The head of Innovation Norway replied within three days

When I decided to speak publicly about my experience building Cycle Norway and navigating Innovation Norway’s funding system, I was fully prepared for one of three outcomes:
no reply at all, a response via a caseworker, or a short, formal clarification from an assistant.

Part 1 of this blog can be found here

Instead, within three days, I received a personal reply from Håkon Haugli, CEO of Innovation Norway.

That matters. Not because it changes the outcome, but because it shows the conversation was taken seriously. For that, I’m genuinely grateful, both for the speed of the response and for the tone in which it was written.

I’m sharing that reply in full below, unedited.

Before doing so, I want to explain why I raised this issue publicly in the first place.

Why I chose to speak openly

This was never about pointing fingers or accusing individuals. It was about documenting my journey as an independent founder trying to build something long-term, practical, and useful, often outside neat funding categories.

When you run a small business, especially one built slowly and deliberately, doors close constantly. Applications are declined. Budgets run out. Priorities lie elsewhere. Most of the time, there is no villain — just systems with limits.

Talking openly about that reality isn’t an attack. It’s honesty.

Cycle Norway exists today because of years of persistence, personal risk, and steady work, not because it followed a standard growth template. I believe there is value in showing what that path actually looks like, especially for others considering starting something of their own.

The reply from Innovation Norway

After publishing a video sharing my perspective, I received the response below. I’m publishing it in full so readers can judge it on its own terms, without interpretation or selective quotes.

Hi Matthew,

Thank you for getting in touch. I’ve had a look at your website, and I’ve watched the video. Normally, I would not personally get involved in a customer “complaint” or respond to a demand to be heard, but I am impressed with how you’ve done this and with your level of commitment and determination. I am sure many people have had wonderful two‑wheeled experiences in Norway after using Cycle Norway.

Now, to your question about whether Cycle Norway is the type of company that in principle can Innovation Norway support:

Innovation Norway does not support companies as such, but may contribute to the projects the companies wish to carry out. Our support is therefore not intended to cover the day‑to‑day running of the business or the purchase of ordinary operating equipment; it is meant to be used for development projects.

You were previously told that the reason your application was not supported was that no funds were available. We did not have money left in the relevant budgets to support your project. My explanation is the same. To be absolutely clear: Cycle Norway is a company with a project of a type we can support, but the funds available for that kind of project had already been allocated when your application arrived.

I see that you compare Cycle Norway to other tourism companies that have received support and note that many of these are well‑established businesses. That may be correct, but the majority of the companies we support are SMEs, and, again, we dont fund the companies, but specific projects. Also, there are no dedicated financial frameworks exclusively for the tourism industry. The sector may, however, use most of the financing services that Innovation Norway provides.

There is one exception to the above: destination companies. As you point out in the video, several of these have received support from us, and that is because the regulations allow them to apply to a central funding scheme related to the Sustainable Destination (“bærekraftig reisemål”) certification. Otherwise, tourism companies compete with all other industries for the funds available—and the competition is tough.

The companies you highlight in the video have received support in the form of investment loans and grants for innovation projects. Last year, we approved NOK 244 million for tourism businesses. Just over half, NOK 125 million, were loans, NOK 104 million were grants, and NOK 15 million were guarantees.

Receiving support from Innovation Norway is not a right companies hold, but the result of our assessment of a series of factors. What we can support is determined by the funding frameworks allocated to us from the government through the national budget and by Innovation Norway’s financing policy. If you would like to learn more about this, you can find information at https://www.innovasjonnorge.no/seksjon/finansiering-av-reiselivsaktiviteter.

I wish you the best of luck with the project, and I would be happy for you to stay in touch with us so we can discuss whether we have schemes that may suit your project in the future. 

All the best,

Håkon Haugli

administrerende direktør

My reflections after reading it

I don’t read this letter as dismissive. On the contrary, it clearly states that Cycle Norway is the type of project Innovation Norway can support in principle, while also explaining the structural and budgetary constraints that applied at the time.

That distinction is important.

It confirms something many founders eventually learn: support decisions are often less about the quality or seriousness of the work, and more about timing, frameworks, and how well a project fits predefined categories.

That doesn’t make the experience easy — but it does make it understandable.

A note for others building something

If there’s one reason I’m documenting this publicly, it’s for those who may be earlier in their own journey.

Rejection is not a verdict on your work or your intent. Often, it’s simply a signal that you’re operating at the edge of a system that wasn’t designed with you in mind.

What matters is clarity, resilience, and the courage to continue, even when progress is slow and recognition uneven.

My work on Cycle Norway continues regardless. It exists because cyclists use it and find value in it, not because it fits perfectly into a funding framework.

In the accompanying YouTube video, I summarise the letter and share my thoughts in more detail.