Aram Verdiyan is a Partner at Accolade. Previously, he worked on the investment team at Andreessen Horowitz. Before that, Aram worked in BD, sales and marketing at Aviatrix, a cloud native enterprise software company. Aram worked at Accolade from 2012 to 2015 as a Senior Investment Associate and at Deloitte Consulting LLP. He holds an M.B.A from the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) and a B.S. from the George Washington University.
[00:00] Intro [02:36] How did Pejman Nozad influence the way Aram thinks about people [04:06] Aram’s ‘distance traveled’ [05:45] What did imposter syndrome look like in Aram’s life? [06:36] How Aram cold emailed his way into Accolade Partners [09:03] The first case study Aram did at Accolade [10:10] When track record is NOT just TVPI, DPI, or IRR [15:05] The case for concentrated fund of funds’ portfolio construction [22:42] Telltale signs of “great” deal flow [26:32] When does due diligence start for prospective funds for Accolade? [27:50] Primary sources of data for Accolade [29:00] The variables that impact fund of funds’ team size [30:24] How many fund investments should each individual FoF partner have? [35:13] The case for consistent check sizes [36:20] The common mistake GPs make when it comes to LP concentration limits [41:27] How Accolade started investing in blockchain funds [44:52] Blockchain engineering talent as a function of bear markets [47:15] Time horizons for blockchain funds [50:38] Luck vs skill [53:41] Aram’s early fundraising days at Accolade [57:38] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:00:14] If you enjoyed the episode, drop us a like, comment or share!
“[When] you’re generally looking at four to five hundred distinct companies, 10% of those companies generally drive most of the returns. You want to make sure that the company that drives the returns you are invested in with the manager where you size it appropriately relative to your overall fund of funds. So when we double click on our funds, the top 10 portfolio companies – not the funds, but portfolio companies, return sometimes multiples of our fund of funds.” – Aram Verdiyan
“We don’t have varying levels of conviction.” – Aram Verdiyan
Jaap Vriesendorp is one of the managing partners of Marktlink Capital, an investment manager from the Netherlands investing over $1b into private equity and venture capital funds. Marktlink Capital’s LPs are almost exclusively Dutch (tech) entrepreneurs from companies such as Booking.com, Adyen and Hellofresh. At Marktlink Capital Jaap focusses on selecting venture and growth funds across Europe and the US. Before Marktlink Capital, he spent the majority of his time at McKinsey where he was one of the leaders of McKinsey’s practice for Venture Capital, Unicorns & Startups in Europe. Besides work, Jaap enjoys sports, mountains, technology, comic books, music and art.
He holds an MBA from INSEAD and is a guest lecturer at the Rotterdam School of Management (Erasmus University). He occasionally shares his views on private market investing on Medium.
[00:00] Intro [03:04] The significance of Mount Pinatubo in Jaap’s life [06:23] One Shell Jackets [08:45] The entrepreneurial gene in the Vriesendorp family that dates back to Jaap’s grandfather [14:32] The 1-year time constraint of starting Welt Ventures [17:43] What did the transition to becoming an investor look like for Jaap [20:28] The 3 traits that define a community [24:03] How often does Jaap host events? [25:30] How does Marktlink Capital have 1000 LPs? [27:15] What was Marktlink’s pitch to their LPs? [28:32] What is the typical individual LP’s allocation model to VC/PE? [29:41] Why is VC/PE uncorrelated to the public markets? [35:10] The 3 facts that define Welt Ventures’ portfolio construction model [38:28] Exit windows matter more than entry windows [42:15] Diversification in PE = Concentration in VC [47:42] 3 types of emerging GPs that deliver alpha [49:35] Which European fund has a really unique thesis? [51:44] Which school did Jaap apply to but not get in? [53:55] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [56:31] If anything resonated with you in today’s episode, we’d be honored to earn a like, comment, or share!
“We set out to achieve three things with the community:
We wanted people to have fun with each other. And when entrepreneurs meet entrepreneurs, good stuff happens even if you don’t bring any content.
We wanted to bring the absolute best type of propositions. So in terms of sales, it means sales almost without being sales where you offer something that people really want.
Organized knowledge in a way that nobody does.” – Jaap Vriesendorp
“85% of returns flow to 5% of the funds, and that those 5% of the funds are very sticky. So we call that the ‘Champions League Effect.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp
“The truth of the matter, when we look at the data, is that entry points matter much less than the exit points. Because venture is about outliers and outliers are created through IPOs, the exit window matters a lot. And to create a big enough exit window to let every vintage that we create in the fund of funds world to be a good vintage, we invest [in] pre-seed and seed funds – that invest in companies that need to go to the stock market maybe in 7-8 years. Then Series A and Series B equal ‘early stage.’ And everything later than that, we call ‘growth.’” – Jaap Vriesendorp
I’ve always admired the way Mike Maples has thought about backcasting. In summary, he proposes that true innovators are visitors from the future. Or as he puts it: “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming.” Such that they “pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design.” In other words, start from the future, then work your way backwards to figure out what you need to do today to get there.
And I find it equally as empowering to do the same exercise as an emerging manager. Hell, for any aspiring institutional investor. Be it from an angel to a GP. Or an individual LP to a fund of funds.
Start from your ideal fund model. Your ideal LP base. Your ideal pitch deck. Then work backwards to figure out what you need to do today. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’ll focus on reference checks.
For everyone in the investing world, especially in the early-stage private markets, we all know that reference checks is a key component of making investment decisions. Yet too often, founders and emerging managers alike think about them retroactively. Post-mortem. Testimonials that are often not indicative of one’s strengths. And especially not indicative of how a GP won that investment, as well as how they can win such investments in the future.
An exercise I often recommend investors do is write your ideal reference you would like to get from a founder. Be as specific as you can. What would your portfolio founders say about you? How have you helped them in a way that no one else can? What do founders who you didn’t fund say about you?
Another way to think about it is if you were to own a word — something that would live rent free in people’s minds — what would you own? Hustle Fund owns “hilariously early.” Spacecadet Ventures owns “the marketing VC” and they live up to it. Cowboy’s Aileen Lee created the idea of “unicorns.” “Software is eating the world” is attributed to Marc Andreessen.
On the flip side of the token, what are testimonials that should never be written about you?
Hell, at this point, if you’re an aspiring institutional investor, and have yet to spell things out, create the whole deck. Fill in the numbers and the facts later, but for now, make up your ideal deck. When leading indicators become lagging, then update it and fill it in.
Then be that kind of investor for every founder you help. As Warren Buffett once said, “You should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it.”
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Aakar Vachhani is a Managing Partner and a member of Fairview’s investment committee. He is involved in research, due diligence, investment monitoring, and business development for Fairview’s venture capital and private equity partnership and direct co-investment portfolios.
Prior to joining Fairview, Aakar was with Cambridge Associates, a leading investment advisor to foundations, endowments and corporate and government entities. He was responsible for analyzing private equity and venture capital investments in support of the firm’s clients and consultants. In addition, he led research and data analytics projects on the firm’s private equity and venture capital database. Aakar also spent time with MK Capital, a multi-stage venture capital firm with a sector focus on software and cloud services.
Aakar Vachhani holds a B.S. in Economics-Finance from Bentley University and an MBA in Finance and Entrepreneurship & Innovation from the Kellogg School of Management. He is a member of the Board of Directors of San Francisco Achievers and the New Breath Foundation. On top of that, Aakar established and leads Fairview’s San Francisco office.
[00:00] Intro [04:29] Growing up in a household of 10 [09:36] Aakar’s leadership style when he was a child [12:12] Why Aakar turned down a job in insurance back at home [17:25] The third time Aakar applied to Cambridge Associates [21:56] How Fairview aligns incentives with each investment they make [26:15] How Fairview helps their GPs [28:58] How Fairview gives pitch feedback to GPs [32:54] Reasons Fairview passes on a GP [34:58] How does Aakar define what a “new manager” looks like? [37:55] How did Aakar build out Fairview’s SF Bay Area practice? [44:26] Fairview’s onboarding process for new hires [47:21] Why Fairview’s investment decisions need to be unanimous [52:17] The balancing act between a narrow thesis and a big market [56:09] Why Fairview invested in Eniac Ventures [57:56] What does a helpful LPAC member look like? [59:30] Typical questions GPs bring to their LPAC [1:01:13] How do the best GPs communicate strategy drift to their LPs? [1:03:01] Why LPs dislike strategy drift [1:06:28] What new technologies does Aakar think LPs should pay attention to? [1:08:30] Aakar’s core memories [1:11:45] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:14:22] If you enjoyed the episode, it would mean a lot if you could like, comment, share, or subscribe!
Peter Teneriello has been a career-long investor in the private markets. He has experience as an allocator across a range of institutional types, from wealth management firms to pensions and endowments, and helped launch the venture capital program for the Texas Municipal Retirement System. Other past experiences of his have included leading finance/operations for a venture-backed startup, in addition to vetting investments for a family office and working with their portfolio companies. Over the years he has also written about his investing experience on Medium and Substack.
He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame as well as the Kauffman Fellows Program, an executive education program focused on venture capital and innovation leadership. He wears many hats.
[00:00] Intro [03:57] The origin of Peter’s nickname [05:16] How was boxing formative to who Peter is today? [07:25] The art of the first conversation with a GP [11:46] How did TMRS deploy $1B into VC and PE annually? [19:45] Looking at the underlying portfolio of companies [24:06] How overlap in venture portfolios affect re-up decisions [26:55] Marks from an LP perspective [30:52] Qualitative vs quantitative information [34:45] Signal vs noise in the private markets [40:46] When Peter shaved his head in front of an entire lecture hall [45:09] The most recent update to the Peter OS [51:17] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [53:53] If you enjoyed the episode, consider dropping a like, comment or share as it really helps me create content that is interesting to you
“Don’t overweight the quantitative over the qualitative.” – Peter Teneriello
“It’s not to be in the consensus out of a misguided sense of self-preservation; it’s approaching your life’s work with creativity and conviction and treating it like the art that it is.” – Peter Teneriello
Last week, Youngrok and I finally launched our episode together on Superclusters. In the midst of it all, we wrestle with the balance between the complexity and simplicity of questions to get our desired answer. Of course, we made many an allusion to the DGQ series. One of which, you’ll find below.
In many ways, I started the DGQ series as a promise to myself to uncover the questions that yield the most fascinating answers. Questions that unearth answers “hidden in plain sight”. Those that help us read between the lines.
Superclusters, in many ways, is my conduit to not only interview some of my favorite people in the LP landscape, but also the opportunity to ask the perfect question to each guest. Which you’ll see in some of the below examples.
Asking Abe Finkelstein about being a Pitfall Explorer and how it relates to patience (1:04:56 in S2E1)
What Ben Choi’s childhood was like (2:44 in S1E6) and how proposing to his wife affects how he thinks about pitching (1:05:47 in S1E6)
How selling baseball cards as a kid helped Samir Kaji get better at sales (45:05 in S1E8)
In doing so, I sometimes lose myself in the nuance. And in those times, which happen more often than I’d like to admit, the questions that yield the best answers are the simplest ones. No added flare. No research-flexing moments. Where I don’t lead the witness. And I just ask the question. In its simplest form.
For the purpose of this essay, to make this more concrete, let’s focus on a question LPs often ask GPs.
“Tell me about this investment you made.“
In my mind, ridiculously simple question. Younger me would call that a lazy question. In all fairness, it would be if one was not intentionally aware about the kind of answer they were looking to hear OR not hear.
The laziness comes from regressing to the template, the model, the ‘what.’ But not the ‘why’ the question is being asked, and ‘how’ it should be interpreted. For those who struggle to understand the first principles of actions and questions, I’d highly recommend reading Simon Sinek’s Start with Why, but I digress.
Circling back, every GP talks about their portfolio founders differently. If two independent thinkers have both invested Company A, they might have different answers. Won’t always be true, but if you look at two portfolios that are relatively correlated in their underlying assets AND they arrive at those answers in the same way, one does wonder if it’s worth diversifying to other managers with different theses and/or approaches.
But that’s exactly what makes this simple question (but if you want to debate semantics, statement) special. When all else is equal, VCs are left to their own devices unbounded from artificial parameters.
Then take that answer and compare and contrast it to how other GPs you know well or have invested in already. How do they answer the same question for the exact same investment? How much are those answers correlated?
It matters less that the facts are the same. Albeit, useful to know how each investor does their own homework pre- and post-investment. But more so, it’s a question on thoughtfulness. How well does each investor really know their investments? How does it compare to the answer of a GP I admire for their thoughtfulness and intentionality?
(Part of the big reason I don’t like investing in syndicates because most outsource their decision-making to larger logos in VCs. On top of that, most syndicate memos are rather paltry when it comes to information.)
The question itself is also a test of observation and self-awareness. How well do you really know the founder? Were you intentional with how you built that relationship with the founder? How does it compare to the founder’s own self-reflection? It’s also the same reason I love Doug Leone’s question, which highlights how aware one is of the people around them. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
Warren Buffett once described Charlie Munger as “the best thirty-second mind in the world. He goes from A to Z in one go. He sees the essence of everything even before you finish the sentence.” Moreover in his 2023 Berkshire annual letter, he wrote one of the most thoughtful homages ever written.
As early-stage investors, as belief checks, as people who bet on the nonobvious before it becomes obvious, we invest in extraordinary companies. I really like the way Chris Paikdescribes what we do. “Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence.”
Invest in companies that can’t be described in a single sentence
And just like there are certain companies that can’t be described in a single sentence — not the Uber for X, or the Google for Y — their founders who are even more complex than a business idea cannot be described by a single sentence either. Many GPs I come across often reduce a founder’s brilliance to the logos on their resume or the diplomas hanging on their walls. But if we bet right, the founders are a lot more than just that.
Of course, the same applies to LPs who describe the GPs they invest in.
In hopes this would be helpful to you, personally some areas I find fascinating in founders and emerging GPs and, hell just in, people in general include:
Their selfish motivations (the less glamorous ones) — Why do this when they can be literally doing anything else? Many of which can help them get rich faster.
What part of their past are they running towards and what are they running away from?
All the product pivots (thesis pivots) to date and why. I love inflection points.
If they were to do a TED talk on a subject that’s not what they’re currently building, what would it be?
Who do they admire? Who are their mentor figures?
What kind of content do they consume? How do they think about their information diet?
What promises have they made to themselves? No matter how small or big. Which have they kept? Which have they not?
How do they think about mentoring/training/upskilling the next generation of talent at their company/firm?
The DGQ series is a series dedicated to my process of question discovery and execution. When curiosity is the why, DGQ is the how. It’s an inside scoop of what goes on in my noggin’. My hope is that it offers some illumination to you, my readers, so you can tackle the world and build relationships with my best tools at your disposal. It also happens to stand for damn good questions, or dumb and garbled questions. I’ll let you decide which it falls under.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Winter Mead is the Founder and Managing Member of the investment firm Coolwater Capital, which exclusively focuses on emerging managers and technology investments. Coolwater is an academy for training, building and scaling emerging managers, a curated community of VC investors and early-stage investment specialists, and an investment firm. Coolwater has helped launch over 175 emerging managers, establishing strong ties and trust with these managers, who form the foundation of the Coolwater community. Winter is also the author of “How To Raise A Venture Capital Fund”.
Prior to Coolwater, he played a key role in an evergreen investment fund at SAP, co-founded the LP transparency movement called #OpenLP, and served on the committee for the Institutional Limited Partners Association (ILPA), which sets the standards for the private equity industry. Winter’s extensive experience includes private equity and venture capital roles in San Francisco, institutional fund investments, direct technology investments, and angel investing.
He also served as junior faculty at Stanford Graduate School of Business, holding degrees from the University of Oxford and Harvard University, and now resides in Utah with his family, passionately solving business challenges.
[00:00] Intro [03:14] Why Winter biked across Spain with a flask of maple syrup in his back pocket [05:55] How did Amy Lichorat change Winter’s career? [07:15] How did Winter get into Hall Capital Partners? [10:34] What makes Hall Capital Partners special? [13:49] How office design affects the team’s ability to learn [23:49] The value of living in the Bay Area [27:17] Where to meet founders and VCs in the Bay Area [33:35] Institutional checks vs angel checks [38:58] Two of Winter’s decision-making frameworks for angel investments [41:58] How to build an LP investment thesis [52:53] The interplay of fear and diligence [59:44] Two rookie mistakes that emerging LPs make [1:05:34] The chip on Winter’s shoulder [1:09:03] Thank you to Alchemist Accelerator for sponsoring! [1:11:39] If you enjoyed this episode, consider subscribing and/or sharing!
I know I just wrote a blogpost on how LPs assess if GPs can win deals. But after a few recent conversations with LPs in fund of funds, as well as emerging LPs, I thought it would be interesting to draw the parallel of not only proxies of how GPs win deals, but also proxies of how LPs win deals. And as such, coming back with a part two. Maybe a part one and a half. You get the point.
The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as a VC is to see what the largest check (and greatest ownership target) a world-class founder will take from you. (That said, if you are only capable of winning deals based on price, you might want to consider another career. You should have other reasons a brilliant founder will pick you.) And even better if they give you a board seat.
The greatest indicator for the ability to win deals as an LP is to see what the smallest check a world-class GP will take from you. And even better if they give you a seat on the LPAC.
In the world where capital is more or less a commodity, the more capital one can provide (with some loose constraints on maximums), the better. But if someone who has no to little trouble raising is willing to open doors in a potentially over-subscribed fund for you, that’s something special.
An LP I was chatting with recently loves asking the question, “How big of a check size would you like me to write?” And to him, the answer “As much as you can.” Or “I’ll take any number.” is a bad answer. According to him, the best GPs know exactly how much they’re expecting from LPs, and sometimes as a function of how helpful they can be, especially in a Fund I or II. But always as a function of portfolio construction. Your fund size is after all your strategy, as the Mike Maples adage goes. While I don’t know if I completely agree with this approach, I did find this approach intriguing, and at least worth a double take.
I’m forgetting the attribution here. The curse of forgetting to write things down when I hear them. But I was listening to a podcast, or maybe it was a conversation, where they used the analogy that being a VC is like watching your child on the playground. You let your child do whatever they want to. Go down the slides. Climb the monkey bars. Sit on the swings. And so on. You let them chart their own narratives. But your job as the parent is once you see your kid doing something dangerous, that’s when you step in. When they’re about to jump off a 2-story slide. Or swing upside-down. But otherwise your kid knows best on how to have fun. In the founders’ case, they know how to build an amazing product for an audience who’s dying for it.
Excluding the fact that you’re a good friend or family that go way back, you likely have something of great strategic value to that GP — be it:
Network to other LPs
Operational expertise and value to portfolio companies (to a point where you being an LP will help the GP win deals with founders)
Operational expertise to the GP and the investment team
Investment expertise to help check the GP’s blindside
Access to downstream capital
Deal flow, or
Simply, mentorship
At the same time, ONSET Ventures once found that “if you had a full-time mentor who was not part of the company’s management team, and who had actually run both a start-up and a larger business, the success rate increased from less than 25% to over 80%.” (You can find the case study here. As an FYI, the afore-mentioned link leads to a download of the HBS case study.)
That’s the role of the board. The LPAC. Of the advisory board. For a founder or emerging GP, the full-time availability of said board members or LPAC members is vital.
A proxy of a mentor’s availability is pre-existing relationships between founder/emerging funder and said investor or advisor. Another is simply the responsiveness of the investor or advisor. Do they take less than 12 hours to reply? Or 3-5 business days? It’s for that latter reason Sequoia’s Pat Gradyonce lost out on an investment deal to his life partner, Sarah Guo. Being responsive goes a long way.
In sum, for LPs in fund of fund managers, small things go a long way.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
Ok, before y’all rise up in arms, hear me out. And if by the end of this blogpost, you still want to bring the pitchforks and torches, so be it.
Generally, I get it. Who else is investing isn’t usually a great question. Because for most investors who ask this question, it means they’re outsourcing their conviction.
POV: you're at a tech week event full of contrarian investors who back founders at the earliest stage in frontier industries pic.twitter.com/k7p1cVNHjs
In fact, I wrote a quick LinkedIn (and tweet) post about it the day before yesterday. Which admittedly got a lot more attention than I expected. And if you have the time, it’s worth seeing the discussion on that post that ensued.
So, potentially hot take, I believe investors should ask the question. Who else is investing? It’s part of the diligence process. That said, when they ask that question is key. There’s a vast ocean between the shores of asking that question before you reach conviction and after.
If you pop the question before you reach conviction, well, we’ve seen the follies of that. Most evidenced by the manic rush of 2020 and 2021 into “hot deals” largely led by names that grew to popularity around the dinner table.
If you pop it after, it’s diligence. Where the availability of names shouldn’t convince you to bat or lack thereof to otherwise. But that you now have additional opportunities to reference check and cross-diligence the same opportunity. And it extends to the LP side as well. Jamie Rhode who’s now at Screendoor, said on a Superclusters episode that one of her greatest lessons as an LP was committing to a fund where there was a bunch of soft commits but far less in hard commits, and ended up overexposing Verdis (where she was at) to a single asset and taking a much higher ownership as an LP into a single fund.
Truth is, LPs pay GPs for their opinion. Not anyone else’s. And while given long feedback loops, no one really knows what’s right and what’s wrong except over a decade later and only in hindsight, you have to really believe it, and be able to back it up.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
The great Jim Collins has this line I really like where he says fire bullets then cannonballs. “The right big things are the things you’ve empirically validated. So, you fire bullets, you validate, then you go big — bullets, then cannonballs — it’s both.”
Too often — something I see in me as much as I see in founders — when trying something new, we bottle it up. We charge the entropy of our creativity. Waiting to release it all at one big moment. A cannonball. No one else should or needs to know know. Sometimes it’s a fear of someone else stealing your idea. Sometimes, well, speaking more for myself, I just like surprises. I love the mystique. And on the slim chance you’re right, albeit rare, then awesome. But 999 out of 1000 times, you’re likely not. At least not in the first try.
I’m forgetting and also can’t seem to find the attribution. But I read somewhere that the only difference between vision and a hallucination is that others can see it. You see… the greatest YouTubers test their ideas with test audiences several times. In fact, they even test their video titles with select audiences a number of times before launching. (Instagram even added the ability to do it at scale for creators too.) Reporters do too with their headlines. Legendary investor Mike Maples at Floodgate once said, “90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” ONSET Ventures also found in its research1 that founded the institution back in 1984 (prescient, I know) that there is a 90% correlation between success and the company changing its original business model.
All to say, one’s first idea may not always be the best and final idea. So, test things. With small audiences. With trusted confidants.
And while I may not do this all the time, with my bigger blogposts (like this, this, and this), I always run it by co-conspirators, subject-matter experts, lawyers, writers, bloggers, and people who love reading fine print. And sometimes the final product may not look like the one I initially intended, which will be true for an upcoming bigger blogpost. For events, like one I recently worked with the team at Alchemist on — redefining what in-person Demo Days look like at accelerators, we tested the idea with 20 other investors and iterated on their feedback before launching on January 30th this year. And still is not even close to its final evolution.
As Reid Hoffman once said, “If you are not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.”
Now that it’s out there…
One of the greatest Joker lines in The Dark Knight is: “Trust no one, salt and sugar look the same.”
It’s true. Whether people like something or not, they’ll always tell you things were good. It’s the equivalent of when one goes to a restaurant, orders something that’s a bit saltier than one’s liking, but when the server comes by to ask, “How is everything?”, most people respond with “Everything’s fine.” Or “good.”
You’re not going to get the real answer out of people oftentimes. Unless people really do love or hate something you did passionately. So… you must hunt for them. You must lure out the answers. You need to force people to take sides. There can be and shouldn’t be middle ground. If there are, that means they don’t like it.
Maybe it’s in the form of the NPS question. On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you recommend this product to a friend? And you cannot pick 7.
In the event space, I’ve come to like a new question. If I invited you to this event the week of, would you cancel plans to make this event? And to add more nuance, what kinds of events would you cancel to be here? What kinds of events would you not cancel?
Sometimes it helps to seed examples on a spectrum (although I try not to lead the witness here). Would you cancel a honeymoon? Or would you cancel going to another investor/founder happy hour? What about an AGM (annual general meeting, annual conference in VC talk)? What about a vacation?
As Joker said, salt and sugar look the same. So you have to taste it. Looking from afar won’t help. And if you want to iterate and improve, you need what people really think. I’d rather have people hate or dislike something I’ve created than have a lukewarm or worse, a “good” reaction.
In a way, if you’re not getting enough of an auto-immune response from the crowd, and the antibodies don’t start kicking in (aka the naysayers), you’re not really doing something new.
1 FYI, the research link redirects to its HBS case study, not the original research. Couldn’t find the latter unfortunately. But the point stands.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!
The views expressed on this blogpost are for informational purposes only. None of the views expressed herein constitute legal, investment, business, or tax advice. Any allusions or references to funds or companies are for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied upon as investment recommendations. Consult a professional investment advisor prior to making any investment decisions.
