DGQ 26: Which Slide in my Deck Stood Out the Most?

slide

One of my most used lines in my diction is: “Your mileage may vary.”

Maybe because of what I’ve written historically about. Maybe ’cause of my previous life in investor relations. Or maybe, it’s because of the interesting node I sit at in the venture ecosystem. I often get asked by GPs and founders alike for fundraising advice. Now before you come to any conclusions, I don’t have a silver bullet. I’m not even sure if my advice when it comes to fundraising is any good. While I’m lucky to have heard back from a number of people I’ve shared my thoughts with on the result of their fundraise after employing my “advice,” I’m still not completely sure how much of it was the fundraiser themselves and how much of it was the advice. And how much the color of the jersey matters.

And so when I share what I’ve seen or done, I always caveat with that first line. That said, what I think is more useful than any advice I could give pre-mortem is listening to the feedback of the market. The people you’re pitching to. When someone says no, why do they say no? When someone says yes, why do they say yes?

Inspired by a conversation I had the previous week at a summit, getting feedback from someone who passed is tough. Through the archives of fundraising, you’re more likely to get no’s than yes’s. And when you do, do you know why? Very rarely do you get much feedback. Investors (LPs and VCs) are either too busy or have too much to go through to give feedback as intimately as you probably like. And so I’ve always found it useful to make it easy for people to give feedback. Naturally, it’s never guaranteed you’ll get a response, but usually, the below question I like to ask reaches less deaf ears than “Can you give me feedback?”

I know you’re busy, and you simply don’t have the time to give every pass a share of feedback. But if I could ask for 30 seconds of your time (no more than that), which number slide on my deck did you most notice (good or bad)?

Or… was there a particular slide in my deck that piqued your interest the most that led you to schedule our initial meeting?

The goal of this question is to triangulate attention and mindshare. When you get the answer, then you can come to your own (hopefully intellectually honest) conclusion about whether the message shared on that slide is strong or weak. Controversial or not.

Moreover, you’re not overstaying your welcome. The advice and feedback you’re asking for in pointed and doesn’t consume a lot of time for the other party to answer (yet will feel to them as if they’re doing you a favor and/or being helpful).

Only once you know why people say no can you actually iterate on the pitch. Of course, there are many different ways to ask for feedback, and… your mileage may vary. Usual fundraising advice gets you through the first 10 pitch meetings. After that, you need to course-correct based on the feedback you get back.

One thing I will note is that in the age of agentic venture firms and tools that can be built within hours that cover every stretch of the imagination. One thing an LP told me that a GP told them was that some founders are getting smart. Preparing two decks for investors: one for the human eye, the other for the agentic audience. The latter with more appendices than the former. I imagine that it’s only a matter of time before VCs do the same to LPs as LPs are building agentic deck readers. In that sense, asking for deck feedback may not hold as much weight as it used to. Who knows?

Nevertheless, if there’s one takeaway from this blogpost, it’s that if you want help, if you want feedback, make it specific, low friction, and direct.


The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. Itโ€™s an inside scoop of what goes on in my nogginโ€™. 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. Iโ€™ll let you decide which it falls under.


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.

Revenue per Employee

ants, strength, small but mighty

I was reading Scott Belsky’s latest piece on the premium of originality and the metric of revenue per employee. Something I’d highly recommend you take five minutes to do so. While I do have my thoughts on originality in a time of AI, I’ll probably save that for another piece. For the purpose of this one, I’d love to spend it on the topic of talent in the current AI age.

I was co-hosting a retreat recently. The same one that produced this. Selfishly said, I think it was one of the highest insight per time spent retreats I’ve been apart of. And my friend who invests out of a multi-stage fund was sharing how talent became the new medium to evaluate an AI founding team. During diligence, for each engineer, “would OpenAI/Anthropic/Cursor pay $500K or $5M for this engineer?” Then you have an idea what’s the asset value from a talent perspective.

Similarly so, in a recent 20VC interview, Carles Reina, VP of Sales at ElevenLabs, shared that every sales hire must bring in sales equivalent to 20X their salary. So the more you pay a sales rep or account executive, the more revenue they have to bring in. Which leads me to Scott’s piece.

“A funny thing happens when the ROI (return on investment) of a person goes up: we start deploying MORE people โ€” BUT only in ways that sustain or increase the ROI. Rather than larger organizations within a company, youโ€™ll have MORE smaller organizations. My bet is that companies will deploy more people NOT to scale their existing products and services, but rather to launch new products and services.”

“If every hire makes โ€œrevenue per employeeโ€ either go up or down, how does that factor into headcount planning? Will we seek to hire more-entrepreneurial people who will come up with new products and services within the company? Will modern forms of compensation provide incentives for brazen agency, rewarding those who realize that they can just DO THINGS and own the outcome โ€” from idea through execution?”

This again reminds me of the bundling-unbundling cycles with each wave of technology and/or business models. At the start, there are all these fragmented businesses solving niche use cases, but over time, as winners emerge, people want a one-stop shop for everything. Although this time, the one-stop shop could just be you yourself.

That’s probably also what makes my buddy Henry’s Lean AI Leaderboard so interesting. Bragging rights not to who has the most employees, but who has the greatest revenue per employee metric. The very definition of small but mighty.

Photo by Prabir Kashyap 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.

Three Outcomes

direction, option, outcome

Recently, I spent some time with friends where we ended up talking about career growth. One of whom was at a standstill of which opportunities to pursue if at all. But another of whom offered advice through a pair of interesting lens. One I felt interesting enough to reshare.

When you pursue a new opportunity, especially one where you have strong agency and potential autonomy to influence business outcomes, there are three possible outcomes during the duration of your role.

  1. Success
  2. Failure
  3. And not succeeding

Do note that failure and not succeeding are not the same thing. Failure is when you aim for something and it ends in a negative outcome. Not succeeding is after doing all you that you do, the outcome is still, give or take, the status quo. You haven’t moved the needle for the better or the worse.

At a smaller company, failure is oftentimes business closure. Not succeeding is either a small outcome or the evolution of a fast-growing startup to a lifestyle business with no noticeable impact on the industry. At a larger organization, failure is actually pretty hard. It could be the closure of a department, a re-organization, and very rarely, a negative inflection point for the business. More often than not, it’s not succeeding, which is just maintaining the status quo. Naturally, success is good regardless of organization size.

Failures are seen more charitably at smaller organizations. Larger organizations magnify the echo chamber and press. But in both worlds, they’re seen as your mark on the world. Evidence that you’ve tried. Not succeeding, on the other hand, is often worse at large organizations. Why? Because your career stalls. The more ambitious you are, the worse your career stalling will impact your career. The longer you stall, the harder it is to earn back the momentum. So unfortunately, the worst outcome an ambitious individual can get is not succeeding at a large organization. Death by a thousand cuts.

And the unfortunate truth is that large organizations have a lot of inertia. “Strategy tax” in the words of Bret Taylor. Or as a very senior allocator who recently left their large organization told me: “Some of these layers (at institutions) are there to sap the courage out of your investment decisions.” And you can easily delete the word “investment” out of that sentence.

If you fail or not succeed (not bad, not good), the liability of it not working is put on you the larger the organization. So you take on the tax, burden, career stall if the bad outcomes happen. If you fail at a smaller institution, no one blames you because you took a risk and tried your best and things didnโ€™t work out, they blame the institution.

Photo by Happy Lee 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.