Tag: questions

Posted on

Expert + Reasonable + Crazy Idea = Crazy Good

The amazing Paul “PG” Graham came out with an essay this month on crazy new ideas. And the thing I’ve learned over the years, being in Silicon Valley, is if PG writes, you read. In it, one section in particular stood out:

“Most implausible-sounding ideas are in fact bad and could be safely dismissed. But not when they’re proposed by reasonable domain experts. If the person proposing the idea is reasonable, then they know how implausible it sounds. And yet they’re proposing it anyway. That suggests they know something you don’t. And if they have deep domain expertise, that’s probably the source of it.

“Such ideas are not merely unsafe to dismiss, but disproportionately likely to be interesting.”

I’ve written a number of essays about crazy ideas. Here. Also here. The last of which you’ll need to Ctrl F “crazy”, if you don’t want to read through all of it. And also, most recently, here. But that’s besides the point. The common theme between all of these is that crazy ideas are not hard to come by. Crazy good ideas are. Good implies that you’re right when everyone else thinks you’re crazy. When you’re in the minority. And the smaller of the minority you are in, the greater the margin on the upside. Potential upside, to be fair.

As investors, we hear crazy pitches every so often. David Cowan at Bessemer even wrote a satire on it all. For the crazy pitches, go to episode five. The question is: How do we differentiate the crazy ideas from the crazy good ideas? But as PG says, if it’s coming from someone we know is a subject-matter expert (SME) and they’re usually grounded on logic and reasoning, then we spend time listening. Asking questions. And listening. ‘Cause they most likely know something we don’t.

That was true for Brian Armstrong, who recently brought his company, Coinbase, public. He worked on fraud detection for Airbnb in its early days prior. And he knew he was getting into the deep end with crypto back in 2012. But he realized how unscalable crypto transactions were and how frustrated he was. Garry Tan, then at YC and part-time at Initialized, saw exactly that in him. A reasonable SME with a crazy idea. Garry just released an amazing interview between him and Brian too, if you want to tune into the full story.

What if some of the variables in the equation are missing?

But most of the time the founders you’re talking to aren’t subject-matter experts with deep domain expertise. Or at least, they haven’t left an online breadcrumb trail of whether they’re a thought leader or if they’re reasonable human beings. So subsequently, in the little time I have with founders in a first or second meeting, I look for proxies.

For proxies on domain expertise, I go back to first principles. What are the underlying assumptions you are making? Why are they true? How did you arrive at them? What are the growing trends (i.e. market, economic, social, tech, etc.) that have primed your startup to succeed in the market? Does timing work out?

To see if they’re “reasonable” under PG’s definition, I seek creative conflict. How do you disagree with people? If I brought in a contrarian opinion you don’t agree with, how do you enlighten me? How do you disagree with your co-founders?

In closing

To be fair, we’re not always right. In fact, we’re rarely right. On average, in a hypothetical portfolio of 10 startups, five to six go to zero. One to two break even. Another one to two make a 2-3x on investment. That is to say, they return to the investor $2-3 for every $1 invested. And hopefully, one, just one, kills it, and becomes that fund returner. Fund returner – what we call an investment that returns the whole fund and maybe more. Of course, every time a VC invests, they’re aiming for the fences every time. As a VC once told me, “it’s not about the batting average but the magnitude of the home runs you hit.” And even in those 10 investments, it’s a stretch to say that all of them are “crazy” ideas.

But the hope is that even if we’re wrong on the idea, we’re right on the people.

Photo by Àlex Rodriguez 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

#unfiltered #50 What is Your Opening Bid?

“Is your opening bid to assume trust – to assume someone is trustworthy – and to grant them the full benefits of that? Or is your opening bid to not trust, but the trust can be earned?”

Over the past weekend, my friend shared this brilliant interview between Jim Collins and Shane Parrish at Farnam Street. The same friend who recommended this podcast that catalyzed my essay on how to think like an LP. So, needless to say, when she sent me this one, I had to tune in. I’ve been a big fan of Jim for a long time, ever since one of my favorite college professors recommended that I read Good to Great. He has an amazing talent with wordsmithing – bringing seemingly incongruous concepts together in analogous harmony. So when Jim uttered the above quote, I took my Staedtler pen and 180 g/m2 paper out.

“Have you ever considered the possibility?”

Jim also shared, “Brutal fact: Not everyone is trustworthy. And the brutal fact is that some people abuse that trust.” Some people will abuse that trust. Some people will really let you down. But that, in my opinion, as well as Bill Lazier’s – Jim Collins’ mentor, is just the cost of living. That shouldn’t change your disposition in the world, but rather illustrate how much more you should cherish the ones that are trustworthy.

Jim furthered that notion with another anecdote from his mentor, Bill. “Have you ever considered the possibility, Jim, that your opening bid affects how people behave? If you trust people, you’re more likely that they will act in a trustworthy way. So it’s a double win. It’s the best people and they’ll behave in a trustworthy way. The flip side is if you have an opening bid of mistrust, the best people will not be attracted to that. If you have an opening sense of you have to earn my trust, […] some of the best people are gonna be like ‘I don’t need to put up with that. I’ll go do something else.'”

Thinking aloud

Coincidentally, a few weekends ago, one of my good friends hosted a thought lounge. The first I’ve participated after hearing about it for a few years. The purpose of which, and I quote, “is meant to be a place where passionate people come together to practice dialogue and have meaningful conversations.” Every person brings in a topic that’s designed to spark kinetic intellectual energy that each lasts for 12 minutes. And where “creative conflict” is encouraged.

It just so happens that one of the four topics that came up that day was the law of attraction. A concept that states that similar people attract each other. And that one’s thoughts can attract similar results. The more you think you will succeed, the more likely you are to succeed. And likewise the same might be true for failing. One of my fellow participants brought up a great Henry Ford quote: “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right.”

And it acutely reminds me of a story I once read in Tim Ferriss’ Tribe of Mentors. Robert Rodriguez, who directed one of my childhood favorite franchises Spy Kids, shared with Tim when asked the question, “If you could have a gigantic billboard anywhere with anything on it, what would it say and why?”

“I like the idea of setting impossible challenges and, with one word, making it sound doable, because then it suddenly is. So I’d choose FÁCIL! for my billboard. It’s a good reminder that anything can be done, with relative ease and less stress, if you have the right mindset. […] Attitude comes first.”

In closing

“Is your opening bid to assume trust – to assume someone is trustworthy – and to grant them the full benefits of that?”

That’s the line I need on my fortune cookie. If one day I unwittingly become a foolhardy skeptic, I want to open up a fortune cookie after a lonely meal I’ve stuffed myself to the brim on. On a quiet late night Uber ride home, thinking I’ve eaten all I can eat… I want to read that line.

My opening bid is trust. It always has been. And I hope it always will be. I know that people have taken advantage of my kindness and trust. And I know there will be more that will in the future. But I hope I never lose the optimism in my eyes.

My opening bid is still trust. What’s yours?

Photo by Marek Piwnicki on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

Why It’s Important to Disagree with Your Co-Founders Early

While I don’t always ask this question, when I do, it provides me enormous context to how the founding team works together. What do you and your co-founders fundamentally disagree on? Over the years, I’ve heard many different answers to this question. “We disagreed on which client to bring into our alpha.” “On our last hire.” “Our pricing strategy.” And so on. As long as you contextualize the point of friction, and elaborate on how, why, and what you do to resolve it, then you’re good. There’s no right answer, but there is a wrong answer.

The answer that scares me the most is: “We agree on everything.” Or some variation of that. While people may share a lot of similarities, even potentially the same Myers Briggs personality type (although I do believe people are more nuanced than four letters), no two people are ever completely the same. Take twins, for example. Genetically, they couldn’t be any more similar. Yet, to any of us, who’ve met any pair of twins in our lifetime know they are vastly different people.

Priorities lead to disagreements

One of my favorite counterintuitive lessons from the co-founder and CEO of Twilio, Jeff Lawson, is: “If your exec team isn’t arguing, you’re not prioritizing.” He further elaborates:

“As an executive team, we never actually argued — which is a strange thing to bother a CEO. But in fact, something always felt not quite right to me when we always agreed. Clearly, we must not be making good enough decisions if we all agree all the time.

“What I came to realize was that the reason why we didn’t argue is we weren’t prioritizing. One person says, ‘I like idea A,’ and the other person says, ‘I like idea B,’ and you say, ‘Great, put them both down, we’ll do it all!’ And in fact, when you look back on those documents at the end of the year, we rarely got around to very much of anything in those documents.

“Be vigorous not just about what makes the list, but the specific order in which priorities fall. “We realized it’s not just about all the things we could do, but the order of importance — which is first, which is second. Now you get disagreements and a lot of vigorous, healthy debate.”

Starting the tough conversation

Admittedly, it’s not always easy to have these tough conversations with the people you trust most. In fact, often times, it’s even harder to have these conversations because you’re scared about what it can do to your relationship. Arguably, a fragile one at best. At the end of last year, Yin Wu, founder of Pulley, shared an incredible mindset shift when building an all-star team, which led to my conversation with her.

You’re a team driven to change the world we live in. And to do so, you need a system of priorities.

One of the best ways I’ve learned to address conflicts – explicit and implicit, the latter more detrimental than the former – is taking the most obvious, but the one that most people try to avoid. Address the elephant in the room at the beginning.

I love the way Elizabeth Gilbert approaches that elephant, “The truth has legs. It’s the only thing that will be left standing in the end. So at the end of the day, when all the drama has blown up, and all the trauma has expressed itself, and everyone has acted up and acted out, and there’s been whatever else is happening, when all of that settles, there’s only going to be one thing left standing in the room always, and that’s going to be the truth. […] Since that’s where we’re going to end up, why don’t we just start with it? Why don’t we just start with it?”

When it hasn’t happened yet

If you haven’t disagreed with your team yet, you either haven’t established your priorities or one or the other or both has yet to bring it up. A mentor of mine once told me, “Whatever you least want to do or talk about should be your top priority.” And the goal is to sit down with your team and figure it out. To come into the conversation suspending immediate judgment and trying to see where your other team members are coming from.

As the CEO of a startup or a leader of a team, you don’t have to use every piece of feedback or input you get from your teammates. But you should make sure your teammates feel heard. That you’ve put thought and intention behind considering their ideas and opinions. Whether you choose to deviate from your teammates’ opinions or not, you should clearly convey the rubric that you used to make that decision. And why and how it aligns with the company’s mission.

In closing

And of course, the follow-up to the first question about disagreement would be: How often do these disagreements happen? And how do you move forward after the disagreement comes to light?

I go back to a line Naval Ravikant, co-founder of AngelList, once said, “If you can’t see yourself working with someone for life, don’t work with them for a day.” Indubitably, you’re going to be working with your co-founders for a long time. And if you haven’t dissented with your co-founders – or for that matter, other team members, investors, and customers – yet, you will. And knowing what, how and why you disagree with others can be invaluable for your company’s survival and growth.

This past weekend I heard a new phrasing of disagreement I really liked from a friend of mine. “Creative conflict.” I’m adding that phrase to my dictionary from now on. And well, this is my preface to you all before I do.

Prioritize. Communicate. And embrace creative conflict.

Photo by Ming Jun Tan 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 #49 Doing Boring Things

I recently tuned back into Elizabeth Gilbert‘s, author of Eat Pray Love, 2016 interview with On Being. It also happens to be one of my favorite interviews about creativity and curiosity. I found myself pausing, rewinding, playing, pausing, rewinding, then playing again one line again and again.

“Everything that is interesting is 90 percent boring.”

She further elaborates, “And I think one of the reasons that both my sister and I ended up being authors is because we were taught how to do boring things for a long time. And I think that’s really important, because here is one of the grand misconceptions about creativity, and when people dream of quitting their boring job so that they can have a creative life, one of the risks of great disappointment is the realization that, ‘Oh, this is also a boring job a lot of the time.’ It’s certainly tedious. It’s a boring job I would rather do than any other boring job. It’s the most interesting boring job I’ve ever had. […]

“And we are in a culture that’s addicted to the good part, the exciting part, the fun part, the reward. But every single thing that I think is fascinating is mostly boring.”

She takes it from a perspective that everything has its boring parts. So you have to learn to accept what’s boring along with what’s interesting. I think she’s absolutely right. But while I was tuning in again to that same interview – those exact same lines – for who knows, the 20th time, I thought… maybe there’s something more. Forgive my brain for having the tendency to jump into numbers and equations. That for some reason, one of the primary ways I understand life has to be through some quantitative lens. I thought, what if we take it from an expected value perspective.

Expected value = 10% * (Utility of interesting) + 90% * (Utility of boring)

The utility we gain from boring, often times, is of course, well… boring. Some utility value less than zero. Or in other words, more often than not, we lose utility. On the other hand, the utility we gain from interesting is positive. So, then it becomes a balancing act between what’s interesting and what’s boring. That in the decision to pursue something interesting, there might be the below subconscious calculus:

10% * (Utility of interesting) > 90% * (Utility of boring)

To shine a different light, is the interesting part interesting enough that it outweighs all of the boring parts combined, and ideally, more?

Take, for instance, writing for me. I love writing. It’s meditative. Thought-provoking. And it’s challenging. But at the same time, editing, filling in the keywords for SEO, finding a cover image, all the way to writing when I don’t feel inspired, but I do so to commit to a weekly routine is tedious.

Similarly, Gilbert uses the example of raising children. “Raising children — I’m not a mother, but I’m a stepmother, I’m a grandmother, I’m a godmother, I’m an aunt, and I know that 90 percent of — especially, being with very small children…

“Incredibly — it’s hard. And then there’s the moment where you realize, ‘Oh, my God, this is a spark of creation that I’m working with, and this is magic, and this is life seen through new eyes.’ And creativity is the same, where 90 percent of the work is quite tedious. And if you can stick through those parts — not rush through the experiences of life that have the most possibility of transforming you, but to stay with it until the moment of transformation comes and then through that, to the other side — then, very interesting things will start to happen within very boring frameworks.”

For many of this blog’s readers, it’s starting a business. Whether you’re changing the world or the people you care the most about, that mission is what drives you. That’s what makes it interesting. And every time you hit a milestone –

  • Your first user outside of your friends and family,
  • Rated #1 on Product Hunt,
  • One of your customers writes a handwritten love letter to you and your team about how you saved her family,
  • You finally have enough revenue to pay your team members who’ve been working with you for free for two years,
  • $1M in ARR,
  • 50,000 users,
  • You reach profitability,
  • Your dream investor says yes,
  • A Fortune 500 business offers you 9 figures for your business,
  • And the list goes on and on.

… it’s exciting! But let’s be honest, not every day will be sunshine and rainbows. 90% of your days will be tedious. Some percent of those days or weeks might even suck! 90% of your days will be you working to find and reach that 10%. And if that 10% is just that amazing, it’ll make that 90% worth it.

In a sense, it’s like the Pareto Principle. 80% of your utility will come from 20% of your achievements. That star 20% – your customer love letters, providing employment for all your team members during the tough days of COVID.

In an analogous mental model, in everything that is boring, there might be a small percentage that makes it interesting. Now I’m really curious as to what I might discover here.

Photo by Sophie Dale on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

How to Build Your Investor Pipeline Without a Network

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

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

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

“Googling” efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

Or:

site: airtable.com inurl: investors

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

Landing and expanding your investor/advisor network

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

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

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

Then you ask them three questions:

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

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

Photo by Andrew Ly on Unsplash

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Posted on

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

The Fastest Way to Test a Startup Idea

Last week, I reconnected with Shuo, founding partner of IOVC, and one of the first people I reached out to when I began my career in venture. That day, I asked her a pretty stupid question, “Given the rise of solo capitalists, rolling funds, equity crowdfunding, and the democratization of capital, do you think now’s a good time to raise a fund?“

She replied, “I don’t know. It could be a good time now. It could be a good time five years from now. If you’re set on sticking around for the long term, it really doesn’t matter. ‘Cause whether it’s a good time or not, you’re going to be raising a fund regardless. So just do it.”

Not gonna lie, it was serious wake-up call. While I was initially looking for her perspective on the changing venture market, what she said was right. If you’re set on doing something, say starting a fund or a business, the “right time” to start is irrelevant. The world around us changes so much so frequently. We only know when’s the right time in hindsight. So focus on what we can control. Which is starting and doing.

So as an aspiring founder, which idea do you start with? And how do you test it?

Starting a business is scary

Starting a business is scary for most people. And well, the government doesn’t always make it easy to do so. Just like what WordPress and Squarespace did for websites, you have companies, like Stripe (and their Stripe Atlas), Square, Shopify, Kickstarter, just to name a few, streamlining the whole process for entrepreneurship. For an aspiring entrepreneur, not only is it taking that leap of faith, before you begin, there’s a slew of things you have to worry about:

  • Figure out how to incorporate your business (C-corp, LLC, or S-corp),
  • Assign directors and officers to your business,
  • Buy the stock, so you actually own your stock,
  • Learn to file your taxes (multiple forms, including your 83(b) election),
  • When you raise funding, get a 409A valuation,
  • And that’s just the beginning.

Of course for the above, do consult with your professional lawyer and accountant. It’s two of the few startup expenses I really recommend not skimping on. While the purpose of this post isn’t designed to solve all the documents you’ll have to go through in starting a business, hopefully, this will help with one front – taking that leap of faith. Specifically finding early validation for your idea.

The superpower of writing

I stumbled on Max Nussenbaum‘s, who’s leading On Deck‘s Writing Fellowship, provocative tweetstorm:

He boils it down to, effectively, four reasons:

  1. You can test the validity of an idea faster by writing than with code.
  2. Writing well trains your ability to sell.
  3. Publishing regularly gets you comfortable with shipping early and often.
    • To which he cited one of my favorite Reid-isms: “If you’re not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.” – Reid Hoffman
  4. Writing is easier for most people to pick up than coding.

There’s a “5th reason” as well, but I’ll let you uncover that yourself. Talk about creativity. Side note. Max created one of my favorite personal websites to date.

Much like Max, I write to think. And in sharing my raw thoughts outside of the world of startups via the #unfiltered series, often far from perfect, as well as my take in this fast-changing universe, my cadence of writing twice a week has forced my brain to be accustomed to the velocity of growth. In the sense, I better be learning and fact-checking my growth week over week. Over time, I’ve developed my own mental model of finding idea and content catalysts.

Of course, if you know me, I just had to reach out. Particularly around the third point in his tweetstorm.

What mental models or practices did he use to help him wrestle with his embarrassment from his own writing? And he replied with two loci that provided so much more context:

  1. “Reading other writers who open up way more than I do, which makes what I’m doing feel easy by comparison. Two favorites I’d recommend are Haley Nahman and Ava from Bookbear Express.”
    • And another I binged for an hour last night. Talk about counterintuitive lessons. My favorites so far are Stephen’s 12th and 16th issue. You might not agree with everything, but he really does challenge your thinking. Thank you Max for the rec.
  2. “Publicly committing to writing weekly and finding that the embarrassment of publishing was outweighed by the embarrassment I’d feel if I missed a week. Also, like all things, I’ve found it very much gets easier with practice.”

Why not both?

Then again, why not both? I go back to Guillaume‘s, founder of lemlist, recent LinkedIn post. He says:

And he’s completely right. If I were to analogize…

Writer = common
Writer + coder = uncommon
And… writer + coder + X = holy grail

You don’t have to own one unique skill. And in this day in age, there aren’t that many individually unique skills out there that haven’t been ‘discovered’ yet. Rather than search for the singularly unique skill that you can acquire, I’d place a larger bet on a combination of skill sets that can make you unique. As a founder, test your ideas early with writing. If there’s evidence of it sticking, build it with code. And it doesn’t just to be just writing and code, whatever set of skills you can acquire more quickly and deeper with the circumstances and experiences you have. Even better if there’s a positive flywheel effect between your skills.

In closing

There’s a Chinese proverb that goes something along the lines of, “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.” And it circles back to Reid’s quote that Max cited, “If you’re not embarrassed by the first version of your product, you’ve launched too late.” As an entrepreneur, or as an emerging fund manager, it’s a given you’re going to mess things up. But all the time fretting around at the starting line is time better spent stumbling and standing back up.

I followed up with Shuo after our call, and she elaborated a bit more, “In all honesty, you can argue now is a good time (a lot of capital available for good managers) or a bad time (valuations are frothy), but in the long-term, these variables even out and it’s how you add value as an investor that’s most important.”

If I were to liken that same insight to aspiring entrepreneurs… Yes, investors look for timing. And yes, understanding the timing of the market is important, when you’re launching a product that will revolutionize the way we live in a fundamental way. But that boils down to which idea you plan to pursue. But if you’re looking to be a founder, it’s finding that overlap in the 3-way Venn diagram between (1) what the market needs and (2) where you, as the founder, can provide the most value. And (3) where your competitors are not maximizing their potential in.

For many aspiring founders, that first step can be practicing the art of writing. Writing for clarity. Writing to practice selling. Learning to ship early and embracing imperfection. Frankly, it’s also something I need to get better at myself.

Though I’m not a religious fellow, I’m reminded of a quote from Jesus’ teaching, which I first found in Jerry Colonna’s book, Reboot. “If you bring forth what is in you, what is in you will save you. If you do not bring forth what is in you, what is in you will destroy you.” Writing is that act of bringing forth what is in you. And well, if you’re like me, I often find my greatest regrets come from a lack of action rather than in taking action.

If you’re looking for a place to start…

Top photo by Cathryn Lavery on Unsplash

Thank you Shuo and Max for reviewing early drafts of this essay.

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

The Goosebump Test

Ever since I started my career in VC, I’ve been trying to understand the concept of “intuition”. Yet, it wasn’t after I’d seen over 500 pitch decks and met over 100 founders before I began to have an inkling of what intuition meant. In fact, embarrassingly so, when I first started at SkyDeck, Berkeley’s startup accelerator, I thought every other startup I met was gonna be a winner. After all, it was rather rare that a founder wouldn’t be excited about their idea at the first meeting. I was told again and again by investors, one of the key drivers for a startup is the founder’s passion. I thought, well, the numbers might not be there yet. But with this founder’s excitement, they’ll get there eventually. And quickly, I mistook “hopefully” as “eventually”. Two words with very different meanings.

You don’t have to be a full-time investor to know that I was quite off the mark. I soon and quickly learned that passion can be faked, especially in the first meeting. And on that journey, I realized how important having a large and deep sample size was. Large, in the sense of number of founding teams I was meeting. Deep, in the sense of spending longer hours with these teams. Of course, realistically, I couldn’t spend more time with everyone I met, but that also meant I shouldn’t just spend half an hour with them and call it a day. My general rule of thumb became I was going to meet every founder at least twice, and at least a week apart. This gave me:

  1. Time to cool my head from the excitement of the meeting
    • Am I more, less, or just as excited to meet them in meeting two as I was in meeting one?
    • If I were [insert my mentor’s name], would I do the deal? Why or why not?
      • Sometimes, it was really helpful to put myself in the shoes of someone’s who’s way more experienced than I am.
  2. Time to approach the opportunity more analytically
    • Does it align with the macro trends I’ve seen?
    • Do they have some early semblance of product-market fit? Why can that be an early proxy for it?
    • Would I be a power user?
    • Is their origin story enough to compel them towards this idea for the next 7-10 years? Are they meant/”destined” to do this?
    • Would they be able to succeed without me? Without funding?
    • Is venture funding a path they need to take towards growth? What about equity crowdfunding? Bootstrapping? Reaching profitability via a tweak in their business model?

Of course, there were, are, and will be exceptions.

Alfred Chuang of Race Capital recently shared his “co-founder test”: “People asked me so well, how do you determine this is a company you want to invest in. In early stage, I say if this company I want to co-founded with, that I will, in any moment jump on my own two feet in the building, the company would have found this, I don’t do it. Wow. Right. That’s where the conviction come from. Right? This is the ultimate gut test, you don’t pass that gut test, you don’t do it. So I urge the founders on either side to say, Well, think of me as your co-founder. If you don’t think of me as a co-founder, don’t do the deal with me.”

I recently tuned into one of Basecamp‘s Jason Fried‘s latest interviews, in which he describes how he chooses to pursue projects based on feel. Particularly when he gets the goosebumps. Similar to him, and I’m sure many others, I regret far more of what I say yes to than what I say no to. It’s not that I jump in knowing I will regret my decision. In fact, I’m usually pretty sure I won’t. Nevertheless, in only a rare few circumstances, is it a full-body yes, as Tim Ferriss would call it. VCs, as with any investor or buyer, aren’t immune to buyer’s remorse.

When imagining what could go right – the greatest, most impactful possible upside, does it send happy chills down my spine? Am I riffing off their energy and actively throwing ideas out? Am I unconsciously trying to hit my limit on words per minute? If so…

Some investors call it intuition. Others call it conviction. I’m gonna need my own pretentious phrase. Let’s call it the goosebump test.

My goosebumps will undoubtedly evolve over time. It will react to new stimuli, based on my accumulated knowledge and experience. It will also learn from the scar tissue that will form in the future. While I will try to follow my goosebumps as much as I can, they will undoubtedly also fail me at times. Just like how I wouldn’t be as excited now by some of the startups that got me excited back at SkyDeck, I imagine there will be a healthy handful that I do now that my body will learn from in the future. And I will continue to do my best to codify my learnings and share my scar tissue for myself and on this blog over time.

Photo by Stephen Leonardi 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 #45 Two Questions that Force Me to Face My Own Ego

“Ego is about who is right. Truth is about what is right.” – Mike Maples Jr.

I distinctly remember reading this soundbite on page 64 years ago in Tim Ferriss‘ then-new book, Tribe of Mentors. With the recent string of world events over the past few months, I’m reminded once again of this line. It’s strange to think that our most available mentors come in the form of books. Yet, every time I realize this fact, I seem to stumble upon another Eureka moment.

I was a passively-rebellious kid growing up. Though not often, there were times I would swing left when my parents said right. High school, on the other hand, did not make it any easier for my parents. As if puberty was not enough, in high school speech and debate, I learned to play the devil’s advocate on nearly everything. Frankly, it didn’t matter if they were right or not. And in more times than I am willing to admit, I found myself in trouble for not heeding my parents’ advice. Physically. But more often, emotionally. I was just emotionally antagonistic to my own wellbeing. Something I was unwilling to admit for quite a while.

We live in an era where many debates have spiraled down the path of: “If I’m right, you’re wrong” or “If I’m wrong, you’re right.” But most issues – and I might even be as bold as to say, all issues – are not nearly as binary. Debates have become arguments rather than conversations. We fail to realize great constructive conversations are never zero sum. Socratic discussions lead to nuance and a spectrum of colors that are dimensionally vast. Many of us have chosen what is the easiest for us to swallow in that moment. That soundbites resonate more than 3-hour debate. We’ve turned our attention towards ephemeral efficiency rather than robust literacy. At the same time, we need to balance complexity with simplicity. Sometimes, matters aren’t as complicated as we make them out to be. Other times, they are and possibly more so.

Someone I deeply respect once told me. “The quality of your words are determined not by what comes out of your mouth, but by how much reaches another person’s ears.” Oddly enough, we fail to use our senses in the proportions nature gave to us. Two ears. One mouth. Yet, we often act as if we have two mouths and one ear. And I am not immune to that fact.

Over the years, due to the accumulation of scar tissue, I’ve learned to abstract who from what they are saying. When I hear advice, opinions or even facts from someone I am emotionally aloof or antagonistic with, I ask myself, if someone I deeply respect said the exact same thing, would I still be as averse as I am now?

If still so, why? What are my underlying assumptions to oppose such a claim?

Similarly, if someone I deeply respect (even blindly so) says something I agree with too quickly, would this piece of advice hold the same gravitas if it came from someone with little social capital?

Of course, the above is much easier when my inner weather isn’t hormonally turbulent. But when it is, I breathe deeply thrice. And ask myself the question again. And if still turbulent, then I repeat until I’m ready to face my own ego.

Photo by Krissana Porto on Unsplash

#unfiltered is a series where I share my raw thoughts and unfiltered commentary about anything and everything. It’s not designed to go down smoothly like the best cup of cappuccino you’ve ever had (although here‘s where I found mine), more like the lonely coffee bean still struggling to find its identity (which also may one day find its way into a more thesis-driven blogpost). Who knows? The possibilities are endless.

Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups, as well as cataloging the history of tomorrow through the bookmarks of yesterday!

Proudly powered by WordPress