Ok, before y’all rise up in arms, hear me out. And if by the end of this blogpost, you still want to bring the pitchforks and torches, so be it.
Generally, I get it. Who else is investing isn’t usually a great question. Because for most investors who ask this question, it means they’re outsourcing their conviction.
POV: you're at a tech week event full of contrarian investors who back founders at the earliest stage in frontier industries pic.twitter.com/k7p1cVNHjs
In fact, I wrote a quick LinkedIn (and tweet) post about it the day before yesterday. Which admittedly got a lot more attention than I expected. And if you have the time, it’s worth seeing the discussion on that post that ensued.
So, potentially hot take, I believe investors should ask the question. Who else is investing? It’s part of the diligence process. That said, when they ask that question is key. There’s a vast ocean between the shores of asking that question before you reach conviction and after.
If you pop the question before you reach conviction, well, we’ve seen the follies of that. Most evidenced by the manic rush of 2020 and 2021 into “hot deals” largely led by names that grew to popularity around the dinner table.
If you pop it after, it’s diligence. Where the availability of names shouldn’t convince you to bat or lack thereof to otherwise. But that you now have additional opportunities to reference check and cross-diligence the same opportunity. And it extends to the LP side as well. Jamie Rhode who’s now at Screendoor, said on a Superclusters episode that one of her greatest lessons as an LP was committing to a fund where there was a bunch of soft commits but far less in hard commits, and ended up overexposing Verdis (where she was at) to a single asset and taking a much higher ownership as an LP into a single fund.
Truth is, LPs pay GPs for their opinion. Not anyone else’s. And while given long feedback loops, no one really knows what’s right and what’s wrong except over a decade later and only in hindsight, you have to really believe it, and be able to back it up.
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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
The great Jim Collins has this line I really like where he says fire bullets then cannonballs. “The right big things are the things you’ve empirically validated. So, you fire bullets, you validate, then you go big — bullets, then cannonballs — it’s both.”
Too often — something I see in me as much as I see in founders — when trying something new, we bottle it up. We charge the entropy of our creativity. Waiting to release it all at one big moment. A cannonball. No one else should or needs to know know. Sometimes it’s a fear of someone else stealing your idea. Sometimes, well, speaking more for myself, I just like surprises. I love the mystique. And on the slim chance you’re right, albeit rare, then awesome. But 999 out of 1000 times, you’re likely not. At least not in the first try.
I’m forgetting and also can’t seem to find the attribution. But I read somewhere that the only difference between vision and a hallucination is that others can see it. You see… the greatest YouTubers test their ideas with test audiences several times. In fact, they even test their video titles with select audiences a number of times before launching. (Instagram even added the ability to do it at scale for creators too.) Reporters do too with their headlines. Legendary investor Mike Maples at Floodgate once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” ONSET Ventures also found in its research1 that founded the institution back in 1984 (prescient, I know) that there is a 90% correlation between success and the company changing its original business model.
All to say, one’s first idea may not always be the best and final idea. So, test things. With small audiences. With trusted confidants.
And while I may not do this all the time, with my bigger blogposts (like this, this, and this), I always run it by co-conspirators, subject-matter experts, lawyers, writers, bloggers, and people who love reading fine print. And sometimes the final product may not look like the one I initially intended, which will be true for an upcoming bigger blogpost. For events, like one I recently worked with the team at Alchemist on — redefining what in-person Demo Days look like at accelerators, we tested the idea with 20 other investors and iterated on their feedback before launching on January 30th this year. And still is not even close to its final evolution.
As Reid Hoffman once said, “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.”
Now that it’s out there…
One of the greatest Joker lines in The Dark Knight is: “Trust no one, salt and sugar look the same.”
It’s true. Whether people like something or not, they’ll always tell you things were good. It’s the equivalent of when one goes to a restaurant, orders something that’s a bit saltier than one’s liking, but when the server comes by to ask, “How is everything?”, most people respond with “Everything’s fine.” Or “good.”
You’re not going to get the real answer out of people oftentimes. Unless people really do love or hate something you did passionately. So… you must hunt for them. You must lure out the answers. You need to force people to take sides. There can be and shouldn’t be middle ground. If there are, that means they don’t like it.
Maybe it’s in the form of the NPS question. On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you recommend this product to a friend? And you cannot pick 7.
In the event space, I’ve come to like a new question. If I invited you to this event the week of, would you cancel plans to make this event? And to add more nuance, what kinds of events would you cancel to be here? What kinds of events would you not cancel?
Sometimes it helps to seed examples on a spectrum (although I try not to lead the witness here). Would you cancel a honeymoon? Or would you cancel going to another investor/founder happy hour? What about an AGM (annual general meeting, annual conference in VC talk)? What about a vacation?
As Joker said, salt and sugar look the same. So you have to taste it. Looking from afar won’t help. And if you want to iterate and improve, you need what people really think. I’d rather have people hate or dislike something I’ve created than have a lukewarm or worse, a “good” reaction.
In a way, if you’re not getting enough of an auto-immune response from the crowd, and the antibodies don’t start kicking in (aka the naysayers), you’re not really doing something new.
1 FYI, the research link redirects to its HBS case study, not the original research. Couldn’t find the latter unfortunately. But the point stands.
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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
I came across a quote recently, which I believe originates from Qi Lu, former COO of Baidu, and the one who created Bing, Microsoft’s search engine. “Luck is like a bus. If you miss one, there’s always the next one. But if you’re not prepared, you won’t be able to jump on.”
And your bus fare comes by way of preparation. The 10-year overnight success.
Or as the classic Seneca line goes, “Luck is when preparation meets opportunity.” Or as Louis Pasteur also said, “Chance favors the prepared mind.” And by having a prepared mind at the bus stop, you’ve increased the surface area for luck to stick.
Of course, I could fill an entire blogpost with just quotes on what luck means. But I won’t.
Year 27 on this planet was simply a year to try new things. An exploration of the human mind. An exploration of what are the boundaries of the LP landscape. And what’s worth pushing on, and what’s not. The output of which culminated in events, new ways to operate, building trust circles, the podcast, more content on the blog, and of course, a lot more conversations with influencers in and away from the limelight.
The inputs of which came from my last year’s resolution.
A reflection
Last year, the goal was to find myself in the flow state at least twice a week. Truth was, at that point in time, I had yet to figure out how to truly measure it. And it wasn’t until October 15th last year when I started measuring the early semblances of it outside of just allotting time to be in the flow state. For me, it came down to a simple question. Was today worth it?
In other words, was today well spent? Defined by either:
Learning a new skill or framework
Creating a core memory
Or by realizing something I never realized before, a new way of looking at the world around me.
Each of which, at least for me, largely become possible when I am in an egoless state working or thinking about something proactively than reactively.
As of writing this blogpost, I’m 16 weeks in. And I have 18 days well spent. On average, between one and two days per week. Leaning more on one though.
Though I might be able to allot time on a weekly basis on my calendar for “flow state,” I’m not always in the mood for it. That in itself was dependent on circumstance, timing, stress, and the disciplined pursuit of inspiration. The last of which was a luxury I couldn’t always afford. Sometimes when there are more pressing matters, I can’t help but find my mind wandering and stressing over more urgent matters than focusing on doing something new.
As such, to help me do so, I focused on things I could control daily: Was I consuming a healthy and diverse diet of information? Which I measured through reading, listening to podcasts and content, and conversations with different kinds of people.
I also look back at my journal entries for the past year, and anecdotally, more than 60-70% of them are about topics and tasks I had to do, pre-assigned (often self-assigned due to constraints). And a lot of them focus on the 10%, maybe 20%, marginal improvement and refinement of what’s been done already, rather than the 10X thinking I find more common in journal entries in the years before. The difference between reactive journaling and proactive journaling. The product of consuming too much (work, podcast, and otherwise) of the same genre of information. Simply, I didn’t cover all my macros.
So, this year…
So this year’s goal is no different than the last. To explore. To find myself in creative pursuits and in the flow state. And to take risks.
While I remember the lyrics, I often forget Sanderson’s Second Law. “Flaws/limitations are more interesting than powers.” Constraints are the breeding grounds of inspiration.
Not sure how much of this is lore, but I remember reading once that Bill Gates loves hiring lazy procrastinators. As his words once rung, “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.” For Gates, the constraint of time and energy on a responsible individual is the forcing function for brilliance.
While it’d be ridiculous to give myself a pat on the back for “brilliance,” there is immense value in time constraints, as well as intentionally handicapping myself to produce results. To not let perfect be the enemy of good.
As such, I’m going to impose limitations on myself as a forcing function of iteration, and hopefully by product of doing so, I live more days that are worth it. For now, the count is 19 since Oct 15, 2023 (when I started counting).
How I will measure success, with a North Star of at least 2 per week
Publish the intuition vs discipline blogpost (final draft done by end of February)
Host an escape room where all the clues to escape are based on each guest’s individual stories (March)
Build a repeatable framework for backing GPs as an individual LP (by the end of February)
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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
I’m in my fourth year of writing this blog and never once have I called myself or identified as a content creator. As many of you know, I write to think. I do so out of joy and intellectual stimulation. In many ways, I write for myself. Or better put, as a form of self-expression. Other than posting in the morning, as is thematically helpful for my blog, I don’t really have much cadence to posting. Nor have I looked too deeply on analytics. Nor have I really optimized for SEO. In other words, finding the top searched topics in my industry and writing a blogpost for each of those highly trafficked keywords. I haven’t done that, nor do I want to. I haven’t chased people down to subscribe. In fact, there are times I try to convince people to not subscribe (due to the scattered nature of my content).
To that end, I had not been a content creator.
But with the launch of Superclusters, for the first time, and still a work-in-progress, I am designing the content for someone other than my immediate self. Although, do I take opportunities to scratch my own itches? Yes… yes I do.
But in doing so, I am starting to think about creating content for others. And to do that, I need to look at what people like and tune in to.
Now at the end of Season 1, some quick learnings…
Note: The below gets a bit nerdy on numbers. Mostly as an accountability metric to myself to be paying attention to the below. This may not be for everyone, but in case you’re curious, and/or working on creating your own content, hopefully the below might be helpful.
Between all the platforms, YouTube seems to be the most popular channel. Followed by Apple Podcasts then Spotify. Where Apple Podcasts only has half or so the number of plays than YouTube does. And Spotify has three-quarters the listens compared to Apple.
May be helpful to note that YouTube and Apple Podcast count plays as just someone viewing the video for a split second (“greater than 0 seconds”), whereas Spotify counts a play as someone who’s played the episode for at least 60 seconds.
YouTube seems to be better for discovery than the other podcasting platforms, with over 4.5X the impressions compared to the next best, Spotify. 28K versus 6K. Tracked by last 30 days, not all time.
For short-form vertical content, TikTok continues to perform better than both YouTube and Instagram, especially for new audiences. Still perplexes me since I imagine the demographic on YouTube has more of my intended audience. Nevertheless, even on YouTube shorts, the shorts are consumed by a younger audience than the long-form videos on average.
Instagram, in general, performs poorly in terms of discovery among new audiences. But that might simply be, I haven’t learned the IG algorithms well enough yet. Moreover the new algorithm seems to prioritize completion percentage. And given that it’s hard to shorten even my short-form content to less five seconds or less, unless I just make people read while playing some kind of looped video in the background, Superclusters will likely continue to perform poorly on IG.
On YouTube, 90%+ of Shorts viewership comes from non-subscribers than subscribers. where 75-80% come from non-subscribers, the average for the full podcast episodes.
On YouTube, 41% of my audience comes from the US. TO break it down further, 50% comes from the US for long-form. 27% for short-form. Spotify, 67% comes from the US. Apple Podcasts, 87%.
Interestingly, by city, according to Apple Podcasts, New York City takes the cake on where my audience reside.
Across all platforms, most of my listeners/viewers are in the 35-44 age range. Accounting for almost 50% across all platforms. Followed by the 28-34 age group, then 45-59 age group. In general, Superclusters has a larger younger audience fan base on YouTube, compared to Spotify and Apple Podcasts. The latter two with similar distributions.
Superclusters audience is also about 75% male, 25% female.
While less than 0.05%, fun fact, the only other subtitles used on YouTube to tune into my podcast was French (outside of English).
Popularity versus watch time
The most popular episode on YouTube is Chris Douvos’, followed by Ben Choi’s. Episode 1 and Episode 6 respectively. My suspicion was that while both were super fun to record, Chris’ episode came first but may by the end of Season 2 be surpassed in viewership by Ben’s.
But what’s most fascinating to me is that among the nine episodes released for Season 1, on YouTube, the top four most popular episodes have shorter average watch times than the most bottom five. On average a two- to three-minute difference, where the least watched episodes happen to have 7-8 minutes of average watch time.
In closing
All in all, there’s a lot of work to do ahead. And as I’m recording Season 2 and my team is hard at work in editing those episodes, all of the above insights are helpful to keep my finger on the pulse. Do let me know if I’m missing any areas I should be paying attention to or measuring.
Otherwise, for Superclusters, I’ll see y’all again in early March for the launch of Season 2.
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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
