Tag: blossom street ventures

Posted on

Why Should Sky High Valuations Matter to Employees

Earlier this week, I came across a curious quote while reading Sammy Abdullah’s notes on the book eBoys by Randall Stross, chronicling the founding and early days of Benchmark. In it, the quote read: “What’s it like recruiting when the stock price is so high? Really hard. The options offered to new employees were certain to be valueless, as they would depend on the stock ascending still higher. I mean, it’s at such a ridiculous level, there’s going to be a big fall here. The question is sort of when and how.”

2022’s VC landscape

After an insane 1.5-year run, I’ve seen valuation multiples that were 100-200x a company’s revenue get funded. At the end of the day, venture capital is belief capital. And it is not my place to criticize someone else’s belief, but I know that same belief will falter in the coming months to year. We’ve already seen public market stocks fall and VC exit values plummet 90% in Q1 this year. Tiger Global fell 7% in 2021 – its first annual loss since 2016. $10,000 invested in the basket of IPOs for 2021 would be worth $5,500 today. We’re in a correction soon. Or as Martin who I’ve had the pleasure to meet via On Deck calls it, the “Great Asset Repricing.” When exactly? I don’t know.

That said, as a function of the great repricing, VCs are coming in with more aggressive terms to hedge their bets. Greater liquidation preferences. More aggressive anti-dilution provisions. For LPs into late-stage capital allocators, they’re expecting greater minimum hurdle rates. In other words, they expect investors to have an internal rate of return (IRR) of at least 20%. Every year, an investor’s assets need to be worth 20% more than the year before. This is up from 10-12% from back in 2021, which I cited in last week’s blogpost.

And as Martin surmises, we’ll see a lot more inside rounds (investors re-upping in their own portfolio) for two reasons:

  1. Insiders have more information.
  2. Insiders tend to be more conservative on valuation.

And “companies without significant traction to face a very tough fundraising environment in the near term.”

What the hell does all this esoteric jargon mean for employees?

The best private companies are still playing ball with the ball on their side of the court. They have leverage. But most companies that were funded in the past one and a half years won’t. As such, there are four things that will and have already started to happen:

  1. You don’t raise. Cut your burn rate. Stay close to the money. Extend your runway, but set clear expectations. That’s what Alinea did at the start of the pandemic. Your team is in it for the long run. Many may choose to leave, but that is the reality.
  2. You raise, but on a flat or down round. This is better for your employees that you plan to hire, since there is a better chance that their shares will appreciate in the next funding window. But you’re not getting any fancy press releases.
  3. You raise on an up round. That’s great. You make the headlines on TC or Forbes. But it increases the pressure for both your current team members and new hires. VCs add in more aggressive terms. No one’s getting paid until investors get 2-3x their money back via a liquidity event or exit. As a founder, you have more pressure to shoot for a bigger exit than you would have needed to shoot for otherwise. Or else, the team that bled for you for years will get little to no upside for their time and effort.
  4. Or, you go out. Monetarily, no one wins.

So what can you do as a startup employee? Or as a prospective startup employee?

Just like I recommend folks to think like an LP to get a job in VC, to get a job at a startup, think like a VC. Or as Nikhil Basu Trivedi puts it, find employee-VC alignment.

Ask questions on revenue drivers. What do growth metrics look like for the last three months? How does churn and net retention look like? When do they plan to raise their next round? And simply, how much revenue is the company generating? Does the price-to-sales multiple make sense? For example, is the latest valuation of the company 200x the company’s revenue or 50x. The former is likely to come with more insane expectations from their investors. In December last year, Retool wrote a great piece why they chose to raise at a lower valuation and why that makes sense for their team members, which I highly recommend checking out.

Of course, as a startup employee, you want your shares to increase in value, but too much too quickly can be detrimental. We’ve seen the recent example with Fast. They were last valued at $580M according to Pitchbook, but were only making $600K in revenue, but was burning $10M a month. Almost a 1000x multiple!

A growth-stage startup grounded on fundamentals (i.e. traction) will likely still be able to raise. A startup funded on promises that has yet to deliver may not be able to. As Samir Kaji tweeted yesterday:

In closing

Contrary to popular opinion, a company’s valuation is not how much a startup is worth, but rather it is a bet on the chance they will be as big as their incumbent competitor. Take Yuga Labs as an example. They recently raised $450M on a $4B valuation from a16z and a number of other incredible investors. With that capital injection, they are building Otherside, their take on the metaverse integrating their various NFT properties. Epic Games, on the other hand, is valued at $31.5B. $32 billion for ease of calculation. Yuga’s $4B valuation is a bet their investors are taking that Yuga has a 12.5% chance (4/32) to be as big as Epic, and by transitive property, Fortnite.

As an employee, the bet you make is not with capital, but with time – the world’s scarcest resource. We’re coming into a world soon where cash is king. Make your judgments accordingly.

To close, I had to cite Brian Rumao‘s tweet, early investor in Fast. He boiled it down beautifully in 280 characters.

Photo by Yiran Ding on Unsplash

Disclaimer: None of this is investment advice. This content is for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Please consult your own adviser before making any investments.

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

Any views expressed on this blog are mine and mine alone. They are not a representation of values held by On Deck, DECODE, or any other entity I am or have been associated with. They are for informational and entertainment purposes only. None of this is legal or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

Posted on

How to Win at Net Dollar Retention

coffee shop, retaining customers

I was reading Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures‘ Medium post not too long ago about the value of auto-price increases in a context I’ve never really thought about. Quoting one of his portfolio companies’ founders:

“We started including auto-price increases in our renewals at the start of this year and it’s been surprisingly effective. Our starting point is 10% and we get it more often than not; some customers negotiate us down to the 3–5% range.

“The automatic price increases are a beautiful thing because they give us leverage:

  1. we can trade an automatic price increase for an earlier renewal, longer contract period, or upselling to more features; and
  2. when we do waive price increases, the customer walks away satisfied. They feel like they’re winning.”

It’s a great way to win on net retention. But as I’ve written about before, the net retention equation is comprised of the upgrades, downgrades, and churn variables.

NDR = (starting MRR + upgrades – downgrades – churn)/(starting MRR)

So to maximize retention, you can:

  1. Level up your customers into higher tiers
    • Or convert more users into customers, if you’re running a freemium model
  2. Reduce the number of customers downgrading to lower tiers
  3. Reduce churn – customers leaving your platform
  4. Some permutation of the above variables

Leveling up upgrades

Shivani Berry, founder of Ascend’s Leadership Program, once wrote: “Buy-in is the result of showing your team why your idea achieves their goals.” In a similar sense, buy-in is the result of showing your customers why your product achieves their goals. The best thing is that their goals will change over time. As so, your product must contain increasingly more value to your customers as they level up in their lifecycle. As they grow, you have product offerings that grow with their needs.

Take, for example, one of my favorite startups these days, Pulley, a cap table management tool for startups. Don’t worry, this isn’t a sponsored blogpost. Although it’d be nice if it was. I have no chips in the bag; I just like them. They have three tiers of pricing. The lowest for startups with 25 stakeholders. The middle for startups with 40. And the highest is for larger businesses.

Why 25? The average seed-stage startup has about 25 stakeholders. Subsequently, top of mind for them is what SAFEs and convertible notes look like on their cap table and how to structure early equity pools.

As a startup levels up to 40 stakeholders, they’re probably jumping into their first priced round. As such, they’ll need a 409A valuation to appraise their fair market value, as well as finally putting together their first official board.

Every time founders raise another round of funding, the more complicated their cap table becomes. The more they need Pulley’s software. And it so happens, the less price sensitive they become. For Pulley, that means they can charge more as their customers have greater purchasing power.

You also always want an enterprise pricing tier, where pricing is custom. Don’t be afraid to charge more. As I mentioned in a previous essay, when Intercom was only charging IBM $49, an IBM exec once told the Intercom team, “You know, I go on a coffee run for the team that costs a lot more than your product. That’s why we’re wary of investing too much more in you. We just don’t see how you’re going to survive.” If it helps as a reference point, the median ACV (annual contract value) for public SaaS companies is $27,000.

Do note that the more you charge, the longer the sales cycle will be. For ACVs over $20K, expect 4-6 months of a sales cycle. For contracts over $100K, expect 6-9 months. Of course, the contrapositive would be that the lower the price point, the easier and faster it takes to make a decision.

Reducing downgrades and churn

I’ve been in love with Clayton Christensen’s “jobs-to-be-done” (JTBD) framework ever since I learned of it a few years ago. At the end of the day, you’re delivering value. Value in the form of doing a job. As Christensen says, “when we buy a product, we essentially ‘hire’ it to help us do a job. If it does the job well, the next time we’re confronted with the same job, we tend to hire that product again. And if it does a crummy job, we ‘fire’ it and look for an alternative.”

The better it can do the job your customer needs to get done, the more you can optimize for the variables in the net retention equation. Sunita Mohanty, Product Lead at Facebook, shared an amazing JTBD framework they use back at Facebook and Instagram:

When I… (context)
But… (barrier)
Help me… (goal)
So I… (outcome)

Here’s another way to look at it:

  1. What features should we have that would make our product great?
  2. What features should this product have that would make it a no-brainer purchase for our customers?

The “no-brainer” part especially matters. And to be a “no-brainer”, you have to deliver the best-in-class. Your features have to solve a fundamental job that your customer is trying to solve. The difference between a “great product” and a “no-brainer” is the difference between a 5 out of 5-star rating and a 6-star out of a 5-star rating. Effectively, the outcome in Facebook’s JTBD framework exceeds the goal, which makes the barrier irrelevant. As David Rubin, CMO of The New York Times and former Head of Global Brand at Pinterest once said: “Your service shouldn’t lead with ‘saving money’. You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.”

In closing

At the end of the day, in the words of Alex Rampell, building a startup is “a race where the startup is trying to get distribution before the incumbent gets innovation.”

You’re in a race against time. You’re trying to reach critical mass and growth before your incumbents realize your space is a money-making machine. And growth comes in two parts: acquisition and retention. While many founders seemed to have over-indexed on acquisition over the last couple of years, the pandemic has reawakened many that retention is often times much more difficult to attain than acquisition. While it may not be true for every type of business, hopefully, the above is another tool in your toolkit.

Photo by Joshua Rodriguez 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

A Strategy to Win Versus A Strategy Not to Lose w/ Alex Sok

For a number of friends and founders I’ve chatted this with, I’ve been a big fan of the concept of “winning versus not losing”. Ever since I heard back in 2018. In an interview with Tim Ferriss, Ann Miura-Ko of Floodgate said, “This is probably the hardest piece – knowing the difference between a winning strategy versus a strategy not to lose. […] Not losing often involves a lot of hedging. And when you feel that urge to hedge, you need to focus. You need to be offensive.”

There are a few great examples of what differentiates winning and not losing from both Tim and Ann in that interview. For instance, a lack of focus by going after two different market segments is a strategy not to lose. “The reason why that’s really hedging is you have two completely different ways of selling to those organizations and you’re afraid to pick one because maybe you have some revenue in both.”

My college friend recently connected me with entrepreneur, designer, angel investor, Alex Sok. Both of us found unlikely common ground in using sports analogies to relate to building a company. Me, swimming (e.g. here and here). Alex, football. Specifically, American football. Having been a quarterback for his school’s football team back in the day, he said something quite fascinating, “You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.” And you know me, I had to double click on that.

I was previously under the assumption that you only needed a strategy to win, but not to lose. But as all generalizations that start with the word “only”, I was wrong. And Alex contextualized it for me – that sometimes you do need to think about how not to “lose”.

Winning versus not losing

“You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.”

Throwing the ball deep for your running back to make the touchdown is a strategy to win. On the flip side, if you don’t convert on the third down, you’re going to lose. You may not win, but if you don’t, you could very much lose. Not all mistakes carry the same gravitas. Some mistakes can be detrimental; most mistakes aren’t. Just because you’re making sure that you convert on the third down does not mean you can’t still swing for the fences.

For founders, losing in the first quarter is akin to:

  • Burning through your seed funding in six months;
  • Hiring four professional executives before you get to product-market fit;
  • Not talking to your customers;
  • There is no one in the room who can tackle the biggest risk of the business (i.e. no engineer when you’re building an AI solution, or no one who can do sales when you’re an enterprise tech company)

You’re still aiming high, but that doesn’t mean you should burden yourself with an astronomical burn rate.

“Game plans will have to vary depending on your market or product. Key fundamental traits that increase the probability of failure will always be present. It’s important to identify which ones matter most in relation to the game plan,” says Alex. “A tough defense or go-to-market means being more focused on identifying which channels to pursue and then doubling down if it works out.”

On the flip side, “an aggressive defense or burgeoning industry might mean taking more chances but setting up plays wisely to take advantage of their aggressive, risk-taking nature. This will force the defense to settle down and play you more honestly. In startup terms, that might mean steady progress and growth with a few deep shots to achieve escape velocity from your competitors.”

Not to get forget about winning

You’ve probably heard of the saying, “If you want your company to truly scale, you have to do things that don’t scale.” Especially in the zero to one phase. From idea to product-market fit. Many of us in venture break down the early life cycle of a company by zero-to-one and one-to-infinity. The first “half” is doing things that don’t scale. Figuring out what frustrations your customers are going through. Getting that pedometer up on the street yourself. Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, “Acquisition of skills requires a regular environment, an adequate opportunity to practice, and rapid and unequivocal feedback about the correctness of thoughts and actions.”

Here are a few examples:

In the early days of Airbnb, Brian, Joe, and Nathan used to visit early Airbnb hosts with a rented DSLR to photograph their houses.

For Stripe, the founders manually onboarded every merchant to deliver “instant” merchant accounts. Of course, the Collison brothers took it a step further to mint the term “Collison installation”. Usually when founders ask early leads “Will you try our beta?”, if people say yes, then they say, “Great, we’ll send you a link.” Rather, Patrick and John said, “Right then, give me your laptop” and set it up for them right then and there.

At Doordash, they found restaurant menu PDFs online, created landing pages, put their personal number out there for people to call, and personally executed deliveries within the day.

To get his first 2000 users, Ryan at Product Hunt wrote handcrafted emails to early users and reporters to grow what started off as an email list.

Similarly, in football, teams often spend the first half of the game feeling out their opponents. Their strengths, their weaknesses. And the back half, doubling down on where your opponents fall short on. While not your opponents, founders should be spending the first half feeling out their market. Be scrappy. Nothing that’ll make you lose in the first quarter, but make mistakes. Give your team and yourself a 10-20% error rate. One of your greatest superpowers as a small team is your ability to move fast. Use it to your advantage.

Paul Graham once wrote, “Tim Cook doesn’t send you a hand-written note after you buy a laptop. He can’t. But you can. That’s one advantage of being small: you can provide a level of service no big company can.”

In closing

Alex said, “In order to be a dominant offense, you have to force the defense to cover every inch of the field.” If you only throw long, then your opponents will only need to cover long. If you only throw to the left, they only have to cover left. But if you have a diversified strategy, your opponents will have to cover every inch of the field. And to win, all you need is for your opponents to hesitate for half a second. And with a laser-focused strategy, that’s all you need to break through against your incumbents. Your incumbents often have bigger teams, can attract more talent, have deeper pockets, and the list goes on.

As a small team, you’re on offense. You can’t cover every inch of the field, and neither do you need to. You just need to be a single running back who makes it past a wall of linebackers. To do that, you need focus. As Tim Ferriss recently said on the Starting Greatness podcast, “the biggest risk to your startup is your distraction.” And it’s not just you and your team, but also the investors you bring on. Sammy Abdullah of Blossom Street Ventures wrote that the question you need to be asking yourself about your investors is: “Are you going to distract me from running the business and will you be candid with me when I have a problem?”

Focus. If you’re focusing on everything, you’re focusing on nothing. You have no room to hesitate, but it’s exactly what you want your competitors to do. That half a second on the field is about two years in the venture world. Or until you can find your product-market fit. Until you reach scale. Until you reach the “one” in zero-to-one. ‘Cause once you’re there, you just need to put your head down and run. And it’s the beginning of something defensible. Of something you can win with.

If you’re curious about taking a deeper dive on product-market fit, I recommend checking out some of my other essays:

Photo by Joe Calomeni from Pexels

Thank you Alex for helping me with early drafts of this essay!

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