My friend invited me to a demo day earlier this week. Albeit, it was a bunch of summer interns presenting their project they’d been working on for the last two months. The few investors and I who sat on the judging panel were all admittedly quite surprised by the quality of pitches and products from students and hell, even within two months. In fact, these 10-11 interns have gotten much further in product development and customer discovery than most founders I’ve seen across the span of a year. Whether sampling bias or not, the latter is probably about 50%+ of what I see these days. And you’d think that AI would have sped up the product development cycle.
But I digress.
Simply put, I was impressed. So, in efforts to simulate actual pitches at demo days, I asked a team who had presented five features they’d been working on and gotten each to a working prototype. “If you had to kill three of the five features, which three would you kill?”
To which, the “CEO” replied: “To be honest, all five are quite important. But if we had to kill a feature, it’d be the AI chatbot, but the rest of the four go hand-in-hand.”
I pushed for a more discerning answer, but was met with a paraphrased version of the last answer. And of course, it left a little more to be desired. What I was looking for was something of more prescriptive specificity. For instance, “we’d focus on usage metrics, particularly with respect to retention cohorts and actions per session across all the features. And depending on what features seem to perform better than others, our plan is to focus 70% of engineering resources on the top feature, 20% on the second most popular feature, and 10% focused on either a permutation of the other three or spending time with our customers to see where they’re the most frustrated.” It may not need to be the “right” answer, but having a thought-out answer is helpful.
After all, the original question boils down to the fact that most founders fail from indigestion not from starvation. Charles Hudson wrote this great piece last month, aptly named “The Last $250K.” In short, one of the most common behavioral changes he’s observed is when founders are down to their last $250K. And, three things stand out in particular:
- “The most important things to work on become incredibly clear.”
- “The data needed to validate the company’s hypothesis becomes much clearer.”
- “There are things that the company was doing that they stop doing because those things don’t really matter given the gravity of the situation.”
It’s a quick read. And I highly recommend it. Much of which I personally agree with. Not sure if that’s usually the $250K mark, but my personal sample size is far smaller than Charles’. Constraints are the breeding grounds of creativity.
What’s really interesting is that my first reaction to that blogpost was just like how the last 4-6 months of runway leads to deep focus, how do the last 4-6 months affect fund managers? And it’s not too far off.
- Deployment speed slows. The simple reason is that they no longer feel the fire under their belly to deploy. Either because they’re close to their target portfolio size or they need to elongate the time horizon while they’re actively raising their next fund.
- The quality bar for what gets funded goes up. Since your deal flow pipeline is likely not contracting, there’s a flight to quality. And quality more often than not, translates to traction, logos/brands, and founder’s prior experiences. While there are always outliers, I see many GPs take less risky bets that they would’ve otherwise.
- GPs are actively planning for the next fund’s strategy. And actively synthesizing lessons learned. Or at least, with respect with how they pitch LPs. And if they’re an emerging manager, or a fund without clear wins in their last fund, the most important things also become painfully clear. They often focus on the 20% that drove 80% of fund returns.
- GPs are spending a lot more time on portfolio support. Not only because graduation rates become a lot more important (for fund returns and narratives for prospective LPs), but also because references matter in diligence. And well, if you’re fundraising for your next fund, you can be damn well sure that a sophisticated LP is going to do anywhere between 10-50 reference checks. On-list and off-list. 20-30% of which with your portfolio companies.
Thematically, focus. While there are other constraints that help improve a founder or a fund manager’s level of focus, limited runway (or capital to deploy) is a natural forcing function. The best ones I’ve seen often impose artificial constraints early on, before things get rough. Rules and codes of conduct. Things they promise themselves and the team never do. Aligning compensation behind performance. In other words, operational discipline.
Naturally, it should be to no surprise that investors of any kind spend a lot of time on organizational discipline before they choose to invest.
Photo by National Cancer Institute 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!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
