Tag: mlp

Posted on

Where is Venture Money in a Market Recession

These past two years, we’ve seen many investors and founders alike lose their pricing discipline. A number of whom believed anything north of a 10-15x multiple was the new normal. Expectedly, it wasn’t here to last. And I fear there may be an overcorrection to revert back to the mean.

Signal was heavily weighted on the names of other investors, whereas it’s now weighted on strictly traction and revenue. As Samir Kaji published not too long ago, “The market reset provides a return to a rational environment where underwriting of deals has shifted away from a “growth at all costs” mentality, and inclined toward fundamental metrics such as margins, capital efficiency, and the current public market comps.”

The pandemic years

I’ve written before why it’s better to get 70% conviction, than 50 or 90%. 50% is a gamble. And for the past two years, investors made many more and much larger gambles than would have been kosher. When capital became a commodity and we saw a convergence of value adds in the early-stage investing world, one of the only differentiators between firms became more capital, better terms, or more introductions. Quantity became the selling point rather than quality. Subsequently, that also bolstered many a founder to take bigger risks.

Companies were overcapitalized. Companies then hired more talent than they needed, which meant, on average, each employee needed to do less work than previously required. It wasn’t rare that we saw the best talent out there working more than one job. In fact, in a study by Nielsen, over 50% of talent worked for two companies without either knowing. As such, we’ve the trimming of fat over the past few months with massive company layoffs.

Very few investors were going to spend an extra week or two to dig deeper – do a little more homework to get the extra 20% conviction. Why? Because if they did, they’d miss the funding window. They’d miss the opportunity to invest in the next big thing.

I also saw many founders working on 10% improvements and features, rather than building robust, 10x, non-cyclical products. Founders rushed to product-market fit, followed by massive injections to put fuel on the fire, as opposed to taking time to A/B test for channel-market fit and minimum lovable products. Founders also became less scrappy with the surplus of capital. Growth at all costs was revitalized as the memo of the future. We were left with a world that too quickly forgot the importance of cash in the bank in the few months from March of 2020 till the summer.

Where is money after the market correction?

Today, investors are going for 90%, much of that on fundamentals, rather than a technical analysis on markets. People have become more focused on the beta portfolios than the alpha in portfolios – not saying the latter isn’t important. It still is.

The good news is that there are still many more dollars to deploy. The nine- and ten-figure funds aren’t going anywhere. The bad news is while there’s technically already money allocated to invest in early-stage companies, they’re getting deployed more slowly. But we’ve seen a slowdown in the deployment of capital. And while capital calls are usually leading indicators of capital deployment schedules, they became lagging indicators in March’s slowdown.

What are capital calls? No LP keeps a massive amount of money parked in a checking account with 0% interest, aka a VC fund. So, capital calls are a VC’s legal right to call forth a portion of the money promised to them by LPs. Usually capital calls are made semi-annually.

Last year we saw capital call schedules rise from 20% to 32%. As such, timelines were compressed. Funds were deployed in 1.5-2 years. I even saw one-year deployment periods. Today, I’m anecdotally seeing funds revert to a 3-4 year timeline.

What does that mean for founders?

You should prepare for the worst. Things may turn out differently, and that’ll be great, but don’t expect it will. Over the next two years, there will only be a third to half as much capital to deploy into private companies. That also means your competition has increased two- to three-fold.

Focus on your gross margins, your customer acquisition costs (CAC), and your burn multiples. For software companies, aim for greater than 50% gross margins. Your CAC payback periods should be at most a year. And get your burn multiple to one. In other words, you bring back a $1 for every $1 you’re spending. If you’re south of that, great! Instead of raising venture money, see if you can use non-dilutive capital, aka revenue, to help you grow. For those, that are still growing north of three times per year on ARR after you hit $1M ARR, then venture capital is a very viable option.

If you’re raising a new round, show that you’ve hit your milestones and that you have a road to your next set of milestones to raise your next round in 12-18 months. If you’re raising a bridge (or preemptive) round, you’re on a tighter schedule. You need to show you can hit milestones deserving of a new round within six months or less.

Sometimes even when you have all the above, investors still won’t bat an eye. So, at the end of the day, I always go back to the sage advice my friend shared with me. Teach your investor something new. Mike Maples Jr calls it the earned secret. a16z calls it spending time in the idea maze. I don’t care what you call it. Investors pay their tuition to work alongside the best. If you want investors fighting over you, you need to show them value from Day 1.

In closing

As Paul Graham tweeted over the weekend, be contrarian.

In the past two years, when people became bullish, I became bearish. I didn’t trust myself to find signal in hot markets. For example, while I believe in the amazing potential of blockchain and the future of web3, I intentionally chose to look at consumer solutions that were not tied to the chain, unable to justify for most ideas, why the chain was necessary to solve the problem. I found many founders stumbling on a solution, then finding a problem to fit in the solution. Rather than the other way around.

Today, I’m more bullish than ever (when others are bearish). An investor will generate much more outsized alpha being in the nonobvious and non-consensus than being in the consensus. And we’re swimming in an ocean of non-consensus today. As Keith Rabois talked about earlier this year, don’t focus on just optimizing for the beta where you’ll only be optimizing for incremental returns. Focus on the alpha.

Innovation is secular to the macro-economic trends. It’s exactly in this time that I’m excited to uncover the next world-defining teams. That said, I’m looking for world-defining insights I’ve never heard of or seen before.

Photo by Jp Valery 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

Why Product-Market Fit Is Found In Strategically Boring Markets

streets, ordinary, boring

In the past decade or two, there have been a surplus of talent coming into Silicon Valley. In large part, due to the opportunities that the Bay had to offer. If you wanted to work in tech, the SF Bay Area was the number one destination. If you wanted to raise venture money, being next door neighbors to your investors on Sand Hill Road yielded astounding benefits. Barring the past few months where there have been massive exoduses leaving the Bay to Miami or NYC, there’ve been this common thread that if you want to be in:

  • Entertainment, go to LA
  • Finance and fashion, go to NYC
  • Tech/startup ecosystem, go to the Valley.

While great, your early audience – the innovators on your product adoption curve – should not be overly concentrated there. All these markets carry anomalous traits and aren’t often representative of the wider population. Instead, your beachhead markets should be representative of the distribution of demographics and customer habits in your TAM (total addressable market).

While Keith Rabois could have very much built Opendoor in Silicon Valley, where more and more people were buying homes to be close to technological hubs, he led the early team to test their assumptions in Phoenix, Arizona. On the same token, Nikita Bier started tbh, not in the attention-hungry markets of LA, but in high schools in Georgia.

“Boring” virtual real estate

Strategically boring markets aren’t limited to just physical geographies. They’re equally applicable to underestimated virtual real estate. You don’t have to build a mansion on a new plot of land. Rent an Airbnb and see if you like the weather and people there first.

As Rupa Health‘s Tara Viswanathan said in a First Round interview, “Stripping the product down to the bare bones and getting it out in front of people for their reactions is critical. It’s rare for a product not to work because it was too minimal of an MVP — it’s because the idea wasn’t strong to begin with.”

As she goes on, “If you have to ask if you’re in love, you’re probably not in love. The same goes with product/market fit — if you have to ask if you have it, you probably don’t.”

Test your market first with the minimum lovable product, as Jiaona Zhang says. You don’t have to build the sexiest app out there. It could be a blog or a spreadsheet. For example, here are a few incredible companies that started as nothing more than a…

BlogsSpreadsheets
HubSpotNerdWallet
GlossierSkyscanner
GrouponStitch Fix
MattermarkFlexiple
Ghost

The greatest incumbents to most businesses out there really happen to be some of the simplest things. Spreadsheets. Blogs. Facebook groups. And now probably, Discord and Slack groups. There are a wealth of no-code tools out there today – Notion, Airtable, Webflow, Zapier, just to name a few. So building something quick without coding experience just to test the market has been easier than ever. Use that to your advantage.

Patrick Campbell once wrote, quoting Brian Balfour, CEO of Reforge, “It’s much easier to evolve with the market if your product is shaped to fit the market. That’s why you’ll achieve much better fit between these two components if you think market first, product second.”

Think like a designer, not like an artist

The biggest alphas are generated in non-obvious markets. Markets that are overlooked and underestimated. At the end of the day, in a market teeming with information and capital and starved of attention, think like a designer, not like an artist. Start from your audience, rather than from yourself. Start from what your audience needs, rather than what you want.

As ed-tech investor John Danner of Dunce Capital and board member at Lambda School, once wrote, “[the founders’] job is to find the absolute maximum demand in the space they are exploring. The best cadence is to run a new uncorrelated experiment every day. While demanding, the likelihood that you miss the point of highest demand with this approach is quite small. It is incredibly easy to abandon this kind of rigor and delayed gratification, eat the marshmallow and take a good idea and execute on it. Great founders resist that, and great investors do too.”

Spend more time researching and talking to your potential market, rather than focusing on where, how, and what you want your platform to look like. Obsess over split testing. Be scrappy.

Don’t fail the marshmallow test

We’re in a hype cycle now. Speed is the name of the game. And it’s become harder to differentiate signal from noise. Many founders instantly jump to geographically sexy markets. Anomalous markets like Silicon Valley and LA. But I believe what’ll set the winners from the losers in the long run is founder discipline. Discipline to spend time discovering signs of early virality, rather than scale.

For instance, if you’re operating a marketplace, your startup is more likely than not supply-constrained. To cite Brian Rothenberg, former VP of Growth at Eventbrite, focus on early growth loops where demand converts to supply. Ask your supply, “How did you hear about our product?” And watch for references of them being on the demand side before.

Don’t spend money to increase the rate of conversion until you see early signs of this growth dynamic. It doesn’t matter if it’s 5% or even 0.5%. Have the discipline to wait for organic conversion. It’s far easier to spend money to grow than to discover. Which is why startup life cycles are often broken down into two phases:

  • Zero to one, and
  • One to infinity

Nail the zero to one.

In an increasingly competitive world of ideas, many founders have failed the marshmallow test to rush to scale. As Patrick Campbell shared in the same afore-mentioned essay, “Product first, market second mentality meant that they had a solution, and then they were searching for the problem. This made it much, much more difficult to identify the market that really needed a solution and was willing to pay for the product.”

The more time you spend finding maximum demand for a big problem, the greater your TAM will be. The greater your market, the greater the value your company can provide. So, while building in anomalous markets with sexy apps will help you achieve quick early growth, it’s, unfortunately, unsustainable as you reach the early majority and the late majority of the adoption curve.

Photo by rawkkim 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!

Posted on

Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them

As a venture scout and as someone who loves helping pre-seed/seed startups before they get to the A, I get asked this one question more often than I expect. “David, do you think this is a good idea?” Most of the time, admittedly, I don’t know. Why? I’m not the core user. I wouldn’t count myself as an early adopter who could become a power user, outside of pure curiosity. I’m not their customer. To quote Michael Seibel of Y Combinator,

… “customers are the gatekeepers of the startups world.” Then comes the question, if customers are the gatekeepers to the venture world, how do you know if you’re on to something if you’re any one of the below:

  • Pre-product,
  • Pre-traction,
  • And/or pre-revenue?

This blog post isn’t designed to be the crystal ball to all your problems. I have to disappoint. I’m a Muggle without the power of Divination. But instead, let me share 3 mental models that might help a budding founder find idea-market fit. Let’s call it a tracker’s kit that may increase your chances at finding a unicorn.

  1. Frustration
  2. The highly fragmented industry with low NPS
  3. Right on non-consensus
Continue reading “Fantastic Unicorns and Where to Find Them”
Posted on

#unfiltered #27 The Impetus of My Social Experiments – Higher Research and the Application to Startups

bunny, egg, curiosity, curious, social experiments

People seem to love origin stories – both in theatre and in life.

“How did it all start?”

“How did you get into this career?”

Or…

“How did you meet your wife/husband?”

And well, I can’t say I’m one to push back on that.

There’s something truly magical about “Once upon a time…”. And I’m no stranger to fairy tales. Growing up, I was largely influenced by older female cousins and family friends. As soon as our parents left to their wine-sipping adult gossip around a table of blackjack, my cousins and older female friends would drag us to watch their favorite Disney movies on the VCR, namely princess movies. I’m not exaggerating when I say I’ve seen Beauty and the Beast more than 100 times or Cinderella more than 50 times. In fact, my friends in elementary school would talk about their favorite movies – Transformers, LEGO Bionicles, Peter Pan, and Tarzan. Yet, mine was Disney’s 1998 Mulan.

And they all started with “Once upon a time…”

So, it was no surprise when friends, colleagues, and then strangers started asking me:

“How/when/why did you start hosting social experiments?”

Continue reading “#unfiltered #27 The Impetus of My Social Experiments – Higher Research and the Application to Startups”
Posted on

On Scale – Lessons on Culture, Hiring, Operating, and Growth

flower, scale

One of my favorite thought exercises to do when I meet with founders who have reached the A- and B-stages (or beyond) is:

“What will his/her company look like if he/she is no longer there?”

The Preface

While the question looks like one that’s designed to replace the founder(s), my intention is everything but that. Rather, I ask myself that because I want to put perspective as to how the founder(s) have empowered their team to do more than they could independently. Where the collective whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Have the founders built something that is greater than themselves? And is each team member self-motivated to pursue the mission and vision?

It reminds me of the story of a NASA janitor’s reply when President Kennedy asked: “Hi, I’m Jack Kennedy. What are you doing?”

“Well, Mr. President,” the janitor responded, “I’m helping put a man on the moon.”

From the astronaut who was to go into space to the janitor cleaning the halls of NASAs space center, each and every one had the same fulfilling purpose that they were doing something greater than themselves.

And if the CEO is able to do that, their potential to inspire even more and build a greater company is in sight. Can he/she scale him/herself? And in doing so, scale the company past product-market fit (PMF)?

For the purpose of this post, I’ll take scale from a culture, hiring, operating, and product perspective, though there are much more than just the above when it comes to scale. Answering the questions, as a founder:

  • How do you expand your audience?
  • How do you build a team to do so?
  • And, how do you scale yourself?

And to do so, I’ll borrow the insights of 10 people who have more miles on their odometer than I do.

While many of these lessons are applicable even in the later stages of growth, I want to preface that these insights are largely for founders just starting to scale. When you’ve just gone from zero to one, and are now beginning to look towards infinity.

The TL;DR

  1. Build a (controversial) shocking culture.
  2. Hire intentionally.
  3. Retaining talent requires trust.
  4. Build and follow an operating philosophy.
    • Create, hold, and share excitement.
    • Align calendars.
  5. Upgrade adjacent users as your next beachhead.
  6. Capture adoption by changing only 1 variable per user segment.
Continue reading “On Scale – Lessons on Culture, Hiring, Operating, and Growth”
Posted on

Video Games – Evolving from Social Networks to Ad Marketplaces

video games, startup gamified models, startup gamification, ads, advertisement market

With the 2020 series of events, many of us have started to look for other ways to pass our time. Some have looked towards Netflix and Disney+. A number, baking (even ice cream making; thank you to everyone who got an ice cream machine before me). And others, gaming. The number of friends, who had no track record of gaming and suddenly started talking about how to farm iron nuggets in Animal Crossing: New Horizons, skyrocketed. Anecdotally, more than 3-4 fold more.

Games = social networks

Games have become the new social networks. I’m not even talking about the gaming subreddits on Reddit or the Discord channels out there. And much like how social networks are communal hubs of interaction, games, like:

…*deep breath* just to name a few, offer just as much, if not more. People spend hours indulging on the platform and interacting with friends. Not only that, because content is native to gaming platforms themselves, it makes it easier for friends to connect and share content on progress and goals. Much like groups and communities on social networks, many games have clan systems that increase retention and engagement on the platform. Games are just sticky.

By the numbers

They aren’t discrete “one-off” purchases, like my old Nintendo 64 cartridge games, but evolving engines of narrative and relief, or as Andreessen Horowitz calls them – living franchises. What started as “one-off” buys became downloadable contents post-launch (DLCs). And looking at games like World of Warcraft, Fortnite, with constant monthly updates, patches and hotfixes, the games you buy “in the box” are no longer the same beast as before. And now we have a term for it all – Games-as-a-Service (GaaS).

In 2019, there were over 2.5 billion gamers in the world. That’s about 1 gamer out of every 3 people in the world. Together, they spent $120.1 billion on games and grew the market 3%, in a study by SuperData. And you know even Neilsen wants a slice of the pie when they acquired SuperData in 2018, a research company dedicated to tracking the game and e-sports markets. No surprise, Neilsen’s not alone. 44.2% of Tencent’s investments have been into gaming – owning 100% of Riot Games (League of Legends), 40% of Epic Games (Fortnite), 81.4% of Supercell (Clash of Clans), 10% of Bluehole (PUBG), and even 1.3% of Roblox and 2% of Discord. Sony, Microsoft, Apple, and many others are no stranger to putting their dollar into gaming as well.

Though many in 2019 weren’t bullish on the 2020’s growth numbers, in hindsight, we’re seeing a whole different wave of optimism. Hell, March 2020 was a real winner for gamers, spending $1.6 billion on games, their hardware, software, accessories and game cards, thanks for COVID. Needless to say, Animal Crossing topped the charts. I can’t imagine the number at the end of 2020.

Social athletes

You also have Twitch streamers, YouTubers, mods, and creators who become the local/global authority on the market and often ubiquitous with the games/genres they play. Who can actively and passively sway how a community thinks and acts, just like big-time influencers on social media. They have effectively become, what I call, social athletes, turning their hobby into a full-time pursuit. And earning paychecks by representing the brand/team they love most, as well as through sponsorships and partnerships. Shroud, a former competitive e-sports athlete, now one of the biggest streamers in the industry and formerly exclusively streaming on Microsoft’s Mixer, took a 1.5 month break after the Microsoft shut down its Twitch competitor, Mixer. And on his first day back recently, he had half a million viewers tuning in to watch his revival on Twitch.

The next frontier

Just like how social networks evolved into ad-based revenue models, games are evolving into a similar beast, as well. Mobile games have been no stranger to advertisements for a long time. But we’re now seeing the change now on PC and console games. And in a slightly different nature. Where the ads are embedded into the game experience itself, rather than the pop-out kinds.

Epic Games’ Fortnite definitely took it all to the next level – from their live, in-game events to their virtual cosmetic options that acted as film promotions. The latter, much like, how LEGO releases a whole series of movie-related sets to help with promoting it. And their live events are no joke, whether it was:

  • Their live Marshmello concert (with 11 million attending live),
  • Their Marvel crossover event where players could play as Thanos,
  • Or, when 3.1 million players got a sneak peek into a never-before-seen scene in Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker before it came to theaters.

As expected, many other games are following suit. Recently popular PC game, Fall Guys, is now hosting a “battle of the brands” on their Twitter – a bidding war to have your brand featured as a cosmetic in the game towards a good cause of donating to Special Effect, a charity dedicated to helping gamers with physical disabilities.

Last I checked, the bid is at $420,069.69. And yes, I’m sure the numbers were intentional.

So, what’s next?

Well, it’s an exciting time. Not too long ago, influencer marketing blew up. And now brands/games are becoming influencers in and of themselves. Whether that fall under influencer marketing or a new bucket, I don’t know. What I do know is that though we are all far apart right now, the world of media is bringing the larger world closer together. As more games:

  • Go cross-platform,
  • Are discovered organically and socially,
  • And are fueled and accelerated alongside co-creaters, influencers and user-generated content…

… while technologies, like 5G, virtual and augmented/mixed reality (VR/AR/XR), cloud gaming, and blockchain, bring more interactions into each game, building larger and immersive worlds, I’m quite bullish on the growth of the gaming industry. And as the gaming industry evolves, their learnings will bleed into other industries, via gamified models – from Pioneer gamifying the process of building a business to Superhuman gamifying productivity, first through emails.

Why? They’re sticky – high engagement and retention cohorts. And I dare say, sexy, as well. Frankly, game companies don’t just launch with minimum viable products (MVP), but minimum viable happiness (MVH). Or as Jiaona Zhang, VP Product at Webflow and lecturer at Stanford’s School of Management Science & Engineering, calls it: minimum lovable products (MLP).

If you’re interested in a deep dive on how to offer MVH or build an MLP, check out my previous post on the topic:

A Reason to Stay

Photo by Florian Olivo 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

Tracking What Customers Love

focus, lens, product-market fit is fluid, how to find product market fit

Product-market fit is fluid. Just because you’ve attained it once doesn’t mean you’ll have it forever. The market is constantly changing. And that means the intersection where supply meets demand will always be changing as well. That said, regardless of how and where you move to, you’ll always have a subset of your customers who aren’t happy. Who might miss the old ways. Who might wish for something else entirely.

To put it into perspective, I’m going to quote Casey Winters (his blog), the current Chief Product Officer at Eventbrite:

“Product-market fit isn’t when your customers stop complaining, it’s when they stop leaving.”

Retention and its Touch Points

If you run a business, you’re going to have a leaky funnel. Your job is to minimize the leaks. Double down on not just adoption, but especially retention. What does that mean? Engagement and the often, overlooked category, for many early-stage teams, re-engaging those that have become inactive over a set period of time. Whether 30 days or 7 days. It depends on what solution your product is providing for the market and how frequently you normally expect them to use the product. For example, for most consumer apps, as investors, we expect a minimum of usage for 3 days out of the 7 calendar days a week. So I characterize inactivity aggressively as after a month of inactivity.

In the past few months, since the health and economic crisis began, the conversation has shifted from ‘growth at all costs’ to profitability. And similarly, from an overemphasis on adoption to a better understanding of retention.

Speaking of retention, 2 days ago, the afore-mentioned Casey Winters and Lenny Rachitsky published their homework on the the dichotomy between good and great retention, which you can find here and here, respectively. Their research provides some useful touch points about “golden” numbers from some of the smartest people in the industry. Of course, as their research suggests, everyone’s “golden” number is different. At different points in time.

So, how are you tracking how lovable your product is?

One of my favorite ways to track what keeps users coming back for more is the Depth vs. Breadth graph. Plotting how long people use certain features and how often they click into it. You can easily substitute length of time (depth) with the number of actions taken for each product feature you have. Or as you grow into having multiple product offerings, this graph works just as well.

depth vs breadth graph, retention, product features

Below are just a few examples of breadth and depth metrics:

BreadthDepth
# of logins/week# actions/session
Session countSession time length
D1/D2/D7/D30 sessions# concurrent devices logged in
Platform-specific sessions
DAU/MAU
# paid users/ # total

The above graph should also help you better optimize your features/offerings. For instance, let’s say you’re a startup in your growth stages. Going by Reid Hoffman‘s rule of thumb for budgeting, spend:

  • 70% on your ‘popular‘ product offerings,
  • 20% on your ‘niche‘ product offerings,
  • And 10% exploring your any hidden gems in your ‘broad‘ quadrant.

In closing

If you have your finger on the pulse about what your customers love about you at all times, you’ll be able to create a more robust product. As a final note, I want to add that while this piece has been dedicated to what your customers love, please always keep in mind what they hate as well. And why they hate what they hate. Who knows? You might discover a larger secret there.

Photo by Paul Skorupskas 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