Will You Quit?

There are many approaches, methodologies, and schools of thought on how to conduct due diligence in startup investing. The earlier the company, the less that can actually be known. With so much unknown and to be determined, getting at the motivation and tenacity of the founders is essential. That frames the essence of the bet both founders and investors are going to take.

Of course I like a good financial model (never seen one that doesn’t scale up rapidly) or total addressable market (TAM) slide (never seen one that says the market is small). I more lean into what does it look like when the company is at $1M, $5M, and $10M in revenue, the cost structure to support that, how fast can they get there, and what does the market to get there look like from a bottom’s up perspective. Things like how many companies of your perceived ideal customer profile exist and how will you reach and convert them on positive economics. I did a post about all that back in 2021 “What We Ask In Due Diligence” that you can read.

In the meantime, let’s focus on the most important question (to me) an early stage investor needs to get an answer to during due diligence. 

What would it take for you to quit?

At this point in my wandering career I have made over 70 early stage investments as both an angel investor and venture capitalist. I have had the privilege of watching many of them play out over the years with all the twists and turns along the way.

Sometimes (often) startups don’t work out as desired. There can still be success but there are many degrees of that and, in some cases, it merely means finishing well and winding down in an orderly manner. That is part of the equation as well and how you finish matters more than how you start be that with great success or total failure.  You have to finish the drill completely if for no one else than yourself so you have lived the experience, have a story to tell and finish with your reputation intact.  

Anyone doing early stage investing should know the risks including a total loss of capital. If they don’t understand that then you as a founder should think twice about taking their money.

So back to the question – “what would it take for you to quit?”  To me, at the earliest of stages of investing this is the number one risk for an investor. For my fund, we are not structured or equipped to step in and run the company should the founder or founders walk away. The founders are the soul of a startup and essential in its creation and early growth.

So, what insight led to asking this question you might ask?  

A post-mortem discussion on an investment we made where the team, literally, quit to take jobs with a big techco. What did we miss?  For starters, we didn’t ask them this question, together, as a founding team.  

Now that we do ask it I get all sorts of answers from “Never!” to “Not til the IPO baby!” to “Hmm, I hadn’t thought about that.”  Most times that question has never been asked of a founder or founding team and it is fascinating to hear the answers especially among founders that have not had that discussion prior.

One of the more memorable answers and might very well be the best one went something like this: “Well, if we try what we think will work and it doesn’t and try all the other things we think will work and they don’t then maybe it would be time to see if this was actually still worth spending the time and energy doing.”  An honest and informed response. 

Startups are hard. Being a founder is hard. The journey is a series of big advances and enormous setbacks and getting at how founders are considering that journey out of the gate is essential and, to me, the most important thing to understand in due diligence.

Updates are more for you than your investors

Image AI generated by Gemini

The topic of regular and routine investor updates is pretty thoroughly covered out there. This recent Reddit thread covers it and even tools that you can use to write and share them.

I am not going to dig into the format, timing or structure of these things specifically but rather why do them at all, who exactly are they being done for and how they can become an interesting part of your entrepreneurial journey.

As an investor, I do need updates from the companies in the portfolio. I have my own set of accountabilities and reporting that goes out to our fund LPs as well as feed into the quarterly valuation process we use plus the annual audit/review cycle for each of our funds. So yes, I write updates too and use this mindset to do them.

No communication means one of two things – things are so bad you are not doing them or things are so good we either don’t matter anymore or have long since lost any remnant of information rights.

In the case of the latter, preferred shareholders do maintain statutory inspection rights which means I can come to your office, sit in a room and review board minutes, company financials, etc.

The goal is not to play that card (and I have only had to threaten it twice to get information) but to build a strong enough relationship with the founder and founding team that your involvement in the flow of information remains valuable to the company.

Early on, it seems the bar to this is to simply read, process, and reply to the update that a founder spent the time and brainpower to create. I am constantly amazed at how merely doing that sets you apart from most other investors let alone taking action to deliver on an ask.

So back to why do these things at all as a founder.

I learned during my startup founder days that a monthly update early on in the journey is a great way to force personal accountability as well as keep folks in the loop who are important – friends, family members, potential employees, potential investors, journalists/influencers.  Yes, a pretty broad audience so this should not be highly confidential but is an opportunity to provide updates to those who are likely interested in what you are doing. 

Four easy sections – Company, Product, Customers plus an ask or two. Oh, and put the asks at the top rather than waiting to the end which might not get seen.  Be as specific as possible to make it easily actionable even if it is forwarded to someone else.

And on that, make these full of information you’d share at a public presentation. More sensitive information like cash balance, runway, burn rate, forecasted sales pipeline, etc. need to be held to a smaller audience mainly consisting of those on the cap table, especially lead investors and any funds/angels that could be in a position to do follow-on investing in your company. So yes, you will likely do two versions of this thing.

So, again, why bother?  For starters these provide a moment and space for you as a founder to take inventory of what you said you were going to do, what you did and why it did or didn’t go the way you thought. Spoiler alert – it will not go the way you thought it would. That doesn’t mean disaster (usually) just part of the twisted path of entrepreneurship.

So by doing these regularly (likely monthly early on), you make yourself accountable to you. You will also end up creating a well documented history of your founder journey so you will see what you were thinking and doing and different stages of the business. Sort of a hack to generate a history of your adventure.

Beyond the benefits for you, these become documented snapshots of company performance at different intervals which are an important and differentiated add to your data room.

They show potential investors how you think and how you communicate. Essential skills for moving from founder doing it all to CEO leading teams and building a company. So start with monthly then as the company matures move to quarterly and do a report out like a CEO of a public company would do.

Don’t short change yourself on updates and do find the time to do them. Yes, investors like me want and expect them but they are more for you than for me in the long run.

The New Build vs Buy Equation and What It Means for Startups and Investors

I have been thinking through this post for some time but haven’t quite gotten to where I want to be on a point of view so figured taking a version one shot at writing it out might help me refine my thinking as well as generate some feedback (both positive and negative).

For as long as I have been working in and around enterprise software there was always a prevailing tailwind for startups around the enterprise customer’s build vs. buy conundrum. The company has felt a problem and knows it exists but can’t get a solution from any existing vendor and is working to sort prioritizing and marshaling the resources internally to address it.

Along comes a startup whose singular purpose and passion is to solve that thing and voila even though the startup product is early and the team untested, they could get a shot at it because the alternative was try to force prioritize it from an existing vendor on an unknown timeline or to navigate internal politics and procedures with the hope of getting something that sorta fixes the problem 12-18 months from now and with the additional burden of having to maintain and administer this new thing that is now part of the proprietary internal technology stack.

With the latest and fast moving developments around AI enabled and assisted software development, that tried and true equation is coming under pressure.  For a realized and immediate need, a company can now build something quickly to address it without needing to take on the additional risk of a new vendor with a janky product. They can now influence the iterations internally in the same way they could previously influence the startup product roadmap with the same or better turnaround time for results.  

Yes, there is still the question of insourcing or outsourcing key parts of the enterprise technology stack and required management of it but the equation has changed.  Yes also the culture of that company has to be one of innovation and speed but those were the early buyers of startup technology along the way.

The window an untested startup could get to solve a problem that no current vendor or trusted provider could is shrinking as the desperation required for that situation can be now addressed internally more easily than ever before should the company choose to do so.

This same dynamic puts pressure on how startups have traditionally exited and created liquidity and returns for their investors, founders, and employees.  Large platform vendors would do a similar build vs. buy calculation when deciding to acquire early stage companies and the elevated valuations they were willing to pay were indicative of the get it now, get something differentiated, and immediately be present in a new market or product category.

The sweet spot of being in the ~12 month timeframe for that vendor’s product roadmap where they want to have it but have to evaluate the cost of waiting to get it along with the cost of building it increased exit multiples for startups driven by the “right now” value of being able to put a somewhat proven product into the distribution system of that platform vendor.

This doesn’t mean that you can vibe code your way to enterprise grade software but it does redefine the landscape of opportunities for startups and startup investors.

As a former management consultant, quadrant visuals always come to mind so here is an initial and am sure to be refined way to look at this.

Y-axis: how simple or complex the need/opportunity is to solve

X-axis: how scalable and repeatable solving that need/opportunity can be

The underlying thinking here is that things that are easily solved will be with internal tooling or the defensible position of any vendor trying to address more easily solved needs even at scale will be perilous as switching costs are low and new entrants prevalent and constantly arriving.  These incrementally better products could get traction in a build once, deploy everywhere SaaS world where even just better UI and reporting could win the day.  Thus the replacement of client/server based software for web-based software but still solving in the same categories – CRM, procurement, supply chain, accounting, payments, etc.

So that leaves the more gnarly and complex problems that are either so unique that there is no repeatability in the solution or have the potential to be solved now in those established categories in a way never before possible because of the application of new technology in the form of AI and its acronym laden cousins. 

So for each quadrant, a few themes:

High Complexity, Low Scalability – this remains the domain of service providers, consultants or internal teams building bespoke solutions but is also where new opportunities emerge as once highly complex and custom solutions can be delivered at scale as they move to High Complexity/High Scalability needs.

Low Complexity, Low Scalability – quickly built and deployed to address a unique point need with limited expense and easily replaced and enhanced. Unlikely to get movement from this quadrant as the appeal and value of executing on Low Complexity/High Scalability opportunities is lacking.

Low Complexity, High Scalability – I would argue the traditional zone of workflow-centric SaaS that could solve for relatively generic and similar business processes but do so with standard functionality and limited customization. 

High Complexity, High Scalability – where I think the actual enduring opportunity exists for now where problems previously deemed too hard or too expensive to solve can be solved but in a capital efficient, timely way that creates a somewhat repeatable approach from customer to customer. Taking business processes from workflows and task execution to full on experiences and outcomes exponentially better than was available with software, spreadsheets, and manual steps.  There is also a dynamic where as the technology reduces the complexity, the opportunity begins to take on characteristics of Low Complexity/High Scalability markets.

So where are the opportunities for startups and their investors? Good question and an initial somewhat poorly formed answer would say where the benefits of technology have not been fully realized and adoption has been stymied – stodgy & legacy industries, highly regulated industries, skilled trades. Places where conventional wisdom and the SaaS landscape simply avoided or relegated to legacy “good enough” installed solutions too hard to displace but no longer innovating or growing much (often due to private equity ownership but that is a topic for another day). 

If we are entering a world where being able to build the software is no longer an obstacle to entry or sustained competitive advantage, then what is?  A unique and proprietary distribution edge? A highly specialized and differentiated amount of expertise and domain knowledge among the founding team? A brand and reputation of being able to solve these highly complex problems in a scalable and dependable way? 

To be determined but speed will continue to be the only real competitive advantage a startup has over incumbents and competitors but where that speed is directed will be critical for founders and increasingly important to understand and use to evaluate potential investments as an investor. 

Parasite Accelerators

<Begin rant>

This post may bring out some criticism I but really don’t care. 

We see lots and lots of companies who have tangled with accelerators or other types of “helpers” early in their journey who take equity, get warrants that founders don’t understand and/or end up on the cap table as a low to no value add when we see them.  Yes, at the pre-seed and seed stage there are “helpers” that have preyed upon founders to get their piece, confuse them with terms, or God forbid, actually charge them scarce capital for their services promising mentorship, connections and various forms of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

If you do this, stop. You are doing more damage than good and making yourself feel good along the way.  

Want to be relevant at formation to accelerate a business, write a friggan check. Don’t have a fund but think you are valuable? Ask for 1-2% common shares on a vesting schedule like an actual advisor and earn your ownership on the same ground as the founders by actually delivering.  Don’t create a pooled mentor fund to get a bunch of big names to sign up and not care while using this to attract trusting founders like moths to a streetlight. That is garbage.

There are some good ones out there that write checks, provide connections and serve to truly accelerate companies through method and mentorship like YC or Techstars (where I am a mentor for the Techstars Boulder program). In our region, Oregon Startup Center takes in companies to help and writes checks during the process. Beyond that I am deeply suspect of your intentions or motivations if you are taking without giving cash.

<End rant>

Awesome time today at TechStars for a Day – Seattle [Slides]

I had a great time speaking today at a TechStars event here in Seattle.  Big thanks to Andy Sack and Kayla Roark for organizing and to Perkins Coie for the 48th floor conference room on a (finally) sunny day here.  I met lots of smart and energetic entrepreneurs, heard lots of pitches, and tried to add a bit of value along the way.  My presentation was about "getting started" which is arguably the hardest part of starting a company – just starting.

I am really looking forward to being a TechStars mentor to this year's class and seeing these great people be successful.  Here are my slides (also big thanks to the Slideshare folks for featuring this deck today on their site!):


 

Markets Don’t Compile

Compile

In the small but noisy universe of technology startups, there has been a growing chorus of voices about the utility and value of marketing.  

This peaked over the last few days with Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures eviscerating the function and its practitioners followed by a similar post from Foundry Group's Brad Feld – Why a New Startup Shouldn't Have a Marketing Budget.  Fred went on to issue a 'bug report' on the first post with some amendments but of similar negative tone and smart folks like Rand Fishkin and Ben Casnocha weighed in with thoughtful counterpoints.  Also, be sure to read the comments across all these posts.  Lots of opinions from all sides.

I have enjoyed Fred's writing for many years and always respect his point of view including this post.  I have also worked with Brad and didn't notice him vomiting in his mouth in my presence although I must admit I wasn't specifically looking for it (to be clear: Brad is one of the best VC board members I have ever worked with and I am a huge fan).

But even before all of this, I had been thinking about it after reading Rebecca Lynn's post about why engineers make better marketers.

People, developers + designers do not equal a business.  Just ask the gnomes.

What I find most distracting about all of this is that it is devaluing the role one group of people play in a startup.  If marketing folks aren't worth the air they breathe, what about financial-types, HR folks, or even salespeople?

I am not trying to defend the marketing profession or those who profess expertise in it.  I disdain experts.  And yes, there is no shortage of morons that want to sell you marketing services or any other business or technical service for that matter.

I do believe this conversation needs to elevate a bit beyond job function to skill set.

The best and most effective marketers have an analytic approach – numbers, spreadsheets, metrics, etc. I have a degree in finance, an MBA, worked as a consultant for many years, and never sought a career path to become a Vice President of Marketing.  I was intellectually curious about the problems the products I was part of were trying to solve and managed to be somewhat good at explaining what it did and why you should care (product marketing).

I have written code.  Yes, it was many years ago and no it was not my life calling but I have done it.  And, more importantly, I respect the people that do it. It is a very, very different role in a startup compared to those who have to take what is developed to market, find the people who care about it, and extract payment.  

Writing code definitely requires brains but also delivers immediate feedback in a highly controlled environment – it compiles or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, debug it line by line until there are no more bugs.  Then figure out a way to improve it by doing it with less lines of code.  This is a focused activity where you are working to a definitive answer where no ambiguity remains.

Taking a product to market couldn't be more different..especially a new product. Create a hypothesis (these people will care), figure out a way to test it (ask them/create an offer), and measure the results.  

Oops, we were wrong.  Let's debug it and compile again. Oh wait, we can't.  Was it the wrong audience, the wrong message, was the offer not compelling, too many alternatives, not a big enough problem, missing features, wrong time, etc., etc?

Marketing in a startup is about two core things:

  1. Awareness – getting the word out so people will try your product and getting those same people to describe their own experiences with it.  These days it is definitely harder to keep someone's attention than to get it so new approaches and engagement models are essential.
  2. Distribution – how do you get more traffic, more download volume, more registrations, more referrals, etc?  Building it is only the first part, getting it into people's hands at scale is where you need to focus.

What is most ironic about Fred is that he is really, really good at what he clearly doesn't respect – marketing.  He has an audience, interacts with it often to promote what is important to him, and pushes his message to the market.  His post even lays out an eight step startup marketing plan.

So, let's stop with the marketing bashing, agree that an analytic approach is best, and understand that we are all trying to build great products and make them market successes.


It’s not just about the technology

I have been wanting to create an animated video with Xtranormal for some time and finally got around to trying one out.  This is a really easy and clever way to produce animated clips with a script you write.  It is still a bit clunky in translation but that adds to the entertainment. 

Here's mine on the startup sales pitch to a business focusing on how it works vs. what it does and value delivered. 



This technology will only improve as time goes on making creating something like this easy for anyone and the end product polished like it was done by a professional.

My presentation to the University of Washington Entrepreneurial Strategy class tonight

I was very pleased to have friend and UW MBA student Max Effgen invite me to present to Dr. Jon Down's Entrepreneurial Strategy 510 class tonight.  I enjoyed great questions from smart people and Dr. Down was an amazing host.

I attempted to take a "lessons learned" approach in the presentation with an emphasis on getting started.  There are many business plans that never make it to step one of implmentation (including many of my own) and there is something to be said for just starting.

Here's my presentation which combines those lessons learned and an overview of Gist to reinforce and highlight much of the first part.  Enjoy!


Re: Want mentorship and investment for your startup?

Andy Sack asked for help spreading the word about TechStars here in Seattle so I thought I'd post his request here.  Andy is leading the charge on the first season of TechStars locally, is the ring leader behind Seattle Open Coffee, and is a great guy.

If you are itching to start a tech company in Seattle, definitely apply to TechStars….

From Andy:

TechStars is a mentorship-driven seed stage investment
program.  It is now accepting applications 
for the inaugural
2010 Seattle class.  Applications are due by June 1, 2010 and the
program kicks-off on August 16, 2010.  The Seattle program is funded by
every major venture capital firm in Seattle.  We are reaching 
out to every
organization in Seattle that works with entrepreneurs to help spread
the 
word about
the program.  There is more information about TechStars online, 
www.techstars.org.  Any help you can provide in
promoting the program or encouraging exciting young companies and
engineers to apply is greatly appreciated.

Sales is support

This is one of my current favorite sayings especially since we have just released Gist in public beta.  Because on-demand software can be accessed, tried, and consumed with relatively little front-end involvement by the company or its staff, support has become the sales function.

Knowing when, where, and how to engage is critical as is doing so without being to "salesy" or self-promotional.  Answer people's questions, address their concerns, and let the product do the marketing for you.

Doing this requires not only a singular focus on users and user experience but having the infrastructure in place to hear what is being said (reference listening framework), a system to manage incidents/tickets, and the technical expertise available to quickly address questions, fix bugs, and even take ownership of a feature request and deliver it for that specific user.

If you nail it, word will spread about your attentiveness and laser focus on the end-user.  This isn't really an earth shattering concept as world-class companies have known for many years that you can truly differentiate from your competitors with outstanding customer service.  You make it an afterthought at your own peril.