There’s a notion in the venture market that LPs typically dislike GPs writing discovery checks. Though I’ve written about VCs writing more discovery checks (here and here) in the past two years, discovery checks have often been a function of investor FOMO (fear of missing out) and not playing their core game. The returns of any established fund are largely realized on big checks with ownership targets.
Of course, rolling funds, micro-VCs, and angels optimize for a different game. They’re spreading their net thinner, but also leveraging their relationships to get into oversubscribed rounds or putting really small bets into hopefuls. Proportionally speaking, if they make bad bets, they lose the same percentage of money, but on an absolute dollar amount, they lose far less. And, well, it’s much easier to return a $1M fund than a $100M fund. It’s also far less committal for LPs to invest in a small fund than a big fund intended to make their incredible returns. The small fund is the bet. The large fund for an LP is the money-making machine.
I was talking with a Venture Partner of a name-brand accelerator yesterday, and he offered a second perspective.
The reason discovery checks by larger funds don’t make any money is because it’s irregular and inconsistent. There often is no fund strategy behind it. That said, if you make discovery checks your core business, that means a fundamentally different strategy. Is that strategy consistent, predictable, and scalable? For accelerators, they’ve made writing discovery checks part of their fund strategy. Their game, at the end of the day, is “buying options.”
It’s a call option. Accelerators invest $100K for 5-10% to buy the rights for the next round. The money is being made in the follow-on, not on the initial bet. And if there’s a fund strategy to deploy 100 checks of a $100K, there’s a systematic approach to writing discovery checks. This is why many accelerators include a provision for pro rata of $0.5-1M in a future round. And they’re unwilling to budge on that, even if a founder comes back and wants to seed that allocation to downstream investors.
Why would an entrepreneur take the $100K that comes with the $500K-$1M option down the road? Accelerators and a lot of angel funds out there are willing to write you, the founder, the check faster and with less debate than other investors on the market.
There’s also a reason many accelerators focus on software rather than other potential areas of investment. A $100K check will get you much further for an asset-lite software company than a deep tech or hardware company. The same amount of cash can bring a software company to market, while a hardware company stays in R&D.
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!
Earlier this month, I saw quite the thought-provoking tweet from Ashley Brasier.
“I took a cue from General Patton, who thought that the greatest danger was not that the enemy would learn his plans, but that his own troops would not.”
-Trader Joe (aka Joe Coulombe) on the need to sell to everybody – not just to your customers, but also to your employees
Whether it’s a function of confirmation and availability bias or lesser-known leadership secret, I saw similar themes pop up everywhere from Phil Libin of Evernote and General Catalyst fame to Kelly Watkins at Abstract to Colleen McCreary at Credit Karma. And because of that, I thought it was a topic worth double-clicking on.
There’s the age-old saying: Leaders lead. Managers manage. And a CEO is frankly a marriage of both. While there are the canonical examples of Musk and Jobs, a CEO both leads with her/his vision but also manages expectations.
“I think the most important job of a CEO is to isolate the rest of the company from fluctuations of the hype cycle because the hype cycle will destroy a company. It’ll shake it apart. In tech the hype cycles tend to be pretty intense. At mmhmm we are very much in the Venn diagram of two hype cycles. There’s a general hype cycle around video, which is going to be way up and down over the next few years. […]
“There is also a hype cycle around early and mid stage startup investment. It’s super volatile, now more than ever, because of potential changes in the tax laws, interest rates, and inflation. So you’ve got these two very volatile areas, video and startup investment, and we are sitting right in the bull’s eye of that. This means that my most important job is to isolate the team so that we don’t float based on the ups and downs of the current. Make sure we have enough mass and momentum to go through it, meaning we don’t change what we do based on the hype cycle.
“And that takes capital, which is why we have to raise some capital to do this. It also takes understanding of where you’re trying to go and knowing where you’re going is not based on the hype cycle. You have to have a long term conviction about that. You may be wrong. The conviction could turn out to be wrong, but you’re not going to know that based on day to day fluctuations of excitement or month to month. So have a clear direction of where you are going and then make sure the ship has enough momentum so it doesn’t matter what the waves are doing, you’re still going relatively straight.”
Kelly Watkins, CEO of Abstract, also said in an interview: “People might think the job of the CEO is to make a lot of decisions, but I see my job as setting the tone for the company. People look to leaders to gauge their own reactions in a situation. So if I’m running around like a headless chicken or my tone is on a really high frequency, people graft off of that.”
Similarly, I wrote an essay a year and a half ago. On Sun Tzu and how a leader’s job is setting the tone for her/his company. In short, your team follows you and is a direct function of:
How much they trust you, and
How well they understand a leader’s commands (the why, the how, and the what)
As a caveat, one might disagree with the what, and maybe the how, but a strong team believes in the same why.
In another interview, Colleen McCreary of Credit Karma once said: “Founders, in particular, are always looking to move onto the next thing, but people don’t come along the journey that quickly. So you have to slow down to be consistent, stay on message and tell employees how they’re going to define success. Because if you don’t focus on what really matters, people will hang their hat on an IPO or the stock price as being the determinant of success, and it’s just hard to unwind.”
And why does all this matter?
As Ben Horowitz wrote in his book What You Do Is Who You Are, “Culture is a strategic investment in the company doing things the right way when you are not looking.”
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!
You may have noticed that after only two essays including an audio reading, I’ve stopped. Initially, I wanted to pair audio with every essay as an alternative to reading the essay. But over the past few weeks, partly due to an increase in workload, recording my audio became a seemingly arduous task for me. A frictional step. A barrier to entry. Not that it takes long to record, but editing my own speaking quirks and breaths (oh boy, if you only knew how great this mic was at picking up every breath. I sound like I have sinus problems.) in each clip accounted for an additional half-hour usually. And that same frictional step left me with a backlog of recordings that I had to do, even though the content was ready. Which:
Slowed down my production schedule (at the time of writing this blog post, I have five fully written blog posts I’ve been meaning to put out, but held back due to recording procrastination)
Became an excuse to myself of why I couldn’t produce content on the same schedule as I used to
Going forward, I’m not going to give myself that excuse. I will record audio to accompany an essay, on two conditions:
For essays I personally really like and have time to record for
Retroactively, if you, my readers, reach out and want an “audiobook” version of your favorite pieces on this blog. I won’t be able to fulfill every single request, although I’ll do my best to, but I’ll prioritize the ones with more requests.
So, please bear with me. The goal is still for me to read every blogpost. I’m working on being able to do all the above more efficiently. I’m testing out new formats as time allows. A couple things I’ve tried so far:
Getting a pop filter to filter out high-pitched consonant sounds
Finish writing before I head to bed and waking up earlier and recording at 6am
None has fully resonated just yet. And it really makes me admire the work of audio engineers and voice actors and actresses each passing day.
Stay tuned!
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!
Charles Hudson at Precursor told Monique Woodward of Cake Ventures, when she was first raising, “You’re not just raising for Fund I; you’re raising for the first three funds. And act accordingly.” In other words, build long-term relationships. As someone who lives and breathes in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, it’s about giving first. There are many things I have yet to do, but are on my life’s roadmap. And given my humble, but curious beginnings, two of the greatest gifts I can give right now at this point in my career, are:
Time
Valuable connections
… which led me to be a scout years ago. Or as the folks at Techstars say, give first. On a similar wavelength, one of my mentor figures told me when I first jumped into venture, “Think three careers in advance.” You’re laying the groundwork for your future success. Or, as I have sometimes heard it described, the tailwind of your 10-year overnight success.
I try to be helpful to everyone who takes time out of their day to talk to me – be it outbound or inbound. Of course, over time, it’s been much harder for me to meaningfully add value to every person who comes my way. Though my blog is one way to scale and share my knowledge capital, I’m always looking for new ways. So if anyone has any recommendations, I’m all ears. After all, I’m still in my first inning.
Want to get the latest CoZ insights?
Fast, Simple, Awesome
In the theme of scaling myself, I recently shared with the fellows in our VC fellowship about my workflow as a scout. And, I thought it’d be just as valuable to you my readers as well.
I find myself living in my inbox for at least 3-4 hours a day, with hundreds of email chains by the end of the week. What I needed most was operational efficiency. And, at the end of the day, efficiency is results divided by your efforts.
E = Result/Effort
First things first, tune your email settings, which I first picked up from Blake Robbins‘ blog:
If you have more than one inbox, enable multiple inboxes.
Enable compact view versus default view.
Enable keyboard shortcuts.
The only ones you really need are: E to archive, V to move an email
Enable auto-advance. So that you move on to the next email automatically after performing an action on the previous.
Then, the best thing is you only need three folders: Action Needed, Read Later, and Pending Response.
For any email that takes longer than a minute or two to reply, it goes in the Action Needed folder, like long-form advice/feedback or being stalled by waiting on a reply for a double-opt in. When my day frees up a bit more, usually later in the day, I revisit this folder to address all the other action items.
Read Later includes the mountain of blogs, newsletters, news outlets I’ve subscribed to, but didn’t have time to start reading until later in the day. Occasionally, it includes a founder’s monthly investor update. For the latter, I usually just scroll straight to the asks and see if I can help or not. If not, I read and move on.
For the emails I send out but expect a response in return, Pending Response is the perfect folder for that. This next part is completely optional. But, under the Nudges category, enable Suggest emails to follow up on. Because of Google’s algorithm, it can occasionally end up adding to the clutter when it surfaces up an email that doesn’t need to be followed up on. But if that’s the case, it goes straight into the archive folder.
And yes, for everything else, that don’t go in the above three folders, goes into Archives.
I used to have a million and one folders for startups, jobs, VCs, events, saved articles/newsletters, and more. Which looks great when you’re organizing material and when the inbox search algorithm wasn’t as great as it is now, but it doesn’t speed up the workflow. In fact, it often slowed me down – as I tried to put items in the appropriate folder before responding to my next email. And sometimes, they fit in multiple folders.
For mobile, the only thing you need to change are the Mail swipe actions. Swipe right to archive. And swipe left to Move to [folder].
You can either do the above, or use Superhuman, which has all the above functions. The faster I can get back to people who need my help, the better. Whether it’s me, or someone smarter than me, I try to point founders in the right direction.
Tracking the data
Separately, on an excel sheet, though I don’t track every startup I talk to, I track deals I refer/intro, with the following columns:
Startup
Founder(s)
Date
Stage
Industry
Deck [link]
Referral Source
Who’d I refer to
Secret Sauce – Differentiator/Reason for referral
Result of referral (Pending, Talking, Rejected, Invested, Will revisit)
Date of action [result of referral]
Check size (if applicable)
Round size (if applicable)
I also color-code so that’s it’s easier on the eyes. With the above, I can track:
Most intros/investments/rejections, by:
Industry
Partner
Stage
Referral source
Response Rate
Average Time:
Between intro and investment, per VC
Between intro and conversation
Average check size (per fiscal year)
Average round rise (per fiscal year)
% breakdown by types of compensation
% referral sources from founders who successfully fundraised (via me)
Founders who didn’t successfully fundraise (via me)
In closing
As one of my favorite VC quotes go: “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” I’ve had the fortune of working with some amazing founders over the years – a number of them who I was never able to help with the limitations of my own knowledge, but through the people I sent them to. Luckily, I largely attribute to my ability to help founders quickly through the above workflow. Hopefully, it can be as useful to you as it has been for me.
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!
Though I’ve spent a minute in venture capital, I’ve never raised a fund. So I’m not going to pretend I know everything. Because I don’t. Every single idea here is one I’ve borrowed from someone with more miles on their odometer in this industry.
When does an emerging fund manager turn into an emerged fund manager? I’ve always heard the general rule of thumb is by Fund III. But in all honesty, I took that for granted and never knew why.
“The other [successful trait in fund managers] that we see a lot of is really having a defined strategy, and really sticking to it and executing on it. Straying away from your strategy is one of the best ways to create issues for you down the road. Yes, it might be successful and it might create returns for you today, but it will create difficulties down the road when you’re looking to raise that next fund. Because that’s what you’re selling to me at the end of the day.
“Fund I, basically what you’re selling is a promise. You’re selling a dream. You’re selling the concept around the strategy.
“Fund II, you’re selling the execution on that strategy. Depending at what stage you’re investing at, for the most part, you’re not going to have returns to be pointing to. You’re going to be selling your ability to execute on that strategy.
“Fund III, you’re selling the returns on Fund I.”
Samir then follows up: “Fund III’s are the hardest [to raise] because by then, it’s four, five, six years in and you have to show something. It is return-based.”
Phil Libin, co-founder and CEO of All Turtles, mmhmm, and Evernote, and former Managing Director at General Catalyst, in his recent interview with Tyler Swartz, said: “We don’t need scale to make a good product, in fact, it’s a distraction if you focus on scale prematurely.” In venture, your fund is your product. And like an entrepreneur, an emerging manager shouldn’t worry about scaling the size of their fund in the Fund I and II days. Stay small. Focus on delivering on the strategy and promise you made to your LPs. After all, it’s much easier to return a $10M fund than it is to return a $100M fund. Especially since a 3-5x multiple means you’re just average these days. As Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate says, “Your fund size is your strategy.”
By the time you get to Fund III, you now have a track record of financial return (or not). And by then, you and the market should have a good idea if you have a longer time horizon in venture or not.
And even if not, many former VCs go back to the operating side of the table, armed with the knowledge, skills, and relationships they gain on the VC side.
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!
By far, this is one of my favorite and most recurring questions over the years. And not just in the scope of founders, I’ve asked the same question for a multitude of titles:
Investors
On a similar note, I’ve asked investors: What’s the difference between a great investor and a great board member?
And it yielded some insightful answers.
Leaders
Managers
Executive hire
Marketers
Chefs (both since I was co-hosting a cooking competition in 2019 and 2020, but also for culinary tips to improve my own cooking)
Artists
Software engineers (when you’re hiring folks who are in a field you don’t have a strong competence in)
Auto mechanics (yes, when you drive a 2009 mommy van, it visits the shop more often than you’d like, but also funnily enough, one of the most reliable cars)
Friend versus best friend
Life partner
… just to name a few.
I love this question since its counterpart is often asked: What is the difference between a bad and a good founder? Unfortunately, the “bad vs good” dichotomy usually ends up being a vanity question. You don’t need a trained eye and years of experience for the average person to differentiate between a bad and a good. If you’re reasonably logical, you can tell the difference between a bad and a good in any industry. There are a few exceptions, like art, especially modern or abstract art. But the case holds for most other cases.
On the flip side, to be able to differentiate:
The good – top quartile (25%)
The great – top decile (10%)
And the epic – top percentile (1%)
… becomes increasingly more and more difficult the higher up you’re going. As the power law and the Pareto principle goes, the top 20% accounts for 80% of the results. In other words, the small top-performing minority account for the vast majority of the returns. For instance, the top 20% of VCs account for 80% of the industry’s returns. And the higher you go up in differentiation – from good to great to epic – the smaller the delta in inputs between the tiers. There is a far smaller difference in inputs between the top 1% and the top 2%, compared to the same percentile difference between the 50th and the 49th percentile.
Having said that, to a layperson, the most insightful answer you can get that will save you years of mistakes and failures and industry know-how is the differential between the top performers. As such, usually, I get answers that would have otherwise required a keener eye, much smarter brain, a more resilient body, and a more differentiated path than I have.
For example, here are some answers I’ve learned over the years that differentiate the good from the great:
VP Sales hire. Their ability to hire two rock-star directors from their network within 1-2 months of being hired.
Chef. Their morning routine, starting from how they set their palate in the morning to how they build a robust supply network.
Founder. Their ability to raise their team members’ potential and how close of a pulse they keep to their operating expenses/burn rate.
Manager. How radically candid they can be.
Of course, it’s one thing to know what are the differentiators and another thing to understand the differentiators. The latter requires you to internalize and cut your teeth so that you can understand the true value behind the answers to the above question.
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.
Not too long ago, I published a blogpost walking through my top 9 founder questions that deserve more attention. In it, I detailed:
The questions
My rationale for asking each of them
Surprisingly, it did really well. A few folks reached out to me before that post, which inspired its due subsequence, asking if I had a repository of questions to share. And after, asking me to do more of such calculi.
Just got asked by a friend on how I come up with questions.
1st thought, idk it just happens.
2nd thought, naw, I know I spend too much time swimming in my head.
So here's a thread 🧵. Hope it's useful to someone out there (Or an excuse to say I worked today):
While I’m compiling something of the like on the backend, with no real deadline, as it’ll grow over time, I thought I’d dedicate a series on this blog to new and old questions that come into my purview. Each paired with:
Why I ask it the way I do
In what circumstances do I find myself asking it
And if applicable, how I build up to asking that question
And as bowtie to wrap everything up nicely together, I’m calling it the DGQ series. Or Damn Good Questions. Or it’s counterpart, Dumb and Garbled Questions. I’ll let you decide what each question stands for. But I’m really not the best with naming conventions, so if anyone has a better one, I’m all ears.
As the rocket takes off, I thought I’d begin by sharing the question that inspired me to start this new series.
What would [20+age] year old [name] say about the [name] that sits before me today?
For instance, what would 45-year old David say about the David that sits before me today?
I’ve heard many variations of this question, but the wording of this question in particular is an ode to my buddy, Matt, founder of nomofomo and UCLA’s President of Thought Lounge. After all, many of the best ideas I have in my noggin’ right now are not my own. This question is no exception.
There’s this great line from the song A Million Dreams, which I’m going to spare you my sad excuse for a karaoke singer, that goes like: “I don’t care, I don’t care, so call me crazy. We can live in a world that we design.” As luck would have it, I found it when I read Mike Maples Jr‘s piece from last year on backcasting. Which, if you have a spare 10 minutes, I highly recommend checking out as well. And speaking of quotable lines, he wrote, “The future doesn’t happen to us; it happens because of us. The future is not like the weather. It doesn’t just happen. People make the future. It’s not a destiny or hope; it’s a decision.”
He goes on to say, “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming. They seem crazy in the present but they are right about the future. Legendary builders, therefore, must stand in the future and pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design.”
Similarly, not only the greatest founders, but I also found that the greatest life athletes live in a similar mantra. It takes real courage to stand where no one is standing and decide that is the direction you want to pursue. You might be right; you might be wrong. But there’s something to be said about the clarity you will have when you live life under the assumption that you’ve already done it.
For example, I suffer from stage fright. But I find great comfort in visualizing myself doing what scares me the most again and again, until I get comfortable standing on stage. Imagining myself giving the same talk in front of one friend, 10 friends, 50 people and even 5,000 people. Each time I level up, I imagine the fear as well as the excitement that comes with it. Embracing both the former and the latter.
In a similar way, the way the future me looks at the naïve me of today helps me find the elusive confidence I need when I’m in doubt. Would future me look at today me and shake his head in disappointment or pride? What would he tell me to do if he sees I’m struggling? And when I myself cannot manifest the courage to take a step forward, my wiser and more resilient self will manifest the destiny I am meant to walk.
As Suleika Jaouad, author of the memoir Between Two Kingdoms, once said, “[The] act of writing a future dream in the present tense has really kind of helped assuage that fear.”
So ask yourself, What would the Future You say about the You that sits before me today?
I imagine even if you don’t find powerful answers, you’ll find powerful questions that will serve as guiding principles in your own life.
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.
For today’s blogpost I’m going to try something new. It was requested by a reader of this blog, which for anonymity’s sake, I’ll call P. For those who live a busy life, prefer audio over text, or just find my font choice appalling, I thought I’d record myself reading the below text. Think of it like the audiobook version of this essay.
If you love or hate this format, I’d love to hear what you think. Feel free to comment below, or DM me across any of my channels. Any and all feedback welcome with open arms.
Over the years, I’ve used many different versions of the question: What would you do if you knew you would fail? Or, What would you do regardless of the outcome of the endeavor? And as long as the reason for doing so contains any combination of:
Skill acquisition
Invaluable experience
Or relationship/friendship that I value more than the project itself
… it’s a “Yes” for me. The “Yes” becomes an exploration of depth. An optimization strategy for my strengths. My superpowers. It’s something I learned from quite a few of my mentors over the years – both in an official and unofficial capacity.
Subsequently, I’ve had this belief for a long time, which will probably cause some uproar somewhere, that we shouldn’t optimize our life around reducing our weaknesses. But rather, focus our time on maximizing our strengths. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever work to ameliorate our incompetencies. But:
Just enough that we meaningfully reduce our risk of ruin. Any more, there are diminishing returns over time. Forgiving my esoteric economic jargon, we should only work on our weaknesses so that we don’t lose our ability to survive. For example, if you don’t know how to cook, you shouldn’t aim to be the best Michelin-starred chef in the world, but just enough so that you don’t starve to death. Assuming your goal in life isn’t in the culinary world.
Mitigate our weaknesses that are the most adjacent to our core strengths. For instance, in my opinion, one of my greatest relative strengths is my ability to ask questions. I am by no means the best, but compared to the rest of my skills, this is one I find myself shining in a bit more than my peers. Which effectively meant I was always interested in what others were up to and how they thought. A mentor figure told me years ago that it didn’t matter how interested I was in others, no one had a reason to be interested in me. Which meant that one of my greatest and most adjacent weaknesses was to be interesting.
People who have superpowers often carry super-weaknesses. The greater their superpower, usually the greater their weakness. Humans aren’t great multitaskers. We were never designed to be. If you’re saying yes to one thing, you’re saying no to a hundred other things. Are you willing to shoulder that opportunity cost? Sometimes you are, but be very deliberate about it.
Fairly recently, I was presenting to an amazing cast of board members in a board meeting. There was a general consensus around the fact that we lacked focus as an organization, yet we were sitting on a wealth of talent. To which, one of our board members redirected us to Steve Jobs’ infamous speech when we returned to Apple in 1997. One line in particular stood out to me: “Apple is executing wonderfully on many of the wrong things.“
He follows up to say: “The ability of the organization to execute is really high though. I mean, I’ve met some extraordinary people at Apple. There’s a lot of great people at Apple. They’re doing some of the wrong things because the plan has been wrong.”
Taking a step back, as humans, as working professionals, as entrepreneurs in each and every one of our own rights, we often “execute wonderfully on many of the wrong things.” Often times, that’s on our own weaknesses, rather than our strengths.
Living in a simulation
Imagine that we live in a simulation – an MMORPG. Or, massively multiplayer online role-playing game. We start off with a finite number of stat points. The starting number of stat points varies from person to person, depending on your socio-economic class and your given genetic code. You can allocate those stat points however you want.
You can spread them all out evenly, where you’ll never have any true weakness, but neither any true strength. You’ve hedged your risk of ruin. It’s going to be really hard for you to lose, but you can never really win.
On the flip side of the token, you can minmax your build, using gaming terminology. Double down on a stat, to achieve the equivalent of a superpower, compared to your peers. But often times, if you are maximizing on a superpower, you’ve minimized your proficiency in another area. Luckily, as in any game, and as in reality, you can pick up tools and make friendships along the way that will supplement your weaknesses with their strengths.
Of course, as all analogies go, there are exceptions. But as far as I know, there are far fewer exceptions than those that fit into this analogy. And, technically, our ability to level up is infinite. The only upper limit is that, like everyone else, we have 24 hours in a day and a finite number of years to live.
So, where am I going with this?
Super-tools for (super)weaknesses
What do you not want or don’t care to have a superpower in? For the skills and tasks you use everyday, but don’t care to be the best in the world for, leverage software and tools to automate your work, so you only need to spend the minimal amount of time or energy to make sure it doesn’t become a stressor for your day. In the above gaming analogy, you use items to compensate for specific stat deficiencies. The more efficient the “item”/tool, the less energy you need to expend to make up for a super-weakness.
Here are the tools I use to supercharge my day, so I can spend more time enhancing my superpowers and less time mitigating my super-weaknesses.
Descript
Descript makes me feel like a god. As much as I love Adobe Premiere Pro, it had an incredibly high learning curve. But once you got it, they have some of the most robust tools on the market. On Descript, I love how I can edit an audio or video clip just by deleting words in the transcript. And if I mess up, and I do quite a bit, I can always voiceover in the editing process to make myself sound smarter than I actually am. Even better, I can drag and drop music, video and sound effects. If you’re listening to the audio version of this essay, you might have noticed I don’t have any of the afore-mentioned effects. The goal here was just to get you my thoughts as quickly as possible, without trapping myself in audio perfectionism.
If the Adobe Creative Suite is the endgame, Descript is the early game. And it helps you ace it remarkably well.
Notion
Notion is a dark horse (for me). I’ve seen startup data rooms, personal blogs, internal wikis, and even VC investment theses and fund strategies being produced on Notion. It always seemed like a nice-to-have. In all fairness, I didn’t give it the benefit of the doubt it deserved until late last year. Its greatest ability isn’t the ability to create a robust website or the prettiest blog. Its greatest ability is that it gets people to put ideas and thoughts on paper as quickly as possible. The barrier to entry is so low that its greatest competitors are note-taking apps, like Evernote or Google Keep, for early users. Then, you can go from notes to fully functional site in minutes.
And ever since, I’ve been a geek over it. There’s this great thread on Twitter by @empirepowder about all the applications you can build using Notion extremely quickly – from creating a blog from scratch to publishing a course to tracking analytics on your page to the ultimate tweet tracking tool.
For many of us, the hardest part about doing anything is starting. Notion solves that.
Undock
Take scheduling as another example. I know very few people, if at all, who want to be the best scheduler in the world. I know I don’t. But I find myself spending an undeserving amount of time trying to schedule meetings, rather than actually having meetings or being productive. Enter Undock. “The fastest way to find time to meet with anyone.” That’s from their website. And it’s true. When I’m in my Gmail scheduling calls/meetings with founders or investors, I never leave my email tab nor do I ever touch my mouse. No matter how many people are on the email thread, I can find time for a meeting, on average, in two seconds. That’s no joke. I timed myself.
Meetings are about communication, connection and collaboration. But maybe you’re just exhausted from scheduling them. Look, Undock is actually not “just another scheduling app”. We’re a super calendar and we come in peace.
Having and empowering others to have superpowers is literally in their DNA.
Superhuman
I’ve heard many great things about Superhuman, and about a quarter as many bad things about the platform. Superhuman’s claim to fame is being able to get you to inbox zero via one of the most seamless and fastest email experiences ever – through shortcut keys, follow-up reminders, and social media insights just to name a few. Their user interface makes it incredibly easy to respond from one email to the next, even when you’re offline. They have this 100ms rule, where every interaction should be faster than 100ms to make communication feel instantaneous. And they do deliver.
Many of its customers include investors and founders. Busy people who have more unread emails in their inbox than they care to count. Most of the bad reviews I hear from friends and colleagues are that $30/month is just too expensive.
There are many ways to look at the $30 price tag. It’s $12 more than Netflix’s premium plan, and Netflix serves you new content you might not have access to otherwise. Superhuman serves you the same content that would have been yours anyway, just in a new light. On the flip side, $30/month is $1/day. Less than a cup of coffee a day, assuming you buy your coffee every day. But even if you only bought $3 coffee twice a week, $30/month would still be cheaper.
Or in a different lens, Superhuman’s core audience – founders, investors, busy people who have hundreds of emails a week, if not a day – their time is worth at or more than $30/hour. So, if on a 160-work month, Superhuman collectively saves their customers more than an hour of time every month, then it’s worth it to them.
The way I look at it, it’s a bargain. But I don’t use it. Why? It’s not because it’s too expensive. Neither because I don’t have enough emails to go through. But rather, I happened to optimize my email workflow before I even heard of Superhuman. I’ll save that topic for a later blogpost. But if you don’t have a way to get to inbox zero (unless you don’t care. I have a number of friends who have tens of thousands of unread in their inbox. That scares me)… but if you do care about the piling mound of emails, Superhuman’s really got it in the bag.
In closing
And maybe this post might serve helpful in reframing on how you can live your most optimal life. Supercharge your strengths. And find the best tools and mental models you can to protect your downside. It’s okay if you’re not the best at the latter; you don’t have to be.
I mentioned a few of the tools I use, but your mileage may and probably should vary.
While there are tools out there that supercharge your ability to execute and perform, equally so, you’ll find there are amazing people out there that complement your weaknesses. Friends, colleagues, co-founders, life partners. In the words of Steve Jobs, find and meet “extraordinary people.” To do so, as my mentor told me, you’ll have to be interested and interesting.
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!
I was reading Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures‘ Medium post not too long ago about the value of auto-price increases in a context I’ve never really thought about. Quoting one of his portfolio companies’ founders:
“We started including auto-price increases in our renewals at the start of this year and it’s been surprisingly effective. Our starting point is 10% and we get it more often than not; some customers negotiate us down to the 3–5% range.
“The automatic price increases are a beautiful thing because they give us leverage:
we can trade an automatic price increase for an earlier renewal, longer contract period, or upselling to more features; and
when we do waive price increases, the customer walks away satisfied. They feel like they’re winning.”
It’s a great way to win on net retention. But as I’ve written about before, the net retention equation is comprised of the upgrades, downgrades, and churn variables.
Or convert more users into customers, if you’re running a freemium model
Reduce the number of customers downgrading to lower tiers
Reduce churn – customers leaving your platform
Some permutation of the above variables
Leveling up upgrades
Shivani Berry, founder of Ascend’s Leadership Program, once wrote: “Buy-in is the result of showing your team why your idea achieves their goals.” In a similar sense, buy-in is the result of showing your customers why your product achieves their goals. The best thing is that their goals will change over time. As so, your product must contain increasingly more value to your customers as they level up in their lifecycle. As they grow, you have product offerings that grow with their needs.
Take, for example, one of my favorite startups these days, Pulley, a cap table management tool for startups. Don’t worry, this isn’t a sponsored blogpost. Although it’d be nice if it was. I have no chips in the bag; I just like them. They have three tiers of pricing. The lowest for startups with 25 stakeholders. The middle for startups with 40. And the highest is for larger businesses.
Why 25? The average seed-stage startup has about 25 stakeholders. Subsequently, top of mind for them is what SAFEs and convertible notes look like on their cap table and how to structure early equity pools.
As a startup levels up to 40 stakeholders, they’re probably jumping into their first priced round. As such, they’ll need a 409A valuation to appraise their fair market value, as well as finally putting together their first official board.
Every time founders raise another round of funding, the more complicated their cap table becomes. The more they need Pulley’s software. And it so happens, the less price sensitive they become. For Pulley, that means they can charge more as their customers have greater purchasing power.
You also always want an enterprise pricing tier, where pricing is custom. Don’t be afraid to charge more. As I mentioned in a previous essay, when Intercom was only charging IBM $49, an IBM exec once told the Intercom team, “You know, I go on a coffee run for the team that costs a lot more than your product. That’s why we’re wary of investing too much more in you. We just don’t see how you’re going to survive.” If it helps as a reference point, the median ACV (annual contract value) for public SaaS companies is $27,000.
Do note that the more you charge, the longer the sales cycle will be. For ACVs over $20K, expect 4-6 months of a sales cycle. For contracts over $100K, expect 6-9 months. Of course, the contrapositive would be that the lower the price point, the easier and faster it takes to make a decision.
Reducing downgrades and churn
I’ve been in love with Clayton Christensen’s “jobs-to-be-done” (JTBD) framework ever since I learned of it a few years ago. At the end of the day, you’re delivering value. Value in the form of doing a job. As Christensen says, “when we buy a product, we essentially ‘hire’ it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we ‘fire’ it and look for an alternative.”
The better it can do the job your customer needs to get done, the more you can optimize for the variables in the net retention equation. Sunita Mohanty, Product Lead at Facebook, shared an amazing JTBD framework they use back at Facebook and Instagram:
When I… (context) But… (barrier) Help me… (goal) So I… (outcome)
Here’s another way to look at it:
What features should we have that would make our product great?
What features should this product have that would make it a no-brainer purchase for our customers?
The “no-brainer” part especially matters. And to be a “no-brainer”, you have to deliver the best-in-class. Your features have to solve a fundamental job that your customer is trying to solve. The difference between a “great product” and a “no-brainer” is the difference between a 5 out of 5-star rating and a 6-star out of a 5-star rating. Effectively, the outcome in Facebook’s JTBD framework exceeds the goal, which makes the barrier irrelevant. As David Rubin, CMO of The New York Times and former Head of Global Brand at Pinterest once said: “Your service shouldn’t lead with ‘saving money’. You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.”
In closing
At the end of the day, in the words of Alex Rampell, building a startup is “a race where the startup is trying to get distribution before the incumbent gets innovation.”
You’re in a race against time. You’re trying to reach critical mass and growth before your incumbents realize your space is a money-making machine. And growth comes in two parts: acquisition and retention. While many founders seemed to have over-indexed on acquisition over the last couple of years, the pandemic has reawakened many that retention is often times much more difficult to attain than acquisition. While it may not be true for every type of business, hopefully, the above is another tool in your toolkit.
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!
They were part of the defining score of years that brought the sport into the limelight. To most, most of the above names carry little gravity, outside of Phelps. But to me, they were the names that had me huddled around the TV. Watching the prelims. The semis. And of course the finals. They were the names that inspired me to be better.
As Ervin said, “We are the oldest of the fastest and the fastest of the oldest. We are men between worlds.”
But as they came back for one last curtain call this Olympic Trials, I couldn’t help but recall their influence on me in some of my most formative years. Whether I need that extra push for the most challenging project in my life to date or that shoulder to lean on when I am at my worst, there’s one race I cannot help but think about.
Just like when a Yahoo! exec told the Reddit co-founders that they were a “rounding error” and the team subsequently decided to frame it on their office wall as motivation, in 2008, the US Olympic 4×100 freestyle relay team faced a similar dilemma. Despite having Phelps on the relay team, they weren’t the crowd favorites. The French were. They – the American team – were the underdogs.
In fact, that 2008, French team boasted some of the fastest sprinters in the history of the sport. Alain Bernard who had just won his gold in the 100 meter freestyle. And Amaury Leveaux who had taken the silver in the 50 meter freestyle. And besides Lezak who tied for bronze in the 100 meter freestyle, none of the others on the US team had medaled for a short-distance freestyle event that Olympics.
Pound for pound, the US relay team had to deliver not only their best, but beat their best. To have a chance at beating the French team. So for motivation, they read Bernard’s comment in the papers over and over. “The Americans? We’re going to smash them. That’s what we came here for.”
Phelps leads the race, giving his team a slight lead over France. Weber-Gale holds that lead for the Americans. Jones, the slowest and the third leg of the team, yet still punching every inch of his worth, gives the lead back to France. And Bernard, the world champion in the 100 free, against Lezak for the US, gets a strong lead for a race and a length he is already the best in the world at. Lezak trails behind by over half a body length at the flip. 50% done of the last leg of the race.
I remember sitting in front of the television screen, screaming and hoping my voice would reach the Water Cube in Beijing. “C’mon… c’mon! C’mon!!” Lezak, at 32, one of the oldest competitors in the pool that year, pulled together what could only be described as sheer willpower. Those last 50 meters… seemed to have been the longest 23 seconds of my life. A breath for every second that passed. A breath for every second Lezak pulled closer to Bernard. And in the last ten seconds, minus the sound of the TV, the room was silent. As some people might say, you could hear the sound of a pin drop. It did. With a margin of eight hundredths of a second.
One of the tightest and most inspiring races in all of history. If you ask me, the greatest. And the race I watch time and time again when I am at my worst.
You have to see it for yourself to really believe the excitement.
#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!
