Tag: economics

Posted on

#unfiltered #49 Doing Boring Things

I recently tuned back into Elizabeth Gilbert‘s, author of Eat Pray Love, 2016 interview with On Being. It also happens to be one of my favorite interviews about creativity and curiosity. I found myself pausing, rewinding, playing, pausing, rewinding, then playing again one line again and again.

“Everything that is interesting is 90 percent boring.”

She further elaborates, “And I think one of the reasons that both my sister and I ended up being authors is because we were taught how to do boring things for a long time. And I think that’s really important, because here is one of the grand misconceptions about creativity, and when people dream of quitting their boring job so that they can have a creative life, one of the risks of great disappointment is the realization that, ‘Oh, this is also a boring job a lot of the time.’ It’s certainly tedious. It’s a boring job I would rather do than any other boring job. It’s the most interesting boring job I’ve ever had. […]

“And we are in a culture that’s addicted to the good part, the exciting part, the fun part, the reward. But every single thing that I think is fascinating is mostly boring.”

She takes it from a perspective that everything has its boring parts. So you have to learn to accept what’s boring along with what’s interesting. I think she’s absolutely right. But while I was tuning in again to that same interview – those exact same lines – for who knows, the 20th time, I thought… maybe there’s something more. Forgive my brain for having the tendency to jump into numbers and equations. That for some reason, one of the primary ways I understand life has to be through some quantitative lens. I thought, what if we take it from an expected value perspective.

Expected value = 10% * (Utility of interesting) + 90% * (Utility of boring)

The utility we gain from boring, often times, is of course, well… boring. Some utility value less than zero. Or in other words, more often than not, we lose utility. On the other hand, the utility we gain from interesting is positive. So, then it becomes a balancing act between what’s interesting and what’s boring. That in the decision to pursue something interesting, there might be the below subconscious calculus:

10% * (Utility of interesting) > 90% * (Utility of boring)

To shine a different light, is the interesting part interesting enough that it outweighs all of the boring parts combined, and ideally, more?

Take, for instance, writing for me. I love writing. It’s meditative. Thought-provoking. And it’s challenging. But at the same time, editing, filling in the keywords for SEO, finding a cover image, all the way to writing when I don’t feel inspired, but I do so to commit to a weekly routine is tedious.

Similarly, Gilbert uses the example of raising children. “Raising children — I’m not a mother, but I’m a stepmother, I’m a grandmother, I’m a godmother, I’m an aunt, and I know that 90 percent of — especially, being with very small children…

“Incredibly — it’s hard. And then there’s the moment where you realize, ‘Oh, my God, this is a spark of creation that I’m working with, and this is magic, and this is life seen through new eyes.’ And creativity is the same, where 90 percent of the work is quite tedious. And if you can stick through those parts — not rush through the experiences of life that have the most possibility of transforming you, but to stay with it until the moment of transformation comes and then through that, to the other side — then, very interesting things will start to happen within very boring frameworks.”

For many of this blog’s readers, it’s starting a business. Whether you’re changing the world or the people you care the most about, that mission is what drives you. That’s what makes it interesting. And every time you hit a milestone –

  • Your first user outside of your friends and family,
  • Rated #1 on Product Hunt,
  • One of your customers writes a handwritten love letter to you and your team about how you saved her family,
  • You finally have enough revenue to pay your team members who’ve been working with you for free for two years,
  • $1M in ARR,
  • 50,000 users,
  • You reach profitability,
  • Your dream investor says yes,
  • A Fortune 500 business offers you 9 figures for your business,
  • And the list goes on and on.

… it’s exciting! But let’s be honest, not every day will be sunshine and rainbows. 90% of your days will be tedious. Some percent of those days or weeks might even suck! 90% of your days will be you working to find and reach that 10%. And if that 10% is just that amazing, it’ll make that 90% worth it.

In a sense, it’s like the Pareto Principle. 80% of your utility will come from 20% of your achievements. That star 20% – your customer love letters, providing employment for all your team members during the tough days of COVID.

In an analogous mental model, in everything that is boring, there might be a small percentage that makes it interesting. Now I’m really curious as to what I might discover here.

Photo by Sophie Dale on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

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

Posted on

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

Myths around Startups and Business Ideas

In a number of recent conversations with friends outside of venture and “aspiring entrepreneurs”, a couple myths, which I’m going to loosely define here as popular beliefs held by many people, were brought to my attention. 4 in particular.

  1. If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.
  2. That idea/startup is over-hyped.
  3. The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.
  4. If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Quite fortuitously, a question on Quora also inspired this post and discussion.

If I have a great idea and build it, it’ll sell itself.

Unfortunately, most times, it won’t. As Reid Hoffman puts it: “A good product with great distribution will almost always beat a great product with poor distribution.” As a founder, you have to think like a salesperson (for enterprise/B2B businesses) or a marketer (for consumer/B2C businesses). People have to know about what you’re building. ’Cause frankly you could build the world’s best time machine in your basement, but if no one knows, it’s just a time machine in your basement. Probably a great story to tell for Hollywood one day (even then you still need people to find out), but not for a business.

That idea/startup is over-hyped.

I’ll be honest. This really isn’t a myth, more of a common saying.

Maybe so, at the cross-section in time in which you’re looking at it. But if you rewind a couple months or a year or 2 years ago, they were under-hyped. In fact, there’s a good chance no one cared. While everyone has a different technical definition of over- and under-hyped, by the numbers, time will tell if it’ll be a sustainable business or not. If it’s keeping north of 40% retention even 6 months after the hype, we’re in for a breadwinner.

Take Zoom, for example. Pre-COVID, if you asked any rational tech investor, “would you invest in Slack or Zoom?” Most would say Slack. Zoom existed, but many weren’t extremely bullish on it. Today, well, that may be a different story. As of this morning (Oct. 12, 2020), while I’m editing this post before the market opens, the stock price of Zoom is $492 (and same change). Approximately 343% higher than it was on March 17th, the first day of the Bay Area shelter-in-place. And, right now, the price of Slack is $31. Approximately 56% up from the beginning of quarantine.

Neither are startups anymore, but the analogy holds. Also, a lesson that predictions, even by experts, can be wrong.

The startup/venture capital landscape is over-saturated.

“There’s too much money being invested (wasted) on startups.”

From the outside, it may very well look that way. Every day, every week we see this startup gets funded for $X million or that startup gets funded for $YY million. According to the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), $133 billion were invested into startups last year. Yet, it pales in comparison to the capital that’s traded in the public markets.

VC funds see thousands of startup pitches a year. Per partner (most funds 2–3 partners), they each invest in 3–5 per year (aka about once per quarter). Meaning >99% of startups that a single VC sees are not getting funded by them. That doesn’t mean 99% never get funded, but it’s just to illustrate that proportionally, capital isn’t being spent willy-nilly.

If we look at it from a macro-economic perspective, if we are reaching saturation in the startup market, we should be getting closer to perfect competition. And in a perfectly competitive market, profit margins are zero. The thing is profits aren’t nearing zero in the startup/venture capital market. In fact, though the median fund isn’t returning much on invested capital. A good fund is returning 3–5x. A great one >5x. And well, if you were in Chris Sacca’s first fund, which included Uber, Twitter, and more, 250x MOIC. That’s $250 returned on every $1 invested.

If it doesn’t make sense to me, it’s not a good idea.

Finding Product-Market Fit and “Idea-Market Fit”

Revolutionary ideas aren’t meant to conform. If an idea is truly ground-breaking, people have yet to be conditioned to think that a startup idea is great or not. As Andy Rachleff, co-founder of Wealthfront and Benchmark Capital, puts it: “you want to be right on the non-consensus.” Think Uber and Airbnb in 2008. If you asked me to jump in a stranger’s car to go somewhere then, I would have thought you were crazy. Same with living in a stranger’s home. I write more about being right on the non-consensus here and in this blog post.

Frankly, you may not be the target market. You’re not the customer that startup is serving. The constant reminder we, on the venture capital side of the table, have is to stop thinking that we are the core user for a product. Most products are not made for us. Equally, when a founder comes to us pre-traction and asks us “Is this a good idea?”, most of the time I don’t know. The numbers (will) prove if it’s a good idea or not. Unless I am their target audience, I don’t have a lot to weigh in on. I can only check, from least important to most important:

  1. How big is the market + growth rate
  2. Does the founder(s) have a unique insight into the industry that all the other players are overlooking or underestimating or don’t know at all? And will this insight keep incumbents at bay at least until this startup reaches product-market fit?
  3. How obsessed about the problem space is the founder/team, which is a proxy for grit and resilience in the longer run? And obsession is an early sign of (1) their current level of domain expertise/navigating the “idea maze”, and (2) and their potential to gain more expertise. If we take the equation for a line, y = mx + b. As early-stage investors, we invest in “m’s” not “b’s”.

In closing

While I know not everyone echoes these thoughts, hopefully, this post can provide more context to some of the entrepreneurial motions we’re seeing today. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt. I’m an optimist by nature and by function of my job. Just as a VC I respect told me when I first started 4 years back,

“If you’re going to pursue a career in venture, by nature of the job, you have to be an optimist.”

Happened to also be one of the VCs who shared his thoughts for my little research project on inspiration and frustration last week.

Photo by K. Mitch Hodge 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 Prospect Theory Relates to Venture Capital

economics, prospect theory, coins, venture capital

The other day, I saw a post on r/venturecapital (and now you know what my Reddit handle is) asking how prospect theory relates to venture capital. Admittedly, quite thought-provoking! Ever since college, I’ve been a huge behavioral economics buff – how human psychology dictates market motions. And, prospect theory happens to fall in that category.

First developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, prospect theory is a behavioral model that says humans are naturally loss-averse. Oh, you might know the former Nobel Prize bugger from authoring Thinking, Fast and Slow, a book I highly recommend if you’re curious about the intricacies of how our brain understands the data around us. Simply put, we react stronger to losing something than when we gain something.

*As you can see, this graph is safe for family-friendly programming

For example, I’m more likely to feel the loss after losing my $1500 cellphone than the ephemeral gain of winning a grand and a half in the lottery. On one end, you’re probably thinking that makes sense. On the other end, you’re probably calling me a loser for spending so much on a cellphone. Well, joke’s on you. I got my phone for $250 on Black Friday. But I digress. In another instance, if you look at kids, they’re more likely to throw a tantrum if you take away a marshmallow on their plate than give you a hug for giving them an extra marshmallow.

Similarly…

As you might expect, prospect theory informs many of my investing/sourcing decisions, including:

So, VCs and prospect theory

So, you’re probably now thinking: “Gimme the deets.”

While prospect theory suggests people typically weigh the impact of their losses more than they so their wins, VCs are humans at the end of the day. Just like your amateur naive stock trader will hold on to losses, and sell their wins, many VCs tend to do the same, as a reactionary measure.

It’s counterintuitive. But the name of the game in early-stage investing is not about how many losses you’ve sustained (especially when 7 out of every 10 go out of business, 2-3 break even, and hopefully 1 makes it), but about the magnitude of the wins an investor makes.

For instance, if you’ve invested in 100 companies, and 99 go out of business, and 1 makes 200x, you just doubled your fund. Of course, a successful fund typically makes 3-5x cash on cash multiple. Just our fancy way of saying your fund returns $3-5 for every dollar invested by a limited partner (LP). Although there are some nuances, many VC investors use cash on cash and multiple on invested capital (MOIC) quite interchangeably.

Guess for you to be counted as a successful investor, that one investment’s gotta go to 300x, at the minimum. In reality, you’re probably not going to have just one investment perform. Especially if you’re in the top quartile of VCs out there. You’re looking at a ~2.5% unicorn rate. So 2-3 investments of your 100 investments should be valued at over a billion dollars. Unless you’re Chris Sacca, who I hear returned 250x cash on cash for his first $8.4M seed fund, which included the likes of Uber, Twitter, and Instagram.

Of course, larger funds are harder to return. It’s easier to return a $10M fund than a $1B, much less a $100B. While I’m not supporting the only $100B vehicle known to date, the losses that fund sustained made the front page news a while back. And though by monetary value, they lost more than most other funds out there. Percentage-wise, they’re not alone. But in the public and media’s eyes, their losses are weighted more heavily than smaller funds.

In closing/Disclaimer

But hey, I’m no registered investment advisor. If you’re looking for which specific startups to invest in, please do consult with a professional. While I may share what startups have attracted my attention here and there, my thoughts are just my own thoughts. And, this post is merely me sharing the correlation between venture capital and prospect theory, plus a few digressions.

Photo by Josh Appel 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

An Innovator’s Inspiration

Photo by Skye Studios on Unsplash

Creativity.

I have a love-hate relationship with that word. On one hand, I love and seek to learn from creative souls. It’s a trait that I seriously respect in individuals, regardless of industry, profession, or background. On the other hand, it’s rather amorphous. What’s creative to me may not be creative to you. We are bounded by the parameters of our experiences and what we, as individuals, are exposed to.

So, where do innovators draw inspiration?

Over the years, I’ve seen inspiration stem from three main frameworks:

  • The flow from art;
  • Margins;
  • And, what people dislike.

The Flow from Art

I seem to find that the data largely (with a few outliers) points towards the following:

Art precedes science. Science precedes tech. Tech precedes business. Business precedes law.

Art is bounded only by one’s imagination. Science, which draws inspiration from art, is limited by our physical universe and the fundamental laws. And, tech rides on the coattails of science, restricted by the patterns recognized in our universe by scientists before them. Similarly, business can only optimize existing technology. Following suit, regulations and legal practice can only debate and prevent ramifications that have turned from hypothesis to reality.

On one end of the spectrum, fiction has driven innovation on the fundamental, scientific front. Scientists have tried to make the impossible – fiction, superstition, assumptions, and imagination – possible. On the other end, the legal and regulatory space has empirically lagged behind business innovation. From autonomous driving to the shared economy to video games, a regulatory emphasis came only after incidents occurred. I’m a huge proponent of founders becoming self-regulatory. But that is a discussion for another day.

Margins

As Jeff Bezos famously said:

“Your margin is my opportunity.”

In the lens of a businessperson, profits exist on the margins. In a fully saturated market, as we learned in economics class, perfect competition will squeeze out profits. That margin can be delta between human perfection and imperfection. It can be the difference between a naive and sophisticated individual. It can also be the blind spots between a self-awareness and ignorance.

The good news (and bad news?) is that humans aren’t rational. As much as we try to be, we’re not. We repeat the same mistakes. After all, that’s where our favorite stories come from – the fact that we’re imperfect. If we were rational, our friendly neighborhood kid from Queens wouldn’t have to struggle with identity. Or, Skinner, the head chef at Auguste Gusteau’s restaurant, wouldn’t be out to exterminate my favorite rat chef.

From a nonfictional front, if we were rational, gambling, the lottery, therapy, and more wouldn’t exist. In fact, there’s a whole industry that capitalizes on human imperfection – insurance. We choose to reach for that last cookie when we know a healthier diet with less sugar is better for us (I’m guilty as well). We set New Year’s resolutions to work out more, but regress to our couch norm after the first month. Walter Mischel famously conducted The Marshmallow Experiment. When given the option to wait 15 minutes to double their treats, many children opted for immediate gratification.

There would be way fewer founders if they were rational. I mean, come on, the numbers work against them. 90% of startups fail. So, from a VC’s perspective, we have to ask ourselves:

What’s is the underlying notion that makes this product work?

What is that innate theme in human or societal development that won’t disappear anytime soon? What factors produce such a trend? And what margin is it taking advantage of? Uber was made possible with the evolution of smartphone and faster data. As more data were archived online, Google became a reality because of the internet and browser. Two current examples of underlying notions include:

  • Audio, including, but not limited to, podcasts and audiobooks, is the new form of content consumption. Not only does it free up consumers’ hands and eyes up, audio content is often easier to digest. The spoken word has been around millennia, whereas print is fairly new invention. Emotions and sarcasm is often easier to relay via audio than via print. So, what else is possible?
  • With growing consumer sentiment against traditional social media, like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, there is a shift to social experiences surrounding active participation. Sarah Tavel writes a great piece on this. Examples include Discord, Medium, TikTok, and user-generated content (UGC) in video games, like mods and in-game skins. Many of the traditional social media platforms leave users with a more negative passive experience, where they feel a sense of FOMO (fear of missing out). Through active participation, users can be a part of the conversation, rather than watch from the sidelines.

What do you dislike?

Speaking of negative experiences, aversion is a strong motivating emotion humans have. Like prospect theory illustrates, loss invokes a stronger response than gains. It also happens to be one of the reasons why I probe how obsessed a founder is about a certain problem.

In a recent interview with Andrew “Kappy” Kaplan, host of the podcast, Beyond the Plate, Grant Achatz, legendary chef, talks briefly about how he drew inspiration from his daughter’s dislike of cheese, yet she still ate pizza and grilled cheese sandwiches. Similarly, when his guests at Alinea didn’t like sea urchin, he thought about the ‘why’ and if he could circumvent their aversion by playing with various variables, including iodine concentration.

So, what do you dislike (with a passion)? What about the people around you? And can you figure out a way to change or eliminate that frustration? Take some time through the idea maze.

In closing

Ideas come in all shapes and sizes. Some may be more obvious than others. Some may snowball into a best-selling one. Although I’ve shared the three most common frameworks that I’ve personally generated and seen others find inspiration, it is, of course, not the only ways to exercise your creative muscle. In fact, the first step into being more “creative” is being cognizant about everything around you.

Two years ago, one of my former professors recommended I start ‘idea-journaling’ every day. Since I’ve started, I began noticing more and more stimuli from my surroundings, conversations and frustrations.

It may be a start, but it’s by no means an end. Stay curious.

Photo Credit: Ariel Zhang @yuzhu.zhang
Proudly powered by WordPress