One of my favorite Hunter Walk lines, and one I cite quite often is: “Never follow your investor’s advice and you might fail. Always follow your investor’s advice and you’ll definitely fail.”
Investors are more likely to drive a company to the ground than otherwise. Founders listen to the advice of people they deem to be more senior and more experienced than them, as if they were written into the Bible. The cold, hard truth for people who give advice is that:
Not all advice is created equal and most advice is situational.
Your advice is more likely to be useless than useful in the aggregate supply of advice.
Advice should always be taken with a grain of salt. And oftentimes, certain pieces of advice is overweighted given the brand of the person giving it (who is right vs. what is right) and/or given the number of times the advice is given.
I’m lucky enough to be asked to be an advisor to a small number of funds, startups, and non-profits. Nothing to ever be worth bragging about. In fact, sometimes I wonder why I have a seat at the table. Nevertheless, lucky to share a drink with people smarter than me. I also realize that I’m a work in progress, and love to learn, just for the sake of learning. I’m not the famous person in the room, nor am I the most experienced person in the room.
So…
I always preface my advice with “Take this with a grain of salt, and this is purely my opinion – one among many others. I trust you to make the final judgment call of what makes the most sense.”
I give the unorthodox opinion. If I don’t have one, I don’t share any advice. I will caveat that I play in the early stages of company formation, when organizations are more so the pirates than the navy. When things are non-obvious, and need to fight to have a seat at the table. And given that the company and/or fund’s job is to question the status quo, I believe it is my job is to enable the founders to consider unorthodox paths. The minimum I can do is suggest that even if my advice is wrong, there are more paths than the one or two options we have in front of us. Or as Mike Maples writes in his book Pattern Breakers, “breakthroughs require pattern breaking.”
All in all, is my advice better than yours? Or anyone else’s? Who knows? But at least it’s different.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Yes, that’s the title of this blogpost. And no, that’s not in Wingdings font.
And yes, that’s also an equation.
Surprises do better than suspense, which do better than pauses, which do better than full stops.
The first is indelible. The last is forgettable.
Let me elaborate.
Notation
Meaning
Explanation
!
Surprise
(For all you coders, the exclamation point does not stand for “not.”)
You’ve shared something interesting, shocking, unexpected… something non-consensus or nonobvious. This is the easiest justification for someone to take a meeting. You not only have their attention, but their curiosity.
It’s a point of contention. It allows for debate. At face glance, it may not sound right. It may outright be shocking.
?
Suspense
Why? How? You’ve posed an interesting question that begs an answer. People will follow up. They may or may not take the meeting, which is highly dependent on their bandwidth and your luck in their schedule.
Oftentimes, the follow up will seek some level of external validation. You need to appeal to a higher authority. References. Facts/data, and starting from universal truths. Or sometimes, a higher form of logic and reasoning.
In the words of Siqi Chen, questions are “tell tale signs of objections politely withheld.” For the purpose of gauging interest, quiet objections out loud may work in your favor.
,
Pause
You’ve introduced a subclause before the clause. The subclause itself must be interesting enough for them to want to finish the sentence. It’s the difference between a feature and a product. If it is interesting enough, there may be a follow up, but things will usually stay asynchronous.
Oftentimes, this manifests in the form of taking a large leap of faith in logic. Either one starts a premise, but has no conclusion/solution. Or the other way around. You deliver the punchline, but has no build-up.
.
Stop
A quick conclusion can be drawn. No further questions or curiosities. There’s nothing special. Nothing worth noting. This neither grabs attention or begs curiosity. The same as saying the sky is blue.
While that may seem obvious, the equivalent in the startup world is “We are a B2B SaaS product leveraging AI to deliver insights.” You’ve said nothing. And unfortunately, all of which is forgettable.
All that to say, if the goal is to get a conversation going, the above is a formula I often advise the founders and GPs I work with.
Then once you have the meeting, of all the meeting requests I get, the two most common reasons are:
I need money
I need feedback
Oftentimes, not mutually exclusive.
For the purpose of this blogpost, and as I’ve written about the former in the past, I’ll focus on the latter.
Feedback
The vast majority of people also suck at asking for feedback. Take pitch decks, for example.
Most founders and GPs ask: “Can you give me some feedback on my deck?” Unfortunately, the ask is nebulous. What kind of feedback are you looking for? How honest can I be? What are my parameters?
Should I be worried about hurting your feelings? Are you looking for validation or constructive criticism?
Am I the best person to give you feedback on this? Am I supposed to give feedback from the perspective of me as [insert your name] or a different persona?
So, unless you’re best friends with the person you want feedback from AND they are the ideal archetype you’re trying to target, you need to be more direct and focused on what you’re looking for.
Love-Hate-Forget
One of my favorite set of questions of all time happens to be something that was designed to be asked in groups of strangers. Something that came from the social experiments I hosted pre-COVID. Not original, but I forget the attribution.
Who did you notice? Who, for whatever reason, rational or not, did you like?
Who, for whatever reason, did you not like or feel it may be hard to be friends with them?
And after all that, who did you, for whatever reason, not notice at all?
Similarly, in the case of deck feedback…
Love
Could you go through the whole deck, spending an average of half a second on each slide? While you do so, could you note, which slides you spend longer than one second on, for whatever reason?
FYI, leave it up to them if they want to elaborate. Sometimes you don’t need to ask. Oxygen usually rises to the top.
If you were to keep just one slide and throw everything else out, which slide would you keep?
Hate
Could you spend up to five seconds per slide? Which slides do you dislike, for whatever reason?
Why?
FYI, typical feedback is usually too messy, no punchline (I don’t get what you’re trying to say), or I don’t agree. The last of which is actually not always bad, depending if it’s a point of view of the world or you’re misrepresenting a fact.
Forget
These are not questions you ask the feedback giver. Rather, these are questions for introspection.
Which slides did the person giving feedback totally ignore?
Why might they have?
More often than not, these are table stakes slides. Delete these slides if you can.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
“I won’t forget the first time I saw Jason Peters do a one-on-one pass set with Trent Cole, and being amazed at the speed, balance, and power I just witnessed. It reminded me, or looked like, a grizzly bear wrestling a panther. It was so impressive, it made me question if I was good enough to play in this league.”
Much of this DGQ was inspired by Jason Kelce’s retirement speech, delivered with the prose and candor befitting of a legend. Which for those who have yet to read/listen to it, it’s 24 minutes that will be well-spent, whether you’re a sports, football, or Eagles fan or not.
There’s something really special about being the underdog. Whether you feel it or others say it. That slight chip on the shoulder, that measured level of imposter syndrome, is fuel to the fire. There is a distinct advantage for being the dumbest person in the room, knowing that there are mentor figures on the team you can learn voraciously from, even if by osmosis. And if you do have naysayers, you have the greatest privilege to prove them wrong. It means that you have space to grow. That journey ahead, at least for me, is quite exciting.
Although not framed nearly as eloquently as Jason Kelce put it, it’s something I think about a lot. Does the overall level of the team make me question if I’d be a good enough to play in this industry?
Challenge is as scary as it is thrilling.
Similarly in VC, we often say it’s an apprenticeship business. And it’s true. Almost every great investor I know had someone who took them under their wing and showed them the ropes. Sometimes a set of people. And it’s incredibly hard to learn and check your blindside without someone who plans to dedicate a good portion of their time to do so. That said, the next best you can get is to learn by osmosis.
You are the average of the five people you hang out with most. So if you have the chance to live and breathe alongside people who intimidate you with their skill, intellect and the way they execute in a good way, take it.
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.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
I’m in my fourth year of writing this blog and never once have I called myself or identified as a content creator. As many of you know, I write to think. I do so out of joy and intellectual stimulation. In many ways, I write for myself. Or better put, as a form of self-expression. Other than posting in the morning, as is thematically helpful for my blog, I don’t really have much cadence to posting. Nor have I looked too deeply on analytics. Nor have I really optimized for SEO. In other words, finding the top searched topics in my industry and writing a blogpost for each of those highly trafficked keywords. I haven’t done that, nor do I want to. I haven’t chased people down to subscribe. In fact, there are times I try to convince people to not subscribe (due to the scattered nature of my content).
To that end, I had not been a content creator.
But with the launch of Superclusters, for the first time, and still a work-in-progress, I am designing the content for someone other than my immediate self. Although, do I take opportunities to scratch my own itches? Yes… yes I do.
But in doing so, I am starting to think about creating content for others. And to do that, I need to look at what people like and tune in to.
Now at the end of Season 1, some quick learnings…
Note: The below gets a bit nerdy on numbers. Mostly as an accountability metric to myself to be paying attention to the below. This may not be for everyone, but in case you’re curious, and/or working on creating your own content, hopefully the below might be helpful.
Between all the platforms, YouTube seems to be the most popular channel. Followed by Apple Podcasts then Spotify. Where Apple Podcasts only has half or so the number of plays than YouTube does. And Spotify has three-quarters the listens compared to Apple.
May be helpful to note that YouTube and Apple Podcast count plays as just someone viewing the video for a split second (“greater than 0 seconds”), whereas Spotify counts a play as someone who’s played the episode for at least 60 seconds.
YouTube seems to be better for discovery than the other podcasting platforms, with over 4.5X the impressions compared to the next best, Spotify. 28K versus 6K. Tracked by last 30 days, not all time.
For short-form vertical content, TikTok continues to perform better than both YouTube and Instagram, especially for new audiences. Still perplexes me since I imagine the demographic on YouTube has more of my intended audience. Nevertheless, even on YouTube shorts, the shorts are consumed by a younger audience than the long-form videos on average.
Instagram, in general, performs poorly in terms of discovery among new audiences. But that might simply be, I haven’t learned the IG algorithms well enough yet. Moreover the new algorithm seems to prioritize completion percentage. And given that it’s hard to shorten even my short-form content to less five seconds or less, unless I just make people read while playing some kind of looped video in the background, Superclusters will likely continue to perform poorly on IG.
On YouTube, 90%+ of Shorts viewership comes from non-subscribers than subscribers. where 75-80% come from non-subscribers, the average for the full podcast episodes.
On YouTube, 41% of my audience comes from the US. TO break it down further, 50% comes from the US for long-form. 27% for short-form. Spotify, 67% comes from the US. Apple Podcasts, 87%.
Interestingly, by city, according to Apple Podcasts, New York City takes the cake on where my audience reside.
Across all platforms, most of my listeners/viewers are in the 35-44 age range. Accounting for almost 50% across all platforms. Followed by the 28-34 age group, then 45-59 age group. In general, Superclusters has a larger younger audience fan base on YouTube, compared to Spotify and Apple Podcasts. The latter two with similar distributions.
Superclusters audience is also about 75% male, 25% female.
While less than 0.05%, fun fact, the only other subtitles used on YouTube to tune into my podcast was French (outside of English).
Popularity versus watch time
The most popular episode on YouTube is Chris Douvos’, followed by Ben Choi’s. Episode 1 and Episode 6 respectively. My suspicion was that while both were super fun to record, Chris’ episode came first but may by the end of Season 2 be surpassed in viewership by Ben’s.
But what’s most fascinating to me is that among the nine episodes released for Season 1, on YouTube, the top four most popular episodes have shorter average watch times than the most bottom five. On average a two- to three-minute difference, where the least watched episodes happen to have 7-8 minutes of average watch time.
In closing
All in all, there’s a lot of work to do ahead. And as I’m recording Season 2 and my team is hard at work in editing those episodes, all of the above insights are helpful to keep my finger on the pulse. Do let me know if I’m missing any areas I should be paying attention to or measuring.
Otherwise, for Superclusters, I’ll see y’all again in early March for the launch of Season 2.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
A few years ago, in one of my favorite coffee shops on 7th Street in San Francisco, over a vanilla cold brew, a then 25-year old founder told me that he had recently taken his then-first vacation in five years. Took a full week off. Didn’t touch work at all. And just enjoyed it with his fiancée. But contrary to what one would expect, his body language that seemed to indicate the exact opposite of having a good time. Two hands cupped over his face, as he slowly dragged them both downwards in exasperation. Followed by many sighs.
He shared that in the time he was gone, the website crashed and the team had trouble bringing it back online. And when they finally did bring it back online, they were waiting for his approval to move forward. As such, didn’t bring it back online until he came back. With another large sigh, he went on to say that he’d never take another vacation ever again.
Running your own business is tough. Really tough. I get it. If you’re the founder, it’s your baby. And sometimes, it’s really hard letting go on what may seem like key decisions. Eventually, that becomes a slippery slope where I see too many founders needing to control every decision that goes on in the company. And even if you hired extremely well, you’ve capped your team’s potential by not letting them execute to their fullest capacity.
In the above dilemma, as you might know, it’s not a to-vacation-or-not-to-vacation problem. It’s a you-need-to-give-your-teammates agency problem. And it might seem obvious to you and me, to any third party observer. But it wasn’t to him. He was so frustrated that he was focused on the one new thing he did and believed that one new thing had a causal effect to a problem that was looming over his team’s head for a long time.
It is true that we are products of our scar tissue, but quite often, in an attempt to not be in the same situation again, people overcorrect. They take then run with the seemingly most extreme “solution.”
And in the times scar tissue start to form, start from first principles. Is taking a vacation really the biggest offender? Do great CEOs just not take time off? Is there something else that I’m not willing to admit about how the results played out?
What am I assuming to be true that may not have to be true? What are the raw facts, stripped of opinions and speculation?
Why was my team incapable of making that decision? Was it something that I told them before or did before that has since prevented them from making calls? What do I spend most of my day doing? Can I outsource some of my tasks? Some of my decisions? How would I do that? And only then, can I ask myself and others: what can I do from now on so that history doesn’t repeat?
Seeking and redefining excellence
And once you’re at the root of the problem, find others you admire who run organizations you admire.
Excellence is an interesting concept. One of the few words out there where its definition changes over the course of your life.
It’s one of the few words where it is not only different for every person, but that even within each person, every time you see something excellent, it sets a new bar and stretches that definition. Defined by only the most excellent thing you’ve seen.
The truth is that most great lessons happen to err on the side of examples. So to have people who define that word for you again and again are the “Sensei-s” you want in your life.
So spend time with others. Notice how they approach problems. And stretch your definition of excellence.
For the 25-year old founder who hadn’t worked any other job in his life, and only his own, there’s immense value in learning from others and building expertise at high-growth institutions. Or with people who you deeply respect.
Asking for the lesson
Tim Ferriss, on a recent episode with Noah Kagan, said, “Life punishes the vague wish and rewards the specific ask.” And I frickin’ love that line.
Be specific. No picking brains. You’re not a zombie or a vulture or a crow.
Not 30-minute coffee chats. Those quickly become recipes of asking for too much time with an amorphous ask. To a busy person, that 30-minute ask sounds like a recipe for losing 50 minutes to an hour of your life you can never get back. Including travel to and from. Time, as the only unreplenishable commodity, is precious. As Howard Lindzon said on the Superclusters podcast, when we’re young, we’re time-millionaires, but over time, we get poorer and poorer. We then become time-thousand-aires as we age. And eventually, we run out of temporal capital.
It is in times of need and struggle, that we often have the most prescient and specific ask to make of potential mentors.
“When in X situation, and after having Y results, my gut seems to tell me to do Z, but given that you’ve experienced these situations before or have likely seen these situations unfold, am I directionally accurate?”
In closing
There’s a lot of this hustle porn in the Bay Area. Loud claims of not taking any vacations or sleeping only three hours per night. Moreover media perpetuates and lionizes this way of living.
It’s not true. Science shows we do much better with eight hours of sleep. It shows that every so often, we need to take time to unwind, so that we can come back to be more efficient and inspired than before. You can clock in the hours, but that doesn’t mean you are producing quality in a one-to-one capacity.
And I worry that like the founder that took his vacation for the first time, then overcorrected, we live in a society where we’ve forgotten that we’re human. That we need breaks. That we need sleep. And that we can’t do most things alone, including building ambitious ideas and maturing as professionals.
#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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
The most provocative part was when she posed the question: If you need an app to make friends, is that a negative signal?
The solution, in her words, “the long term winner here is likely to be… interest-graph social networks.” Furthermore, “platforms that give people an ‘excuse’ to gather, either IRL or digitally” are immensely powerful. Where friendship is a byproduct of usage but not the main or sole purpose of being on these platforms.
I agree that dual-purposed social networks and platforms are a wonderful solution, but, and I may be biased, I don’t think it’s the only solution.
As a former power user of networking or friend apps like Shapr and Lunchclub (yes, I used an app to make friends), I’ve made some great friends via both of those platforms. But at the same time, I was an early user for both. Both had yet to be widely adopted at the time.
For Lunchclub, I was using it at a time when everything was in-person, and you only had the option to meet people on Fridays at 2PM or 5PM at either Sightglass Coffee on 7th Street or Caffe Centro in South Park in SF. The latter unfortunately closed recently. And that was it. There were no other options. I had often joked with friends that as you were meeting your friend match that week at Sightglass, you would be sitting next to the person you would match with next week AND the person sitting five feet over would be who you matched with last week. It was a tight community, even if it was an unintentionally designed community. A group of hackers, early adopters, investors, and people just doing cool things.
Then, as Lunchclub pursued scale, quality declined. And as Olivia shares in her thread above, bad actors ruined the experience altogether. The same was true for Shapr. For Clubhouse. Just to name a few.
But dating apps nailed it. They’ve reached widespread adoption. Olivia postulates it’s because they offer data points and filters that you can’t find anywhere else. For instance, who’s single. She’s right. But there’s another reason. These apps promote interest in others. Or amplifying inherent motivation to be on said apps.
Let me elaborate.
Be interesting and interested
I’ve written about the above line before. Here. And here. And likely a few other places that’s escaping my memory at the time of writing this piece.
The thing is most platforms promote being interesting. The heavy profile customizations. The ability to share your own thoughts. Platforms that incentivize you to go from a consumer to a creator. A lot of it is about me. Look at me. Look at how cool I am. How cool my life is. The strive for perfection.
How can I ever be like the person I’m following? My life is nowhere near as awesome as her/his is. Most social platforms prop users up as a point of comparison.
All that to say, there are a lot of apps that help you be interesting, but not enough that help you be interested. The latter takes work. There’s a line that Mark Susterrecently shared on a podcast, and I love it! Citing the late Zig Ziglar (which by the way, is an awesome name), Mark shared, “People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
I want to underscore that line one more time.
“People don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”
It’s why I love my buddy Rishi’s recent piece on how to build and maintain meaningful relationships.
In Rishi’s essay, he shares that there are three levels to doing your homework — each deeper than the last — and show that you care:
Level 1 – The Basics: LinkedIn, Common Connections, Google, and Company Website
Level 2 – Digging in: Social Media
Level 3 – Going Deep: Podcasts, Writing, YouTube et. al
The purpose isn’t to be all-encompassing, but to show that you care for the human sitting across from you. It’s the intention that matters.
The late David Rockefellerbuilt prolific Rolodexes to show that he cared. In fact, it’s cited that his handwritten notes on others stood five feet tall and accounted for 100,000 people. Alan Fleischmannonce wrote in reference to David Rockefeller that, “If you were so fortunate to be a fly on the wall for any of his countless meetings and interactions, you would hear him inquire about the smallest details of his guest’s life, from a child’s ballet recital to a parent’s recent health concern. Rockefeller’s interactions were said to be ‘transformational, never transactional.'”
And it’s also the small things that matter.
In closing
The reason why I think Lunchclub was so popular in the beginning is in two parts:
The platform reduced the friction — the back-and-forths — of scheduling. They gave you two times, and you either made it or you didn’t.
The platform’s early users were innately curious individuals. When I was invited on the platform, my friend pitched it as, “I’ve learned so much from the people I met.” And my friend was and is already one of the foremost subject-matter experts in her field. The same was true when I began using the platform. People spent more time asking questions than talking about themselves. In fact, in many conversations, it’d be a battle of who can delay talking about themselves more than the other.
People were simply interested. There was no agenda. And no agenda was the best agenda. No one was trying to peddle anything to you. No one was trying to ask you for money or intros. People were the ends in and of themselves, and not a means to an end.
All in all, while there are incredible platforms that help you build friendships through interest and hobby alignment, I do believe there is room for a friend app for the curious. Or at least to help you be a really good friend.
So if you’re building something there, ring me up. That said, no matter how great technology is, with AI and all, every great relationship still needs that human touch. AI and platforms and apps might be able to get you 90% of the way there. But if you don’t complete that last 10% trek, 90% is still incomplete. For those of you reading who are American football fans, running the ball 90 yards from one endzone is still an incomplete. It’s still not a touchdown. You need to run the full 100.
If there’s anything to take away from this blogpost, it’s to be both interesting AND interested. Emphasis on the latter.
And in case you’re curious as to how I approach caring, these might be helpful starting points:
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
This past week, my friends were sending me one of the latest Shark Tank episodes (apologies for not finding a better fidelity video), asking me: Would you have invested?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Yf2BrfC_ww
If this link dies due to copyright issues (since I haven’t waited till ABC puts out their original version), just Google “Shark Tank Eyewris”
But I bring it up not because I’m here to share what my thoughts on the deal, but because of a powerful lesson shared on Shark Tank’s Season 14 finale.
The best thing you can get in life is often to have the best partners. That’s true in business. That’s true in romance. And that’s true in life.
And yes, it’s also true in venture. As a founder, it’s not about who gives you the most money. Or gives your business the greatest valuation. Unfortunately, both are often vanity metrics, underscored in the 2020 and 2021 bull era. It’s about partnering with the right partners who can take you to the next stage. Partners who will keep you honest. Partners who will call you out on your BS. And partners who will tell you the things you don’t want to hear, who will have you do the things you don’t wanna do, so that you can be the founder you were meant to be.
In careers, it’s no less true. I’ve always looked at careers from the perspective of who can I learn the most from. It hasn’t always been the highest paying or the biggest brand. Frankly, it was easy to turn down both of the before if I didn’t feel like I would spending the next few years working with the best. Not only in terms of acumen, but also in how much they cared.
Over 8 yrs ago someone singlehandedly pulled me out of poverty. Knew him because I trained with his wife who is a professional athlete. He was leading a group at Citi and I desperately wanted to be an analyst. Didnt have the resume for a fancy banking job but grew up in public… pic.twitter.com/K8aZoUcrVA
To think that one doesn’t need others to succeed, that’s foolish.
#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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Last Friday was my last day with a team and a company I called home for the past 18 months. My brain’s been conditioned to expect a team sync every Monday and that every Wednesday is deep work Wednesday, but also a good time to catch up with my teammates. I’m going to miss these moments and more as I embark on a new chapter. To say the last 18 months were a rollercoaster would be an understatement, but I wouldn’t have traded a second for anything else. To see our community of the world’s most helpful investors grow from angels to syndicate leads to fund managers and LPs has been my absolute honor and pleasure. Today and every day forward, I’m thrilled to see where On Deck goes next as it continues to be the pillar behind talented and ambitious founders from the day they decide they want to change the world.
Needless to say, I’ve taken away many lessons over the past year and change. Among many investing lessons, a lucky seven of which have greatly changed the way I work. Changing up the pace here, this is also going to be my first blogpost where there is more audio than there is text.
1. Loom is my best friend
Shoutout to Andrew Rea for building a new habit in my life.
2. Don’t over-engineer
Hats off to Julian Weisser for reminding me to keep it scrappy.
3. Take breaks
A big thank you to Sam Huleatt, Vivian Meng and Soumya Tejam for reminders that we need to take one step back to take two leaps forward.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
An old college friend reached out to me not too long ago and asked me if I had any tips to share on getting a mentor. And the first thing I responded with is: “Don’t ask people to be your mentor. In fact, don’t even mention the word mentorship.”
You see, mentorship is a loaded word. It comes with baggage. Centuries of it. Hell, millennia of it. And apparently, dating as far back as 3,000 years ago to Homer’s Odyssey. Mentorship comes with an expectation of commitment. While that amount of commitment differs per person, a mentorship ask from a stranger is an amorphous expectation of time and energy from a busy person who likely has a laundry list of other priorities. Without any precedence or context, it’s hard to make that decision with asymmetric information.
The best pairs of mentorship have always been a two-way street. It takes two to tango. If we were to take the equation of a line:
y = mx + b
… a mentee wants a mentor whose current b, or position and experience level in time, is greater than their own. A mentor wants a mentee whose m (rate of learning, iteration, and hustle) is as great or greater than their own. The bet is that at some point in the future, at least in my experience, mentors would like to learn from their mentees as well, and/or see it paid forward.
Yet, I see so many mentees out there who discount their own value in the relationship. One of my mentors shared with me a few years ago that the older you are, the younger your mentors should be. And I’ve carried that in my heart ever since. More recently, I found that line in the form of a tweet from Samir Kaji.
Was at a VC quarterly meeting today and the topic of aging out in VC/tech came up (which I think is BS)
Their response on how they stay fresh in mental models was around the thinking of "the older you get, the younger your mentors should be".
I can’t claim to have mentored tons of folks, but I also realize both from anecdotal experience and talking with my mentors that the best thing about mentorship is the feedback. That the mentors learn about the result of their advice as an opportunity to finetune their own learnings.
Take for example, my office hours. Of the hundred or so people I’ve met through open office hours, I’ve probably shared the same piece of advice at most five times. It gets even more interesting when you consider that the vast majority of people I’ve met via office hours come for fundraising advice. Somewhere in the ballpark of 80% of people. While there are similar thematic questions I ask people to consider, the best advice is tailored to every unique situation. That said, my advice, like any others’, starts as a product of my own anecdotal experience. A sample size of one. And as we learned in Stats 1 in high school or college, that’s a poor sample size. So, one of the best ways for me to refine my own learnings is either:
Act on it again and again. But there are some things in life I can’t do again. For instance, high school or freshman year of college or my first job. Those are experiences entombed in amber that unless I had a time machine, they’re one and done.
Learn how other people execute on that advice and what resulted of it.
One of the many joys of writing this blog is that every so often a kind reader reaches out to me and shares the results of them implementing the thoughts I’ve shared here. Then they let me know I’m either full of s**t or I drastically helped them grow. And I love both forms of feedback equally as much. After all, it’s the rate of compounded learning that helps me mature — even if it’s outside of my own anecdotal experience. Feedback and learning of others’ results gives me a sample size greater than one. The same is true for other mentors, advisors, and investors out there.
So, what does that mean tactically?
Start with the ask.
There’s a metaphorical saying in the world of venture that investors invest in lines, not dots. They want to see progression rather than stagnation. So in reaching out to anyone you’d want to learn from, don’t lead with “Can I have 30 minutes of your time?” Instead, lead with a question. Why are you reaching out? What question can only they answer?
So, that means, “should I get an MBA?” is not a good question to ask. It’s generic, doesn’t contextualize the question, and you can figure out how to do so on the internet. On the flip side, a better question would be: “I saw that you graduated from Wharton before breaking into VC. So I’m curious, did you always know you wanted to be in VC, or was that something you discovered in B-school? And what experiences did you gain in B-school that set you up for VC?”
Moreover, show you’ve spent time in the idea maze before proposing the question to the person you want to learn from. “I’ve read about X and Y, and have thought about or tried A and B already with these results. But the question still gnaws at me.”
Why does this contextualization matter? One, it gives that person context to better answer your question. Two, the last thing any person giving advice wants is for their advice to dissipate into the cosmos. For their advice to go to naught. And if you show that you’ve spend blood, sweat and tears already pondering the problem, then you’re more likely to take their advice seriously. In effect, their advice will be a lot more meaningful. And, chances are you’re going to be a lot less whimsical than the average person asking for their time. Use someone’s time in a way that won’t feel wasted.
Follow up even if they ghost you.
If they respond the first time, great. And if not, don’t give up until you’ve sent at least three emails. If they don’t respond the first time, they just might not have seen it. If they don’t respond after the ninth email, they’re just not interested.
And with each email follow up, tell them when you plan to follow up since you assume they’re busy. “If you’re too busy, I completely understand and I’ll follow up in two weeks.” On the last email if no response, thank them for their time and wish them well.
Don’t set recurring meetings (initially).
First of all, it’s a heavy ask to anyone — stranger or not. Second of all, there’s no promise that their time (and your time) won’t be wasted. Third, do you even have that much to ask about? Most of the time, you don’t. What you think you want and what you actually need are usually very different. It’s an iterative process.
Instead, start with a single question. Ask it. If they’re free for a meeting, set 20 minutes (here‘s why I like 20, instead of 30). If not, get their thoughts asynchronously. Get advice. Act on the advice (or not, but be intentional if not). The most important part is to share your results with the origin of that advice.
So, when you close out that initial meeting, ask if you can reach out to them 24 or 48 hours later after you’ve had time to mull on it or act on it. Timeframe will vary. And if you do follow up shortly after without results, limit any additional ask to 1-2 questions, max. Ideally it should take them 2-3 minutes to respond to. For any advice that takes a longer feedback loop, set a time in the future (two weeks, a month, 2 months, etc.) later to reach back out to share your learnings. And sometimes, that means you didn’t implement their advice. Why not? What did you learn from doing the counterfactual?
When you reach back out to share your learnings, see if you can jump on another 20 minute call, or shorter. And get their thoughts on the facts. Possibly get more advice. And do that again and again. Until at some point — my litmus test is usually 3-4 of these discrete exchanges, in no particular frequency —, I ask if we can get something recurring on the calendar. Nothing long. Stick to 20 minutes. And set an end date for the recurring nature. I usually do 4-5 times as the first run through.
At the end of those recurring meetings, be honest and mutually evaluate: Was it a good use of everyone’s time? If not, end it, but reach back out periodically to share your thanks, especially around the holiday season. If it does work, set another set of recurring meetings and reevaluate again in X time. And voila, you have yourself a mentor (in the traditional sense).
One more note on this… if that person is extremely busy and you know they are, sometimes a more personal touch to the email is recording a Loom and asking your question in front of a camera to that person in particular. For any Loom video, I wouldn’t go over a minute of recording time. Keep it concise, and use text to describe everything else.
Build a platform where they can share their advice with others.
Either start a podcast or a blog. Or help them find an audience that is outside of yourself —a fireside chat, a club, a non-profit, posting a Twitter thread or LinkedIn post, and so on. Their time is limited, and if they’re likely to give that same piece of advice to many others, help them find the tribe of people who are willing to listen to their advice. So instead of their advice being one-to-one, it’s one-to-many. In sum, a larger impact radius.
Of course, the caveat here is if the advice you seek is personal experience that isn’t suited for a stage, then don’t do it.
In closing
Some of the mentors I have today are folks I’ve known for years, but neither of us remember the discrete date in which it all started. Simply put, “it just happened.” There are others where we’ve never explicitly said we were mentor and mentee. Yet, I learn just as much if not more than if I had explicitly asked for mentorship. The same is true for some of the “mentees” I have.
At the same time, I wouldn’t discount the fact that you can truly find mentors everywhere in your life. Too many people focus on only finding strategic mentors, but fail to see the value in tactical and peer mentors, which I wrote more about three years back.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Last Friday, one of the greatest operators and super-connectors I know, who also moonlights as an angel investor, asked me: How do I know if I should professionalize as an investor?
Undeniably, a great question. But before I share my answer to her question, I thought it’d be best if I first elaborated on what “professionalize” means in this context. It’s a term we have used more than once here at On Deck Angels. And as a result, it has spilled over into the vocabulary I use even outside of venture. But in the context of investing, professionalize is where one would go from an amateur, part-time investor to a full-time investor. Either working at a fund, starting their own syndicate or fund, or as a full-time angel.
The thing is, to be a career startup investor, you have to be lucky. The capital required to have a seat at the poker table is high. While there are many platforms — from Republic to Wefunder to Titan Invest — that are working to democratize access, the truth, for now, still is that to access the best deals, you’re either lucky as a network leader or as a capital allocator. In other words, do you know the best and most entrepreneurial talent? And do you have a frick-ton of money?
And given that some element of luck on top of skill is table stakes, I felt the best response I could give wasn’t in the form of a statement or opinion, but in the form of five questions.
Why do you invest? What compels you to continue investing?
What are two positive adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*? What are two negative adjectives you would use to describe your sibling*?
*Or life partner, or someone you know really really well.
Have you ever laid someone off and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
If not… as an investor, have you ever said no to a founder and regretted it? Why did you regret it? And at point after the event did you notice your regret?
Of the five people you hang out with most, what are common traits that at least two of them have? List as many as you can.
If you were to start a fund or syndicate tomorrow, what would you call it?
So before you keep reading, I would recommend pausing. And to pull out a notepad and jot your own answers down to the questions above. It’s a useful exercise I ask myself, and evidently others as well, if you’re looking to professionalize as an investor.
When you’re ready, keep reading beyond the below image, as I’ll share my rationale behind the above questions.
*Author’s Note: Effectively, I was trying to space out the questions from the rationale of why I ask them below as much as I could, so that the below text wouldn’t influence your thinking (if you plan on doing this exercise).
Motivation – Why are you an investor? The underlying motivation matters. Are you in it for money? To pay it forward? To prove someone or some notion wrong? How fleeting is your motivation? Raising a fund is a decade-long relationship. Raising three is two-decades long of a relationship. So, the question is how deep is your motivation. Can it last multiple decades?
Strengths/weaknesses – This question is adapted from Doug Leone’s. People often describe others in comparison to themselves. For example, if I say Joanna is funny, by transitive property, I believe Joanna is funnier than I am. If I say Kai is smart, I believe Kai is smarter than I am. I often find this question to be much more useful in understanding a person than just asking for their strengths and weaknesses. After all, adjectives are, by definition, comparative words.
Standards – This question is a riff on Matt Mochary’s. If your answer to the question is no, then you don’t know your bar for excellence. Why does your bar matter? There’s a saying that A-players hire other A-players because they know just much it takes to win. B-players, on the other hand, know they’re not as good as A-players, but on average, still want to feel superior, so they hire C-players. A-players can stand B-players, but can’t stand C-players. So eventually, the A-players leave your company. Why does this matter for an investor? You need to be able to differentiate between an A-player and a B-player. The difference between a great founder and a good founder is a fine line, and most people miss it. If you want to have a chance at being a top decile investor, you need to know. After all, people often learn more from loss than from gain. For the second part of the question, being a great investor — or to be fair, a great anything — is all about the velocity in which you learn. Speed and direction.
Deal flow – This question is a proxy of where you’re going to the majority of your early deal flow, and likely who and where you’re connected the most with. The follow up would be do you get enough quality deal flow from people with these traits. In other words, if you had the capital, are you confident you could put at least $250K to use every quarter? If not, stay a scout or raise a syndicate instead of a fund. Until you can build up to this.
Legacy – Building a fund is multi-generational. Just three funds would be a 20-year relationship. And the best funds often outlive the founder(s) themselves. So the biggest question here is what kind of legacy are you trying to build? Or are you trying to build one? This legacy, founded upon your values, determines how you plan for succession and who you raise to be your firm’s next leaders.
In closing
Of course, the five questions aren’t an end-all-be-all. There’s still the ability to think through fund strategy and portfolio construction. There’s fund admin. The back office. Tech stack. Picking strategic markets where you have an unfair advantage. That said, if you can answer the above questions well, you’ll have a compelling narrative to either fundraise from LPs or join a larger fund.
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!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
