Posts

Posted on

#unfiltered #59 I Am The Worst Marketer Out There

billboard, marketing

Last week, after a lovely conversation with a startup operator, he asked if there was anything he could help me with. I defaulted to my usual. As I’m working on being a better writer, I asked him if time permitted, could he give me some feedback on my writing. For the sake of this blogpost, let’s call him “Alex.”

While I expected just general feedback on my style of content delivery, Alex gave me a full audit of this blog. He told me I should focus, until I’ve built up an audience. He also said that I should find my top 20 blogposts, figure which category they fall under and narrow down by writing more of those. On the same token, he recommended I reference Hubspot’s “topic clusters.” Which is an amazing piece about how to nail SEO in 2021, if I say so myself. Incredibly prescient. And incredibly true.

He also recommended I use Medium or Substack over my antiquated design of a website. And forgo the header image. Which you might have noticed I haven’t (yet).

The thing is… he’s 100% right. I’ve done little right, in the sense of marketing and branding. In fact, in the Google search engines, I probably am a mess to categorize, which means I exist in no category. Even in my own words, focusing on everything means focusing on nothing. While at the time of writing this post, a good majority of my content is based in startups and venture capital. If I focused on better branding, I would have doubled down on fundraising, or marketing. Or social experiments. But I haven’t.

Truth be told, I’ve stunted my growth, or my brand’s growth, by intentionally choosing otherwise. In turn, there are only two questions I optimize for in this blog.

  1. Will this make David from yesterday smarter?
  2. Is this still fun?

I started this blog writing for an audience of one. For the person I was yesterday. And if I know the me from yesterday would love it, then I have at least one happy customer.

I don’t write this blog for profit. This blog is my de-stressor. It is my entertainer, yet also my coach. It is my confidant. And it is just fun. The process of learning and thinking through writing – refining my thoughts – gets me really excited. I don’t want to end up dragging my feet through mud. Funnily enough, despite being an extremely, and I stress the former word, small blogger, I’ve had the occasional brand reach out to sponsor content. As you might have guessed, I said “no” to everyone so far. Either I didn’t believe that the product would make the world a better place or that I just didn’t get their product. This is not to say I won’t ever take on sponsors, but I just want to be really excited about it.

I’ve also had a number of folks reach out wanting to guest post on this blog, to which I’ve also said “no” to everyone so far. Because (a) it makes me lazy and defeats the purpose of me writing to think, and (b) I haven’t learned anything from them yet.

And because I write from a motivation of “psychic gratification,” borrowing the phrasing Tim Ferriss used in his recent episode, my writing is “very me,” to borrow the phrasing of readers and friends who’ve talked to me face-to-face before. I feel I can be genuine. And I can be unapologetically curious. I can learn what I want when I want how I want. I love each topic I write about, at least in the moment my pen touches paper. It excites me. It inspires me. And it pulls me with a force I want more of.

As a product of me being me, every so often, a random essay sees a momentary breath of fame. On average, it happens every 7th or 8th blogpost. I have these random spikes of several hundred views within 24 hours every so often. And don’t get me wrong. I would be lying if I said that wasn’t gratifying as well. Other times, some essays are far more perennial and see anywhere between two and ten views a day – almost every day. There are the ones that never make it onto the stage. And live somewhere in a virtual public graveyard.

I’m publicly logging my thought process here as a bookmark for future reference. And so that my future self can’t go back in time and write off my thought processes now in a grand motion of revisionist’s history.

I also know that this won’t be the last time I revisit this topic. My future mental model might differ greatly from what it is now. As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian economics, once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But it might stay the same. Who knows?

I’ll keep you updated.

Photo by Bram Naus on Unsplash

#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!

Posted on

Speed As A Competitive Advantage

race car

Last week, I had an incredible fireside chat with GC’s Niko Bonatsos, who has played a key role in some incredible investments, from Livongo Health to Snap to Wag! and most recently, Saturn. In all honesty, I took much of that experience to scratch my own itch. As always, we ran out of time before we ran out of topics. But I was lucky enough to ask one of which I happened to be losing sleep over. “How do you balance speed and diligence in the increasingly competitive market of venture?”

COVID changed us

In the midst of the pandemic, COVID became a forcing function for investors to deploy capital without ever meeting founders in-person. Frankly, they couldn’t meet anyone in-person. Even if they wanted to, investors, like everyone else, was subject to a series of lockdowns, curfews, and eventually the vaccine.

Yet, as life returns to a sense of normality, many investors have gotten comfortable investing virtually. And for a handful, only virtually. At the same time, in today’s increasingly competitive venture market, capital’s become more of a commodity. And I’ve heard a number of LPs find speed to be a competitive advantage. As a product of speed, investors compete on shortened timelines. It’s a given for angels and super angels out there who have to have conviction on a fairly limited set of data. But how do top-tier funds compete in that same market yet maintain the same discipline as before?

I got my answer from Niko.

“We try to pre-empt the stuff we really care about. It basically translates to us being prepared, having frontloaded a lot of the diligence for the companies and opportunities we care about. We have a more educated conversation with the founders, and are the first ones to get to a term sheet than anyone else. That’s something we do a lot more often. And we’ve leaned into seed, which is the new series A.”

Moreover, with all the diligence they do prior to sourcing, funds, like General Catalyst and Founders Fund, have started to incubate startups where they couldn’t find solutions to problems they found.

Slowing things down

Earlier this week, over a lunch, I posed the same question to Fort Ross‘ Ratan Singh, from whom I got a slightly different variation. “VCs are doing their homework before every meeting and going in with a thesis so that they can deploy fast. VCs used to play catcher and do all their homework after the meeting. But now it’s changed, so they can say yes faster.

“While speed is a differentiator, things are moving too fast today. I met every founder I’ve invested in in-person. Even during the pandemic, I invested in seven founders, and every single one I’ve met in-person.”

To which, I had to ask, “What do you find out from meeting a founder in-person that a virtual meeting lacks in?”

Without missing a beat, Ratan said, “It’s in the small things. The way they interact with their teammates. The way they treat each other. As we finish our chat and walk back to the car, are they still an intelligent being outside of the script? A Zoom call is a 30-minute scripted call. There’s a deck. There’s the presentation they prepared. An in-person interaction is more than that.”

Ratan’s comment reminded me of something Sequoia’s Doug Leone said in his interview with Harry Stebbings recently. “It takes about thirty minutes for someone to relax, which is why I refuse to interview someone for thirty minutes.” Similarly, while a 30-minute coffee chat may just be 30 minutes, the time it takes to shake hands, order your cup of coffee, have the conversation, finish it, and walk back to your car or wait for your Uber helps anyone, not just a VC, understand so much more depth to your character.

In closing

In the words of my friend Ruben:

As if he didn’t drop enough mics in our lunch, Ratan left me with one last hot take, “In VC, you’re either asked to stay, or you’re asked to leave.” In today’s ever-changing climate, having deep domain expertise and pre-empting diligence keeps you if not ahead, at least on the curve of evolution. And for many investors, it’s one of their best bets to be asked to stay – either by the firm’s senior partners or your LPs.

Photo by toine G on Unsplash

Thank you Niko and Ratan for looking over earlier drafts.

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

Why Product-Market Fit Is Found In Strategically Boring Markets

streets, ordinary, boring

In the past decade or two, there have been a surplus of talent coming into Silicon Valley. In large part, due to the opportunities that the Bay had to offer. If you wanted to work in tech, the SF Bay Area was the number one destination. If you wanted to raise venture money, being next door neighbors to your investors on Sand Hill Road yielded astounding benefits. Barring the past few months where there have been massive exoduses leaving the Bay to Miami or NYC, there’ve been this common thread that if you want to be in:

  • Entertainment, go to LA
  • Finance and fashion, go to NYC
  • Tech/startup ecosystem, go to the Valley.

While great, your early audience – the innovators on your product adoption curve – should not be overly concentrated there. All these markets carry anomalous traits and aren’t often representative of the wider population. Instead, your beachhead markets should be representative of the distribution of demographics and customer habits in your TAM (total addressable market).

While Keith Rabois could have very much built Opendoor in Silicon Valley, where more and more people were buying homes to be close to technological hubs, he led the early team to test their assumptions in Phoenix, Arizona. On the same token, Nikita Bier started tbh, not in the attention-hungry markets of LA, but in high schools in Georgia.

“Boring” virtual real estate

Strategically boring markets aren’t limited to just physical geographies. They’re equally applicable to underestimated virtual real estate. You don’t have to build a mansion on a new plot of land. Rent an Airbnb and see if you like the weather and people there first.

As Rupa Health‘s Tara Viswanathan said in a First Round interview, “Stripping the product down to the bare bones and getting it out in front of people for their reactions is critical. It’s rare for a product not to work because it was too minimal of an MVP — it’s because the idea wasn’t strong to begin with.”

As she goes on, “If you have to ask if you’re in love, you’re probably not in love. The same goes with product/market fit — if you have to ask if you have it, you probably don’t.”

Test your market first with the minimum lovable product, as Jiaona Zhang says. You don’t have to build the sexiest app out there. It could be a blog or a spreadsheet. For example, here are a few incredible companies that started as nothing more than a…

BlogsSpreadsheets
HubSpotNerdWallet
GlossierSkyscanner
GrouponStitch Fix
MattermarkFlexiple
Ghost

The greatest incumbents to most businesses out there really happen to be some of the simplest things. Spreadsheets. Blogs. Facebook groups. And now probably, Discord and Slack groups. There are a wealth of no-code tools out there today – Notion, Airtable, Webflow, Zapier, just to name a few. So building something quick without coding experience just to test the market has been easier than ever. Use that to your advantage.

Patrick Campbell once wrote, quoting Brian Balfour, CEO of Reforge, “It’s much easier to evolve with the market if your product is shaped to fit the market. That’s why you’ll achieve much better fit between these two components if you think market first, product second.”

Think like a designer, not like an artist

The biggest alphas are generated in non-obvious markets. Markets that are overlooked and underestimated. At the end of the day, in a market teeming with information and capital and starved of attention, think like a designer, not like an artist. Start from your audience, rather than from yourself. Start from what your audience needs, rather than what you want.

As ed-tech investor John Danner of Dunce Capital and board member at Lambda School, once wrote, “[the founders’] job is to find the absolute maximum demand in the space they are exploring. The best cadence is to run a new uncorrelated experiment every day. While demanding, the likelihood that you miss the point of highest demand with this approach is quite small. It is incredibly easy to abandon this kind of rigor and delayed gratification, eat the marshmallow and take a good idea and execute on it. Great founders resist that, and great investors do too.”

Spend more time researching and talking to your potential market, rather than focusing on where, how, and what you want your platform to look like. Obsess over split testing. Be scrappy.

Don’t fail the marshmallow test

We’re in a hype cycle now. Speed is the name of the game. And it’s become harder to differentiate signal from noise. Many founders instantly jump to geographically sexy markets. Anomalous markets like Silicon Valley and LA. But I believe what’ll set the winners from the losers in the long run is founder discipline. Discipline to spend time discovering signs of early virality, rather than scale.

For instance, if you’re operating a marketplace, your startup is more likely than not supply-constrained. To cite Brian Rothenberg, former VP of Growth at Eventbrite, focus on early growth loops where demand converts to supply. Ask your supply, “How did you hear about our product?” And watch for references of them being on the demand side before.

Don’t spend money to increase the rate of conversion until you see early signs of this growth dynamic. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or even 0.5%. Have the discipline to wait for organic conversion. It’s far easier to spend money to grow than to discover. Which is why startup life cycles are often broken down into two phases:

  • Zero to one, and
  • One to infinity

Nail the zero to one.

In an increasingly competitive world of ideas, many founders have failed the marshmallow test to rush to scale. As Patrick Campbell shared in the same afore-mentioned essay, “Product first, market second mentality meant that they had a solution, and then they were searching for the problem. This made it much, much more difficult to identify the market that really needed a solution and was willing to pay for the product.”

The more time you spend finding maximum demand for a big problem, the greater your TAM will be. The greater your market, the greater the value your company can provide. So, while building in anomalous markets with sexy apps will help you achieve quick early growth, it’s, unfortunately, unsustainable as you reach the early majority and the late majority of the adoption curve.

Photo by rawkkim 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

DGQ 6: What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

ocean, sibling

“Use three adjectives to describe your sibling. And describe yourself in comparison.”

I heard this question weeks ago from Doug Leone, Sequoia Capital‘s Global Managing Partner, on Harry Stebbings’ 20VC podcast. Known for having some of the best questions in venture and having led incredible investments into Meraki, Nubank, ServiceNow, and more, Doug loves to ask this question to founders he’s meeting for the first time. My initial response was “this doesn’t make any sense.” But in the podcast, he reveals why he loves the afore-mentioned question.

Before writing a check, an early-stage investor’s job is to answer three questions. Why now? Why this? And why you? The ‘why you’ question is admittedly one of the hardest questions to answer. Even for myself, I struggle from time to time to understand why I should scout a one founder over another over the same idea.

In a short 30 minute conversation, there’s only so much an investor can understand about a founder. There’s fundamentally a level of information asymmetry. Founders want to convince investors to take a bet on them. Yet, investors need more information to be comfortable making an asymmetric bet on them. We see echoes of a similar dilemma when recruiters interview applicants for jobs. Or when a property manager interviews a potential tenant.

Generally, recruiters, like most others, regress to questions like: “What are three of your strengths? Three weaknesses?” Having been asked so bluntly, interviewees, on the other hand, often have their guards up. They pick three strengths that would make them look the best. Equally so, they pick three weaknesses that show just enough honesty and vulnerability where they don’t get disqualified from the candidate pool. All of which exemplify pre-scripted answers.

Conversely, Doug found a way to do so without arming the interviewee’s, in this case, the founder’s, defenses. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?

As Doug shares, “In a law of diversity, two siblings are less likely to be alike than two strangers. And so, how they usually describe their siblings is usually opposite of how they describe themselves. It’s a self-awareness question.”

You might realize the same principle holds when you describe a friend or a colleague or your spouse. The way you describe them often contrasts with your own disposition. “My friend is really curious.” Implicitly, you’re saying you’re not as curious.

So, the next time you talk about someone else, it’d be an interesting thought experiment to see how those same words relate or contrast with you.

Photo by Limor Zellermayer on Unsplash

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.

Posted on

Bigger Funds, Larger Spotlight, Bigger Mistakes

spotlight, bigger mistakes

I was doomscrolling through Twitter when I stumbled on Samir Kaji‘s recent tweet:

I’ve written before that the difference between an emerged fund manager and an emerging manager is one’s raised a Fund III and the other hasn’t.

In Fund I, you’re selling a promise – a dream – to your LPs. That promise is often for angels, founders, and other GPs who write smaller checks. You’re split testing among various investments, trying to see what works and what doesn’t. More likely than not, you’re taking low to no management fees, and only carry. No reserve ratio either. And any follow-on checks you do via an SPV, with preference to your existing LPs. You’re focused on refining your thesis.

In Fund II, you’re pitching a strategy – the beginnings of pattern recognition of what works and what doesn’t. You’re thesis-driven.

Fund III, as Braughm Ricke says, “you’re selling the returns on Fund I.” On Fund III and up, many fund managers start deviating from their initial thesis – minimally at first. Each subsequent fundraise, which often scales in zeros, is a lagging indicator of your thesis and strategy. And across funds, the thesis becomes more of a guiding principle than the end all, be all of a fund. There are only a few firms out there that continue to exercise extreme fundraising discipline in. Which, to their credit, is often hard to do. ‘Cause if it’s working, your LPs want to put more money into you. And as your fund size scales, so does your strategy.

Subsequently, it becomes a race between the scalability of a fund’s strategy and fund size.

Softbank’s mistake

In 2017, Softbank’s Vision Fund I (SVF I) of $100B was by far the largest in the venture market. In fact, 50 times larger than the largest venture funds at the time. Yet, every time they made a bad bet, the media swarmed on them, calling them out. The reality is that, proportionally speaking, Softbank made as many successful versus unsuccessful bets as the average venture fund out there. To date, SVF I’s portfolio is valued at $146.5 billion, which doesn’t put it in the top quartile, but still performs better than half of the venture funds out there. But bigger numbers warrant more attention. Softbank has since course-corrected, opting to raise a smaller $40B Fund II (which is still massive by venture standards), with smaller checks.

While there are many interpretations of Softbank’s apparent failure with SVF I (while it could be still too early to tell), my take is it was too early for its time. Just like investors ask founders the “why now” question to determine the timing of the market, Softbank missed its “why now” moment.

Bigger funds make sense

I wrote a little over a month ago that we’re in a hype market right now. Startups are getting funded at greater valuations than ever before. Investors seem to have lost pricing discipline. $5 million rounds pre-product honestly scare me. But as Dell Technologies Capital‘s Frank told me, “VCs have been mispricing companies. We anchor ourselves on historical valuations. But these anchors could be wrong.” Most are vastly overvalued, yet future successes are grossly undervalued.

Allocating $152 billion into VC funds, LPs are excited about the market activity and that the timeline on returns are shorter. Namely:

  • Exits via SPAC,
  • Accelerated timelines because of the pandemic (i.e. healthcare, fintech, delivery, cloud computing, etc.)
  • And secondary markets providing liquidity.

We’ve also seen institutional LPs, like pension funds, foundations, and endowments, invest directly into startups.

Direct Investments by Pension Funds Foundations Endowments
Source: FactSet

Moreover, we’re seeing growth and private equity funds investing directly into early-stage startups. To be specific over 50 of them invested in over $1B into private companies in 2021 so far.

As a result of the market motions, the Q2 2021 hit a quarterly record in the number of unicorns minted. According to CB Insights, 136 unicorns just in Q2. And a 491% YoY increase. As Techcrunch’s Alex Wilhelm and Anna Heim puts it, “Global startups raised either as much, or very nearly as much, in the first two quarters of 2021 as they did in all of 2020.”

Hence, we see top-tier venture funds matching the market’s stride, (a) providing opportunity for their LPs to access their deal flow and (b) meeting the startup market’s needs for greater financing rounds. Andreessen recently raised their $400M seed fund. Greylock with their $500M. And most recently, NFX with their $450M pre-seed and seed Fund III.

In his analysis of a16z, writer Dror Poleg shares that “you are guaranteed to lose purchasing power if you keep your money in so-called safe assets, and a handful of extremely successful investments capture most of the available returns. Investors who try to stay safe or even take risks but miss out on the biggest winners end up far behind.” The a16z’s, the Greylocks and the NFXs are betting on that risk.

Fund returners are increasingly harder to come by

As more money is put into the private markets, with startups on higher and higher valuations, unicorns are no longer the sexiest things on the market. A unicorn exit only warrants Greylock with a 2x fund returner. With the best funds all performing at 5x multiples and up, you need a few more unicorn exits. In due course, the 2021 sexiest exits will be decacorns rather than unicorns. Whereas before the standard for a top performing fund was a 2.5%+ unicorn rate, now it’s a 2.5% decacorn rate.

The truth is that in the ever-evolving game of venture capital, there are really only a small handful of companies that really matter. A top-tier investor once told me last year that number was 20. And the goal is an investor is to get in one or some of those 20 companies. ‘Cause those are the fund returners. Take for example, Garry Tan at Initialized Capital, earlier this year. He invested $300K into Coinbase back in 2012. And when they went public, he returned $2B to the fund. That’s 6000x. For a $7M fund, that’s an incredible return! LPs are popping bottles with you. For a half-billion dollar fund, that’s only a 4x. Still good. But as a GP, you’ll need a few more of such wins to make your LPs really happy.

I also know I’m making a lot of assumptions here. Fees and expenses still to be paid back, which lowers overall return. And the fact that for a half-billion dollar seed fund, check sizes are in the millions rather than hundreds of thousands. But I digress.

There is more capital than ever in the markets, but less startups are getting funded. The second quarter of this year has been the biggest for seed stage activity ever, measured by dollars invested. Yet total deal volume went down.

Source: Crunchbase

Each of these startups will take a larger percentage of the public attention pie. Yet, most startups will still churn out of the market in the longer run. Some will break even. And some will make back 2-5x of investor’s money. Subsequently, there will still be the same distribution of fund returners for the funds that make it out of the hype market.

In closing

As funds scale as a lagging indicator of today’s market, the discipline to balance strategy and scale becomes ever the more prescient. We will see bigger flops. “Startup raises XX million dollars closes down.” They might get more attention in the near future from media. Similarly, venture capitalists who empirically took supporting cast roles will be “celebretized” in the same way.

The world is moving faster and faster. As Balaji Srinivasan tweeted yesterday:

But as the market itself scales over time, the wider public will get desensitized to dollars raised at the early stages. And possibly to the flops as well. Softbank’s investment in Zume Pizza and Brandless turned heads yesterday, but probably won’t five years from now. It’s still early to tell whether a16z, Greylock, NFX, among a few others’ decisions will generate significant alphas. I imagine these funds will have similar portfolio distributions as their smaller counterparts. The only difference, due to their magnitudes, is that they’re subject to greater scrutiny under the magnifying glass. And will continue to stay that way in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, I’m thrilled to see speed and fund size as a forcing function for innovation in the market. There’s been fairly little innovation at the top of the funnel in the venture market since the 1970s. VCs meet with X number of founders per week, go through several meetings, diligence, then invest. But during the pandemic, we’ve seen the digitization of venture dollars, regulations, and new fund structures:

Quoting a good friend of mine, “It’s a good time to be alive.” We live in a world where the lines between risk and the status quo are blurring. Where signal and noise are as well. The only difference is an investor’s ability to maintain discipline at scale. A form of discipline never before required in venture.

Photo by Ahmed Hasan 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

#unfiltered #58 The Shortcomings of Resumes

resume, computer, laptop

The goal of any professional in today’s economy is to never have to submit another resume ever again.

I swear this isn’t an original line, yet I can’t recall the person nor the setting in which I was told. Nevertheless, whether this was a lucid moment or not, it has been firmly etched into my pre-frontal cortex for years.

Building in public and growing under public scrutiny – be it on Twitter or a blog or another form of social media – is one of the best ways to build rapport and credibility. It’s a photograph. An imprint. Still, and in many ways, permanent. A record that you and others can revisit and reasonably objectify your personal growth. Those data points tell a story. Either you connect those dots personally, or often times, someone else connects them for you.

“We are all the unreliable narrators of each other’s stories.”

If you’ve been following my blog over the past few months, that line will carry a familiar scent. My favorite and the first line I heard from the best film I watched this year, In and Of Itself. When my buddy DJ recommended it to me, he told me only two things:

  1. It’s about identity.
  2. And, “we are all the unreliable narrators of each other’s stories.”

It’d be a travesty if I spoiled the plot now. The best way to watch it is, like most unforgettable experiences, going in blind. No summary, no trailer. If my word means anything, it’d be my answer to the question: What is the one movie you’d recommend someone who just time travelled 50 years from the past to catch up with the way people in 2021 think?

But I digress.

Street cred is built up not by what you say about yourself, but by what other people say about you. That street cred will benefit you much more than a sheet of paper that summarizes your entire career into a single pager with 12-point font. I wrote a blogpost recently on how a pitch deck fails to summarize the motivations, the story, the wins and the losses behind building a business. So, you should always be fundraising. Always be selling. Always be pitching. And as you build champions around you, they’ll tell your story – by referring you to investors, share your product on social media, and sell you for you to their friends. Analogously, a resume for a job seeker echoes the same shortcomings a pitch deck has for a founder. Job-seeking sucks. Just like how fundraising sucks.

If only life were simple

Every person has a story. If not multiple stories. We are each a product of more than one storyline. A narrative in hindsight, when we willingly choose to ignore 99% of the other facts.

One of my favorite internet writers, Max Nussenbaum, recently wrote something quite profound. “We tell ourselves stories in order to live, but our lives aren’t actually stories. If they were, they’d be poorly written ones: just a bunch of stuff that happens, with no coherent structure or consistent thematic underlines.”

There’d be far fewer cases of self-doubt and depression, if life was as straightforward as a movie script. But it’s not. And neither should it be. It’s messy. But that’s great. Because we can connect the dots however we want.

There are many ways to tell a story. And the best stories are told by others.

And yes, the goal of any professional in today’s economy is to never have to submit another resume ever again. Frankly, after a certain threshold of rapport, you won’t need to.

Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

#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!

Posted on

Where Does The Team Slide Go In A Pitch Deck?

soccer, team

There’s a comical number of debates around where the team slide goes in a pitch deck. In fact, this blogpost may end being more of a meme than have any substantive value. Nevertheless, here’s to hoping that by the end of this essay, there’s some semblance of a call-to-action for you. The “too-long-don’t read” answer for the order of your team slide is… it depends.

Why “why you” is important

First, let’s start from the “facts”.

  1. The earlier your company is, the more your team matters to an investor. The more mature your company is, the less it matters.
  2. If your investor doesn’t understand your answer to the “why you” question, you’re not winning any gold medals, much less a check.

I tweeted two days ago:

Investors have, effectively, three questions they want answered in the intro meeting.

  1. Why now?
  2. Why this?
  3. And, why you?

“Why now” tells an investor why they should look into the space. “Why this” tells an investor why they should look at the solution. But if we’re being completely honest, if an investor is a specialist and not a generalist, and even if they were the latter, you’re not the first person who’s brought up the exact same “why now” and “why this”. Even if you answer the first two questions perfectly, there’s still no reason as to why you should be the one to take this product to market. Investors, if they were more blunt, would just thank you for your market research.

On the other hand, if you can answer the “why you” question, you give them a reason to have a second conversation with you. And the whole goal of the intro meeting is to have the second meeting. Not to get the check. Don’t skip steps. As a footnote, your mileage will vary with angel investors and micro funds. For them, speed is their competitive advantage, not their check size nor possibly their network or resources. While they will try to be helpful, they’re not a platform – yet. If you answer the “why you”, in the worst case scenario, your investors won’t regret backing the startup. You just weren’t lucky. But they’d probably be willing to back you again if you started another business.

The reason why so many VCs regress back to metrics and traction is because you’ve failed to answer the “why you” question.

So, where does your team slide go?

Based on the above “facts”, the younger your startup is, the earlier you should put the team slide. To give investors context as to who you are. This matters a bit more for partnership meetings, as well as if this is a (relatively) cold pitch. That is, to say, if you AND your co-founders don’t have a prior relationship with the people you are pitching to, move the team slide to the beginning.

Eniac Ventures, an incredible seed-stage firm, recently wrote, “We believe that it should probably be slide 1 or 2. That’s because investors want to become familiar with the people behind the product early on, whether we’re flipping through the deck or you’re pitching us directly. When the team slide is second, it also gives you a great opportunity to walk investors through your background and impress upon them why your unique set of experiences makes you and your team the best one to build and scale the product.”

In closing

But, that might not be the case for you. The investors you pitch might have a different set of priorities. I always go back to the question: When going into the meeting, if the investor could only ask one question, what is the one question they need the answer for to give them enough of a reason to take the second meeting?

Then your pitch deck should be in that order of priority.

If you’re tackling a problem most people care little about or where it’s non-obvious, talk about the problem first.

If it’s not a revolutionary product and it already makes sense, talk about why you and your team are the best equipped to tackle this problem.

Photo by Pascal Swier on Unsplash

*Edit: Added in second tweet

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

#unfiltered #57 True Vulnerability Is Messy

art, vulnerability

One of the greatest blessings I have today is that friends often introduce me to their incredible friends. Two weeks ago, one of my good college friends introduced me to a friend he made down in LA. Sam. A brilliant aspiring fund manager. Cut her teeth with driving impact at non-profits. But above all else, her ability to host dinners with strangers caught my eye and ear. Since I’m a big fan of sharing my learnings from hosting brunches with strangers and social experiments. In a short span of a week, we became fast friends. Expectedly, I had to ask Sam how she brought strangers closer together at her dinners.

Last week we jumped on another call where she walked me through her process. “David, it’s easier to show you than to tell you. Are you open to being vulnerable?”

“Yes.”

“Tell me about your life philosophy.” She asked me what influenced the life purpose I have today. Over the next half an hour, we dove into the depths.

The first third was populated by a politician’s answer. I wasted zero calories jumping into my upbringing and why that has influenced the person I am today. Unwittingly then, but in hindsight clarity now, they were all narratives I’ve rehearsed before – intentionally and unintentionally. After all, they were the cookie cutter responses I’d give to cookie cutter questions most people asked.

Yet, after each of my narratives, there would be a brief pause. What lasted only mere seconds felt like eternity for me. In those moments, she was a woman of few words. Comfortable with silence, she would occasionally beckon, “Tell me more.” On the other hand, I was impatient to fill the void. The emptiness was unsettling. I felt like a circus monkey forced to perform and that the audience’s claps and laughs was the only representation of my self-worth. But that was all in my head.

“Tell me more.”

I filled the next third with stories I’ve told before but not in a while. A reminder to myself that I am more than the person who existed in just the last two years. That I’ve had 23 other years than I somehow left in the attic collecting dust. That I am not a function of my job title or the people I surround myself with currently. But rather the accretion of everything before as well. Where the first third was sharing the mold I now fit in, the second third of our conversation was sharing why seemingly disparate events and relationships in the past fit the mold I had just shared. In sum, I was still making sense of things.

“Tell me more.”

I was ill-equipped to deal with the last third. I was no longer armed with the stories I had rehearsed throughout the 25 years I’ve been alive. Analogously, I was someone who just learned what exponents and derivatives were. When my 5-year old cousin asked the fifth “why”, I didn’t have an answer for her. Not like I did with the first four.

In this case, she asked the third “why”. And I was already at a loss for words. I was lost between doubt and anxiety, between shock and curiosity. But it was in the last ten minutes when I finally dropped my guard. My guard where everything had to make sense. My guard against the fear of uncertainty, not just for the future, but for my past.

A few moments of silence passed. Once again, long, but not nearly as uncomfortable as in the beginning.

At the end of our conversation, she left me to wrestle with my own uncertainty. But with the offer to dive even deeper the next time. And I was left with my own turmoiled mind, unable to find the words outside of sweeping generalizations to express what I felt and how I felt it. While I was grasping for the Merriam-Webster to make sense of my inner entropy, she sent me the below wheel. Something she relies on, to this day, to keep her emotional vocabulary from atrophying. In being able to identify her emotions, she is better set to understand them.

As I’m writing this blogpost, her words “true vulnerability is messy” still ring in my head. And it’s in those moments we build trust and bond with each other. And also with ourselves.

The purpose of this exercise and with vulnerability is not to have more answers than questions. Bur rather more questions than answers. And the ability to ask more.

Emotional Feeling Weel
Source: The Junto Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership

Cover photo by Alice Dietrich on Unsplash

*Retroactively added Sam’s name into the essay

#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!

Posted on

Why You Should Hire For Expertise, Not Experience

looking forward, sailing

I recently read Fable‘s Padmasree Warrior‘s breakdown of leadership lessons. Prior to Fable, she held executive positions at Motorola, Cisco, and NIO and currently serves on Microsoft and Spotify’s board. Out of all the insights she shared, I couldn’t help but reach out on one intriguing point she brought up: “Hire for expertise, not experience.”

Expertise ≠ Experience

Before reading the blogpost on her, I had never thought of expertise and experience as two separate wheelhouses of knowledge. While there is definitely some overlap, as Holly Liu, founder of Kabam, says:

Expertise and experience are similar, but not the same. It is to no surprise most people often conflate the two, myself included. Experience is a record of past events. Expertise is your ability to leverage experience to positively influence the outcome of future events.

I’m reminded of something Henry Ford once said. “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Experience would have dictated faster horses. Expertise would have dictated why we once chose horses over other modes of transportation. And the framework to think about transportation in the next century.

Hiring for expertise

When I asked Padma, “What kinds of questions do you ask potential hires to measure on expertise rather than experience?”

She responded: “I usually as ‘if X happened what would you do?’ ‘If there is nothing here… how would you start a product?'”

I followed up with a David classic: “If I can be completely selfish one more time, and I understand if you don’t have the time, for the question, ‘if there is nothing here, how would you start a product?’ or similar ones, what differentiates between a good answer and a great answer?”

Padma added: “If someone says ‘I did this at such and such’ – wrong answer. I look for ‘I would start with … then do… then grow’.”

Everyone’s guilty of a bit of revisionist’s history when looking in hindsight. It’s in our DNA. We are the only species that create narratives from seemingly disparate data points. After talking with multiple recruiters, executives, and CEOs on the topic, I realized there is often a tendency for people connect their past achievements together and sound like they knew exactly what they were doing all along. But in foresight, that often isn’t true. There’s a lot of guesswork and uncertainty when looking through the windshield, compared to images that often seem closer in the rearview mirror.

To follow up on Padma’s thoughts, I had to ask my former professor, Janet Brady, the former Head of Marketing and Head of Human Resources for Clorox, about hiring for expertise. “I’m a big fan of situational interviewing, where I ask ‘What would you do if…?’ In the process, I am looking for (a) how would this come up, and (b) how would they approach the problem. It’s easy to make the puzzle pieces fit and make up narratives in the past, but much harder when given a situation to deal with on the spot.”

As with any matter, things are not as binary as they first seem to be. She concedes that there is validity in asking about experience as well. But the context around experience is often more insightful than the experience itself. Brady shared, “You never do something alone. If you see a turtle on top of a fence post, you don’t know how it got there, but you know it had help.” How many people were on your team? What was your role on the team? What problems did you run into? And how did you deal with those problems?

But one of her interview questions in particular stood above the crowd for me. “What did you do in this role that no one else in this role has done?” While past achievements aren’t always predictors of future progress, in this case, what you’re looking for aren’t anecdotes but general themes in life, specifically, the ability to question the status quo and act on it.

Echoing Brady’s questions on problems a hire has faced, what might be more interesting is what didn’t work out in the past. The scar tissue someone’s accumulated over the years. Marco Zappacosta of Thumbtack loves the question: “What’s your biggest professional regret?”. And he elaborates, “I’m under no illusions that I’m hiring perfect people, but I want to make sure I’m hiring people who are self-aware of being imperfect.”

Put into practice

SaaStr’s Jason Lemkin shared a great example in his blogpost. How the expertise of VPs of Marketing differ depending on what stage of a company’s maturity they earned their stripes. A corporate marketer’s experience might translate poorly to running marketing at a startup. Equally so, a seed-stage startup marketer’s job might carry much less significance in a Fortune 500 role.

Corporates focus on corporate marketing and brand marketing. A form of marketing that’s “all about protecting and reinforcing the brand once you are way past scale.” It’s less about getting your brand recognized since customers have already heard of your brand. It’s about getting potential customers over the activation energy required before making a buying decision. As Jason puts it, “the brand creates so many leads and customers all on its own.”

Startups, on the other hand, are all about demand generation. In other words, generating leads. It’s a numbers game. Spend X dollars to get Y leads, that generate five times of $X of revenue. The equivalent of an LTV-to-CAC ratio of 5x. At the same time, he notes that “brand marketing is very expensive in the early days – and frustratingly, generates zero leads.”

Someone with Z years of marketing experience might have a lot of scar tissue, but might not be able to solve the marketing problem for your startup. Demand gen folks can’t hide anywhere if they don’t get results, but corporate marketing folks can hide behind a brand. Focus on finding the expertise you need rather than the years of experience that might look sexy on a resume or on a pitch deck. As always they’re not mutually exclusive, but it’s important to know the difference.

Who knows? Maybe the next generation of lead gen is all about Twitter presence and memes, as a16z’s Andrew Chen recently tweeted.

Taking a step back

On a bigger picture, the process of sales and marketing is a form of free education for a customer base. The better you can get your users to understand what you’re building, the more likely they will buy. Memes are just another medium of analogy and education. Better yet, of storytelling.

The better you can weave together seemingly disparate data points to create a compelling narrative without confounding extraneous variables, the greater your level of expertise. As Packy McCormick, one of my favorite writers, wrote on an a16z blogpost on expertise, “We live in a world where expertise can be justly claimed by anyone who can continue to prove it. Synthesis and storytelling are the keys to navigating that world. In a world with so much information available and fewer unquestioned experts, the ability to let large amounts of information wash over you, figure out where to dive deep, pull out the most compelling bits, and tie them all together is key.”

In closing

Hiring great talent across all levels breaks down to less of how many years of experience, but more so how you can leverage those experiences to understand and use unique and seemingly disparate data points going forward. Fall forward; don’t fall backward. An expert hire might not have all the answers to your problems, but will have built stress-tested mental models that’ll help in finding the answers for the questions you have.

Back when I was at SkyDeck, Caroline taught me that great entrepreneurs follow the “scientific method of entrepreneurship.” If I were to analogize her idea to expertise, an expert is a champion of the “scientific method of application.”

Of all the experts I’ve met – a title which is often one that society has deemed rather than being self-prescribed – they’ve almost always had an answer or multiple to a certain question. What proof would it take for you to change your mind?

Photo by Markos Mant on Unsplash

Thank you Janet for looking over early drafts.

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 to Pitch VCs Without Ever Having to Send the Pitch Deck

pitching, emotion

Not too long ago, in the sunbathed streets outside of Maison Alysée, I was chatting with an incredible serial entrepreneur backed by some of the greatest names in the venture world, who also happened to have spent some time at my favorite VR startup. All in all, he knew what he was talking about. But to respect his privacy, I’ll call him James. And James said something that was quite the head-turner.

“I never got a check for sending the pitch deck before the meeting.”

And so began my deep dive into the contrarian thinking that led to the above statement.

Why the pitch deck might not work

As an armchair expert on films I like, my favorite films have never fit my rubric of the perfect story. Rather, my rubric of the perfect story was shaped by my favorite films.

A pitch deck, like any other rubric, is a pre-ordained set of words and pictures that follow “industry’s best practices”. The problem, solution/product, why now, market size, team, traction, competitors, business model, and financial projections. Most pitch decks don’t deviate too far from the afore-mentioned order. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, rubrics are lagging indicators of what worked. They rarely serve as predictors of what will work, yet we prescribe a disproportionately high amount of trust to their predictive qualities.

“Fundraising is hard”

“You can do everything right – you go through all the steps, do the CRM, get the emails, get the introductions, give the pitches – you do it textbook, and you won’t get a dollar. Fundraising is hard.”

Naturally, I had to ask James what he did to secure funding without sending the pitch deck. James shared, “I never really think about ‘fundraising’, like I mentioned when we chatted I do try to keep track of things but that’s more so that I don’t over-email folks. I never write one email and then send it to a lot of people. Every email I write, I write personally.”

Pitch with emotion

“How do you close somebody? It’s not with spreadsheets and numbers. It’s with emotion. A good pitch gets people over the activation energy [necessary] of actually investing in your business. There are plenty of companies who are making $10 million a month and didn’t raise a dollar. There are plenty of companies who didn’t make a dollar ever and raise a $100 million bucks.”

James’ comment reminded me of a LinkedIn post from Chewy‘s VP of Merchandising, Andreas von der Heydt, recently.

Source: Andreas von der Heydt‘s LinkedIn post

Every pitch is a story. And often times, the best narrative you can tell isn’t in a 10-megabyte presentation filled with numbers and letters or a Docsend link, based on a rubric that your audience decided. There’s rising and falling action. There’s also you, the underdog, who embarks on a hero’s journey to change the world. What does the world look like today? What will it look like without you tomorrow? Against seemingly impossible odds and guided by the fortune of luck (timing, why now?) and grit, why is the future you envision, with you in it, inevitable?

Sandbox VR‘s Siqi Chen has an amazing presentation on how to pitch appealing to emotion.

You can also see it in action in their pitch that got a16z to lead their $68M Series A.

“Always bring the value”

“People are busy, especially the people you’re pitching. Teach them something. They wanna learn. They wanna walk out of that meeting and remember you and make their life a little bit better. And one way to do this is to bring value that they didn’t have before.

“This is also a self-selector. If you don’t do this, they’re not going to call you back. You want to be interesting. You want the other person to walk away thinking that was fun.

“Unfortunately, this is what a lot of founders don’t do. They treat these meetings like work. ‘We’re going to walk in with a strategy. We’re going to stick to the script.’ The other people on the other side never ask any questions. They say ‘see ya later’ and you never hear from them ever again.”

In many ways, this is what many investors call the ‘secret sauce‘. Do you know something that the other person doesn’t? Can you connect the dots in a way that the other person has never thought about? Have you inspired the other person where after the meeting and the ‘A-ha!’ moment they do something about it?

For people who are obsessed and really passionate, their passion is often contagious. One doesn’t have to be an investor or a subject-matter expert to know and feel that. And when inspired, the other person acts as an extension of the energy you brought to the conversation. It could be in the form of work, writing, invites, or intros. These second-order effects might not always come immediately. But rather eventually. This is what James calls “manufacturing serendipity”.

On asking for intros

I asked James, “Did you ever ask for the intros or did they come quite organically?”

And what he shared truly set him apart from 99% of founders I’ve met with. “People always say ‘how can I help?’ Some don’t mean it. And this works for them too because quickly, you figure who’s who. But always have an answer. Not like ‘intro me to some people.’ But ‘hey, I saw you know so and so, and I’d love to chat with them – would you mind introducing me?’ Having one to two things is the sweet spot.

“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.” Provide the person making the introduction with all the context and reasons for the other person to say yes.

It echoes much of my personal template I tell folks if they want an intro to an investor that consists of three parts – no more, no less:

  1. The one metric they’re nailing (ideally so much better than the rest of the industry
  2. Short 1-2 lines on what you’re building and why
  3. What makes that one investor the best dollar on your cap table – why it has to be her or him, and no one else

The metric gives the investor a reason to click open the email. The blurb shares the context. And the last, and, in my opinion, the most important part gives the investor the reason – the story – they need to be a hero. You might notice how much a founder is raising isn’t “required material”. Capital is secondary to the story you pitch. While based on some hard facts, startup investing is often an emotional decision. As James said, “Money doesn’t build products; people do.”

In closing

There’s a lesson I took from my time at SkyDeck, and have continued to preach ever since. “Always be fundraising.” And I don’t mean ask for money in every waking moment. In fact, you shouldn’t. Not only are you at risk in sounding like a broken record, you will end up sacrificing time you could be spending on building your product. But always be pitching. Always be getting other people excited about what you’re working on and why that’s so important. Not why should the world be excited about your product, but why that person in particular should be.

Build relationships. Build a fanbase before you need to fundraise. Add value in every conversation. And the ripple effects would come back tenfold. James went on to say, “I would meet with anyone, [and] still do. If they liked what I was doing, they’d intro me either to an investor that might be into it or another company that had an investor that might be into it.”

James truly has a magnetic energy. Every time we chat I learn something indispensable. After all, one of our conversations inspired this blogpost, which I imagine is the first of many more to come. So, it came as no surprise as he’s getting interest left and right on his new venture.

*Some quotes were edited for clarity and my lack of a photographic memory. Sorry.

Photo by Tengyart 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