And I’m in complete accordance. I want to specifically underscore 2 of Michael’s sentences.
… and…
The only ‘exception’ to this ‘rule’ would be if investors themselves were the target market for the product. At the same time, I can see how the venture industry has led her and many others to believe otherwise. So I thought I’d elaborate more through this post.
Over the weekend, I was brewing up some mad lemonade. ‘Cause well, that’s the summer thing to do. Since I’m limited in my expeditions outdoors, it’s just watching the sun skim over the horizon, blossoming its rose petals across the evening sky, in my backyard, sipping on homemade lemonade. If you’re curious about my recipe, I’ll include it at the bottom of this post.
Thomas Keller. An individual probably best known, among many others, for his achievements with The French Laundry. Needless to say, I was enamored by his talk. But the fireworks in my head didn’t start going off until the 12:46 mark.
As a result of my commitment to provide feedback for every founder who wants a second (or third) pair of eyes on their pitch deck, I’ve been jumping on 30-minute to 1-hour calls with folks. Although I’ve had this internal commitment ever since I started in venture, I didn’t vocalize it until earlier this year. And you know, realistically, this is not gonna scale well… at all. But hey, I’ll worry about that bridge when I cross it.
Something I noticed fairly recently, which admittedly may partly be confirmation bias ever since I became cognizant of it, is that there have been a significant number of founders currently fundraising who complain to me about:
Many VCs don’t have their investment thesis online/public.
Of those that are, VCs have “too broad” of a thesis.
So, it got me thinking and asking some colleagues. And I will be the first to admit this is all anecdotal, limited by the scope of my network. But it makes sense. That said, if you think I missed, overlooked, over- or underestimated anything, let me know.
The Exclusionary Biases
By virtue of specificity, you are, by definition, excluding some population out there. For example, in focusing only on potential investments in the Bay, you are excluding everyone else outside or can’t reach the Bay in one way or another. Here’s another. Let’s say you look for founders that are graduates from X, Y, or Z university. You are, in effect, excluding graduates from other schools, but also, those who haven’t graduated or did not have the opportunity to graduate at all.
The seed market example
Here’s one last one. This is more of an implicit specificity around the market. The (pre-) seed market is designed for largely two populations of founders:
Serial entrepreneurs, who’ve had at least one exit;
And, single-digit (or low double) employees of wildly successful ventures.
Why? You, as a founder, are at a stage where you have yet to prove product-market fit. Sometimes, not even traction to back it up. And when you’re unable to play the numbers game (like during the stages at the A and up), VCs are betting on the you and your team. So, to start off, we (and I say that because I’ve been guilty of overemphasizing this before) look into your background.
What did your professional career look like before this?
Do you have the entrepreneurial bone in your body?
Here’s some context of what the idea maze might look like in another post I wrote.
The delta between a good investor and a great investor
Let’s say an investor were to be approached by two founders with the exact same product, almost identical team, same amount of traction, same years of experience, and let’s, for argument’s sake, have spent the same number of years contemplating the problem, but the only difference is where they came from. One is a first-time founder from [insert corporate America]. The other is the 5th employee of X amazing startup. Many VCs I’ve talked with would and have defaulted on the latter. And the answer is reinforced if the latter is a founder with an exit.
The question wasn’t made to be fair. And, it’s not fair. To the VCs’ credit, their job is to de-risk each of their investments. Or else, it’d be gambling. One way to do so is to check the founder’s professional track record. But the delta here that differentiates the good from the great investor is that great investors pause after given this information and right before they make a conclusion. That pause that gives them time to ask and weigh in on:
What is this founder(s)’ narrative beyond the LinkedIn resume?
Shifting the scope
It’s not about the quantitative, but about the qualitative. It’s not about the batting average, but about the number and distance of the home runs. So instead of the earlier question:
How long have you spent in the idea maze?
And instead…
What have you learned in your time in the idea maze?
Similarly, from what I’ve gathered from my friends in deep/frontier tech, instead of:
How many publications have you published?
And instead…
Where are you listed in the authorship of that research? The first? The second? The 20th?
For context of those outside of the industry, where one is listed defines how much that person has contributed towards the research.
As a slight nuance, there are some publications, where the “most important” individual is listed last. Usually a professor who mentored the researchers, but not always.
And, how many times has your research been cited?
Some more context onto specificity
Some other touch points on why (public) investment theses are broad:
FOMO. Investors are scared of the ‘whats if’s’. The market opportunity in aggregate is always smaller than the opportunity in the non-aggregate.
Hyper-specific theses self-selects founders out who think they’re not a ‘perfect fit’. Very similar to job posts and their respective ‘requirements’.
Some keep their thesis broad in the beginning before refining it over time. This is more of a trend with generalist funds.
Theses are broad by firm, but more specific by partner. The latter of which isn’t always public, but can generally be tracked by tracking their previous investments, Twitter (or other social media) posts, and what makes them say no. Or simply, by asking them.
The pros of specificity
Up to this point, it may seem like specificity isn’t necessarily a good thing for an investor. At least to put out publicly.
But in many cases, it is. It helps with funneling out noise, which makes it easier to find the signals. It may mean less deal flow, which means less ‘busy’ work. But you get to focus more time on the ones you really care about. And hopefully lead to better capital and resource allocation. The important part is to check your biases when honing the thesis. Also, happens to be the reason why LPs (limited partners – investors who invest in VCs) love multi-GP funds (ideally of different backgrounds). Since there are others who will check your blind side.
Specificity also works in targeting specific populations that may historically be underrepresented or underestimated. Like a fund dedicated to female founders or BIPOC founders or drop-outs or immigrant founders. Broad theses, in this case, often inversely impact the diversity of investments for a fund. When you’re not focusing on anyone, you’re focusing on no one. Then, the default goes back to your track record of investments. And your track record is often self-perpetuating. If you’ve previously backed Stanford grads, you’re most likely going to continue to attract Stanford grads. If you’ve previously backed white male founders, that’ll most likely continue to be the case. In effect, you’re alienating those who don’t fit the founder archetype you’ve previously invested in.
In closing
We are, naturally, seekers of homogeneity. We naturally form cliques in our social and professional circles. And the more we seek it – consciously and subconsciously, the more it perpetuates in our lives. Focus on heterogeneity. I’m always working to consider biases – implicit and explicit – in my life and seeing how I’m self-selecting myself out of many social circles.
Whether you, my friend, are an investor or not. Our inputs define our outputs. Much like the food we put in our body. So, if there’s anything I hope you can take away from this post, I want you to:
Take a step back,
And examine what personal time, effort, social, and capital biases are we using to set the parameters of our investment theses.
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!
Yesterday, having read my most recent blog post on social experiments, one of my friends asked me why I decided to finally start the blog. My simple answer was “to make myself obsolete”. The question that inevitably followed was:
“Why?”
Although not incredibly common, I’ve had a very small handful of friends and family ask me similar questions. All of which either directly ask or border “Why share all my secrets?”. Admittedly, all is subjective in this case, as I’m not keen on posting my social security or my social media log-in information on here.
Wouldn’t I be more competitive in this saturated (although I argue otherwise) market if I kept them to myself?
On a startup front, wouldn’t sharing the rationale of others and my own enable founders to “game the system?”
In response to (1), your competitive edge in the 21st century isn’t how many ideas you’ve hoarded, but how many you’ve executed on. And frankly, if we can cooperate to build a better world, why not?
For (2), if founders can “game the system” just by reading my blog, which requires them to have concrete evidence for growth and the questions fellow investors and I pose, well then, it’d be a great example of “faking it till they make it”. My blog merely provides a framework, plus a few stories, to how some of the smartest people around have overcome their obstacles. By the time the system tests them, I hope they’ll conquer the adversity in front of them and have the discipline to push forward.
What’s inside the black box?
I’m extremely happy to share “my” secrets. And I use the term secrets loosely, much like Peter Thiel does in his book Zero to One. In fact, the only reason I have any insight into life is that experienced experts were generous enough to share theirs with me. In other words, none of my insights are truly original. All are borrowed from the best, until I create a version that I resonate with more.
Simply put, if my ‘secrets’ and insights help even just one person out there to live a better life, then I’m a happy camper. My goal is to make the future a better place to live in. Oddly enough, it also happens to be one of the reasons I’m in venture capital. Only by sharing what I believe to be right and morally right am I able to help move the needle, if only by a little bit. As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a huge fan of people going through the idea maze and spending time and effort on insight development. If I can help catalyze those motions in my readers through my blog, then I’ll toast to that.
The Flip Side
However, I should mention there are secrets that I will carry to the grave with me. For instance, outside of the obvious, like SSN and credit card info, ones that…
My friends/colleagues tell me in confidence,
Cause more harm than good in the world,
Cause more harm than good to the people around me,
Carry malicious intentions,
And/or reveal why I put OJ in my breakfast cereal.
#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!
Are these jellyfish friendly or not? Will they “bite”?
As colorful and as beautiful jellyfish are, we are still scared of the possible danger that each possess. So, most of us only admire them from afar. And for many of us who have seen some, we’ve watched them float gracefully in dark blue aqueous solutions across a sometimes distorted film of glass. These beautiful mysteries of the deep blue.
To Touch the Jellyfish
Much like my fascination every time my parents brought me to the aquarium as a kid, I’ve been fascinated with the people around me. Especially about the thin, sometimes distorted, film between these exceptionally fascinating souls and me. The distortion created as a function of society’s, as well as their own, efforts.
Exactly a year and two months ago, I embarked on a journey to host small-scale social experiments, like:
Hidden Questions. A game where no one else knows the question, except for the person answering it. And where the person answering has the choice of sharing the question that inspired the answer or taking it to the grave by taking a shot of hot sauce (about a 700,000 on the Scoville scale, for reference) or a variable number of Beanboozled beans.
Brunches with Strangers. Quite literally, Saturday brunches with strangers. Hosting a cast of people from all walks of life. Like founders, street artists, astrophysicists, concept artists, athletes, criminal investigators, filmmakers, college drop-outs, and much more.
The Curious Case of Aliases. Where players (strangers to each other) under aliases guess each other’s hobbies, occupations, deepest fears, etc. after only playing in a 30-minute game session. For instance, skribbl.io. Cards Against Humanity. Codenames. And Mafia.
And, the most recent addition to my small Rolodex of social experiments, Improv Presentations. A TED talk-like night where people present someone else’s creatively esoteric slide decks, with no context as to what’s in the deck until they’re on “stage”. To the postmortem dismay of my cheeks and core, we saw everything from how to survive a cat-pocalypse to how to master the art of DM’ing using military tactics to how to be a good plant parent.
The Thesis, The Questions
As COVID would have it, the lack of in-person interaction and self-quarantine inspired the last two. Yet, all of which with the same thesis: helping make the world feel a little smaller, a little closer, and a whole lot more interesting. Starting not with the people who bathe in the limelight, but with the people directly around me.
Why is it so hard to be candid with strangers? And sometimes, even harder with family and friends?
Do we need alcohol, drugs, crazy incidents, violence, a lack of sleep, or stress to truly be ourselves?
Though not all-encompassing, people seem to be naturally curious about things, events, status, money, and gossip. Why aren’t people more curious about people – well, as just themselves? Like me, you’ve probably posed and have gotten the question: “How are you?” or “How are you doing?”. And likely, with more times than one is willing to admit, we didn’t really care about what the answer might be. Often times, since we know we’re just going to get a “Good” or “OK” in response.
If you want to have some fun, I highly recommend the next time someone asks you that, say “Terrible”. And watch the computer chip in their brain malfunction for a quick second.
What did I learn?
I won’t claim I found the universal truth or a holistic answer to any of those questions I posed above. Because I haven’t. After all, someone I really respect once told me:
“50% of what you know is true. 50% is false. The problem is you don’t know which half is which.”
So, in my life, my goals are two-fold:
Build a system to help me discern my two halves of knowledge.
Expand the total capacity of what I know.
I will share more on this blog as I am able to draw more lines of regression myself.
But in the context of this post, through social experiments, I’ve discovered that people yearn for psychological safety. Not only does Google’s Project Aristotle share its effectiveness in the workplace, it’s equally, if not more true, outside of it as well. The reason that it’s sometimes easier to share your thoughts and struggles with strangers is that strangers often won’t judge you to the same extent as friends and family do. Frankly, they don’t have much context to judge you from – implicitly and explicitly.
People want fairness. Not in the sense of you get 1 cookie, so I should get 1 too. But a fair system to be judged by. That I will get the same benefit of doubt as you will give to anyone and everyone else. When we all get drunk together, we will all be drunk and we will all relieve ourselves of any filters we may previously have. And though everyone’s drunk personality is different, and frankly everyone will still be judged… For that moment, that night, everyone’s on the same playing field.
The Applications
Let’s take most recent experiment with improv presentations as an example. The initial idea was that everyone should present their own slide decks. As serious or as silly as they might be. But some of my friends were hesitant. In their words, they felt they needed to “impress” or “have better public speaking skills”. Some simply said that they didn’t think they’d “be as good as others”.
Before our first “TED Talks@Home”, I shifted it altogether where we’d all be presenting each other’s presentation. All of us would have no context as to what we’re presenting until we get on “stage”. Whether we were experts on a specific topic or in comedy or deck-making, we’re all jumping into a bottomless pool together. After our second virtual improv night, this past weekend, between muted giggles and visual laughs, one of the presenters told me that it wasn’t as bad as she thought it would be, and that she’d want to do it again.
Luckily, it seems more than 60% of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances come back to participate in more brunches or game sessions or improv nights. 1 in 4 guests have proactively started friendships outside of the experiments. And about 5% have introduced their new friends to their friend circles. A small handful have also been inspired to start their own. So, maybe I’m doing something right.
Building Communities
The same (psychological safety and fair system) holds true for building communities, creating your corporate culture, and finding and keeping your friend group and your significant other. Although in the context of building communities, but applicable elsewhere as well, I forget who told me this once:
“A strong community has both value and values.”
– The person who told me this, please come claim this quote
Value is why people initially come out to join a community and admittedly, reach out to be a friend. Whether it’s because of who you know or what you can offer or how you can help them pass the time, it’s the truth. Values are why they stay. And safety happens to be one of those values.
In closing
As always, my findings aren’t meant to be prescriptive. But merely act as a guide – another tool in your toolkit – so that you are better equipped for future endeavors.
Like with people, when one day I get to touch a jellyfish, I don’t care about being stung. But I do want to know where I can touch where I won’t be stung. And subsequently, where I will touch where I know I will be stung. The difference between going in blind and not is that when I get stung, I am prepared to be.
#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!
Three weeks ago, in the prelude to this post, I mentioned the art of ideating and how I personally pursue the expansion of my creative horizons. Though I have or had other systems in place (i.e. whiteboard in the shower, pen in pocket everywhere I go, meditation), idea-journaling has been, by far, the most impactful in stretching my creative muscle.
When you start:
Dedicate your time to doing it daily, with no cheat days. Set aside ten minutes each day to do so.
Invest in a journal you love. Don’t skimp. I fell in love with the Moleskine sketchbook at first sight. Though I have graduated to the Leuchtturm1917 sketchbook now. For me, investing in a higher end journal made me more inclined to journal daily – not wanting my Hamiltons go to waste.
Don’t worry about completeness or complexity. A journal entry can be 1 sentence or 5 pages or even a drawing. Regardless, dedicate a minimum of 1 page to each entry, even if you only fill it in with 1 sentence.
Explore different mediums of thought. Here are some of the prompts I started with:
Write a short story.
Draw a picture.
Design a logo.
Compose a tune.
Jot down a recipe you think could work. And after, how would you plate this dish?
Create a new language.
Write a poem in that new language (or language that’s not your native tongue).
What stood out to you today?
Write out a conversation you would have with your role model, a celebrity, your boss, your friend. Or even what your follow-up conversation would look like with someone you talked to today?
How would you resolve a problem that’s plaguing you now?
If you could change or add one fundamental universal law, what would you change and why?
And, if you’re still stuck without a prompt, what should be the question or prompt you ideate with today?
Why? By exploring different avenues of creative output, you give your mind more degrees of freedom to think. Expand your parameters. That’s why multi-linguists are able to host such a vast vernacular bandwidth.
The Setting
Just like the process of idea-journaling, the setting in which you do so is equally as important. Why? You ideate best in a positive or neutral environment, when you won’t tie down emotions and biases to the environment you’re journaling in. Find your sweet spot, and make it a routine. When and where do you find yourself to be the most relaxed and/or the most creative?
For me, although I don’t shy away from ideating throughout the day, I find my mind the most expansive: (1) right after I work out, and (2) right after a good hot shower. And though rare, if the above two don’t work, I take at least a 20-minute walk, tuning into either a podcast episode I’ve heard before or a non-lyrical playlist.
Once I find peace in the preamble of my ideation “ritual”, then I settle down in a place where I feel comfortable and at home. Before the crisis, my go-to spot in the city was Sightglass Coffee on 7th. Now it’s in my backyard garden. With good lighting and a cup of chamomile or green tea.
Embracing Imperfection
My idea journals are a sanctuary for me to be imperfect. And arguably, its is where I found myself to be the most courageous. I didn’t have to cower in fear of judgment and biases from other eyes. And I can be unapologetically myself. Over the past 2 years, I’ve been lucky for that same courage to have bled outside of the book-bound acid-free pages.
“True innovation occurs only when people have courage[…] Fear of failure destroys creativity.”
Give yourself room to fail. You’re not going to like every single one of your ideas. In fact, if you’re like me, you might end up hating 4 out of 5 ideas you have when you first start off. But keep at it. Make it a habit. And one day, you’ll notice the distribution of good-to-bad ideas shift in your favor.
If you’re anything like me, when I get stuck, take some time to look up at the jewel-studded indigo canopy above. As your mind hops between one twinkle to the next, you might pick something up in the traversal.
As you make it a habit…
Although an unintentional upside when I embarked on this journey, the endeavor is truly meditative, perpetuating a positive feedback loop of euphoria. And over time, you’ll find yourself concepting more robust and intricate ideas. Hopefully, unbounded by your situational constraints. The sky’s the limit!
#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!
On Tuesday, I had the great honor to jump on a call with someone who is both a brilliant composer and an acclaimed orchestral conductor. Though he was classically trained, he found fame in the world of video games. And I couldn’t help but ask where he draws his inspiration when composing musicality to pair with various mediums of entertainment, even outside of games. He answered simply:
“Everywhere.”
He followed up that to help him frame his ideas around the subject of his piece: “I watch a little bit, not too much to have the show or game dominate in his mind, but enough to start off.” Just a small spark to start the fire. What he said echoed in mind, reminding me of a conversation I had with another friend – entrepreneur, author, and podcaster – prior to self-quarantining ourselves. He told me: “There’s no such thing as writer’s block. It’s that desire for perfection that holds us back from putting our pen on paper. But once we let go of trying to be perfect, we can find inspiration from everything around us.”
In all honesty, when he first told me this, I thought he was being quite presumptive. Especially it was at a point in time I was struggling to find content to put out weekly. But he was right. And, as you may have guessed, that became the kindling for the #unfiltered series.
Similarly, a few weeks back, a college buddy asked me where I find my inspiration for pieces on this blog. Though I am echelons shy of the musical talent I spoke with two days ago, I offered him the path I took to get me here:
Practice ideating daily.
Talk to people.
Meditate and/or write in a gratitude journal.
Write an audience of one.
Practice ideating daily.
My brain, like your brain, is a muscle. The more I practice using it, the better it gets. The same is true for ideas. The more ideas I write, the better I’ll get. It can be one sentence. Or, it can be 5 pages. But make sure to dedicate at least a full page to each day, even if 95% of it may be blank. The point is to deliberately do so every day, with no cheat days. Personally, I spent the first 2 weeks, writing one sentence entries.
So, I invested in an idea journal. In fact, probably my best investment I made in the past 3 years. And, I didn’t bother buying a cheap one. It was a Moleskine art sketchbook. At the time, a $17 purchase plus tax. And for a broke college student, that was a sizable amount – two good meals worth. A good alternative and the one I use now is a Leuchtturm1917 sketchbook. Why? Because it forced me to use it. I realized for me, the better the notebook is, the more I’m inclined to not let it go to waste.
Although I wish this was my original idea, my professor at Cal taught me this simple, but effective strategy.
Talk to people.
When I found myself unable to grasp at any ideas (that I thought were good), I talked to people. The more obsessive they were about their passion, the better. The more (positive and negative) emotion they channel into their work, the more insight they’ll have. And, frankly, excitement is contagious.
Talk to at least one of them from this cohort a week. Take notes, follow up, and ask more questions. The last part usually more independently, depending on their bandwidth.
Meditate and/or write in a gratitude journal.
Be thankful. It’s a useful frame of mind to be in. Positive thinking helps with more expansive creativity. Negative thoughts and stress, depending on its severity, narrows down the scope of your creativity.
Write for an audience of one.
Many professional writers are taught to find a target audience and write for them. Focus on a specific segment, before broadening, if ever. My mentors taught me to take this one step further. Instead one specific segment, just one person. It’s much better to write for 1 person who I know will always love my content than to write for a hypothetical many who may or may not even like it. For me, it’s myself. When I’m writing here, I’m merely a hobbyist. I don’t have any grand goal of reaching one million subscribers (not that I’m opposed to it). I’m just here to immerse myself in the joy of writing. And if I am lucky to have affected someone else’s life in a meaningful way, that’s my cherry on top.
Today, I read a 2017 piece on Nylon about advice from black writers to black writers. And there was one particular quote that caught my eye.
“Don’t edit while writing a draft or else you never finish.” – Terry McMillan
I can’t speak for the writing industry as a whole; I can’t even speak for my friends who are writers. Didn’t ask. But I can speak for myself. For this blog. Admittedly, 70% of all pieces I start writing, I don’t finish. And quite honestly, I almost hate that about myself. Writing for eyes that are more than my own has turned me into a perfectionist. The very thing I once swore to not become.
So, I’m going to try an experiment. More so for myself, in hopes of reducing the friction for me to write more. Every so often, I will post something I will title as “#unfiltered”. It’ll be less of a well-constructed thesis or methodical breakdown, but more of a writing to help me think. In sum, it’ll be a brain barf. 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. Don’t feel obligated to read it. In fact, if you don’t like brain barfs, don’t click on any of them, prefaced by its own #spoileralert. But if you do like unfiltered commentary and my rough thoughts, stay tuned. 😀
I have a love-hate relationship with that word. On one hand, I love and seek to learn from creative souls. It’s a trait that I seriously respect in individuals, regardless of industry, profession, or background. On the other hand, it’s rather amorphous. What’s creative to me may not be creative to you. We are bounded by the parameters of our experiences and what we, as individuals, are exposed to.
So, where do innovators draw inspiration?
Over the years, I’ve seen inspiration stem from three main frameworks:
The flow from art;
Margins;
And, what people dislike.
The Flow from Art
I seem to find that the data largely (with a few outliers) points towards the following:
Art precedes science. Science precedes tech. Tech precedes business. Business precedes law.
Art is bounded only by one’s imagination. Science, which draws inspiration from art, is limited by our physical universe and the fundamental laws. And, tech rides on the coattails of science, restricted by the patterns recognized in our universe by scientists before them. Similarly, business can only optimize existing technology. Following suit, regulations and legal practice can only debate and prevent ramifications that have turned from hypothesis to reality.
On one end of the spectrum, fiction has driven innovation on the fundamental, scientific front. Scientists have tried to make the impossible – fiction, superstition, assumptions, and imagination – possible. On the other end, the legal and regulatory space has empirically lagged behind business innovation. From autonomous driving to the shared economy to video games, a regulatory emphasis came only after incidents occurred. I’m a huge proponent of founders becoming self-regulatory. But that is a discussion for another day.
Margins
As Jeff Bezos famously said:
“Your margin is my opportunity.”
In the lens of a businessperson, profits exist on the margins. In a fully saturated market, as we learned in economics class, perfect competition will squeeze out profits. That margin can be delta between human perfection and imperfection. It can be the difference between a naive and sophisticated individual. It can also be the blind spots between a self-awareness and ignorance.
The good news (and bad news?) is that humans aren’t rational. As much as we try to be, we’re not. We repeat the same mistakes. After all, that’s where our favorite stories come from – the fact that we’re imperfect. If we were rational, our friendly neighborhood kid from Queens wouldn’t have to struggle with identity. Or, Skinner, the head chef at Auguste Gusteau’s restaurant, wouldn’t be out to exterminate my favorite rat chef.
From a nonfictional front, if we were rational, gambling, the lottery, therapy, and more wouldn’t exist. In fact, there’s a whole industry that capitalizes on human imperfection – insurance. We choose to reach for that last cookie when we know a healthier diet with less sugar is better for us (I’m guilty as well). We set New Year’s resolutions to work out more, but regress to our couch norm after the first month. Walter Mischel famously conducted The Marshmallow Experiment. When given the option to wait 15 minutes to double their treats, many children opted for immediate gratification.
There would be way fewer founders if they were rational. I mean, come on, the numbers work against them. 90% of startups fail. So, from a VC’s perspective, we have to ask ourselves:
What’s is the underlying notion that makes this product work?
What is that innate theme in human or societal development that won’t disappear anytime soon? What factors produce such a trend? And what margin is it taking advantage of? Uber was made possible with the evolution of smartphone and faster data. As more data were archived online, Google became a reality because of the internet and browser. Two current examples of underlying notions include:
Audio, including, but not limited to, podcasts and audiobooks, is the new form of content consumption. Not only does it free up consumers’ hands and eyes up, audio content is often easier to digest. The spoken word has been around millennia, whereas print is fairly new invention. Emotions and sarcasm is often easier to relay via audio than via print. So, what else is possible?
With growing consumer sentiment against traditional social media, like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, there is a shift to social experiences surrounding active participation. Sarah Tavel writes a great piece on this. Examples include Discord, Medium, TikTok, and user-generated content (UGC) in video games, like mods and in-game skins. Many of the traditional social media platforms leave users with a more negative passive experience, where they feel a sense of FOMO (fear of missing out). Through active participation, users can be a part of the conversation, rather than watch from the sidelines.
What do you dislike?
Speaking of negative experiences, aversion is a strong motivating emotion humans have. Like prospect theory illustrates, loss invokes a stronger response than gains. It also happens to be one of the reasons why I probe how obsessed a founder is about a certain problem.
In a recent interview with Andrew “Kappy” Kaplan, host of the podcast, Beyond the Plate, Grant Achatz, legendary chef, talks briefly about how he drew inspiration from his daughter’s dislike of cheese, yet she still ate pizza and grilled cheese sandwiches. Similarly, when his guests at Alinea didn’t like sea urchin, he thought about the ‘why’ and if he could circumvent their aversion by playing with various variables, including iodine concentration.
So, what do you dislike (with a passion)? What about the people around you? And can you figure out a way to change or eliminate that frustration? Take some time through the idea maze.
In closing
Ideas come in all shapes and sizes. Some may be more obvious than others. Some may snowball into a best-selling one. Although I’ve shared the three most common frameworks that I’ve personally generated and seen others find inspiration, it is, of course, not the only ways to exercise your creative muscle. In fact, the first step into being more “creative” is being cognizant about everything around you.
Two years ago, one of my former professors recommended I start ‘idea-journaling’ every day. Since I’ve started, I began noticing more and more stimuli from my surroundings, conversations and frustrations.
It may be a start, but it’s by no means an end. Stay curious.
I was recently inspired by a fascinating conversation between Mike Maples Jr., co-founder and partner at Floodgate, and Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Benchmark Capital and Wealthfront, but more interestingly, the founder of the term, product-market fit, or PMF – a term that signifies when a product is recognized by a strong demand in the market. Over the years, there have been various ways entrepreneurs, go-to-market strategists, and investors have defined when an idea reaches product-market fit. But before I dive into the PMF, let’s take a look at market definitions first, which admittedly is a step off the beaten path.
The Markets
How I Like to Think about Market Sizes. *Not drawn to scale
Traditionally, the total addressable market (TAM), serviceable addressable market (SAM), and the serviceable obtainable market (SOM) are defined according to the geographic location of your market. It makes sense – your market is as big as where you can offer the service. But now, in an increasingly connected world, technologies are less and less inhibited by the geographical boundaries that plagued the decades before. That said, there are still cultural, social and economic differences when accessing new demographics, which is why I like to characterize the TAM, SAM, and SOM by psychological resistances to new ideas. The TAM is still defined by the total upside potential of a product, where it still excludes laggards, or folks who would most likely never (seek to) use your product. The SAM is construed of people who would use the product after three to five friends in their network recommend and are using the product themselves. And finally, the SOM consists of customers who are desperate, as Andy Rachleff called it, for your product. They have spent sweat, blood, and tears finding or building their own solution. They have already traversed the idea maze themselves and put the dollar (or the euro, peso, krone, pound, yen, RMB, BTC, ETH… you get my point) here their mouth is at. And here, in the SOM, is where you find your product-market fit.
Product-Market Fit
PMF is most noticeable on the hockey stick curve. Before PMF, traction is slow and looks very much like the blade of a hockey stick. And after PMF, traction skyrockets and exemplifies exponential growth.
The Hockey Stick Curve
While there are many heuristics to assess PMF across different verticals, I’m the most fluent in consumer tech where I’ve spent most of my time in. And in consumer tech, I’d like to underscore the notion of ‘exponential organic growth’, and subsequently, a short analysis on each word of that phrase.
Exponential is probably the most straight-forward, where at the early stages of a business, we’re looking for rapidly compounding growth.
Organic growth, as opposed to paid growth, is a measurement for word-of-mouth. Investors tend to measure the effectiveness of a product by its virality from its initial customers to its nth customer – growth that is achieved without directly spending (ad) dollars on acquiring the new customers.
Growth is something I break down into – retention and adoption. Increasing adoption is great as measured by the growth of total users on consumer platform or for a consumer product, but focusing only on adoption leads to a leaky funnel, or in my case, trying to hold too many groceries in my hand without a shopping cart. Every time I grab another item on the shopping list, I drop some other item I was already trying to balance and hold. Of course, focusing only on retention means there’s no growth, which for keeping your best friend circle is fine (unless you want a thousand BFFs), but not for growing a startup.
Below are some growth signs to pay attention to signify that your product is near/at PMF:
Retention
Adoption
> 25% DAU/MAU
100s of organic signups/day
40% are active day after signup
> 30% MoM growth
Usage 3 days out of every week
“Idea-Market Fit”
As a founder with an ambitious idea, reaching product-market fit is a great goal to have, but the truth is PMF is a mystical beast – a chimera – in and of itself. Market demands change; what satisfied the definition of PMF a decade ago may not satisfy it now and will most likely not satisfy it ten years from now. Many studies have shown that most startups don’t fail from technological risk, but rather the inability to reach PMF, which ends up leading to lack of investor interest, demotivation, and the founding team falling apart. And quite obviously, before you reach PMF, the hardest part about starting a business is reaching PMF, or what Peter Thiel and many call the Zero to One. I’ll dive into the lessons I learned about the journey to “1” in future posts, but for the purpose of this post, I’m going to focus on the “0” – or what I like to call, “idea-market fit“, or IMF.
What differentiates a good idea from a great money-making idea? I’m going to borrow Andy’s thought calculus exercise. In a 2×2 matrix with right/wrong on one axis and consensus and non-consensus on the other, “you want to be right on the non-consensus.”
Andy Rachleff’s 2×2 Startup Idea Matrix
Why? Discounting the situations where you’re wrong (because you don’t make much, if any money), if you’re right on consensus, it means the market’s already mature, and perfect competition in a capitalistic market squeezes you out of your profit margins. If you do pursue this option as a founder, you’re more or less tackling an execution risk. On the other hand, if you’re right on the non-consensus, the market is still nascent, and you have the potential for monopolistic control of the market. In other words, you’re taking a market risk.
It definitely isn’t intuitive. At the very least, it wasn’t to me when I was on the operating side of the table. I wanted validation. When I was at Localwise helping build a community of local talent, I wanted people to say “I totally agree” or “You’re onto something.” But often times, I just received friction and resistance, with the toughest to receive from some of my friends.
“No one would ever buy that.”
“You’re wasting your time.”
“When are you going to get a real job?”
And at some points in time, I did think, “Maybe they’re right.” Until I started meeting a few people who thought a hiring destination for local mom-and-pop shops wasn’t a bad idea, and especially when small business owners started opening up about their frustrations. Hiring platforms, at that time, focused on the sexier brands and companies to get more demand side traction – the Googles, the Big Four’s, or the Bains, but had seemingly completely underrepresented the population of local businesses. Even if these SMBs were on these other platforms, they were overshadowed by the presence of bigger brands.
When validating startup ideas, you don’t want consensus. If your idea is truly revolutionary, people have yet to be conditioned to accept the idea. Take Uber or Airbnb, for example. If you asked the average person if they would use such a product, most would have thought that you’d be crazy to have a stranger sharing a car ride or home with them. These days, take e-sports or streaming. If someone told me in my pre-teen days that I could make a living off of playing video games, I’d most likely think I was dreaming. After all, I grew up playing Snake on my dad’s Motorola Razr, which admittedly seems to have made a return to the markets.
IMF is about challenging convention and the status quo. That’s what makes an idea revolutionary, or as people in Silicon Valley like to call it, disruptive. A crazy good idea challenges the explicit and implicit biases we have about society and ourselves. In other words, we have to detect the deception we bestow onto ourselves to find the gems in the rough, which Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital explains in his 2019 Lux Annual Dinner Talk – one of the best VC thesis-driven thought pieces I’ve ever seen.
In closing
As a geeky quote collector, I’d like to close this piece not in my own words, but in the words of three brilliant investors who have a few more patches of scar tissue on their back than I do now.
“Most of the big breakthrough technologies/companies seem crazy at first: PCs, the internet, Bitcoin, Airbnb, Uber, 140 characters…you are investing in things that look like they are just nuts… it has to be something where, when people look at it, at first they say, ‘I don’t get it, I don’t understand it. I think it’s too weird, I think it’s too unusual. “
“Breakthrough ideas have the traditionally been difficult to manage for two reasons: 1) innovative ideas fail far more than they succeed, and 2) innovative ideas are always controversial before they succeed. If everyone could instantly understand them, they wouldn’t be innovative.”
