Category: Venture Capital

Posted on

The Four Traits of World-Class Startup Founders

Proportionally speaking, I rarely make referrals and intros. Numerically speaking, I set up more intros than the average person. Frankly, if I made every intro that people have asked of me, I’d be out of social capital. It’s not to say I’m never willing to spend or risk my social capital. And I do so more frequently than most people might find comfortable. In fact, the baseline requirement for my job is to be able to put my neck on the line for the startups I’m recommending. The other side of the coin is that I’ve made more than a few poor calls in my career so far. That is to say, I’m not perfect.

I only set up intros if I can see a win-win scenario. A win for the person who wants to get introduced. And a win for the person they will be introduced to. The clearer I can see it, the easier the intro is to make. The less I can, the more I look for proxies of what could be one.

This largely has been my framework for introducing founders to investors, as well as potential hires, partners, and clients. Over the years, I realized that I’ve also been using the same for people who would like an intro to someone above their weight class.

Below I’ll share the 4 traits – not mutually exclusive – of what I look for in world-class founders.

  1. Insatiable curiosity
  2. Bias to action
  3. Empathy
  4. Promise fulfillment
Continue reading “The Four Traits of World-Class Startup Founders”
Posted on

My Top Questions to Ask Portfolio Founders When Doing Investor Diligence

I’ve recommended in a number of essays on this blog the importance of founder-investor fit. That founders should always do their diligence on potential investors, like here and here. And for a more robust understanding, asking founders in their current and previous portfolio, specifically the ones that didn’t work out. Some of my favorite questions for (ex-)portfolio founders:

  • How has [insert name] been helpful for you in your founder journey?
  • What was [insert name]‘s involvement like when shit hit the fan? Do you remember specific examples?
  • If you were to build another company (if applicable), would you work with [insert name] again?
    • If they are building another company in a relevant field, and if they say “yes”: Why haven’t you?
    • What are scenarios in which you would, and ones you wouldn’t?

Then think to yourself, were those pieces of advice actionable? Did the context help or detract from your initial disposition? Your goal isn’t to point fingers, but to paint a more holistic picture of who you might be working with closely for the long haul.

The best investors can inspire founders to think on wavelengths they might not have considered before. Some may hurt when you first hear them, but if your investors truly care, they mean well. The only reason the truth hurts is because it is the truth. And it’s your job as the founder to do your best to fix it.

The red herring

When a founder responds to the above questions with, “X investor just spent less time with us”, it’s not enough to say that an investor isn’t great.

Each VC always has his/her first and foremost duty and responsibility to the partnership. By simple economics, most of their investments won’t work out. Investors generally understand that they have to:

  1. Spend more time with the winners ’cause they’ll return the fund (and then some, hopefully),
  2. And cap their time commitment with the ones who won’t return the fund.

While that isn’t an excuse for VCs to only focus on maximizing returns (i.e. selling your IP, forcing an acquisition, unjustly firing the founder), it is something that founders should keep in mind. When you raise venture funding, just be aware of the fact that investors need to prioritize their time, especially when the going gets tough. And while it is usually implicit in the investment, a great investor/board member will often have that conversation explicitly with you at the beginning.

This notion, on the other hand, contrasts with angel investors, who are often investing out of their own net worth. So the dynamics, as well as commitment level, for angels is different. Angels often have between tens to hundreds of active investments at a time, meaning their time allocation per startup is much more limited than a VC. For context, a VC is usually actively involved in 3-7 investments at a time, meaning they’re going to be more involved per startup.

In closing

At the end of the day, the world of entrepreneurship, and business more broadly, is a relationship-building industry. And it’s extremely hard for an investor to build great relationships and a reputation if they have a track record of burning bridges. With founders. Even other investors – downstream and upstream.

Photo by Dariusz Sankowski on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

Two Types of Investments

Last week, I wrote an essay about the importance of brand-building for a VC. In it, I reference Fred Destin’s tweet. This post is more or less of a part 2 to the notion of “picking” versus “getting picked”.

As an early-stage investor, and even more so as a scout, where it is my job to qualify leads at the top of the funnel, there are 2 types of investments:

  1. Founders you pick
  2. And founders who pick (you)

The former is in order to build your brand. The latter is a result of the brand you built.

So for some additional context, in the last two days, I just had to ask a few investors who dance around this phenomenon and have a track record for winning outsized returns.

What I learned

In my email conversations with them, here’s what I learned:

On picking:

  • “Picking startups” is thesis-driven. “Getting picked” is value-driven. It’s not mutually exclusive. In fact, in many cases, it’s symbiotic.
  • “Picking” startups, especially at the earlier stages (i.e. pre-seed, seed), often comes down to if you can get conviction faster than anyone else.
  • The earlier the stage an investor invests in, the more likely he/she will focus on “picking” the founders. For instance, angels, pre-seed, and seed investors.
  • If an investor typically leads rounds, they are more likely to be “picking” as well.
  • Markets also matter. If the startups exist in a new market or are attempting to create that market, investors also spend more time “picking”.

On getting picked:

  • In situations where investors “get picked” and founders have leverage, valuations end up skyrocketing with larger rounds and less dilution. In effect, may misalign incentives between founder and investor.
  • For many, it’s a dichotomy they might reflect on when doing fund and deal flow analysis, but not as a pre-meditated approach.
  • For non-lead investors (i.e. angels, rolling funds, etc.), many of whom don’t have a huge brand yet, there is incredible value in empathy and operating experience, which often give you an edge over traditional VCs. Especially since you can’t compete with their check sizes.
  • To “get picked”, build relationships before founders need to raise. Be high-value, actionable, and timely. Hustle like the founders do.
  • Be differentiated. If you have the same thesis/brand/network as every other VC out there, you will just be another number, but never THE number – the signal for a founder among the noise. You don’t have to be unique on every variable (thesis, brand, network, operating experience, etc.), but you have to be stellar and unique in at least one.
  • Help founders with their “firsts” – first hire, first fire, first fundraise, etc. So that you will be the first fund they think of when they raise/need help.

Finding meaning in investments

If I could paraphrase the words of Keith Rabois of Founders Fund in his recent conversation with Jason Calacanis, picking and getting picked analogizes to:

  1. Investment you took a bet on when everyone else turned in the other direction
    • Where “your decision to invest in the company made a meaningful difference in their potential”.
  2. Investment where the company was going to get funded regardless of your investment, but your advice, resources and/or network sped up the escape velocity of that startup in a meaningful way

Keith was early into Airbnb, Palantir, and Wish, when others were doubtful on the product thesis. And it contrasted with his rationale to invest in Max Levchin‘s Affirm. He elaborates on the pod that Max might have gotten larger checks on better terms than he did with Keith. But Max chose Keith for the value Keith could bring to the table.

In closing

As Miami Heat’s Hall of Famer Pat Riley once said, “When you leave it to chance, then all of a sudden you don’t have any more luck.” Investing is all about being intentional. Whether an investor “picks” or “gets picked”, they set themselves for opportunity. In the words of Seneca, “luck is where opportunity meets preparation.” Preparation being the keyword. And for a VC, that includes:

  • A robust network (deal flow + potential hires + potential startup customers/partners + downstream investors),
  • Brand (network + content + knowledge/experience + track record),
  • Resources,
  • And a thesis.

Photo by Mario Mendez on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

The Investor I Am Working To Be

I wrote an essay exactly a week ago about welcoming tough founder narratives. In it, the prerequisite to play in VC is to be open-minded – to “stay positive” and to “test negative”. I’m reminded of something Tim Ferriss shared in his recent interview with Jim Collins, “It is not that beauty is hard to find, it’s that it is easy to overlook.”

In a world where it is my job to evaluate people who stretch the margins – to stretch “common sense”, it’s easy to be cynical. On the same token, it’s also easy to be incredibly optimistic. As Blake Robbins of Ludlow Ventures puts it, “the best venture capitalists [are] able to perfectly toe the line of optimist vs. pessimist.”

Since then, partly due to the semi-recent influx of investment talks I’ve seen and been a part of – the holiday mad dash, if you will, I’ve had some time to myself to re-center my purpose in the venture world.

The role of an investor

As someone on the investing side of the table, it is our job to check founders’ blind sides. To consider things they may not be aware to even consider. Drawing parallels between seemingly orthogonal parts of the business that we know because we’ve seen hundreds, if not thousands of businesses. For example, if you’re creating a plug-and-play solution – a product whose main selling point is its ease of use, the more you have to spend on your customer success team, the less effective your product is.

Of course, we merely provide insight and context to a situation, but it is the founders who have the final say.

The brand of an investor

Craig Thomas, an LP, wrote on his Substack last month: “Brand is arguably the only thing that resembles a moat in traditional venture capital.” To summarize Nikhil Basu Trivedi words briefly, brand here is constructed by how strong the synergy between the various forms of acquisition channels (i.e. content, performance marketing/ads, virality/word-of-mouth) and the players in the ecosystem (i.e. founders, investors, LPs, operators, talent, etc.) are. In simpler terms, brand is about who knows and how well they know what you stand for.

Increasingly, in the world of venture, while “picking” the right investments via conviction and a thesis still matters, it’s becoming a world of VCs “getting picked“, as Fred Destin of Stride.VC tweets. This is especially true for the deals that investors expected outsized returns on – effectively, uncapped upside.

Craig provides a great graphic for why brand matters. The blue-dotted line, which he calls the Mendoza Line for VC firms, represents y = x + b. And the best VC firms have b’s where b > 1.

Craig Thomas’ chart plotting the relationship between brand and AUM (assets under management)

He points out that the fallacy here is when firms prematurely scale. Increasing their AUM (assets under management) before establishing and growing their brand. And it’s something I’m not keen on falling for.

Seen in another light, Correlation Ventures did a study that found almost 65% of venture-backed deals fail to return on investment. And only 4% make outsized “magical returns”. Proving that b > 1 is truly easier said than done.

returns on venture backed startups is very low in most cases based on data from Correlation Ventures

There’s a saying in venture: Luck only gets better with success. It’s largely described in the context that it only takes one epic investment to get you on the radar. And I believe building a successful brand is a leading indicator of success. Of course, having a strong brand and having outsized returns are not mutually exclusive either. In a 2015 Medium post, Blake quotes Brett deMarrais of Ludlow Ventures, which I think acutely sums up what it means to be a great investor. “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.”

As you might have guessed, I’m on the brand-building phase. Craig wrote: “Brand is reputation and access.” A great brand leads to better deal flow, which leads strong signals for downstream investors. Which leads to a stronger brand. Analogized, it’s what Reid Hoffman has said all these years: “a good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As an investor, a VC is their own product.

In closing

To quote Ruben Harris’ first boss in Ruben’s recent interview with Garry Tan, “To become a billionaire, help a billion people.” Through a mutual friend, I first met Ruben, Artur, and Timur back in ’18 around the inception of Career Karma and when they were hosting office hours at their apartment for folks who wanted to break into tech. At the inflection point in my career, I went to one of these to meet the individuals I had only been communicating over emails with. And within 5 minutes, Ruben said: “Here’s who you’ve got to talk to…”. And gave me 2 names I hadn’t even considered reaching out to beforehand. Both ended up being great influences on my growth.

True to their mission, even prior to the founding of Career Karma, they’ve been playing the connective tissue between talent, education and occupation. From their podcast to their company, the triple threat have created an impressive brand and community of givers and hustlers. And I highly recommend checking out their podcast to hear some of their community’s stories. Here’s one of my favorites. Congratulations on your A led by Initialized, Ruben, Artur, and Timur!

Similarly, that’s the investor I’m working to be. While I still have miles more to go in building a brand, I believe I’m taking steps in the right direction.

Photo by Daan Stevens on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

2020 Year in Review

I’ve written 102 essays on this blog in the past year, plus some change, spending an average of 1-2 hours per piece and a range from 30 minutes to 2 weeks. An average of 1,200 words per post. While not mutually exclusive, over half of which were on startup topics. One in three described the venture capital landscape. 36 (excluding #0) #unfiltered blog posts, where I share my raw, unfiltered thoughts about anything and everything. 16 on mental health. A surprising 13 on cold emails and its respective ecosystem. And my first public book review. Some didn’t age well, like The Marketplace of Startups. Some will stay evergreen.

25% of my blog posts I started writing at least 48 hours before the publish date. 1 in every 3 (-ish) of the afore-mentioned, I rewrote because I didn’t like the flow. For every 2 essays I wrote, 1 of which I had to wrestle deeply with the thought of imperfection. In effect, half of my essays were a practice to overcome my own mental stigma of “writer’s block.” Yet after over a year of writing, I realize that I’ve become prouder of my writing than when I started.

So, as the year is transitioning into the next, I thought I’d take some time to reflect on my growth 100 (+2) posts after starting this blog. Let’s call them superlatives.

Top 10 most popular

Ranked by total views per post, the 10 posts readers visit the most.

  1. #unfiltered #30 Inspiration and Frustration – The Honest Answers From Some of the Most Resilient People Going through a World of Uncertainty – I asked 31 people I deeply respect to share some of their greatest drivers and darkest moments in life and how they got through them. You can find part 2 here with 10 more thoughts.
  2. My Cold Email “Template” – My friends have asked me for years what I write in my cold emails, and now, what and how I write my cold outreaches are available for your toolkit.
  3. Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them – An essay on the parameters and the mental models investors use to find “unicorn” startup ideas.
  4. When Investor Goodwill Backfires – What It Means to be Founder-Friendly and Founder-Investor Fit – How founders can do investor diligence before signing the term sheet and also how to best manage founder-investor dynamics
  5. #unfiltered #24 How long do you take to prepare for a talk? – A Study about Time Allocation
  6. How to Build Fast and Not Break (As Many) Things – A Startup GTM Playbook
  7. 10 Letters of Thanks to 10 People who Changed my Life – Every holiday season I write thank you letters to the people I deeply respect. It’s one of the best times of the year to reconnect. These are the letters I wrote in 2019. Here are also some I wrote this year for more context.
  8. #unfiltered #18 Naivety vs Curiosity – Asking Questions, How to Preface ‘Dumb’ Questions, Tactics from People Smarter than Me, The Questions during Founder-Investor Pitch
  9. #unfiltered #11 What I Learned About Building Communities through Social Experiments – Touching Jellyfish, Types of Social Experiments, The Thesis, Psychological Safety and Fairness
  10. The Marketplace of Startups – While many of the remarks on this blog post are now obsolete, largely incited by the 2020 Black Swan event – COVID, the two questions at the end of the blog post are the two I still like to ask founders today.

Personal favorites

While not every one of these got the limelight I had hoped, each of these are ones I felt great pride in being able to write on.

Most challenging to write

I had been wrestling with how vulnerable I can allow myself to be in the public space. Writing this post was frightening, but I’m glad I did. It cascaded into deeper conversations with my friends, colleagues and readers, but also inspired more blog posts after this about mental health.

#unfiltered #26 Am I At My Best Right Now?

In closing

I first started this blog with the intention of chronicling my own learnings in the amazing world of venture. While I couldn’t guarantee it would be helpful to every individual reading my humble meandering, I could, at least, guarantee what I write has been or continues to be instructive for me.

Within the first month it had evolved into an FAQ and a means to provide value to as many founders as I can when one day the number of people I want to help exceed my available bandwidth. Wishful thinking at the time, but a cause that inspired me forward. After the first six months, with the introduction of the #unfiltered series, I began to write to think – a way to flush out simple, unrefined ideas to more robust concepts. While I’ll forever be a work in progress, I began to make new dendrite connections that never existed before. In a way, I was and am still chronicling my own journey in hopes that it will continue to guide people beyond my immediate sphere of influence.

Thank you, each and every one of you, for accompanying me on this journey we took yesterday and the one we’ll take tomorrow. And I hope this cognitive passport will continue to serve as your cup o’ Zhou (/joe/) weekly.

Cheers, and I’m excited for the adventure ahead!

Photo by Ray Hennessy on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

How Do We Welcome the Founder Narratives Behind the Curtains

Being a founder is one of the toughest jobs in the world. Resilience and grit are two (or one) of the indispensable traits of a 5-star entrepreneur. And most, if not all, investors establish grit as the baseline in founder selection, as opposed to the topline in various other careers. While I don’t mean to discount other career paths, all of which I have incredible admiration for, I can only speak in the world of venture where I spend most of my time in.

Yet that same persistence could very much be the same double-edged sword that makes or breaks you. In October, Ryan Caldbeck wrote about his decision to step down as CEO of CircleUp. It was and is one of the most candid pieces I’ve read about the founder journey to date. In it, one section particularly stood out. “Persistence was my superpower. But now I’ve now come to understand that persistence is a double-edged sword, and my decision not to take a break, to not take more off my plate, hurt me, my family and the company. That was the biggest mistake of my career.”

In the founder journey, there exist many moments a founder’s resilience is stress-tested. To get their first customer. To scale to a team of 10. 30. 100. To get their first investor. To raise their first institutional round. But the last thing a founding team needs is for some of their greatest evangelists – their investors – to create counterproductive friction. While it’s presumptuous of me to say that all friction is counterproductive, some friction and additional perspective is necessary to help founders make better, more informed decisions.

In his same essay, Ryan shares a feedback email he wrote to his former board member, as that member’s participation in the company had become “counterproductive”, “vindictive”, and even “destructive”. Unfortunately, these stories happen more often than I would like. It is why many founders believe investors are the gatekeepers to their startup’s success. But we’re not. We don’t have the right to be. On the same token, that’s exactly why it’s so important for founders to deeply consider founder-investor fit.

Michael Freeman found in 2017 that entrepreneurs are 50% more likely to report a mental health condition. Being a founder is lonely. But it doesn’t have to be.

Anton Ego’s words

A few weekends back, my friend and I re-watched my favorite movie. And as the movie faded into music, Anton Ego’s words echoed in my head. While it’s not the first time this quote has appeared in the venture world, it certainly won’t be the last:

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.

“Last night, I experienced something new, an extra-ordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau’s famous motto: ‘Anyone can cook.’ But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau’s, who is, in this critic’s opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau’s soon, hungry for more.”

For VCs

One of my favorite investors often says, “stay positive, test negative.” While the greatest strength an entrepreneur can have may be grit, the greatest strength an investor can have is optimism.

Optimism in the world. In markets. In startups. But especially people. That even if one venture doesn’t work out, for the people I’ve had the opportunity to stand behind, I know one of their pursuits eventually will. It’s only a matter of time and luck.

That same optimism is a leading indicator for open-mindedness. As people who build our careers at the top of the funnel, it is our obligation to cast our net outside of what is most familiar to us. There will be a number of ideas and belief systems entrepreneurs have that challenge our own. And in many ways they should, as founders are on the frontlines of innovation, they are aiming to be “right on the non-consensus“, to quote Andy Rachleff. When I first got into VC, that same investor who said “stay positive, test negative”, shared another word of advice, “Some of the best ideas seem crazy at first.“

George Bernard Shaw once said something similar as well, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Optimism isn’t only isolated to ideas, but also to the people – the “unreasonable” women and men – behind those ideas and the decisions they make. These innovators aren’t perfect, yet somehow many of us expect them to be. And that dichotomy has created this unfair dynamic that stunts innovation more than we think. I have so much respect for the funds that have set aside capital to invest in founders’ wellbeing, like Felicis Ventures, Freestyle, Crosscut, and more. And I hope many more will follow.

The stories we tell

Over the past few months, I’ve had a number of conversations with founders, friends, and readers about “mental fitness” and “emotional hygiene”. If I could borrow two of my friends’ vernacular. And I’ve learned that we humans are such amazing storytellers.

These powerful narratives has kept the human race alive all these millennia. Before the written word, it was the art of the spoken word, passed down from generation to generation, that held tales of ancestral origins of where to hunt and where to migrate to each season. The same stories have started and ended wars. They have helped us conquer impossible odds. Some narratives today are compelling enough for us to buy a new product or to end a conglomerate.

Yet these exact stories, especially the ones we tell ourselves, can cause stress, anxiety, and depression. The ones that the people we care about and respect tell us can carry even more weight. From role models, parents, managers, friends, mentors, teachers, peers, and more.

In closing

I realized, in conversation, these past few autumn months, more than ever, the power of sharing those stories. To share that we’re not alone and that together, we may learn more than the sum of our individual parts. I understand that it’s no easy task. Even for myself, I debated for the longest time whether to share that I’m not at my best right now. But I’m glad I did. The feedback from the people around me I’ve gotten since brought forth clarity and solace. Similarly, six of my friends, who publicly shared how they get through their toughest times (Pt 1, Pt 2), told me after how grateful they were to have an enormous weight lifted off their shoulders.

Top photo by Nong Vang on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

When Investor Goodwill Backfires – What It Means to be Founder-Friendly and Founder-Investor Fit

A few Fridays ago, I had the fortune of reconnecting with a founder, backed by some of the most recognizable names in the Valley and exited his business last year to a juggernaut in the data space. Now working on his second startup. And he brought something extremely curious to my attention. “Investors shouldn’t be too founder-friendly.”

I’ve talked to hundreds of founders and seen thousands of pitch decks in my short 4 years in venture capital. Yet, that Friday was the first time I’d ever heard that. And it was too bizarre for me not to double-click on. The fact that the sentence also came out of a founder’s mouth and not an investor’s bewildered me even more.

Continue reading “When Investor Goodwill Backfires – What It Means to be Founder-Friendly and Founder-Investor Fit”
Posted on

Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them

As a venture scout and as someone who loves helping pre-seed/seed startups before they get to the A, I get asked this one question more often than I expect. “David, do you think this is a good idea?” Most of the time, admittedly, I don’t know. Why? I’m not the core user. I wouldn’t count myself as an early adopter who could become a power user, outside of pure curiosity. I’m not their customer. To quote Michael Seibel of Y Combinator,

… “customers are the gatekeepers of the startups world.” Then comes the question, if customers are the gatekeepers to the venture world, how do you know if you’re on to something if you’re any one of the below:

  • Pre-product,
  • Pre-traction,
  • And/or pre-revenue?

This blog post isn’t designed to be the crystal ball to all your problems. I have to disappoint. I’m a Muggle without the power of Divination. But instead, let me share 3 mental models that might help a budding founder find idea-market fit. Let’s call it a tracker’s kit that may increase your chances at finding a unicorn.

  1. Frustration
  2. The highly fragmented industry with low NPS
  3. Right on non-consensus
Continue reading “Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them”
Posted on

The Double-Edged Sword of Transparency, when Fundraising

In the venture world, startups have another alias. 10-year overnight successes.

For the majority of the world, we hear about startups through a Thursday morning TechCrunch article or by way of the Friday Happy Hour gossip stream. Well, okay, I’m not being time sensitive. We’re not going out for Friday night happy hours these days. But we might spy something in our social feeds after a startup hits 5 million users or they just raised $50 million from a top-tier venture firm.

And these TC or Forbes or NY Times articles paint these founding CEOs to almost be perfect individuals. Good news. They’re not. They’re human – just like you and me. Over the years, the more I’ve gotten to know these leaders, the more I realized how similar we are. How similar they were when they were where I am today. And even now, how they still feel the unease in the uncertainty in the world. My study last week on how people are living through the pandemic – what inspires them or what frustrates them – further illustrated our similarities. An animator who’s fought against doubt. An executive who lost his grandpa, broke up, and felt lost in the corporate politics. A founder who was forced to make the tough decision of leaving his team. And much more.

What’s that one analogy people use again – to show that everyone is living a life we know nothing about?

A duck, above the surface, perfectly calm and composed. Underwater, furiously paddling to stay afloat.

The double-edged sword

The good news is that most VCs know that founders aren’t perfect human beings. The bad news is the irony. On one hand, they know that founders aren’t perfect and should be willing to be vulnerable. On the other hand, too much vulnerability means that VC’s say, “I’m out.”

In many cases, investors may seem hypocritical. And arguably, there’s a handful of them who don’t even know what they’re looking for themselves. Yet, in most scenarios, the bargaining chip is on the investors’ end. Not with the founders. It’s frustrating. I know. I’ve talked to founders and will continue to talk with founders who feel that way. So, what is that fine line between the showing “perfection” and embracing imperfection?

Making the blade that works for you

When founders ask, this is what I tell them.

  1. Be upfront with your investors if you’re incompetent on an aspect or aspects of the business.
  2. Show them you’re competent… in finding a way to be competent.

Be upfront with your investors if you’re incompetent on an aspect or aspects of the business.

Address the elephant in the room. If you don’t bring it up, they’re bound to ask. Or worse yet, if they don’t ask, it’s going to be gnawing at them in their minds. And may end up being the main contributing factor to a “No”.

Show them you’re competent… in finding a way to be competent.

Early-stage VCs usually take between 2-4 months before they go from “Hi, my name is Buttercup” to “Take my money”. And here are the steps:

  • Coffee chat, aka “Hi, my name is Buttercup” (If you’re wondering why “Buttercup”, there’s a story behind there, but another day. Or if anyone’s dying to know, DM me or ask me in the comments below.)
  • 2nd meeting with same individual partner (maybe a +1)
  • Full partnership meeting
  • Diligence
  • Term sheet, aka “Take my money”

Lesson 1: Don’t skip steps (for the most part). What do I mean? When you’re having a coffee chat, your goal should not be to get a term sheet there. Your goal is should be to get to meeting 2. Think of it like a sales funnel.

Lesson 2: Learn and grow during the time you get to know an investor. Doers > thinkers. Hustle. Be scrappy, resourceful. At each step, the VC(s) are evaluating if you have the acumen, competency, and what Sequoia Capital calls it – a bias towards action.

Let’s analogize with the equation of a line: y = mx +b. We measure a founder’s competency not just at “b”, but a greater emphasis on “m”. And over the course of the time we get to know each other, if a founder can prove that to us. For me, after the first meeting, I usually give a couple pieces of advice. “Oh, you should really talk with Sarah. She’s really good at sales.” Or. “Have you thought about this UX improvement in the user journey?”

What I’m looking for, by the time we have our second meeting, is what have they done in the mean time. And for a great founder, there are 2 possibilities:

  1. They acted on the advice, and they come back with the results.
  2. They heavily considered the piece of advice. Did something else. Explained to me why they did something else. And also share the results of that decision.

In both scenarios, they have new results by the time we meet. They don’t have to be “right”, as if I’m even a person who can evaluate what’s right versus wrong. But they do have to learn fast. Hustlers make mistakes. And through the mistakes, they learn. Fast. It’s a preamble to what working with a VC looks like.

If you’re curious, Chris Moody at Foundry Group has a brilliant 3-part series of why you shouldn’t take money from a VC. In his first reason to not, if you want to build a lifestyle business. Otherwise, you’ve got to learn fast and be scrappy.

Here’s an example of scrappiness

When I was an operator, we were strapped for cash and looking for cash, so we didn’t have much of a budget for marketing and advertising. Admittedly, we also didn’t really know how to market the business. Minus a few theoretical classes, we knew nothing.

We used free student printing (for us up to 10,000 pages) to print out flyers we made by ourselves. Given that our audience included both SMBs and millennial/Gen Z’s looking for jobs, as much as we wanted to flyer to college students at the plaza or in front of local businesses, we knew it wouldn’t be smart. ’Cause everyone else was doing so.

So then it came down to the question: where do people have plenty of attention to spend but have not yet been saturated with information. For us, it was the bathroom. Specifically, in the stalls. When you’re locked inside the bathroom, doing your business, you either look at the door in front of you and/or at your cellphone. And the doors were often blank canvases. So we decided to stick our flyers on the backsides of these stall doors – both in the dorms and in public restrooms, which inevitably got our websites 10s of 1000s of views early on.

That said, the janitorial staff tore down our flyers every night at 11pm. So we had to be back on the streets and sticking in flyers in public and dorm bathrooms every morning at 5am. And it so happens, I once talked to one of the university’s janitorial staff members and he actually said thanks. Since he found his new job via a flyer he kept having to rip off.

As the economist Herbert A. Simon says, “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” As an entrepreneur, you’re looking for the margins, where there is a poverty of information and a wealth of attention.

In closing

I can only speak from my perspective and what I seek in founders. But having talked and learned from a number of investors who have a track record for returning >5x MOIC (multiple on invested capital), I know I’m not alone.

It’s okay to be vulnerable of the potholes ahead – to not know how to do certain things. We’re human. It’s okay. But show that you have at least have a hypothesis on how to learn those things.

Photo by Ricardo Cruz on Unsplash

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!

Posted on

Myths around Startups and Business Ideas

In a number of recent conversations with friends outside of venture and “aspiring entrepreneurs”, a couple myths, which I’m going to loosely define here as popular beliefs held by many people, were brought to my attention. 4 in particular.

  1. If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.
  2. That idea/startup is over-hyped.
  3. The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.
  4. If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Quite fortuitously, a question on Quora also inspired this post and discussion.

If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.

Unfortunately, most times, it won’t. As Reid Hoffman puts it: “A good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As a founder, you have to think like a salesperson (for enterprise/B2B businesses) or a marketer (for consumer/B2C businesses). People have to know about what you’re building. ’Cause frankly you could build the world’s best time machine in your basement, but if no one knows, it’s just a time machine in your basement. Probably a great story to tell for Hollywood one day (even then you still need people to find out), but not for a business.

That idea/startup is over-hyped.

I’ll be honest. This really isn’t a myth, more of a common saying.

Maybe so, at the cross-section in time in which you’re looking at it. But if you rewind a couple months or a year or 2 years ago, they were under-hyped. In fact, there’s a good chance no one cared. While everyone has a different technical definition of over- and under-hyped, by the numbers, time will tell if it’ll be a sustainable business or not. If it’s keeping north of 40% retention even 6 months after the hype, we’re in for a breadwinner.

Take Zoom, for example. Pre-COVID, if you asked any rational tech investor, “would you invest in Slack or Zoom?” Most would say Slack. Zoom existed, but many weren’t extremely bullish on it. Today, well, that may be a different story. As of this morning (Oct. 12, 2020), while I’m editing this post before the market opens, the stock price of Zoom is $492 (and same change). Approximately 343% higher than it was on March 17th, the first day of the Bay Area shelter-in-place. And, right now, the price of Slack is $31. Approximately 56% up from the beginning of quarantine.

Neither are startups anymore, but the analogy holds. Also, a lesson that predictions, even by experts, can be wrong.

The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.

“There’s too much money being invested (wasted) on startups.”

From the outside, it may very well look that way. Every day, every week we see this startup gets funded for $X million or that startup gets funded for $YY million. According to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), $133 billion were invested into startups last year. Yet, it pales in comparison to the capital that’s traded in the public markets.

VC funds see thousands of startup pitches a year. Per partner (most funds 2–3 partners), they each invest in 3–5 per year (aka about once per quarter). Meaning >99% of startups that a single VC sees are not getting funded by them. That doesn’t mean 99% never get funded, but it’s just to illustrate that proportionally, capital isn’t being spent willy-nilly.

If we look at it from a macro-economic perspective, if we are reaching saturation in the startup market, we should be getting closer to perfect competition. And in a perfectly competitive market, profit margins are zero. The thing is profits aren’t nearing zero in the startup/venture capital market. In fact, though the median fund isn’t returning much on invested capital. A good fund is returning 3–5x. A great one >5x. And well, if you were in Chris Sacca’s first fund, which included Uber, Twitter, and more, 250x MOIC. That’s $250 returned on every $1 invested.

If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Finding Product-Market Fit and “Idea-Market Fit”

Revolutionary ideas aren’t meant to conform. If an idea is truly ground-breaking, people have yet to be conditioned to think that a startup idea is great or not. As Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark Capital, puts it: “you want to be right on the non-consensus.” Think Uber and Airbnb in 2008. If you asked me to jump in a stranger’s car to go somewhere then, I would have thought you were crazy. Same with living in a stranger’s home. I write more about being right on the non-consensus here and in this blog post.

Frankly, you may not be the target market. You’re not the customer that startup is serving. The constant reminder we, on the venture capital side of the table, have is to stop thinking that we are the core user for a product. Most products are not made for us. Equally, when a founder comes to us pre-traction and asks us “Is this a good idea?”, most of the time I don’t know. The numbers (will) prove if it’s a good idea or not. Unless I am their target audience, I don’t have a lot to weigh in on. I can only check, from least important to most important:

  1. How big is the market + growth rate
  2. Does the founder(s) have a unique insight into the industry that all the other players are overlooking or underestimating or don’t know at all? And will this insight keep incumbents at bay at least until this startup reaches product-market fit?
  3. How obsessed about the problem space is the founder/team, which is a proxy for grit and resilience in the longer run? And obsession is an early sign of (1) their current level of domain expertise/navigating the “idea maze”, and (2) and their potential to gain more expertise. If we take the equation for a line, y = mx + b. As early-stage investors, we invest in “m’s” not “b’s”.

In closing

While I know not everyone echoes these thoughts, hopefully, this post can provide more context to some of the entrepreneurial motions we’re seeing today. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt. I’m an optimist by nature and by function of my job. Just as a VC I respect told me when I first started 4 years back,

“If you’re going to pursue a career in venture, by nature of the job, you have to be an optimist.”

Happened to also be one of the VCs who shared his thoughts for my little research project on inspiration and frustration last week.

Photo by K. Mitch Hodge on Unsplash

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!

Proudly powered by WordPress