My Photo

My Other Accounts

LinkedIn Skype Twitter

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Add to
Google

Add
to netvibes

Subscribe in
Bloglines

Subscribe in
NewsGator Online

GapingVoid.com

« The Ignorant VC as counterpart to the Ignorant Entrepreneur | Main | How a great entrepreneur deals with complexity »

October 31, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d2a3653ef0120a64537be970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The one-sentence e-mail turndown:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Erik

I'll take a one line turndown over 3 months of "maybe" any days.

Mark Littlewood

Good VCs say, 'No' fast and early.

Bad VCs say, 'Yes' fast and then start thinking or negotiating and end up saying no after sucking up 3 month's of an entrepreneur's time.

FredericBaud

Fred, thank you for telling the things just as they are. It is fair to understand that VCs are financiers: their art is to put the money where it can get the best returns.

VCs should also be transparent when they pitch entrepreneurs that they will be adding value beyond money. Apart from the financial discipline, it's not their job either. They have a better return looking for the next potential big deal than trying adding industrial value in a business that entrepreneurs know much better.

twitter.com/hug_h

In fact you should reply via Twitter : everyone is used now to receive very shot answer, and for someone that launch a startup a personnalied 140 or less answer is better than no answer or a standard sentence.

Fred Destin

@FredericBaud: I agree that entrepreneurs know their business best; that does not mean they cannot use advice or another pair of eyes. As for value-add, it is variable (and guess what the best entrepreneurs need less of it) but I have seen and participated in examples in my career where we end up stronger with good collaboration between investors and team. I think that is a core part of my job and in terms of time allocation probably represents 75% of what I do. I think this is true of many of the VCs (and angels and NEDs) that I work with

BTW I also plead guilty to sometimes dropping the ball to saying "no" fast, which is one of the factors that really annoys entrepreneurs, and rightly so... We just try to keep our SLA's up !

FredericBaud

@Fred just posted on "Are you giving equity to your VC to get their advice?" http://bit.ly/DTQEC

The whole question turns around: There are free advice and there are key advice. While the two are not mutually exclusive, key advice are those you should really be ready to pay for.

I really think you're pushing things forward by discussing openly and transparently what VCs are and are not.

twitter.com/13marcin

About intros: I was really surprised when one of the VCs I met recently said - let us get to know you before you pitch us. At first I thought 'like you really care' but Seedcamp Week thought me (among other things) why teams are so important and why VCs invest in people. If they know you, and you're credible to them the approach to your idea is completely different (in one direction or the other ;)
Bottom line - don't pitch to strangers if you don't want a on-line-reply.

Fred Destin

@FredericBaud
A worthy discussion.

I think incentives are more aligned than this for a simple reason: VCs invest with an investment thesis (e.g. in 5 years this company will be generating €xxMM in revenues and €YYmm in EBIT and will be a leader in its new segment) and to get there ... one needs to build a business. So for many years, until the investment thesis has either been proven or invalidated, there will be a strong natural incentive to keep working hard to help the business make progress towards that goal. Why ? Because we do not exist without (a) exits and returns and (b) company building stories that help us attract new entrepreneurs.

There are reasons why VCs don't perform as entrepreneurs might expect them to, but I don't think misaligned incentives on advice are the key driving factor.

Elie Kochman

You call a spade a spade, nothing wrong with that. While a one sentence explanation might be useful to the entrepreneur, it must be understood that if you spend 5 minutes on each proposal vying for your attention, that would double the time spent on things you aren't interested in. At the end of the day, you need to prioritize your own time just like the rest of us.

FredericBaud

@Fred the key question is: Do VC firms invest on the belief that the project might be generating €xxMM in revenues and €YYmm in EBIT in 5 years - with or without them? If this is the case, then they are making a pure financial investment, and the help they might be ending providing are just margin calls to cover unanticipated outcomes (that are numerous, but my point is elsewhere).

If the VC firm is actually bringing industrial value to the project, then - like any other company - it should structure its value proposition and contractualize the return it should receive in exchange of this unique service.

My point is that when an entrepreneur buys smart money with equity, she should know how much she's paying for the money and how much she's paying for smartness, and have a way to monitor her return on each.

Fred Destin

I don't think this distinction works. The role of the board member is both a role of monitoring and control (making sure that the company is run in accordance with the social contract and legal contract between the parties ) and in working with other board members to do what the board should do (primarily define strategy). Note that generally the function of the board is defined as "manage the business in the best interest of the shareholders". there is a body of work around this including from Brad Feld that I worth reading. See this old but great article:
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2004/07/boards-that-are-not-bored.html
and more at
http://www.feld.com/blog/archives/board_of_directors/

FredericBaud

@Fred totally agree with you!

The role of VCs is to behave as active investors in the position they are given as board members and does not cover helping entrepreneurs building their business - which would require a different contractual agreement (which was my point). So entrepreneurs should fully realize that they are exchanging equities for a financial participation and that they should wisely pick the VCs that will act as their board members - sometimes a passive investor is better than the wrong active one.

As a minor note, I don't think the strategy has to be defined by the board: It is defined by the CEO and validated by the board - a subtle but important difference.

Now, let me fully agree with you again: a strong board is a precious asset for a startup and I would single out a specific Brad Feld's post "VC Behavior in Board Meetings" http://bit.ly/OUbi1

Alex

wow, this is so revealing... I would've never thought it would be like this. I always thought VCs were like major record labels, listening each of the band demos with the love of a parent and the attention of the surgeon.

Jeff

Thanks. I'm living this right now. Sometimes the hardest thing is to stay positive.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment