Tag: cs:h

Posted on

Being Helpful

hug, support, friendly, help

“A true friend is one who stabs you in the front.” — Oscar Wilde

Many years ago, in what seemed like another lifetime, I made a girl cry. Nothing to boast about. In fact, even today, I’m quite embarrassed that I did so. In a negotiation where I prioritized one small committee in a club’s priorities above the priorities of other committees, I felt that I was right in every way. I conceived a million reasons why rationally I was right — cost, our future members’ preferences, down to the stable marriage algorithm. I fell prey to pride and ego. And she broke down. Instead of apologizing, I walked away, asserting that the data supported my case.

The next day, I found solace among classmates and friends. They told me I didn’t do anything wrong. That they would’ve done the same thing. That the facts proved I was right. Until that evening, a good friend and someone I’d known since middle school, said, “You’re fucking stupid.”

He told me to drop everything and to go apologize in person right that instant. To hell with data and facts. He said that I forgot the very first principle of any negotiation… that there was a human being on the other side. And I didn’t treat her as one. He was the one person who opened my eyes up to the ego I was blinded by. So I did. In my realization, I felt terrible and even worse for needing someone else to tell me that I had to. But that’s the friend I needed. That’s what I needed to hear.

Something you might have realized if you’re a frequent visitor to this small piece of virtual real estate is that I’m not perfect. Nor do I pretend to be. The above example is evidence of that.

I was reminded of that when I was listening to Jonathan Abrams on Venture Unlocked earlier this week. Where they brought up the topic of being founder friendly — a term that indubitably carries a lot of baggage. From the VC side, it’s jargon that’s been thrown around so much over the past decade, it’s lost its luster and meaning. From the founder side, many founders frankly just don’t get what it means. Why? Because no one actually defines it.

Over the years, I’ve seen and heard explicit and implicit definitions, including:

  • Always being on the founder’s side
  • Not being confrontational or relaying critical feedback when needed
  • Saying yes to every founder request
  • Not firing the CEO (even when they don’t do a good job)
  • Helping the founder grow as the company and CEO job description grows
  • Having answers to every question the founders ask
  • Asking (good) questions
  • Telling the founders what to do

The thing is, all the above are right and wrong at the same time. It’s situationally dependent. Ok, maybe except the last one. That one’s wrong all the time. Something you realize pretty quickly is that the investor is not in the driver’s seat. At best, we sit shotgun.

So, what does “founder friendly” mean?

  • Jonathan Abrams and the 8-Bit team says, “Do no harm.”
  • Fred Wilson says, “Saving your company from yourself may well be founder friendly.”
  • To YC, it’s being honest, transparent, responsive, and acting in the best interests of the company, shareholders, employees, and founders.

The truth is everyone has a different, but similar definition. Like product-market fit, it’s hard to measure and an amorphous term. It’s obvious in hindsight. But mysterious in foresight. Yet, as a founder, there are still many telltale signs on how helpful an investor actually will be.

Leading indicators to helpfulness

One of the reasons I love working with smaller checkwriters — be it angels or emerging fund managers — is that they often punch above their weight class. They’re insanely responsive. And are often more helpful than their check size. They may not be able to single-handedly fill the round, nor can their check get you to profitability, but they’re there when you need them. In other words, they hit high on the check size-to-helpfulness ratio, which I’ve written about before.

The first meeting

Interestingly enough, the first meeting is quite telling of how helpful investors are — regardless of the decision outcome. It could be in the form of investor intros, strategic advice, hard questions to consider, or key hires to make. In fact, they’ll make you feel like you got back days if not weeks, out of a 30-minute meeting. If you, as the founder, get nothing out of the first meeting, then you likely won’t get much when they are on your cap table. The most helpful investors don’t waste time. Not theirs. But more importantly, not yours either. They know that each time you meet with them is time away from building. And they’ll make that time worthwhile.

As an investor, the golden standard should be to be helpful in every meeting. And I don’t mean ending the conversation with “Let me know how I can be helpful.” That’s reactive.

For one of my good friends, that means that if he takes a meeting with you — whether he chooses to invest or not, he will write a 3-5 page bug report on your product. For some of my other friends, it’s that if they take a meeting, they’ll nine out of ten times set up an intro. Instead of asking “How can I be helpful?”, one should ask “What do you need help on?” or “What are the biggest obstacles that prevent you from reaching your 6-12 month goals?” Then, proactively trying to find some way to help.

That said, the afore-mentioned investors’ bar for taking a meeting is rather high.

Response rate

Another proxy for helpfulness is how fast they reply to your emails. Many of the investors who I know are insanely helpful have a system to respond to founders quickly. Moreover, if the decision is a ‘No’, they don’t shy away from sharing that and why they decided to pass. Of course, the latter is not possible for every inbound pitch. But at the very minimum, are table stakes if you’ve already jumped on an initial live conversation with them.

Here, within 24 hours is epic. 48-72 hours is great. And anything longer becomes a dime a dozen.

Inactive founders sing them high praise

It’s always important to do your homework on your investor. One of such ways is talking to other founders they backed, especially the ones who are no longer founders or no longer pursuing the original idea they were backed on. Active portfolio companies are likely to still give lip service to their investors, especially when they are a large portion of their cap table. So, when you ask, “Was this investor helpful?”, you’re likely to get an overly politically correct answer. Rather, the question I recommend asking is:

“If you were to start a new company, who are the three investors — big or small — on your current cap table that you would kill to have back on?”

Conversely, if you talk to former portfolio founders, they’re likely to be a lot more honest as they don’t have a currently active relationship with the investor. Or if they still do, the investor must have done something right.

Lagging indicators to helpfulness

While not the intended purpose of this blogpost, I can’t help but shed some additional context for investors out there. In my recent conversations with GPs and LPs, I noticed a common thread among the GPs who are capable of raising a fund even in a down market. It’s that the founders they back who went on to raise A, B rounds, or greater, come back to invest in their early believers. The people who made a difference in these founders’ lives.

So, whenever I meet an emerging GP asking for fundraising advice, one of the first questions I ask, outside of these five questions which determine if they’re ready to start a fund, is:

Have any of the founders you backed before committed to your fund?

Goodwill and helpfulness builds flywheels. When your founders go on to win, if you’ve been helpful, they’ll want to pay it back.

Tangentially, it’s why the team at Ludlow Ventures says, “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.” So, getting deal flow from founders you pass on means, either:

  1. They still want something from you; or
  2. You were really helpful that they want to send all their best founder friends to you.

Hopefully, it’s the latter.

In closing

At the end of the day, no one’s perfect. Not the founders. Not the investors. No one. And it’s okay.

In the current world of chaotic down markets, high interest rates, and more, this is the time to build goodwill. This is the time to be truly founder friendly. If you have less liquidity, you can always help in many ways outside of pure capital. After all, capital for founders is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Sometimes it’s just being honest, candid, and transparent with the founder.

Photo by Chermiti Mohamed 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!

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

Posted on

The Two-Part Question That Differentiates Just Another GP From THE GP

singer, signal above the noise

The past 2 weeks brought me a whirlwind of conversations with emerging managers and LPs, catalyzed by the emerging LP playbook. And of the former, I’ve come across two main themes:

  1. Everyone — I kid you not… everyone — has top-tier VCs as their follow-on and/or their co-investors. What was once upon unique is no longer so.
  2. Eric was right. There’s an overabundance of the word “signal” in venture wonderland these days — to the point the word itself has lost its meaning. By definition, it should mean that is unique and stands above a sea of noise. For many investors, that means either investing in brand-name startups (i.e. SpaceX, Figma, etc.) or investing alongside brand-name investors. The latter, unfortunately, is also a product of the ecosystem as many LPs seek social proof about your investment thesis from others’ who have a proven track record. The former gets a bit sticky. A lot of these logos are either off-fund-thesis or came as a Series B syndicate investment (but the fund itself is investing in pre-seed or seed).

To piggyback on the above, the notion of signal is worth elaborating on, likely a vestigial appendage of the past two years.

Let me preface by saying that it takes a lot to get to conviction.

In 2020 and 2021, many investors’ calculus of startup signal boiled down to three things: great investors, great traction, and great team. And in that order. That is first and foremost what I see a lot of professionalizing investors do. I can’t entirely blame them since the ecosystem itself propagates the belief that if a Tier 1 VC jumps in, you’re more likely to get to a great exit. Or at the minimum, get a great mark-up to make your IRRs and TVPIs look better. On paper, of course.

But what I believe a lot of investors are missing is that… venture is a game that’s not about your batting average, but about the magnitude of the home runs you hit. You’ve heard it before, and you’ll continue to hear more of it. Unlike other financial services, VC is driven by the power law. 80% of your returns will be driven by 20% of your bets. That’s the 10,000 foot view. Let’s be honest. Most of us, myself included, don’t take that panoramic view every day or even every week. In fact, I see many emerging managers only take that view when they’re forced to. In other words, when they’re in fundraising mode.

For many professionalizing angels and syndicate leads, that becomes trying to string a narrative from seemingly disparate data points. Or at least, it seems that way.

As Asher Siddiqui told me, “[after] you look at their whole life and career history, and look at their thesis, if the thesis doesn’t make complete and perfect sense, then I don’t think this is a ‘great‘ fund manager. If it fits like a glove, then yes, they could be.”

The best GPs are disciplined even before they start fundraising. They focus on the thesis they want to raise on when they do. That’s not to say they don’t invest off-thesis every so often. But they don’t pitch their off-thesis angel or syndicate investments as part of their thesis-driven track record. But I digress.

In chasing signal for the sake of signal, when you hear of a hot deal every other day, many investors forget to be that belief capital for founders. I’m not saying that an investor should do so for every founder out there. But to pick a few, or even just one. One that they’re willing to take the swing before others do.

The signal is their own conviction in the founder.

The first half

Because of this progression, there’s been a new two-part question I really enjoy asking emerging GPs. The first half:

Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?

Which company in your portfolio didn’t get the investor attention you expected but are still extremely bullish on their growth? And why do you still believe in them? What are other investors missing out on?

It’s not about track record or social proof here. It’s about the ability to recognize exceptional talent and articulate it clearly. Hopefully, a rose growing in concrete.

Well, in terms of the odds, you’re likely to be wrong. But that’s okay. You need to be willing to be wrong to achieve outlier success.

Fund I is often the proof-of-concept fund for the emerging managers I’ve talked to. They start by writing small checks, don’t lead rounds, and don’t fight for ownership targets. They claim to be extremely helpful and hands on. Then again, expectation often differs from reality, especially if they’ve never been so before (where LPs discover through reference checks). And because they’re writing smaller checks now, I’ve seen many implicitly hold off on developing a framework to get to conviction until Fund III. Whereas the best GPs start thinking about it early on.

You can think about it this way. As long as you’re benchmarking on signal via other investors, why should an LP back your thesis when they can back your “signal”?

For individuals and smaller family offices, they’ll still back you. What they’re buying is access, since they can’t afford nor have the relationship to be an LP in the “signals.” Larger LPs have the optionality to do so. And if you’re an emerging GP hoping to grow as a professional manager by having larger and larger funds, you eventually need to raise from large LPs. At least, until the SEC changes their 99 limit. And to do so, from larger LPs, means you need to bet where their existing portfolio has not bet before. Plus do it well.

The second half

If you haven’t already, a great way to build a referenceable track record is to sweat the details. Yes. The details matter. Nate Silver, one of the best poker players of our generation, said earlier this year, “you can’t just get the big things right in poker. You have to get the small things right too. It’s too competitive of a field right now.”

Though he said venture is different, I believe he’s half right. Most investors don’t sweat the small things. But investors should. Today, that’s how you stand out.

It might not have been true a decade ago, but now it is. Just last year, in 2021, there were 730 funds created. To put that number into perspective, on average, that literally means two firms closed every single day last year, including the holidays and weekends!

Capital has become a commodity. In 2021, speed was a differentiator. Clearly, in 2022, it is not. Today, it’s tough being a founder. If you’ve raised in the last two years, you’re considering extending your runway. That means having tough conversations to reduce your workforce, your benefits, or your salaries. If you haven’t raised, it’s a hard market to be raising in now. And so the differentiator today, is in two parts:

  1. Helping founders navigate these tough situations. In other words, being (proactively) helpful.
  2. And helping founders raise their next round. Mac Conwell recently shared a great thread on how powerful a founders’ network is to get funding. The same applies to an investors’ ability to help their portfolio raise capital. How liquid is your network? It’s not about who you know, but how well you know your friends downstream, and how can you get them over the activation energy to invest. Don’t get me wrong. There still needs to be a certain level of hustle from the founders themselves. But a great investor often steps in to reduce as much friction as we can in that process.

Both of which have long been the job description of being a VC. It’s in the small things. Jump on a 2AM call. Help your founders figure out the wording for a reduction-in-force. Fix the sales copy to better close leads.

There are 10-15 character-building moments in a founder’s journey where the moat they build around the business (as opposed to just the product) is not IP or early product traction, but rather from the lessons obtained from scar tissue.

It’s hard to predict looking through the windshield when these moments are, but quite obvious via the rearview mirror. And the best an investor can do is be there as much as he/she can. Albeit hard to do for every company in your portfolio, and that’s the truth. The wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. The larger your portfolio, the harder it is to be truly helpful to every single one. So focus on founders who need you, rather than those who will do great without you. Reputation is built in wartime and realized in peacetime.

So, the second part to the above question is:

What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?

… where I’m looking for answers on how this investor went above the call of duty to help a company they believed in grow.

In closing

In summary,

  1. Which company in your portfolio you think is still underestimated?
  2. What did you do for this company that no other investor or advisor did?

This is by no means original, but heavily inspired by the recent conversations I’ve had, as well as helps me build my own framework for analysis. In parts, this question is a derivation to the check size to helpfulness ratio (CS:H). How helpful are you as an investor? When you say you’re founder-friendly, do you mean it?

Photo by Austin Neill 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!

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

Posted on

Mentors and Investors

There is an incredible wealth of people in this world who self-proclaim to have insights or secrets to unlocking insights. From parents to teachers to the wise soul who lives down the street. From coaches to gurus to your friendly YouTube ad. To mentors. To investors. While there are a handful who do have incredibly insightful anecdotes, their stories should serve as reference points rather than edicts of the future. Another tool in the toolkit. No advice is unconditionally right nor unconditionally wrong. All are circumstantial.

After all, a friend once told me: All advice is autobiographical.

The same is true for anything I’ve ever written. Including this blogpost in itself.

Over the past two weeks, as a first-time mentor, I’ve had the incredible fortune of working alongside and talking to some amazing founders at Techstars LA. At the same time, I was able to observe some incredible mentors at work. And in this short span of time so far, I’ve gotten to understand something very acutely. The dichotomy between mentors and investors. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’m going to focus on startup mentors, rather than other kinds of mentors (i.e. personal mentors). Although I imagine the two cohorts of mentors are quite synonymous.

While the two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, there are differences. A great mentor can be a great investor, and vice versa. But they start from two fundamentally different mindsets.

Investors/mentors

An investor tries to fit a startup in the mold they’ve prescribed. A mentor fits themselves into the mold a startup prescribes.

An investor thinks “Will this succeed?” A mentor thinks “Assuming this will succeed, how do we get there?”

An investor starts with “Why you?” A mentor starts with “Why not you?”

An investor evaluates how your past will help you get to your future. A mentor helps you in the present to get to your future.

An investor has a fiduciary responsibility to their investors (i.e. LPs). A mentor doesn’t. Or a mentor, at least, has a temporal responsibility to their significant other. Then again, everyone does to the people close to them.

An investor will be on your tail to hold you accountable because they’ve got skin in the game. A mentor might not.

You can’t fire your investor. You can theoretically “fire” your mentor. More likely, you’re going to switch between multiple mentors over the course of your founding journey.

An investor has a variable check size-to-helpfulness ratio. Who knows if this investor will be multiplicatively more helpful with intros, advice, operational know-how than the size of their check? A mentor has theoretically an infinite CS:H ratio. Check size, zero. Helpfulness, the sky’s the limit.

It’s also much harder to find a mentor than an investor, outside of startup communities, like On Deck and Indie Hackers, and acceleration and incubation programs, like Y Combinator and Techstars. Frankly, being a mentor is effectively doing free consultations over an extended period of time. And if you’re outside of these communities, the best way to bring on mentors is to bring them on as advisors with advisor equity. I would use Founder’s Institute’s FAST as a reference point. And Tim Ferriss‘ litmus test for bringing on advisors: If you could only ask 5-10 very specific questions to this person once every quarter, would they still be worth 0.5% of your company without a vesting schedule?

In closing

As I mentioned above, being a mentor and an investor isn’t mutually exclusive. The best investors are often incredible mentors. And some of the greatest mentors end up being investors into your startup as well. Having been in the venture world for a while, I’ve definitely seen all categories on this Venn diagram. Sometimes you need more of one than the other. Sometimes you need both. It’s a fluid cycle. And for the small minority of venture-scalable startups, it’s worth having both.

Photo by Robert Ruggiero 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

Why Should the Investor NPS Score Exist?

I’ve written about product-market fit on numerous occasions including in the context of metrics, pricing, PMF mindsets, just to name a few. And one of the leading ways to measure PMF is still NPS – the net promoter score. The question: On a scale of one to ten, how likely would you recommend this product to a friend?

As investors, while a lagging indicator, it’s a metric we expect founders to have their finger always on the pulse for their customers. Yet how often do investors measure their own NPS? How likely would you, the founder, recommend this fund/firm/partner(s) to your founder friend(s)?

Let’s look for a second from the investor side of the table…

Mike Maples Jr. of Floodgate pioneered the saying, “Your fund size is your strategy.” Your fund size determines your check size and what’s the minimum you need to return. For example, if you have a $10M pre-seed fund, you might be writing 20 $250K checks and have a 1:1 reserve ratio (aka 50% of your funds are for follow-on investments, like exercising your pro rata or round extensions). Equally so, to have a great multiple on invested capital (MOIC) of 5x, you need to return $50M. So if you have a 10% ownership target, you’re investing in companies valued around $2.5M. If two of your companies exit at $200M acquisition, you return $20M each, effectively quadrupling your fund. You only need a couple more exits to make that 5x for your LPs. And that’s discounting dilution.

On the flip side, if you have a $100M fund with a $2-3M check size and a 20% ownership target, you’re investing in $10-15M companies. Let’s say your shares dilute down to 10% by the time of a company’s exit. If they exit at unicorn status, aka $1B, you’ve only returned your fund. Nothing more, nothing less. Meaning you’ll have to chase either bigger exits, or more unicorns. But that’s hard to do. Even one of the best in the industry, Sequoia, has around a 5% unicorn rate. Or in other words, of every 20 companies Sequoia invests in, one is a unicorn. And that means they have really good deal flow. Y Combinator and SV Angel, who have a different fund strategy from Sequoia, sitting upstream, have around 1%.

Erik Torenberg of Village Global further elaborated in a tweet:

And, Jason M. Lemkin of SaaStr tweeted:

Why does a VC’s fund strategy matter to you as the founder?

A fund with a heavily diversified portfolio, like an angel’s or accelerator’s or participating investors (as opposed to leads), means they have less time and resources to allocate to each portfolio startup. The greater the portfolio size, the less help on average each startup team will get. That’s not to say you shouldn’t seek funding from funds with large AUMs (assets under management). One example is if you have an extremely passionate champion of your space/product at these large funds, I’d go with it.

I wrote late last year about founder-investor fit. And in it, I talk about Harry Hurst‘s check-size-to-helpfulness ratio (CS:H). In this ratio, you’re trying to maximize for helpfulness. Ideally, if the fund writes you a $1M check, they’re adding in $10M+ in additive value. And based on a fund’s strategy (i.e. lead investors vs not, $250K or $5M checks, scout programs or solo capitalist + advisory networks, etc.), it’ll determine how helpful they can be to you at the stage you need them.

If you were to plan out your next 18-24 months, take your top three priorities. And specifically, find investors that can help you address those. For example, if you’re looking for intros to potential companies in your sales pipeline and all a VC has to do is send a warm intro to their network/portfolio for you, bigger funds might be more useful. On the other hand, if you’re struggling to find a revenue model for your business, and you need more help than one-offs and quarterly board meetings, I’d look to work with an investor with a smaller portfolio or a solo capitalist. If you’re creating a brand new market, find someone with deep operating experience and domain expertise (even if it’s in an adjacent market), rather than a generalist fund.

While there’s no one-size-fits-all and there are exceptions, here are two ways I think about helpfulness, in other words, value adds:

  1. The uncommon – Differentiators
  2. The common – What everybody else is doing

The uncommon

Of course, this might be the more obvious of the pair. But you’d be surprised at how many founders overlook this when they’re actually fundraising. You want to work with investors that have key differentiators that you need at that stage of your company. By nature of being uncommon, there are million out there. But here are a few examples I’ve seen over the years:

  • Ability to build communities having built large followings
  • Content creation + following (i.e. blog, podcast, Clubhouse, etc.)
  • Getting in’s to top executives at Fortune 500 companies
  • Closing government contracts
  • Access/domain expertise on international markets
  • In-house production teams
  • They know how to hustle (i.e. Didn’t have a traditional path to VC, yet have some of the biggest and best LPs out there in their fund)
  • Ability to get you on the front page of NY Times, WSJ, or TechCrunch
  • Strong network of top executives looking for new opportunities (i.e. EIRs, XIRs)
  • Influencer network
  • Category leaders/definers (i.e. Li Jin on the passion economy, Ryan Hoover on communities)
  • Having all accelerator portfolio founder live under the same roof for the duration of the program (i.e. Wefunder’s XX Fund pre-pandemic)
  • Surprisingly, not as common as I thought, VCs that pick up your call “after hours”

The common

Packy McCormick, who writes this amazing blog called Not Boring, wrote in one of his pieces, “Here’s the hard thing about easy things: if everyone can do something, there’s no advantage to doing it, but you still have to do it anyway just to keep up.” Although Packy said it in context to founders, I believe the same is true for VCs. Which is probably why we’ve seen this proliferation of VCs claiming to be “founder-friendly” or “founder-first” in the past half decade. While it used to be a differentiator, it no longer is. Other things include:

  • Money, maybe follow-on investments
  • Access to the VC’s network (i.e. potential customers, advisors, etc.)
  • Access to the partner(s) experience
  • Intros to downstream investors

That said, if an investor is trying to cover all their bases, that is a strategy not to lose rather than a strategy to win, to quote the conversation I had with angel investor Alex Sok recently. As long as it doesn’t come at the expense of their key differentiator. At the same time, it’s important to understand that most VCs will not allocate the same time and energy to every founder in their portfolio. If they are, well, it might be worth reconsidering working with them. It’s great if you’re not a rock-star unicorn. Means you still get the attention and help that you might want. But if you are off to the races and looking to scale and build fast, you won’t get any more help and attention that you’re ‘prescribed’. If you’re winning, you probably want your investor to double down on you.

Even if you’re not, the best investors will still be around to be as helpful as they can, just in more limited spans of time.

Finding investor NPS

You can find CS:H, or investor NPS, out in a couple of ways:

  • The investors are already adding value to you and your company before investing. Uncommon, but it really gives you a good idea on their value.
  • You find out by asking portfolio founders during your diligence.
  • Your founder friends are highly recommending said investor to you.

Then there’s probably the best form of validation. I’ve shared this before, but I still think it’s one of the best indicators of investor NPS. Blake Robbins once quoted Brett deMarrais of Ludlow Ventures, “There is no greater compliment, as a VC, than when a founder you passed on — still sends you deal-flow and introductions.”

In closing

“How likely would you, the founder, recommend this fund/firm/partner(s) to your founder friend(s)?” is a great question to consider when fundraising. But I want to take it a step further. NPS is usually measured on a one to ten scale. But the numbering mechanic is rather nebulous. For instance, an 8/10 on my scale may not equal an 8/10 on your scale. So your net promoter score is more so a guesstimate of the true score. While any surveying question is more or less a guesstimate, I believe this question is more actionable than the above:

If you were to start a new company tomorrow, would you still want this investor on your cap table?

With three options:

  • No
  • Yes
  • It’s a no-brainer.

And if you get two or more “no-brainers”, particularly from (ex-)portfolio startups that fizzled off into obscurity, I’d be pretty excited to work with that investor.

Photo by Laurice Manaligod 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