Years ago, I remember reading somewhere, “Writer’s block is not that you don’t have any ideas. It’s when you don’t have ‘good enough’ ideas.” In my opinion, one of the greatest fatalities of the 2020s is not that people lack ideas. But people have a poor way of capturing ideas when ideas do come to them.
And in the theme of ideating in the busy world we live in today, I wrote a short thread earlier this week on the seven ways I capture ideas.
I carry a physical journal almost everywhere I go. Personally opt for a nice, weighty journal that I can’t wait to write in (none of that spiral bound, thin page notebooks, but that’s personal preference). My favorite brands: Leuchtturm1917/ Moleskine Page density: >150 g/m2
While I’m at it, a good pen. I prefer felt tip or fountain pen. Psychologists do say you tend to remember thoughts more if you physically write them out, over typing them out. For felt tip: Staedtler fineliners Fountain pen: LAMY
Reserve a full page for every idea. Even if your idea is only one sentence, give it space so that in the future you can come back to it and flush it out. As the wise Ron Swanson once said, “Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”
Allocate at least 10 minutes to generate ideas. Even if you can’t think of anything for 10 minutes, sit through the whole 10. A few months ago, amidst a catch-up, a founder friend of mine – for lack of better words, a serial builder, having created more apps that I can count – shared with another friend and I something incredibly insightful about finding inspiration. “Not enough people give themselves bored time. To produce ideas, you have to give yourself time to be bored.” These days, I try to allocate 30 minutes of bored time.
I have a whiteboard in my shower. Yes, I take shower thoughts seriously. In fact, this blogpost originated from a shower whiteboarding session earlier this week. I’m not really picky on brand here, since it’s just to get thoughts on a board as quickly as I can, but get rain-proof markers.
Handwritten notes are notoriously hard to track. So, I have a 3-step process for this.
I have a table of contents at the back of every notebook. Usually reserve 4 pages for that. In there, I write down, page #, title of each journal entry, and key/most thought-provoking content.
By the time I finish each journal, I revisit the now-completed table of contents to highlight/circle what resonates with me the most from that table.
A few months later or 1-2 journals later, I revisit the same table of contents, browse through what I highlighted/circled, and for those that STILL resonate, I port over to my Notion, which becomes more or less my evergreen knowledge/idea hub.
When I’m completely lost or need inspiration, I find that the best way to generate ideas is to ask great questions. For questions on people and passions, I’m a big fan of Tim Ferriss and Sean Evans. For startup or VC questions, I love Harry Stebbings and Samir Kaji.
As a bonus eighth tip which I didn’t include in the Twitter thread, if you are still stuck, I find the question “What is the most important question I should be asking myself today?” quite useful.
Some examples of things I write in my idea journal:
Startup ideas
New things I learned in the venture capital space
Blogpost ideas
Introspective thoughts
Phrases and vernacular that other people say or write that I really like
Great questions to ask myself or others
Recipes I come up with
Dreams
Riddles or puzzles
Short stories
Concept art
In sum, anything is fair game. The more I allow my mind to expand without constraints, the more I’m able to draw parallels between seemingly disparate data points and create new meaning. At least for myself.
In closing
I passed by another quote over the years, and the attribution escapes me. “If you have don’t have any ideas, read more. If you have ideas, write more.” I’d extend it even further by saying, when you have a deficit of inspiration, consume. Read and listen more. There is a plethora of content out there today. And they are all more accessible than ever – from books to podcasts to articles to videos. When you have a surplus of inspiration, produce. Write and do more.
#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!
Last weekend, I tuned into Samir Kaji’s recent episode with LPs (limited partners). Not once, but twice. And as you might’ve guessed, was damn inspired by their conversation. The more I listened to it, the more synonymous the paths of a founder and an emerging manager (EM) seemed to be. Or what I call the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurial VC. If you’re a regular here, you’ll know I love writing about the intellectual horsepower of both sides of the table. But in this post, rather than delineating the two, I’d love to share how similar founders and funders actually are.
Surprises suck, but pivots are okay
On Samir’s podcast, Guy Perelmuter of GRIDS Capital voiced: “There’s only one thing that LPs hate more than losing money. It’s surprises.”
Be transparent. Be clear on your expectations, and steer clear of left hooks. As a fund, something I’ve heard a number of GPs and LPs say is don’t deviate on your thesis. LPs invest in you for your strategy. But as soon as you deviate from that initial strategy, you become increasingly unpredictable.
Take, for example, you go to a steakhouse and order steak. But they serve you sushi instead. If it’s not good sushi, obviously you’re not coming back. Not only did they surprise you, but it was also a poorly executed one. This goes in the column of one-star Yelp reviews.
But, say it was great sushi. You had one great dining experience and you’re a happy customer. Some time in the future, you think of getting sushi again. And you remember what a great experience you had at the steakhouse. So you go back to the steakhouse, only to realize it was a fluke and the sushi wasn’t like the last time you’ve had it. Your inability to replicate surprises scares LPs, which limits your ability to raise a subsequent fund.
Nevertheless, these days markets are changing quickly. And sometimes your initial thesis may not serve you as well in today’s market as it did yesterday. As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian economics, once said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” But, if you do need to deviate, communicate it clearly, formulate a new strategy, and preemptively tell your LPs. Then at that point, it’s no longer a surprise, but a strategy. Great examples include:
Not investing via their fund strategy (i.e. typically ad hoc),
Require less diligence and therefore less conviction,
Send negative signals to other investors if the GP doesn’t do a follow-on check at the next round, and
Because of (2) and (3) are usually cash sinks.
The On Deck Accelerator (ODX) – Backing founders at the earliest stages (i.e. pre-product, pre-revenue) as long as they have deep conviction in their own business.
The recent announcement of The Sequoia Fund – a systematic and predictable strategy to invest in not just startups, but venture funds backing incredible founders as well.
The same holds for founders. Don’t get me wrong. Startups pivot. And they should. Mike Maples Jr., founder of one of the best performing seed stage venture firms, recently shared: “Most investors are going to look at what the company does and evaluate the business for what it is, but 90% of our exit profits have come from pivots.” And just like fund managers, clearly convey why, how, and what you’re pivoting to to your shareholders. It’s always better to preempt these conversations than leave these as surprises. Often times, you’ll find your investors, having seen as many pivots as they have and knowing that is the name of the game, can offer you much more feedback and insight than you imagined for your pivot.
Optimize for the “Oh shit! moment*
In every conversation, your goal should just be to teach your investors something. An earned secret. A unique insight. What do you know that other people don’t, overlook, or underestimate? What do you know that other people would find it very hard to learn organically? This is especially true for consensus ideas – or obvious ideas. The best obvious products may seem obvious at first glance, but usually have non-obvious insights to back them up.
If you’re a fund, what is your insight – your access point – that’ll win you an asymmetric upside?
I’ve talked to too many founders and EMs that claim to be experts with X years of experience in a particular field. Yet after 30 minutes, I realized I learned nothing from them. I realize that for half an hour straight I ended up with a prep book full of buzzwords and vague jargon that would rival the SAT vocab section. But let’s be real. The SAT doesn’t get me excited to want to retake the test.
The best founders and funders out there are able to break down deep, technical, esoteric, and sometimes crazy concepts into simple bitesize ideas. The equivalent of taking the whole universe and simplifying it to its origin. A single point. The Big Bang.
I’ve also realized over the years that the world’s smartest teachers – and when you’re trying to convince people to join you in a non-obvious vision, you are teaching – lead with analogies. And the best analogies lead investors to that “Oh Shit! moment.”
COVID made capital cheaper
Equally true for startups and funds. Capital is digital. If you think about capital in the frame of investor acquisition cost, you no longer have to travel to your investors to pitch to them. This means you can take far more meetings than before. Less travel and more meetings mean your investor acquisition cost goes down.
Founders no longer have to book a week to Sand Hill Road or South Park to have introductory conversations with investors. Only to have 80-90% turn down a second conversation. This becomes even more costly the earlier you are in your startup journey. You have to have a lot more first conversations as a pre-seed founder than you do as a founder raising an A. At the same time, you have many more options for raising capital today: accelerators, syndicates, equity crowdfunding, and roll-up vehicles (RUVs). While it’s not that these resources didn’t exist before COVID, the pandemic made it much more apparent that VC money didn’t have to be the only way to raise capital. And that you can also leverage speed and your community to help you grow.
Similarly, EMs no longer have to travel across the states to talk to institutional capital. Even more so, as an EM, you’re most likely raising from individual investors. Raising a rolling fund or a 506c lets you generally solicit investments, where you couldn’t with a 506b. Subsequently, Twitter and having a community became your superpower. Mac at Rarebreed, Packy’s Not Boring Fund I, and Harry at 20VC all raised during the time of COVID, leveraging the power of their following and community to do so.
Keep it simple
“There’s no favorable wind for the sailor who doesn’t know where to go.” – Seneca
Two Saturdays ago, I caught up with my ridiculously smart engineer friend from college – “Fred”. We were reminiscing about the “good ol’ days” when we first started punching above our weight class. Particularly in regards to cold outreaches to individuals we really admired. While I was an operator at two startups that shaped my entrepreneurial career, I spent many a night struggling on how to best position our products in the market. Many hours of copy and rephrasing and reframing. In both we were competing against the existing saturation of information and solutions on the market. How do we tell our customers and investors the reason we’re awesome is because of A and B and C, and also D?
Most people, friends, customers, and investors didn’t understand the value we thought we were obviously conveying. And subsequently, we were rejected more often than I would have liked to admit. In the early days, we didn’t lose on price nor on quality, but on brand and messaging. And while we thought and strove to prove we were better in areas that mattered, both startups eventually ended up having exceedingly simple one-liners.
On the other hand, “Fred” was working on something related to liquid fuel and cold fires. Something extremely technical. But he was able to win proportionally more yes’s than I was able to. When I asked him how, he said it was simple. “We’re putting a rocket into space. That’s it. And that’s really exciting.”
I made something extraordinarily simple into something extraordinarily complex. In all honesty, I sounded really, really smart. And I felt like I was the shit. Except no one else did. “Fred” took something extraordinarily complex and made it extraordinarily simple. He didn’t sound as smart. But celebrities, sponsors, companies – people just got it.
The true value of a product is usually exceedingly simple. The fallacy of including a Rolodex of esoteric jargon comes in two-fold. Either you’re trying to sound smarter than you actually are. Or you’re trying to cram too many things in too little space. As economist Herbert A. Simon said, “A wealth of information creates of poverty of attention.”
In closing
Whether you’re an entrepreneur or an emerging manager, you’re swinging for the fences. I was chatting with an investor yesterday who had an incredible analogy. “It’s like a pinball machine. The ball goes up, and you never know how it’ll fall down. You don’t know how many bounce pads and flippers it will hit. You don’t know how many points you’re going to get. But no matter how many points you’ll get, the ball has to go up first.” Similarly, whether you start a company or a fund, you have to step up to the plate to bat. You don’t know what the upside will be. You don’t know if you’re going to return your investors 2x, 5x or a 100x.
You’re taking an asymmetric bet on the compelling future you bring. Your valuation as a startup is not how much your startups is worth, which is why the 409a valuation is always different from the valuation your investors set for you. Your valuation is a bet your investors made that you will be as big as the major players in the market. If you’re valued at $10M today, your investors are saying you are 10 in 1000, or a 1% chance, to be a unicorn. And a 0.1% chance to be a decacorn.
Valuations might seem crazy today. VC firms are also raising larger and larger funds, which lead many to be skeptical on their ability to return capital. In fairness, most funds will return a modest 2-3x over their lifetime, if at all. Most startups are and will be overvalued. On the same token, the best ones, despite their crazy price, are still undervalued. Imagine if you were an investor who could invest in Facebook’s then-unicorn valuation. You’d have made a lot of money. But we’re in an optimistic market.
At the end of the day, both parties are just managing someone else’s capital. And as such, through a fiduciary responsibility, in that regard, both are cut from the same cloth.
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!
Last week, I had an incredible fireside chat with GC’s Niko Bonatsos, who has played a key role in some incredible investments, from Livongo Health to Snap to Wag! and most recently, Saturn. In all honesty, I took much of that experience to scratch my own itch. As always, we ran out of time before we ran out of topics. But I was lucky enough to ask one of which I happened to be losing sleep over. “How do you balance speed and diligence in the increasingly competitive market of venture?”
COVID changed us
In the midst of the pandemic, COVID became a forcing function for investors to deploy capital without ever meeting founders in-person. Frankly, they couldn’t meet anyone in-person. Even if they wanted to, investors, like everyone else, was subject to a series of lockdowns, curfews, and eventually the vaccine.
Yet, as life returns to a sense of normality, many investors have gotten comfortable investing virtually. And for a handful, only virtually. At the same time, in today’s increasingly competitive venture market, capital’s become more of a commodity. And I’ve heard a number of LPs find speed to be a competitive advantage. As a product of speed, investors compete on shortened timelines. It’s a given for angels and super angels out there who have to have conviction on a fairly limited set of data. But how do top-tier funds compete in that same market yet maintain the same discipline as before?
I got my answer from Niko.
“We try to pre-empt the stuff we really care about. It basically translates to us being prepared, having frontloaded a lot of the diligence for the companies and opportunities we care about. We have a more educated conversation with the founders, and are the first ones to get to a term sheet than anyone else. That’s something we do a lot more often. And we’ve leaned into seed, which is the new series A.”
Moreover, with all the diligence they do prior to sourcing, funds, like General Catalyst and Founders Fund, have started to incubate startups where they couldn’t find solutions to problems they found.
Slowing things down
Earlier this week, over a lunch, I posed the same question to Fort Ross‘ Ratan Singh, from whom I got a slightly different variation. “VCs are doing their homework before every meeting and going in with a thesis so that they can deploy fast. VCs used to play catcher and do all their homework after the meeting. But now it’s changed, so they can say yes faster.
“While speed is a differentiator, things are moving too fast today. I met every founder I’ve invested in in-person. Even during the pandemic, I invested in seven founders, and every single one I’ve met in-person.”
To which, I had to ask, “What do you find out from meeting a founder in-person that a virtual meeting lacks in?”
Without missing a beat, Ratan said, “It’s in the small things. The way they interact with their teammates. The way they treat each other. As we finish our chat and walk back to the car, are they still an intelligent being outside of the script? A Zoom call is a 30-minute scripted call. There’s a deck. There’s the presentation they prepared. An in-person interaction is more than that.”
Ratan’s comment reminded me of something Sequoia’s Doug Leone said in his interview with Harry Stebbings recently. “It takes about thirty minutes for someone to relax, which is why I refuse to interview someone for thirty minutes.” Similarly, while a 30-minute coffee chat may just be 30 minutes, the time it takes to shake hands, order your cup of coffee, have the conversation, finish it, and walk back to your car or wait for your Uber helps anyone, not just a VC, understand so much more depth to your character.
— Ruben Harris – rub3nharris.eth (@rubenharris) October 13, 2021
As if he didn’t drop enough mics in our lunch, Ratan left me with one last hot take, “In VC, you’re either asked to stay, or you’re asked to leave.” In today’s ever-changing climate, having deep domain expertise and pre-empting diligence keeps you if not ahead, at least on the curve of evolution. And for many investors, it’s one of their best bets to be asked to stay – either by the firm’s senior partners or your LPs.
Thank you Niko and Ratan for looking over earlier drafts.
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!
“Use three adjectives to describe your sibling. And describe yourself in comparison.”
I heard this question weeks ago from Doug Leone, Sequoia Capital‘s Global Managing Partner, on Harry Stebbings’ 20VC podcast. Known for having some of the best questions in venture and having led incredible investments into Meraki, Nubank, ServiceNow, and more, Doug loves to ask this question to founders he’s meeting for the first time. My initial response was “this doesn’t make any sense.” But in the podcast, he reveals why he loves the afore-mentioned question.
Before writing a check, an early-stage investor’s job is to answer three questions. Why now? Why this? And why you? The ‘why you’ question is admittedly one of the hardest questions to answer. Even for myself, I struggle from time to time to understand why I should scout a one founder over another over the same idea.
In a short 30 minute conversation, there’s only so much an investor can understand about a founder. There’s fundamentally a level of information asymmetry. Founders want to convince investors to take a bet on them. Yet, investors need more information to be comfortable making an asymmetric bet on them. We see echoes of a similar dilemma when recruiters interview applicants for jobs. Or when a property manager interviews a potential tenant.
Generally, recruiters, like most others, regress to questions like: “What are three of your strengths? Three weaknesses?” Having been asked so bluntly, interviewees, on the other hand, often have their guards up. They pick three strengths that would make them look the best. Equally so, they pick three weaknesses that show just enough honesty and vulnerability where they don’t get disqualified from the candidate pool. All of which exemplify pre-scripted answers.
Conversely, Doug found a way to do so without arming the interviewee’s, in this case, the founder’s, defenses. What three adjectives would you use to describe your sibling?
As Doug shares, “In a law of diversity, two siblings are less likely to be alike than two strangers. And so, how they usually describe their siblings is usually opposite of how they describe themselves. It’s a self-awareness question.”
You might realize the same principle holds when you describe a friend or a colleague or your spouse. The way you describe them often contrasts with your own disposition. “My friend is really curious.” Implicitly, you’re saying you’re not as curious.
So, the next time you talk about someone else, it’d be an interesting thought experiment to see how those same words relate or contrast with you.
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.
Subscribe to more of my shenaniganery. Warning: Not all of it will be worth the subscription. But hey, it’s free. But even if you don’t, you can always come back at your own pace.
What appears fluid is twenty-four frames per second. Twenty-four precious moments per second, lived second after second after second. And each of those still moments is imbued with feelings and memories. The rapid fluidity of each of those moments defines the patterns and beliefs that, in turn, define our lives.
Our lives are twenty-four frames per second, with each frame a set piece of feeling, belief, obsession about the past, and anxiety about the future. Neither good nor bad, these frames form us. They become the stories we tell ourselves again and again to make sense of who we’re becoming, who we’ve been, and who we want to be.
Ghosts of our pasts – our grandparents and their grandparents as well as the ghosts of their lives – inhabit the frames. They and their beliefs, interpretations of scenes, words, and feelings haunt the frames of lives as surely as the roses, figs, and lemon drops of our present daily lives do.
Slowing down the movie of our lives, seeing the frames and how they are constructed, reveals a different way to live, a way to break old patterns, to see experiences anew through radical self-inquiry.
I recently had the fortune of having an email exchange with one of the greatest household names in the space of startups and venture capital, especially known for his empathy and candor. A name synonymous with mental health, accelerators and being radically honesty about his journey – professional and personal. In our chat on mental health, he highly recommended Jerry Colonna‘s book, where the above passage comes from. So I just had to get it.
I first heard of Jerry on Harry Stebbing’s Twenty-Minute VC (his most recent episode with the CEO Whisperer) and The Tim Ferriss Show. And over the years, possibly as a result of confirmation bias, I’ve heard his name pop up over and over again from various founders and VCs. Over the decades, many people know Jerry as:
And, probably best known now for being the CEO whisperer.
So far, his book has reflected all the above and more.
A short trip down memory lane
Although we’re used to 60 frames per second (fps) for daily use or 120 fps for movies these days, the illusion of motion was first found at the optimal 16 fps. Early silent films, like Charlie Chaplin films, were then sped up to 24 fps, as far back as 1927. Admittedly, part of the reason as to why they seemed so comical. As technology caught up, still, the de facto frame rate was 24 fps.
In 2012, The Hobbit series was shot in 48 fps. In 2016, Bill Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk was shot and projected in 120 fps. Gemini Man, which came to theaters 3 years later, followed suit. James Cameron also plans to shoot Avatar 2 at 60fps, with the goal of maximizing the feel of a 3D-world. But as both filmmakers and animators approach higher and higher frame rates, there have been and will continue to be the effect of the uncanny valley. Uncanny valley, or in other words, the more something artificial looks to be real, the more our minds try to reject its appearance. Subsequently, making certain objects, robots, or animations seem creepy and chilling. Part of the reason, it’s a ‘hell no’ to horror films for me.
After decades of 24 fps films, it’ll take a while before our minds catch up to what we see. But I digress.
Moving Forward
Just like how silent films shot at 12-16 fps were shown at 24 fps, giving its comical effect, many of us, myself included (until 3 years back), live by weaving narratives between cross sections of time – both in our personal lives and in our careers. And we script our biographies in a format where seemingly everything happened for a reason. Maybe some things did.
But on the other hand, maybe you’re like me. Where I don’t know what the hell is going to happen tomorrow. Yes, I tell myself I have these plans and goals in life I’m working on accomplishing. But if you ask me, what pitfalls are up ahead? I haven’t even thought about half of them. Another quarter, and I’m being generous to myself here, I think I have a good grasp on, but knowing myself, I’ve got about 20% of it down, 80% I’m missing some piece of the puzzle.
After all, as Warren Buffett once said,
“The rear view mirror is always clearer than the windshield.”
The last quarter – I’m scared – really scared for. But, what’s life without a bit of risk and adventure?
Moving in the Present
While it’s easy to build that narrative for the trail behind us, it’s hard to forecast the narrative forward. So, I take life play by play – frame by frame. Slowing down to that 16 fps, examining, like Jerry suggests, my life in real time. Savoring and reflecting on every moment – the good and the bad. Reexamine my biases – the overt and the covert, in the words of a brilliant sociology professor I chatted with last week. ‘Cause they will make who I am tomorrow.
So, I’ll end on 2 big questions, inspired by that professor. 2 questions I plan to answer and reexamine every month:
What do your social circles look like?
Professional? Personal?
How did you meet them? How often do you stay in touch with them?
What beliefs – overt and covert- are they reinforcing? Are these beliefs worth reinforcing?
Now that you know, what are you willing to give up to make it happen?
Are you willing to take radical measures to do so?
What do you say that you don’t mean? Or find it hard to follow through on?
#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!
First of all, I should preface. Though I find templates to be useful when you’re shooting for quantity over quality, I default to only using limited elements of one, if at all, when my goal is quality > quantity. The goal with 90% of my emails I have ever sent is where I’m punching above my weight class, be it –
Applying to college – writing a letter to the deans of respective schools to get a personal tour,
Asking for funding – from top-tier VCs and potential long-term partners,
Or, exploring perspectives. I’m pretty liberal in my scope here.
If you’re here reading this and are looking for a silver bullet. If you’re looking to be that John Wick walking away from a massive explosion behind you… well, I regret to let you know – I don’t have one. I wish, but I don’t. But to me, that’s what makes this black box of relationship building ever the more fascinating. Had it been easy, I would have gotten bored real fast. Unfortunately, I have a limited mental stamina for things that work because… well, they work.
Inspired and encouraged by my conversations with 4 amazing souls over the past week – a founder, product manager, startup mentor, and my mom, here are the tactics I learned after years of reaching out to folks that inspire me, specifically closing one a week since 6 years ago.
As a footnote, I wasn’t able to predict the COVID crisis, so my thoughts in this last piece are as evergreen as an oak tree is. Specifically, my lack of foresight on increasing startup valuations and the return of consumer social.
Despite that, the final 2 questions of the piece are still very much pertinent now.
For the most part, founders are pretty cognizant of this X-factor. B-schools train their MBAs to seek their “unfair advantange”. And a vast majority of pitch decks I’ve seen include that stereotypical competitor checklist/features chart. Where the pitching startup has collected all the checkmarks and their competitors have some lackluster permutation of the remaining features.
There’s nothing wrong with that slide in theory. Albeit for the most part, I gloss over that one, just due to its redundancy and the biases I usually find on it. But I’ve seen many a deck where, for the sake of filling up that checklist, founders fill the column with ‘unique’ features that don’t correlate to user experience or revenue. For example, features that only 5% of their users have ever used, with an incredibly low frequency of usage. Or on the more extreme end, their company mascot.
To track what features or product offerings are truly valuable to your business, I recommend using this matrix.
“The optimal strategy is to assume that everybody that is competing with you has found some unique insight as to why the market is addressable in their unique approach. And to assume that your competitors are all really smart – that they all know what they’re doing… Why did they pick it this way? And really picking it apart and trying to understand that product strategy is really important.”
So, I have something I need to confess. Another ‘secret’ of mine. There’s a follow-up question. After my initial ‘unique insight’ one, if I suspect the founder(s) have fallen in their own bubble. Not saying that they definitively have if I ask it, but to help me clear my own doubts.
“What are your competitors doing right?”
Or differently phrased, if you were put yourself in their shoes, what is something you now understand, that you, as a founder of [insert their own startup], did not understand?
In asking the combination of these two questions, I usually am able to get a better sense of a founder’s self-awareness, domain expertise, and open-mindedness.
