Tag: google

Posted on

Chasing Revenue Multiples and Revenue

unicorn, sunset

On Wednesday this week, I hosted an intimate dinner with founders in the windy backdrop of San Francisco. And I’m writing this piece, I can’t help but recall one founder from that evening asking us all to play a little game she built. A mini mobile test to see if we could tell the difference between real headshot portraits and AI-generated ones based on the former. There were 15 picture. Each where we had to pick one of two choices: real or AI.

10/15. 6/15. 9/15. 11/15. 8/15… By the time it was my turn, having seen the looks of confusion of my predecessors, I wasn’t confident in my own ability to spot the difference. Then again, I was neither the best nor the worst when it came to games of Where’s Waldo? 90 quick seconds later, a score popped up. 10/15. Something slightly better than chance.

Naturally, we asked the person who got 11/15 if he knew something we didn’t. To which, he shared his hypothesis. A seemingly sound and quite intellectual conjecture. So, we asked him to try again to see if his odds would improve. 90 seconds later, 6/15.

Despite the variance in scores, none were the wiser.

Michael Mauboussin shared a great line recently. “Intuition is a situation where you’ve trained your system one in a particular domain to be very effective. For that to work, I would argue that you need to have a system, so this is the system level, that it’s fairly linear and stable. So linear in that sense, I mean really the cause and effect are pretty clear. And stable means the basic rules of the game don’t change all that much.”

For our real-or-AI game, we lacked that clear cause and effect. If we received individual question scores of right or wrong, we’d probably have ended up building intuition more quickly.

Venture is unfortunately an industry that is stable, but not very linear. In many ways, you can do everything right and still not have things work out. That same premise led to another interesting thread I saw on Twitter this week by Harry Stebbings.

In a bull market, and I was guilty of this myself, the most predictable trait came in two parts: (a) mark-ups (and graduation rates to the next round), and (b) unicorn status. In 2020 and 2021, growth equity moved upstream to win allocation when they needed it with their core check and stage. But that also meant they were less price-sensitive and disciplined in the stages preceding their core check.

The velocity of rounds coming together due to a combination of FOMO and cheap cash empowered founders to raise quickly and often. Sometimes, in half the funding window during a disciplined market. In other words, from 18 months to 9 months. Subsequently, investors found themselves with 70+% IRR and deploying capital twice or thrice as fast as they had promised their LPs. In attempts to keep up and not get priced out of deals. Many of whom believed that to be the new norm.

While the true determinant of success as an investor is how much money you actually return to your investors, or as Chris Douvos calls it moolah in da coolah, the truth is all startup investors play the long game. Games that last at least a decade. Games that are stable, but not linear. The nonlinearity, in large part, due to the sheer number of confounding variables and the weight distribution changing in different economic environments. A single fund often goes through at least one bull run and one bear run. So, because of the insanely long feedback loops and venture’s J-curve, it’s often hard to tell.

Source: Crunchbase

In fact, in recent news, Business Insider reported half of Sequoia’s funds since 2018 posted “losses” for the University of California endowment. We’re in the beginning of 2023. In other words, we’re at most five years out. While I don’t have any insider information, time will tell how much capital Sequoia will return. For now, it’s too early to pass any judgment.

The truth is most venture funds have yet to return one times their capital to their investors within five years. Funds with early exits and have a need to prove themselves to LPs to raise a subsequent fund are likely to see early DPI, but many established funds hold and/or recycle carry. Sequoia being one of the latter. After all, typical recycling periods are 3-4 years. In other words, a fund can reinvest their early moolah in da coolah in the first 3-4 years back into the fund to make new investments. There is a dark side to recycling, but a story for another time. Or a read of Chris Neumann’s piece will satiate any current surplus of curiosity.

But I digress.

In the insane bull run of 2020 and 2021, the startup world became a competition of who could best sell their company’s future as a function of their — the founders’ — past. It became a world where people chased signal and logos. A charismatic way to weave a strong narrative behind logos on a resume seemed to be the primary predictors of founder “success.” And in a market with a surplus of deployable capital and heightened expectations (i.e. 50x or higher valuation multiples on revenue), unicorn status had never been easier to reach.

As of January of this year — 2023, if you’re a time traveler from the future, there are over 1,200 unicorns in the world. 200 more than the beginning of 2022. Many who have yet to go back to market for cash, and will likely need a haircut. Yet for so many funds, the unicorn rate is one of the risks they underwrite.

I was talking with an LP recently where he pointed out the potential fallacy of a fund strategy predicated on unicorn exits. There have only been 118 companies that have historically acquired unicorns. And only four of the 118 have acquired more than four venture-backed unicorns. Microsoft sitting at 12. Google at 8. And Meta and Amazon at 5 each. Given that a meaningful percentage of the 1200 unicorns will need a haircut in their next fundraise, like Stripe and Instacart, we’re likely going to see a slowdown of unicorns in the foreseeable future. And for those on the cusp to slip below the unicorn threshold. Some investors have preemptively marked down their assets by 25-30%. Others waiting to see the ball drop.

The impending future is one not on multiples but one of business quality, namely revenue and revenue growth. All that to say, unless you’re growing the business, exit opportunities are slim if you’re just betting on having unicorn acquisitions in your portfolio.

So while many investors will claim unicorn rate as their metric for success, it’s two degrees of freedom off of the true North.

In the bear market we are in today, the world is now a competition of the quality of business, rather than the quality of words. At the pre-seed stage, companies who are generating revenue have no trouble raising, but companies who don’t are struggling more.

As Andy Rachleff recently pointed out, “Valuations are not the way you judge a venture capitalist, or multiples of their fund. […] The way that I judge a venture capitalist is by how many companies did they back that grew into $100M revenue businesses.” If you bring in good money, whether an exit to the public market or to a partner, you’re a business worth acquiring. A brand and hardly any revenue, if acquired, is hardly going to fetch a good price. And I’ve heard from many LPs and longtime GPs that we’re in for a mass extinction if businesses don’t pivot back to fundamentals quickly. What are fundamentals? Non-dilutive cash in the bank. In other words, paying customers.

Bull markets welcome an age of chasing revenue multiples (expectation and sentiment). Bear markets welcome an age of chasing revenue.

The latter are a lot more linear and predictable than the former.

Photo by Paul Bill 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!

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.

Posted on

The Superpower of Being Underestimated

underestimated, rejection, star

The Warriors went through one hell of a season. Even as someone who doesn’t live and breathe basketball, watching Stephen Curry this past season, especially during the finals with the Celtics was a thrill out of this world. He is undeniably one of the greats! Yet it’s fascinating to think that the world didn’t always see him as such. From being a 3-star recruit to the 256th-ranked player in 2006 to 7th pick in 2009, Curry’s gone a long way.

Though he recently won an Academy Award for Best Original Score for his music on Dune, Hans Zimmer‘s early music career was not easy. He had been thrown out of eight schools and only had two weeks of piano lessons. Yet today he is undeniably one of the greatest composers of our time.

Comment
byu/realhanszimmer from discussion
inIAmA
Source: Hans Zimmer’s Reddit AMA

When Stan Lee first pitched Spider-Man, his publisher thought it was “the worst idea I have ever heard.” The publisher himself told one of the greatest storytellers: “First of all, people hate spiders, so you can’t call a book Spider-Man. Secondly he can’t be a teenager—teenagers can only be sidekicks. And third, he can’t have personal problems if he’s supposed to be a superhero—don’t you know who a superhero is?'” The rest… is history.

In the making of Star Wars, George Lucas was rejected time and time again – from Disney to United Artists to Universal. And the one bet that 20th Century Fox took on him was for only a budget of $8M, that eventually became a $10M budget, when at the time, the best blockbuster films all had budgets of $20-30M. Yet, today Star Wars stands as one of the greatest cultural assets of the 20th and 21st century.

In the world of startups, the world’s most valuable companies are worth more than four times and raised half as much as the world’s most funded companies. Funding, in many ways, is a proxy for investor optimism in the early days that this company will be the next big thing. But investors, like any other person, can be wrong. In fact, startup investors are often wrong more often than they’re right. But it also goes to say the world’s best companies are non-obvious, in the non-consensus. In other words, underestimated.

Source: Founder Collective

As the above graphic shows, even if one picks right, we still grossly underestimate the potential of outliers. After all, humans are terrible at tracking nonlinearities:

  • In 2012, Canva was rejected by over 100 Silicon Valley investors. Now it is a growing $40 billion business of gargantuan proportions.
  • The Post-it note was an result of a failed experiment to create stronger adhesives. But Dr. Spencer Silver, its inventor, kept at it, which led to his nickname as “Mr. Persistent” because he wouldn’t give up. Today, Post-it notes are sold in more than 100 countries, and over 50 billion are produced every year.
  • Google, one of the most recognizable names today, struggled to raise capital and find customers in the early days. Who needed another search engine? For 1.5 years, every search company approached by Larry and Sergey to consider Google’s tech turned them down. The pair funded Google on their credit cards and couldn’t even afford to hire a designer so regressed to minimalism.
  • Tope Awotona, founder of Calendly, started three failed businesses and emptied his 401k to fund Calendly. Yet despite his hustle and persistence, most VCs he talked to turned him down. Despite starting in 2013, it wasn’t till 2021 that Calendly had their A-round. Calendly took much longer to get the attention of external funding than many of its counterparts. The company is now one of the most popular scheduling tools and worth $3B.

But even when people got it right, they still underestimated the upside.

  • Even when Kleiner eventually backed Google, legendary investor John Doerr couldn’t believe it when Larry Page believed that Google could get revenues of $10B.
  • When Bessemer invested in Shopify, Bessemer thought that the best possible outcome for Shopify was a 3% chance of the company exiting at $400M. As of the time of this essay, it’s worth over 100 times more with a market cap of $43B.
  • If you invested in Amazon on the first day in 1998 at $5, most people would have sold at $85 in 1999 – a 17x in less than two years. But if they held to today, they would have made a multiple north of 600x. That said, selling itself is more of an art than a science.

… And the list goes on.

As Warren Buffett says, “the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield.” Our fallacy with estimation is painfully obvious in hindsight, but dubitably unclear in foresight.

Early on in my venture career, an investor once told me a profound statement. One that I still remember to this day. The best ideas – and often the leaders of tomorrow – often seem crazy at first. And because they’re crazy, they’re nonobvious. They’re in the non-consensus.

As Steve Jobs says, “the ones who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” The world’s most transformative individuals and businesses take on many more headwinds than those optimizing for local maxima. But history shows us that those that dream big consistently outperform those optimizing for marginal improvement. While there is nothing wrong with the latter, I hope the above anecdotes serve as a reminder rejection is not a sign of failure. Rather, it’s a sign that most people have yet to see what you see.

Your job is to teach them to see what you see. After all, the only difference between a hallucination and a vision is that other people can see a vision.

Photo by Aziz Acharki on Unsplash

Edit: Added in Stan Lee’s story.

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

#unfiltered #54 When You Learn How to Say No Before You Learn How to Say Yes

I’ve alluded to my ability to say “No” in many previous blogposts, like this one. But as this concept has crawled around in my subconscious for as long as it did, I believe it now deserves a blogpost in its own right.

As a kid, I learned from my parents to say “No” to strangers. The “uncle” who’d say my dad told him to pick me up. Or the “auntie” who’d offer a lollipop to me and ask me where my parents were. To the point it became muscle memory to say “No” to gifts, as well as compliments, even from friends and family. Over time, that notion became more prevalent as it infected other parts of my life.

I learned to discriminate my time before I had a chance to fill in my calendar. Even worse, when I ever hesitated, it became a no-brainer to say no. And subsequently, I missed out on more opportunities I can count. “Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.” It’s a line from De Niro’s character in the 1998 movie Ronin. In essence, if you ever hesitate, some part of your body is telling you “No” while other parts are telling you “Yes”. And there’s a good chance that that “No” is right. Or if you do say “Yes” and things go awry, the voice in the back of your head that said “No” will only exacerbate into full denial. And you may end up hating the reasons you said “Yes” to before.

But it wasn’t from that movie, when that line became immortalized in my mind. I heard it uttered by Tim Ferriss on one of his regular episodes. Or maybe it was from one of his books, like Tribe of Mentors. But I wouldn’t sweat the details.

The thing is, he’s completely right. Both De Niro’s character, Sam. And Tim. But I learned there’s a caveat. Earlier on in your life and career, it’s about taking in more experience since your 24-hour day has yet to fill up. You have to say “Yes” before you know how to say “No”. I overvalued on advice and undervalued experience. Both Sam and Tim were right. But they were right in their own lives, or rather they were right when I would one day have enough things to say “No” to. All advice is, after all, autobiographical.

100 minus your age

I don’t remember where, but I once heard this amazing heuristic for picking up new books. 100 pages minus your age. It equals the number of pages you should read before you decide whether to put down the book or not. The younger you are, the more pages you should read to understand if this book is worth your time or not. Why? Because you simply don’t have large enough of a sample size to recognize the patterns of good versus not-so-good literature. As you grow older, the fewer pages you need to read before you decide if the book is worth your time. Over time, you have a better grasp as to what quality looks like.

A similar notion seems to apply to your life. 100 points minus your age. That’s the margin of error you have when making decisions. The younger you are, the more prone you are to making wild mistakes. The older and more experienced you get, the better you can tell good from bad decisions.

In closing

I’m reminded of something Henry Ford once said. “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right.”

I lost out on many opportunities. The thing is no opportunity will ever be perfect. But in thinking each opportunity I take had to be perfect, I thought I couldn’t – shouldn’t – take it. But frankly, I just wouldn’t. I became a professional brat. There will always be something or somethings that just don’t make the opportunity click. But in saying “No”, you are saying “Yes” to the status quo. That’s something I have to remember.

As Eric Schmidt of Google fame once said, “Yes is how you get your first job, and your next job, and your spouse, and even your kids. Even if it’s a bit edgy, a bit out of your comfort zone, saying yes means that you will do something new, meet someone new, and make a difference. Yes lets you stand out in a crowd, be the optimist, see the glass full, be the one everyone comes to. Yes is what keeps us all young.”

Photo by Kai Pilger 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

Should You Make Investors Sign NDAs?

Years ago, when I first started in venture at SkyDeck, I met a founder who made me sign an NDA before he pitched. At the time, I had no idea that it wasn’t the norm. So, I ended up signing it without a second thought. It wasn’t my first time I signed one, and certainly not the last. He spent 20 minutes pitching his idea to me. I don’t remember the exact details of the pitch, but I remember it being an intriguing pre-launch idea outside of my realm of expertise.

In our last five minutes, out of curiosity, I asked him why he had me sign an NDA – something I’d never been asked to do since I jumped into VC.

He said, “I can’t afford to have you take my idea.”

Nevertheless, I had a couple names in mind that might be useful to him. At least more useful to him than I could be. But given the NDA, I needed written consent for every person I wanted to send his startup to. As well as consent for what I could and could not tell them. After two weeks of back and forth emails, he only allowed me to pass his idea to one other person. Even so, in a very limited scope. With very little context. Far from enough for my investor friend to say yes to a meeting. All in all, regrettably, the long slog of asynchronous communication heavily drained my willingness to help. And at the end of the two weeks, I was happy to get that load off my chest.

It was a lesson for myself. Ever since then, I err on the side of not making people sign NDAs. Why?

  1. Most people don’t care enough about your problem space to pursue the idea you’re going for. If they were, they’d have pursued the idea/solution already.
  2. Sharing your idea helps you more than it helps them. You get free advice and feedback, all of which are ammunition to further your idea. The more you share, the faster you learn, the faster you can iterate and grow your startup.
  3. If you make a potential partner sign an NDA, it implicitly shows a lack of trust in the partnership, and there could lead to future friction between you 2, which would detract you from focusing on actually building the business. I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve seen businesses crumble because of a lack of trust. And it could start from the smallest thing and exacerbate into a full-blown drama.
  4. On the off chance, they do take your idea and run with it to the market, they become a competitor to your business. And if you’re scared of competition, you’re probably in the wrong industry. Or if you want to run a lifestyle business (one at your own pace) – like a side hustle or one you find great joy in doing, it really doesn’t matter what other people are doing.

The success of a business is determined by how well you can execute. The first mover advantage is about who can get to product-market fit first, not who birthed the idea first. Before Google, AltaVista, Aliweb, and Yahoo! existed, just to name a few. Equally so, Myspace and Friendster started before Facebook.

A week after my intro, my investor friend hit me up again to tell me he turned down that founder before the founder even pitched. He told me, “It’s unnecessary red tape and not worth my time. And I’m not short on deal flow.”

Almost a year after that, in an effort to keep a complete record of the deals I’ve sent to investors, I revisited that startup. A quick LinkedIn search told me they’d closed up shop. I never checked back in with them to ask why. It could have been trouble in their go-to-market motions. It could have been co-founder disputes. Or it could have been their inability to find investment. I don’t know. But I imagine that their inability to find investors contributed to their closure.

Photo by Scott Graham 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 to Build Your Investor Pipeline Without a Network

One of the most common questions I get from first-time founders, as well as those outside the Bay Area, is: “Who is/How do I find the best investor for our startup?” Often underscored by circumstances of:

  • Raising their first round of funding
  • Finding the best angel investors
  • Doesn’t have a network in the Bay Area or with investors

While I try to be as helpful as I can in providing names and introductions, more often than not, I don’t know. I usually don’t know who’s the best final denominator, but I do know where and how to start. In other words, how to build a network, when you don’t think you have one. I emphasize “think” because the world is so connected these days. And you’re at most a 2nd or 3rd degree connection from anyone you might wanna meet. Plus, so many early-stage investors spend time on brand-building via Medium, Quora, Twitter, Substack, podcasting, blogging, and maybe even YouTube. It’s not hard to do a quick Google search to find them.

“Googling” efficiency

While I do recommend starting your research independently first, if you really are stumped, DM me on my socials or drop me a line via this blog. Of course, this is not a blog post to tell you to just “Google it”. After all, that would be me being insensitive. Here’s how I’d start.

One of the greatest tools I picked up from my high school debate days was learning to use Google search operators. Like:

  • “[word]” – Quotes around a word or words enforces that keyword, meaning it has to exist in the search items
  • site: – Limits your search query to results with this domain
  • intitle: – Webpages with that keyword in its title
  • inurl: – URLs containing that keyword

Say you’re looking for investors. I would start with a search query of:

site: docs.google.com/spreadsheets intitle: investors

Or:

site: airtable.com inurl: investors

Feel free to refine the above searches to “angel investors” or “pre-seed funds”.

Landing and expanding your investor/advisor network

I was chatting with a friend, first-time founder, recently who’s gearing up for her fundraising frenzy leading up to Demo Day. She asked me, “Who should I be talking to?” While I could only name a few names since I wasn’t super familiar with the fashion industry, I thought my “subject-matter expert network expansion” system would be more useful. SMENE. Yes, I made that name up on the spot. If you have a better nomination, please do let me know. But I digress.

First, while you might not think you have the network you want, leverage who you know to get a beachhead into the SMEN (SME network) you want. Yes I also made up that acronym just now. But don’t just ask anyone, ask your friends who are founders, relative experts/enthusiasts, and investors. Ideally with experience/knowledge in the same/similar vertical or business model.

Second, if you feel like you don’t have those, just reach out to people who are founders, relative experts/enthusiasts, and investors. Via Twitter, Quora, LinkedIn, Clubhouse. Or maybe something more esoteric. I know Li Jin and Justin Kan are on TikTok and Garry Tan and Allie Miller are on Instagram. You’d be surprised at how far a cold email/message go. If it helps, here’s my template for doing so.

Then you ask them three questions:

  1. Who is/would your dream investor be? And two names at most.
    • Or similarly, who is the first (or top 2) people they think of when I say [insert your industry/business model]?
  2. Who, of their existing investors, if they were to build a new business tomorrow in a similar sector, is the one person who would be a “no brainer” to bring back on their cap table?
  3. Who did they pitch to that turned them down for investment, but still was very helpful?

For each of the above questions, why two names at most? Two names because any more means people are scraping their minds for “leftovers”. And there’s a huge discrepancy between the A-players in their mind and the B-players. Then you reach out/get intro’ed to those people they suggested. Ask them the exact same question at the end of the conversation (whether they invest or not). And you do it over and over again, until you find the investor with the right fit.

Photo by Andrew Ly 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

#unfiltered #11 What I Learned About Building Communities through Social Experiments – Touching Jellyfish, Types of Social Experiments, The Thesis, Psychological Safety and Fairness

jellyfish, social experiment, psychological safety, how to build a community
Are these jellyfish friendly or not? Will they “bite”?

As colorful and as beautiful jellyfish are, we are still scared of the possible danger that each possess. So, most of us only admire them from afar. And for many of us who have seen some, we’ve watched them float gracefully in dark blue aqueous solutions across a sometimes distorted film of glass. These beautiful mysteries of the deep blue.

To Touch the Jellyfish

Much like my fascination every time my parents brought me to the aquarium as a kid, I’ve been fascinated with the people around me. Especially about the thin, sometimes distorted, film between these exceptionally fascinating souls and me. The distortion created as a function of society’s, as well as their own, efforts.

Exactly a year and two months ago, I embarked on a journey to host small-scale social experiments, like:

  • Hidden Questions. A game where no one else knows the question, except for the person answering it. And where the person answering has the choice of sharing the question that inspired the answer or taking it to the grave by taking a shot of hot sauce (about a 700,000 on the Scoville scale, for reference) or a variable number of Beanboozled beans.
  • Brunches with Strangers. Quite literally, Saturday brunches with strangers. Hosting a cast of people from all walks of life. Like founders, street artists, astrophysicists, concept artists, athletes, criminal investigators, filmmakers, college drop-outs, and much more.
  • The Curious Case of Aliases. Where players (strangers to each other) under aliases guess each other’s hobbies, occupations, deepest fears, etc. after only playing in a 30-minute game session. For instance, skribbl.io. Cards Against Humanity. Codenames. And Mafia.
  • And, the most recent addition to my small Rolodex of social experiments, Improv Presentations. A TED talk-like night where people present someone else’s creatively esoteric slide decks, with no context as to what’s in the deck until they’re on “stage”. To the postmortem dismay of my cheeks and core, we saw everything from how to survive a cat-pocalypse to how to master the art of DM’ing using military tactics to how to be a good plant parent.

The Thesis, The Questions

As COVID would have it, the lack of in-person interaction and self-quarantine inspired the last two. Yet, all of which with the same thesis: helping make the world feel a little smaller, a little closer, and a whole lot more interesting. Starting not with the people who bathe in the limelight, but with the people directly around me.

Why is it so hard to be candid with strangers? And sometimes, even harder with family and friends?

Do we need alcohol, drugs, crazy incidents, violence, a lack of sleep, or stress to truly be ourselves?

Though not all-encompassing, people seem to be naturally curious about things, events, status, money, and gossip. Why aren’t people more curious about people – well, as just themselves? Like me, you’ve probably posed and have gotten the question: “How are you?” or “How are you doing?”. And likely, with more times than one is willing to admit, we didn’t really care about what the answer might be. Often times, since we know we’re just going to get a “Good” or “OK” in response.

If you want to have some fun, I highly recommend the next time someone asks you that, say “Terrible”. And watch the computer chip in their brain malfunction for a quick second.

What did I learn?

I won’t claim I found the universal truth or a holistic answer to any of those questions I posed above. Because I haven’t. After all, someone I really respect once told me:

“50% of what you know is true. 50% is false. The problem is you don’t know which half is which.”

So, in my life, my goals are two-fold:

  1. Build a system to help me discern my two halves of knowledge.
  2. Expand the total capacity of what I know.

I will share more on this blog as I am able to draw more lines of regression myself.

But in the context of this post, through social experiments, I’ve discovered that people yearn for psychological safety. Not only does Google’s Project Aristotle share its effectiveness in the workplace, it’s equally, if not more true, outside of it as well. The reason that it’s sometimes easier to share your thoughts and struggles with strangers is that strangers often won’t judge you to the same extent as friends and family do. Frankly, they don’t have much context to judge you from – implicitly and explicitly.

People want fairness. Not in the sense of you get 1 cookie, so I should get 1 too. But a fair system to be judged by. That I will get the same benefit of doubt as you will give to anyone and everyone else. When we all get drunk together, we will all be drunk and we will all relieve ourselves of any filters we may previously have. And though everyone’s drunk personality is different, and frankly everyone will still be judged… For that moment, that night, everyone’s on the same playing field.

The Applications

Let’s take most recent experiment with improv presentations as an example. The initial idea was that everyone should present their own slide decks. As serious or as silly as they might be. But some of my friends were hesitant. In their words, they felt they needed to “impress” or “have better public speaking skills”. Some simply said that they didn’t think they’d “be as good as others”.

Before our first “TED Talks@Home”, I shifted it altogether where we’d all be presenting each other’s presentation. All of us would have no context as to what we’re presenting until we get on “stage”. Whether we were experts on a specific topic or in comedy or deck-making, we’re all jumping into a bottomless pool together. After our second virtual improv night, this past weekend, between muted giggles and visual laughs, one of the presenters told me that it wasn’t as bad as she thought it would be, and that she’d want to do it again.

Luckily, it seems more than 60% of my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances come back to participate in more brunches or game sessions or improv nights. 1 in 4 guests have proactively started friendships outside of the experiments. And about 5% have introduced their new friends to their friend circles. A small handful have also been inspired to start their own. So, maybe I’m doing something right.

Building Communities

The same (psychological safety and fair system) holds true for building communities, creating your corporate culture, and finding and keeping your friend group and your significant other. Although in the context of building communities, but applicable elsewhere as well, I forget who told me this once:

“A strong community has both value and values.”

– The person who told me this, please come claim this quote

Value is why people initially come out to join a community and admittedly, reach out to be a friend. Whether it’s because of who you know or what you can offer or how you can help them pass the time, it’s the truth. Values are why they stay. And safety happens to be one of those values.

In closing

As always, my findings aren’t meant to be prescriptive. But merely act as a guide – another tool in your toolkit – so that you are better equipped for future endeavors.

Like with people, when one day I get to touch a jellyfish, I don’t care about being stung. But I do want to know where I can touch where I won’t be stung. And subsequently, where I will touch where I know I will be stung. The difference between going in blind and not is that when I get stung, I am prepared to be.

Photo by Mathilda Khoo 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!

Posted on

Finding the Sweet Spot – Iterating What and How You Measure Product Metrics

iterating product metrics, measure, measuring tape

Many founders I meet focus on, and rightly so, optimizing their core metrics – a set of units that surprisingly don’t change after its initial inception. But metrics and the way you measure them should undergo constant iteration. Metrics are a way to measure and test your assumptions. 9/10 assumptions, if not all, are honed through the process of iteration. And by transitive property, the metrics we measure, but more importantly, the way we measure them, is subject to no less.

Though I’m not as heavily involved on the operating side as I used to be, although I try to, the bug that inspires me to build never left. So, let’s take it from the perspective of a project a couple friends and I have been working on – hosting events that stretch people’s parameters of ‘possible’. Given our mission, everything we do is to help actuate that. One such metric that admittedly had 2 degrees of freedom from our mission was our NPS score.

The “NPS”

“How likely would you recommend a friend to come to the last event you joined us in?” Measured on a 1-10 scale, we ended up seeing a vast majority, unsurprisingly in hindsight, pick 7 (>85%). A few 9’s, and a negligible amount of 5s, 6s, and 8s. 7 acted as the happy medium for our attendees, all friends, to tell us: “We don’t know how we feel about your event, but we don’t want to offend you as friends.”

We then made a slight tweak, hoping to push them to take a more binary stance. The question stayed the same, but this time, we didn’t allow them to pick 7. In forcing them to pick 8 (a little better than average) and 6 (a little worse than average), we ended up finding all the answers shift to 6s and 8s and nothing else. Even the ones that previously picked 9s regressed to 8s. And the ones who picked 5s picked 6s. Effectively, we created a yes/no question with just this small tweak.

There’s 3 fallacies with this:

  1. Numbers are arbitrary. An 8 for you, may not be an 8 for me. Unless we create a consolidated rubric that everyone follows when answering this question, we’re always going to variability in semi-random expectations.
  2. It’s a lagging indicator. There’s no predictive value in measuring this. By the time they answer this question, they’d already have made their decision. Though the post-mortem is useful, the feedback cycle between events was too long. So, we had to start looking into iterating the event live, or while it was happening.
  3. Answers weren’t completely honest. All the attendees were our friends. So their answers are in part, a reflection of the event, but also in part, to help us ‘save face’.

In studying essentialism, Stoicism, and Rahul Vohra‘s Superhuman, we found a solution that draws on the emotional spectrum that answered 1 and 3 rather well. Instead of phrasing our questions as “How much do you value this opportunity?”, we instead phrased them as “How much would you sacrifice to obtain this opportunity?” Humans are innately loss-averse. Losing your iPhone will affect you more negatively and for longer, than if you won a $1000 lottery.

So, our question transformed into: “How distraught would you be if we no longer invited you to a future event?”, paired with the answers “Very”, “Somewhat”, and “Not at all”. Although I’m shy to say we got completely honest answers, the answers in which we did give allowed for them to follow-up and supplement why they felt that way, without us prompting them.

The only ‘unaddressed’ fallacy by this question – point #2 – was resolved by putting other methods in place to measure attention spans during the event, like the number of times people checked their phone per half hour or the number of unique people who were left alone for longer than a minute per half hour (excluding bio breaks).

Feedback

“How can we improve our event?” We received mostly logistical answers. Most of which we had already noticed either during the event or in our own post-mortem.

In rephrasing to, “How can we help you fall in love with our events?”, we helped our attendees focus on 2 things: (1) more creative responses and (2) deep frustrations that ‘singlehandedly’ broke their experience at the event.

And to prioritize the different facets of feedback, we based it off the answers from the questions:

  • “What was your favorite element of the event?”
  • And, “How distraught would you be if we no longer invited you to a future event?”

For the attendees who were excited about elements closely aligned with our mission, we put them higher on the list. There were many attendees who enjoyed our event for the food or the venue, though pertinent to the event’s success, fell short of our ultimate mission. That said, once in a while, there’s gold in the feedback from the latter cohort.

On the flip side, it may seem intuitive to prioritize the feedback of those who were “Very distraught” or “Not at all”. But they exist on two extremes of the spectrum. One, stalwart champions of our events. The other, emotionally detached from the success of our events. In my opinion, neither cohort see our product truly for both its pros and cons, but rather over-index on either the pros or the cons, respectively. On a slight tangent, this is very similar to how I prioritize which restaurants to go to or which books to read. So, we find ourselves prioritizing the feedback of the group that lie on the tipping point before they “fall in love” with our events.

Unscalability and Scalability

We did all of our feedback sessions in-person. No Survey Monkey. No Google Forms, Qualtrics, or Typeform. Why?

  1. We could react to nuances in their answers, ask follow-up questions, and dig deeper.
  2. We wanted to make sure our attendees felt that their feedback was valued, inspired by Google’s Project Aristotle.
  3. And, in order to get a 100% response rate.

We got exactly what we expected. After our post-mortem, as well as during the preparation for our next event, I would DM/call/catch up with our previous attendees and tell them which feedback we used and how much we appreciated them helping us grow. For the feedback we didn’t use, I would break down what our rationale was for opting for a different direction, but at the same time, how their feedback helped evolve the discourse around our strategic direction. Though their advice was on the back burner now, I’ll be the first to let them know when we implement some element of it.

The flip side of this is that it looks extremely unscalable. You’re half-right. Our goal isn’t to scale now, as we’re still searching for product-market fit. But as you might notice, there are elements of this strategy that can scale really well.

In closing

Of course, our whole endeavor is on hold during this social distancing time, but the excitement in finding new and better ways to measure my assumptions never ceases. So, in the interim, I’ve personally carried some of these interactions online, in hopes of discovering something about virtual conversations.

Photo by Jennifer Burk on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!

Posted on

#unfiltered #9 Living to Eat – Supporting the Service Industry, Fine Dining Musings, Restaurant Selection Criteria, Tipping, and the Notebook

living to eat, fine dining

I had originally planned to write this post back in February, but when the coronavirus came crashing in 6th gear, I thought it would have been unwise to urge you, friends and family to venture beyond your doorstep. So this post fell into the depths of despair, hoping to find its way to center stage after we were on the road to recovery and when restaurants reopened.

But yesterday, over a Zoom call, in catching up with a fellow foodie and college buddy, he suggested that I still post this. Not to urge people to eat out. But as a voice to support the many struggling restaurants, caf̩s and bars out there Рmany of which include our personal favorites. Before I dive into this post, I want to explicitly note 2 disclaimers:

Disclaimer 1: As I mentioned above, this post is not written to incentivize you to go eat out now, but rather just illustrate my musings as someone who loves food. And as many other businesses are feeling the brunt of the impact in the status quo, the culinary industry is no exception. Your favorite restaurant yesterday may not exist tomorrow. And you won’t even be able to experiment with any of the below musings if we don’t put a hand out now and support them when they need us most.

Disclaimer 2: I am neither a professional chef/cook nor is my trade being a food critic. So take what I say with a grain of salt, as with anything I write. Below is merely my observations in one of my most expensive hobbies as a foodie.

Given the extravagant length of this post, here’s a TL;DR:

  • Why I don’t resort to Yelp/Google when picking a new dinner destination
    • And a couple of my favorite restaurants in the Bay Area
  • My calculus for tipping – and why there are times I choose to not tip
  • Why a notebook may be your best friend in your culinary adventures
Continue reading “#unfiltered #9 Living to Eat – Supporting the Service Industry, Fine Dining Musings, Restaurant Selection Criteria, Tipping, and the Notebook”
Proudly powered by WordPress