Month: October 2021

Posted on

#unfiltered #59 I Am The Worst Marketer Out There

billboard, marketing

Last week, after a lovely conversation with a startup operator, he asked if there was anything he could help me with. I defaulted to my usual. As I’m working on being a better writer, I asked him if time permitted, could he give me some feedback on my writing. For the sake of this blogpost, let’s call him “Alex.”

While I expected just general feedback on my style of content delivery, Alex gave me a full audit of this blog. He told me I should focus, until I’ve built up an audience. He also said that I should find my top 20 blogposts, figure which category they fall under and narrow down by writing more of those. On the same token, he recommended I reference Hubspot’s “topic clusters.” Which is an amazing piece about how to nail SEO in 2021, if I say so myself. Incredibly prescient. And incredibly true.

He also recommended I use Medium or Substack over my antiquated design of a website. And forgo the header image. Which you might have noticed I haven’t (yet).

The thing is… he’s 100% right. I’ve done little right, in the sense of marketing and branding. In fact, in the Google search engines, I probably am a mess to categorize, which means I exist in no category. Even in my own words, focusing on everything means focusing on nothing. While at the time of writing this post, a good majority of my content is based in startups and venture capital. If I focused on better branding, I would have doubled down on fundraising, or marketing. Or social experiments. But I haven’t.

Truth be told, I’ve stunted my growth, or my brand’s growth, by intentionally choosing otherwise. In turn, there are only two questions I optimize for in this blog.

  1. Will this make David from yesterday smarter?
  2. Is this still fun?

I started this blog writing for an audience of one. For the person I was yesterday. And if I know the me from yesterday would love it, then I have at least one happy customer.

I don’t write this blog for profit. This blog is my de-stressor. It is my entertainer, yet also my coach. It is my confidant. And it is just fun. The process of learning and thinking through writing – refining my thoughts – gets me really excited. I don’t want to end up dragging my feet through mud. Funnily enough, despite being an extremely, and I stress the former word, small blogger, I’ve had the occasional brand reach out to sponsor content. As you might have guessed, I said “no” to everyone so far. Either I didn’t believe that the product would make the world a better place or that I just didn’t get their product. This is not to say I won’t ever take on sponsors, but I just want to be really excited about it.

I’ve also had a number of folks reach out wanting to guest post on this blog, to which I’ve also said “no” to everyone so far. Because (a) it makes me lazy and defeats the purpose of me writing to think, and (b) I haven’t learned anything from them yet.

And because I write from a motivation of “psychic gratification,” borrowing the phrasing Tim Ferriss used in his recent episode, my writing is “very me,” to borrow the phrasing of readers and friends who’ve talked to me face-to-face before. I feel I can be genuine. And I can be unapologetically curious. I can learn what I want when I want how I want. I love each topic I write about, at least in the moment my pen touches paper. It excites me. It inspires me. And it pulls me with a force I want more of.

As a product of me being me, every so often, a random essay sees a momentary breath of fame. On average, it happens every 7th or 8th blogpost. I have these random spikes of several hundred views within 24 hours every so often. And don’t get me wrong. I would be lying if I said that wasn’t gratifying as well. Other times, some essays are far more perennial and see anywhere between two and ten views a day – almost every day. There are the ones that never make it onto the stage. And live somewhere in a virtual public graveyard.

I’m publicly logging my thought process here as a bookmark for future reference. And so that my future self can’t go back in time and write off my thought processes now in a grand motion of revisionist’s history.

I also know that this won’t be the last time I revisit this topic. My future mental model might differ greatly from what it is now. As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian economics, once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But it might stay the same. Who knows?

I’ll keep you updated.

Photo by Bram Naus on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Speed As A Competitive Advantage

race car

Last week, I had an incredible fireside chat with GC’s Niko Bonatsos, who has played a key role in some incredible investments, from Livongo Health to Snap to Wag! and most recently, Saturn. In all honesty, I took much of that experience to scratch my own itch. As always, we ran out of time before we ran out of topics. But I was lucky enough to ask one of which I happened to be losing sleep over. “How do you balance speed and diligence in the increasingly competitive market of venture?”

COVID changed us

In the midst of the pandemic, COVID became a forcing function for investors to deploy capital without ever meeting founders in-person. Frankly, they couldn’t meet anyone in-person. Even if they wanted to, investors, like everyone else, was subject to a series of lockdowns, curfews, and eventually the vaccine.

Yet, as life returns to a sense of normality, many investors have gotten comfortable investing virtually. And for a handful, only virtually. At the same time, in today’s increasingly competitive venture market, capital’s become more of a commodity. And I’ve heard a number of LPs find speed to be a competitive advantage. As a product of speed, investors compete on shortened timelines. It’s a given for angels and super angels out there who have to have conviction on a fairly limited set of data. But how do top-tier funds compete in that same market yet maintain the same discipline as before?

I got my answer from Niko.

“We try to pre-empt the stuff we really care about. It basically translates to us being prepared, having frontloaded a lot of the diligence for the companies and opportunities we care about. We have a more educated conversation with the founders, and are the first ones to get to a term sheet than anyone else. That’s something we do a lot more often. And we’ve leaned into seed, which is the new series A.”

Moreover, with all the diligence they do prior to sourcing, funds, like General Catalyst and Founders Fund, have started to incubate startups where they couldn’t find solutions to problems they found.

Slowing things down

Earlier this week, over a lunch, I posed the same question to Fort Ross‘ Ratan Singh, from whom I got a slightly different variation. “VCs are doing their homework before every meeting and going in with a thesis so that they can deploy fast. VCs used to play catcher and do all their homework after the meeting. But now it’s changed, so they can say yes faster.

“While speed is a differentiator, things are moving too fast today. I met every founder I’ve invested in in-person. Even during the pandemic, I invested in seven founders, and every single one I’ve met in-person.”

To which, I had to ask, “What do you find out from meeting a founder in-person that a virtual meeting lacks in?”

Without missing a beat, Ratan said, “It’s in the small things. The way they interact with their teammates. The way they treat each other. As we finish our chat and walk back to the car, are they still an intelligent being outside of the script? A Zoom call is a 30-minute scripted call. There’s a deck. There’s the presentation they prepared. An in-person interaction is more than that.”

Ratan’s comment reminded me of something Sequoia’s Doug Leone said in his interview with Harry Stebbings recently. “It takes about thirty minutes for someone to relax, which is why I refuse to interview someone for thirty minutes.” Similarly, while a 30-minute coffee chat may just be 30 minutes, the time it takes to shake hands, order your cup of coffee, have the conversation, finish it, and walk back to your car or wait for your Uber helps anyone, not just a VC, understand so much more depth to your character.

In closing

In the words of my friend Ruben:

As if he didn’t drop enough mics in our lunch, Ratan left me with one last hot take, “In VC, you’re either asked to stay, or you’re asked to leave.” In today’s ever-changing climate, having deep domain expertise and pre-empting diligence keeps you if not ahead, at least on the curve of evolution. And for many investors, it’s one of their best bets to be asked to stay – either by the firm’s senior partners or your LPs.

Photo by toine G on Unsplash

Thank you Niko and Ratan for looking over earlier drafts.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Why Product-Market Fit Is Found In Strategically Boring Markets

streets, ordinary, boring

In the past decade or two, there have been a surplus of talent coming into Silicon Valley. In large part, due to the opportunities that the Bay had to offer. If you wanted to work in tech, the SF Bay Area was the number one destination. If you wanted to raise venture money, being next door neighbors to your investors on Sand Hill Road yielded astounding benefits. Barring the past few months where there have been massive exoduses leaving the Bay to Miami or NYC, there’ve been this common thread that if you want to be in:

  • Entertainment, go to LA
  • Finance and fashion, go to NYC
  • Tech/startup ecosystem, go to the Valley.

While great, your early audience – the innovators on your product adoption curve – should not be overly concentrated there. All these markets carry anomalous traits and aren’t often representative of the wider population. Instead, your beachhead markets should be representative of the distribution of demographics and customer habits in your TAM (total addressable market).

While Keith Rabois could have very much built Opendoor in Silicon Valley, where more and more people were buying homes to be close to technological hubs, he led the early team to test their assumptions in Phoenix, Arizona. On the same token, Nikita Bier started tbh, not in the attention-hungry markets of LA, but in high schools in Georgia.

“Boring” virtual real estate

Strategically boring markets aren’t limited to just physical geographies. They’re equally applicable to underestimated virtual real estate. You don’t have to build a mansion on a new plot of land. Rent an Airbnb and see if you like the weather and people there first.

As Rupa Health‘s Tara Viswanathan said in a First Round interview, “Stripping the product down to the bare bones and getting it out in front of people for their reactions is critical. It’s rare for a product not to work because it was too minimal of an MVP — it’s because the idea wasn’t strong to begin with.”

As she goes on, “If you have to ask if you’re in love, you’re probably not in love. The same goes with product/market fit — if you have to ask if you have it, you probably don’t.”

Test your market first with the minimum lovable product, as Jiaona Zhang says. You don’t have to build the sexiest app out there. It could be a blog or a spreadsheet. For example, here are a few incredible companies that started as nothing more than a…

BlogsSpreadsheets
HubSpotNerdWallet
GlossierSkyscanner
GrouponStitch Fix
MattermarkFlexiple
Ghost

The greatest incumbents to most businesses out there really happen to be some of the simplest things. Spreadsheets. Blogs. Facebook groups. And now probably, Discord and Slack groups. There are a wealth of no-code tools out there today – Notion, Airtable, Webflow, Zapier, just to name a few. So building something quick without coding experience just to test the market has been easier than ever. Use that to your advantage.

Patrick Campbell once wrote, quoting Brian Balfour, CEO of Reforge, “It’s much easier to evolve with the market if your product is shaped to fit the market. That’s why you’ll achieve much better fit between these two components if you think market first, product second.”

Think like a designer, not like an artist

The biggest alphas are generated in non-obvious markets. Markets that are overlooked and underestimated. At the end of the day, in a market teeming with information and capital and starved of attention, think like a designer, not like an artist. Start from your audience, rather than from yourself. Start from what your audience needs, rather than what you want.

As ed-tech investor John Danner of Dunce Capital and board member at Lambda School, once wrote, “[the founders’] job is to find the absolute maximum demand in the space they are exploring. The best cadence is to run a new uncorrelated experiment every day. While demanding, the likelihood that you miss the point of highest demand with this approach is quite small. It is incredibly easy to abandon this kind of rigor and delayed gratification, eat the marshmallow and take a good idea and execute on it. Great founders resist that, and great investors do too.”

Spend more time researching and talking to your potential market, rather than focusing on where, how, and what you want your platform to look like. Obsess over split testing. Be scrappy.

Don’t fail the marshmallow test

We’re in a hype cycle now. Speed is the name of the game. And it’s become harder to differentiate signal from noise. Many founders instantly jump to geographically sexy markets. Anomalous markets like Silicon Valley and LA. But I believe what’ll set the winners from the losers in the long run is founder discipline. Discipline to spend time discovering signs of early virality, rather than scale.

For instance, if you’re operating a marketplace, your startup is more likely than not supply-constrained. To cite Brian Rothenberg, former VP of Growth at Eventbrite, focus on early growth loops where demand converts to supply. Ask your supply, “How did you hear about our product?” And watch for references of them being on the demand side before.

Don’t spend money to increase the rate of conversion until you see early signs of this growth dynamic. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or even 0.5%. Have the discipline to wait for organic conversion. It’s far easier to spend money to grow than to discover. Which is why startup life cycles are often broken down into two phases:

  • Zero to one, and
  • One to infinity

Nail the zero to one.

In an increasingly competitive world of ideas, many founders have failed the marshmallow test to rush to scale. As Patrick Campbell shared in the same afore-mentioned essay, “Product first, market second mentality meant that they had a solution, and then they were searching for the problem. This made it much, much more difficult to identify the market that really needed a solution and was willing to pay for the product.”

The more time you spend finding maximum demand for a big problem, the greater your TAM will be. The greater your market, the greater the value your company can provide. So, while building in anomalous markets with sexy apps will help you achieve quick early growth, it’s, unfortunately, unsustainable as you reach the early majority and the late majority of the adoption curve.

Photo by rawkkim on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

DGQ 6: What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

ocean, sibling

“Use three adjectives to describe your sibling. And describe yourself in comparison.”

I heard this question weeks ago from Doug Leone, Sequoia Capital‘s Global Managing Partner, on Harry Stebbings’ 20VC podcast. Known for having some of the best questions in venture and having led incredible investments into Meraki, Nubank, ServiceNow, and more, Doug loves to ask this question to founders he’s meeting for the first time. My initial response was “this doesn’t make any sense.” But in the podcast, he reveals why he loves the afore-mentioned question.

Before writing a check, an early-stage investor’s job is to answer three questions. Why now? Why this? And why you? The ‘why you’ question is admittedly one of the hardest questions to answer. Even for myself, I struggle from time to time to understand why I should scout a one founder over another over the same idea.

In a short 30 minute conversation, there’s only so much an investor can understand about a founder. There’s fundamentally a level of information asymmetry. Founders want to convince investors to take a bet on them. Yet, investors need more information to be comfortable making an asymmetric bet on them. We see echoes of a similar dilemma when recruiters interview applicants for jobs. Or when a property manager interviews a potential tenant.

Generally, recruiters, like most others, regress to questions like: “What are three of your strengths? Three weaknesses?” Having been asked so bluntly, interviewees, on the other hand, often have their guards up. They pick three strengths that would make them look the best. Equally so, they pick three weaknesses that show just enough honesty and vulnerability where they don’t get disqualified from the candidate pool. All of which exemplify pre-scripted answers.

Conversely, Doug found a way to do so without arming the interviewee’s, in this case, the founder’s, defenses. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

As Doug shares, “In a law of diversity, two siblings are less likely to be alike than two strangers. And so, how they usually describe their siblings is usually opposite of how they describe themselves. It’s a self-awareness question.”

You might realize the same principle holds when you describe a friend or a colleague or your spouse. The way you describe them often contrasts with your own disposition. “My friend is really curious.” Implicitly, you’re saying you’re not as curious.

So, the next time you talk about someone else, it’d be an interesting thought experiment to see how those same words relate or contrast with you.

Photo by Limor Zellermayer on Unsplash

The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.

Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.

Posted on

Bigger Funds, Larger Spotlight, Bigger Mistakes

spotlight, bigger mistakes

I was doomscrolling through Twitter when I stumbled on Samir Kaji‘s recent tweet:

I’ve written before that the difference between an emerged fund manager and an emerging manager is one’s raised a Fund III and the other hasn’t.

In Fund I, you’re selling a promise – a dream – to your LPs. That promise is often for angels, founders, and other GPs who write smaller checks. You’re split testing among various investments, trying to see what works and what doesn’t. More likely than not, you’re taking low to no management fees, and only carry. No reserve ratio either. And any follow-on checks you do via an SPV, with preference to your existing LPs. You’re focused on refining your thesis.

In Fund II, you’re pitching a strategy – the beginnings of pattern recognition of what works and what doesn’t. You’re thesis-driven.

Fund III, as Braughm Ricke says, “you’re selling the returns on Fund I.” On Fund III and up, many fund managers start deviating from their initial thesis – minimally at first. Each subsequent fundraise, which often scales in zeros, is a lagging indicator of your thesis and strategy. And across funds, the thesis becomes more of a guiding principle than the end all, be all of a fund. There are only a few firms out there that continue to exercise extreme fundraising discipline in. Which, to their credit, is often hard to do. ‘Cause if it’s working, your LPs want to put more money into you. And as your fund size scales, so does your strategy.

Subsequently, it becomes a race between the scalability of a fund’s strategy and fund size.

Softbank’s mistake

In 2017, Softbank’s Vision Fund I (SVF I) of $100B was by far the largest in the venture market. In fact, 50 times larger than the largest venture funds at the time. Yet, every time they made a bad bet, the media swarmed on them, calling them out. The reality is that, proportionally speaking, Softbank made as many successful versus unsuccessful bets as the average venture fund out there. To date, SVF I’s portfolio is valued at $146.5 billion, which doesn’t put it in the top quartile, but still performs better than half of the venture funds out there. But bigger numbers warrant more attention. Softbank has since course-corrected, opting to raise a smaller $40B Fund II (which is still massive by venture standards), with smaller checks.

While there are many interpretations of Softbank’s apparent failure with SVF I (while it could be still too early to tell), my take is it was too early for its time. Just like investors ask founders the “why now” question to determine the timing of the market, Softbank missed its “why now” moment.

Bigger funds make sense

I wrote a little over a month ago that we’re in a hype market right now. Startups are getting funded at greater valuations than ever before. Investors seem to have lost pricing discipline. $5 million rounds pre-product honestly scare me. But as Dell Technologies Capital‘s Frank told me, “VCs have been mispricing companies. We anchor ourselves on historical valuations. But these anchors could be wrong.” Most are vastly overvalued, yet future successes are grossly undervalued.

Allocating $152 billion into VC funds, LPs are excited about the market activity and that the timeline on returns are shorter. Namely:

  • Exits via SPAC,
  • Accelerated timelines because of the pandemic (i.e. healthcare, fintech, delivery, cloud computing, etc.)
  • And secondary markets providing liquidity.

We’ve also seen institutional LPs, like pension funds, foundations, and endowments, invest directly into startups.

Direct Investments by Pension Funds Foundations Endowments
Source: FactSet

Moreover, we’re seeing growth and private equity funds investing directly into early-stage startups. To be specific over 50 of them invested in over $1B into private companies in 2021 so far.

As a result of the market motions, the Q2 2021 hit a quarterly record in the number of unicorns minted. According to CB Insights, 136 unicorns just in Q2. And a 491% YoY increase. As Techcrunch’s Alex Wilhelm and Anna Heim puts it, “Global startups raised either as much, or very nearly as much, in the first two quarters of 2021 as they did in all of 2020.”

Hence, we see top-tier venture funds matching the market’s stride, (a) providing opportunity for their LPs to access their deal flow and (b) meeting the startup market’s needs for greater financing rounds. Andreessen recently raised their $400M seed fund. Greylock with their $500M. And most recently, NFX with their $450M pre-seed and seed Fund III.

In his analysis of a16z, writer Dror Poleg shares that “you are guaranteed to lose purchasing power if you keep your money in so-called safe assets, and a handful of extremely successful investments capture most of the available returns. Investors who try to stay safe or even take risks but miss out on the biggest winners end up far behind.” The a16z’s, the Greylocks and the NFXs are betting on that risk.

Fund returners are increasingly harder to come by

As more money is put into the private markets, with startups on higher and higher valuations, unicorns are no longer the sexiest things on the market. A unicorn exit only warrants Greylock with a 2x fund returner. With the best funds all performing at 5x multiples and up, you need a few more unicorn exits. In due course, the 2021 sexiest exits will be decacorns rather than unicorns. Whereas before the standard for a top performing fund was a 2.5%+ unicorn rate, now it’s a 2.5% decacorn rate.

The truth is that in the ever-evolving game of venture capital, there are really only a small handful of companies that really matter. A top-tier investor once told me last year that number was 20. And the goal is an investor is to get in one or some of those 20 companies. ‘Cause those are the fund returners. Take for example, Garry Tan at Initialized Capital, earlier this year. He invested $300K into Coinbase back in 2012. And when they went public, he returned $2B to the fund. That’s 6000x. For a $7M fund, that’s an incredible return! LPs are popping bottles with you. For a half-billion dollar fund, that’s only a 4x. Still good. But as a GP, you’ll need a few more of such wins to make your LPs really happy.

I also know I’m making a lot of assumptions here. Fees and expenses still to be paid back, which lowers overall return. And the fact that for a half-billion dollar seed fund, check sizes are in the millions rather than hundreds of thousands. But I digress.

There is more capital than ever in the markets, but less startups are getting funded. The second quarter of this year has been the biggest for seed stage activity ever, measured by dollars invested. Yet total deal volume went down.

Source: Crunchbase

Each of these startups will take a larger percentage of the public attention pie. Yet, most startups will still churn out of the market in the longer run. Some will break even. And some will make back 2-5x of investor’s money. Subsequently, there will still be the same distribution of fund returners for the funds that make it out of the hype market.

In closing

As funds scale as a lagging indicator of today’s market, the discipline to balance strategy and scale becomes ever the more prescient. We will see bigger flops. “Startup raises XX million dollars closes down.” They might get more attention in the near future from media. Similarly, venture capitalists who empirically took supporting cast roles will be “celebretized” in the same way.

The world is moving faster and faster. As Balaji Srinivasan tweeted yesterday:

But as the market itself scales over time, the wider public will get desensitized to dollars raised at the early stages. And possibly to the flops as well. Softbank’s investment in Zume Pizza and Brandless turned heads yesterday, but probably won’t five years from now. It’s still early to tell whether a16z, Greylock, NFX, among a few others’ decisions will generate significant alphas. I imagine these funds will have similar portfolio distributions as their smaller counterparts. The only difference, due to their magnitudes, is that they’re subject to greater scrutiny under the magnifying glass. And will continue to stay that way in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, I’m thrilled to see speed and fund size as a forcing function for innovation in the market. There’s been fairly little innovation at the top of the funnel in the venture market since the 1970s. VCs meet with X number of founders per week, go through several meetings, diligence, then invest. But during the pandemic, we’ve seen the digitization of venture dollars, regulations, and new fund structures:

Quoting a good friend of mine, “It’s a good time to be alive.” We live in a world where the lines between risk and the status quo are blurring. Where signal and noise are as well. The only difference is an investor’s ability to maintain discipline at scale. A form of discipline never before required in venture.

Photo by Ahmed Hasan on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Proudly powered by WordPress