Last week, I was lucky enough to jump on a call with the founder of Pulley, Yin Wu. Backed some of the best investors out there including Stripe, General Catalyst, YC, Elad Gil, just to name a few, Pulley is the ultimate tool for cap table management. In addition, Yin is a 4-peat founder, one of which led to an acquisition by Microsoft, and three of which, including Pulley, went through YC.
In our conversation, we covered many things, but one particular theme stood out to me the most: how she built a culture of ruthless prioritization.
Proportionally speaking, I rarely make referrals and intros. Numerically speaking, I set up more intros than the average person. Frankly, if I made every intro that people have asked of me, I’d be out of social capital. It’s not to say I’m never willing to spend or risk my social capital. And I do so more frequently than most people might find comfortable. In fact, the baseline requirement for my job is to be able to put my neck on the line for the startups I’m recommending. The other side of the coin is that I’ve made more than a few poor calls in my career so far. That is to say, I’m not perfect.
I only set up intros if I can see a win-win scenario. A win for the person who wants to get introduced. And a win for the person they will be introduced to. The clearer I can see it, the easier the intro is to make. The less I can, the more I look for proxies of what could be one.
This largely has been my framework for introducing founders to investors, as well as potential hires, partners, and clients. Over the years, I realized that I’ve also been using the same for people who would like an intro to someone above their weight class.
Below I’ll share the 4 traits – not mutually exclusive – of what I look for in world-class founders.
I’ve recommended in a number of essays on this blog the importance of founder-investor fit. That founders should always do their diligence on potential investors, like here and here. And for a more robust understanding, asking founders in their current and previous portfolio, specifically the ones that didn’t work out. Some of my favorite questions for (ex-)portfolio founders:
How has [insert name] been helpful for you in your founder journey?
What was [insert name]‘s involvement like when shit hit the fan? Do you remember specific examples?
If you were to build another company (if applicable), would you work with [insert name] again?
If they are building another company in a relevant field, and if they say “yes”: Why haven’t you?
What are scenarios in which you would, and ones you wouldn’t?
Then think to yourself, were those pieces of advice actionable? Did the context help or detract from your initial disposition? Your goal isn’t to point fingers, but to paint a more holistic picture of who you might be working with closely for the long haul.
The best investors can inspire founders to think on wavelengths they might not have considered before. Some may hurt when you first hear them, but if your investors truly care, they mean well. The only reason the truth hurts is because it is the truth. And it’s your job as the founder to do your best to fix it.
The red herring
When a founder responds to the above questions with, “X investor just spent less time with us”, it’s not enough to say that an investor isn’t great.
Each VC always has his/her first and foremost duty and responsibility to the partnership. By simple economics, most of their investments won’t work out. Investors generally understand that they have to:
Spend more time with the winners ’cause they’ll return the fund (and then some, hopefully),
And cap their time commitment with the ones who won’t return the fund.
While that isn’t an excuse for VCs to only focus on maximizing returns (i.e. selling your IP, forcing an acquisition, unjustly firing the founder), it is something that founders should keep in mind. When you raise venture funding, just be aware of the fact that investors need to prioritize their time, especially when the going gets tough. And while it is usually implicit in the investment, a great investor/board member will often have that conversation explicitly with you at the beginning.
This notion, on the other hand, contrasts with angel investors, who are often investing out of their own net worth. So the dynamics, as well as commitment level, for angels is different. Angels often have between tens to hundreds of active investments at a time, meaning their time allocation per startup is much more limited than a VC. For context, a VC is usually actively involved in 3-7 investments at a time, meaning they’re going to be more involved per startup.
In closing
At the end of the day, the world of entrepreneurship, and business more broadly, is a relationship-building industry. And it’s extremely hard for an investor to build great relationships and a reputation if they have a track record of burning bridges. With founders. Even other investors – downstream and upstream.
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!
In the past year, largely due to the pandemic, it’s been easier than ever to create a business from anywhere in the world. Zoom for calls and meetings. Slack for asynchronous communication. Upwork for gigs. Stripe Atlas for starting a business. Notion for knowledge hubs. As long as you have a stable connection to the internet, geography no longer matters.
Additionally, major US startup hubs (i.e. SF Bay Area, NYC, Seattle, etc.) exhibit a lot of noise, and it becomes harder to discern the the signal among the noise. In the past few years, there’s been an influx of talent from across the world into these hubs. Despite the diversity of backgrounds into this 7 million strong hub, most tech entrepreneurs are stuck in the same modality of thinking. When you’re surrounded by similar personalities who gravitate towards the models that have succeeded already, you’re only going to get more of the same. It’s part of the reason why even seasoned founders with exits under their belt, still go back to startup accelerators, incubators and fellowships. They’re looking for fresh ideas not just on product, but also on business models and culture and more, that fresh blood into the industry brings.
These hubs are bubbles for a reason. I only feel qualified enough to speak on the Bay Area, where I call home now. One of Silicon Valley’s claims to fame is that we’re in a bubble, and we know we’re in a bubble. Because of that, many of the best startup founders know that their initial beachhead – their beta audience – is not here, unless your customers are tech companies, tech meetups, or coffee connoisseurs.
In venture, there have traditionally been three considerations when deciding your geographical playing field:
Move to where your customers are
Move to where your talent is
And, move to where your capital is
And in that priority. Customers > talent > capital. I work in an ecosystem that has long perpetuated talent = capital > customers. One of the best lessons from the pandemic is that the “talent = capital > customers” function isn’t necessarily true, and that it was a product of the noise – the FOMO – that exists in the Bay. Equally so, talent in the Bay, as well as other major tech hubs, are incredibly expensive. While there’s a theme of “talent is on a discount” during COVID, it is still wildly more expensive than other parts of the world. Not only talent, but also real estate, social and professional networks, capital (yes getting money is more expensive), and the market for attention (more on that, here and here). And arguably, the same quality in many other lesser known geographic regions.
While I’m not saying every entrepreneur that has moved their HQ has gone to where their customers are, the remote work lifestyle has set precedent for many companies to rethink what they thought they knew and what they now know. With robust remote tools, like Zoom and Slack, I believe we’ll continue to challenge our understanding of what normal is. And when most companies resume a hybrid model post-COVID, I’m curious as to the emergence of new talent hubs (or maybe the lack thereof) across the world.
#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!
Over the weekend, my friend and I had this fascinating conversation about how we found our other friends. I know, metaphysical, nerdy even. But nevertheless, I thoroughly enjoyed it. She posed the question: “Is it just based on how long you’ve known each other? And how often you see each other?” For most of my life, I would have said yes. Classmates that became friends were people I met and could chat with over lunch or after school. The same is true for colleagues. And strangers. Some happened exceedingly fast – within 24 hours. Others have taken over half a year before we “warmed up” to each other.
Unsurprisingly, it gave birth to the question: At what point does an acquaintance become a friend?
The PMF parallel
To be honest, I didn’t have a good answer then, nor do I have one now. Part of the reason I’m sharing this is to open up dialogue and draw inspiration from you, my readers.
Pushing up my glasses, which I’ve got to get a new pair (open to any recommendations), I couldn’t but analogize it to startups finding product-market fit.
How do founders know when they hit product-market fit? The TL;DR version: when you’re too busy to even ponder if you have product-market fit. Or simply, you’ll know it when you have it. For the longer, less nebulous answer, I recommend checking out Lenny Rachitsky’s piece on it, and some of other essays I’ve written on the topic:
Or as Casey Winters, Chief Product Officer at Eventbrite, says:
“Product-market fit isn’t when your customers stop complaining, it’s when they stop leaving.”
Some more examples include, when:
You’re focused on upgrading your servers rather than acquiring customers.
There’s so much demand, you’re writing “I’m sorry” and “Not yet” emails to your customers who are asking when can they get off the waitlist.
Laggards on the adoption curve start using your product and saying wow. In Airbnb’s case, that was Joe Gebbia‘s mom using the product.
There are handwritten love letters in your office mailbox.
Customers are asking how they can pay (more) for your product.
You’re feeling the pull of the market rather than pushing your product in front of people.
Friends
On a similar note, when the entropy of a relationship and the subsequent conversations break into an impetuous nature that eclipses the inciting reason for the relationship, you might have something going. Or in simpler words, you can’t stop the momentum of the relationship. “What about this?” “Let’s do that!” “Ahhh, not enough time!” Of course, as all relationships go, it takes two to tango. Just like product-market fit, when you don’t have it, it’s not obvious what you need to do make it click. But when you do have person-person fit, everything makes sense. And quite obvious, in retrospect.
While the above was my answer on Sunday, I’m not completely sold it’s the end all, be all. And as I continue to find new sparks and rekindle old flames, I’m sure I will learn more about myself and others. A provocative question that may require a more provocative answer.
#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!
A few Fridays ago, I had the fortune of reconnecting with a founder, backed by some of the most recognizable names in the Valley and exited his business last year to a juggernaut in the data space. Now working on his second startup. And he brought something extremely curious to my attention. “Investors shouldn’t be too founder-friendly.”
I’ve talked to hundreds of founders and seen thousands of pitch decks in my short 4 years in venture capital. Yet, that Friday was the first time I’d ever heard that. And it was too bizarre for me not to double-click on. The fact that the sentence also came out of a founder’s mouth and not an investor’s bewildered me even more.
A few weeks ago, I published Part 1 of this post on inspiration and frustration. In that time, its reception has been uplifting. Easily my most popular and well-received blog post to date. It also happens to be one of my favorite posts to have published so far. So, I thought I’d continue to ask people about their cocktail of emotions now, the below two questions:
What is the one thing that inspires you so much that it makes everything else in life much easier to bear?
What is stressing/frustrating you so much right now that it seems to invalidate everything else you’re doing?
But, each person can only choose one of the above two questions to answer.
Three of the below candid responses are people I asked from the first cohort, while the other eight are people I thought would add a new degree of freedom on perspective. All of which were drawn more to their inspiration than their frustration.
Taking it a bit further, what is one skill that they have that made all their other skills much easier to acquire and/or hone? And I could only come up with one answer, which is understood in various nominations. Resourcefulness. Scrappiness. Creativity under pressure. Staying lean. Frankly, their ability to hustle.
“The best network”
What is the best network for developing entrepreneurial skills?
The simple answer: One you build yourself.
The longer answer…
Entrepreneurship is a career that requires you to hustle. Likewise, a network you build yourself from reaching out and cold emailing has the potential to be stronger than even the best of networks out there. But entrepreneurship can come in two flavors: a hobby and a lifestyle.
A hobby or a lifestyle?
If entrepreneurship is a hobby, there are amazing collaborative:
Slack groups,
Subreddits,
Facebook groups,
Quora spaces,
Meetup groups,
Conferences/trade shows/expos,
You name it, it’s out there.
But it will be akin to sitting in a classroom and learning the theory and conceptualizations.
If entrepreneurship is a lifestyle, you need to learn by application. And unfortunately, you’ll need to develop scar tissue from making real mistakes outside the classroom. You need to hustle and find what works and doesn’t work for you. Two of my favorite venture firms, 1517 Fund and Hustle Fund, invest in founders who do exactly that. Unlike many other venture funds, it’s in their thesis. Learn by doing. Learn by hustling. While there is merit in literature and academic institutions, you are learning at the pace of the system. And when you’re a founder, often times, time is not on your side.
In a parallel, an entrepreneur once described the bifurcation as a “lean-back” versus a “lean-in” activity. A “lean-back” activity would be watching a sitcom, picking strawberries, or typing a simple response to an email chain. Whereas a “lean-in” would be playing football, playing a competitive first-person shooter game, or fixing a bug in the code 2 hours before a product launch. Entrepreneurship, as you might guess, is a “lean-in” sport. So is networking.
There are two French words I often allude to – savoir and connaître. Both mean to understand. Savoir means to understand on a superficial, factual level. Connaître means to know on a deeper, emotional level – to be deeply familiar with. As an entrepreneur, the lifestyle you choose is often not passive, but an active one, or some might argue, an aggressive one. One where the clock started ticking before you started. Sometimes, before you were even born. Ben Horowitz makes a brilliant comparison between a peacetime and a wartime CEO. From his piece, I’ll quote two of his juxtapositions:
“Peacetime CEO knows that proper protocol leads to winning. Wartime CEO violates protocol in order to win.”
“Peacetime CEO has rules like ‘we’re going to exit all businesses where we’re not number 1 or 2.’ Wartime CEO often has no businesses that are number 1 or 2 and therefore does not have the luxury of following that rule.”
Where you’re required to make decisions in difficult times, and if you don’t understand a concept or a skill to the level where it’s engrained in your bone, you will fumble more often than you run touchdowns. Part of the reason why second-time, third-time entrepreneurs usually perform better than first-time entrepreneurs.
I graduated from a stellar university, UC Berkeley, located at one of the epicenters of Silicon Valley/Bay Area, where I got my economics degree and a certification in entrepreneurship and technology. I took a number of classes that allowed me “to learn and hone” my entrepreneurship skills. While there were a handful, I came out feeling I was equipped with the knowledge to take on the world. When I put them to the test, I realized I knew nothing. When faced with reality, I didn’t know how to deal with edge cases since edge cases are rarely taught in the classroom.
Most communities and classes teach entrepreneurship skills in abstractions, making it easier to understand. Even this blog post is, in many ways, an abstraction. They rarely teach the edge cases ’cause frankly, there are too many “what if’s”. But as an entrepreneur, you need to be ready for the “what if’s”. For anything and everything. And over time, what transcends the individual skills you have is having a mental model to hedge yourself from future edge cases.
I once asked someone what being an expert meant. And I really liked his answer, as it stuck with me all these years. He said, “An expert is someone who has made all the mistakes in a very narrow field.”
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 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.
A number of founders ask me for fundraising advice. While they come in different magnitudes, one of the common themes is: “I’ve had many investor meetings, but I still can’t get a term sheet. What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do or to say to get a yes?”
To preface, I don’t have the one-size-fit-all solution. Neither do I think there is a one-size-fit-all solution. Each investor is looking for something different. And while theses often rhyme, the “A-ha!” moment for each investor is a culmination of their own professional and life experiences. This anecdote is, by no means, prescriptive, but another perspective that may help you when fundraising, if you’re not getting the results you want. This won’t help you cheat the system. If you still have a shoddy product or an unambitious team, you’re still probably not going to get any external capital.
One thing I learned when I was on the operating side of the table is: When you want money, ask for advice. When you want advice, ask for money. It’s, admittedly, a slightly roundabout way to get:
Investor interest,
And reference points for milestones to hit.
But it’s worked for me. Why? Because you’re fighting in a highly-competitive, heavily-saturated market of attention – investor attention. This method merely helps you increase the potential surface area of interaction and visibility, to give you time in front of an investor to prove yourself.
Investors are expected to jump into a long term marriage with founders, while, for the most part, only given a small cross-section in your founding journey to evaluate you. It’s as if you chose to marry someone for life you’ve only met 60-90 days ago. While angels and some people have the courage and the conviction to do that, most investors like to err on the side of caution. Contrary to popular belief, venture capitalists are extremely risk-averse. They look for risk-adjusted bets. And if you can prove to them – either through traction or an earned secret – that you’re not just a rounding error, you’ll make their lives a lot easier.
So, let me elaborate.
When you want money, ask for advice.
As you’re growing your business and you want to show you are, ask investors for advice. Tell them. “So I’ve been growing at X% MoM, and I’ve gotten to Y # of users. I’m thinking about pursuing this Z as my next priority. And this is how I plan to A/B test it. What do you think?”
And if you keep these investors in the loop the entire time and ask and follow-up on their advice, at some point, they’d think and ask, “Damn, this is an epic business. Will you just take my money?”
So, what are good numbers?
The Rule of 40 is a rough rule of thumb many investors use for consumer tech markets. Month-over-month growth rate plus profit should be greater than or equal to 40. So you can be growing 50% MoM, but burning money with -10% profit, aka costs are greater than your revenue. Or you can be growing 30% MoM, but gaining 10% profit every month. And if you’ve got 10s of 1000s of users, you’re on solid ground. Better yet, one of the biggest expenses is increasing server capacity costs.
For more reference points on ideal consumer startup numbers, check out this blog post I wrote last year.
For enterprise/B2B SaaS, somewhere along the lines of 10-15% MoM growth. With at least 1 key customer logo. And 5 publicly referenceable customers.
Of course, the Rule of 40 did not age well for certain industries in 2020.
When you want advice, ask for money.
When you ask for money most of the time, investors, partners, and potential customers will say no, especially if you’re super early on and don’t have a background or track record as an entrepreneur. So when they do say no, I like to ask them one of my favorite questions: “What do I need to bring you for you to unconditionally say yes?” Then, they’ll tell me what they want to see out of our product or our business. These, especially if they’re reinforced independently across multiple different individuals in your ecosystem, should be your North Star metrics. And when you do put their advice to action, be sure to follow up with the results to their implemented advice.
You either do what they recommended. And show them what happened. And what’s next.
Or you don’t do what they recommended. But show that you heavily considered their recommendation. What you did instead. Why you chose to do what you did instead. And what’s next.
To take it one step further, once I ask the above question to have a reference point for growth trajectory, I ask: “Who is the smartest person(s) known to achieve X (or in Y)?” with X being the answer you got via the previous question. And Y being the industry you’re tackling.
Then, go to that person or those people and say, “Hey Jennifer, [investor name] said if there’s one person I had to talk to about X, I have to talk to you.” Feel free to use my cold email “template” as reference, if you’re unsure of what else to say.
If you use this tactic again and again, eventually you’ll build a family of unofficial (maybe even official) mentors and advisors, even if you never explicitly call them that. Not necessarily asking for money all the time. But asking for money might help you ignite the spark for this positive feedback loop.
In closing
When I was on the operating side, a brilliant founder with 2 multi-million dollar exits once told me: “Always be selling. Always be fundraising. And always be hiring.”
I didn’t really get it then. In fact, I didn’t get it the entire time I was on the other side of the table. What do you mean “Always be fundraising”? Should I just be asking for money all the time? What about the business?
It wasn’t until I made my way into VC at SkyDeck that I realized the depth of his words. Keep people you eventually want to fundraise from and hire in the loop about what you’re building. Keep them excited. Build a relationship beyond something transactional. Build a friendship.
Jeff Bezos put it best when he said:
“If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.
“At Amazon we like things to work in five to seven years. We’re willing to plant seeds, let them grow and we’re very stubborn. We say we’re stubborn on vision and flexible on details.”
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!
