d'Affaires (CRA) France
Bourse de la transmission - BPI France -
http://www.reprise-entreprise.bpifrance.fr/ France
Incontrerete (Chambers of Commerce national platform) -
Unioncamere, Unioncamere, Italian Union of Chambers of
Commerce Italy
Brookz Netherlands
SOWACCESS Belgium
Match-online.dk Denmark
Suomen Yrittäjät (The Federation of Finnish Enterprises) Finland
Nexxtchange (BMWI - Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs
and Energy) Germany
Business Exchange (CCI Luxembourg) Luxembourg
MK Base Netherlands
www.bedrijventekoop.nl Netherlands
Centre de Reempresa de Catalunya Spain
Businessforsale.com UK
www.danskfirmabors.dk Denmark
Transentreprise France
dub.de (Deutsche Unternehmberbörse Dub.de GmbH) Germany
Platform Country
B2Match Austria
Finnish Company Acquisition Ltd Finland
gess.no (Generasjonsskifte og Eierskifte Senter AS) Norway
GlobalBroker Germany/Poland
Global M&A International (Belgium)
Transmission Empresas Spain
Studiocentroveneto (Toni Brunello) Italy
Platform Country
bedrijventekoop.be / societesavendre.be Belgium
firmenzukaufen.de Gerrmany (Belgium)
bizalia.com Spain
retailrijk.nl Netherlands
Affaires a suivre Belgium
Overnamemarkt Belgium
Platform Country
DaltonsBusiness.com UK
Nachfolgeborse Wien Austria
93
http://www.virksomhedszonen.dk/ Denmark
Dealgate International
AgoraBiz France
Brutrade Belgium
http://www.amino.dk/virksomhedsbors/ Denmark
APCE France
C-Cible (Rhône-Alpes) France
Crédit Mutuel France
Forum des Commerces France
Passer le Relais (Ile de France) -> Transentreprise France
http://www.topceg.hu/ Hungary
Bourse d'entreprises (Chambre des Métiers Luxembourg) Luxembourg
www.trasfieretunegocio.tk Spain
www.milanuncios.com Spain
Platform Country
Rightbiz UK
Mecanet France
Picardie Transmission France
Reprendre en Bretagne -> CCI Bretagne France
Transcommerce - Transartisanat -> Transentreprise France
ondernemersbeurs.nl (www.bedrijvendatabank.nl) Netherlands
Startinvest (Poland) Poland
IAPMEI Portugal
http://es.negocius.com/ Spain
Ventreprise.be / Overnameweb.be Belgium
ACFCI France
www.bedrijfsovernameovernameregister.nl Netherlands
Nachfolgeborse Osterreich (WKO - Wirtschaftskammer
Österreich) / Follow Me Austria
Fusacq France
94
Annex 6: List of Expert Group Members
TABLE
Lex VAN TEEFFELEN HU Business School The Netherlands 0
Nicolas PIROTTE SOWACCESS Belgium 0
Oriol ALBA SENDRA Reempresa Spain 1
Rufus Bazley Businessforsale United Kingdom 1
Jean-Marie Catabelle CRA France 1
Marie Collard Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg 1
Pauline FERONT SOWACCESS Belgium 1
Abraham Arcos Reempresa Spain 2
Albert Colomer i Espinet Reempresa Spain 2
Monique Denis – te Vaarwerk Bedrijventekoop.nl The Netherlands 2
Mika Haavisto Federation of Finnish Enterprises Finland 2
Adam Turnbull Businessforsale United Kingdom 2
Marie DEPELSSEMAKER Transeo Belgium 3
Nathalie Montesinos Transentreprise France 3
Nicolas Nouveau BPI France France 3
David Rage Transentreprise France 3
Nadine Schlömer-Laufen Nexxtchange Germany 3
Rosalie VAN RIJK MKBase The Netherlands 4
Anders Fisker Danskfirmabors.dk Denmark 4
Mieke Mallants VLAIO (OVERNAMEMARKT) Belgium 4
Janne Pärnänen Federation of Finnish Enterprises Finland 4
Angelo Tedde Unioncamere Italy 4
Edwin WEESIE HU Business School The Netherlands 5
Martijn Westerlaken MKBase The Netherlands 5
Floyd Plettenberg Brookz The Netherlands 5
Nicolas Rädecke Deutsche Unternehmberbörse Dub.de Germany 5
Laurent RENERKEN SOWACCESS Belgium 5
EU4BT EXPERT GROUP MEETING 2 - 8 MARCH 2016 - BRUSSELS
95
Annex 7: European Code of Conduct for Matching Platforms
European Code of Conduct for SME Matching Platforms
Introduction
Matching Platforms for SME Business Transfers provide increased exposure for sellers,
buyers and advisors. They also help to increase transparency and lower the transaction
costs for sellers, buyers in the SME Business Transfer market, especially so for micro
firms (1-9 FTE). This Code of Conduct is a charter of cooperation, fair competition and
quality standard for Matching Platforms. It has been built around scientific quality
standards for matching, a project funded by the European Commission
http://www.eu4bt.eu/
The Code of Conduct (hereafter The Code), is short, hands-on and pragmatic and
established as an instrument of self-regulation by Matching Platforms.
Section 1. Self-Regulation
1.1 The Code is built to ensure well-defined self-regulation within the sector.
1.2 The Code does not seek to prescribe how Matching Platforms go about their business
in order to comply. The Code gives Matching Platforms the scope to decide how they go
about meeting these requirements in ways that best suit them and their users.
1.3 The Code it sets out the positive outcome it is seeking to achieve or the negative
outcome it is seeking to prevent.
1.4 Matching Platforms make available the full details of the Code to users, without
charge or obstruction.
1.5 Transeo will invite matching platforms within 6 months upon signature of the present
Code to meet in order to define together the governance principles of the self-regulation
that would be coordinated by Transeo.
1.6 Future updates on the present code fo conduct will be conceived by enlisted Matching
Platforms and Transeo together.
96
Section 2. Clear Communications
2.1 Matching platforms ensure proper business ethics. Their performance figures do not
mislead through exaggeration, omission or by any other means.
2.2 Matching platforms provide users with clear and easily accessible information about
their services, matching methodology and website, including but not limited to:
a) Contact details for those with responsibility for the site.
b) The relationship between the site owner or promoter and any other agent or
third party including any relationship with any other platforms, should be clearly
stated on the website. This includes ownership or shares in advisory services or
corporate finance services being shown to users of the platform.
c) A phone number, link or email address through which users can get help, report
problems or make a complaint.
d) The site operator’s privacy and cookie policies.
e) Terms and conditions of membership for use of a site or service.
f) A statement of the Matching Platform’s right to terminate a user’s membership
or a user’s registration with immediate effect and the grounds on which it could
invoke such termination.
2.3 Matching Platforms must provide users with clear information about the different
forms of membership and how to cancel membership. In particular, and before users make
any financial payments, the Matching Platform must clearly specify the following:
a) The services offered for the payment.
b) The duration of any services offered for the payment including any minimum
subscription period resulting from the payment.
c) Any element of automatic renewal and how this would happen
d) Any other key membership conditions or requirements that may affect the user
during membership or the user’s use of the service.
97
2.4 Matching Platforms must clearly state the terms, duration and limitations on any free
services it offers to users and must make clear if any on-going commitments, including
any financial commitments, arise or are applied as a consequence of accepting such an
offer.
Section 3. Search Engines and User Protection
3.1 Matching Platforms must have easily accessible search engines, having the following
minimal search functionalities: sector, region/city, nation, the numbers of employees,
sales turnover, price indication and date of placement.
3.2 In order to secure confidentiality of the sellers and buyers, search engine information
may be provided in ranges on all mentioned search functionalities in 3.1, rather than in
exact figures.
3.3. Matching Platforms check on a regular basis that all of the sellers, buyers and
advisors’ profiles are up-to-date.
3.4 Matching Platforms explain what is checked, by whom and in what frequency on
profiles of sellers, buyers and advisors.
3.5 Matching Platforms provide users with a link and/or contact options to enable them
to report any cases of abuse and/or harm caused by other users. Any such reports should
be acted on appropriately by the Matching Platforms.
3.6 Appropriate arrangements exist to detect fraudulent or misleading profiles and
inappropriate content and to remove any such profiles from the site as soon as possible.
3.7 Matching Platforms ensure regular safety controls online and off-line. Internal and
external procedures are in place to test security risks in databases, internet access and all
IT-applications.
98
Section 4. Meeting user needs
4.1 Matching Platforms are committed to share on anonymized sellers and buyers’
profiles if this is legally permitted, if this is in the user’s direct interest and by consent of
their users only.
4.2 Matching Platforms are committed to provide for support services of easy access one-
to-many or one-to-one services, such as but not limited to: webinars, and (digital)
preparation tools. These provisions aim to lower thresholds and provide easy accessible
services with or without dedicated partners.
4.3 Users must be able to cancel memberships and/or subscriptions online within the
services or by email. Matching Platforms must process and confirm all cancellations
instructions from users promptly. Clear information should be provided on any refund
conditions that apply in the event of cancellation.
4.4 Matching Platforms must have appropriate and effective arrangements for handling
online complaints, queries or other user issues in a timely manner.
4.5 Users may update their profile content at any time.
Section 5. Protecting Data and Privacy
5.1 Matching Platforms must have arrangements in place to meet any user request that
their profile can be adjusted or removed from public view.
5.2 Matching Platforms must inform users, should it retain user information after
cancellation or termination of a user’s membership. Any information retained, shall be
retained in line with laws and regulations on data protection.
5.3 Matching Platforms must be fair and honest in the purchase, sale and use of personal
data and shall ensure that they adhere to any consent requirements as set out in any
legislation or regulations governing data protection.
99
Section 6. Governance principles
All Matching Platforms that sign the Code, will be registered by Transeo or a legal
representative of Transeo, providing a public online register of all enlisted Matching
Platforms. As stated in 1.5, Transeo will invite matching platforms within 6 months upon
signature of the Code to meet in order to define together the governance principles of the
self-regulation that would be coordinated by Transeo, including a public online register.
Annex 1
Definitions
Matching Platform: A matching platform on SME business transfers is an open market
place for (certain types of) sellers, buyers and advisors, providing digital and possibly
non-digital additional services, with clear information on their matching methodology,
business model and costs, a search engine for matching, with certain kinds of validations
and checks in place towards the listed profiles on the platform.
User or users: Shall mean the users of the site, including but not limited to those users
who have entered their business details on the site and shall include (but not be limited
to) those who have registered and/or subscribed to any service, offer, promotion and/or
membership that has made available on its website. Users may be but are not limited to
sellers, buyers and advisors.
Profile: Means the business information submitted by the user or their representatives. It
does not include content contributed as part of interacting with other users, such as
messages, blog posts, forum posts or comments.
Transeo: Transeo AISBL encourages, sustains and promotes collaboration and exchange
of good practices and information in the field of SME transfer among professionals from
Europe from the private, (semi-) public and academic sectors, in order to stimulate the
business transfer market at both local and international level. It seeks to create an
environment which is more favorable to SME transfer. Transeo AISBL, Avenue Maurice
Destenay 13 | 4000 Liège | Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)4 220 01 80 | Fax: +32 (0)4 250 00 82 E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.transeo-association.eu
100
Annex 8: Research Limitations
Every study has its limitations, due to the design and methodology. This study has several
limitations. We couldn’t test on desired or wished for functionalities of platforms by
sellers and buyers. First of all, this was not the scope of the project, but secondly, most
sellers wish to stay anonymous and are hardly identifiable (Van Teeffelen, 2010).
Since we can’t compare the results with previous measurement, we don’t know if the
results reflect progress or stagnation, because only repeated measurements can track
improvements over time. The reported results only reflect a snapshot; results might stay
valid for a short period only.
Since matching platforms are competitors, all outcomes were reported aggregated only,
ensuring the anonymity of individual platforms. This was a prerequisite for platforms
owners/managers to provide data. Aggregations limit specific variations among
individual private and public platforms. Regional, national and cultural differences and
situations on the home markets of matching platforms may fade away. This was partly
overcome by involving 18 matching platform owners/managers in the final interpretation
of the survey outcomes.
Though the research authors cross-validated part of the findings, not all findings are cross-
validated. Non-digital services could not be assessed and also figures on revenue,
innovation and intended innovations were impossible to check upon. The reported
findings reflect perceptions of the platform owners/managers mainly. There are however
no signs of unreliable outcomes.
There is a limited number of observations available on matching platforms for business
transfers in Europe, we identified only 60 platforms. Though the response rate is high
(67%) and 35 platforms are analyzed, most differences between platforms become
significant when testing 120 platforms or more. We could only test some differences, due
to the limited observations, like private/public and platforms with and without
subsidiaries. Larger numbers would have given more possibilities to differentiate on
characteristics of matching platforms and country differences.
101
There is a strong bias in the results for North-West and Nordic European countries. These
countries are overrepresented in the dataset, especially Belgium, Dutch and German
platforms. This might be explained by their familiarity and membership of Transeo, the
European Association for SME Transfers, the leading partner of this project.
Future Research
So far there is no research available on the desired for functionalities of buyers and sellers
on digital and non-digital services of matching platforms. Comparing the developed
evidence-based quality standards with wishes of sellers and buyers, would further cross-
validate the developed set of indicators. An issue to be solved is why the enormous growth
of other types of web-based matching platforms in other sectors – like the real estate
sector, auctioning, the retail sector, the traveling and tourist sector, the dating sector,
crowd financing – is not realized yet in the business transfer sector. In other sectors, users
have overcome fears for digital transaction by building trust, reputation and impartial
third party recognition (see Van Teeffelen and Weesie, 2015). Do sellers and buyers trust
matching platforms? How do they rate the services and reputation of matching platforms?
And is the present target group, mostly so older micro or small business owners selling
off their firms, ready to use newer digital technologies like direct contact services?
Regional and national cultural differences might ask for a diversified approach, meaning
one-size measures don’t fit all.
Another question still pending is whether sellers, especially in the micro and small firm
segment, are looking for international parties to buy their firm to start with? Maybe sellers
are more reluctant to sell-off to foreign buyers and prefer regional or national buyers
primarily.
Only by repeating the survey over time, also using direct access and observation of the
digital services, progress or stagnation can be detected. To measure possible future
improvements, this report can be used as a base-line measurement.
102
Annex 9: Signing Matching Platforms
Matching platform Represented by
Bedrijventekoop.nl
THE NETHERLANDS
Mark Leemans
Bourse nationale Transmission – BPI France
FRANCE
Nicolas Nouveau
Brookz
THE NETHERLANDS
Floyd Plettenberg
CCI Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG
Tom Baumert
Cédants et Repreneurs d’Affaires
FRANCE
Jean-Marie Catabelle
Centre de Reempresa de Catalunya
SPAIN
Albert Colomer i Espinet
Danskfirmabors.dk
DENMARK
Anders Fisker
Dub.de
GERMANY
Nicolas Radecke
Gess.no
NORWAY
Geir Samdal
Match-online.dk
DENMARK
Peter Dalkiaer
MKBase
THE NETHERLANDS
Rosalie van Rijk
Nexxtchange
GERMANY
Holger Maus
VLAIO (Flemish Government)
BELGIUM
Patrick Jordens
SOWACCESS
BELGIUM
Nicolas Pirotte
Suomen Yrittajat
FINLAND
Mika Haavisto
Societesavendre.be
BELGIUM
Monique Denis
Firmenzukaufen.de
GERMANY
Monique Denis
Bizalia.com
SPAIN
Jan Bastiaans
Retailrijk.nl
THE NETHERLANDS
Martijn Westerlaken
Overnamemarkt
BELGIUM
Guido Serghers
103
Quality of SME Business Transfers Matching Platforms:
Research Outcomes of 12 European Countries
June 2016
www.eu4bt.eu
www.transeo-association.eu
