Tag: marc andreessen

Posted on

Overwhelming and Underwhelming — When to Know You Are Just “Whelming”

fireworks, light, night

One of my favorite sections in Danny Meyer’s Setting the Table (H/T to Rishi and Arpan from Garuda who not only gifted me that book, but also one of the nicest bookmarks I own today) is when he talks about whelmers.

“I ask our managers to weigh one other critical factor as they handicap the prospect. Do they believe the candidate has the capacity to become one of the top three performers on our team in his or her job category? If people cannot ever develop into one of our top three cooks, servers, managers, or maître d’s, why would we hire them? How will they help us improve and become champions? It’s pretty easy to spot an overwhelmingly strong candidate or even an underwhelmingly weak candidate. It’s the ‘whelming’ candidate you must avoid at all costs, because that’s the one who can and will do your organization the most long-lasting harm. Overwhelmers earn you ravers. Underwhelmers either leave on their own or are terminated. Whelmers, sadly, are like a stubborn stain you can’t get out of the carpet. They infuse an organization and its with mediocrity; they’re comfortable, and so they never leave; and, frustratingly, they never do anything that rises to the level of getting them promoted or sinks to the level of getting them fired. And because you either can’t or don’t fire them, you and they conspire to send a dangerous message to your staff and guests and ‘average’ is acceptable.”

In an industry where everyone is incredible — in many ways, you can’t, or at least it’s really hard to, be a GP without being overwhelming in your past in one way or another… INcredible becomes credible. So, it’s quite hard when you have a limited sample size to know who is incredible among the already incredible.

Almost everyone today is overqualified for the job, compared to the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, when most were underqualified.

So, unless you’ve been an LP, how do you know if you’re overwhelming versus just whelming?

  1. LPs who have seen at least 200 funds in the last 2-4 years tell you you’re the “only” one who is pursuing this strategy
    • They have large enough of a sample size to make an assessment. While not perfect, it’s enough to be in rarified air.
  2. You’ve been to the major LP/GP conferences (i.e. RAISE, Bridge, All Raise, SuperReturn / SuperVenture, Upfront Summit, Milken, EMC Summit, etc.) and have seen how other GPs pitch where you personally have a sample size of at least 100.
    • Even better, if you’ve been to the Demo Days or showcases for Coolwater, Recast, VC Lab, just to name a few, and you’ve seen other GP’s pitches
    • Do note what GPs say on podcasts are usually (in my experience) what they pitch to LPs.
  3. You can cold email LPs and they’ll respond.
    • LPs are notoriously closed off to cold emails. As an institution that makes only 1-3 new investments per year in an asset class, it doesn’t make sense for them to keep the doors open as much as venture investors do for founders. And even then, a lot of VCs are also averse to cold emails. That said, if you’re a GP that consistently gets meetings booked from cold emails, you might have something special.
    • More often than not, admittedly, this is due to a strong brand, either via media, personal brand, strong returns, or word of mouth.
    • Important to note that you’re never as good as they say you are, but you’re also never as bad as they say you are.
  4. When you are THE first call exited founders ($100M+ exits) make when they’re brainstorming their next company
    • Them needing a sparring partner on their next career move also counts.
    • You getting invited to whatever large event they host next does not. Including birthday parties, weddings, etc. As much as it feels good to me, you’re not overwhelming. If it puts things into perspective, I get invited to these, and I know I’m not an “overwhelming” venture investor.
    • Also if you’re the fifth person they call, you’re just “whelming.”
  5. You are cited by other investors and founders alike as the source material of an ideology or a framework.
  6. Different founders (or people in general) reach out to you consistently on topics that is not fundraising/them pitching you. In fact, they may never reach out to you on fundraising because you’re known for excellence in other areas.
  7. The best talent in the world want to work with you and they’ll find any way to do so. They’ll say things like, “What if we worked together on a small project first together?” or “How about this together?” The same world-class talent will not only prioritize your goals but also not forsake their own. ‘Cause frankly, the world’s best have their own pursuits and they are transparent and honest about it. Beware of people whose goal you don’t know and those that “give up” their dreams for yours.
  8. You have a memory like a steel trap. You quote books, passages, movies, lessons, anecdotes, stories, history, podcasts, presidential speeches from back in the day, and music in ways most people cannot fathom but make complete sense. You quote in ways where people wonder if you have photographic memory or a chip in your brain, but you actually don’t.
    • This is more or less intellectually “overwhelming”, although overwhelming may not be the right terminology. But someone who is profusely well-read and cultured in a diverse amount of material. Think Da Vinci. Or maybe a modern-day equivalent, Patrick Collison, David Senra, or Ben and David on Acquired.

The one thing I won’t include on this list, while undeniably “overwhelming,” is intuition. People with phenomenal intuition are just different. Overwhelmingly different. But in the world of venture, the word intuition is often overused and has lost its true meaning. Many investors who bet well in hindsight attribute luck to intuition. And hell, the reason I’m not including it in the above list, is that many investors think they’re heavily intuitive, which in my experience usually means:

  1. They hate math. Spreadsheets and the like. In fact, they’re likely just to be bad at it.
  2. They hate diligence. The homework that’s actually required to be a great investor.
  3. If they’re pre-economic success, they’re often spinning a tale to us. Or worse, lying to themselves.
  4. If they’re post-economic success, there’s a good chance they have hindsight bias.

That said, there are a rare few number of times where I meet someone (often not an investor) and they’re able to deduce the person I am with a glance with very little other context. To me, that feels like magic. Something that very few have. But at the same time, I do believe can be trained.

Photo by Jeffrey Hamilton 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 Phantom Testimonial Corollary

thumbs up, scenery, testimonial

I’ve always admired the way Mike Maples has thought about backcasting. In summary, he proposes that true innovators are visitors from the future. Or as he puts it: “Breakthrough builders are visitors from the future, telling us what’s coming.” Such that they “pull the present from the current reality to the future of their design.” In other words, start from the future, then work your way backwards to figure out what you need to do today to get there.

And I find it equally as empowering to do the same exercise as an emerging manager. Hell, for any aspiring institutional investor. Be it from an angel to a GP. Or an individual LP to a fund of funds.

Start from your ideal fund model. Your ideal LP base. Your ideal pitch deck. Then work backwards to figure out what you need to do today. For the purpose of this blogpost, I’ll focus on reference checks.

For everyone in the investing world, especially in the early-stage private markets, we all know that reference checks is a key component of making investment decisions. Yet too often, founders and emerging managers alike think about them retroactively. Post-mortem. Testimonials that are often not indicative of one’s strengths. And especially not indicative of how a GP won that investment, as well as how they can win such investments in the future.

An exercise I often recommend investors do is write your ideal reference you would like to get from a founder. Be as specific as you can. What would your portfolio founders say about you? How have you helped them in a way that no one else can? What do founders who you didn’t fund say about you?

Another way to think about it is if you were to own a word — something that would live rent free in people’s minds — what would you own? Hustle Fund owns “hilariously early.” Spacecadet Ventures owns “the marketing VC” and they live up to it. Cowboy’s Aileen Lee created the idea of “unicorns.” “Software is eating the world” is attributed to Marc Andreessen.

On the flip side of the token, what are testimonials that should never be written about you?

Hell, at this point, if you’re an aspiring institutional investor, and have yet to spell things out, create the whole deck. Fill in the numbers and the facts later, but for now, make up your ideal deck. When leading indicators become lagging, then update it and fill it in.

Then be that kind of investor for every founder you help. As Warren Buffett once said, “You should write your obituary and then try and figure out how to live up to it.”

Photo by Nghia Le 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 Thing About Liquidation Preferences

rock climbing, risk

Given the impending, potentially larger market correction, I’ve been thinking a lot about liquidation preferences recently. And it seems I’m not the only one.

Keith Rabois also responded:

What I’m seeing

I’ve seen three major trends over the past two months:

  1. Founders are raising on smaller multiples compared to the last round. Investors argue it’s come back to the fundamentals. Founders say it’s the market conditions. Regardless, we won’t see the same 2020 and 2021 multiples in the near future.
  2. If a startup is still growing and is cash efficient, valuations won’t have changed as drastically. David Sacks put it best when he said that founders are still going to get well-funded, if they’re:
    1. Doubling at least year-over-year.
    2. Have good margins start at 50%.
    3. CAC payback periods are a year or less.
    4. Have a burn multiple of 1 or less.
  3. Cash is king. We’ve seen it in the news all of last month. Founders are extending their runways, by reducing burn. As Marc Andreessen said 1.5 months ago, “The good big companies are overstaffed by 2x. The bad big companies are overstaffed by 4x or more.” Companies are buckling in for 18-24 month runways, if not longer.

So what?

That goes to say, if a startup isn’t growing as expected, has a high burn, AND still wants to raise an up-round a year out of their last raise, investors are adding in more downside protection provisions. Anti-dilution provisions, minimum hurdle rate expectations, blocks on IPO or M&A opportunities, and liquidation preferences. What Bill Gurley and some VCs call the “dirty term sheet.”

Now I know there’s nuance and reason behind why liquidation preferences were created. To align incentives between the founder and investor. It stops a founder from immediately “selling the business” as soon as the money is in the bank, as Matt Levine mentioned in the above tweet. It also leads to a lower fair market value in a 409a valuation as both Matt and Keith mentioned as well. A net positive for employees, who are looking for lower strike prices to exercise their options in the future.

But as an aggregate, it seems liquidation preferences are really a strategy not to lose rather than a strategy to win. Not just the 1x liquidation preference, but the 2-3x liquidation preferences I’ve been seeing in the side letters offered by VCs.

To put it into context, that means investors get 2-3x their money back before the founders and everyone else gets theirs. By the same token, investors believe that same startup is worth at least 2-3x the money they gave the founders. Again, downside protection.

How does venture differ from other asset classes?

Unlike real estate or public market stocks or bonds, venture capital is a hit-driven business. Success is not measured by percentages, but rather by multiples. High risk, high return.

In a successful venture portfolio of 50 companies, 49 could theoretically be a tax write-off, if one makes you 200 times your capital, you’ve quadrupled your fund. A respectable return for a seed stage fund. As such, liquidation preferences have little impact on fund returns. If you’ve done venture right, your biggest winners account 90% of the fund’s returns. And they are the best pieces of evidence you can use to raise a subsequent fund. Your fund returners are the greatest determinants of your ability to raise the next fund, not how much money you saved after making a bad bet. No one cares if you got your dollar back for dollars you’ve invested towards the bottom of your portfolio, or even 50 cents back on every dollar.

And when a startup wildly succeeds, liquidation preferences don’t matter since everyone is getting a massive check in the mail, far exceeding any downside protection provisions.

In closing

Of course, as always, I might be missing something here, but preferred shares feel like a vestigial part of venture capital – thanks to our history with other financial services businesses.

Photo by Patrick Hendry 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!

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

What Does Signal Mean For An Early-Stage Investor?

signal, lighthouse

When winds and waves a mutual contest wage,
These foaming anger, those impelling rage;
Thy blissful light can cheer the dismal gloom,
And foster hopes beyond a wat’ry doom.

– John William Smith, “The Lighthouse,” 1814

Marc Andreessen answered a few weeks back to a question that has been ringing in many founders’ minds. What product do founders want to buy from investors? For the past few years, the natural answer rose as operational expertise. A notion that still holds true for the earliest stages of starting a business when you bring on strategic angels as small checks to help you find product-market fit. As you continue down the path and start raising institutional capital, the answer becomes more and more amorphous.

On a similar note, Bryce Roberts the exact same question last year:

To which, he responded:

Why do investors look for signal in the first place? A means to de-risk a very early, and very risky bet. A product of asymmetric information. Investors invest in lines not dots, but the truth is, most investors don’t have the time – luxury or ability – to see all lines. So what they must do instead is look for specific dots – be it traction, co-investors, or founding team “legitimacy” – that would help them trace out of a line of best fit. As Precursor’s Charles Hudson wrote earlier this week,

By definition, signal should be a leading indicator of long-term business value. Yet, for most investors in the world, what they look for are lagging indicators of conviction.

The signal paradox

In the investing world, there’s a paradoxical notion of signal. Through many conversations with syndicate leads, data teams of investing platforms, and LPs, I realized a common thread. For the majority of investors in the world, at the early stages, signal comes not from the founder, but from other funders.

In a syndicate, there are three things that make a deal move fast:

  1. Great co-investors
  2. Great traction
  3. And, great team

Arguably in that order. Synonymously, as an emerging fund manager, the best way to raise from family offices* (I’ll explain below why FO’s are my reference point here) who are notoriously closed off to cold emails, you need:

  1. Tier 1 VCs as your co-investors
  2. Tier 1 GPs as your fund’s LPs
  3. Or, deals that family offices wanted to get into anyway (which isn’t mutually exclusive from the above as well)

Quite noticeably, for many investors out there, signal comes in the form of people with a proven track record already. Or to break it down even more. Signal comes in the form of familiarity. Familiarity in the form of warm intros or college classmates or pattern recognition. The easiest pattern to follow for any investor without needing to do too much diligence or requiring too much personal conviction (I know, it’s funny), but to be able to write fast checks, is other top-tier investors. If you’re a founder who’ve fundraised before, you’re probably very familiar with this notion. Consciously or subconsciously. I’m gonna bet money that you’ve been asked, “Which other investors are you talking to? And how far along the process are you with them?” Or simply, “Do you have a lead investor?”

While there are some nuances to the last question, like the inability for smaller investors to pay for legal counsel fees, to have the resources to completely diligence a startup, or just that the check size required to lead/fill the round is just too large for them, generally speaking, my argument still stands. Put nicely, for many investors, they’re looking for external validation of the product. Put harshly, that question is a band-aid approach to their inability to get to conviction.

As a founder, you have to realize that capital has become a commodity. Investors are in the business of selling money. And subsequently, making $1 become $2. Or for a great early-stage investor, $1 becomes $5. There are many ways to underwrite risk. The one that requires the least amount of new thinking, or thought leadership, is following firms who have proven their investing acumen already and consistently.

*Additional context on family offices

I specifically mention family offices above since most LPs in Fund I’s are individuals and angels. Mostly small checks. And can quickly fill up the limit the SEC has set for how many accredited investors you can have investing in your fund. And their reason to invest is based on the founding GPs – very similar to why investors would back startups at the pre-seed stage.

While some GPs do pitch to institutional LPs (i.e. endowments, pension funds, fund of funds, etc.), very, very little institutional capital goes to Fund I’s and II’s – very similar to the fact that Tiger or Coatue very rarely invest before the A. You have yet to have a track record where they can fit into their financial model. They’re underwriting a very different type of risk. And so, if you’re a Fund I GP looking for larger checks, you’re looking to generational wealth in the form of family offices, who are surprisingly closed off to cold emails. But I digress.

The surplus of “signal” in 2021

In the last year, we’ve seen some record-breaking numbers. We’ve been in an exciting boom market. There have never been more venture dollars poured into the ecosystem. In fact, there were 1,148 concurrent unicorns in 2021. Half of which were new. In comparison, 2020 minted just 167 unicorns. Just looking at the two charts from Crunchbase below, we see just how crazy 2021 was.

Source: Crunchbase
Source: Crunchbase

And quite reflectively, there have never been as many “experts” in the market. To be fair, when everyone’s portfolio and/or startup is raising consecutive rounds of funding and mark ups are a dime a dozen, psychologically, I would also feel good about myself too. Everyone’s an “expert” in a boom market, especially if a16z or Tiger is leading the round. And a16z’s done double the number of deals they did in 2020. And Tiger’s invested 4 out of every 5 business days. In full disclosure, I did feel quite proud of myself as well. Nevertheless, I do my best to stay humble in this business.

Interestingly enough, while there were more seed, pre-seed and angel dollars going into startups, progressively, less startups were getting funded. Effectively, while the overall number of dollars invested look great, less founders come to bat. A smaller top of funnel means a more concentrated funnel in consecutive rounds.

Source: Crunchbase

The truth is fundraising will get harder over the next year and valuations won’t be as high. You can expect the current market correction in the public markets to soon be reflected in the private ones. So you may need to spend 12 months longer growing into your next round’s target valuation.

So where should investors look for signal?

In fairness, I am ill-equipped to answer this question for the masses. And most likely will never be fully equipped to make generalist statements. That said, I have and will continue to share what signal looks like for me. And if you’re a founder, here’s my template to conviction.

Two weeks ago, I broke down my sense of intuition around startup investing. I won’t go too deep in this essay, but I do share a more detailed internal calculus there. To put it simply, I look for different signals across the spectrum of idea plausibility and stages.

Signal by idea plausibility

Idea PlausibilityKey QuestionContext
PlausibleWhy this?Most people can see why this idea should exist. Because of the consensus, you’re competing in a saturated market of similar, if not the same ideas. Therefore, to stand out, you must show traction.
PossibleWhy now?It makes sense that this idea should exist, but it’s unclear whether there’s a market for this. To stand out, you have to convince investors on the market, and subsequently the market timing.
PreposterousWhy you?Hands down, this is just crazy. You’re clearly in the non-consensus. Now the only way you can redeem yourself is if you have incredible insight and foresight. What’s the future you see and why does that make sense given the information we have today? If an investor doesn’t walk out of that meeting having been mind-blown on your lesson from the future, you’ve got no chance.

Signals by stage

Stage of investmentKey QuestionContext
Pre-seedWhy you?The earlier you go, the less quantitative data you have to support your bet. And therefore, your bet is largely on the founder. For me, it matters less their XX years of experience, but more so their expertise. In other words, insight. Can I learn something new in my first meeting (and consecutive ones too) with them?

At the pre-seed, there is also one more key signal I look for in founders – their level of focus. Rather than wanting to do everything, can they streamline their resources to tackle one thing? What is their minimum viable assumption they have to prove before they can build their MVP (or MLP – minimum lovable product)? Startups often die of indigestion, not starvation.
SeedWhy now?By the seed stage these days, you’ve either found your product-market fit or really close to finding it. The larger your round, the more you’re feeling the pull of the market. Whereas pull can come be measured (i.e. daily organic sign ups, demand converting to supply in a marketplace, etc.), sometimes when you’re at the cusp of it, there’s a level of foresight that is required. Some leading indicator for the business often comes as a lagging indicator from industry trends. What is the inflection point(s) (political, socio-economic, technological, cultural) we are at today that is going to have compounding effects on the business?
Series AWhy this?By the time you get to the A, you’re ready to scale. In other words, what you mainly need is to add fuel to the fire. I place a larger emphasis on traction here. Admittedly for me, compared to the two earlier stages, this is more of a numbers conversation. The best founders here have a very clear picture of what worked and didn’t work for the business. They’re already familiar with their main GTM channel, but are exploring new opportunities for channel-market fit where they need capital to test.

Not incredibly pertinent yet, but founders will have started thinking about their Act II. What’s the next product they’re going to offer to secure their immortality in the market?

In closing

A simple litmus test I often share with founders on signal is:

Your ability to raise capital is directly correlated with your ability to inspire confidence in your investor that you will get straight A’s with little to no help.

This isn’t just true for myself, but also most investors out there. While the best investors out there will always be there for you in your time of need, before they decide to jump aboard the same ship with you, you need to convince them that you’re a top 10% founder. Or a top 1% in-the-making.

While I dislike using the dating analogy, it’s an apt comparison in this case. You’re not going to share your deepest, least desirable secrets on your first date. You’re also not going around saying you’re the perfect – and I underscore perfect – partner without any flaws. ‘Cause that’s as much baloney as an unknown African prince in your inbox telling you to help him secure $5 million in gold bars by helping him set up a Swiss bank account with a deposit of $10K. It’s too good to be true. In reality, you’re most likely going to share that you have a number of great qualities, but you’re still growing in many ways.

Admit what you don’t know or don’t have. As long as it’s not mission critical or the biggest risk in your business (and if it is, figure that out before you raise VC funding), the investors who truly believe in you will understand. Always err on the side of honesty, but not bravado.

‘Cause you yourself are a signal. If you’ve got your bases covered and still have to go out of your way to convince an investor or try to flip their “no”, they’re probably not worth your time.

Cover photo by Michael Denning 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!

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 or investment advice. Please do your own diligence before investing in startups and consult your own adviser before making any investments.

Posted on

My Top Founder Interview Questions That Fly Under The Radar

questions

As I am co-leading a VC fellowship with DECODE (and here’s another shameless plug), a few fellows asked me if I had a repository of questions to ask founders. Unfortunately, I didn’t. But it got me thinking.

There’s a certain element of “Gotcha!” when an investor asks a founder a question they don’t expect. A question out of left field that tests how well the founders know their product, team or market. In a way, that’s the sadist inside of me. But it’s not my job, nor the job of any investor, to force founders to stumble. It’s my job to help founders change the world for the better. By reducing friction and barriers to entry where I can, but still preparing them as best as I can for the challenges to come.

I’m going to spare you the usual questions you can find via a quick Google search, like:

  • What is your product? And who is your target audience?
  • How big is your market? What is your CAGR?
  • What is your traction so far?
  • How are you making money? What is your revenue model?
  • And many more where those come from.

Below are the nine questions I find the most insightful answers to. As well as my rationale behind each. Some are tried and true. Others reframe the perspective, but better help me reach a conclusion. I do want to note that the below questions are described in compartmentalized incidents, so your mileage may vary.

Here’s to forcing myself into obsolescence, but hopefully, empowering the founders reading this humble blog of mine to go further and faster.

The questions

I categorize each of the below questions into three categories:

  1. The market (Why Now)
  2. The product (Why This)
  3. And, the team (Why You)

Together, they form my NTY thesis. The three letters ordered in such a way that it helps me recall my own thesis, in an unfortunate case of Alzheimer’s.

Why Now

What are your competitors doing right?

This is the lesser-known cousin of “What are your product’s differentiators?” and “Why and how do you offer a better solution than your competitors?”. Founders are usually prepared to answer both of the above questions. I love this question because it tests for market awareness. Too often are founders trapped in the narratives they create from their reality distortion fields. If you really understand your market, you’ll know where your weaknesses are, as well as where your competitors’ strengths are.

There have been a few times I’ve asked this question to founders, and they’d have an “A-ha!” moment when replying. “My competitors are killing it in X and Y-… Oh wait, Y is our value proposition. Maybe I should be prioritizing our company’s resources for Z.”

Why is now the perfect time for your product to enter the market?

As great as some ideas are, if the market isn’t ripe for disruption, there’s really no business to be made here… at least, not yet. What are the underlying political, technological, socio-economical trends that can catapult this idea into mass adoption?

For Uber, it was the smartphone and GPS. For WordPress and Squarespace, it was the dotcom boom. And, for Shopify, it was the gig economy. For many others, it could be user habits coming out of this pandemic that may have started during this black swan event, but will only proliferate in the future. As Winston Churchill once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

A great way to show this is with numbers. Especially your own product’s adoption and retention metrics. Numbers don’t lie.

What did your customers do/use before your product?

What are the incumbent solutions? Have those solutions become habitual practices already? How much time did/do they spend on such problems? What are your incumbents’ NPS scores? In answering the above questions, you’re measuring indirectly how willing they are to pay for such a product. If at all. Is it a need or a nice-to-have? A 10x better solution on a hypothetical problem won’t motivate anyone to pay for it. A 10x on an existing solution means there’s money to be made.

Before we can paint the picture of a Hawaiian paradise, there must have been several formative volcanic eruptions. It’s rare for companies to create new habits where there weren’t any before, or at least a breadcrumb trail that might lead to “new” habits. As Mark Twain says, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”

Why This

What does product-market fit look like to you?

Most founders I talk to are pre-product-market fit (PMF). The funny thing about PMF is that when you don’t have it, you know. People aren’t sticking around, and retention falls. Deals fall through. You feel you’re constantly trying to force the product into your users’ hands. It feels as if you’re the only person/team in the world who believes in your vision.

On the flip side, when you do have PMF, you also know it. Users are downloading your product left and right. People can’t stop using and talking about you. Reporters are calling in. Bigger players want to acquire you. The market pulls you. As Marc Andreessen, the namesake for a16z, wrote, “the market pulls product out of the startup.”

The problem is it’s often hard to define that cliff when pre- becomes post-PMF. While PMF is an art, it is also a science. Through this question, I try to figure out what metrics they are using to track their growth, and inevitably what could be the pull that draws customers in. What metric(s) are you optimizing for? I wouldn’t go for anything more than 2-3 metrics. If you’re focusing on everything, you’re focusing on nothing. And of these 1-3 metrics, what benchmark are you looking at that will illustrate PMF to you?

For example, Rahul Vohra of Superhuman defines PMF with a fresh take on the NPS score, which he borrows from Sean Ellis. In feedback forms, his team asks: “How would you feel if you could no longer use the product?” Users would have three choices: “very disappointed”, “somewhat disappointed”, and “not disappointed”. If 40% or more of the users said “very disappointed”, then you’ve got your PMF.

Founders don’t have to be 100% accurate in their forecasts. But you have to be able to explain why and how you are measuring these metrics. As well as how fluctuations in these metrics describe user habits. If founders are starting from first principles and measuring their value metric(s), they’ll have their priorities down for execution. Can you connect quantitative and qualitative data to tell a compelling narrative? How does your ability to recognize patterns rank against the best founders I’ve met?

If in 18 months, this product fails. What is the most likely reason why?

This isn’t exactly an original one. I don’t remember exactly where I stumbled across this question, but I remember it clicking right away. There are a million and one risks in starting a business. But as a founder, your greatest weakness is your distraction – a line in which the attribution goes to Tim Ferriss. Knowing how to prioritize your time and your resources is one of the greatest superpowers you can have. Not all risks are made equal.

As Alex Sok told me a while back, “You can’t win in the first quarter, but you can lose in the first quarter.” The inability to prioritize has been and will continue to be one of the key reasons a startup folds. Sometimes, I also walk down the second and third most likely reason as well, just to build some context and see if there are direct parallels as to what the potential investment will be used for.

On the flip side, one of my favorite follow-ups is: If in 18 months, this product wildly succeeds. What were its greatest contributing factors?

Similar to the former assessing the biggest threats to the business, the latter assesses the greatest strengths and opportunities of this business. Is there something here that I missed from just reading the pitch deck?

What has been some of the customer feedback? And when did you last iterate on them?

I’m zeroing in on two world-class traits:

  1. Open-mindedness and a willingness to iterate based on your market’s feedback. As I mentioned earlier with Marc Andreessen’s line, “the market pulls product out of the startup.” Your product is rarely ever perfect from the get-go, but is an evolving beast that becomes more robust the better you can address your customer’s needs.
  2. Product velocity. How fast are your iteration cycles? The shorter and faster the feedback loop the better. One of the greatest strengths to any startup is its speed. Your incumbents are juggernauts. They’ll need a massive push for them to even get the ball rolling. And almost all will be quite risk-averse. They won’t jump until they see where they can land. Use that to your advantage. Can you reach critical mass and product love before your incumbents double down with their seemingly endless supply of resources?

Why You

What do you know that everyone else doesn’t know, is underestimating, or is overlooking?

Are you a critical thinker? Do you have contrarian viewpoints that make sense? Here, I’m betting on the non-consensus – the non-obvious. While it’s usually too early to tell if it’s right or not, I love founders who break down how they arrived at that conclusion. But if it’s already commonly accepted wisdom, while they may be right, it may be too late to make a meaningful financial return from that insight.

But if you do have something contrarian, how did you learn that? I’m not looking for X years of experience, while that would be nice, but not necessary. What I’m looking for is how deep founders have gone into the idea maze and what goodies they’ve emerged with.

Why did you start this business?

Here, unsurprisingly, I’m looking for two traits:

  1. Your motivation. I’m measuring not just for passion, but for obsession and the likelihood of long-term grit. In other words, if there is founder-market fit. Do you have a chip on your shoulder? What are you trying to prove? And to whom? Do you have any regrets that you’re looking to undo?

    Most people underestimate how bad it’s going to get, while overestimating the upside. The latter is fine since you are manifesting the upside that the wider population does not see yet. But when the going gets tough, you need something to that’ll still give you a line of sight to the light at the end of the tunnel. Selfless motivations keep you going on your best days. Selfish motivations keep you going on your worst days.
  2. Your ability to tell stories. Before I even attempt to be sold by your product or your market, I want to be sold on you. I want to be your biggest champion, but I need a reason to believe in the product of you. You are the product I’m investing in. You’re constantly going to be selling – to customers, to potential hires, and to investors. As the leader of a business, you’re going to be the first and most important salesperson of the business.

What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on?

No matter how similar you and your co-founders are, you all aren’t the same person. While many of your priorities will align, not all will. My greatest fear is when founders say they’ve never disagreed (because they agree on everything). To me, that sounds like a fragile relationship. Or a ticking time bomb. You might not have disagreed yet, but having a mental calculus of how you’ll reach a conclusion is important for your sanity, as well as the that of your team members. Do you default on the pecking order? Does the largest stakeholder in the project get the final say after listening to everyone’s thoughts?

Co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, once said: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.” 

I find First Round’s recent interview with Dennis Yu, Chime’s VP of Program Management, useful. While his advice centers around high-impact managers, it’s equally as prescient for founding teams. Provide an onboarding guide to your co-founders as to what kind of person are you, as well as what kind of manager/leader you are. What does your work style look like? What motivates you? As well as, what are your values and expectations for the company? What feedback are you working through right now?

In closing

Whether you’re a founder or investor, I hope these questions and their respective rationale serve as insightful for you as they did for me. Godspeed!

Photo by mari lezhava 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

Why User Hacks Are Awesome to Get to Product-Market Fit

user hacks, product-market fit

I was introduced to a founder of an e-commerce marketplace recently trying to figure out what product-market fit looks like. Specifically what might be some early tells of PMF. And I told him, “If your users are sticking around long enough to try to game your system, you have something they want. While it might not be in the most efficient format, you’re close to PMF. Subsequently, solving that frictional point that users are trying to ‘hack’ will delight them.”

Last year, I wrote that one of the tells of a great unicorn idea is frustration with the status quo. And the lagging indicators of frustration are complaints, but even better, “hacks”. Life hacks. Career hacks. Cold email hacks. Any time a forum or community comes together to share best practices is a potential market opportunity. As Jeff Bezos once said, “Your margin is my opportunity.”

Similarly, if some of your users converge around circumventing your platform, they’re hacking their way to find a better solution. But the fact they’re sticking around on your platform means you have something they want. And while it could be more elegant, you’ve solved the rocks of the “rocks, sand, and water” framework. What’s left are the “sand” and the “water”. And they come disguised as a user hack.

Sarah Tavel of Benchmark once wrote: “You must create an offering that is so compelling, it stands by itself in the consumer’s mind.” Solving all the frictional points in the user journey will get you to that compelling offering – a lovable product.

A reader reached out to me last year and said, “Thank you… [But] you have no idea how long I spend reading your blogposts with a dictionary next to me.” While it wasn’t necessarily a hack, to know there was a reader out there willing to weather through my idiosyncratic vocabulary in my earlier essays meant a million to me. But at the same time, it was a sign I was too caught up in my own wordsmithing. So, I dialed it back. While there will still be some esoteric jargon from time to time, I try to make my writing more relatable when editing. And to that reader… if you’re still reading this essay, thank you.

Back in 2007, Marc Andreessen wrote: “The market pulls product out of the startup.” In this case, that pull becomes a race between you and your users’ frustration. Can you release an update that addresses your users’ pain point before they become so frustrated they pack up and go? Either to build their own version or try a competitor’s.

I love Max Nussenbaum of On Deck’s analogy here. “If the market is indeed pulling the product out of you, you sometimes feel less like a creator and more like a mere conduit.” You, as the team behind the product, are a conduit to satisfying your users’ needs. As Mike Maples Jr. says, “Getting storytelling right means the founder is the mentor of the story (ie Yoda), rather than the hero (ie Luke.).” Your customers are the heroes of the story. Of their story. And your story. How they spend their time should offer you brilliant product insights.

Photo by Florian Krumm 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!

Proudly powered by WordPress