Tag: a16z

Posted on

Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet

Founders often ask me what’s the best way to cold email an investor. *in my best TV announcer voice* Do you want to know the one trick to get replies for your cold email startup pitches that investors don’t want you to know? Ok, I lied. No investor ever said they don’t want founders to know this, but how else am I going to get a clickbait-y question? Time and time again, I recommend them to start with the one (at most two) metrics they are slaying with. Even better if that’s in the subject line. Like “Consumer social startup with 50% MoM Growth”. Or “Bottom-up SaaS startup with 125% NDR”. Before you even intro what your startup does, start with the metric that’ll light up an investor’s eyes.

Why? It’s a sales game. The goal of a cold email is to get that first meeting. Investors get hundreds of emails a week. And if you imagine their inbox is the shelf at the airport bookstore, your goal is to be that book on display. Travelers only spend minutes in the store before they have to go to their departure gate. Similarly, investors scroll through their inbox looking for that book with the cover art that fascinates them. The more well-known the investor, the less time they will spend skimming. And if you ask any investor what’s the number one thing they look for in an investment, 9 out of 10 VCs will say traction, traction, traction. So if you have it, make it easy for them to find.

That said, in terms of traction, most likely around the A, what growth metrics would be the attention grabber in that subject line?

Strictly annual growth

A while back, my friend, Christen of TikTok fame, sent me this tweetstorm by Sam Parr, founder of one of my favorite newsletters out there, The Hustle. In it, he shares five lessons on how to be a great angel investor from Andrew Chen, one of the greatest thought leaders on growth. Two lessons in particular stand out:

And…

Why 3x? If you’re growing fast in the beginning, you’re more likely to continue growing later on. Making you very attractive to investors’ eyes – be it angels, VCs, growth and onwards. Neeraj Agrawal of Battery Ventures calls it the T2D3 rule. Admittedly, it’s not R2-D2’s cousin. Rather, once your get to $2M ARR (annual recurring revenue), if you triple your revenue each year 2 years in a row, then double every year the next 3 years, you’ll get to $100M ARR and an IPO. More specifically, you go from 2 to 6, then 18, 36, 72, and finally $144M ARR. More or less that puts you in the billion dollar valuation, aka unicorn status. And if you so choose, an IPO is in your toolkit.

image001
Source: Neeraj Agrawal’s analysis on public SaaS companies that follow the T2D3 path

For context, tripling annually is about a 10% MoM (month-over-month) growth rate. And depending on your business, it doesn’t have to be revenue. It could be users if you’re a social app. Or GMV if you’re a marketplace for goods. As you hit scale, the SaaS Rule of 40 is a nice rule of thumb to go by. An approach often used by growth investors and private equity, where, ideally, your annual growth rate plus your profit margin is equal to or greater than 40%. And at the minimum, your growth rate is over 30%.

For viral growth, many consumer and marketplace startups have defaulted to influencer marketing, on top of Google/FB ads. And if that’s what you’re doing as well, Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager might help you get started, which I found via my buddy Nate’s weekly marketing newsletter. Free, and helps you identify which influencers you should be working with.

But what if you haven’t gotten to $2M ARR? Or you’ve just gotten there, what other metrics should you prepare in your data room?

Continue reading “Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet”
Posted on

How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy

bread, value-based pricing, saas, revenue model, startup pricing strategy

As part of my work, I talk to many seed-stage SaaS founders. At the seed, most of these founders are thinking about how to get to product-market fit. The one in zero to one. They’re launching their product with a select few companies to really nail their pain points. And often times, pricing and the business model take a backseat when they offer their customers the product for free or at an extreme discount. While investors don’t expect founders to nail pricing at the seed, it’s useful to start thinking about your revenue model early on. After all, pricing is both an art and a science. And with the right pricing structure, it can also be your proxy for assessing product-market fit. Here’s how.

As a quick roadmap:

  1. How to use the pricing thermometer to understand value-based pricing
  2. The difference between buyers and customers
  3. What is your value metric? And why does it matter?
  4. How pricing influences positioning
  5. How to approach building a tiered plan, with a mini case study on Pulley
  6. Net dollar retention, what product-market fit looks like in dollars
  7. The SaaS version of engagement metrics

The pricing thermometer

Every product manager out there knows that customers don’t always know what they want, so asking them for a solution rarely nets valuable feedback. Rather, start with the problem. What are their frustrations? What sucks? What’s the last product they bought to attempt to alleviate their problem? Subsequently, what’d they like about that product? What didn’t they like?

There are two perspectives you can use to approach pricing: cost-plus and value-based. Cost-plus pricing is pricing based on selling the product at a given markup from its unit cost. The biggest mistake founders often make here is underestimating how much it costs to produce a product.

On the other hand, there’s value-based pricing. An approach where you determine the economic value of the service you are providing and give it to your customers for a bargain. Superhuman, for instance, prices the fastest email experience at $30/month. Or in a different light, a dollar a day. If you are saving more than a dollar of economic value a day by responding to emails faster than ever, then the product is worth it. The biggest pitfall here is that founders often don’t fully understand the value they’re bringing to their customers, which is a result of:

  1. They don’t understand your value,
  2. Or you can’t convince them of the value you think you offer.

To visualize both of these approaches better, let’s use the pricing thermometer, as YC calls it.

value based pricing

The greater the gap between two nodes (i.e. value and price, or price and cost), the greater the incentive. If you’re selling at a price far greater than its unit cost, you are far more motivated to sell your product. On the flip side, if your product is priced far below the value and benefits you provide, a customer is more motivated to purchase your product.

Buyers vs Customers

To take it a step further, if you’re planning to scale your startup, what you’re looking for our customers, not buyers. Buyers are people who purchase your product once, and never again. They learned from their mistake. Your product either didn’t deliver the value you promised or the value they thought you would deliver. Customers are repeat purchasers. Why? Because they love your product. It addresses your customers’ needs (and ideally more) again and again. Your customers’ satisfaction is evergreen, rather than ephemeral.

When you only have buyers, you have to push your product to others. It’s the epitome of a door-to-door salesperson. Think Yellow Pages.

When you have customers, you feel the pull. Customers are drawn to you. They come back willingly on their own two feet. As Calvin French-Owen, co-founder of Segment, once said: “The biggest difference between our ideas pre-PMF vs. when we found it was this feeling of pull. Before we had any sort of fit, it always felt like we had to push our ideas on other people. We had to nag people to use the product.”

value-based pricing

Value-based pricing is playing to win. Cost-plus pricing is playing to not lose. While the latter is convenient strategy when you’re a local business not looking to scale (i.e. coffee shop, local diner, local auto parts store, etc.), it’s incredibly difficult to scale with, especially as customer needs evolve. As you scale, your customers might include anyone from Microsoft who wants you to bring a sales engineer to integrate your product to a 5-person startup team who’s just testing your product out. With cost-plus pricing, you’ll be forced to determine price points on a case-by-case scenario. With value-based pricing, you can systemize dynamic pricing based on evolving customer needs. As their value received goes up, the price does too.

As the name suggests, to generate pull, we have to start from value. In this case, your value metric.

Continue reading “How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy”
Posted on

The CEO’s Evolving Job Description

Not long ago, I was asked: “Why do founders often fail as CEOs?” A rather provocative question. I wouldn’t go as far as to say founders often fail as CEOs as a blanket statement. Equally so, the question isn’t “why”, but “where”. People can “fail” in their positions for any number of reasons. “Why” is simply that they didn’t perform well under the expectations of the role. The better question comes down to “where” might they need to watch out for. Still so, there are many. But one that often catches founders by surprise is: the (in)ability to scale themselves with the company.

Founders often make great CEOs at the beginning. What I’ve seen and heard more of is the inability of founders to scale at the same pace as their company. As the company grows, the job description of the CEO changes as well. The same is true for all executive/leadership positions in a company. Something I personally love is at Shopify, every year the executives have to requalify for the position they hold, and that includes the CEO.

In the early stages, the CEO is a maker. They’re the most obsessed about the problem space. Their main job is to get the product to market. And test if it resonates. They get shit done. As the company scales (post product/market fit), the CEO is a manager. They’re no longer working on the daily/weekly updates of the product at a granular level, but making sure the entire organization functions as a well-oiled machine. How can the CEO enable their team members to be greater than the sum of their parts? To quote Paul Graham of Y Combinator, it’s the difference between the maker’s schedule and the manager’s schedule.

When you’re a small team of 5 or even 20, you’re the product lead. You decide the direction in which the product will go and you’re involved in the day-to-day nuances of the product itself, from the UI/UX to talking to customers to discover pain points, etc. When the company grows to 50 – give or take, you have already hired or are going to hire your first product manager, which means you won’t be involved in the day-to-day anymore, but rather in the larger strategic directions of the company and the product. As a maker, your decisions are tactical. On the other hand, as a manager, your decisions are strategic.

Similarly, Ben Horowitz, the second name in the investment firm, Andreessen Horowitz, wrote about peacetime and wartime CEOs. In the early days of a company, you’re at war. You’re selling; you’re networking. You’re fighting in a competitive market of attention. Not only from your customers, but also potential hires and investors. As your company scales past $100M ARR (among any of the other heuristics when you stop being a “startup”), you’re now a category leader and possibly a market leader as well. As the market leader in “peacetime”, you decide the rules of the game. You’re working to maintain your market position. You focus on the masses, and not the niches as much. And therefore, the job description of a leader born in an era of war is different from a leader born to maintain peace.

Many founding CEOs understand that their role will evolve over time, but unfortunately, many are still unable to keep up with the pace at which the company evolves. Effectively, CEOs have to always be one step ahead of the company’s growth to prepare the infrastructure for the rest of the team to grow into.

Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley

Last week, I was lucky enough to jump on a call with the founder of Pulley, Yin Wu. Backed some of the best investors out there including Stripe, General Catalyst, YC, Elad Gil, just to name a few, Pulley is the ultimate tool for cap table management. In addition, Yin is a 4-peat founder, one of which led to an acquisition by Microsoft, and three of which, including Pulley, went through YC.

In our conversation, we covered many things, but one particular theme stood out to me the most: how she built a culture of ruthless prioritization.

Continue reading “How to Build a Culture that Ruthlessly Prioritizes w/ Yin Wu, Founder of Pulley”
Posted on

The Four Traits of World-Class Startup Founders

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

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

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

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

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

How to Build Fast and Not Break (As Many) Things – A Startup GTM Playbook

The tech world, particularly Silicon Valley, in the past 2 decades, has accelerated its growth ’cause of one mantra: “Move fast and break things.” Some of the most valuable products we know today were built because of that. Facebook, whose founder coined the phrase. Google. Amazon. LinkedIn. Uber. The list goes on. In sum, be “agile”. Simultaneously, I see founders, on the regular, take this mental model too far. They move fast, but they rarely give enough time to test their hypotheses.

Equally so, some companies cannot afford to “break things”. Take Dropbox, for example. Ruchi Sanghvi, founder of the South Park Commons Fund, former VP of Operations at Dropbox, and Facebook’s earliest female engineer, told VentureBeat in 2015, “Quality is really, really important to Dropbox, and as a result we needed to move slower — not slowly, but slower than Facebook.” Ruth Reader, who wrote for VentureBeat at the time, further extrapolated, “What was right for Facebook — fast-paced iteration and fixing bugs in real time — didn’t work for DropBox, an application people entrusted with personal documents like wedding photos or the first draft of a novel. What was valuable to DropBox was the details.”

On the other extreme, there are founders who spend day after day, week after week, and sometimes year after year, pursuing the “perfect” product before launching. If they were right on the money before, by the time they launch 6 months later, they might be 6 months off the money. Take the situation we’re all in today for example – the pandemic. No one could have predicted it. In fact, I had many a few predictions before the pandemic, which all proved to be unfortunately wrong.

  • The Marketplace of Startups, written on February 24, 2020 – I alluded to an opinion I held that consumer social was almost dead. The consumer app market had become so saturated that it was hard for new players to play in.
  • Myths around Startups and Business Ideas, written on October 12, 2020 – Pre-COVID, I was more bullish on Slack than Zoom as a public stock investment. History proved otherwise.

… and more to come. Mistakes are inevitable. And “the rear view mirror is always clearer than the windshield”, as Warren Buffett would describe. Seth Godin said in his recent interview on The Tim Ferriss Show: “Reassurance is futile because you never have enough of it.”

At the end of the day, as a startup founder, your raison d’être is creating value in the world where there wasn’t before. As Bill Gates puts it: “A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it.” Analogized, your startup is that platform.

So, in this post, using the lessons from other subject-matter experts (SMEs), I’ll share how startup teams can balance speed with intentionality in their go-to-market (GTM) strategy.

Continue reading “How to Build Fast and Not Break (As Many) Things – A Startup GTM Playbook”
Posted on

Before the Close – How to Increase the Chance of Raising Capital

A number of founders ask me for fundraising advice. While they come in different magnitudes, one of the common themes is: “I’ve had many investor meetings, but I still can’t get a term sheet. What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do or to say to get a yes?”

To preface, I don’t have the one-size-fit-all solution. Neither do I think there is a one-size-fit-all solution. Each investor is looking for something different. And while theses often rhyme, the “A-ha!” moment for each investor is a culmination of their own professional and life experiences. This anecdote is, by no means, prescriptive, but another perspective that may help you when fundraising, if you’re not getting the results you want. This won’t help you cheat the system. If you still have a shoddy product or an unambitious team, you’re still probably not going to get any external capital.

One thing I learned when I was on the operating side of the table is: When you want money, ask for advice. When you want advice, ask for money. It’s, admittedly, a slightly roundabout way to get:

  1. Investor interest,
  2. And reference points for milestones to hit.

But it’s worked for me. Why? Because you’re fighting in a highly-competitive, heavily-saturated market of attention – investor attention. This method merely helps you increase the potential surface area of interaction and visibility, to give you time in front of an investor to prove yourself.

Investors are expected to jump into a long term marriage with founders, while, for the most part, only given a small cross-section in your founding journey to evaluate you. It’s as if you chose to marry someone for life you’ve only met 60-90 days ago. While angels and some people have the courage and the conviction to do that, most investors like to err on the side of caution. Contrary to popular belief, venture capitalists are extremely risk-averse. They look for risk-adjusted bets. And if you can prove to them – either through traction or an earned secret – that you’re not just a rounding error, you’ll make their lives a lot easier.

So, let me elaborate.

When you want money, ask for advice.

As you’re growing your business and you want to show you are, ask investors for advice. Tell them. “So I’ve been growing at X% MoM, and I’ve gotten to Y # of users. I’m thinking about pursuing this Z as my next priority. And this is how I plan to A/B test it. What do you think?”

And if you keep these investors in the loop the entire time and ask and follow-up on their advice, at some point, they’d think and ask, “Damn, this is an epic business. Will you just take my money?”

So, what are good numbers?

The Rule of 40 is a rough rule of thumb many investors use for consumer tech markets. Month-over-month growth rate plus profit should be greater than or equal to 40. So you can be growing 50% MoM, but burning money with -10% profit, aka costs are greater than your revenue. Or you can be growing 30% MoM, but gaining 10% profit every month. And if you’ve got 10s of 1000s of users, you’re on solid ground. Better yet, one of the biggest expenses is increasing server capacity costs.

For more reference points on ideal consumer startup numbers, check out this blog post I wrote last year.

For enterprise/B2B SaaS, somewhere along the lines of 10-15% MoM growth. With at least 1 key customer logo. And 5 publicly referenceable customers.

Of course, the Rule of 40 did not age well for certain industries in 2020.

When you want advice, ask for money.

When you ask for money most of the time, investors, partners, and potential customers will say no, especially if you’re super early on and don’t have a background or track record as an entrepreneur. So when they do say no, I like to ask them one of my favorite questions: “What do I need to bring you for you to unconditionally say yes?” Then, they’ll tell me what they want to see out of our product or our business. These, especially if they’re reinforced independently across multiple different individuals in your ecosystem, should be your North Star metrics. And when you do put their advice to action, be sure to follow up with the results to their implemented advice.

  1. You either do what they recommended. And show them what happened. And what’s next.
  2. Or you don’t do what they recommended. But show that you heavily considered their recommendation. What you did instead. Why you chose to do what you did instead. And what’s next.

To take it one step further, once I ask the above question to have a reference point for growth trajectory, I ask: “Who is the smartest person(s) known to achieve X (or in Y)?” with X being the answer you got via the previous question. And Y being the industry you’re tackling.

For instance, I’d recommend:

Then, go to that person or those people and say, “Hey Jennifer, [investor name] said if there’s one person I had to talk to about X, I have to talk to you.” Feel free to use my cold email “template” as reference, if you’re unsure of what else to say.

If you use this tactic again and again, eventually you’ll build a family of unofficial (maybe even official) mentors and advisors, even if you never explicitly call them that. Not necessarily asking for money all the time. But asking for money might help you ignite the spark for this positive feedback loop.

In closing

When I was on the operating side, a brilliant founder with 2 multi-million dollar exits once told me: “Always be selling. Always be fundraising. And always be hiring.”

I didn’t really get it then. In fact, I didn’t get it the entire time I was on the other side of the table. What do you mean “Always be fundraising”? Should I just be asking for money all the time? What about the business?

It wasn’t until I made my way into VC at SkyDeck that I realized the depth of his words. Keep people you eventually want to fundraise from and hire in the loop about what you’re building. Keep them excited. Build a relationship beyond something transactional. Build a friendship.

Jeff Bezos put it best when he said:

“If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.

“At Amazon we like things to work in five to seven years. We’re willing to plant seeds, let them grow and we’re very stubborn. We say we’re stubborn on vision and flexible on details.”

Photo by Frame Harirak 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 #30 Inspiration and Frustration – The Honest Answers From Some of the Most Resilient People Going through a World of Uncertainty

A few weeks ago, around the time I published Am I At My Best Right Now?, I started noticing more and more that my friends, colleagues, and people that I’ve met since were going through tough times. Two lost a family member. Some were laid off. Two were forced to leave this land I call home. Four broke up. Three burned out. Countless more told me they were stressed and/or depressed, and didn’t know how to escape this limbo. After I published that post, another handful of people also reached out and courageously shared the troubles they are going through now. How it’s been so hard to share with others. And yesterday, while editing this blog post, I found out that one of my high school friends had passed.

Inspiration and Frustration

During this time, I had a thought: Frustration is the absence of inspiration. There were many times in my own life when I was beating myself up because I couldn’t think of a solution. And a small percent of those times, I didn’t even bother to think of a solution since I was so engrossed in my frustration with myself.

In these unprecedented times and inspired by the conversations around me, I decided to show that we’re not alone. So, I asked people who I deeply respect and who could shed light as to what it means to be human. I asked just two questions, but they were only allowed to answer one of them:

  1. What is the one thing that inspires you so much that it makes everything else in life much easier to bear?
  2. What is stressing/frustrating you so much right now that it seems to invalidate everything else you’re doing?

In turn, they responded via email, text, or on a phone call. Of the 49 I asked, so far, 31 responded with their answers. 4 politely turned me down due to their busy schedules. Another one turned me down because she didn’t feel like she could offer value in her answer.

26 responded with what inspires them. 5 with what frustrates them. All of whom I know has been through adversity and back.

Admittedly, the hardest part about this study was how I was going to organize all these responses. Unlike the one about time allocation I did over a month ago, where I knew exactly how to organize the data before I even got all the responses, this one, I really didn’t know how to best illustrate the candor everyone shared. In fact, I would be doing a disservice to them, if reduced their honesty and courage to be vulnerable to mere numbers. So, in the end, below, I let everyone speak for themselves. Sometimes, simplicity is the best.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to making this blog post happen, including Brad Feld, Mars Aguirre, Shayan Mehdi, Thomas Owen, Chris Lyons, Mark Leon, Jamarr Lampart, Christen Nino De Guzman, Louis Q Tran, Sam Marelich, Dr. Kris Marsh, Quincy Huynh, DJ Welch, Jimmy Yue, and many, many more heroes who helped me and the world around us behind the curtains.

Continue reading “#unfiltered #30 Inspiration and Frustration – The Honest Answers From Some of the Most Resilient People Going through a World of Uncertainty”
Posted on

Video Games – Evolving from Social Networks to Ad Marketplaces

video games, startup gamified models, startup gamification, ads, advertisement market

With the 2020 series of events, many of us have started to look for other ways to pass our time. Some have looked towards Netflix and Disney+. A number, baking (even ice cream making; thank you to everyone who got an ice cream machine before me). And others, gaming. The number of friends, who had no track record of gaming and suddenly started talking about how to farm iron nuggets in Animal Crossing: New Horizons, skyrocketed. Anecdotally, more than 3-4 fold more.

Games = social networks

Games have become the new social networks. I’m not even talking about the gaming subreddits on Reddit or the Discord channels out there. And much like how social networks are communal hubs of interaction, games, like:

…*deep breath* just to name a few, offer just as much, if not more. People spend hours indulging on the platform and interacting with friends. Not only that, because content is native to gaming platforms themselves, it makes it easier for friends to connect and share content on progress and goals. Much like groups and communities on social networks, many games have clan systems that increase retention and engagement on the platform. Games are just sticky.

By the numbers

They aren’t discrete “one-off” purchases, like my old Nintendo 64 cartridge games, but evolving engines of narrative and relief, or as Andreessen Horowitz calls them – living franchises. What started as “one-off” buys became downloadable contents post-launch (DLCs). And looking at games like World of Warcraft, Fortnite, with constant monthly updates, patches and hotfixes, the games you buy “in the box” are no longer the same beast as before. And now we have a term for it all – Games-as-a-Service (GaaS).

In 2019, there were over 2.5 billion gamers in the world. That’s about 1 gamer out of every 3 people in the world. Together, they spent $120.1 billion on games and grew the market 3%, in a study by SuperData. And you know even Neilsen wants a slice of the pie when they acquired SuperData in 2018, a research company dedicated to tracking the game and e-sports markets. No surprise, Neilsen’s not alone. 44.2% of Tencent’s investments have been into gaming – owning 100% of Riot Games (League of Legends), 40% of Epic Games (Fortnite), 81.4% of Supercell (Clash of Clans), 10% of Bluehole (PUBG), and even 1.3% of Roblox and 2% of Discord. Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and many others are no stranger to putting their dollar into gaming as well.

Though many in 2019 weren’t bullish on the 2020’s growth numbers, in hindsight, we’re seeing a whole different wave of optimism. Hell, March 2020 was a real winner for gamers, spending $1.6 billion on games, their hardware, software, accessories and game cards, thanks for COVID. Needless to say, Animal Crossing topped the charts. I can’t imagine the number at the end of 2020.

Social athletes

You also have Twitch streamers, YouTubers, mods, and creators who become the local/global authority on the market and often ubiquitous with the games/genres they play. Who can actively and passively sway how a community thinks and acts, just like big-time influencers on social media. They have effectively become, what I call, social athletes, turning their hobby into a full-time pursuit. And earning paychecks by representing the brand/team they love most, as well as through sponsorships and partnerships. Shroud, a former competitive e-sports athlete, now one of the biggest streamers in the industry and formerly exclusively streaming on Microsoft’s Mixer, took a 1.5 month break after the Microsoft shut down its Twitch competitor, Mixer. And on his first day back recently, he had half a million viewers tuning in to watch his revival on Twitch.

The next frontier

Just like how social networks evolved into ad-based revenue models, games are evolving into a similar beast, as well. Mobile games have been no stranger to advertisements for a long time. But we’re now seeing the change now on PC and console games. And in a slightly different nature. Where the ads are embedded into the game experience itself, rather than the pop-out kinds.

Epic Games’ Fortnite definitely took it all to the next level – from their live, in-game events to their virtual cosmetic options that acted as film promotions. The latter, much like, how LEGO releases a whole series of movie-related sets to help with promoting it. And their live events are no joke, whether it was:

  • Their live Marshmello concert (with 11 million attending live),
  • Their Marvel crossover event where players could play as Thanos,
  • Or, when 3.1 million players got a sneak peek into a never-before-seen scene in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker before it came to theaters.

As expected, many other games are following suit. Recently popular PC game, Fall Guys, is now hosting a “battle of the brands” on their Twitter – a bidding war to have your brand featured as a cosmetic in the game towards a good cause of donating to Special Effect, a charity dedicated to helping gamers with physical disabilities.

Last I checked, the bid is at $420,069.69. And yes, I’m sure the numbers were intentional.

So, what’s next?

Well, it’s an exciting time. Not too long ago, influencer marketing blew up. And now brands/games are becoming influencers in and of themselves. Whether that fall under influencer marketing or a new bucket, I don’t know. What I do know is that though we are all far apart right now, the world of media is bringing the larger world closer together. As more games:

  • Go cross-platform,
  • Are discovered organically and socially,
  • And are fueled and accelerated alongside co-creaters, influencers and user-generated content…

… while technologies, like 5G, virtual and augmented/mixed reality (VR/AR/XR), cloud gaming, and blockchain, bring more interactions into each game, building larger and immersive worlds, I’m quite bullish on the growth of the gaming industry. And as the gaming industry evolves, their learnings will bleed into other industries, via gamified models – from Pioneer gamifying the process of building a business to Superhuman gamifying productivity, first through emails.

Why? They’re sticky – high engagement and retention cohorts. And I dare say, sexy, as well. Frankly, game companies don’t just launch with minimum viable products (MVP), but minimum viable happiness (MVH). Or as Jiaona Zhang, VP Product at Webflow and lecturer at Stanford’s School of Management Science & Engineering, calls it: minimum lovable products (MLP).

If you’re interested in a deep dive on how to offer MVH or build an MLP, check out my previous post on the topic:

A Reason to Stay

Photo by Florian Olivo 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

Looking at Business Models – Consumer Behaviors and Gross Margins

startup business models, waves, consumer behaviors

While sipping on my morning green tea, I’m inspired by Venture Stories’ recent podcast episode where Erik was interviewing Charles Hudson of Precursor, where they codify Charles’ investment thesis, markets, business models, among many other topics. A brilliant episode, if I say so myself! And it got me thinking.

Some market context

In the past few months, I’ve been chatting with a number of founders who largely seem to gravitate towards the subscription business model. Even pre-COVID, that seemed to be the case. And this notion was and is further perpetuated where a plethora of VCs turned their attention to XaaS (X-as-a-service).

Why? Pre-COVID, the general understanding was that consumers were:

  1. More expensive to acquire,
  2. And, harder to retain,

…which I shared in one of my February posts. I’d even heard some investors say: “Consumer social is dead.” Although I personally didn’t go as far as to illustrate the death of a vertical, I had become relatively more bearish on consumer than I did when I started in venture. Clearly, we were wrong. The question is: how much of this current situation will still hold true post-COVID? And honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But I digress.

Given the presumption that the consumer industry was faltering, many VCs re-positioned their theses to index more on enterprise and SaaS models. Models that had relatively fixed distribution channels and recurring revenue. It became some form of ‘guarantee’ that their investments could make their returns. And as the demand for startups shifted, supply followed.

The Business Models

Though there seemingly has been an overindexing of subscription models in the consumer space, I’m still an optimist for its future. The important part is to follow consumer behavior.

  • What do their consumption patterns look like?
  • What do their purchasing patterns look like?
  • How do customers think about value?

Here is a set of lens in which I think about business model application:

Subscription“One-off”
Continuous consumption patterns
>3-4 times in a month
(Ideally, >3-4 times per week)		Discrete consumption patterns
~1-2 times a year
Extremely episodic in nature
Proactive, expectant behaviorReactive behavior
Examples:
Food
Groceries
Music
Education		Examples:
Moving homes
One-off Conferences
Travel
Car
Note: The examples are generalized. The business models will depend on your target market. For example, travel for the average family may not happen on a recurring basis, but travel for a consultant happen weekly (pre-COVID).

The Extremes of Gross Margins

Of course, I can’t talk about business models without talking about profits. The ultimate goal of any business model is to realize returns – gross margins. Unfortunately, there’s no silver bullet on how you price your product. While you find the optimum price (range) for your product A/B testing with your customers, here’s a little perspective onto the two extremes of the spectrum.

  1. If you have insanely high margins, expect lots of competitors – either now or in the near future. Expect price-based competition, as you may most likely, fight in a race to the bottom. Much like the 1848 California Gold Rush. Competitors are going to rush in to saturate the market and squeeze the margins out of “such a great opportunity”.
  2. If your margins are incredibly low, as Charles said on the podcast, “there better be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” You need extremely high volumes (i.e. GMV, “liquidity” in a marketplace) to compensate for the minimal cut you’re taking each transaction. A fight to monopolize the market. I’m looking for market traits like:
    1. Growing market size.
      • Ideally heavily fragmented market where you can capture convoluted, antiquated, and/or unconcentrated processes in the status quo.
      • Why unconcentrated? Don’t underestimate the power of your incumbents’ brands and product offerings. Like don’t jump in ad tech if you’re just going to fight against the Google and Facebook juggernauts, who own 80% of the ad market.
    2. Insane network effects.
    • For example, payments or food delivery. Food delivery is one where you have to reach critical mass before focusing on cash flow/profitability. I get it. It’s a money-eating business… until network effects kick in. Sarah Tavel wrote a Medium article about this where she explains it more elegantly than I have.

In closing

I’ve seen many founders end up taking their models for granted or sticking to a single generic revenue structure. But the best founders I meet make this a very intentional part of their business. Sometimes, even having different revenue streams for different parts of the business. If that’s the case for you too, Connie’s piece about multimodal models may be worth a read.

Photo by Denys Nevozhai 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