While on my way to see a friend the other day, instead of cancelling, our Uber Pool driver decided to wait for the third rider. After a few exchanges of texts and calls, to the vocally evident dismay of the rider before me, we ended up waiting eight minutes. Therefore, delaying the rest of our arrival times by that same margin. In the ensuing silence that followed, I spent a little time thinking about the fascinating dichotomy between being nice and running a great business.
At the risk of receiving two low-star ratings, our driver opted to be nice and wait for the potential one five-star rating. To his credit, the third rider was incredibly grateful for his patience. In an alternate universe, he would have chosen to cancel the last rider’s request after waiting about two minutes.
The Examples
Social stereotypes might suggest that being nice and running a great business are two polar opposites. The portrayals of Mark Zuckerberg, in The Social Network, and Steve Jobs, in every biographical movie of him, only further perpetuate this motif. But, the truth is they’re not mutually exclusive. Many of the best businesses out there, like TOMS and Salesforce, are purpose-driven and spread positive impact. In the past few years, it should and has been, for many, a priority for building a brand.
Driving positive social impact is beginning to gain traction among a class of notoriously financially-driven individuals: venture investors. Although impact investing is one way, prominent VCs, like Felicis Ventures and Brad Feld, have also committed to founder’s mental health.
The marriage of being nice and running a great business comes in two parts:
Transparent and honest communication with your customers,
And, follow-through on promises and feedback implementation.
After all, it’s a collaborative effort.
One of my favorite examples is Digital Extremes – the developer for one of the most popular games on Steam, Warframe. Like many other businesses, they donate regularly to charities – from leukemia awareness to children’s health to most recently, the Australian wildfire. But, unlike many others, they engage their users every week through their stellar community management team. In fact, their community director, Rebecca Ford, was recognized in the 30 Under 30 Forbes list this year. Through a weekly permutation of developer streams, forum posts/polls, and social media content, they listen and engage with feedback. And through weekly hotfixes and content updates, which already speaks volumes in the game industry, they incorporate that feedback.
Don’t just take my word for it. Their subreddit serves as an example of one of the most positive and honest communities I’ve ever seen.
In Closing
Of course, no business is perfect. And the business may not always agree with the consumer’s thoughts. But, through transparent communication, radically candor (thank you to the brilliant Kim Scott), and following through, you can be nice and run a great business.
Instead of staying silent, if our Uber driver had asked us if we were in a hurry and agreed on a time limit to how long we’d wait (maybe even offered us a snack during the wait, but that might be stretching it), he might have gotten three five-star reviews.
I just started my second read of Ben Horowitz‘s new book, What You Do is Who You Are: How to Create your Business Culture. It’s a brilliant deep dive on what culture and virtues mean for a growing company or team. From the most successful slave revolution in history to prison culture to the samurai bushido, Ben draws parallels between those and startup culture, where you can get a snapshot here.
On page 31, Ben wrote “Create Shocking Rules.” Why “shocking”? So people will ask why. So people will pause, think, and remember them. What is “shocking”? In a time when raping and pillaging was the norm, Toussaint Louverture, the man who led the Haitian Revolution, forbade officers from having concubines. And he kept to that promise. When “shocking” isn’t the only game changer, you need uncompromising commitment to those rules. Weak follow-through is another fallacy in creating the culture you want. What you let slide will define the new culture, with or without your approval.
Sun Tzu and the Concubines
Rereading about Toussaint Louverture reminded me of a story my dad used to tell me by my bedside. About another brilliant general, who lived 2000 years prior to Toussaint during the Spring and Autumn Period, and best known for authoring The Art of War, Sun Tzu.
Through his thirteen chapters, dubbed The Art of War, he eventually earned an audience with the king of the State of Wu. Hoping to test Sun Tzu’s strategies to its extremes, possibly expecting to see Sun fail, the king asked Sun to test it on his harem of concubines.
After accepting the task at hand and separating the concubines into two companies, Sun had them all take a spear in hand and said, “I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?”
The women answered, “Yes.”
After explicitly explaining what “Eyes front”, “Left turn”, “Right turn”, and “About turn” meant, he issued his first order at the sound of the drums, “Right turn.” But, the concubines responded with fits of laughter. Sun Tzu proclaimed, “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame.”
In another attempt, he called out, “Left turn.” His words met the same fate as the ones he uttered just prior – with laughter. This time, he said, “If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders are clear, and the soldiers still disobey, then it is the fault of their officers.”
Subsequently, he ordered the heads of the two companies beheaded, whom happened to be king’s favorite two concubines. Seeing what had unfolded from his pavilion, the king sent a messenger to plead with Sun to keep his two favorite alive. But Sun did not relent.
After their execution, he immediately installed two new officers, and from then on, the concubines followed every order that Sun issued to the T.
Using the principles he shared and taught in The Art of War, Sun Tzu won many battles for the State of Wu, most notably, when Sun Tzu led an army of 30,000 to defeat an enemy numbering ten times more than the troops from Wu. As Jon Stewart, former The Daily Show host, once said:
“If you don’t stick to your values when they’re being tested, they’re not values: they’re hobbies.”
In Closing
In his book, Ben shares quite a bit how some of the best leaders in the world shaped their organizational culture. It wasn’t from catered lunches or having dogs in the office every Friday. Culture comes down to setting “shocking” rules, paired with a set of priorities, and more importantly, keeping them. Culture is what your team members remember about your organization and how it made and makes them feel 20 years down the road.
Though not perfect, my former swim coach instilled the same virtues in us. He was never a fan of tardiness. To him, it demonstrated a lack of character and commitment. And to enforce that, if we were late, by even a minute, to get into the water (not arrive at the pool), the offenders had to swim the entire warm-up in butterfly – the whole 2000 yards. And not one person escaped that law, not even him – not that I ever saw him late.
In the first startup I joined, we messed up our initial business model by not providing a reason for small- and medium-sized business (SMB) owners to stay. We created a marketplace between SMBs to transact with each other. But, after the first one to three transactions, they had no need for our platform. The scary thing about marketplaces isn’t that you’re connecting suppliers to their demand network, but not providing any bonuses after onboarding – a reason to stay.
Some of the stickiest companies are marketplaces because they provide that reason to stay. More often than not, providing a lovable product so convenient, it’s much easier to use the marketplace platform than to do the transaction themselves, and an easy, passive way to be discovered by future clients/customers that would be much more difficult on their own.
Why Multiplayer Video Games Work
In his book The Messy Middle, Scott Belsky, Chief Product Officer at Adobe and founder of Behance (acq. by Adobe), a discovery platform where creatives can showcase their portfolios and engage with others’, shares that when crafting the ‘first mile’ experience, you need to optimize for three questions:
Why are your customers here?
What can they accomplish?
What can they do next?
Arguably, I believe that founders should always have these three questions hovering above their product strategies, beyond the ‘first mile’, only embedded more implicitly. Video games do an amazing job in this regard, especially massively multiplayer online role-playing games, or MMORPGs for short.
Why play the game? Find escape and sanctuary to be someone players want to be but can’t in the confines of reality.
What can they accomplish? Achieve that endgame that players see in the trailers and in the tutorial (the onboarding for an MMORPG user). The endgame is self-defined as well. Of course, the game optimizes for the power creep meta endgame. Yet, players can always opt for a ‘destiny’, a story, they find compelling, like becoming a fashionista, a wealthy merchant, a mentor, a content creator, and with faster computing systems and more robust infrastructure, a contributor to the game itself, through user-generated content (UGC). The Steam Workshop is an excellent example of UGC.
What can they do next? Level up their character and gear. Tackle the next quest – main or side – towards something larger than themselves. There’s always a defined goal, as well as actionable steps and additional incentives laid out for the players. This creates high retention value – a reason to stay.
The same is true for many other types of genres of multiplayer games – multiplayer online battle arenas (MOBA), battle royale (BR), first-person shooters (FPS), and more. It’s just the narrative of the endgame may change a little towards leaderboard domination. E-sports, content creation, and live streaming then offers a new tier of recognition and endgame for many veteran players.
Back to Marketplaces
I’ve always argued that as a founder, you want to focus on unscalable wins before thinking of scale pre-product-market fit. Focus on the individual experiences. As Li Jin, partner at the reputable a16z, wrote in a post about the passion economy, “[great founders] view individuality as a feature, not a bug.” The best marketplaces, like Uber, Airbnb, and Medium, started off focusing on the unscalable wins for a small individual subset of their potential users. These products offered their early users a reason to stay:
(Additional) Incentives and tools, to make their stay worthwhile;
Discovery platform to help them grow their brand and customer base, actively and passively;
And, subsequent community and network effects.
Early adopters jump on a new product, as fast as they jump off one. They’re finicky. They’re window shoppers, but at the same time, the most willing and likely to try out your product. Luckily and unluckily, the San Francisco Bay Area has no shortage of these folks, and being a tech startup, with its initial user base here, often inflates your early metrics. In short, the goal of your product is to make these technological butterflies fall madly in love with you and your product. That’s the tough part, but it’ll also mean you’ve found product-market fit (PMF).
Where do we find ‘love’?
Instead of a minimum viable product, or MVP, Jiaona Zhang, Senior Director of Product at WeWork, in her First Round Review piece, chases the “pixie dust”, or what I like to call the secret sauce – a truly unique, money-making insight. This magic is found through diligent iteration on consumer feedback, especially in the beta stages of a product. During the beta, users have the serendipity to discover “that magical moment in the user journey where the user realizes that this product is different from anything else they’ve ever experienced”. Her framework, designed from the perspective of the consumer:
Wouldn’t it be cool if users could [a process/action that would 10X their lives]?
What We Learned
The same was true for us at Localwise. Of course, we were motivated by poor retention metrics. But, we learned what businesses truly needed by asking each of them in person, as well as flyering (and getting rejected, or worse, ignored) to college students and to shops. So, still deeply in love with the community we built, we found that need when connecting local talent to SMBs. For businesses with high churn rate with temporary employees and a need to build a brand, that was their reason to stay.
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.”
I was chatting with an founder-investor last Friday about the complexities of the founder-idea and the investor-founder discovery process. Eventually, our conversation arrived at the “idea maze“, coined by Balaji Srinivasan – which describes how one’s past life experiences position her/him best to tackle a new problem. And it bled into how great investors, or people who have a track record for backing entrepreneurs who change the world, differentiate good founders from great founders. And I turned the question many of my friends, who are interested in angel and early-stage investing, have asked me to her:
How can one, without necessarily having gone through the entire entrepreneurial experience, better understand and empathize with the founder journey?
It’s a question I have tried to resolve myself, since I’ve only experienced the two extremes of building a startup – at its conception till product-market fit and right before an acquisition – and at two different ventures. I’ve heard many answers over the years:
Read books or listen to podcasts about startups,
Chat with founders,
Shadow them for a month or more,
Advise them at their early stages,
Join an angel group to hold office hours for them,
And, start your own business…
…. each from at least ten different sources. But she said something that I have never thought of before. Live with an entrepreneur.
A simple answer, yes. But a spectacularly profound one, nonetheless. I’ve had the fortune of living with an aspiring e-sports athlete, an aspiring Korean pop star, and a property manager. In all three cases, I learned, even passively, about the lifestyle of each – their wins, their stressors, even how meticulous they think about their apparel for the day, but most importantly, how hard they each worked to realize their dream. It’s not something any interview, book, podcast, blog post, and even shadowing experience can teach you.
I’ve been taught since I was a kid in elementary school to work smart, not hard, or its better cousin: work smart and hard. But in both mantras, working hard is always overshadowed by working smart. In fact, over time, I learned it wasn’t just me. Media portrays society’s hardest workers in biased, unflattering light. I remember watching a bunch of movies and TV shows as a kid where the janitor or the bus driver, playing a side character, is either a 300-pound man or an old spindly soul with hollowed eyes. Mike Rowe, host of one of my favorite childhood TV shows, Dirty Jobs, is definitely more illustrious on this stigma than I am, which he explains in his 2009 TED talk. In Silicon Valley, the occupation of being an entrepreneur isn’t too different. Yes, there’s the supposed glamour of being the next Mark Zuckerberg or Steve Jobs. But whether it’s Shikhar Ghosh‘s study that 75% of startups fail, or the 90% or 95% many others reference, the truth is the numbers work against you. Moreover, unless you’re “venture-backed”, when people see “entrepreneur” on your resume, many think “unemployed”.
Yet, I’ve realized people with the entrepreneurial spirit are some of the hardest working individuals I’ve ever met, given that there are still many who seek the title over the commitment – what I’ve come to call “wantrapreneurs.” None of my apartment-mates ever called themselves an entrepreneur or a founder, but in every sense, each of them was and is the definition of a hard worker, a hustler, and an entrepreneur. They were scrappy. They were ambitious. Or like I mentioned in my post last week, they were obsessed. They’ve navigated their own idea mazes to set themselves up for success. For example, one of my suitemates saw the value of stacking chairs every week during work study and turned it into efficient inventory management and an opportunity to get in front of the music director without an official audition. Many of the entrepreneurs around me I respect the most never had the B-school education and weren’t classically trained in the Porter’s Five Forces or the SWOT analysis. A few even dropped out of school, but they all have the capacity to work hard, then synthesize the data around them. The commitment to work hard prefaces the facility to find a shortcut. One founder, to keep his business afloat, biked up and down the hills of San Francisco delivering Uber Eats, since he couldn’t afford a car and its insurance plan. Another went to his dream client’s headquarters every day at 9AM for two months straight to secure a meeting, and subsequently, a contract. A third flew back to meet with clients that were about to bail on his startup, despite still not having recovered from four fractures in his vertebrae, leaving him paralyzed below the chest.
I’m not saying my apartment-mates or the founders aren’t smart. In fact, they’re some of the smartest folks I know, but it’s their constant willingness to get their hands dirty that has my utmost respect. Though I’ve lived with my apartment-mates, I’ve never lived with any founders, but I can only imagine the depth of understanding and empathy one would have by being in such close proximity. And in doing so, how one can appreciate the founder journey beyond the facts, and experience the emotional pain points as well.
I was chatting with a founder yesterday about why she was getting so many “maybe’s”, a few “no’s”, but no “yes’s”, where a “yes” needs to come along with a term sheet, or else it’s as good as a “maybe.” Her product was hitting most of the check boxes for a startup ripe for the seed round, but she just wasn’t getting any traction from investors. There were a few KPIs she was missing here and there, but most startups don’t fit in the cookie cutter rubric anyway. So why?
It was and is the secret sauce. Others might call it the X-factor. It’s what uniquely sets you, as a founder, and your team and product apart from the rest of the competition. Like I mentioned in my thesis, what did you catch that makes money, which everyone else underestimating or missing entirely? It could be an insight; it could be a business model; it could be a specific money-generating collective customer insight. And how will this secret sauce continue to help you gain traction, at the minimum, for next few years. Moreover, at an early stage, pre-product-market fit (pre-PMF), it really only has to be one thing. It doesn’t have to be a list of the five ‘unfair advantages,’ like they teach in B-school. It’s not the chart with you having all the check boxes checked and everyone else having less checks than you do. It’s more often than not, not the up and to the right graph that you have in your slide deck. Because let’s be honest, every startup’s graph is up and to the right. Left side – antiquated. Right side – revolutionary. Bottom side – slow. Top side – fast. Or some cousin of that. Not that any of these advantages, charts and graphs are wrong, but what they represent most likely isn’t as unique as a founder might think. VCs see thousands of pitches in their inbox, pitches at events, and pitches in person. What you think is unique may be the 50th time a VC sees the exact same value proposition. As one of my 6th grade teachers once put it into perspective for me, “Think of a hundred really, really creative ideas. Throw them all away because all of them are unoriginal. Now think of your next hundred, and you are finally entering where no one has tread before.”
Just one thing. One thing I, as a scout, or another as partner, can bring to a partner meeting and say: This one thing is why we should invest. The more intuitive, yet exclusive to you, the better. Investors only have so much bandwidth to entertain ideas. There is a huge sum of okay ideas. Many good ideas. A few crazy ideas. And an even smaller handful of crazy good ideas. And the secret sauce is to prove to anyone exactly why you are one of the crazy good ones.
Now the secret sauce gets more nuanced here. You and your startup not only need that secret sauce, but you need to make sure the investor that you’re talking to is the “best dollar on your cap table,” as Roy Bahat of Bloomberg Beta (yes, the link redirects to a Github link, and they might be the only investors out there that does that) puts it. Why is it the perfect fit for the investor you’re chatting with (or going to chat with)? And why is that investor, and no one else, uniquely suited to help your business flourish at this stage? For example, I can cook up the meanest mushroom dish ever, slather it with my widely-accepted secret sauce (which has white pepper in it), and give it to my brother. No matter how good it actually is, he will without a doubt throw it in the trash or flush it down the toilet. Because he’s just not into mushrooms. The same can be said with investors. If they can’t or don’t know how to appreciate, savor and help you build on that delicious mushroom recipe, you’d just be wasting time barking on the wrong tree.
All in all, the secret sauce is just when your unique recipe for success meets someone with the means and experience to love it.
I’m not the biggest fan of the 30-second elevator pitch. Although I do believe it has its merits in the art of being concise – to be able to take a complex subject, be it a person or a project, and succinctly describe it for your respective audience, I trust the art of storytelling more.
The elevator pitch is designed to be the appetizer before the entrée, but what I find more valuable is the entrée itself, which, unless you’re at a 20-course Michelin-starred meal, aren’t short. I have rarely seen a deal close on an elevator pitch, much like I haven’t seen or heard of two people become best friends on a “Tell me about yourself.” Elevator pitches, like teaser trailers, are designed to have certain words or phrases click with the one(s) you’re pitching to, and, at some point, becomes too “templated” to connect on an emotional, more-human level. Earlier this month, I recall Robert McKee, one of the most respected screenwriting lecturers out there and a FullBright Scholar, writing about the dichotomy between film and TV in his newsletter, which is analogous to the differential between pitches and an in-depth coffee chat:
“Long-form writers have the power to reveal character complexity and depths of humanity no medium has ever delivered in history.”
Similarly, in my experience, through having a conversation about one’s inflection points in life, I can better understand someone’s depth of character and scars. For example, I love to ask founders: “How did this idea come to be?” Like I alluded to in my piece about my thesis, founders who are obsessed about the idea have a personal vendetta against the problem. They use “I’s” and “we’s”, whereas others who haven’t seen the blood, sweat and tears firsthand would often reference the numbers and speak in large, more abstract scopes. Outside of founders, especially those in fundraising mode, who have practiced knowingly or unwittingly the same responses over and over from meeting with investors, people, who have been in the trenches, often have a less well-rehearsed response to such questions – more scrappy, but much more detailed.
Just the other day, I read a brilliant response to a Quora question on “As a VC, how do you know an entrepreneur has ‘grit’?” that summarizes a quick calculus that differentiates the entrepreneurs from the “wantrapreneurs.” The answer in two words: specificity and compassion – two things which, unfortunately, most elevator pitches don’t cover.
