When your message lands in someone’s inbox, do they let out a sigh of relief – excited to click into that email – or are they dreading to click it open – knowing fully well that you may be tracking their open rate?
Your brand is what people say about you when you're not in the room. It's their first reaction when they see an email from you in their inbox. You build that brand – or not – with every interaction.
If you’re helpful, and I don’t mean that you think you’re helpful, you’ll get the former response. Communication, or for that matter, feedback and help, is not measured by what leaves your mouth, but by how much reaches the other person’s ears. If otherwise, you get the latter.
As the saying goes, a friend in need is a friend indeed. It is no less true in the world of startups. Your brand is built on times when others need you most. And there are two types of moments when others need you most:
When they’re in deep shit, and
When they’re an outsider.
The former needs no introduction.
There are 10-15 moments in a startup’s journey when shits hits the fan. And if you’re on speed dial when that happens, founders will remember you for life.
So, let me elaborate on the latter.
Insiders and outsiders
Who’s an insider? Insiders are:
Founders of unicorn startups
Early team members or executives at $1B+ companies
Investors who were some of the first ones to back at least one (ideally many) unicorn companies
Or best friends with at least one of the world’s top investors (or any of the above)
Who’s an outsider? Everyone else. That’s 99.99% of people out there. And I might be missing a few 9’s after the decimal.
Seedscout’s Mat Sherman wrote a great Twitter thread at the beginning of this year, one I’ve cited here and here about how founders who are outsiders can win at fundraising.
The no bullshit guide to raising angel funding/venture capital as an outsider.
If you take the other side of the table as an investor, specifically an early-stage investor, our job is to increase the aperture at the top. We define the archetypes of founders who will get funded by downstream capital. We decide what the funnel looks like. Simply put, we decide what obvious looks like.
Helping one outsider become an insider
If you’re someone who’s excited about putting ‘investor’ on your resume and is willing to put in the legwork for at least a decade to become a great one… Frankly put, if you intend to make early-stage investing your career, then you need to bet one someone non-obvious. Just one. You don’t need to help every founder out there, but every founder you do promise your time to must be worth it.
To me, there are four obvious reasons to bet on one non-obvious founder:
Brand: You’re building a long-term career in the venture space. This/these founders are going to be your reference checks when you raise a fund. And even if you don’t, the startup world is small. Gossip – both good and bad – travel fast. What makes or breaks a business is not in the capital, but in the people. Venture investing is in the business of people.
Deal flow: When that founders’ teammates goes off to build their own businesses, they’ll remember what you did for the founder(s). As such, you’ll be the first person they call when they start great companies.
Value-add: You gain tactical operational expertise. You learn the most when shit hits the fan, not when it’s smooth sailing.
Empathy. You understand to your core what it’s like to build a business today, which will be invaluable in relating to and with founders. Founders you work with in the future know you are capable of being truly founder-friendly, and that it isn’t just lip service.
In closing
When you bet on one non-obvious founder, you don’t have to invest in them (although that would help your own track record). But you need to be on their speed dial. You need to be willing to pick up their calls on weekends and at 2AM in the morning.
It’s going to be tough. Not nearly as tough as being the founder her/himself, but still tough. And it might not go according to plan. In most cases, it doesn’t. But when that founder tries again. You’re there again. Eventually, with superhuman grit and persistence, both of you (and more) will get there.
That is how you build a brand in the world of venture capital. Something I’m personally working towards.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
The Warriors went through one hell of a season. Even as someone who doesn’t live and breathe basketball, watching Stephen Curry this past season, especially during the finals with the Celtics was a thrill out of this world. He is undeniably one of the greats! Yet it’s fascinating to think that the world didn’t always see him as such. From being a 3-star recruit to the 256th-ranked player in 2006 to 7th pick in 2009, Curry’s gone a long way.
Stephen Curry really went from a 3-star recruit and the 256th-ranked player in the 2006 class to a 4x NBA Champion and the best 3-pt shooter in history. Absolutely incredible. pic.twitter.com/LLb8J3O33K
Though he recently won an Academy Award for Best Original Score for his music on Dune, Hans Zimmer‘s early music career was not easy. He had been thrown out of eight schools and only had two weeks of piano lessons. Yet today he is undeniably one of the greatest composers of our time.
When Stan Lee first pitched Spider-Man, his publisher thought it was “the worst idea I have ever heard.” The publisher himself told one of the greatest storytellers: “First of all, people hate spiders, so you can’t call a book Spider-Man. Secondly he can’t be a teenager—teenagers can only be sidekicks. And third, he can’t have personal problems if he’s supposed to be a superhero—don’t you know who a superhero is?'” The rest… is history.
In the making of Star Wars, George Lucas was rejected time and time again – from Disney to United Artists to Universal. And the one bet that 20th Century Fox took on him was for only a budget of $8M, that eventually became a $10M budget, when at the time, the best blockbuster films all had budgets of $20-30M. Yet, today Star Wars stands as one of the greatest cultural assets of the 20th and 21st century.
In the world of startups, the world’s most valuable companies are worth more than four times and raised half as much as the world’s most funded companies. Funding, in many ways, is a proxy for investor optimism in the early days that this company will be the next big thing. But investors, like any other person, can be wrong. In fact, startup investors are often wrong more often than they’re right. But it also goes to say the world’s best companies are non-obvious, in the non-consensus. In other words, underestimated.
As the above graphic shows, even if one picks right, we still grossly underestimate the potential of outliers. After all, humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities:
The Post-it note was an result of a failed experiment to create stronger adhesives. But Dr. Spencer Silver, its inventor, kept at it, which led to his nickname as “Mr. Persistent” because he wouldn’t give up. Today, Post-it notes are sold in more than 100 countries, and over 50 billion are produced every year.
Google, one of the most recognizable names today, struggled to raise capital and find customers in the early days. Who needed another search engine? For 1.5 years, every search company approached by Larry and Sergey to consider Google’s tech turned them down. The pair funded Google on their credit cards and couldn’t even afford to hire a designer so regressed to minimalism.
Tope Awotona, founder of Calendly, started three failed businesses and emptied his 401k to fund Calendly. Yet despite his hustle and persistence, most VCs he talked to turned him down. Despite starting in 2013, it wasn’t till 2021 that Calendly had their A-round. Calendly took much longer to get the attention of external funding than many of its counterparts. The company is now one of the most popular scheduling tools and worth $3B.
But even when people got it right, they still underestimated the upside.
Even when Kleiner eventually backed Google, legendary investor John Doerr couldn’t believe it when Larry Page believed that Google could get revenues of $10B.
When Bessemer invested in Shopify, Bessemer thought that the best possible outcome for Shopify was a 3% chance of the company exiting at $400M. As of the time of this essay, it’s worth over 100 times more with a market cap of $43B.
If you invested in Amazon on the first day in 1998 at $5, most people would have sold at $85 in 1999 – a 17x in less than two years. But if they held to today, they would have made a multiple north of 600x. That said, selling itself is more of an art than a science.
… And the list goes on.
As Warren Buffett says, “the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” Our fallacy with estimation is painfully obvious in hindsight, but dubitably unclear in foresight.
Early on in my venture career, an investor once told me a profound statement. One that I still remember to this day. The best ideas – and often the leaders of tomorrow – often seem crazy at first. And because they’re crazy, they’re nonobvious. They’re in the non-consensus.
As Steve Jobs says, “the ones who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” The world’s most transformative individuals and businesses take on many more headwinds than those optimizing for local maxima. But history shows us that those that dream big consistently outperform those optimizing for marginal improvement. While there is nothing wrong with the latter, I hope the above anecdotes serve as a reminder rejection is not a sign of failure. Rather, it’s a sign that most people have yet to see what you see.
Your job is to teach them to see what you see. After all, the only difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see a vision.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
I’ve been asked by many founders over the years, “How do I know it’s time to let it go?” And every single person asks me for some length of time. When I tell them I don’t have an “optimal” length of time that would do the question justice, they ask: “When do you usually see other founders you work with let go?” To which, the answer spans as far as the Pacific Ocean. I’ve known folks who work on it for six months before they called it quits. Others for seven years, without external validation. And then some who continue at it past the decade.
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? If I were to be honest, I don’t know. Rather I’ve always believed the independent variable here shouldn’t be time, but rather your emotional state. I’ll elaborate.
The “ideal” emotion to quit with
There’s a timeless apologue about a boiling frog. If you put a frog in boiling water, it’ll jump straight out. But if you put a frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the heat, it won’t realize it’s dying until it’s too late. It goes to say that the more time you spend in the forest, the harder it is to see the forest itself. As such, this essay is for everyone who is stuck in the forest.
Andy Rachleff of Benchmark and Wealthfront fame has this great line. “I’d love to kill it and I’d hate to kill it. You know that emotion is exactly the emotion you feel when it’s time to shut it down.”
I really love this line because loving to kill something and hating to kill something are on two sides of a spectrum. Oftentimes, if you’d love to kill something, that means you haven’t spent enough time on it. It’s easy to give up on something you care little to nothing about. On the flip side, if you’d hate to kill something, you’ve spent too long on it. Often, an example of sunk cost fallacy. And it’s when these two distinct emotions meet at twilight that you know you’ve put your best effort in. It’s when you feel both of these emotions simultaneously that you can finally let it go.
As I rounding out this blogpost, I thought I’d post on Twitter to tap into the world’s greatest minds alive on Monday. And when my friend Sara shared the below line, I knew she had something better. Something I did not know that I would be remiss not to double click on.
My friend once looked me in the eyes and told me, “You know what your problem is? You’re not a quitter, but you needed to quit a long time ago.” I have a whole methodology about how not to end up back there again. Happy to share.
So I did. And I promise the next few paragraphs from deep within Sara’s mind will change the way you think about quitting.
“You’re not a quitter, but you needed to quit a long time ago.”
“One of the things I learned over the years is that your intuition is probably right. It’s hard to trust though, especially when there is a lot of chaos or noise. Anything unstable from market turbulence to a toxic relationship creates that noise. You need to find quiet time to let your mind relax enough to think clearly.
“Sometimes if you’re anxious, it is hard to be in a spot that’s quiet or still. Don’t feel obligated to be in Zen meditation mode. Personally, I’m not someone who can be still. Instead, I find my quiet time when I walk and think around the water, where I live a block from.
“When I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place, I find myself asking the below questions with neither judgement, shame or guilt:
“If this problem was a house fire, what is my first instinct? If I stay, am I going to get swallowed up in it? Do I want to get a hose to put it out or do I want to add gasoline to it?
“If the answer is gasoline, is it because you’re beyond frustrated? If the reaction is to dump more gasoline, roast marshmallows, and walk away, that means it’s the point of no return. It’s time to quit or bring in someone else to get a fresh perspective. In these situations, the individuals involved tend to want to pick fights out of frustration. They’re combative. They can’t see any way through the problem, and they’re exhausted. It’s time to step away at least temporarily.
“In scenario two, if I’m just sitting there and watching the fire burn while I think about it, I’m stuck in indecision. Create a list of pros and cons, and really think critically about it. If you’re in a team situation, you need to figure out where the rest of your team stands and what the core problem is that needs to be solved in order to be successful. Sometimes it’s a team shift. It’s just one person who wants to call it quits, and the others want to keep going. If you’re in a relationship, you need to be completely honest with yourself and each other about what you both need to do to get things back on track and if you actually want to. The hard part about a slow burn is if you just stay stuck, you have a hard time recognizing when it’s too late.
“Thirdly, there’s the situation where I am motivated to look for the hose. I want to fight the fire. You need to think about what you actually need to do in order to fix the problem. If you’re short on capital, can you extend your runway? Be it sales, outside capital, or cutting your burn. If you’re short on talent, can you bring in world-class talent? Other times, you need to ask yourself does the market really need your product in its current iteration? You need to be really honest and look at it from a third-party perspective. If you don’t know how to fix it, you can always ask others for help. It might not seem like it, but most people are willing to help.
“The takeaway from all of this is that you have to suspend your own judgment and ego. You have to be honest with yourself. The right answer is usually the first answer. Trust your gut with what’s right.
“Sometimes the honesty will hurt. If you’re running a company, at some point, that might mean you might not be the right CEO for your company anymore.”
In closing
The hardest parts about building anything – be it a house, business, relationship, career, family, or passion – are starting it… and ending it. If most people had to pick, they’d say the former is more difficult than the latter. But if you truly love or loved someone or something, the latter is always more difficult. And while the above may not solve all your problems, I hope when the nights are the darkest, that Andy and Sara’s thoughts may light the way.
Thank you Sara for sharing your thoughts with the broader world!
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
A founder looking to write more long-form recently asked me, “What does your writing process look like?” As I was sharing my long answer to her short question, I realized, “Holy f**k, my writing process sure has evolved over thepast few years.” In an effort to encase my current thoughts in amber, I find myself transcribing thoughts from gray matter to illegible scribblings. And from a 180-grams-per-meter-squared canvas to a two-dimensional electronic screen once again.
A trip down memory lane
I remember when my friend first asked me, “How are you able to commit to a weekly writing schedule? Aren’t you busy enough?” And I shared a secret with him. Something that one of my mentors shared with me.
Before officially starting my blog, I wrote 10 essays – a Plan B in case I ever went through a dry spell. Knowing I had the comfort of a cheat week and still having content to put out gave me the courage to continue writing every week. Almost three years later, of those 10 initial pieces, I’ve only two of the afore-mentioned. In the world of content creation, there’s a massive graveyard of creators who never make it past 10 pieces of content – be it blogposts, podcast episodes, YouTube videos, and so on. I would know. I started 3 blogs before this one. For each of the three prior to this one, I have an epitaph that made it to five or less posts.
The evolution of process
In my first year, I usually spent time conceiving a blogpost at night when I found myself to be the most creative, and editing the same one in the morning before the rooster cried to the awakening sun, when I found myself free of distraction and in peak efficiency. Yet despite a greatly industrialized process, one consistent theme throughout 2019 and 2020 was regret from publishing an essay too soon. There were multiple cases where I’d stumble on new, yet relevant information often within hours of publishing. In fact, this gnawing yarn of remorse reached such a level of prowess that I was re-editing blogposts by the paragraph on a monthly basis. Sorry to all of my early subscribers. Good news is you have your very own limited edition copies of David-jumped-the gun-again.
And so I started delaying my publishing schedules – to account for this sense of continual regret. In my current phase, I break down writing into three phases:
Time to create
Time to ruminate
Time to edit
Time to create
One of my friends once told me the secret to creativity is to “give your brain time to be bored.” DJ, one of the most creative people I know, having worked to create some of the most iconic animations we know today during his time at Cartoon Network and Lucasfilm, and now a YouTuber with over half a million subscribed, once shared with me, “Creativity is a residue of time wasted.”
When I asked him to unpack that statement, he said, “Good ideas are gifts from the universe – fish that swim in that river. All you have to do is learn how to reach up and fish for them. And just like fishing, if you stick around long enough – if you’re patient enough, you’ll be able to catch a few. But you never know what fish you’ll reel in. Just that you will.”
And he’s right. The more time you spend moving or doing, the less bandwidth your brain has to explore new possibilities. The nuance here is not to block some amount of time every day to ideate. In fact, if you’ll allow me to be brutally honest, while it is giving yourself time to be bored, it’s too structured. And by definition, creativity, like DJ mentioned, is unstructured thinking. Subsequently, blocked time often creates unnecessary stress and anxiety to create. Especially when your mind is drawing blanks and you’re on a clock.
Instead, allocate time immediately after your brain has been given 10 or more minutes to be bored. For example, after you take a shower. Or go on a 30-minute run. Or a 20-minute power nap. Simply, even going on a 20+ minute walk helps your brain re-center and refresh. And always, always write down your ideas. No matter how awesome or lame you think it is. The more you practice the art of ideating, the more consistently better your ideas will be. Not saying that I’m the most creative person out there, but I still have “trash” ideas every so often, but at a far less frequency than when I started.
Time to ruminate
If you’ve ever bought a new car – for the sake of this essay, a black Toyota Camry – as soon as you buy it, you start noticing more black Toyota Camry’s on the street. In fact, you’ll start being able to identify the 2022 versions versus the 2021 or the 2016 ones. A combination of recency bias and confirmation bias. The same holds if you go to a new restaurant, you’ll start noticing that it pops up more in conversations with friends or as you’re scrolling through Instagram.
On the same side of the token, once you seed an idea in your brain (or better, on paper), you start realizing, there is more content and discourse in the world about said idea than you once thought. In the time I spend between creating and editing, I stumble upon or (re)discover articles, podcasts, conversations, experts in my network, just to name a few, when I give my brain time to ruminate.
I like to visualize the scene from Ratatouille when Remy is savoring the individual and collective flavors of the strawberry and cheese, unlike his brother Emile who gorges food down without a second thought. Whereas Emile loses the magic of culinary world, Remy sees what no rat has been able to enjoy prior. Simply put, be Remy! Savor your thoughts.
Time to edit
For me, editing has become the easiest, yet hardest part of writing. All I have to do is string together words and thoughts. I have all the biggest pieces on paper already, but formatting, grammar, punctuation, you name it, feels just like busy work, especially where there are so many more productive things I could be doing.
So, time to edit is akin to time to be inspired. As such, there are two takeaways I’ve learned about myself over the past three years:
I edit in the early morning or late at night. No one will ping me (usually). There is no urgency to respond. Simply, no distractions.
I have a Google doc (which I might share one day, but as of now, it’s a hot mess) that includes all the pieces of content that has, in the past, inspired me to feel a distinct emotion. I use this library of emotions when the content I am creating (blogpost, email, pitch deck feedback, replying to a friend who’s in a rut) requires empathy. For example…
If I want to feel sad, Thai life insurance commercials are my go-to 5-minute sadness augmenters. Here’s one of my favorites.
For pure inspiration and drive, Remember the Name or any of Eminem’s songs.
In closing
While I don’t timebox myself in this 3-step process, on average, writing a blogpost takes me about two to three weeks. In case your curious, any blogpost where I lead with a sentence that includes “recently” instead of a set time probably took a few weeks to come to fruition.
In effect, writing never feels like a chore. Rather, it’s inspired. Inspiring. Uplifting. And de-stressing.
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Given the impending, potentially larger market correction, I’ve been thinking a lot about liquidation preferences recently. And it seems I’m nottheonlyone.
Many reasons, two amongst them, concisely:
1) Liq pref results in lower FMV to option-holders, which ostensibly is net +ve for employee equity comp
2) Liq pref makes it so the startup needs to create value. Can't just raise money, immediately return capital, and profit from it
— Matt Levine .eth lol (@Matt_Levine_1) May 26, 2022
I’ve seen three major trends over the past two months:
Founders are raising on smaller multiples compared to the last round. Investors argue it’s come back to the fundamentals. Founders say it’s the market conditions. Regardless, we won’t see the same 2020 and 2021 multiples in the near future.
If a startup is still growing and is cash efficient, valuations won’t have changed as drastically. David Sacksput it best when he said that founders are still going to get well-funded, if they’re:
Cash is king. We’ve seen it in the news all of last month. Founders are extending their runways, by reducing burn. As Marc Andreessensaid 1.5 months ago, “The good big companies are overstaffed by 2x. The bad big companies are overstaffed by 4x or more.” Companies are buckling in for 18-24 month runways, if not longer.
So what?
That goes to say, if a startup isn’t growing as expected, has a high burn, AND still wants to raise an up-round a year out of their last raise, investors are adding in more downside protection provisions. Anti-dilution provisions, minimum hurdle rate expectations, blocks on IPO or M&A opportunities, and liquidation preferences. What Bill Gurley and some VCs call the “dirty term sheet.”
Now I know there’s nuance and reason behind why liquidation preferences were created. To align incentives between the founder and investor. It stops a founder from immediately “selling the business” as soon as the money is in the bank, as Matt Levine mentioned in the above tweet. It also leads to a lower fair market value in a 409a valuation as both Matt and Keith mentioned as well. A net positive for employees, who are looking for lower strike prices to exercise their options in the future.
But as an aggregate, it seems liquidation preferences are really a strategy not to lose rather than a strategy to win. Not just the 1x liquidation preference, but the 2-3x liquidation preferences I’ve been seeing in the side letters offered by VCs.
To put it into context, that means investors get 2-3x their money back before the founders and everyone else gets theirs. By the same token, investors believe that same startup is worth at least 2-3x the money they gave the founders. Again, downside protection.
How does venture differ from other asset classes?
Unlike real estate or public market stocks or bonds, venture capital is a hit-driven business. Success is not measured by percentages, but rather by multiples. High risk, high return.
In a successful venture portfolio of 50 companies, 49 could theoretically be a tax write-off, if one makes you 200 times your capital, you’ve quadrupled your fund. A respectable return for a seed stage fund. As such, liquidation preferences have little impact on fund returns. If you’ve done venture right, your biggest winners account 90% of the fund’s returns. And they are the best pieces of evidence you can use to raise a subsequent fund. Your fund returners are the greatest determinants of your ability to raise the next fund, not how much money you saved after making a bad bet. No one cares if you got your dollar back for dollars you’ve invested towards the bottom of your portfolio, or even 50 cents back on every dollar.
And when a startup wildly succeeds, liquidation preferences don’t matter since everyone is getting a massive check in the mail, far exceeding any downside protection provisions.
In closing
Of course, as always, I might be missing something here, but preferred shares feel like a vestigial part of venture capital – thanks to our history with other financial services businesses.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
For the better half of my life, I’ve searched and am still searching to be a better purveyor of questions. And in my journey to do so, in searching for the perfect question for each situation, I’ve made mistakes. I wanna say more so than the average person in the realm of asking questions, but of course I might be suffering from availability bias.
The lagging indicator of which is the number of times I’ve been asked: Could you repeat that question? Or I didn’t quite catch that. Or frankly, just a puzzled look from the person I am looking for answers from.
In those moments, and it never gets old, I had never felt so emasculated. Moments that will continue to play a theme in my life. But it is in those moments when refinement happens. When I sharpen the steel of each curiosity. A forcing function for improvement.
In this world there are so many “lazy” ways to ask a question. Some may get the answer you want. Most of the time, you will be leaving secrets untold on the table.
Albeit a short blogpost, but once again, I was reminded recently that the only way to improve is by making new mistakes. And even after all the mistakes I’ve made and will continue to make over the years, I don’t think it ever gets easier. But I am able to jump back from a depressive state faster.
The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.
Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Humans are terrible at understanding percentages. I’m one of them. An investor I had the opportunity to work with on multiple occasions once told me. People can’t tell better; people can only tell different. It’s something I wrestle with all the time when I hear founder pitches. Everyone claims they’re better than the incumbent solution. Whatever is on the market now. Then founders tell me they improve team efficiency by 30% or that their platform helps you close 20% more leads per month. And I know, I know… that they have numbers to back it up. Or at least the better founders do. But most investors and customers can’t tell. Everything looks great on paper, but what do they mean?
When the world’s wrapped in percentages, and 73.6% of all statistics are made up, you have to be magnitudes better than the competition, not just 10%, 20%, 30% better. In fact, as Sarah Tavel puts it, you have to be 10x better (and cheaper). And to be that much better, you have to be different.
And keep it simple. As Steve Jobs famously said that if the Mac needed an instruction manual, they would have failed in design. Your value-add should be simple. Concise. “We all have busy lives, we have jobs, we have interests, and some of us have children. Everyone’s lives are just getting busier, not less busy, in this busy society. You just don’t have time to learn this stuff, and everything’s getting more complicated… We both don’t have a lot of time to learn how to use a washing machine or a phone.”
If you need someone to learn and sit down – listen, read, or watch you do something, you’ve lost yourself in complexity.
“Big-check” sales is a game of telephone. For enterprise sales or if you’re working with healthcare providers, the sales cycle is long. Six to nine months, maybe a year. The person you end up convincing has to shop the deal with the management team, the finance team, and other constituents.
For most VCs writing checks north of a million, they need to bring it to the partnership meeting. Persuade the other partners on the product and the vision you sold them.
And so if your product isn’t different and simple, it’ll get lost in translation. Think of it this way. Every new person in the food chain who needs to be convinced will retain 90% of what the person before them told them. A 10% packet loss. The tighter you keep your value prop, the more effective it’ll be. The longer you need to spend explaining it with buzzwords and percentages, the more likely the final decision maker will have no idea why you’re better.
Humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities. While we think we can, we never fully comprehend the power law. Equally so, sometimes I find it hard to wrap my hear around the fact that 20% of my work lead to 80% of the results. While oddly enough, 80% of my inputs will only account for 20% of my results. The latter often feels inefficient. Like wasted energy. Why bother with most work if it isn’t going to lead to a high return on investment.
Yet at the same time, it’s so far to tell what will go viral and what won’t. Time, energy, capital investments that we expect to perform end up not. While every once in a while, a small project will come out of left field and make all the work leading up to it worth it.
When I came out with my blogpost on the 99 pieces of unsolicited advice for founders last month, I had an assumption this would be a topic that my readers and the wider world would be interested in. At best, performing twice as well than my last “viral” blogpost.
Cup of Zhou readership as of April 2022
Needless to say, it blew my socks off and then some. My initial 99 “secrets”, as my friends would call it, accounted for 90% of the rightmost bar in the above graph. And the week after, I published my 99 “secrets” for investors. While it achieved some modest readership in the venture community and heartwarmingly enough was well-received by investors I respected, readership was within expectations of my previous blogposts.
My second piece wasn’t necessarily better or worse in the quality of its content, but it wasn’t different. While I wanted to leverage the momentum of the first, it just didn’t catch the wave like I expected it to.
Of course, as you might imagine, I’m not alone. Nikita Bier‘s tbh grew from zero to five million downloads in nine weeks. And sold to Facebook for $100 million. tbh literally seemed like an overnight success. Little do most of the public know that, Nikita and his team at Midnight Labs failed 14 times to create apps people wanted over seven years.
When Bessemer first invested in Shopify, they thought the best possible outcome for the company would be an exit value of $400 million. While not necessarily the best performing public stock, its market cap, as of the time I’m writing this blogpost, is still $42 billion. A 100 times bigger than the biggest possible outcome Bessemer could imagine.
Humans are terrible at committing to progress. The average person today is more likely to take one marshmallow now than two marshmallows later.
Between TikTok and a book, many will choose the former. Between a donut and a 30-minute HIT workout, the former is more likely to win again. Repeated offences of immediate gratification lead you down a path of short-term utility optimization. Simply put, between the option of improving 1% a day and regressing 1% a day, while not explicit, most will find more comfort in the latter alternative.
James Clear has this beautiful visualization of what it means to improve 1% every day for a year. If you focus on small improvements every day for a year, you’re going to be 37 times better than you were the day you started.
While the results of improving 1% aren’t apparent in close-up, they’re superhuman in long-shot.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
I want to preface; I don’t have all the cards laid out in front of me. In many ways, I am still trying to figure this out for myself. But I count myself lucky to be able to learn from some of the best in building communities. That said, the below are my views alone and are not representative of anyone or any organization.
A good friend recently asked me, “I’m about to start a community. Do you have any tips for how to start one with a bang?”
She’s not alone. Communities have been a hot topic for the past few years. A product of the crypto and NFT craze, and the isolation people felt when the world was forced to go virtual in 2020. At the same time, starting a community and maintaining/managing a community are different. Just like starting a company and growing a company are two different job descriptions. As such, this essay was written with the intention of addressing the former, rather than the latter.
Common traits of great communities
A great community has value and values.
Value is the excuse to bring people together. Value answers the question: why should I join? And within the first week, they should also have the answer to: why should I stay? Two fundamentally different questions. Many communities frontload the value – provide great value at the beginning – facilitating intros, onboarding workshops and socials. Subsequently, answers the first question, but take the second for granted. A community is the gift that keeps on giving. Over time, as you want to be able to scale your time and as the community grows, you need others to help you provide the reason for Why should I stay. Invariably, it comes down to people. You have to pick uncompromisingly great people from the start. And they have to derive so much value from being a part of the community, that demands converts to supply.
They refer others.
They give back to the community – in the form of advice, hosting events, and more.
Value should also be niche – just like the beachhead market for any startup. You want people to self-select themselves out of it, and the only people who stick around are the ones who derive the most benefits from being in it. Take, for example, a community of founders isn’t niche. And there a dime a dozen of the above. A community of pre-seed female founders focused on getting to product-market fit, is.
Values, on the other hand, are the rules of engagement. Codify them early. Take no implicit agreement for granted. Better yet, make them explicit. Back in January 2020, I wrote about rules in the context of building startup culture. I find the same to be true when building communities. “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.”
I don’t mean for you to be a hard-ass on everything. But figure out early on how much slack you’re willing to give, and how much you aren’t. I’ve written about this before. Every person will suck. Every organization will suck. And unsurprisingly, every community will suck. What differentiates a great community from a good community is that the great ones get to choose what they’re willing to suck at.
You should be exclusive
Moreover, my hot take is that you have to be exclusive. Or let me clarify… in the wealth of Slack groups and Discord servers, yet in the world where everyone still has a job (or two), friends, family, and other communities they’re already a part of that all already slice up their 24-hour day pie in so many different ways, you are competing for their attention. If you’re a community, you’re competing against Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, Friday happy hours, Saturday nights out with the girls, date night with their partner, eight hours of sleep, their workout routine, and so much more. And so, you have to be inclusive of those who have been excluded. As such, you have to exclude those who have historically been included.
I’m not saying that you should start a community for the underestimated just ’cause. It’s like starting a business because you want the title of CEO. Don’t do it. It’s not worth your time. It’s not worth your energy. But you have to be honest with yourself, are you adding more value in the world? Is there anyone else who would sacrifice their other commitments to belong in your community? And do you have the discipline and the drive to maintain this community in the long term? The worst thing you can do is create a new home for someone then take it away.
Building and rebuilding habits
When starting a community, you are asking individuals to build a new habit. One of your greatest competitors is the incumbent solution of existing habits and routine. Some research cites that it takes 21 days to break a habit. And about two months to build a new one. All in all, 90 days all things considered.
Elliot Berkman, Director of University of Oregon’s Social and Affective Neuroscience Laboratory, surmises that there are three factors to breaking a habit.
The availability of an alternative habit
Strength of motivation to change
Mental and physical ability to break the habit
To break down the above:
The availability of an alternative habit
How available is the replacement behavior? Are there other communities out there that do the exact same thing? How well known are they? What are their barriers to entry?
If there is a readily available alternative community, the first question you need to answer is: why bother making another? Realistically, any one person only has enough time and attention to be in 2-3 communities – total. The second question you need to answer is: how do people normally learn of that community? And subsequently, is there a market or audience who doesn’t have access to this distribution channel? If so, what channels occupy most of their attention? Target those.
Strength of motivation to change
There’s a saying in the world of marketing that goes something along the lines of: People don’t buy products. They buy better versions of themselves. Therefore, as a community, you need to nail the value you provide. Is it aspirational? Does it get people to jump out of their seats and scream yes?
A simple litmus test is if you were to share the reason you created the community, do they respond with “How do I sign up for this now?” or “Let me think about it.”? If the latter, you haven’t nailed your value proposition. In other words, what you’re selling isn’t aspirational. Or if it is, you’re either talking to the wrong demographic or the value proposition is a 10% improvement in people’s lives, not a 10x. Sarah Tavel‘s “10x better and cheaper” framework (albeit for startups) is a great mental model for nailing your value prop. Your community must be:
So much better than the incumbent solution or habit they regress to, and
Easy to jump on (i.e. switching costs must be low enough for it be a no-brainer) – Sometimes this means you need to manually onboard every individual into your community. And sometimes all one needs is an accountability partner. Everyone wants be THE number that matters, not just A number. Make people feel special.
Mental and physical ability to break the habit
This is admittedly the factor that is most outside of your immediate control. Here, I regress to the below nerdy formula I made up in the process of writing this blogpost:
(how much work you need to put into each member) ∝ 1/(# of members)
The amount of work you need to put into inspiring each member to join is indirectly proportional to the number of members you can accommodate in your community. In other words, the less you need to convince people to join your community, the more members you can accommodate. The more time you need to inspire enough activation energy for a person to build a new habit, the smaller the initial cohort of members you can tailor to.
This is why I love the concept of the idea maze so much. Has your target community members put in blood, sweat, and tears trying to find the value that you are providing? Why does this matter?
They’ve designed their life already around finding answers around your value prop. They’re going to be more engaged than the average individual. They’re intrinsically motivated to be curious.
Shared empathy. They know how tough finding an answer is, such that they’re more willing to help others going through similar problems.
The shared struggles that people collectively and synchronously go through together build camaraderie and trust. No matter how small or big. The bonds of a sports team are built upon the sweats and tears of brutal training regimens, losses and wins. The trust of a Navy Seals class is built through Hell Week, pain, exhaustion, adversity, and (the likelihood of) death. And, the friendships between college freshmen are built through the unfamiliar environment of a new and daunting chapter of their life.
In closing
Starting a community is hard. 99% of communities (don’t quote me on this number, but I know I’m close to the mark) disappear into obsolescence after their founders lose their motivation. Oftentimes even prior. Not only are you cultivating a new habit yourself, but you are doing so for everyone else you want in your community. I hope the above was able to illuminate your thinking as much as it did for me. I continue to learn and iterate, and as such, will likely publish more content on this topic in the future. For now, this essay will be my thoughts encased in amber.
A big thank you to everyone who’s influenced and will continue to influence my thoughts on community, including but not limited to Sam, Andrew, Mishti, Jerel, Shuo, and most recently, Enzo.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
A friend asked me the other day, “If you meet a founder that you think isn’t going to make it, do you tell that founder?”
So I responded:
“Say you have a 7-year old daughter. And her biggest dream is to be an WNBA all-star. Or to be the president. Would you tell her ‘statistically speaking, you have almost no chance of succeeding?’ Or would you encourage her to keep pursuing her dream in spite of the odds? It’s the pursuit of a greater purpose that makes the person we are today and the person we will be tomorrow.
“Maybe your daughter doesn’t end up becoming a basketball star, but her pursuit of it lands her in Harvard where she meets incredible friends who end up growing together to be the next PayPal mafia. It’s the relentless pursuit of a dream that builds grit. And that grit will aid her well in whatever path she ends up choosing. Because the world is tough – no matter what you do. You will get beaten down again and again. And the difference between the ultra successful and everyone else is that the former continues to get back up.
“So when I meet a founder who’s championing an idea I don’t believe in, I neither have the guts nor the conviction to tell that person that it won’t work out, just that I won’t invest. ‘Cause if I know anything about the venture business, it’s that it keeps us humble. And every day I live in this industry, I have the privilege of being proven wrong. And even if I’m right, their pursuit makes them a more resilient person than before they began to do so.
“After all, there’s a big difference between impossible and really, really hard.”
#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
Whether you’re a founder or investor or just friends of the afore-mentioned job titles, you’ve most likely been asked for warm intros. The sage advice in the world has always been, that it is better to ask for warm introductions than send cold outreach, leaving the latter to be severely underestimated. Anecdotally, some of my best friends and mentors today came and continue to come from cold outreach.
Most people in this world love to help others. They derive joy and fulfillment in doing so. It enriches their life just as much, if not more so than, it does yours. There are a number of academic studies, like this 2020 one, that show positive correlation between giving kindness and your own happiness. The Ben Franklin effect extrapolates that you are more likely to like someone by doing them a favor. In sum, people want to help others. Investors (and friends of investors) are no exception.
But… the world does not make it easy to do so.
I’m not here to preach kindness. Nor do I think I need to. There are plenty of more incredible individuals in the world who are more capable of relaying that message than I am. But as the title of this blogpost alludes to, what tactical advice is there to:
Help friends of investors/investors help you
Get investors excited to meet you
Why even bother with a forwardable
Founders often ask me: Do you know any investors you can introduce me to? Which, in fairness, is an understandable question when you don’t know who you don’t know. In a world where I’m only helping 10 or less founders total, it’s a great question.
The problem is I, like many other people in the venture ecosystem, am often trying to help more than 10 founders. For me, I’m helping founders I’m actively advising, On Deck founders, Techstars founders, Alchemist founders, founders who are intro-ed to me, founders who cold email me, and founders who come to my weekly office hours. The number varies, but in any given week, I’m sending between 20-40 founder intros. And given that, I face a few obstacles:
The colder the connection and the longer the time since we last spoke, the more likely I am to forget what you’re building. I’m sorry; I wish I had photographic memory.
As much as I would like, I physically don’t have time to write a curated intro to every person who asks me.
I don’t want to ping the same investor/advisor multiple times in a week without clear reasons why. The investors who have more social clout get more intros than others. And they only have so much time and attention they can give in their inbox/socials to new people.
Rather, I flip the question on founders. Build a preliminary list of people you would like to chat with. See who you know that’s connected with these individuals. Do note I did not say firms. Long term marriages begin with each human not their last name. If I’m a 1st degree connection to them, then reach out to me and ask:
“I’m currently raising for [startup], [context]. I saw you’re connected to [name], [name] and [name]. Would you be comfortable reaching out to them for a double opt-in intro? And if so, happy to send you forwardable to make your life easier.”
To which I respond…
What goes into a forwardable
While everyone has their own preference, I prefer all the forwardables I send to have three things – nothing more, nothing less. Nothing more, since busy individuals don’t have time to read essays. Nothing less, well, it is what I call the minimum viable forwardable. And yes, I just made that term up.
The one metric you think you’re doing better than 95% (99th percentile is ideal) of the industry. On the off chance that the afore-mentioned metric isn’t obvious as to why it’s crucial to the business, spend another sentence explaining why. For example, if you’re a marketplace, the metric you’re slaying at might be the percent of your demand who organically converts to supply. While it may not be obvious to most, it is one of the earliest signs of network effects. Your customers love your product so much they want to pay it forward.
1-2 sentences as to what your startup does
Why this recipient would be the best dollar on your cap table
The first two are things you, as a founder, should have readily on hand. The third is often the one I get the most questions on. What does “the best dollar on my cap table” mean? And how would I find that?
Why the best dollar is important
Fundraising is often seen as a numbers game. Analogously, so is networking. Both of which I agree and disagree with. I agree with the fact that you have to engineer serendipity. You have to increase the surface area for luck to stick. And to do that, you need to talk to a s**t ton of people. I get it. The part I disagree with is that a game optimized for quantity is often conflated with templated conversations. Or worse, purely transactional ones. Relationships don’t scale if you approach it from scale.
… which is why I need the third point in every forwardable. If you are unable to provide why an investor would be the best dollar on your cap table, then:
You don’t need a warm intro. And that’s fine. Some investors’ inboxes are less saturated than others. If it might help, here is also my cold email “template.”
I’m not your person. I, like any other person facilitating an intro, am putting my social capital on the line to get you in front of the person you want. And if you don’t think it’s worth the time to tailor your email to one that I would be comfortable sending, then I just can’t be your champion.
Examples of the best dollar
Predictably and unpredictably so, there are many ways to make someone feel special. While I will list some of my favorite that I’ve seen over the years, the list is, by no means, all-inclusive. In fact, I’m sure some of the best and most timeless ways to showcase an investor’s value add is still out there waiting to be discovered. And for that, I leave it to you, my reader, to surprise me and the world. The below, hopefully, serves as inspiration for you to be tenaciously and idiosyncratically creative.
I’ll break it down into two parts: (1) what do you need help on, and (2) what help can they provide.
What is the 3 biggest risks of your business? The biggest one should be solved by you or someone on the team slide. The biggest risk should be the minimum viable assumption you need to prove that people want your product. At the early stages, sometimes that’s showing you have a waitlist of folks begging for your product. Sometimes, it’s just proving you can build the product (i.e. a deep tech product or AI startup). The next two risks, which aren’t as great in magnitude, but still prescient, requires you to be scrappy and at times, bring in external help.
What are your potential investors’ value adds? Where does their tactical expertise lie in? There’s no one-stop shop for every investor for this… yet (hit me up if you’re building something here). But nevertheless, I find it useful to search “databases” of value adds on:
Lunchclub profiles under “Ask [name] about…” Note: I forget if Polywork and Lunchclub are still invite-only, but if they are, feel free to use my invite codes here for Polywork and Lunchclub. For those curious, this is not a sponsored post.
Doom-scrolling to the bottom of their LinkedIn profile and reading their references
Who, of their existing investors, if they were to build a new business tomorrow in a similar sector, is the one person who would be a “no brainer” to bring back on their cap table? And why?
Who did they pitch to that turned them down for investment, but still was very helpful?
Subsequently, referencing (with the founders’ permission) those founders when reaching out/getting introed to those VCs. Note: Generally, Crunchbase and Pitchbook has more exhaustive lists of portfolio companies oftentimes than their website of “selected investments.”
Any publication/press release (i.e. Techcrunch, Forbes, etc.) where founders share how helpful their investors were. This may require a bit of digging.
As a general rule of thumb, the more specific you are, the better.
On the flip side, some examples of lackluster “best dollars” include:
Just stating which industry they invest in
Stating that they’re ideal because they work at X firm. You’re drafting individual team members for your all-star team, not brands.
Stating that they’re ideal because they USED to work at X firm
Using the recipient as a means to an ends. In other words, you want to get in touch with someone they know rather than they themselves. No one feels special when you like them only because they know someone else you like more. Either find a warmer connection to the “end” person or cold email.
Being generic
In closing
As my friend “James” says, “Do all of the leg work. Help them help you as much as possible. Everyone wants to be the hero that helps someone else, but people have lives – and if you’re the one that is getting the value, bring the value as much as possible.”
If you were the recipient of said email, what would make you say: “Absolutely?”
May 9th, 2022 Update: Added the “Why even both with a forwardable” section
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.
