Amidst this unpredictable pandemic, where people are sheltering in place and social distancing themselves. We’ve reached a new inflection point in the curve of virtualizing our worlds. And it just so happens that this is one of the best times to reach out via cold email.
I want to preface by saying this practice has largely worked for me when I reach out. But is neither representative of the population nor guarantees a reply.
The Lesser-known Rock Hyrax in the Room
When reaching out via cold email, the first thing I do is to address the elephant in the room. Outside of the “why are you reaching out to me” question that everyone has, the second most pertinent question, consciously or subconsciously, often is “how long will this take?” – the rock hyrax in the room.
Fun fact: Apparently, the rock hyrax is the elephant’s closest cousin. Frankly, I didn’t know that until I began writing this piece.
Most people who’ve spent some time honing their skills for cold emailing can answer the first question rather well. But, many miss the second.
Close cousins include:
What does the time commitment look like to respond to the email? To address the ask meaningfully? What is my opportunity cost?
How long will this relationship like?
Can I get along with this person?
Will this be an extension of work?
The most important frame of mind is to be honest. If it’s a sales call, it’s a sales call, not “expanding my network.” If you think it’s going to take half an hour to chat, say it. Don’t be nebulous. Set expectations and be forthcoming and candid from the get-go.
“So… why are you reaching out to me?”
And, I’ll leave no stone unturned. If you know the receiving end is busy, also address why they are the best candidate to answer your ask. Be specific. Whether you’re trying to close the first few clients in your pipeline or reaching out to learn, consider the answers to these questions:
How did you find them?
What about them makes you insatiably curious to reach out?
Why they’re the best fit? What’s in it for them? What’s in it for you? (Note I ask “What’s in it for them” before I ask “What’s in it for you”)
Have you spent time doing diligence? On the person? Industry? Topic?
(Optional) Are there inflection points in their life/career/public presence that are unrelated to your ask, but you find oddly fascinating? Pick 1-2.
Note: You should be approaching this question from a point of admiration, fascination, and/or genuine curiosity. If you have any malicious intent, don’t bother.
This year in my resolution, I aim to be more vulnerable by “opening up about the potholes ahead, not just the ones in the rearview mirror”, to quote Jeff Wald. So I’m going to take a step closer to doing so.
Yesterday, my buddy asked me a question that didn’t sit well with me. Not because he was rude, nor because he meant to offend me. In fact, for all intensive purposes, it was entirely innocuous. But it was a question that got me to really question my beliefs and do an impromptu performance review of myself. He asked:
“Out of all the startups you’ve met with and had the chance to source, how many do you regret passing on? Which one or two stands out to you the most?”
I paused for a second. But when words arose to my mouth, my reply was simple. “I don’t think I have any regrets.” As soon as I said that, I immediately felt this gnawing feeling that something was wrong. I’ve always chosen to live life without regrets. And though this may seem to run parallel to my mantra, I knew deep down it wasn’t meant to be.
Luckily, I have had more time to introspect than otherwise during this pandemic. There are 3 possibilities as to why I have no regrets:
It’s too early to tell which ones will be home runs.
I’m not being selective enough, aka I have a flawed investment thesis.
I don’t have the kind of quality deal flow I would like.
While optimistically, I hope it’s the first possibility. After all, it’s only been 3 years since I embarked on this journey. And there probably is a small proportion of startups that will go on to prove me wrong. Realistically, it’s a permutation of the latter two.
Currently, I pick about 40-50% of my inbound (referrals/intros, cold pitch emails/messages, various networking apps) and 100% of my outbound (assuming they get back to me) to have a conversation with. Of those, I usually find 1 out of every 10-15 that I continue the conversation with from an investment standpoint. And out that pool of founders, I usually end up referring 50% of them. Meanwhile, I still try to be helpful in some capacity to everyone else, but only spend about 20% of my time to do so. From a high level, I couldn’t see anything wrong with this funnel. At least, not until my buddy asked me that question.
Sourcing is one of those things that’s easy to pick up, but difficult to master. And now, I feel, not just conceptualize, how steep this learning curve is. There’s a saying in the industry that “luck only gets better with success.” But I have yet to pay the admission fee for my luck to start compounding. So there’s 3 things I have to do:
Reevaluate my current deal flow by analyzing inbound sources and the empirical quality from each (# of startup I’ve introed/total # of startups received from X source).
Hit up the investors I know to help me create a more robust thesis.
Double down on helping my existing deal flow reach their aggressive milestones, until hopefully, the first can hit the ground running.
On the brighter side, it’s great that I’m iterating on this now before I become a checkwriter.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
What is the underlying notion that makes this product work?
It’s the question that almost every investor, especially early-stage startup investor, tries to answer when they’re entertaining potential investments. Some close cousins include:
What social, economic, or political trend is enabling this technology/business to work?
Why will people want to continue using this product? Consciously? Subconsciously? How much will they regret not being able to use this product?
Why is this idea crazy good, and not just crazy?
Is there a predictable road to traction? Product-market fit? $1M ARR? etc.
Is this a scalable business?
Needless to say, when I chat with founders, their business’s defensibilityoften comes up. Every business – small or large – needs to be defensible. Grandma’s cookies are just that good ’cause of that ‘secret’ brown butter element. Or Sally’s lemonade stand sells better than her neighbor’s down the street since she can keep her drinks cool for longer. Just like every good medieval castle has a moat, possibly filled with alligators, every good business has to have that one (or many) unfair advantage, as they call it in B-school. Not that I ever went, but I’ve heard from friends and professors who have. And this is even more true if you want to build a scalable business.
Those who have gone generally claim that their moat is their experience at X Fortune 500 company. Those who have a technical background often claim that their moat is their IP – patents owned and pending. Neither are wrong. And frankly, there are a multitude of factors that come into play when arguing for a business’s defensibility. And most of the times, it’s a permutation of the above and more. But the purpose of this post is to focus on an often discounted notion of brand as a moat. Both the company brand and the personal brand.
Disclaimer:
I should mention that before you even consider your business’s defensibility, and subsequently, brand, first, make a damn good product. I’ve seen too many founders take that leap of faith before they even have a product. They pitch the dream of them making a better world – the company vision – before they even figure out the first steps they need to take to get there.
The only ‘exception’ to this rule, at least from a fundraising and pre-PMF perspective, is if you have an amazingly robust personal brand. Though that may help with early traction, it won’t be enough to sustain a scalable business in the long run.
The startup brand
Your startup’s brand is a collective composed of the:
Company mission,
Company vision,
Internal culture,
And, the openness and responsiveness of the team.
The vision is that ultimate dream. The mission is what you’ll do now to get to that dream. Back in college, someone I really respect put it to me like this:
“The vision is the Sun. The mission is that ladder up. You can’t get to the Sun without building a ladder. If you only stare at it, you’ll eventually blind yourself. And if you just build a ladder, or else you might up on Mars instead, poorly equipped to survive there.”
Culture is something that you can set at the beginning, but know it’ll be an evolving beast with every new hire and every new incident. What you let happen defines the new culture. Although I share my thoughts in a post earlier this year, Ben Horowitz puts it into a much better perspective in his book, What You Do is Who You Are: How to Create your Business Culture. Quite a story-filled read, especially when you’re looking for something to do at home now.
And, the above three culminates into how your team acts.
Do your current customers/users feel like their concerns are either addressed or at least, valued?
Do they feel they are a valued member of your community?
What is your customer satisfaction rate? NPS score?
How do you prioritize and act on customer feedback?
Are your users engaged? How do you reengage them, if they become inactive?
For apps, what are they saying on the App Store/Play Store?
And, how are new customers hearing about your product? What do they hear? What are their explicit and implicit assumptions when using your product?
Why it Matters
Together the 4 elements answer the fundamental questions:
Why would a potentially great customer want to use your product?
Why would a potentially great hire want to join your company?
In the past few months, many VCs have been shifting their investment focus from consumer and towards enterprise/SaaS. There’s the argument that consumers are (1) more expensive to acquire (increasing CAC; the average number of apps a person downloads a day is zero), and (2) harder to retain. (For a more in-depth explanation, I would recommend you to check out the “Consumer App Conundrum” section here.) Aka, it’s more competitive than ever in the consumer markets. When we get closer to perfect competition over a saturated market seeking attention, having a great product just isn’t enough anymore. When some of the most active and vocal consumers happen to be people on the younger spectrum (millennials and Gen Zs), to fight for their attention, you need a brand that resonates with them on causes they care about – whether it’s diversity or climate change or another social cause.
We see this notion affecting two other verticals: the public sector and enterprise.
The privatization of X (let X be education, healthcare, transportation, etc. for all that were empirically public sector functions)
The consumerization of enterprise
For the purpose of this piece, let’s look at the consumerization of enterprise. What does that mean? Before enterprise sales worked from a top-down approach. A founder of an enterprise/SaaS startup pitches to a senior executive at a Fortune 500 (or similar) company. And the executive makes the call and the budget allocation towards their team’s usage of said product.
Now, many startups/companies, like Slack, Trello, Lever, and Soapbox, are taking the bottom-up approach, garnering brand loyalty among the people who will be/are using the product itself. And I predict that’ll be so in the near future for Superhuman, the fastest email client, and Woven, my favorite calendar app, as well. After all, progress happens at the most junior level. If you take it in relation to a tech startup of 200 in its growth phase, the founders or executives can make a plan and set deadlines. But if your most junior developer isn’t working on it, the whole business halts to a stop. All this makes me quite bullish on products in the low-code/no-code space, as well as in towards the future of work.
Moreover, this has led enterprise products to be heavily personalized, constantly updating, and has paved the way to multi-modal business models (i.e. subscription and pay-per-use). All this maximizes user satisfaction, which in turn affects their productivity, and transitively, the business flow.
Although the job market looks wildly different now than it did 3 months ago, when I assume the average founder is looking for cash preservation over growth, you still should be cognizant about the latter going forward.
Your Personal Brand
Your personal brand as a founder, or just as a professional, really matters. If you are a founder or thinking about becoming one, start building a public voice. Get people excited about you and what you’re all about.
Why?
Personal brands are extremely scalable and have built-in virality. You put one post out. Some percent of your followers engage with your content by liking or commenting. Then either by social media’s algorithms or by their innate excitement, they’ll share your content with their friends. Subsequently, new folks discover you and your content. And this becomes a virtuous loop, or network effects, as we call it, that helps get you scalable traction. This is why celebrities, like Dr. Dre and Maisie Williams, and their ventures garner quite a bit of traction among consumers and among investors. This is also why influencer marketing has been so bullish over the past few years.
At some point in your company’s lifespan, your personal brand will become the company brand. And that’ll become either shining beacon or the downfall of your company. More than just the followers you have on social media and in public, you are judged by everyone constantly on your aptitude and behaviors. How open, conscientious, agreeable, extroverted, and neurotic are you? (Yes, I took the 5 traits from the Big 5/OCEAN test.) Each and more have an impact on your personal brand. If we look at the culture behind Facebook, we see how large of an imprint Zuckerberg has on it. For Apple, Jobs.
In closing
The best thing about brands as a moat is that it’s effectively free! But both take years of work in building. As someone on the investing side, I love stellar brands. And it’s one of the elements of a business I weigh heavily on for its potentiality in network effects, summarized in the “Why you?” component of my NTY investment thesis (why Now, why This, why You).
Hmmmm, now thinking about it, personal brand may be the biggest reason I’ve been changing my handwashing habits in the past week… after watching Gordon Ramsay, Alton Brown, and Conan O’Brien‘s tutorials on it.
Stay up to date with the weekly cup of cognitive adventures inside venture capital and startups!
Yesterday, I grabbed a coffee with a friend – now a newly-minted manager. Between congratulations and hearing what she’s been up to, we dove into a rabbit hole about performance reviews. And out of everything she shared, there was one question that caught my attention:
What do you say “No” to now that you didn’t say “No” to when you started?
People are inherently loss-averse. We react stronger to losses than gains. Economic prospect theory has taught us that much. Essentialism, probably best popularized by author Greg McKeown, or a methodology that helps us differentiate between external noise and our internal signal, takes it a step further. For example, the questions:
How much do you value an opportunity?
And, How much would you sacrifice to obtain an opportunity?
… carry two different emotions. We take many aspects of our lives for granted. But when we lose any aspect of it – be it a body part, a friend or family member, or a habit – where we once lacked appreciation, we now find true value.
What we say “No” to carries layers of scar tissue – of our past we don’t want to relive. The French language has an incredibly apt way of describing knowledge. Savoir denotes simple knowledge acquisition. Connaître implies a familiarity with knowledge that is deeper and carved into one’s heart. When my friend decided to ask that question, she is looking for what her team members connaissent.
I love it! And I’m gonna steal it (well, with her permission)! For each time frame, we have a new set challenges to ‘pattern-recognize’. Founders have it cut out for them. And just by the nature of their work, they need to learn – fast.
“When I studied Tai Chi for a year, I thought I knew what I was doing. And I thought I was really started to understand it. But after 2 years, I realized everything I thought after a year was wrong. It was just wrong. But now I understood.
And then after 4 years, I realized everything I thought after 2 years was wrong. And he went on with this story and this pattern, but now I understood. And after 8 years, everything I thought after 4 years was wrong. And now I’ve been training for 16 years; everything I thought after 8 years was wrong. And now, I finally understand…
It’s easy to think we’re in the dark yesterday, but in the light today. But we’re in the dark today too.”
So, in foresight and honest vulnerability, I will take my friend’s question a step further:
What will you say “No” to tomorrow that you aren’t saying “No” to today?
Coronavirus. Candidate primaries. Market crashes. And what motivates us to get shit done. During a bite with one of my buddies from college, we ended up chatting about a myriad of topics. From crying when we scared as a baby to eating when we’re hungry, humans inherently act reactively than proactively.
Let’s put it into perspective:
Wildfires in Australia and previously in California brought nature preservation front and center.
Because of the coronavirus, China set up a hospital in 10 days. Whereas in SF, it takes years to extend our public metro, BART, to just one more station.
In startup land, look how much innovation is being done on the SaaS front. Competition drives progress. A need to be better than your competitors, or perish. On the flip side, innovation at the frontiers of technology are happening at a much slower pace. You’re right in thinking part of it is due to an element of technological risk and mystery. But a large part is also due to funding, awareness, and urgency. I was catching up with another friend, not too long ago, who’s working on the frontiers of AI research. He told me that he’s just not motivated to meet any deadlines. If he misses it, “Oh well.” And if he does reach any milestone, there’s barely a pat on the back.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, and I’m paraphrasing here, once said (in one of his StarTalk Radio episodes): we think if we reach commercial viability of space travel or tourism in 50 years, that it’ll be really impressive. But it’s really not. Why? If, hypothetically, aliens from another galaxy contacted us today and said, “We’re going to invade your planet in 50 years”, we will have a different sense of progress. And if in 50 years, we can only just start to commercialize space travel, we’d be sitting ducks.
If you have a final in the morning tomorrow and you happen to be a procrastinator (or not), you’re going to be burning the midnight oil. Otherwise, realistically, would you be studying day and night every day?
Tim Ferriss asks himself this one question: If in 2 years, you’re set to die. In perfect health, and a perfectly natural death. What do you have to do before you die? What will you regret no having done? So, what really matters? (I lied; it’s not really one question.)
So, how do I induce a sense of urgency? How do I motivate myselfwhen I don’t have any impending time horizons?
One, accountability partners. Friends who keep me (and me them) accountable to my goals, like my birthday resolution. Where in 6 months, upon failure, I lose $100. Or upon success, I get treated to a really nice meal.
Two, something I took from my good friend. I once asked him about how he continues to push himself towards new experiences every month. After all, he’s the kind of person who lives a life that makes me feel as if I’ve done nothing. In response, he said:
“Fall in love.”
“I don’t get it,” I replied perplexed.
“Because it’ll make you want to impress your crush. And when you go on that date every week or every two weeks, you’ll want to show off. And the only way you can show off is if you have something to show off. So, I don’t let my dreams sit. I get shit done.”
#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.
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.”
Bundling
Unbundling
Market Maturity
Market Nascency
Horizontalization
Verticalization
Breadth
Depth
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?
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.
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:
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.
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:
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?
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!
Over the weekend, my friend and I were chatting about the next steps in her career. After spending quite some time ironing out a startup idea she wants to pursue, she was at a crossroads. Should she leave her 9-to-5 and pursue this idea full-time, or should she continue to test out her idea and keep her full-time job?
Due to my involvement with the 1517 Fund and since some of my good friends happen to be college dropouts, I spend quite a bit of time with folks who have or are thinking about pursuing their startup business after dropping out. This is no less true with 9-to-5ers. And some who are still the sole breadwinner of their family. Don’t get me wrong. I love the attention, social passion, literature and discourse around entrepreneurship. But I think many people are jumping the gun.
Ten years back, admittedly off of the 2008 crisis, the conversations were entirely different. When I ask my younger cousins or my friends’ younger siblings, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” They say things like “run my own business”, “be a YouTuber”, and most surprisingly, “be a freelancer”. From 12-yr olds, it’s impressive that freelancing is already part of their vocabulary. It’s an astounding heuristic for how far the gig economy has come.
Moreover, media has also built this narrative championing the college dropout. Steve Jobs and Apple. Bill Gates and Microsoft. And, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. There’s nothing wrong in leaving your former occupation or education to start something new. But not before you have a solid proof of concept, or at least external validation beyond your friends, family and co-workers. After all, Mark Zuckerberg left Harvard not to start Facebook, but because Facebook was already taking off.
Honing the Idea
The inherent nature of entrepreneurship is risk. As an entrepreneur (and as an investor), the goal should always be to de-risk your venture – to make calculated bets. To cap your downside.
Marc Benioff started his idea of a platform-as-a-service in March 1999. Before Marc Benioff took his idea of SaaS full-time, he spent time at Oracle with his mentor, Larry Ellison, honing this thesis and business idea. When he was finally ready 4 months later, he left on good terms. Those terms were put to the test, when in Salesforce’s early days, VCs were shy to put in their dollar on the cap table. But, his relationship he had built with Larry ended up giving him the runway he needed to build his team and product.
Something that’s, unfortunately, rarely talked about in Silicon Valley and the world of startups is patience. We’ve gotten used to hearing “move fast and break things”. Many founders are taught to give themselves a 10-20% margin of error. What started off as a valuable heuristic grew into an increase in quantity of experiments, but decrease in quality of experiments. Founders were throwing a barrage of punches, where many carried no weight behind them. No time spent contemplating why the punch didn’t hit its mark. And subsequently, founders building on the frontlines of revolution fight to be the first to market, but not first to product-market fit. Founders fight hell or high water to launch their MVP, but not an MLP, as Jiaona Zhang of WeWork puts it.
In the words of the one who pioneered the idea of platform-as-a-service,
The more transformative your idea is, the more patience you’ll need to make it happen.”
– Marc Benioff
As one who sits on the other side of the table, our job is to help founders ask more precise questions – and often, the tough questions. We act more as godmothers and godfathers of you and your babies, but we can’t do the job for you.
The “Tough” Questions
To early founders, aspiring founders, and my friends at the crossroads, here is my playbook:
What partnerships can/will make it easier for you to go-to-market? To product-market fit? To scalability?
What questions can you ask to better test product feasibility?
How can you partner with people to ask (and test) better questions?
What is your calculus that’ll help you systematically test your assumptions?
Do you have enough cash flow to sustain you (and your dependents) for the next 2 years to test these assumptions?
Simultaneously, it’s also to important to consider the flip side:
What partnerships (or lack thereof) make your bets more risky?
How can you limit them? Eliminate them?
And in sum, these questions will help you map out:
At this point in your career, does part-time or full-time help you better optimize yourself for reaching my next milestone?
In the past two weeks, through conversations on my birthday resolution and what my success metrics are, my friends inspired me to write this post . That’s when you know I’m in Silicon Valley! Or startup Disneyland.
So, how do I measure my progress? This is by no means proprietary or original. In an annual email exchange, my mentor had me ask myself one question:
How ashamed do I feel about myself one year prior?
Although not comprehensive, I find it to be a great litmus test for evaluating personal development. If I don’t scoff at my former self for being dumb, I’ll know I haven’t progressed. At the same time, I put myself in the shoes of my future self, abstracting myself from my status quo, and ask two questions:
What aspects of my past self am I embarrassed to see?
What strengths of my past self would I find extremely unimpressive to show off?
This acts as an ego check and helps me look at myself more objectively.
I started this practice two years ago where I keep a checklist (on Google Keep) of wins I keep track of throughout the year. It included any magnitude of achievement, like:
A successful deal close;
Joining as a guest on a podcast;
An art piece I’m proud of drawing;
Cooking a meal that pleased my parents;
And, sleeping 8 hours a night.
Then one week prior to my birthday, Google Calendar reminds me to go through that checklist and review what I still feel proud of and what I find to be ‘normal’. I check all the ones I no longer gain contentment from. All that’s left are “My Proudest Moments at Age XX”. Then my goal for the following year is to make those moments feel ‘normal’. I’ll get to this step eventually. But I plan to review the annual lists every 5 years to see if I still feel the same.
In a way, this blog is also designed for me to reflect on earlier iterations of myself through my writing. As much as this one question has enlightened me, I hope it may act as your heuristic for your growth.
When I first entered venture, I asked a number of VCs:
How do you tell the difference between a good startup and a great startup?
The answer I received from multiple investors was: intuition, which, admittedly, confounded me to no ends. Maybe it is true, that it is intuition, especially after seeing such a large sample size of startups over their careers – that in a heartbeat, they can reasonably tell the difference between a good and a great one. But I didn’t have that sample size. In fact I had a very small, and very biased sample to extrapolate from. The best investors out there were, quite frankly, unconsciously competent, but I was very aware that I was and am consciously incompetent, seeking competency.
So I figured, with enough data points in my sample, as econometrics has taught me through the law of large numbers, eventually I’ll have a sample that’s more or less representative of the population. So, for the past three years, I met with 10-15 tech entrepreneurs every week – self-proclaimed, venture-backed, and anyone in between – in an effort to figure out what intuition as an investor meant. What I found, pre-product-market fit and even pre-unit economics, is that it all stems from what many VCs and angel investors call ‘passion’, or rather what I like to call: obsession.
Why obsession? While I do briefly explain it in my investment thesis, it is a proxy for grit and domain expertise of a founder or founding team, which is strongly correlated with the growth potential of a venture. Obsession keeps you up at night; passion keeps you active during the day. Obsession is a lifestyle; passion is a hobby. Through chatting and tracking various founders and startups at various points in their founding journey – from idea to scale to exit, here are the three telltale signs I found of obsession:
Honesty,
Details,
And a personal vendetta.
Honesty
What do you know? What don’t you know?
The founder(s) are radically honest. They’re readily willing to admit what they know and what they don’t, as well as how they plan to figure out what they don’t. The more obsessed you are, the more you realize there are more questions than answers. What kind of questions do the founders ask themselves? How are they prioritizing and allocating their time?
Entrepreneurship has never been a solo sport, and every founding team could always use as much help as they can get. The only way investors, advisors, and a company board can help is if they know what part needs help. Unfortunately, in the Bay Area, there’s a heavy aura of “fake it till you make it” that’s not only true for founders and investors, myself included at one point in time, but professionals across the board, like a duck swimming across a lake, furiously paddling beneath the surface of the water, but appearing calm and collected above. This facade led to stress, anxiety, and eventually a cycle of depression for many brilliant folks out there, which has only recently gained some awareness in the public eye. Mental health, especially founders’ mental health, is one of the areas I’m tracking pretty closely, in diligence, scouting, and when hosting peer mentorship circles. I don’t require founders to know everything about starting a business or tackling a market risk, nor do I expect them to know everything. All I require is the conviction to solve the seemingly unsolvable, and the honesty to admit it and work together to solve it.
Details
What are your customers telling you?
Just as important as the questions founders ask themselves are the answers they’ve found so far. What have they tested? What are they testing? What will they do if they get X result? Y result? And the customers feel it all. What is resonating with their customers – explicitly and implicitly? What isn’t? And how granular can the founders go?
Each action taken is purposeful and holds some kind of predicted value. These founders are obsessed with details – even the ones that aren’t sexy or won’t wow at face value, yet crucial to the survival and growth of their business. For example, Rahul Vohra, CEO of Superhuman, the world’s fastest email client, takes his feedback surveys extremely seriously. While he goes more in depth in this brilliant podcast episode on 20-Minute VC, he’s able to dissect four questions to be able to assess product-market fit and strategic offerings of features to his product. From a simple question, “How would you feel if you could no longer use Superhuman?”, if 40% or more say ‘Very Disappointed” (out of three options: Very Disappointed, Somewhat Disappointed, and Not Disappointed), then he would have achieved initial product-market fit. Whereas most companies track lagging indicators of interest, like NPS scores, where customers would have made their decision by the time they take the survey, Rahul is obsessed with leading indicators, before customers make their “decision”.
Personal Vendetta
What was your “Eureka!” moment?
Building a business starts with the self, and ends with others. Is it their personal problem? Are they taking revenge on the scar tissue they’ve grown from being bogged down by this problem? Or maybe it’s a problem that means a great deal to someone who means a great deal to them?
I’m always incredibly curious as to why someone would want to be an entrepreneur. It seems to go against the very psychological grain of being a human. Founders are risking the food on the dinner table, sleep, a social life, money, years worth of opportunity costs, sanity, and much much more. Effectively, they’re taking Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and flipping it on its head. So I’m always dying to know what compels them to push forward. As one of my mentors back in college once asked me: “What is your selfish motivation?”
Behind all of the fancy-shmancy market maps and industry/trend analysis, where markets start with B as in billion (and one day, we’ll see more markets that start with T as in trillion), or, in 2017, it was crypto-this or blockchain-that, what drives these founders? Don’t get me wrong. All the afore-mentioned analysis is on the forefront of my mind when I look into a startup. What underlying infrastructure or social trend makes this product/service inevitable? How antiquated and/or fragmented is the knowledge or resource acquisition process in this targeted industry? But the truth is, more often than not, I see multiple ventures tackling the same space with almost the same solution. So who’s the winner? In my opinion, the one who’s more obsessed. From the lens of essentialism, instead of “How much do you value this opportunity?”, I’m more interested in “How much would you sacrifice to obtain this opportunity?” Though I’m not looking for a blood ritual, nor do I want to ever get involved in one, I’m looking for founders’ willingness to pursue this full-time over part-time and their resourcefulness (on a limited budget) to get shit done, like when Brian and the team at Airbnb took to photographing their first few living spaces or packing each box of Obama O’s themselves.
And you know you have a winning story to my initial “Eureka!” question when you have the full, undivided attention longer than the first minute of people who are notorious for having low attention spans. A story about a personal vendetta is compelling, inspiring, and most importantly, contagious. And I’ll know this when my eyes start sparkling just like the founders. I may not drop everything in my life and tackle this new dilemma full-time, but I’d be damned if I don’t make sure that founder’s dream becomes a reality.
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, obsession is inefficient – a human element artificial intelligence has yet to be able to replicate. It’s scrappy. It’s doubling down on things that may not succeed. As the saying goes, you’re wrong until you’re right. But damn, it is magnetic. After all, obsession is human error, at its finest.
