You are here
Charlie O' Donnell
Content Written by Author
There's a thread going on Twitter about doing a BarCamp in NYC again. I started with a tweet from Jeff Namnum about how he joined the tech community...December 8, 2017
It touched off a whole discussion about putting on a BarCamp here again--a collaborative, open "unconference" where people could come together to share and learn about a wide variety of topics. We haven't done one in NYC in a while, but moreover it feels like the sense of a common community we used to have in the early days of the tech community has been replaced by scale and a lot of heads down work. Where there used to be the same crews of people attending the NY Tech Meetup every month, there is now 5 tech oriented Meetups a night on specific things like cryptocurrencies, ecommerce conversion best practices, and Clojure. Sure, it's great that NYC has scaled into the second largest tech community in the world, with layers upon layers of knowledge and experience, successful growing companies, etc., it feels a bit like we've lost a little something about how we used to convene in smaller, more consistent and intimate groups.
I've been thinking about why this has happened and I can point to a few things:
1) My peer group of twentyish somethings grew up a bit, became super successful, coupled up, procreated, moved out to Brooklyn, etc., and just doesn't have the social flexibility they once did. Or, they just got a big fatigued with running around doing events they weren't getting paid for all the time.
2) The larger companies outgrew the community. Holiday season used to mean getting invites to holiday parties at companies like Squarespace and Foursquare. Back then, they were in offices that were yet unfilled, and opening up to the community still meant a manageable number of people. Today, their own companies are communities unto themselves--and marketing and recruiting has gotten a bit more mature than just e-mailing a lot of people to consume egg nog.
3) In some cases, it was a reflection of what was big at the time. There were no better spokespeople for their own products than Dennis at Foursquare, David at Tumblr, Jacob at Vimeo, Kortina at Venmo, etc, etc... Participating in the community was almost part of the job. In today's NYC, you wouldn't market Warby, Datadog, MongoDB or Casper with photos from last night. No one is coming up to you at a bar anymore trying to get you to try their social app (RIP Hot Potato.)
4) Space doesn't seem to be as easy to come by these days. Remember when Sun used to host events at 101 Park? How many events did Jack open CRESA's doors for us? These days, there's much more competition for space to hold events and a lot of the spaces have professionalized, charging because they're now in the business of space.
Whatever the case, it's hard to figure out where to tell someone to go in NYC's tech and startup community if they want to meet up with awesome people doing cool stuff. You can't just swing by Tom and Jerry's anymore.
That's one of my 2018 goals--is to help make NYC tech feel smaller again, and more connected. I'm starting with building up some cohorts of new seed-funded companies. Raising a first round of capital is as good a proxy for "Someone vouched for you and you're a legit founder doing cool stuff with actual resources to give it a shot." I'm trying to bring together every single founder in NYC who raised their first $500k or more of capital in 2017. (If that's you, check out the group signup here and we'll invite you to the first meeting tomorrow (Tuesday) night on the 12th).
We'll do a 2018 cohort and so on... and more water cooler style events that bring NYC's community together. Check out our dinners and Stackup talks as well. NYC can be a huge platform for anyone to make an impact on the world, but it would be great if it could still feel like a neighborhood you grew up in as well.
As I sat in the movie theater watching Justice League, I thought a lot about the idea of a hero in the context of 2017.
Generally, we've thought of heroes as possessing some kind of special power--or larger than life. We've confused the powerful and influential for people we should look up to. Yet, as we've seen in the retelling of a lot of the comic book stories on screen, our heroes aren't always purely good, nor are they as good at being people as they are at being powerful.
This year has seen a toppling of those heroes the likes of which we've never seen before--Hollywood Actors and Directors, Former Presidents, US Senators, Would Be Senators, Midas List VCs, and yes, Confederate Generals. We're being forced to reckon with our ties to everyone from slave-owning forefathers to Bill Clinton.
We look up to heroes because we see them exhibiting power over others--yet it's this power they often seen to struggle to control and use appropriately.
As 2017 winds down to a close in the next two months, perhaps we can all think about what kind of heroes we'd like to have in 2018. As many heroes fell this year, many others found the heroes in themselves--taking to the streets in protest for the first time, sharing their stories of mistreatment, and taking the time to listen and learn about the struggles of others.
What kind of hero do you want to be? Will you risk speaking up on behalf of others when it isn't popular? Will you be vulnerable? Will you admit when you were wrong, and try to make up for when you fell short with people?
Not all of us have a cape. Not all of us are rich.
But we can all be heroes.
CEOs, founders and managers are more worried than ever about issues in their organization that they might not be aware of. We've seen a ton of stories come out recently around bad workplace environments, and business leaders know that for every really bad story, there are a thousand festering smaller issues that need to be gotten out in front of before they get worse.
That's why it's critical that they understand the one question that can fish out whether or not there are workplace issues lurking underneath the surface of their companies.
Here's the question... are you ready?
Ask yourself, "Does my company have more than one human working in it?"
If you answered "Yes" then your company surely has workplace conflict and issues. There is a 100% chance that when two individual humans work together in the same place, things will come up. It's perfectly natural, but it's also something they don't have good tools to work out on their own.
Bringing up conflict is difficult. First, a lot of people are embarrassed that they can't fix a situation on their own. They might feel like they're making a big deal out of nothing, even though it's making them more and more unhappy each day.
Second, even when a company does have outlets, like manager reviews or HR staff members, these relationships can easily be perceived as conflicted. Maybe you're not ready to talk to HR or the problem is with your direct boss, and you don't want to make the situation worse because you can't change your boss.
Whatever the reason, these issues most often manifest themselves in unexpected churn. How many times is the first hint of employee unhappiness the day they give notice about leaving?
At worst, these issues come out in headlines. In so many of the worst stories we've seen this year, there was a moment where someone could have head something off before the issue grew.
That's why Brooklyn Bridge Ventures recently funded Bravely.
Bravely that offers conflict and communication coaching for employees navigating issues in the workplace. Through Bravely’s application, employees can confidentially describe the issue they’re facing and schedule a phone consultation with a ‘Pro’, an expert coach or HR professional with deep experience in helping resolve conflict, structure effective communication plans, and develop skills for constructive work relationships.
Every single company has issues. Hopefully not all of them are as serious as the ones that make headlines, but 65% of performance problems are linked to strained personal relationships, which happens everywhere. Effective communication among colleagues, even for the small stuff that a lot of people let go, yields a significant impact on workplace wellbeing.
The secret sauce of Bravely is to help employees feel empowered--given them strategies and language toolsets to address acute issues right on the spot. Bravely is that first step; that safe place for venting, getting advice and putting a game plan together when you are not yet ready or lack the confidence to approach your boss or HR business partner.
If your workplace has more than one human working in it, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't talk to Bravely now.
Two years ago, Brooklyn Bridge Ventures became the largest seed investor in The Wing--a network of co-working and community spaces for women founded by Audrey Gelman and Lauren Kassan. They recently opened their second location in Soho after raising an $8mm Series A from NEA earlier this year, and their 3rd and 4th will open in the next few months. It's perhaps the most well executed company I've ever been involved with, and there are some key lessons to be taken from watching how they've become one of NYC's fastest growing rocket ships.
1) Don't assume anything.
What I said above isn't exactly true--I didn't really invest in "The Wing". At the time, the company was a Powerpoint about a space called "Refresh"-- a four walls experience that was a lot more utilitarian than today's incarnation of The Wing. What changed? Well, instead of resting on the initial idea after a successful seed round, the founders surveyed their potential customer base to make sure the space had exactly what people wanted. While there was interest in a women's space that had showers and a place to clean up between work and going out, among other amenities, there was a ton of interest and curiosity around who else might be at the space. In fact, the desire to network and connect with other women in a safe and supportive space was so strong, it drove the brand in a more community centric direction. Just because some investors put money into your idea doesn't mean you can't question it--even at its core.
2) Make big asks.
The Wing raised a $2mm+ seed round on a Powerpoint and they made no bones about asking for a big Series A to launch three more locations. The founders knew they had something special and desired to make it appropriately impactful, which could only be done with real capital. It sent a strong signal to the investor community that they had national and global ambitions, more so than if they had asked for "just enough to break even" or a smaller round than they knew they could execute on. This is something I see with too many non-male/non-white founders in general, and I often find myself asking, "Is this the right amount to raise? What would you do with more?" Undercutting yourself on a raise is fixable, but it makes even me worry about whether or not you'll make the big asks the company needs down the road--for that NYT piece, for that hire that would be crazy to take that leap, etc.
3) MVP and great product aren't mutually exclusive.
The original Wing location is smaller than their new spaces--but it's a beautiful, extremely well done and expertly designed space. It served as an example of what could be done when you create such a community space, but it was built on a reasonable budget and less space than what future locations would entail. Too many products cut experience and design instead of cutting features, making the limited number of data points users and investors have about your MVP that you can't build something interesting. The Wing showed that they could build a great product, even if a little smaller, without breaking the bank, but also without scrimping on who they worked with around the design and the brand either.
4) Build a network ahead of building a company.
When I first got the pitch deck, I had no shortage of people telling me that Audrey Gelman was a rock star and that I had to meet her. That stood out more than anything she could have put into a deck. Having that kind of network and reputation is wind in the sails of any business--and should be worked on years in advance of setting out on your own to build something. Who needs to know you to help you with this business? Go build a relationship with them before you even start the business--because after, it will be less authentic and more transactional.
5) Stand for something.
If you follow The Wing on social media, it makes no apologies for making bold statements and standing for more than just a consumer value proposition--nor should it. In today's environment, people want to know what side your own and what you believe in. A more conservative partner might be put off by their content--but if conservative means not standing up for women's rights, then that's not a partner The Wing would want to work with. In a sea of competition for your customer's time and money, I don't think companies should be afraid to take stands on issues they would be proud to share anywhere, anytime and fight for.
It's exciting not only to watch the success of this company based around these kinds of moves, but moreover to see the value they contribute to the community creative and impactful women.
Influencers. Kingmakers. Sharks. Power brokers. Visionaries.
There are a lot of ways the startup world describes venture capitalists that portrays a certain power dynamic, real or perceived, that I believe is at the heart of so many of the industry's problems. The industry treats VCs as if they hold all the cards, and the worst behaviors of investors reflect that.
Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable, because it's undeserved.
Who's really chasing who?
Do you think there is more money out there looking for good opportunities, or more fantastic opportunities?
Right. Clearly, truly great ideas and great teams are at a premium--and there's a ton of money in the world. It's rare that you really only have one option as a seed investor (follow on rounds are different, because it is expected that insiders are your first option, and their actions can influence others). The idea that there's only one human on the face of the earth that will back you, and if that person is an asshat that you have to accept them is false. If you can get one investor, you can get others. Remember that we're lucky to be investing in your company, because ideas as good as yours don't come around too often, and that will change your approach as you try to gather your first check.
A lot of our success is on paper, or just dumb luck.
There was a time not too long ago when VC bios read "Fab investor", "Quirky investor", and "Gilt investor". None of those companies produced great returns to their backers, so as the old saying goes, "Don't count the money until it's in the bank." Today's Postmates might be tomorrow's Fab.
On top of that, you've got companies like Bebo that were huge exits that were eventually folded or written off by their acquirers. Be careful giving too much credit to an investor who lucked out because a stupid acquirer mistook a flaming pile of dog poo for the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Founders do most of the hard work.
VCs can provide a useful piece of advice at a key moment--or help make a key hire, but the day in and day out grind is done by the work of the founder and the team, and they deserve 99.999999% of the credit. Most of the time, if that VC didn't back them, someone else would have and they would have been just as successful.
Good investor doesn't mean good person.
I wish that only high character people were allowed to make boatloads of money, but that's not the way it works. Some people are complete scumbags, make a fortune, and karma just never catches up with them. It's not how I would want to reach success, but for some people, it doesn't bother them. We can debate whether they're sociopaths, but we definitely shouldn't assume that every "great investor" is "great" at being human.
No one is perfect.
Kind of the same as the prior one, but backed off a bit. Even if you're not one of the worst, and you strive to do your best everyday, a VC isn't perfect. They're just a regular person and they don't always get it right. Founders are in that boat, too.
Few of them made sacrifices to get where they are.
There are a lot of things you don't get to choose--like the gender you were born with, your race, and whether you were born into money or not. All of these increase the chances that someone winds up being an investor. I hope that, in the future, a more diverse population of investors will come from more humble and less privileged beginnings, but the majority of VCs out there were born with advantages. To put us up on a pedestal as if we built up our career from scratch is giving many of us too much credit.
There... If you go into your next pitch meeting and the VC seems cut down a notch, you can thank me after. ;)
Last week, I heard the word "difficult" describing investors twice. Once was about me and once wasn't.
The founder and investor relationship is, in fact, a difficult one to get right. Both sides walk in with a lot of cognitive biases and style differences unique to every pair. Meanwhile, the work of trust building is hard and takes a long time.
In one instance, there was an investor holding up a round after agreeing to sign off on something verbally. They weren't wrong about the term in question, but the dollar impact to their investment was so small that it wasn't meaningful to a fund of their size. That's the kind of thing where you have to choose between being right and seeing the bigger picture in order to facilitate a transaction that was good for the company.
No one wants that kind of difficulty in an investor and it frustrates me on behalf of my founders to see that.
That being said, I can be difficult in other ways.
On my side, I was told by a founder that they found some of our interactions difficult--a little too blunt without enough understanding of where the entrepreneur was coming from, doing all of this for the first time.
The most successful founders have often told that they're crazy or stupid or both on many many occasions on their way up--and none of that helped them get there, at least, not on a productive way. It's important as an investor in the company to make sure that when you have constructive feedback, it comes with support and respect. Founders are going to hear a lot of naysayers from the outside, and so when you're on board with the company, you want a founder to feel like you believe in them personally, even if you disagree with them.
This isn't always easy.
VCs get the benefit of having worked with dozens and dozens of companies--and so it's easy to have a dismissive reaction to what you might see as a bad course of action, without realizing that the founder doesn't have the benefit of your experience. Not only that, but a founder is basing their decisions on a lot more information than you--so while you're concerned about the what, perhaps you should be diving deeper into the why before you react.
Being a founder can feel like driving a car for the first time. You're nervous enough--the last thing you need is a parent yelling at you for clipping the curb with the back tire on a turn.
Doesn't mean it isn't hard to freak out when you're a passenger in that car when you hit something!
Still, it's something I need to work on more.
At the same time, there's also a "good difficult"--being willing to deliver tough feedback or pushing the founder to do difficult things they'd rather not do that are better for the company in the long term.
This is something I'm unapologetic about.
I can think of a few instances where I've been "difficult" and I think ultimately it was better for the founder and the company.
For example, I've been putting in a spending clause in my term sheets lately, where above a certain one-time spend triggers a conversation. The founder can spend whatever they want whenever they want, but we just have to talk about it. It's a seed round, and so it winds up happening around hires, rent, and contracts with agencies or lawyers most often.
Some might see that as a pain because other investors won't ask for that--but it's already facilitated a lot of great conversations.
For example, it helps to hear why you're hiring who you're hiring early on. I want to understand your thought process and make sure that you have a method to salary and equity compensation. That's not only good discipline, but it helps me figure out who to send you to help with recruiting in the future, because I have a sense of how you evaluate candidates.
Still, it's always your call.
Communication is important to me. The more I know about what's going on, the more helpful I can be--and everyone's got blind spots. (Especially your investors!!) Sharing more with your investors is critical for founders because the number of things a founder has to keep an eye on is overwhelming. It's just good practice to have a few people around asking the right questions at the right time.
It doesn't mean they don't trust you.
They're being difficult because being a great founder and building a great company doesn't come easy.
I've requested a meeting with you during the first week of March. Here are ten reasons why you should take the meeting..."
This is an e-mail I got from Amanda Weeks in February 2014, and the beginning of a two and a half year journey that culminated with Brooklyn Bridge Ventures leading a pre-seed round for Industrial Organic that kicked off about a year ago. The round, which was raised in two tranches, was recently announced by Inc Magazine.
Amanda and her co-founder Brett Van Aalsburg researched for two years and developed an anaerobic fermentatio process that quickly breaks down food waste in a matter of days. Byproducts of the process can be turned into other goods like organic fertilizer and natural surface cleaners. When I funded the company, it was little more than a science project in a garage in Brooklyn and soon, they'll open up a waste processing facility in Newark--one that didn't require tens of millions of dollars to setup and also won't pollute the local neighborhood with odor. It won't throw off dangerous gases, and yes, the process will make a profit.
A post shared by Charlie O'Donnell (@ceonyc) on Jul 6, 2017 at 9:31am PDT
I was once asked by a potential investor what I thought the exit of this company will be. The conversation went like this...
"Well, acquisition or IPO."
"You think this company will IPO??"
"Can you prove to me that a company serving a market where every last human being on the face of the earth creates organic waste, which they get paid to process and then paid again for what they turn it into, *won't* IPO?"
That's how I think of this company--a huge problem, bet on early, with a solution exponentially cheaper, faster, safer and more urban friendly than the competition, built by scrappy founders knowledgeable enough to be dangerous but not so experienced as to get held up by old paradigms.
You give me 30 opportunities to make that bet at pre-seed valuations and I'll give you a winning portfolio, and a very very interesting set of companies to work with and be proud of.
A post shared by Charlie O'Donnell (@ceonyc) on May 19, 2017 at 11:28am PDT
Also, very excited to once again be investing with Nisha and Susan at BBG Ventures in our fourth investment together (goTenna, The Wing, Ringly being the others), as well as Newark Venture Partners, 3G Investments, and several angel investors who are LPs in Brooklyn Bridge Ventures.
I'm a lead investor.
That means I'm usually the first person to put down a price on what your company is worth--a dollar value on months, if not years, worth of your work, blood, sweat, tears, stress, etc.
"Here's a piece of paper that says how much I think your dreams are worth."
The reality is, any price that I put down at the stage that I invest isn't going to feel like enough--and if it doesn't feel like enough, I'm probably grossly overpaying. But, you don't feel like that as the founder.
Your company is special, which, I 100% agree with.
That's why, out of the 2,000 opportunities I saw this year, you and your company are one of the 8-10 I gave a term sheet to. So, congrats! All the reasons why you think you should get a much higher price for this round are the very reasons you made it past the 1,992 other companies.
But, at this stage, starting from a Powerpoint, prototype, or even a demo product, you probably have just as much chance of going under as any other company. It's sooo early in the life of the company that it's nearly impossible to determine if, in 7 or 8 years, whether or not you have a better chance at success than anyone.
If picking out the winners were so easy at this stage, VCs would be a lot better at it.
Really, the biggest determinant of price is supply and demand--and so, more so than a qualitative judgement on your worth as a human being, consider this bid a data point. This is where I think the market is for this company right now.
That other company, I can't speak to what happened there and why they got a $10mm pre-money. I passed on that deal. Maybe those investors were smarter than me.
What they aren't, however, is harder working--and I have to say, it really bugs me when I invest in someone super early and then the next round comes in and the price isn't that much higher than what I paid for it. It's like, "Why did I take all this risk at this stage if the next round is going to be a $3mm round on a price of $12mm?"
Makes my $7mm pre seem not really worth the risk in the grand scheme of things.
But back to us.
Look, we're just not aligned here. I'm just trying to get the best price possible for my investors, and you're just trying to take the least dilution.
I hope we can meet somewhere in the middle, but yeah, this part is kind of going to suck. The only thing I can really do is tell you how I came to this price, what other deals I closed with similar pricing, and show a willingness to be flexible if it turns out we underpriced it and the round is oversubscribed.
Besides, the only thing that matters is how big it gets in the end, and how self-sufficient we can make this company over time. A million dollars on the pre-money now pales in comparison to the dilution of having to take a few more rounds down the line.
Posted this in what used to be my tech newsletter, and what has lately been about more...
Yesterday wasn't just any given Sunday, was it?
I would imagine most of the NYC-based readers of this newsletter don't take the position that "these athletes should just stick to sports" nor do they feel that way about Jimmy Kimmel and his recent conversations around healthcare. So, telling you that I support their willingness to share their views and why seems a bit like preaching to the choir.
What I will say is that there's no way either side of this conversation is going to "win" unless both sides start asking each other why they feel that way, and actually listening. No, I don't mean listening to Trump and asking him why he feels the need to call private citizens SOBs. Honestly, he's got the least important opinion in this whole equation--it's just the wasted noise of an old racist without any character or class.
No, I mean that athletes need to understand and listen to people about what the flag and the anthem means to them--and why they feel offended by the protest, as is their right.
And anyone who says anything about these athletes needs to open their ears and listen to their stories. They need to listen to firsthand accounts of what it means to be black in America. Go read a book like The New Jim Crow. Then, feel free to say you disagree with the protest.
But never tell someone they don't have a right to *peacefully* protest--because then you simply don't understand the basis on which this country was even founded.
The Lovett or Leave It podcast recently had Normal Lear on--the creator of All in the Family. He was saying how "in love" his generation (he's 95 now) was with America. We had not only won a World War on two fronts, but we were successful in helping to rebuild wartorn Europe and Japan. We had a lot to be proud of.
What strikes me about these protests is what kids and young people likely think about this country today and whose side they're likely to be more sympathetic to. They see the widening gap between the rich and the poor. They see our inability to deal with drug addiction and gun violence or our problematic education system--all things other countries seem to have a better handle on. They see us mired in a war in Afghanistan that, in two years, will start recruiting kids who weren't even born on 9/11. I have a feeling that the idea that the flag and the anthem is unquestionable in any way isn't something that's going to hit home.
One thing Trump got right in the election is that there are a lot of people who feel like America isn't so great anymore--but what I hope he's wrong about is that the people fixing that aren't turning back the clock for answers. We're not going to regain greatness by waging war or nation building. We've got to do it by coming together to solve tough problems like inequality of all kinds. We've got to get healthier and smarter--and that's going to take creativity and courage to change systems full of friction.
People wanted change last November. They didn't get it. When a politician doesn't listen, that's not change. That's more of the same.
When every single NFL game has players protesting in solidarity--that's different. That's change. That's going to make an impression that people will notice.
If they ask why and actually listen, Trumpism is done.
If economists tried to measure the cost of the malaise that the election of 2016 left, we'd undoubtedly see billions, if not more, lost in worker productivity.
At the same time, I don't think I've ever seen more political engagement in my lifetime--and not just political engagement, but all sorts of action around causes they care about.
These two realities are linked. If you're not doing something to positively affect the world around you, you've likely been overcome by a lack of motivation. You're realizing that passing your work hours for pay alone, without meaning and impact, just isn't cutting it anymore.
We've seen the move towards more flexible work, but I think it will pale in comparison to the shift towards meaningful work. The best and brightest are going to need a much better reason to work for your company than the perks and benefits--the work itself is going to have to be meaningful.
That meaning isn't going to be something you search for on a traditional job board branded around impact--it's going to be an inherent part of the way you search. What you care about is going to be a filter as important as geography.
That's where Wethos comes in. I met Rachel Renock a few months ago at a SheWorx pitch event. I got what she was doing right away. Starting with freelancers, she was creating a place where impact was the guiding principle by which talented people sought ways to share their professional talent.
It reminded me of when I first heard the pitch for Kickstarter and then witnessed what it would become. While it may have been the way some bands would start funding their next album, it would go on to affect and inspire a whole generation of not only creative projects, but business plans as well. Pre-sales would enable companies to exist off the financing of the fans most passionate about their vision for products.
I was reminded of that when I interviewed Rachel's co-founder Kristen about how she hired their first two developers on the Startup Recruiting Podcast. What struck me was how they were bought into the passion of the team so early on--almost in a way that made it seem all too easy to hire them. That's going to be the case in the future. If you're not convincing someone of the impact they can make doing their primary job, you're going to have to overpay to make up for the lack of meaning you're providing. While they're focused on just freelancers today, still a huge market, I'm convinced they'll not only expand to all meaningful work in the future, but they'll help turn more work meaningful by changing the way companies design roles for their talent. Eventually, they'll impact how companies design their own goals--because otherwise they'll die from lack of talent.
I look forward to working with the Rachel, Kristen, and Claire, as well as some fantastic co-investors, like Flybridge and Corgin. Jesse Middleton at Flybridge led their investment--and Jesse knows a fair amount about seeing the future of how people work from his days as the founder of WeWork Labs. Also joining our round is Fabio Rosati, who was CEO of Upwork/Elance. Together, we'll help impactful organizations find the talent they need to make a difference--and help talent find work that makes a difference in their lives.
One of the biggest fears about the future of data is that everyone will turn into a number--that algorithms will turn everyone's personal experience into a single score that will decide whether or not you get what you want, a job, a house, a car, financing for a new business etc. or whether you get shut out.
Actually, you don't have to wait for that to happen. Consumers have been living this reality since 1956. That's when a company called Fair Issac, or what we now today as FICO, started selling consumer credit data to lenders. A four billion dollar publicly traded company basically decides who gets credit and who doesn't--and if you don't already have credit and you're invisible to FICO, you're going to get financially left behind. As they say, it costs money to make money, and without access to credit at key moments in your life, you're going to wind up on the wrong side of the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Just because you're invisible to FICO doesn't mean you haven't been doing anything financially. You've been paying your bills on time, socking some money away for savings--you just never had a credit card or took out a loan. Maybe you immigrated from another country. Either way, this shouldn't stop you from being able to get credit when you need it.
Petal is a simple, no fee credit card that looks at the money you make and the bills you already pay to help you qualify instantly. That means you can get a great credit card and start building your credit history, even if Petal is your first credit card. You can sign up to be one of their first customers here.
It's not only about building up a score--it's about learning how and where to use credit appropriately. Petal provides transparency to consumers through their technology to help them make smart credit decisions. What card do you know tells you how much you'll pay in interest *next month* based on what you pay now?
I first got introduced to them by my friend Kevin Marshall back in March of 2016 when they were Creditbridge (Petal is to Creditbridge what Frogger is to Highway Crossing Frog, I suppose). He sent me a pitch and I didn't quite understand the issue, so I passed. Undeterred, they kept plugging away, working on the brand and the message. They got mentioned to me again by Nan Li at Obvious as an interesting team he had just met. When you start to hear of a team multiple times from multiple people (which is the same thing that happened to me with Canary and The Wing), you take notice. I don't mind cold intros, but market buzz helps push things over the line to at least take a meeting.
In our first meeting, which was theoretically scheduled for 45 minutes, I sat down with co-founders Jason and David for more than two hours. What sold me was their fluency in this market. It was obvious that they had spent most of the year becoming the smartest possible founders they could in their space--and talking to every founder who had done anything adjacent. That's important for a VC. You don't want to be able to be smarter than your founder about a pitch after an hour of Googling around.
In the last ten months since I've invested, I've seen them execute in the most organized and professional way possible--it's not easy to stand up a consumer credit card company from scratch. They've gained the attention of large players in the space and attracted some high quality talent to their team.
As we saw with the Equifax breach just yesterday, the monolithic world of centralized control over your financial life is being disrupted more and more each day. New consumer friendly brands are being created and new products are coming to market. It's a dynamic space and I'm excited to have gotten the opportunity to back Jason, Andrew, David, Jack and Berk and the rest of the team in their mission to bring credit and financial opportunity to underserved "thin file" consumers.
I don't think there's ever a time when I feel more like I'm raining on parades as when founders tell me how interested other VC firms are in investing. I've seen it time and time again where founders, understandably apprehensive about fundraising, read too much into their engagement with investors--especially non-partners at firms.
The founders will say things like the following--and then comes my splash of cold water, which is honest, but also makes me feel like the bad guy, or not enthusiastic about the company. In reality, I just don't want the founder spinning their wheels and wasting their valuable time.
"They're interested, but it's too early."
There are tons of examples of later stage venture firms not only placing seed bets, but also skipping right to Series A with huge "seed" rounds right out of the gate. If Mark Zuckerberg was going to start a new company tomorrow, do you think he'd be too early for anyone? No. There are also lots of examples of companies who get funded by later stage firms that don't have the metrics that we've been told you need--$150k in MRR, a million users, whatever.
"Too early" is a pass.
You might take enough risk off the table for them in the future and they might come in at a later right, sure... but if they're not writing a check now, they're passing. When you get a pass, move on, don't keep your hopes up, and go back to work.
"They're very interested if you can get a lead."
There are some firms that, as a policy, don't lead. That's fine, but saying you're interested pending a lead is not saying you're committed. Committing is saying "If you find a lead, we'd like to come in for $200k, assuming standard terms and the price isn't anything more than X." Even better is when that firm reaches out to firms that do lead and says, "We've committed, but we need a lead." Those people are basically in, and everyone else is just sitting on the sidelines with their thumbs in their butts wasting your time. Many of those people are assuming you won't get a lead, and they're just being polite, and if you do get one, it's a good way to cover themselves in case they missed something. This way, they try to guarantee that if someone else jumps in, they get a second look. It's a free option, so why ever give a definitive no?
"[Non-partner] is really excited about it and is going to bring it to their partner meeting."
Listen analysts and associates... I've been in your shoes. I've been the junior person around the table trying to get partners excited about a deal. The absolute worst thing you can do is fail to be transparent with a founder as to where your team is on a deal, and to lack the firm awareness to realize whether you have any internal traction. It wastes founders' time and ruins your credibility. So, when you know that founders are going to hinge on every little indication of interest, you should be straight with them about your process and who gets to make the decisions.
Unfortunately, even when you are transparent, the words "partner meeting" make founders think they are just a week away from a term sheet when, in reality, they're one of many line items likely to be passed over.
What you really need is partner interest. Even when you've got a principal, like I was at First Round, who can do deals, you still need partner interest to get the check approved. So, realistically, unless you've got partners showing up to meetings with you, staying the whole time, and engaging with you after, taking multiple meetings, you really don't have anything.
Two things to watch out for: The partner who gets dragged into a meeting. Who set this meeting up? Does the partner leave after ten minutes? Do they engage with you after? Do they show up in the next meeting?
Two is the partner cc'd on e-mail while the junior person does all of the talking. This happens a lot with growth stage firms that do a lot of random cold calling. I'll bet these firms have a special account or filter that allows them to ignore that CC, but it makes you feel like the partner is interested.
"We want to see you get up to X milestone."
First off, like I said before, there are plenty of examples of firms that invest before conventional milestones if they really like something.
Second, this isn't a progress. It's "come back to us when you get there". If a firm really thought you had a 100% chance of getting there, why would they wait, potentially risk losing the deal, and pay up for it later? The reality is that they're just setting a time for a check in. It really doesn't mean interest at all--especially if they're not engaging. Engagement means continued customer introductions, or potential talent introductions. They start acting like an advisor--maybe even having regular calls with you.
So how can you tell whether or not a firm is actually interested in investing?
a) They give you a term sheet or actually start discussing not only the terms of a deal, but how much they'd like to put to work.
b) You've met all of the people necessary to put a deal together, and those people take initiative to be engaged with you, multiple times.
c) You actually get invited to an official weekly partner meeting. That's a thing.
d) Senior people keep hounding you--like, daily.
How else would you know? You ask them.
Founders should be asking filtering questions--the kinds of questions designed to kick investors out of their pipeline. I know it feels good to have a lot of names in a Google sheet, but a lot of those leads are cold or dead. Find reasons to knock them out by asking questions like "By when can I get a firm yes or no?" "Who needs to sign off on this?" "What are your remaining issues?" "Who in the firm has said they'd like the firm to invest?" "Who is against the deal that I need to work on?"
Better to be positively surprised that someone came up with an offer than to feel like you're going to get something done and then have your pipeline fall apart.
On no sides is genocide an ok thing to promote with your free speech or to organize a group around.
On no sides is the Confederacy, the sole purpose of which was to defend the institution of slavery, a thing to be admired.
On no sides is the eradication of Nazis and the KKK a slippery slope to the end of free speech in our country. It is perfectly right and acceptable for a society to draw lines--to point to levels of despicable behavior and say "No--in no uncertain terms. No way. Not here." We certainly do this around the abuse of children. These things do not belong in any kind of healthy, functioning society. They have no more right to be here than anyone would suggest that cancer cells are a living part of your body that deserve a home. I'm perfectly ok if a corporation decides that they don't want to be in the business of working with the Daily Stormer--and no, telling a Jewish software developer that they don't have to work for a company protecting Nazi websites is in no way anywhere near the same as saying it's ok for a florist not to do the flowers at a gay wedding. If you think that a hate site promoting genocide is on the same level as two people who come together because they love each other, I'm at a loss for words for you.
Millions of patriots have already lost their lives in our history fighting these kinds of cancers--cancers that grew or persisted far too long because we didn't draw the kinds of lines that a healthy society should draw. They didn't die on the beaches at Normandy to allow Nazis to march on our streets here. They didn't die at Gettysburg to see Confederate soldiers memorialized in our parks. To argue that removing these groups and movements is desecrating history would be to desecrate the memories of all those who made the ultimate sacrifice protecting us from them.
Let's talk for a moment about false equivalency and the agenda of the right. There is a narrative that stretches as far back as slavery itself that blacks are angry, savage, and need to be checked. Even when the law said we were all equal, our society went down a path of "Yeah, but let's keep them over here." The country needed a savage narrative to justify that--and it persists today. Countless media studies have proven that the images we see of people of color in the media are disproportionately skewed. "Whites represented 43% of homicide victims in the local news, but only 13% of homicide victims in crime reports. And while only 10% of victims in crime reports were whites who had been victimized by blacks, these crimes made up 42% of televised cases."
When someone tells you that Black Lives Matter is a hate group and uses police shootings in Dallas as their proof, get smart about their agenda and the facts:
1) First, the Dallas police shooter was not associated with Black Lives Matter. He interacted with other extremist groups on social media, but not BLM.
2) Second, the BLM movement has been quick to denounce racially charged violence, unlike the hate groups protesting in Charlottesville where *leaders* of these groups have, on multiple occasions, supported or praised the death of Heather Heyer.
3) Third, just look at the reasons why these groups exist. Black Lives Matter started after the acquittal of a man charged with killing an innocent black teen. It was *in response* to violence against black people. There's no equivalent origin story around white supremacy--of whites being oppressed or being unfairly treated that any rational person would give equivalence to.
4) It has been shown that stories of mass violence on behalf of BLM protestors are either inaccurate anecdotes or cherry picked stories of what winds up being self-defense. People think they've seen lots of images of angry BLM protestors when the reality is that hundreds of peaceful protests go on in its name with no incidents whatsoever. The same cannot be said for white nationalism gatherings.
It's all too easy, though, for working class whites to accept the narrative of angry masses of African Americans pitched against them in opposition. It's the culmination of the media narratives they've grown up consuming--narratives driven by the agenda to keep working class people divided against each other. Without division and fear, why would the masses of working class people ever cede the kind of power held by wealthy white people? You'd never vote to allow corporations to run unchecked or for the gap between the rich and the poor to grow so large unless it was bundled with a set of fear driven policies meant to keep "law and order" by unfairly targeting and keeping down people of color, immigrants and other minorities.
So while we tear ourselves apart, the rich are picking our pockets.
Slavery is like having a flood in your house. You don't just pump the water out and call it a day. You have to throw out every single thing that got wet, otherwise you can get mold. Slavery was just the water, and by ending it, all we did was get rid of the water. It's still damp, and we didn't really throw anything out.
You want to know what this kind of mold does to a society? Read The New Jim Crow and watch 13TH. Our society is sick from the mold of racial prejudice. It's in walls. Read and watch. I dare you to and not have your mind opened up just a little bit.
No matter how crappy you think your life is as a working class white person or how much more you deserve, people of color, on average, start out with less than you, have a more difficult time getting a job despite the same qualifications, get pulled over more than you, and get arrested and charged more often for lesser things. It's a stacked deck.
For example, there's no difference among drug use rates across races, but blacks get imprisoned for drugs six times more than whites.
These aren't made up facts like you or I may have heard on some cable news program. They're from real studies you can learn from reading a whole actual book--in fact, several of them.
People may spit on CNN, but perhaps not getting 100% of your information from social media and cable news would be more productive.
It's hard to attempt this conversation without going down lots of rabbit wholes and never quite feeling like you made the whole point you were trying to make. These issues are so intertwined. They touch the core of people's identity and their skewed perceptions of the way things are.
If nothing else, I feel like I'm at a place where I've examined my views and been open to changing them in the face of new information. That's what strikes me about these arguments. You see lots of examples of people with privilege opening their eyes to what they have, how they got it, and the unfairness of social systems.
You don't really see that too often on the other side--because generally the more you know, the more you realized that there aren't sides to this.
Only right and wrong.
I send out a monthly mailer of deals that I'm investing in that I'm looking for co-investors for. Because I'm investing so early, a lot of times these companies are not only pre-revenue, but they might also be pre-product. I also invest in a really wide range of opportunities, so many of them don't look like you're typical venture deals.
Tinkergarten is one such company. At the end of 2015, I backed a husband and wife team expecting their third kid to build a network of outdoor kids classes--not an Uber for kids classes, Classpass for kids classes or Airbnb for kids classes. Actual kids classes: finding teachers, vetting them, training them, creating content--all of the unscalable things you'd never want your tech startup doing. They barely had any tech and I think they had maybe three teachers at the time I backed them. I couldn't even get the round closed and had to send a second, slightly desperate note to my co-investor list:
We did eventually get the round closed and today, I'm excited to announce that they've raised a $5.4 million Series A led by Owl Ventures. This year, they'll reach 1000 leaders and they're currently in 48 US states. They have an amazing tech platform managing the whole process, from recruitment to class management to parent communications.
There are a lot of models out there that investors would think is unscalable that I'd say if you actually figured out a way to do economically, just means you've built a better moat. When you actually offer a service or product you built and own your customers directly, loyalty goes up, brand value goes up, and you can be your own platform to launch a lot of different opportunities--if you can do it well.
These days, while you'd maybe rather be Classpass than you're average, run of the mill cycling studio or a faceless big box gym, I'd argue that you'd rather be Soul Cycle than Classpass. Same goes for Shake Shack, Seamless and your average deli. If you're not a special brand, you'd rather be software, and if you're software, you're always fighting to hang on to your network advantage as tech likes to disrupt networks and middlemen.
Excited to see Tinkergarten get recognized as a special brand.
No one likes it. Founders don't start companies so they can spend half their time asking people for money and VCs don't love the dance either.
However, it's a necessary animal, so the least everyone can do is act professionally, and most of all value each other's time. That's what I'm most frustrated by--the lack of respect for other people's time. Too often, both sides walk away from fundraising processes feeling like a lot of it wasn't time efficiently spend--even when it does lead to a round.
So here are a few things both sides should do to make the whole thing go a lot smoother.
- Be upfront about the possibility of you investing now versus whether this is a "get to know you" kind of thing. It's fine if you want to learn about blockchain or you never do pre-product and maybe the founder will oblige your curiosity at some point, but right now, they need cash, so don't waste their time if chances are 0%.
- Don't take multiple meetings and then pass for a reason that you should have passed on at either the e-mail state or after the first meeting. "We just can't get there on a consumer deal" is not a reason for passing after five meetings.
- Be transparent about process and timeline. If you need 8 partners and a Magic 8 Ball all to agree, let them know when you've decided to start serious due diligence.
- Never ever take a meeting with a founder when you're in the middle of fundraising your own and can't write a check within reasonable timelines for this round (usually about 30-60 days for a seed.)--unless you let them know beforehand.
- Make it clear where your money comes from and what control you have over it. Are you a fund? Is it personal money? How did you come into it? Does anyone else need to approve this deal?
- Make references to founders you've backed available upon request.
- Be transparent around where you are in the fundraising process. Does the VC need to call a special partner meeting because you already have three term sheets or is this the beginning? I know you want to move fast, but don't make a VC prioritize your timing when I'm literally the first meeting. I have other founders who literally need to know tomorrow or the round will close.
- If you're going to take a meeting with an investor and you don't think it's a good fit, just say it. Don't make them do any due diligence or make an offer only to not take it.
- If you wind up getting more interest than you anticipated in a seed round, give the investors a fair opportunity to work together. When you send terms around, get a hard number from everyone within a reasonable deadline. I favor the simple math approach. Take the amount you want to take, and divid it by the amounts offered based on everyone's average or requested size. If you're 2x oversubbed, as long as you like everyone, give them a shot to do half their allocation, and distribute evenly what isn't taken. People might gripe or bail, but the absolute worst is when you do a bunch of work, take meetings when you say you're still fundraising, and then get completely shut out of a deal.
- Don't accept introductions to other co-investors investors unless you're willing to take money from the person making the introductions. If someone shows me a deal, and then you cut that person out, that's professionally embarrassing for them and puts me and them in a weird spot. There's just no reason for that if you manage the process right. If you really don't want to work with them, just be upfront about it.
- Take a moment to think about who might expect you to pitch them--former bosses that have been successful, people who funded the last place you worked at. If your experience is due in part to the effort and resources of others, it feels like good practice and courtesy that you at least give them a look--or let them know why you might be going in a different direction.
For both sides:
- Take professional meetings in professional or public settings during business hours--busy hotel lobbies are ok, but ideally, you avoid happy hour time because that's a less professional vibe.
- Alcohol should not be consumed in a professional discussion between two people where money and uneven power dynamics exist.
In reading the NYT piece about the negative experiences of female founders raising, one quote stuck out to me:
"They put up with the comments, Ms. Renock said, because they “couldn’t imagine a world in which that $500,000 wasn’t on the table anymore.”
If you've ever had to fundraise, you can understand this. It's an extremely vulnerable time where you're getting a lot of rejection. When you finally get someone willing to fund what by now seems like a crazy idea, especially after all the criticism you've gotten during the process, you get in a mode of pushing for a close. You're willing to overlook just about anything because you really need this money. Rent is due. Credit cards are maxed. You don't want to lose this fish while it's on the hook.
That's why so many of these founders went down rabbit holes that, in hindsight, maybe they shouldn't have--and where they have gotten some pushback. That's why the agreed to meet at such and such time or place, or ignored the first set of comments.
They felt like this was the *only* opportunity for their company to survive.
The reality, and what it's important to remind founders of, is that there is *always* other money. If one investor seriously wants to put money in, there's nearly zero chance that they're the only high net worth individual or VC on the face of the earth that will get there. You convinced one person, and that means you can convince another.
It's never ever worth having your values take a back seat or not receiving the utmost respect from those who invest in you. Know that you can move on, and there will undoubtedly be a much better partner for you in someone else.
In fact, this is where you can use the ecosystem to your advantage. If you tell community leaders that you got an offer for investment from someone you don't trust or someone that you don't think respects you or your boundaries, so you want to find replacement investors, I guarantee people will be willing to help.
It's one thing to take time to just help someone raising--it's another to help someone who has had a crappy fundraising experience that no one should have to go through. Founders and investors alike will point you in the direction of well-respected and professional investors.
Plus, many of the high net worth angels who mistreat founders aren't serious investors anyway--and there would have always been a strong chance that they would have bailed on you before the finish line.
This is the worst question a VC can ask.
It presupposes that the only good deals are the ones they can't get into--which is an odd way to think about the world. I suppose the only club deal they would want to get into is the one that doesn't want them as a member.
There are lots of examples of huge deals that could have been had by anyone early on--Airbnb, Casper, Uber, etc.
And there are even more examples of oversubscribed companies that flopped.
In the seed round, there seems to be little to no correlation between the "hotness" of a deal and its eventual success--and even less so with the returns. Hot deals get bid up. Prices go up, and returns go down. The more you pay, the less you make. It's simple math.
Yet, so many investors--those who tout their networks and ability to see things early--question how they got to something first, or why it hasn't been scooped up already.
Could you imagine them pitching to their LPs?
"We see the best deals--they're so good, they're already taken and we couldn't get in."
I wonder if this is the same conversation they had with their significant others the first time they met.
"Why are you single?"
Glad they weren't trying to adopt children...
"How come no one wants this baby?"
House hunting must be difficult...
"You mean, the people who lived here before don't want it anymore?"
Happy Fundraising! :)
"In May 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt called for the production of 185,000 aeroplanes, 120,000 tanks, 55,000 anti-aircraft guns and 18 million tons of merchant shipping in two years. Adolf Hitler was told by his advisors that this was American propaganda; in 1939, annual aircraft production for the US military was less than 3,000 planes. By the end of the war US factories had produced 300,000 planes, and by 1944 had produced two-thirds of the Allied military equipment used in the war."
Never before and not since then had any country mobilized itself, and so dramatically reshaped its economic focus, around a singular focus. The ability of the US economy to churn out the mechanisms of war at such a scale in such short order changed the tide of history.
Today, we face different kinds of threats--and while we hear of stories about bombs and guns--the real wars are being fought with ideology, the environment and technology. Our everyday lives are being threatened by lone wolves influenced by words, hackers who need nothing more than an internet connection and never have to touch a gun, and our own fragile planets inability to recover from what we've done to it over the years..
If someone has an explosive backpack, you can't stop them with a tank.
No bullet in the world can stop a hacker from breaking into our most vulnerable of systems.
And floods? Good luck with your missiles.
These threats are only stopped with raw human intelligence, ingenuity, and yes, the ability to reach across cultures and connect with people as fellow humans not separated by borders.
Smart people are our last line of defense. Kids learning to code or learning Arabic are going to do more good than kids learning how to shoot--and yet, intelligence is under attack in our society. The same politicians who champion strength and defense are making the most destructive cuts to our best weapon against our enemies: education.
At a time when we should be undergoing the most massive mobilization of human intelligence we've ever seen--we've got a government trying to build more bombs and guns at the expense of every other social program to improve ourselves as a nation.
Could you imagine if, at the onset of World War II, Roosevelt called for more shovels and barbed wire to dig trenches? Or bows and arrows?
That's what we're doing if we're not making sure that we win the race to produce the most computer scientists, the most impossible cryptography to break, or the best solutions to combat our changing environment.
Exponentially spending on education should be seen as patriotic in the way that increasing industrial output was in the 1940's. Rosie the Riveter should be Rosie the Programmer. The GI Bill shouldn't just be paying for you to go to college if you sign up to shoot a gun--it should pay for your education if you sign up to protect our cyber infrastructure or learn the language of our enemies so we can gather intelligence.
We need a serious public commitment to getting smart as a country in the same way we committed to being strong over three quarters of a century ago. Instead, we're rehashing Hillary's e-mails, fighting on Twitter, and trying to win meaningless political points instead of solving our biggest issues.
How in the world did we get to the point where being intelligent was partisan?
We're not the smartest country on earth--and we're not the country with the most PhDs, coders, scientists, language experts, etc., and that should put the fear of God into us the same as when we weren't the country with the most nuclear weapons. Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, if you can't see the writing on the wall that this country isn't well prepared at all for the threats of the next 50 years--and that those threats aren't threats of military takeover, then I don't know how to even begin to have this conversation with you.
I didn't grow up in a neighborhood where gunshots were a thing--and I know I am incredibly lucky for that. That's why when I pulled up to the corner of Atlantic and Fourth by the Barclay's Center yesterday at a couple of minutes after 2pm, the sound of gunfire was pretty startling, and it's not something I can easily shake.
Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop-pop-pop! Pop!
I knew what it was right away.
A car or motorcycle backfires once. Construction noises are mechanical and repetitive. Fireworks go off with a kind of chaotic randomness that you only get when timing is dictated by the burning of a fuse.
These pops had intent, and moreover, desperation. You hear it in the cadence. Those three quick squeezes in broad daylight on what is perhaps the busiest intersection in Brooklyn can only come from someone who has long stopped caring about the moments after their actions.
I was glad to be on my bike because I was out of there immediately. Whereas my first instinct in many instances might be to help--I was one of the first on the scene when I paddled out in a kayak to the helicopter and plane crash over the Hudson quite a few summers ago now--guns change the game. Guns are to be run from--unless you're in unfortunate enough proximity to be closer to grabbing it than you are to getting away.
I got away and called 911, and flagged down some MTA police on Hansen Place as well.
This post isn't intended to say we need gun control.
It's to say that if you have any logical thoughts in your head, a desperate person with a gun presents a relatively simple choice for society:
If you don't believe that babies are born pure evil out of the womb, then you have to concede that either the problem is the gun or the desperate person. This is a person consumed with so much fear, hate, frustration, etc., that they believe that ultimately, the risk of throwing their whole life away is worth pulling the trigger. If you pull a trigger, chances are you're going to get caught or killed.
So if you don't mind the guns, then what are you doing to address the person?
At one point, this person went down a path that conceivably could have been avoided with some help. We know that--and we know the root causes. Maybe they had an unaddressed mental illness. Maybe they grew up in a family decimated by unfair criminal justice policies and lacking in positive role models. Maybe they lacked economic opportunity, and turned to crime out of financial desperation--that they saw that the upside of theft or drugs calculated out to be higher than a life on welfare or in homelessness.
Sure, not everyone who deals with this winds up in a life of crime. That doesn't make the people who do purely to blame. Not everyone who eats spoiled food gets sick--but you don't blame the sick people for not having iron stomachs, you blame the restaurant. You don't just enact policies to penalize restaurants either--you give them little hand washing signs for the bathroom, you inspect food along the supply chain. You figure out the root causes and work on preventing them no matter how far up they go.
We know, factually, that all of these things contribute to crime--so if you want to prevent this from happening again and again, and you're not going to blame the gun, then you've got to enact policies that have way more empathy for people than the system currently does.
You have to decide, as a society, that we're not going to let anyone get to the point where they think the solution to any issue they have is to start shooting in broad daylight in a busy intersection. You'll decide that you'll teach kids anger management, communication, and give them skills that make them productive in society, not forgotten by it. You're going to fix the issues that create havoc and desperation in people's lives--like getting bankrupted by a health issue or having an unstable housing issue. You'll treat addiction for what it is--a disease--rather than a crime.
That's what I can't reconcile about most of the gun rights defenders. Their policies seem to align with not providing any services or social safety nets to people. It's like, "We know your world sucks and is full of pitfalls that other people don't run into, but still, we're not only not going to do anything to help you, but we're not going to do much to curtail the guns that exacerbate these issues."
At this point, it doesn't seem worth arguing about whether guns should be a meaningful part of people's lives--but I hope we can all agree that desperation should not be. Throwing people in jail and losing the key doesn't solve for the desperation component, but we know what does.
So if you don't have a policy of gun control, I look forward to hearing about your support to increase funding for education, housing, physical and mental healthcare, and worker protections.
One aspect of venture capital that rarely gets talked about is competition to get into a deal.
What happens when a founder has that rare wealth of riches when they're choosing who they're going to allow onto their cap table? The tables turn and the one being pitched to becomes the one pitching.
The moment when you find out that you're not guaranteed a slot is my least favorite as a VC. I've seen different investors react to it differently. Some are really competitive. They want to "win" a deal--by beating out others.
Personally, I don't like being left out of the chance to work with really great people on big problems worth solving. I love this job so much and like seeing other people succeed that I have serious FOMO not to hear those stories firsthand and be able to make those hiring intros, pitch a reporter, or ask the right question at the right time in a board meeting. When it all works out, it's amazing--and when it doesn't, it's really tough, but challenging in the best of ways.
At the end of the day, however, a VC's money is just as green as the next one--which is where your reputation comes in. There's nothing I can say or do at the moment of offering to invest that is more convincing than the sum total of what not only the fifty plus founders I've worked with beforehand have to say about me, but the countless others I've run into as an investor. I take 150+ pitch meetings a year, and probably do a speaking thing every other week if not more.
That's why it blows my mind when VCs are standoffish or disrespectful, or even worse, dishonest. The reputation you create off of each 1:1 interaction with a founder is like a rainy day fund. Every time you truly help someone, even if you don't back them, is a small deposit. It's a founder being willing to say something nice about their dealings with you or to recommend you to a friend.
Helping every founder is an impossibility. Sometimes, you just can't stick around one more minute at an event. You've got friends or family waiting--and sometimes, you just need to put the e-mail down. You can't get to that one founder that keeps pushing themselves back up to the top of your inbox, because you have four term sheets out and you're trying to help someone close a round, and someone else hire a COO. You can't get to everyone, but you can respect everyone you did get to--and act like you know that as hard as you're working, they're working even harder.
Every time you slip an obnoxious term into a cap table, or take six positive meetings before ultimately passing for a reason that should have come out in meaning one, you're debiting your rep. That's going to come back. Maybe someone might actually ding you, but you're not going to have a founder go out of their way to recommend you either.
Founders are making incredibly important decisions when they decide what investors to take. They're literally stuck with this group for the duration of their company--and there is going to be no one they'll trust more for a recommendation than another founder.
So, as you're building your career, treat every founder as if they're going to talk to that one founder whose company is 3x oversubscribed--the one you think could make your career if only you got a shot to participate.