Tag: metrics

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

Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet

Founders often ask me what’s the best way to cold email an investor. *in my best TV announcer voice* Do you want to know the one trick to get replies for your cold email startup pitches that investors don’t want you to know? Ok, I lied. No investor ever said they don’t want founders to know this, but how else am I going to get a clickbait-y question? Time and time again, I recommend them to start with the one (at most two) metrics they are slaying with. Even better if that’s in the subject line. Like “Consumer social startup with 50% MoM Growth”. Or “Bottom-up SaaS startup with 125% NDR”. Before you even intro what your startup does, start with the metric that’ll light up an investor’s eyes.

Why? It’s a sales game. The goal of a cold email is to get that first meeting. Investors get hundreds of emails a week. And if you imagine their inbox is the shelf at the airport bookstore, your goal is to be that book on display. Travelers only spend minutes in the store before they have to go to their departure gate. Similarly, investors scroll through their inbox looking for that book with the cover art that fascinates them. The more well-known the investor, the less time they will spend skimming. And if you ask any investor what’s the number one thing they look for in an investment, 9 out of 10 VCs will say traction, traction, traction. So if you have it, make it easy for them to find.

That said, in terms of traction, most likely around the A, what growth metrics would be the attention grabber in that subject line?

Strictly annual growth

A while back, my friend, Christen of TikTok fame, sent me this tweetstorm by Sam Parr, founder of one of my favorite newsletters out there, The Hustle. In it, he shares five lessons on how to be a great angel investor from Andrew Chen, one of the greatest thought leaders on growth. Two lessons in particular stand out:

And…

Why 3x? If you’re growing fast in the beginning, you’re more likely to continue growing later on. Making you very attractive to investors’ eyes – be it angels, VCs, growth and onwards. Neeraj Agrawal of Battery Ventures calls it the T2D3 rule. Admittedly, it’s not R2-D2’s cousin. Rather, once your get to $2M ARR (annual recurring revenue), if you triple your revenue each year 2 years in a row, then double every year the next 3 years, you’ll get to $100M ARR and an IPO. More specifically, you go from 2 to 6, then 18, 36, 72, and finally $144M ARR. More or less that puts you in the billion dollar valuation, aka unicorn status. And if you so choose, an IPO is in your toolkit.

image001
Source: Neeraj Agrawal’s analysis on public SaaS companies that follow the T2D3 path

For context, tripling annually is about a 10% MoM (month-over-month) growth rate. And depending on your business, it doesn’t have to be revenue. It could be users if you’re a social app. Or GMV if you’re a marketplace for goods. As you hit scale, the SaaS Rule of 40 is a nice rule of thumb to go by. An approach often used by growth investors and private equity, where, ideally, your annual growth rate plus your profit margin is equal to or greater than 40%. And at the minimum, your growth rate is over 30%.

For viral growth, many consumer and marketplace startups have defaulted to influencer marketing, on top of Google/FB ads. And if that’s what you’re doing as well, Facebook’s Brand Collabs Manager might help you get started, which I found via my buddy Nate’s weekly marketing newsletter. Free, and helps you identify which influencers you should be working with.

But what if you haven’t gotten to $2M ARR? Or you’ve just gotten there, what other metrics should you prepare in your data room?

Continue reading “Startup Growth Metrics that will Hocus Pocus an Investor Term Sheet”
Posted on

How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy

bread, value-based pricing, saas, revenue model, startup pricing strategy

As part of my work, I talk to many seed-stage SaaS founders. At the seed, most of these founders are thinking about how to get to product-market fit. The one in zero to one. They’re launching their product with a select few companies to really nail their pain points. And often times, pricing and the business model take a backseat when they offer their customers the product for free or at an extreme discount. While investors don’t expect founders to nail pricing at the seed, it’s useful to start thinking about your revenue model early on. After all, pricing is both an art and a science. And with the right pricing structure, it can also be your proxy for assessing product-market fit. Here’s how.

As a quick roadmap:

  1. How to use the pricing thermometer to understand value-based pricing
  2. The difference between buyers and customers
  3. What is your value metric? And why does it matter?
  4. How pricing influences positioning
  5. How to approach building a tiered plan, with a mini case study on Pulley
  6. Net dollar retention, what product-market fit looks like in dollars
  7. The SaaS version of engagement metrics

The pricing thermometer

Every product manager out there knows that customers don’t always know what they want, so asking them for a solution rarely nets valuable feedback. Rather, start with the problem. What are their frustrations? What sucks? What’s the last product they bought to attempt to alleviate their problem? Subsequently, what’d they like about that product? What didn’t they like?

There are two perspectives you can use to approach pricing: cost-plus and value-based. Cost-plus pricing is pricing based on selling the product at a given markup from its unit cost. The biggest mistake founders often make here is underestimating how much it costs to produce a product.

On the other hand, there’s value-based pricing. An approach where you determine the economic value of the service you are providing and give it to your customers for a bargain. Superhuman, for instance, prices the fastest email experience at $30/month. Or in a different light, a dollar a day. If you are saving more than a dollar of economic value a day by responding to emails faster than ever, then the product is worth it. The biggest pitfall here is that founders often don’t fully understand the value they’re bringing to their customers, which is a result of:

  1. They don’t understand your value,
  2. Or you can’t convince them of the value you think you offer.

To visualize both of these approaches better, let’s use the pricing thermometer, as YC calls it.

value based pricing

The greater the gap between two nodes (i.e. value and price, or price and cost), the greater the incentive. If you’re selling at a price far greater than its unit cost, you are far more motivated to sell your product. On the flip side, if your product is priced far below the value and benefits you provide, a customer is more motivated to purchase your product.

Buyers vs Customers

To take it a step further, if you’re planning to scale your startup, what you’re looking for our customers, not buyers. Buyers are people who purchase your product once, and never again. They learned from their mistake. Your product either didn’t deliver the value you promised or the value they thought you would deliver. Customers are repeat purchasers. Why? Because they love your product. It addresses your customers’ needs (and ideally more) again and again. Your customers’ satisfaction is evergreen, rather than ephemeral.

When you only have buyers, you have to push your product to others. It’s the epitome of a door-to-door salesperson. Think Yellow Pages.

When you have customers, you feel the pull. Customers are drawn to you. They come back willingly on their own two feet. As Calvin French-Owen, co-founder of Segment, once said: “The biggest difference between our ideas pre-PMF vs. when we found it was this feeling of pull. Before we had any sort of fit, it always felt like we had to push our ideas on other people. We had to nag people to use the product.”

value-based pricing

Value-based pricing is playing to win. Cost-plus pricing is playing to not lose. While the latter is convenient strategy when you’re a local business not looking to scale (i.e. coffee shop, local diner, local auto parts store, etc.), it’s incredibly difficult to scale with, especially as customer needs evolve. As you scale, your customers might include anyone from Microsoft who wants you to bring a sales engineer to integrate your product to a 5-person startup team who’s just testing your product out. With cost-plus pricing, you’ll be forced to determine price points on a case-by-case scenario. With value-based pricing, you can systemize dynamic pricing based on evolving customer needs. As their value received goes up, the price does too.

As the name suggests, to generate pull, we have to start from value. In this case, your value metric.

Continue reading “How to Find Product-Market Fit From Your Pricing Strategy”
Posted on

Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon

scale, too soon, founders, startup growth metrics

Humans are one of the most awe-inspiring creatures that have ever graced this planet. Even though we don’t have the sharpest claws or toughest skins nor can we innately survive -50 degrees Fahrenheit, we’ve crafted tools and environments to help us survive in brutal nature. But arguably, our greatest trait is that we’re capable of writing huge epics that transcend our individual abilities and contributions. And share these narratives to inspire not only ourselves but the fellow humans around us.

A member of the our proud race, founders are no different. They are some of the greatest forecasters out there. To use Garry Tan’s Babe Ruth analogy, founders have the potential of hitting a home run in the direction they point. They build worlds, universes, myths and realities that define the future. They live in the future using the tools of today. In fact, there’s a term for it. First used by Bud Tribble in 1981 to describe Steve Jobs’ aura when building the Macintosh – the reality distortion field.

Yet, we humans are all prone to anxiety. A story nonetheless. Simply, one we tell ourselves of the future that restricts our present self’s ability to operate effectively. Anxiety comes in many shapes and sizes. For founders, one of said anxieties is attempting and worrying about the future without addressing the reality today. In the early days, it’s attempting scale before achieving product-market fit (PMF). Building a skyscraper without surveying the land – land that may be quicksand or concrete.

Here are four signs – some may not be as intuitive as the others:

The snapshot

  1. Your code architecture looks beautiful.
  2. You’re onboarding expensive experienced talent.
  3. Your cultural values lag behind the talent you hire (plan to hire).
  4. You’re bundling the market before you unbundle the needs.
Continue reading “Four Signs of Startup Founders Prioritizing Growth Too Soon”
Posted on

How to Build Fast and Not Break (As Many) Things – A Startup GTM Playbook

The tech world, particularly Silicon Valley, in the past 2 decades, has accelerated its growth ’cause of one mantra: “Move fast and break things.” Some of the most valuable products we know today were built because of that. Facebook, whose founder coined the phrase. Google. Amazon. LinkedIn. Uber. The list goes on. In sum, be “agile”. Simultaneously, I see founders, on the regular, take this mental model too far. They move fast, but they rarely give enough time to test their hypotheses.

Equally so, some companies cannot afford to “break things”. Take Dropbox, for example. Ruchi Sanghvi, founder of the South Park Commons Fund, former VP of Operations at Dropbox, and Facebook’s earliest female engineer, told VentureBeat in 2015, “Quality is really, really important to Dropbox, and as a result we needed to move slower — not slowly, but slower than Facebook.” Ruth Reader, who wrote for VentureBeat at the time, further extrapolated, “What was right for Facebook — fast-paced iteration and fixing bugs in real time — didn’t work for DropBox, an application people entrusted with personal documents like wedding photos or the first draft of a novel. What was valuable to DropBox was the details.”

On the other extreme, there are founders who spend day after day, week after week, and sometimes year after year, pursuing the “perfect” product before launching. If they were right on the money before, by the time they launch 6 months later, they might be 6 months off the money. Take the situation we’re all in today for example – the pandemic. No one could have predicted it. In fact, I had many a few predictions before the pandemic, which all proved to be unfortunately wrong.

  • The Marketplace of Startups, written on February 24, 2020 – I alluded to an opinion I held that consumer social was almost dead. The consumer app market had become so saturated that it was hard for new players to play in.
  • Myths around Startups and Business Ideas, written on October 12, 2020 – Pre-COVID, I was more bullish on Slack than Zoom as a public stock investment. History proved otherwise.

… and more to come. Mistakes are inevitable. And “the rear view mirror is always clearer than the windshield”, as Warren Buffett would describe. Seth Godin said in his recent interview on The Tim Ferriss Show: “Reassurance is futile because you never have enough of it.”

At the end of the day, as a startup founder, your raison d’être is creating value in the world where there wasn’t before. As Bill Gates puts it: “A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it.” Analogized, your startup is that platform.

So, in this post, using the lessons from other subject-matter experts (SMEs), I’ll share how startup teams can balance speed with intentionality in their go-to-market (GTM) strategy.

Continue reading “How to Build Fast and Not Break (As Many) Things – A Startup GTM Playbook”
Posted on

Before the Close – How to Increase the Chance of Raising Capital

A number of founders ask me for fundraising advice. While they come in different magnitudes, one of the common themes is: “I’ve had many investor meetings, but I still can’t get a term sheet. What am I doing wrong? What do I need to do or to say to get a yes?”

To preface, I don’t have the one-size-fit-all solution. Neither do I think there is a one-size-fit-all solution. Each investor is looking for something different. And while theses often rhyme, the “A-ha!” moment for each investor is a culmination of their own professional and life experiences. This anecdote is, by no means, prescriptive, but another perspective that may help you when fundraising, if you’re not getting the results you want. This won’t help you cheat the system. If you still have a shoddy product or an unambitious team, you’re still probably not going to get any external capital.

One thing I learned when I was on the operating side of the table is: When you want money, ask for advice. When you want advice, ask for money. It’s, admittedly, a slightly roundabout way to get:

  1. Investor interest,
  2. And reference points for milestones to hit.

But it’s worked for me. Why? Because you’re fighting in a highly-competitive, heavily-saturated market of attention – investor attention. This method merely helps you increase the potential surface area of interaction and visibility, to give you time in front of an investor to prove yourself.

Investors are expected to jump into a long term marriage with founders, while, for the most part, only given a small cross-section in your founding journey to evaluate you. It’s as if you chose to marry someone for life you’ve only met 60-90 days ago. While angels and some people have the courage and the conviction to do that, most investors like to err on the side of caution. Contrary to popular belief, venture capitalists are extremely risk-averse. They look for risk-adjusted bets. And if you can prove to them – either through traction or an earned secret – that you’re not just a rounding error, you’ll make their lives a lot easier.

So, let me elaborate.

When you want money, ask for advice.

As you’re growing your business and you want to show you are, ask investors for advice. Tell them. “So I’ve been growing at X% MoM, and I’ve gotten to Y # of users. I’m thinking about pursuing this Z as my next priority. And this is how I plan to A/B test it. What do you think?”

And if you keep these investors in the loop the entire time and ask and follow-up on their advice, at some point, they’d think and ask, “Damn, this is an epic business. Will you just take my money?”

So, what are good numbers?

The Rule of 40 is a rough rule of thumb many investors use for consumer tech markets. Month-over-month growth rate plus profit should be greater than or equal to 40. So you can be growing 50% MoM, but burning money with -10% profit, aka costs are greater than your revenue. Or you can be growing 30% MoM, but gaining 10% profit every month. And if you’ve got 10s of 1000s of users, you’re on solid ground. Better yet, one of the biggest expenses is increasing server capacity costs.

For more reference points on ideal consumer startup numbers, check out this blog post I wrote last year.

For enterprise/B2B SaaS, somewhere along the lines of 10-15% MoM growth. With at least 1 key customer logo. And 5 publicly referenceable customers.

Of course, the Rule of 40 did not age well for certain industries in 2020.

When you want advice, ask for money.

When you ask for money most of the time, investors, partners, and potential customers will say no, especially if you’re super early on and don’t have a background or track record as an entrepreneur. So when they do say no, I like to ask them one of my favorite questions: “What do I need to bring you for you to unconditionally say yes?” Then, they’ll tell me what they want to see out of our product or our business. These, especially if they’re reinforced independently across multiple different individuals in your ecosystem, should be your North Star metrics. And when you do put their advice to action, be sure to follow up with the results to their implemented advice.

  1. You either do what they recommended. And show them what happened. And what’s next.
  2. Or you don’t do what they recommended. But show that you heavily considered their recommendation. What you did instead. Why you chose to do what you did instead. And what’s next.

To take it one step further, once I ask the above question to have a reference point for growth trajectory, I ask: “Who is the smartest person(s) known to achieve X (or in Y)?” with X being the answer you got via the previous question. And Y being the industry you’re tackling.

For instance, I’d recommend:

Then, go to that person or those people and say, “Hey Jennifer, [investor name] said if there’s one person I had to talk to about X, I have to talk to you.” Feel free to use my cold email “template” as reference, if you’re unsure of what else to say.

If you use this tactic again and again, eventually you’ll build a family of unofficial (maybe even official) mentors and advisors, even if you never explicitly call them that. Not necessarily asking for money all the time. But asking for money might help you ignite the spark for this positive feedback loop.

In closing

When I was on the operating side, a brilliant founder with 2 multi-million dollar exits once told me: “Always be selling. Always be fundraising. And always be hiring.”

I didn’t really get it then. In fact, I didn’t get it the entire time I was on the other side of the table. What do you mean “Always be fundraising”? Should I just be asking for money all the time? What about the business?

It wasn’t until I made my way into VC at SkyDeck that I realized the depth of his words. Keep people you eventually want to fundraise from and hire in the loop about what you’re building. Keep them excited. Build a relationship beyond something transactional. Build a friendship.

Jeff Bezos put it best when he said:

“If everything you do needs to work on a three-year time horizon, then you’re competing against a lot of people. But if you’re willing to invest on a seven-year time horizon, you’re now competing against a fraction of those people, because very few companies are willing to do that.

“At Amazon we like things to work in five to seven years. We’re willing to plant seeds, let them grow and we’re very stubborn. We say we’re stubborn on vision and flexible on details.”

Photo by Frame Harirak 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 #20 You Will Be What You Eat, You Are What You Excrete – Leading vs Lagging Indicators, One of My Relationship-Building/Networking Practices

stars, starry night, networking tips

Yesterday evening, I sat in our backyard, sipping homemade lemonade and sketching out my weekly creative endeavor (why). Between sips and furtive glances upwards, I hoped to catch a glimpse of NEOWISE. But alas, I forgot to pray to the weather gods in the morning.

Disappointed, I packed up to head inside. As if by a stroke of fate, my phone buzzed. You know, this story would be more dramatic if my disappointment was telepathically transmitted to my friends. Tongue in cheek, I apologize if I got your hopes up. But, it was merely the influx of messages after my timed “Do Not Disturb” mode switched off. Yet one of these blips came from a good ol’ swim team pal into our group chat. Lo and behold – an HD cross section in time of the exact comet.

I propped my cell above my head, positioned just north of the horizon. And unable to hold my smile back, I stuck around for a while longer.

So what?

You’re probably wondering: How the hell does yesterday’s smile have to do with “You will be what you eat, you are what you excrete”. As the title of the post so kindly suggests. Trust me it does. Admittedly, probably not the greatest of blog post titles, but, hey, it rhymes. Which might be the lamest excuse you’ve heard this month. But I digress.

You will be what put in your body. You are already what comes out of your body. Literally. Well, I’m sure my cousins who are molecular cell biologists will point out some (or many) of the nuances I missed. But we don’t have to count the cards.

The same is true for your personality. You build your personality based on the inputs in your life from when you’re younger. Your personality is subsequently evidenced by what you say and do.

And, I can say the same for education, biases, and so on. For the purpose of this post, I’d like to underscore one other – relationship-building. Or as most others understand it, networking. But I have a mild allergic reaction to that nomination.

Continue reading “#unfiltered #20 You Will Be What You Eat, You Are What You Excrete – Leading vs Lagging Indicators, One of My Relationship-Building/Networking Practices”
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

The Marketplace of Startups

books about startups

Over the past decade, stretching its roots to the dot-com boom, there have been more dialogue and literature around entrepreneurship. In a sense, founding a business is easier than it’s ever been. But like all things in life, there’s a bit more nuance to it. So, what’s the state of startups right now?

Lower Barriers to Entry

A number of factors have promoted such a trend:

  • There are an increasing number of resources online and offline. Online courses and ed-tech platforms. Fellowships and acceleration/incubation programs. Investor office hours and founder talks. YouTube videos, online newsletters, and podcasts.
  • The low-code/no-code movement is also helping bridge that knowledge gap for the average person. Moreover, making it easier for non-experts to be experts.
  • The gig economy have created a fascinating space for solopreneurship to be more accessible to more geographies.

Demand (by consumers and investors) fuels supply of startups, through knowledge and resource sharing. Likewise, the supply of startups, especially in nascent markets, fuels demand in new verticals. So, the ecosystem becomes self-perpetuating on a positive feedback loop. As Jim Barksdale, former Netscape CEO, once said:

“There are only two ways I know of to make money – bundling and unbundling.”

BundlingUnbundling
Market MaturityMarket Nascency
HorizontalizationVerticalization
BreadthDepth
Execution Risk
Bias		Market/Tech Risk
Bias

Right now, we’re at a stage of startup market nascency, unbundling the knowledge gap between the great and the average founder. This might seem counter-intuitive. After all, there’s so much discourse on the subject. There’s a good chance that you know someone who is or have thought about starting a business. But, I don’t believe we’re even close to a global maximum in entrepreneurship. Why?

  1. Valuations are continuing to rise.
  2. Great founders are still scarce.
startup growth
Photo by Isaac Smith on Unsplash

Valuations are shooting up

Valuations are still on the rise. Six years back, $250K was enough runway for our business to last until product-market fit. Now, a typical seed round ranges from $500K-$2M. A decade ago, $500M was enough to IPO with; now it only warrants a late-stage funding round. By capitalistic economic theory, when a market reaches saturation, aka perfect competition, profit margins regress to zero. Not only are there still profits to be made, but more people are jumping into the investing side of the business.

Yes, increasing valuations are also a function of FOMO (fear of missing out), discovery checks (<0.5% of VC fund size), super duper low interest rates (causing massive sums of capital to surge in chase yields), and non-traditional venture investors entering as players in the game (PE, hedge funds, other accredited investors, (equity) crowdfunding platforms). It would be one thing if they came and left as a result of a (near) zero sum game. But they’re here to stay. Here’s a mini case study. Even after the 2018 drop in Bitcoin, venture investors are still bullish on its potential. In fact, there are now more and more specialized funds to invest in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Last year, a16z, one of the largest and trendsetting VC players, switched from a VC to an RIA (registered investment advisor), to broaden its scope into crypto/blockchain.

Great founders are scarce

“The only uncrowded market is great. There’s always a fucking market for great.”

– Tim Ferriss, podcaster, author, but also notably, an investor and advisor for companies, like Facebook, Uber, Automattic and more

Even if founders now have the tools to do so, it doesn’t mean they’ll hit their ambitious milestones. For VCs, it only gets harder to discern the signal from the noise. Fundamentally, there’s a significant knowledge delta – a permutation of misinformation and resource misallocation – in the market between founders and investors, and between average founders and great founders.

The Culinary Analogy

Here’s an analogy. 30 years prior, food media was still nascent. Food Network had yet to be founded in 1993. The average cook resorted to grandma’s recipe (and maybe also Cory’s from across the street). There was quite a bit of variability into the quality of most home-cooked dishes. And most professional chefs were characteristically male. Fast forward to now, food media has become more prevalent in society. I can jump on to Food Network or YouTube any time to learn recipes and cooking tips. Recipes are easily searchable online. Pro chefs, like Gordon Ramsay, Thomas Keller, and Alice Waters, teach full courses on Masterclass, covering every range of the culinary arts.

Photo by Brooke Lark on Unsplash

Has it made the average cook more knowledgeable? Yes. I have friends who are talking about how long a meat should sous vide for before searing or the ratio of egg whites to egg yolks in pasta. Not gonna lie; I love it! I’ll probably end up posting a post soon on what I learned from culinary mentors, friends, and myself soon.

Is there still a disparity between the average cook and a world-class chef? Hell ya! Realistically I won’t ever amount to Wolfgang Puck or Grant Achatz, but I do know that I shouldn’t deep fry with extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) ’cause of its low smoke point.

Great businesses are scarcer

The same is true for entrepreneurship. There are definitely more startups out there, but there hasn’t been a significant shift in the number of great startups. And the increase in business tools has arguably increased the difficulty to find business/product defensibility. It’s leveled the playing field and, simultaneously, raised the bar. So yes, it’s easier to start a business; it’s much harder to retain and scale a business.

It’s no longer enough to have an open/closed beta with just an MVP. What startups need now is an MLP (minimum lovable product). Let’s take the consumer app market as an example.

The Consumer App Conundrum

Acquiring consumers has gotten comparatively easier. Paid growth, virality, and SEO tactics are scalable with capital. More and more of the population have been conditioned to notice and try new products and trends, partly as a function of the influencer economy. But retaining them is a different story.

So, consumers have become:

  1. More expensive to acquire than ever before. Not only are customer acquisition costs (CAC) increasing, with smaller lifetime values (LTV), but your biggest competitors are often not directly in your sector. Netflix and YouTube has created a culture of binge-watching that previously never existed. And since every person has a finite 24 hours in a day, your startup growth is directly cutting into another business’s market share on a consumer’s time.
  2. And, harder to retain. It’s great that there’s a wide range of consumer apps out there right now. The App Store and Play Store are more populated than they’ve ever been. But churn has also higher now than I’ve seen before. Although adoption curves have been climbing, reactivation and engagement curves often fall short of expectations, while inactive curves in most startups climb sooner than anticipated. Many early stage ventures I see have decent total account numbers (10-30K, depending on the stage), but a mere 10-15% DAU/MAU (assuming this is a core metric). In fact, many consumers don’t even use the app they downloaded on Day 2.

Luckily, this whole startup battlefield works in favor of consumers. More competition, better features, better prices. 🙂

So… what happens now?

It comes down to two main questions for early-stage founders:

  1. Do you have a predictable/sensible plan to your next milestone? To scalability?
    • Are you optimizing for adoption, as well as retention and engagement?
      • With so many tools for acquisition hacks, growth is relatively easy to capture. Retention and engagement aren’t. And in engagement, outside of purely measuring for frequency (i.e. DAU/MAU), are you also measuring on time spent with each product interaction?
    • How are you going to capture network effects? What’s sticky?
      • Viral loops occur when there’s already a baseline of engagement. So how do you meaningfully optimize for engagement?
    • From a bottom-up approach (rather than top-down by taking percentages of the larger market), how are you going to convert your customers?
    • How do you measure product-market fit?
  2. What meaningful metric are you measuring/optimizing?
    • Why is it important?
    • What do you know (that makes money) that everyone else is either overlooking or severely underestimating?
    • What are you optimizing for that others’ (especially your biggest competitors) cannot?
      • Every business optimizes for certain metrics. That have a set budget used to optimize for those metrics. And because of that, they are unable to prioritize optimizing others. So, can you measure it better in a way that’ll hold off competition until you reach network effects/virality?

Building a scalable business is definitely harder. And to become the 10 startups a year that really matter is even more so. By the numbers, less likely than lightning striking you. In my opinion, that just makes trying to find your secret sauce all the more exciting!

If you think you got it or are close to getting it, I’d love to chat!

Proudly powered by WordPress