Followup Answers re: Lifestyle vs. Investment and Angel vs. VC

Last night I spoke at Seattle Tech Startups. Given that lots of people who go to these meetings tend to be wantrepreneurs (aspiring startup folks), I focused on early decisions that need to be be made. Do you shoot for a great lifestyle business or do you aim for a grandslam? Services biz or product biz? Bootstrap it, find angels, or court VCs? And when you answer all that, how do you settle on an idea when you have lots of them bounding around in your head (for this part, I liberally borrowed from Ev Williams’ great post on evaluating startup ideas, which I posted a riff on a while back).

After my short presentation, there were some really fabulous questions. Two of ‘em kept me thinking and I wanted to expand on the answers a bit. Here they are.

Question (paraphrased): “Given that takinghuge piles of VC money both has the dangers you describe and and firmly closes the door on most early acquisition opportunities, why are people still going after big VC?”

My response was two-fold at the time. First, there are some ideas that require a lot of money– as an example, I mentioned a local northwest guy who is working on a really cool electric motorcycle… It’d be hard to imagine getting that business off the ground with $500k of angel money. I also mentioned that some entrepreneurs look at their valuation as a score. Taking $4m on $12m post-money is essentially saying that, on paper, your company is worth $12m. Feels pretty cool, I suppose.

Two more things to add here.

First, I think people chase VC because it’s available. Angels are purposefully elusive– they don’t exactly hang out a shingle saying, “I’ve got $50k burning a hole in my pocket”. VCs, on the other hand, have a web site, and processes to handle/process deal flow. They almost always want to lead the investment by negotiating terms and putting in a big chunk of the money, while angels sometimes shy away from leading/negotiating, but are happy to pile on with other investors.

I think there is a big hole to be filled here by institutional investors who aim at a larger number of smaller deals (something that most VCs can’t handle because they have too much money under management, take too long to do the deals, and have too few people to sit on boards). There are smaller funds out there that are starting to fill the “early/small” niche (with $250k-$1m investments) but they are rare and (from an outsider’s point of view) are buried in interesting startups to invest in. The good news is that they’re seeing great success, so more are popping up every day. If you want to see a good list of folks who are really looking at early-stage/lower-dollar deals, here’s a great article profiling a few. You’ll notice a decided lack of ‘em in the Northwest. Madrona is mentioned but I think they very rarely do a deal less than $1m.

Second, B2B. Despite Web 2.0 hype, there is tremendous money to be made with B2B software. Going the B2B route requires a sales engine or some clever distribution innovation. If you’re spinning up a sales team, that requires LOTS of money flowing out of your business (salary, commissions) before you recognize revenue for their efforts.

Question #2: “Can you talk about how to decide whether a business/idea should fall into the “lifestyle” category or the “get funding a go big” category?

My answer last night centered around overall magnitude of the idea. Could you imagine it being the next Google/Facebook/Salesforce.com? Is it that ambitious? Can you set out milestones where you end up selling for $100 million? I also mentioned that how much you NEED is important. If you can “run the experiment” for $500k to see if your market/team/idea are as good as you think, raising $10m is silly. If you can roll those same dice taking no funding and working on weekends, raising ANY money might be silly.

What I want to add: Think about how you fit into recent investment trends. Investors closely follow trends. Most seem to focus on trends and recent acquisitions that you’re already reading about– the top tier ones often try to anticipate what’s going to be the next trend. Imagine yourself pitching your idea to someone who religiously follows and tries to anticipate trends. Will their eyes light up? To my amateur eye trends that are important out there right now are: Ad networks, widgets, casual gaming, video advertising, iPhone/mobile apps, Facebook/MySpace apps, social aggregation, and (of course) anything that could credibly take a shot at killing Google. Am I missing any? There are a few tired trends that probably still have legs with some investors like niche social networks, social news sites, photosharing, etc.

If you’re outside these trends, that’s okay (we certainly are, though we think that productivity/information overload is a meme that is growing like gangbusters). It just means that you’re going to have a harder time raising money and you’ll need a bit more traction to pique VC interest. We’re just about ready to close our angel round with a fairly platinum-plated group of investors, so it’s certainly do-able. I’m just glad our founders all had hefty personal bank accounts to allow us to grow the business over the 3 months of fundraising. I know plenty of people who’ve needed 6-10 months to raise a round, so be prepared for that if you’re bucking trends.

Remember, Google came to a market that had well-funded mature players at a time when a lot of really smart people were saying that search was a dead business where you couldn’t make any money.

Another thing to consider on this front is this: Do you have some unique aspect of your business that allows you to acquire new users/customers for zero or near-zero cost? SEO, viral marketing, user-generated content are all fabulous ways to get an organic flow of visitors to your product. VCs love clever distribution wrinkles, and most successful startups have a fabulous (if sometimes accidental) story to tell here.

And finally– the best way to decide whether it’s a small biz opportunity or a huge business opportunity is to launch. If you’ve got something big, the market will start dragging you down the growth path. If it’s a big opportunity and you’re growing like gangbusters out in the wild, funding isn’t hard.

Anyhoo– hope folks enjoyed the talk– I’ll post the video if STS puts it up.

  • Eric Willis

    Awesome post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

  • http://kickstand.typepad.com Jordan Mitchell

    Good stuff, Tony. My thoughts …

    “Given that taking huge piles of VC money both has the dangers you describe and and firmly closes the door on most early acquisition opportunities, why are people still going after big VC?”

    Just as there are people who only eat at nice restaurants or only ski when the conditions are perfect, there are entrepreneurs who are only looking at big market opportunities (where selling for $10M isn't on their radar). For instance, for someone who sold their last company for $100M+ then they might have their sights set on the next one going public and being worth $1B. When you think bigger like that, you tend to only think about bigger investment checks — like, why waste your time raising ONLY $1M and 50k at a time?! Look at McCaw and Clearwire — I'm not sure they even bothered with traditional VC instead going for ibank money right off the bat.

    Plus VCs can often bring a lot more to the table than money, if you need certain experience, contacts, etc.

    “Can you talk about how to decide whether a business/idea should fall into the “lifestyle” category or the “get funding a go big” category?”

    It feels to me that the person/founder(s) should decide this for themselves, not the business. As in, do you *want* a lifestyle business (which are certainly the majority), or do you only want to swing a bit more for the fences. The majority of people in this world decide to have a business that earns them a comfortable living, which is fine. Then there are the nutcases (yours truly) that are only looking at big market opportunities and way different risk/reward ratios. Doesn't mean one can't lead to the other, but I think you need to decide what you want first THEN whether your idea fits.

  • http://www.rescuetime.com webwright

    Great points, Jordan! (readers: Jordan has done this a time or two in bigger leagues than I've played– he's worth listening to)

    I touched on it a little last night– I think a lot of people nowadays shoot for the “sell for $15m to Google and get out” target, which is a shame. Big ambitions often need big dollars (though I do think that for most web software, you can run the experiment for much less than most VCs want to invest and court VC only AFTER you've proven things out a bit).

    Regarding the lifestyle stuff– Righto! My preso last night was purposefully ordered to talk about the “what do you WANT?” discussion before talking about the “what are you going to build?”. I think most people (myself include) chase ideas that they love without considering what their goals are… Which is kinda bad. A lot of people who set out to build high-growth businesses are not the type who would enjoy growing/running them.

  • http://blog.theodore.nordsieck.net nordsieck

    Great talk. I really liked the contrast between “product” and “lifestyle”. I've really only heard DHH talk about the two with much perspective, and everyone knows that 37 signals lies.

  • http://www.yodio.com Clay Loges

    Tony, I enjoyed your refreshing presentation. You packed a lot of good info into your commentary and slides….and you are a great member of the entrepreneur community to post these follow on thoughts. Thanks, Clay

  • http://crashdev.blogspot.com Chris DeVore

    Great post, Tony. The “big hole” you see in the funding market is one of the main reasons Andy and I decided to channel our private check-writing activity into Founders Co-op. There are so many great teams / ideas out there that can become real businesses with far less capital than VCs can afford to invest, and becoming more transparent / accessible to these founders just made sense.

  • http://www.kylemulka.com Kyle Mulka

    Tony, thanks a lot for your presentation, and writing a follow up. It's good to have this stuff in writing in addition to having the audio/video version.

    For context, I was the person who asked the second question. The reason I asked was because my two co-founders and I have worked in our spare time on this project for a while now. I've heard from many people that the funding process takes a long time, and I feel that that time would be better spent actually just working on the product instead. So far, the only money we've spent was to pay for a single dedicated server and our relatively small AWS bill. The rest is just our time. My guess is that after funding we would be able to move faster, but do we really need to do that? I don't know, maybe you could offer some advice?

    You mentioned some hot VC trends now. Our application is in the photo-sharing space which you said was on its way out, but we are also working on a facebook app and considering building an iPhone app if our viewer doesn't work so well in Safari on the iPhone.

    The product we are creating is a web-based photo collage maker called ScrapWalls. You can upload your photos, and drag them around a giant canvas. Once you publish your ScrapWall, you can share it via a URL of your choosing. The web-based ScrapWalls viewer allows walls with thousands of photos to initially load just as fast as a single image. You can then zoom in and pan around using controls similar to Google Maps. Zooming in all the way will give you the full resolution image.

    The site is live, and you can try it out if you'd like. We'd love to hear feedback from you as well as other people who like photos and photo collages.
    http://www.scrapwalls.com

  • http://www.rescuetime.com webwright

    Hey Kyle– I looked at Scrapwalls a while back and really like it– it's a really unique UI (something I'm always a sucker for)!

    On the surface, though, it's not clear to me what the big play is and what itch you're scratching. It's a MUCH more creative way to publish photography, which is cool. I don't know the photosharing space very well (though I have a pro account on Flickr and love it).

    There are plenty of stars in the photosharing space (Flickr, Smugmug), but it's a pretty mature space. So the big question is: Is the innovation you're bringing compelling enough to shake up the space? If you reached out to 100 photo nuts right now, how many would sign up and how many would be there in a month?

    My gut says that it'd be a hard slog for fundraising– I don't think VCs are looking to the photosharing space to spit out a $100m biz (though remember the Google example). You'll get the “It's a feature, not a business” response until you prove otherwise.

    If you can afford to do it, my advice would be to keep at it 'till you have a healthy user growth curve, solid retention, and a proven zero-cost distribution plan (SEO? VIral?). Early monetization would be good too (“ad supported” seems like a non-starter).

    I would also experiment with marketing– if you haven't already, branch out to people you don't know (find a photography forum), post your value prop and a link and measure the number of people who come and the percentage that sign up to see if anyone wants what you've built. This allows you to experiment with messaging, which is critical, and get a reality check on the demand.

    And for God's sake, don't trust your friends/colleague's feedback.
    (read this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39174 )

  • http://www.rescuetime.com webwright

    Hey Kyle– I looked at Scrapwalls a while back and really like it– it's a really unique UI (something I'm always a sucker for)!

    On the surface, though, it's not clear to me what the big play is and what itch you're scratching. It's a MUCH more creative way to publish photography, which is cool. I don't know the photosharing space very well (though I have a pro account on Flickr and love it).

    There are plenty of stars in the photosharing space (Flickr, Smugmug), but it's a pretty mature space. So the big question is: Is the innovation you're bringing compelling enough to shake up the space? If you reached out to 100 photo nuts right now, how many would sign up and how many would be there in a month?

    My gut says that it'd be a hard slog for fundraising– I don't think VCs are looking to the photosharing space to spit out a $100m biz (though remember the Google example). You'll get the “It's a feature, not a business” response until you prove otherwise.

    If you can afford to do it, my advice would be to keep at it 'till you have a healthy user growth curve, solid retention, and a proven zero-cost distribution plan (SEO? VIral?). Early monetization would be good too (“ad supported” seems like a non-starter).

    I would also experiment with marketing– if you haven't already, branch out to people you don't know (find a photography forum), post your value prop and a link and measure the number of people who come and the percentage that sign up to see if anyone wants what you've built. This allows you to experiment with messaging, which is critical, and get a reality check on the demand.

    And for God's sake, don't trust your friends/colleague's feedback.
    (read this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39174 )

Recent Tweets
Categories