I was chatting with my new friend, an English-teacher-turned-Broadway-playwright-turned coach, Michael, not too long ago. (Mucho gracias to Brandon who hosts one of my favorite podcasts, for putting us in touch.) In theatre, there’s the idea of the triple threat. Singer. Actor. Dancer. A talented individual is usually all three. But more importantly, not all of their archetypes are created equal.
In a broader sense, but quite synonymously, a triple threat is a permutation of the scientist, celebrity, and magician, which I had to have Michael expand on.
The scientist is the analytical thinker — the subject-matter expert. The scientist loves research, the details, repetitive tasks, logistics and as the name suggests, the science of how things work. Think Tim Ferriss.
The celebrity thrives on relationships and promotion. A true celebrity has the superpower and the willing personality to make others feel like a celebrity. Think Gary V.
The magician is none of the above. They are wired for novelty. What are new ways to do this? What’s a new perspective to approach that? Think Seth Godin.
Every person has some degree of each. But knowing where one excels helps focus your brilliance. Or in Michael’s words, your zone of excellence. Your zone of genius.
Each archetype has their own signature move. The scientist, an intriguing hypothesis. The celebrity, a small crowd who really believe in that individual. The magician, a magic box. Something mysterious and intriguing, and well, something that feels like magic. Which led me to ask, “The celebrity’s signature move seems self-explanatory, but what’s the difference between a scientist’s signature move and a magician’s?”
“The scientist’s doesn’t creative or profound from the outside looking in, but the magician’s almost always feels creative from the layperson’s perspective. The scientist’s signature move is most appreciated by other scientists, astounded by the level of rigor and detail to arrive at such a hypothesis. The magician can wow even the untrained eye and ear.”
Michael goes in a lot more definitional depth in his recent appearance on Brandon’s show, so I won’t belabor the Meriam Webster version of the three archetypes.
That said, to take it a step further in the venture world (’cause that’s how my brain works), we have:
- The scientists — the functional operators (i.e. sales, marketing, product, engineering, legal, customer success, finance, etc.), the founders (particularly the founders who had one major exit)
- The celebrities — the community builders, the content creators, the event organizers
- The magicians — I honestly don’t think the vast majority of venture folks fall in this bucket. Many think they do, but most fall short. The fastest litmus test is to have a pitch meeting with GP, and see how they start the pitch. If they pull up the pitch deck first and walks you through the presentation, they’re almost always not magicians. Most LPs are outsiders. And if a pitch or a fund just feels to similarly to all the other stuff you see, it’s because the GPs pitching are purists. Scientists. True students of the craft, but don’t thrive in low context environments.
Celebrities, at least to me, feel the easiest to tease out. Obvious unique sourcing abilities. Many will argue they can win deals easily, but the truth is, most celebrities in venture write small checks. And when you’re a small checkwriter (sub-$250K), you’re everyone’s friend. Even if you aren’t a celebrity. Availability bias, if I might say so myself.
It’s the equivalent of booking multiple quick coffee meetings on your calendar — hell, even Zoom calls. Short, and can easily fit in busy schedules. So when multiple people want to book Zoom meetings on the same day, it’s doable. You’ll find a way to make it work. But how many dinners will you have? Likely one. So if multiple people want to book you for dinner that same Thursday, you have to pick one. Not two. Not three. Just one.
That one is the equivalent of writing a large check into an oversubscribed round. You’re going to have to squeeze someone else out. And you force the founder to make a decision of if they want you or Sally. Anyways, I digress.
The scientists and magicians are harder to distinguish. May be obvious to most of you smart readers, but this is me in semantics-mode with Michael. The scientist looks like a magician to insiders. A true magician looks like a magician to everyone (especially outsiders). The scientist requires people with high context to fully appreciate their brilliance. The magician requires the bare minimum context.
As such, magicians often have breadth in experience. FYI, being a generalist does not count. Magicians are likely polymaths or polymath candidates. They have some of the most diverse information diets, and are able to string together seemingly disparate thoughts through associative property. Probably did well in grade school algebra. 🙂
And this is my long, elaborate, word-count-filling-high-school-essay way to say… VCs should be magicians or try to be, so that they can help founders to be, because:
- VC is a 50-60 year old industry that has seen almost no innovation.
- The best lessons around investing and building are often from folks outside of tech.
- VCs should stop consuming only tech/startup/VC news.
(Thank you for coming to my TED talk.)
And thank you Michael for the lesson.
Photo by Almos Bechtold 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!
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.