One of my favorite thought exercises to do when I meet with founders who have reached the A- and B-stages (or beyond) is:
“What will his/her company look like if he/she is no longer there?”
The Preface
While the question looks like one that’s designed to replace the founder(s), my intention is everything but that. Rather, I ask myself that because I want to put perspective as to how the founder(s) have empowered their team to do more than they could independently. Where the collective whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Have the founders built something that is greater than themselves? And is each team member self-motivated to pursue the mission and vision?
“Well, Mr. President,” the janitor responded, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.”
From the astronaut who was to go into space to the janitor cleaning the halls of NASAs space center, each and every one had the same fulfilling purpose that they were doing something greater than themselves.
And if the CEO is able to do that, their potential to inspire even more and build a greater company is in sight. Can he/she scale him/herself? And in doing so, scale the company past product-market fit (PMF)?
For the purpose of this post, I’ll take scale from a culture, hiring, operating, and product perspective, though there are much more than just the above when it comes to scale. Answering the questions, as a founder:
How do you expand your audience?
How do you build a team to do so?
And, how do you scale yourself?
And to do so, I’ll borrow the insights of 10 people who have more miles on their odometer than I do.
While many of these lessons are applicable even in the later stages of growth, I want to preface that these insights are largely for founders just starting to scale. When you’ve just gone from zero to one, and are now beginning to look towards infinity.
The TL;DR
Build a (controversial) shocking culture.
Hire intentionally.
Retaining talent requires trust.
Build and follow an operating philosophy.
Create, hold, and share excitement.
Align calendars.
Upgrade adjacent users as your next beachhead.
Capture adoption by changing only 1 variable per user segment.
With the 2020 series of events, many of us have started to look for other ways to pass our time. Some have looked towards Netflix and Disney+. A number, baking (even ice cream making; thank you to everyone who got an ice cream machine before me). And others, gaming. The number of friends, who had no track record of gaming and suddenly started talking about how to farm iron nuggets in Animal Crossing: New Horizons, skyrocketed. Anecdotally, more than 3-4 fold more.
Games = social networks
Games have become the new social networks. I’m not even talking about the gaming subreddits on Reddit or the Discord channels out there. And much like how social networks are communal hubs of interaction, games, like:
…*deep breath* just to name a few, offer just as much, if not more. People spend hours indulging on the platform and interacting with friends. Not only that, because content is native to gaming platforms themselves, it makes it easier for friends to connect and share content on progress and goals. Much like groups and communities on social networks, many games have clan systems that increase retention and engagement on the platform. Games are just sticky.
By the numbers
They aren’t discrete “one-off” purchases, like my old Nintendo 64 cartridge games, but evolving engines of narrative and relief, or as Andreessen Horowitz calls them – living franchises. What started as “one-off” buys became downloadable contents post-launch (DLCs). And looking at games like World of Warcraft, Fortnite, with constant monthly updates, patches and hotfixes, the games you buy “in the box” are no longer the same beast as before. And now we have a term for it all – Games-as-a-Service (GaaS).
Though many in 2019 weren’t bullish on the 2020’s growth numbers, in hindsight, we’re seeing a whole different wave of optimism. Hell, March 2020 was a real winner for gamers, spending $1.6 billion on games, their hardware, software, accessories and game cards, thanks for COVID. Needless to say, Animal Crossing topped the charts. I can’t imagine the number at the end of 2020.
Social athletes
You also have Twitch streamers, YouTubers, mods, and creators who become the local/global authority on the market and often ubiquitous with the games/genres they play. Who can actively and passively sway how a community thinks and acts, just like big-time influencers on social media. They have effectively become, what I call, social athletes, turning their hobby into a full-time pursuit. And earning paychecks by representing the brand/team they love most, as well as through sponsorships and partnerships. Shroud, a former competitive e-sports athlete, now one of the biggest streamers in the industry and formerly exclusively streaming on Microsoft’s Mixer, took a 1.5 month break after the Microsoft shut down its Twitch competitor, Mixer. And on his first day back recently, he had half a million viewers tuning in to watch his revival on Twitch.
The next frontier
Just like how social networks evolved into ad-based revenue models, games are evolving into a similar beast, as well. Mobile games have been no stranger to advertisements for a long time. But we’re now seeing the change now on PC and console games. And in a slightly different nature. Where the ads are embedded into the game experience itself, rather than the pop-out kinds.
Epic Games’ Fortnite definitely took it all to the next level – from their live, in-game events to their virtual cosmetic options that acted as film promotions. The latter, much like, how LEGO releases a whole series of movie-related sets to help with promoting it. And their live events are no joke, whether it was:
Their live Marshmello concert (with 11 million attending live),
Or, when 3.1 million players got a sneak peek into a never-before-seen scene in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker before it came to theaters.
As expected, many other games are following suit. Recently popular PC game, Fall Guys, is now hosting a “battle of the brands” on their Twitter – a bidding war to have your brand featured as a cosmetic in the game towards a good cause of donating to Special Effect, a charity dedicated to helping gamers with physical disabilities.
Last I checked, the bid is at $420,069.69. And yes, I’m sure the numbers were intentional.
So, what’s next?
Well, it’s an exciting time. Not too long ago, influencer marketing blew up. And now brands/games are becoming influencers in and of themselves. Whether that fall under influencer marketing or a new bucket, I don’t know. What I do know is that though we are all far apart right now, the world of media is bringing the larger world closer together. As more games:
Go cross-platform,
Are discovered organically and socially,
And are fueled and accelerated alongside co-creaters, influencers and user-generated content…
… while technologies, like 5G, virtual and augmented/mixed reality (VR/AR/XR), cloud gaming, and blockchain, bring more interactions into each game, building larger and immersive worlds, I’m quite bullish on the growth of the gaming industry. And as the gaming industry evolves, their learnings will bleed into other industries, via gamified models – from Pioneer gamifying the process of building a business to Superhuman gamifying productivity, first through emails.
Why? They’re sticky – high engagement and retention cohorts. And I dare say, sexy, as well. Frankly, game companies don’t just launch with minimum viable products (MVP), but minimum viable happiness (MVH). Or as Jiaona Zhang, VP Product at Webflow and lecturer at Stanford’s School of Management Science & Engineering, calls it: minimum lovable products (MLP).
If you’re interested in a deep dive on how to offer MVH or build an MLP, check out my previous post on the topic:
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!
Last week, my mentor/friend asked me if I knew anyone who’s stellar at storytelling and would be willing to hold a 1-hour workshop about it with his mentorship group. I connected with my buddy who earned his chops podcasting and being a brilliant customer-oriented founder, specifically on the user journey.
And it got me thinking. Hmmmm, I wonder how long people take to prep for a workshop or talk designed to inform and educate. Which eventually led me to the question… How much time allocation might many event hosts underestimate when asking a speaker to speak at their event?
Well, outside of travel, set up, rehearsal time, and of course, the length of the talk/workshop itself.
So, over the last few days, I reached out to 68 friends, mentors, and colleagues who have been on the stage before, including:
VCs – who invest out of vehicles that range from $5M to $1B (sample-specific)
Angels – investing individuals, who have over $1M in net worth
Founders – both venture-backed and bootstrapped
Executives – Fortune 500 and startup
Journalists
Influencers – YouTubers and podcasters
Consultants/Advisors
Professors
And, those who’ve been on public stages with 1000+ in live viewership.
… and asked them 2 questions:
How long, in hours, do you take to prepare for a 1-hour talk?
For the purpose of slightly limiting the scope to this question, let’s say it’s on a topic you’re extremely passionate and well-versed in, and the audience is as, if not more, passionate than you are.
And if I said this was for a high-stakes event, that may change your career trajectory, would your answer change? If so, how long would you spend prepping?
50 responded, with numerical answers, by the time I’m writing this post, with a few results I found to be quite surprising. *pushing my nerd glasses*
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.
I recently read Mark Suster‘s 2018 blog post about startups on “Remind me why I love you again?”. As an extremely active VC, he specifically detailed why, unfortunately, by meeting 2, 3, and so on with a founder, he may forget the context of reconnecting and why the founder/startup is so amazing. And, simply, he calls it “love decay”.
Mark Suster’s graph on ‘Love Decay’
The longer it has been since a VC/founder’s last meeting, the harder it is to recall the context of the current meeting. Though I may not be as over-saturated with deal flow as Mark is, it is an unfortunate circumstance I come across in meeting 5-10 founders and replying to 100+ emails a week.
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.
Yesterday evening, I sat in our backyard, sipping homemade lemonade and sketching out my weekly creative endeavor (why). Between sips and furtive glances upwards, I hoped to catch a glimpse of NEOWISE. But alas, I forgot to pray to the weather gods in the morning.
Disappointed, I packed up to head inside. As if by a stroke of fate, my phone buzzed. You know, this story would be more dramatic if my disappointment was telepathically transmitted to my friends. Tongue in cheek, I apologize if I got your hopes up. But, it was merely the influx of messages after my timed “Do Not Disturb” mode switched off. Yet one of these blips came from a good ol’ swim team pal into our group chat. Lo and behold – an HD cross section in time of the exact comet.
I propped my cell above my head, positioned just north of the horizon. And unable to hold my smile back, I stuck around for a while longer.
So what?
You’re probably wondering: How the hell does yesterday’s smile have to do with “You will be what you eat, you are what you excrete”. As the title of the post so kindly suggests. Trust me it does. Admittedly, probably not the greatest of blog post titles, but, hey, it rhymes. Which might be the lamest excuse you’ve heard this month. But I digress.
You will be what put in your body. You are already what comes out of your body. Literally. Well, I’m sure my cousins who are molecular cell biologists will point out some (or many) of the nuances I missed. But we don’t have to count the cards.
The same is true for your personality. You build your personality based on the inputs in your life from when you’re younger. Your personality is subsequently evidenced by what you say and do.
And, I can say the same for education, biases, and so on. For the purpose of this post, I’d like to underscore one other – relationship-building. Or as most others understand it, networking. But I have a mild allergic reaction to that nomination.
Friday last week, I jumped on a phone call with a founder who reached out to me after checking out my blog. In my deep fascination on how she found and learns from her mentors, she shed some light as to why she feels safe to ask stupid questions. The TL;DR of her answer – implicit trust, blended with mutual respect and admiration. That her mentors know that when she does ask a question, it’s out of curiosity and not willing ignorance – or naivety.
But on a wider scope, our conversation got me thinking and reflecting. How can we build psychological safety around questions that may seem dumb at first glace? And sometimes, even unwittingly, may seem foolish to the person answering. The characteristics of which, include:
A question whose answer is easily Google-able;
A question that the person answering may have heard too many times (and subsequently, may feel fatigue from answering again);
And, a question whose answer may seem like common sense. But common sense, arguably, is subjective. Take, for example, selling losses and holding gains in the stock market may be common sense to practiced public market investors, but may feel counter-intuitive to the average amateur trader.
We’re Human
But, if you’re like me, every so often, I ask a ‘dumb’ question. Or I feel the urge to ask it ’cause either I think the person I’m asking would provide a perspective I can’t find elsewhere or, simply, purely by accident. The latter of which happens, though I try not to, when I’m droning through a conversation. When my mind regresses to “How are you doing?” or the like.
To fix the latter, the simple solution is to be more cognizant and aware during conversations. For the former, I play with contextualization and exaggeration. Now, I should note that this isn’t a foolproof strategy and neither is it guaranteed to not make you look like a fool. You may still seem like one. But hopefully, if you’re still dying to know (and for some reason, you haven’t done your homework), you’re more likely to get an answer.
While sipping on my morning green tea, I’m inspired by Venture Stories’ recent podcast episode where Erik was interviewing Charles Hudson of Precursor, where they codify Charles’ investment thesis, markets, business models, among many other topics. A brilliant episode, if I say so myself! And it got me thinking.
Some market context
In the past few months, I’ve been chatting with a number of founders who largely seem to gravitate towards the subscription business model. Even pre-COVID, that seemed to be the case. And this notion was and is further perpetuated where a plethora of VCs turned their attention to XaaS (X-as-a-service).
Why? Pre-COVID, the general understanding was that consumers were:
More expensive to acquire,
And, harder to retain,
…which I shared in one of my February posts. I’d even heard some investors say: “Consumer social is dead.” Although I personally didn’t go as far as to illustrate the death of a vertical, I had become relatively more bearish on consumer than I did when I started in venture. Clearly, we were wrong. The question is: how much of this current situation will still hold true post-COVID? And honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But I digress.
Given the presumption that the consumer industry was faltering, many VCs re-positioned their theses to index more on enterprise and SaaS models. Models that had relatively fixed distribution channels and recurring revenue. It became some form of ‘guarantee’ that their investments could make their returns. And as the demand for startups shifted, supply followed.
The Business Models
Though there seemingly has been an overindexing of subscription models in the consumer space, I’m still an optimist for its future. The important part is to follow consumer behavior.
What do their consumption patterns look like?
What do their purchasing patterns look like?
How do customers think about value?
Here is a set of lens in which I think about business model application:
Subscription
“One-off”
Continuous consumption patterns >3-4 times in a month (Ideally, >3-4 times per week)
Discrete consumption patterns ~1-2 times a year Extremely episodic in nature
Proactive, expectant behavior
Reactive behavior
Examples: Food Groceries Music Education
Examples: Moving homes One-off Conferences Travel Car
Note: The examples are generalized. The business models will depend on your target market. For example, travel for the average family may not happen on a recurring basis, but travel for a consultant happen weekly (pre-COVID).
The Extremes of Gross Margins
Of course, I can’t talk about business models without talking about profits. The ultimate goal of any business model is to realize returns – gross margins. Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet on how you price your product. While you find the optimum price (range) for your product A/B testing with your customers, here’s a little perspective onto the two extremes of the spectrum.
If you have insanelyhigh margins, expect lots of competitors – either now or in the near future. Expect price-based competition, as you may most likely, fight in a race to the bottom. Much like the 1848 California Gold Rush. Competitors are going to rush in to saturate the market and squeeze the margins out of “such a great opportunity”.
If your margins are incredibly low, as Charles said on the podcast, “there better be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” You need extremely high volumes (i.e. GMV, “liquidity” in a marketplace) to compensate for the minimal cut you’re taking each transaction. A fight to monopolize the market. I’m looking for market traits like:
Growing market size.
Ideally heavily fragmented market where you can capture convoluted, antiquated, and/or unconcentrated processes in the status quo.
Why unconcentrated? Don’t underestimate the power of your incumbents’ brands and product offerings. Like don’t jump in ad tech if you’re just going to fight against the Google and Facebook juggernauts, who own 80% of the ad market.
For example, payments or food delivery. Food delivery is one where you have to reach critical mass before focusing on cash flow/profitability. I get it. It’s a money-eating business… until network effects kick in. Sarah Tavel wrote a Medium article about this where she explains it more elegantly than I have.
In closing
I’ve seen many founders end up taking their models for granted or sticking to a single generic revenue structure. But the best founders I meet make this a very intentional part of their business. Sometimes, even having different revenue streams for different parts of the business. If that’s the case for you too, Connie’s piece about multimodal models may be worth a read.
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!
As a footnote, I wasn’t able to predict the COVID crisis, so my thoughts in this last piece are as evergreen as an oak tree is. Specifically, my lack of foresight on increasing startup valuations and the return of consumer social.
Despite that, the final 2 questions of the piece are still very much pertinent now.
For the most part, founders are pretty cognizant of this X-factor. B-schools train their MBAs to seek their “unfair advantange”. And a vast majority of pitch decks I’ve seen include that stereotypical competitor checklist/features chart. Where the pitching startup has collected all the checkmarks and their competitors have some lackluster permutation of the remaining features.
There’s nothing wrong with that slide in theory. Albeit for the most part, I gloss over that one, just due to its redundancy and the biases I usually find on it. But I’ve seen many a deck where, for the sake of filling up that checklist, founders fill the column with ‘unique’ features that don’t correlate to user experience or revenue. For example, features that only 5% of their users have ever used, with an incredibly low frequency of usage. Or on the more extreme end, their company mascot.
To track what features or product offerings are truly valuable to your business, I recommend using this matrix.
“The optimal strategy is to assume that everybody that is competing with you has found some unique insight as to why the market is addressable in their unique approach. And to assume that your competitors are all really smart – that they all know what they’re doing… Why did they pick it this way? And really picking it apart and trying to understand that product strategy is really important.”
So, I have something I need to confess. Another ‘secret’ of mine. There’s a follow-up question. After my initial ‘unique insight’ one, if I suspect the founder(s) have fallen in their own bubble. Not saying that they definitively have if I ask it, but to help me clear my own doubts.
“What are your competitors doing right?”
Or differently phrased, if you were put yourself in their shoes, what is something you now understand, that you, as a founder of [insert their own startup], did not understand?
In asking the combination of these two questions, I usually am able to get a better sense of a founder’s self-awareness, domain expertise, and open-mindedness.
