Category Archives: Angel Investing/Venture Funds

Incubation 201: Should You Incubate?

Leave a reply

My last post Incubation 101 went over basic concepts which I think are essential to the success of any incubation operation. Basically, I think that risk of failure increases exponentially if you don’t follow these concepts in their entirety.
In this post, I want to bring out some subtle points mentioned in the previous post which refer to whether or not you SHOULD incubate at all. I assume that if you are thinking about incubating, that somehow you’ve reached a point in your career/life where you CAN incubate. But does it mean you should?
What are YOU personally willing to do?
Self-examination and knowledge is very important. You need to figure out exactly HOW you can contribute to incubation and the nurturing of ideas into businesses. Then you need to figure out what really motivates you and how you gain satisfaction, relative to the kind of participation you’re willing to give.
Are you willing to jump back into the startup life of working 24/7?
If you’re not in a position to go back to startup life, then you shouldn’t incubate your own ideas. Remember, the idea originator has the resonance with the idea, and is best poised to take an idea to a successful conclusion. If you’re not willing to do that, that’s a clear sign you shouldn’t incubate. Transferrence of an idea to someone else is nearly impossible and substantially decreases chances for success. Incubating at arm’s length is still possible.
Do you have incredible, kick-ass product ideas and want to see them flourish?
This is better than having dumb ideas, or ideas that others are working on, or no ideas at all. You shouldn’t incubate your ideas if you don’t have great ideas to begin with. Again, maybe you should incubate at arm’s length.
Being the “Guy at the Top”
The most dangerous thing you can do with incubation is try to be the “guy at the top” who directs things but doesn’t get involved in the day to day of any incubated operation. You generate great ideas, and then hire a team to execute that idea, and then think you can sit back and watch the idea flourish, grow big, and you reap the benefits while being able to kick back and just manage it all.
Incubating Your Own Ideas
So you have great ideas and are willing to go back into the startup world. Incubation is a great way to figure out what to do next, if you have the resources to work on many things simultaneously. You will need to be personally involved in the day to day of each incubated idea, and you’ll most likely max out at around 3-4 ideas, perhaps less.
Follow the principles in Incubation 101 and you’ll do great.
Managing Incubation at Arm’s Length
So you don’t have great ideas, OR you aren’t willing to put yourself back into startup mode regardless of whatever ideas you have.
My advice to you, is to let go of any notions that you be the “guy at the top” and find another way to help others with their ideas. Reorient your values and take great pleasure in watching others’ flourish with their own ideas, but contribute in ways that allow you to be involved.
This can be through advisorships and/or investments. Provide value to your entrepreneurs as you invest money in their ideas and they will come to you for help. Create a positive relationship and you can gain some satisfaction in knowing that you contributed to the success of their idea.
Raise a venture fund and support people more through cash, if you aren’t so helpful in other ways. Keep the incubated ideas and companies at arm’s length as much as possible to maximize incentives and reduce your exposure to ideas that aren’t going anywhere. Again, follow the principles in Incubation 101 and you’ll minimize risk and maximize your chance of finding something great.
My Personal Experience
Back in early 2006, I attempted to raise a venture fund with an incubation component. I was having a hard time raising it, and ultimately this caused me to get involved with startups in a different way. Looking back, I was glad that I didn’t fully realize the incubation operation as I think it would have gotten to a bad place.
In my self-examination, which happened much later, I discovered:
1. I was not willing to put my personal time into any one idea. This would have lead to a bunch of ideas run by me, the “guy at the top”. This would have been a risk increasing move.
2. I really didn’t have great ideas. I had some, but none that were earth shattering. I didn’t have a way to generate great ideas but would have tried to execute some mediocre ideas, again increasing risk.
3. I realized I was much better at taking someone else’s ideas and making them even better.
Thus, I am today at something-like incubating at arm’s length. I feel that I have yielded a much better risk profile through my work with startups across a number of great ideas and entrepreneurs, and leveraging my personality preference for making an existing idea better versus coming up with a great idea myself. I also have higher personal satisfaction working in this fashion.
Read Incubation 101, do the self-discovery, and do incubation the right way for YOU.

Incubation 101

Leave a reply

Over the last few months, I spent some time interviewing a whole bunch of people about incubating businesses. It was very enlightening not for the information I uncovered, but the fact that it just brought to the forefront of consciousness things I already knew.
Incubation has had a bad reputation over the years, especially the large ones like IdeaLab and Internet Capital Group that raised enormous sums of money but didn’t return nearly what they were supposed to. When I tried to raise my own venture fund 2 years ago and wanted to include an incubation component, I was advised unilaterally to not call it an incubator or else I would get nowhere fast! Investors had been burned way too much on the incubator model in the past to trust new ones.
Yet incubation is sexy. Generate new, cool ideas. Create new businesses. Find the next Google. Unbridled innovation, unlimited success! Wow!
If only it were that easy or certain. Incubation is really hard, but in my research I’ve uncovered some guiding principles which make incubation viable and possible as a strategy.
Here are the highlights:
Incubation works nicely for internet projects
Developing products and services for the internet has gotten so cheap and easy that invested capital can be very small relative to other industries.
Incubation is HARD
It’s not easy to come up with a great new business. Attempting it is not for those wishing for a quick win. You have to be patient, focused, and be able to let go of projects that aren’t getting anywhere or waste too much of your time and resources.
Go cheap
The less money you spend, the less money you need to properly incubate. Testing ideas as cheap as possible reduces overall investment. Don’t invest a ton in infrastructure liking buying a pretty building and cool office furniture. Outsourcing can help with being cheap especially in the international marketplace for talent.
Build fast
Get your concepts out there fast and test. Being slow means competitors can get into a space before you can test properly. Also, the more ideas you can generate and test, the more chances you have of hitting on something worthwhile.
Fail and remove fast
If something is failing, close it down fast! Have the discipline to kill projects that aren’t working. Throwing money at failing projects doesn’t solve the problem either. The ability to let go of bad projects is extremely important. Otherwise, projects that are sitting around languishing just waste money and effort to keep afloat.
Go wide…Carefully
Risk is reduced if you cast your net wide of ideas to try. Throwing all your eggs into one or a small number of baskets increases risk substantially of failure. But go wide carefully, meaning don’t stretch your resources too thinly.
The founder of an idea needs to go with that business
It is nearly impossible to properly transfer an idea to someone else. Trying to do so raises risk tremendously. To reduce risk, the person who comes up with an idea should stay with that idea, should that idea blossom into a business. This is because the originator of an idea typically has some intrinsic resonance with that idea as a business, and is the right person to build, innovate, and nurture it.
If you are not willing to take an idea through to its proper conclusion, my advice to you is to re-examine your life and what you want to do. If you’re not willing to jump back into a startup, then I would tell you to just let others develop their own ideas and let go of your own. Take pleasure in nuturing others and their ideas into great businesses. Raise a venture fund and help others do well.
The team members also should go with that business
Shared resources developing an idea is a nice concept, but to reduce risk, as soon as an idea starts taking off, the development and product team should immediately be deployed on that project. Switching people on a project is hugely problematic and wastes time in education, learnings, and experience.
Any resources working in an incubator should be told beforehand that if they work on an idea, they can’t just sit around and keep coming up with new ideas; they need to see the blossoming idea through to its conclusion. If anyone can’t buy into that model, then they should find a job somewhere else.
Keep resources at arm’s length
The more resources you can keep not on recurring payroll, the better. It’s easier to remove people who aren’t working out, or shut down projects. Hire the teams on projects that are flourishing to the corporations in which those projects reside.
Build a rolodex of resources you can deploy at a moment’s notice. Find great people who are willing to give you great rates and can do great work.
Be disciplined in a process for evaluation
Set clear checkpoints for your incubated projects. If they do not reach basic minimum levels, then they should be shut down ruthlessly. Budgets, time, goals all can be used to create checkpoints.
Incentives are key
Nothing motivates people better than survival instinct and a life or death deadline. The survival instinct is activated when they know they’re going to run out of money (like their salary, their means for eating and paying rent, etc.) if they aren’t successful. The life or death deadline is activated when they know they’re not going to get any more resources or help beyond a certain point. So they MUST be successful or else they’re gonna starve.
On the other side of the coin, it is highly motivational to know that their success is also tied to success of their project in a large and singular manner.
Paying them a regular salary from the overall incubator pool is not motivating enough; it makes them too comfortable knowing that they could fail on any idea but still are able to go on surviving. It also severely reduces their urgency, knowing that they’re still going to get a paycheck whether or not it launches today or 3 months from now.
Giving them large ownership in a separate corporation formed from their project is. Tying their salary to the separate corporation is even better.
Forming a separate corporate entity per project increases clarity in ownership and process
Keeping projects internally makes it difficult to track and assign costs properly to each project. When you have a separate corporation each with its own budget and resources, tracking becomes easier.
It also makes it clear who owns what part of what corporation, and how much of it. Keeping projects internally removes that fact as you’re part of and being paid by the whole.
This clarity extends to funding as well. When an entity is running out of money, you have to take an official step to put more funds into that corporation’s bank account, along with all the ramifications in doing so in ownership, and why you have to do so. It really makes you think twice about funding a business that may be faltering or flawed.
As mentioned before, when peoples’ salaries are tied to the corporation, then incentives are highly aligned with the success of that corporation, and not blurred with the whole incubator.
Some ideas require a sustainability component to be fully tested
A recurring theme among internet products is that ideas can be launched quickly and once it’s out there, people will come and use it, love it, and it will grow. Banking on an idea to grow organically by itself is a recipe for disaster. The problem is that not many ideas have the ability to do so. We often fool ourselves that by launching a new idea live, that people will just come and use it and it will be the next Google. It might happen, but probably won’t. Then we get frustrated wondering why it isn’t growing, and often end up thinking that the idea sucked and we should close it down.
However, it is deceptive to think that an idea which does not grow organically is a failure. The reality is that the idea might actually be good, but just requires people, time, money, and smarts to apply to it and then it might grow. Thinking through the sustainability of a launched idea and how that can be supported for at least some period of time is really important.
Incubation works great if you’re personally trying to figure out what to do next
If you have some personal capital and want to find a new idea to work on, incubation could be for you. I’ve talked to a number of people who have employed incubation at a personal level successfully. Instead of working on just one idea, they launch 3-4 and work on all simultaneously. Each idea gets funding and their own team. At the end of the process, the most successful idea survives. The other projects are closed down or sold, and you become CEO of the surviving, thriving business.
It could work much better than working on singular idea and trying to determine if that idea is the right one or not. Or working ideas serially. Being serial takes up a lot more time than doing things in parallel.
Yes it takes a lot of time and effort, and requires a multi-tasking brain. But if you’re a startup person, you’re probably used to working like that anyways.
Find great startup people
Seems basic right? It’s actually harder than you think.
Find creative, hard working, caffeinated people who are smart and motivated AND can take a project to a conclusion. Too many people float at the creative, idea stage and don’t have what it takes to stay with an idea over time and develop it. Discovering people who are like this is very hard, so beware.
As mentioned previously, keeping them at arm’s length makes it easier to get rid of inappropriate people. Be ruthless in culling people who aren’t working out.
Young people are great. They can work for long hours, live cheaply, have almost no other attachments in their lives. They will try stuff because they don’t know better, unlike us old, jaded, experienced people. They’re not so great because they don’t have enough business experience to know how to take a business further.
Build an idea with revenue generation on the mind from day one
If an idea is generating money, its ability to sustain itself grows dramatically. Creating products which bank on the free model and gain lots of users, but have no concept or plan for short term revenue, is great for people who have a powerful investor as backer and who is willing to fund growth beyond that point. For an incubator, I would say that this is not a good path to go down and substantially increases risk of failure.
Revenue generation sustains the incubation process
Following on the last principle, if you can find a way to generate revenue immediately, then the incubation process can be self-funded and sustaining, and opens up the ability to try new ideas without deploying more outside capital.
Good luck with your incubation efforts, and I’d love to hear how you’re doing if you are going to incubate new businesses.

Exploratory Products vs. Utility Products

1 Reply

Over this last year, the topic of exploratory products versus utility products has come up so many times. And I’ve always felt uncomfortable with products that engage users because it helps them “discover” or “explore” something.

“Discovery” and “exploration” are always so alluring terms. Throughout human history, we’ve always envied the explorer. Christopher Columbus set out to discover the New World. Lewis and Clark went looking for a way to the Pacific Ocean. Neil Armstrong sets his foot on Lunar soil and declares, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Even watching Star Trek with the Enterprise on their 5 year mission to explore new worlds, we can’t help but wish we were on the Enterprise alongside Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. It sounds so wonderful, so romantic, and speaks to our ingrained cultural tendencies that achieving, discovering, and exploring makes us feel that blazing new territory like pioneers puts us out of the comfort zone and sets our senses afire, and takes us out of our normal, boring lives.

First, I think that there is a segment of the population with a natural “gene” for exploration. I personally know people whose first inclination every morning right when they get up is to go to click randomly on news articles or websites, like StumbleUpon or Digg, or Del.icio.us. They always do this before doing anything else.

Second, I think there are differences in the manifestation of the “exploration gene” based on age. Young people seem to engage in more exploratory behavior. But once young people grow older, they get more responsibilities, their time gets occupied by a whole bunch of things, their lives get so full that there is little or no time for exploration unless you have a natural “gene” for exploration.

To me, exploration is either an activity relegated to a small population relative to the whole, or one that does not sustain itself as a person ages. Given this belief, I think there is a tremendous amount of risk associated with products that depend on “exploration” and “discovery” as the main reasons why users would want to and/or continue using a product.

What’s the difference between an exploratory product and a utility product?

Utility products are those which depend less on exploration and discovery as primary tenets. Instead, utility products work their way into our lives because they are essential and we gain continual value from our usage and interaction with the product.

Here’s an example. News sites like NYTimes.com are utility sites. We consume news every day and find value from that by being informed. But they also introduce exploration to keep things interesting with their Most Emailed Stories module. But it’s not the focus of the site; it’s secondary.

Another example: StumbleUpon. I consider StumbleUpon a classic exploration site. You go there because you don’t know what you’ll find. You have to like discovering new websites and are ok with spending your valuable time doing so. But yet traffic over the last year has been dropping.

Here are the Alexa graphs for NYTimes and StumbleUpon:




Do you want your product’s graph to look like NYTimes.com or StumbleUpon?

My basic tenet is:

If you want a chance at success, you must make your product essential from a utilitarian point of view. You can use exploration to make your product more interesting, but if you make exploration your main purpose, you’ll reach a topping out point of users and potentially decline over time.

Is it a perfect rule? No, of course not. I am sure if we thought hard enough, we could think of some sites who are successful at employing exploration as their main purpose. However, I’m talking about risk reduction of failure and increasing the probability of success dramatically in my opinion. Wouldn’t you want to reduce the risk of failure by a great amount?

Holding Someone’s Hands

Leave a reply

It’s a shame.
Every week I encounter entrepreneurs. Given that I look at early stage internet deals, a high percentage of them are first timers. And practically all of them have nobody to help them or walk them through the details of creating a new company and funding it.
It’s a real shame.
I would be the first to say that I’m no expert on this. But I try to help as many people as possible. Yes, it takes a lot of time but I’m willing to give that time out, even if it’s for goodwill and I only get a positive relationship out of it. I just hate seeing people either stumble around on their own or worse, get bad or imperfect advice.
Investors give you advice, but sometimes they aren’t entrepreneurs and can’t really know what it’s like to build product and a company. Or you wonder if the advice they’re giving you has their interests wrapped up in there, especially where funding is concerned.
Other entrepreneurs give you advice, but many of them are bitter with past experiences of investors and tend towards telling you how to do things in investor unfriendly ways. Or they have ways of doing things that they like and these may or may not apply to your situation.
Lawyers are supposed to give you advice, but they are only giving you advice that protects you, which is very company friendly. Also, many of them don’t understand the different phases of a company’s life cycle; they may have only done big corporate financings and have not done early stage. As your experience grows, the things that are important are different based on the size and stage of the company. It’s frequently up to the entrepreneur to educate the lawyer on how they want to do things, with the lawyer supporting. But you can’t educate your lawyer until you educate yourself. Oh, by the way, you have to pay lawyers to talk to them….
I’m probably one of the few people around who are schizophrenic and can wear both an entrepreneur and an investor hat; my model of advising and investing has helped me understand both sides of the equation. I also try to lay it all out and talk as broadly as I can about the implications of as many things on the table, both company and investor friendly and unfriendly. On topics in which I do not have experience, I say so and try to point them in the right direction.
Yes, my experience base is relatively low, but I am still willing to spend that time with entrepreneurs, because it sure seems like no one else is willing to. In general, I find mentorship to be severely lacking in the hustle/bustle of Silicon Valley…

Filtering and Referrals

Leave a reply

One thing I’ve noticed about the startup funding eco-system is that everybody is out to get your money. Unfortunately, that means that you get both people with the good ideas and people with the not-so-good ideas. And it always seems that the people with the not-so-good ideas outpace the people with good ideas by a factor of 100 or more.
A while back I stopped going to the Tech Meetups and entrepreneur gatherings because whenever I handed out my business card and people notice the word “Ventures” in my company name, the emails don’t stop. I get pitched by everyone. I even got pitched the other day on Facebook. At some point, I may need to remove my business name from Facebook!
It’s too much. The deluge of emails coming in is too much to deal with. I hear it’s the same at venture funds; they too are getting too many pitches and are trying to make sense of it all while not losing the opportunity to find that next big thing amongst all the not-so-good things.
Over this last year, I’ve pretty much switched to the referral model. It means that I never go to tech gatherings but only field introductions from people I know. It’s slowed the pace of pitches considerably while filtering them in a much better way. After all, somebody you know isn’t going to send crap your way; you have a personal stake in that referral being worthwhile and not a waste of time and don’t want to jeopardize the relationship. If an entrepreneur is able to convince someone else that they’re good/cool/savvy enough to be intro-ed to me, then I’d love to talk to them.
The same goes with venture funds. As I’ve gone out there and networked with them, I’m finding that we angels can play a great role in filtering for them as well. We can be a great first line of defense for them, sending only those that we feel good about to them and doing some of the leg work in finding hidden deals through our networks, which are often hidden and hard for outsiders to break into. I’ve also gotten referrals from venture funds on deals that were too small for them to handle, and also those that I’ve helped them check out. It works really well in both directions.
As the venture fund world evolves, I can see the relationship between venture funds and angels is going to grow tighter and more useful for both parties over time.

Investor Fatigue?

Leave a reply

The last half of 2007 saw for me an acceleration of deal flow. I’ve spent numerous hours with a host of startups. I’ve passed on a few, gotten further with others. Most I’ve not gotten involved with, and the remaining few I’ve stuck with them through the process and told them verbally that I was committed, as long as other things fall into place.
Some of these deals have taken a long time to close on investment, or finalize my involvement. I find that as the weeks become months, that I am feeling a bit of fatigue on these deals.
I have heard this happening to other entrepreneurs where if they take too long, their investors just lose interest and don’t want to do the deal any more, or just move on to other projects which are taking up their time. Now that I am toe-ing the edge of this fatigue on deals, I can relate to how these investors feel.
As an investor, I told myself I would not be flaky. When I say I am committed, I want to be just that and not be wishy-washy. I do not want to frustrate entrepreneurs and make them do extra work in chasing down investors who can’t figure out if they want to do the deal or not but just stay in that grey zone; I want them to finish the fund raising part of their company building and move back into building the product and business. I have heard too many stories about investors who can’t seem to just make a decision to say yes or no and don’t want to be like that.
But now I feel some fatigue setting in, and start to ponder not just the fatigue aspects but also the reasons why it’s taking so long.
We investors tend to like to pool our due diligence process by watching the reactions and analyses of other investors. So if an entrepreneur can’t get the commitment of prominent investors in a short amount of time, then perhaps that is saying something about the project itself. Perhaps something is amiss; perhaps the entrepreneur’s pitching skills need work, or the pitch itself needs re-work, or the business plan itself. Add to that other projects demanding my attention – I cannot help but feel that fatigue may actually pull myself out of commitment on certain projects due to my own wavering interest, but also the real reasons why it’s taking so long to close on an investment round.
Now that I am experiencing this time lengthening process firsthand, coupled with my own fatigue on projects, I offer this advice to entrepreneurs, which is to close on investment as soon as possible, doing whatever it takes to prepare, make a great pitch, and herd the investments to a close date.
It’s a bit like dating; if I go out with a girl many times and it doesn’t seem to go anywhere, shouldn’t I stop wasting time and move on to someone with whom a great relationship would develop?

Analyzing Myself Into Ultra-Conservatism and Inaction

Leave a reply

So far, I’ve spent a little over a year angel investing. I’ve noted before that it’s been a fun and rewarding educational process in learning how to angel invest. I’ve talked to people and got some great pointers, read some books on the subject, read some insightful blog posts, and leveraged my own Yahoo! knowledge in trying to figure out whether I should invest in a business or not.
I’ve also noticed that I’ve begun, and now attempting to prevent, a slow slide into “analysis ultra-conservatism.” What exactly is this?
Just recently, I’ve started looking at a lot of deals and but invested in none. I felt like the frequency of my investments has dropped dramatically. Yes, there were many reasons why I did not invest and some of them were out of my control. But I also wondered if something else was at work.
As an angel investor in early stage internet companies, I know that high risk is part of the game. They all have not been in business long enough to show traction, and you need a healthy dose of faith in order to put money in them. Yet, I felt that I was thinking more deeply into a business now than I did before. For sure, I have more knowledge now; I have looked at a lot of companies, heard other peoples’ objections and analysis, developed my own analysis process in what I like and don’t like. It has definitely moved from an emphasis on liking the product and the team to many other business aspects. This is all good and makes me more seasoned. The bad thing is that the more knowledge I get, the more things I find wrong about a business and shy away from investing.
So, as your knowledge and experience grows, you get better at analyzing companies but as you get better at analysis, the list of problems grows and you start finding reasons to not invest, hence, the term “analysis ultra-conservatism.”
A friend of mine once said something very insightful about early stage investing, which is:
There is always something f**cked up about EVERY early stage startup.
I find myself repeating this to myself over and over as I do not want to fall into the trap of “analysis ultra-conservatism.” I cannot remain an early stage investor if I do. I know that it is a good thing to get more experience in analyzing companies and opportunities, but I have to remember my friend’s insightful quote and stop myself from over-analyzing and becoming risk averse simply because an opportunity has faults in it. ALL EARLY STAGE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE FAULTS! I must remember to keep in mind that there will be faults and to decide on the positive factors that remain.

Investors and Entrepreneurs: Joining the Herd and Not Being Forgotten

Leave a reply

These last few weeks have been really hectic. For a while, it seemed like I wasn’t looking at any new deals whatsoever. I resigned myself to working on the companies I had signed up with but also could see that my work with them was starting to taper off in an expected fashion.
But then it changed. All of a sudden, a flurry of new opportunities came down and I found myself meeting with companies every week. It actually got fairly hectic, meeting up with entrepreneurs and actually going through some due diligence processes with a few companies. But one by one they dropped off my radar. As they dropped off my radar for a variety of reasons, some interesting observations came to light about the way startups and investors strategize with each other.
The Entrepreneurs’ Perspective
The most sought after entrepreneurs/startups get deluged by requests from angels to invest in them. Typically, they are also pursued by venture capitalists who also like what they see and want to participate. The availability of money to these entrepreneurs creates an situation where they can pick and choose the money they receive. I’ve seen them go in these directions:
1. They go directly for the big VC investment and skip angels altogether. Let’s face facts: raising money sucks. It’s time consuming, you get a lot of negativity from people who don’t believe in you, and you’d much rather be building something than begging for money. So why not skip all the nonsense and just take the big money and go back to building your business and hiring people you need.
2. They take the VC investment but only bring on some angels who are either high value or friends. Similar to 1., they get the big money but only bring on those people they like or those angels that can help them later.
3. They delay VC funding to push up their valuation, and only pick a handful from the crowd of angels wanting in. The most bold of entrepreneurs who are on to a good thing will press their advantage by not taking big money now, which could mean they have to give up more of their company at this point, and wait to build their business a bit more which raises valuation for later and, thus, gives them a larger advantage for not giving up so much of their company later in exchange for a large VC raise. They instead raise a smaller amount (ie. $500k – $1MM) which gives them the ability to run for enough time to build their business to a more valuable state.
4. They want angels who are active investors and can bring value to their company. More and more I speak to entrepreneurs who only want angels who can help them in their business versus just bringing money alone. It makes sense; angels who can help are more motivated to help because they have skin in the game. It does make for a tough environment for those angels with only money to give.
5. They are limiting the number of angels and/or investors. Managing a lot of investors can be troublesome to entrepreneurs. Simply cutting all the paperwork (ie. stock purchase agreements, stock certificates, etc.) can cost more money. Collecting the money can be tough for those angels who are dragging their heels in transferring the cash into your account. Dealing with nervous investors can be a draw on resources as you need to respond to their requests for information and calming their anxieties about whether or not you’re going to make money for them.
This all goes out the window for those entrepreneurs who don’t have something hot enough to attract lots of investors.
The Investors’ Perspective: Herd Mentality, Joining the Herd
As an investor, I want to get in on the great deals. Finding deals that are good but are hidden can be really tough. It’s more often that there is a common opinion about a startup and that everyone wants to get a piece of the action.
I try to do my own due diligence. I also try to form my own opinion about a startup. But I do find it difficult to ignore what others’ think about a company. Over these last few weeks, I’ve looked at bunch of deals where there was a large number of investors trying to get in. But I’ve somehow lost out on a number of them. Why was that? Some observations:
1. Herd mentality is inescapable. For some reason, when many people think you have a hot deal, then you tend to think so too. They must know something you don’t, or you bank on someone else’s expertise, or you just don’t have time to do all the due diligence yourself. Thus, I tend to look more seriously at deals with lots of interest, even when I tell myself I’m going to be disciplined enough to do all the due diligence on my own.
2. The investor herd piled in, wanting to invest into a startup. It’s a common scene around the valley. The hottest deals get shopped around the most popular and prominent angels who are all high value and high profile. They have lots of money and value to bear on a deal. But they also have their friends who come in on the deal. So a combination of being able to keep in an entrepreneur’s mindset and haivng the herd not forget about you, thus keeping you in the entrepreneur’s mindset, helps to get you into a deal…or not. I have not been really part of any investor herd before so it was literally impossible for me to stay in an entrepreneur’s list of investors as they get deluged by a huge number of people and can barely manage the flow of communication. I know I’ve been dropped off investor lists because of not being part of a herd.
3. Joining a herd became a worthy goal. As I thought about reasons why I missed out on deals over these last few weeks, I started thinking about how I could join a herd. I don’t like to bill myself as a guy who can do lots of investor intros now, but knew I could get there in a few years as I worked with more and more people. But now I think about the networking aspect more, and using entrepreneurs to introduce me to some prominent angels and VCs around the valley. Slowly but surely, I am starting to not be forgotten amongst the investor herds, which is a good thing. So far, I think a combination of personality and value has helped me stay in the mindshare of herds. I meet people and show them that I’m a cool guy and not a wonk, and that my experience can actually help a company that we may all be investing in, and things seem to be happening.
4. I am trying to standout in a herd. If you demonstrate that you can bring high value to the company, staying in the list of investors for a given entrepreneur becomes easy. I can sometimes stay in a deal where other investors with lesser or no value to a company beyond just cash get dropped. I have found a great variance in entrepreneurs in whether or not they find value in what I could bring to their companies. If entrepreneurs don’t find value in what I bring, then the probability becomes much greater that I will get dropped from their investor lists.
5. I need to constantly follow-up on deals I want in on. In the past, I’ve relied on entrepreneurs to contact me when they’re ready to talk investing. However, a number of them have dropped me simply because I didn’t do my part to stay in their mindshare. Shouting loud via email or phone works well and helps a lot.
Lots to keep track of in the ecosystem of investors and entrepreneurs in order to not be forgotten amongst the herds of investors roaming Silicon Valley.

The Three Faces of My Schizophrenia

Leave a reply

In working as advisor and angel investor to startups, I find that I can be schizophrenic at times. Three faces I wear, when dealing with entrepeneurs:
INVESTOR
Characterized by:
1. Paranoia about losing my money.
2. Saying “sell the company”; starts when my return crosses about 5x my investment, and becomes a yell when my investment hits 10x.
3. Motivated by what my terms say for Notes.
4. Recommending courses of action which generate a lot of cash for the company, which increases value of the company and thus my investment.
ADVISOR
Characterized by:
1. Recommending courses of action which build the company.
2. Seeking the best ways to create product and do business.
3. Balanced view towards generating revenue in the company versus building product, which can be at odds if, for example, we’re talking about advertising and internet users.
4. Might recommend against selling the company given what I have seen when bigger companies absorb smaller companies.
5. Seeks the best employees and resources to do the job. Pushes those resources to build the company bigger and faster to exclusion of other things like sleep.
DAVE SHEN HUMAN BEING
Characterized by:
1. Tends towards recommending humanistic approach to treating employees.
2. Wants to grow employees, sees them as learning over time, nuturing them to be better.
3. Coaches people to balance life, work, and family. Asks what makes people happy and what keeps them motivated, encourages people to find this in the company.
If you’ve been in the startup game for a while, you’ll know that these three faces I wear are often at odds with each other and conflict in goals. For example, how can I counsel people to balance work and life and go home at 5pm to make time for family when as advisor, I want these guys to work 24/7 because the startup needs it, and as investor, I want them to work so freakin’ hard so my money isn’t wasted?
When I start working with someone, one of the first things I tell people is that I can be schizophrenic. They always laugh and sometimes I can see that they don’t get what I mean; the more experienced ones snicker and thank me for being upfront!
It can disconcerting to have a guy like me advising you to do one thing and then tell you to do something else in opposition to what I just said a while ago. It’s because I do wear many different hats, and the forces within me struggle every day to push/pull me in several directions. It’s a challenge to find a balanced answer, and I like the challenge of finding a solution that satisfies all of my three “identities”. I just hope I do not drive any of my entrepreneurs nuts by my triple schizophrenic state…

Ycombinator Demo Day: Summer Class in Mountain View

Leave a reply

I went to my first Ycombinator Demo Day this last Thursday. I wasn’t sure what to expect, except for the fact that a whole bunch of startups created by near-college grads would be presenting their projects. I definitely wasn’t expecting any well-thought out business plans but was hoping to see some really cool stuff.
After the event, much has been written about the companies themselves, and you can read about them at VentureBeat: The Ycombinator List and at TechCrunch: Ycombinator Demo Day: The Summer Class. There has been enough coverage about the companies, so rather than do that I wanted to write about something else regarding the Demo Day.
Usually when you sit through pitches, they can be relatively dry. You see lots of graphs and how big the market opportunity is and it’s usually a more serious and professional presentation.
For Demo Day, I was pleasantly surprised that each presentation had a healthy dose of humor cleverly injected. I found myself chuckling at funny demos, laughing at jokes made at competitors’ expense, and smiling to see them laughing at themselves. During one of the breaks between presentations, I stopped to say hi to Paul Graham (co-founder of Ycombinator) and asked him about whether or not he encouraged humor to be part of the presentations. He said they were actually more humorous during the dry-runs and that he actually pulled them back from being too over the top. I shudder to think what they were like before he pulled them back…!
Sitting through 19 demos for 3+ hours could have been a truly grueling affair. I am glad that the young graduates of this summer’s Ycombinator class threw some humor into their demos and turning a potentially boring, lifeless afternoon into a more lively event.