Live data from Hacker News

Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

blogs.wsj.com

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#51
post #6

This shift is yesterday's news. Given their size, brand and PR, however, when Andreesen Horowitz does it, they get an article in the WSJ. The reality is that tons of VCs have already migrated away from consumer startups.[1][2] Data to support above [1] 84% of 2013's largest exits in tech have been to enterprise companies - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/enterprise-tech-consum... [2] 70% of 2013's largest tech…

It is also worth noting that this follows a major drought in enterprise startups. I don't have the numbers (you might know) but enterprise startup activity took a gigantic dip after the 2000 crash when large enterprises en masse all but stopped buying new enterprise technology from new companies.

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#52
post #6

This shift is yesterday's news. Given their size, brand and PR, however, when Andreesen Horowitz does it, they get an article in the WSJ. The reality is that tons of VCs have already migrated away from consumer startups.[1][2] Data to support above [1] 84% of 2013's largest exits in tech have been to enterprise companies - http://www.cbinsights.com/blog/trends/enterprise-tech-consum... [2] 70% of 2013's largest tech…

Looking at 2013 exits (or financings) is missing the mark. VC is a game of 1000x returns. And those returns have come from companies like FB, Google, etc. Most of the value of YC's portfolio come from Dropbox and Airbnb. All of these companies are decidedly consumer companies.

Recent enterprise home runs -- VMWare, Salesforce.com, Workday, SuccessFactors, 3Par, Data Domain, ... there have been a bunch. Just recently Palo Alto Networks, Fireeye, a bunch of others.

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#53

Basically, they can't compete at the A level now against Angelist. If you're a fundable startup, would you take $5M from any VC (even someone as stand-up as AH) with control strings attached or would you rather raise on Angelist and stay in control? So the real funding opportunity for AH is at the B round, where as Scott says, they will go in hard. Makes total sense.

That's not why :-).

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#54

This is not something they are choosing - it is a market reality. Its now possible to start a company and essentially get to a B round without taking investment because cloud services make it so inexpensive that founders really don't need VCs any longer.

Also not why :-).

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#55
post #18
post #16

Speaking as a practicing fruit fly geneticist, the metaphor of a "fruit fly experiment" is lost on me... anyone care to enlighten me?

Fruit flies grow very quickly and don't live very long.

And there are a lot of them.

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#56
post #16

Speaking as a practicing fruit fly geneticist, the metaphor of a "fruit fly experiment" is lost on me... anyone care to enlighten me?

I would think that a practicing fruit fly geneticist would get excited when fruit flies come up, not snarky :-).

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#57
post #3

To me this is essentially admitting that Andreesen Horowitz is loosing the ability to identify impactful startups. That is fine, its harder to do at scale, but nothing is different now than 5 years ago. We have lots of people doing experiments, some hit early success, some pivot. Once you get product market fit, you raise that B/C/IPO on the back of the growth you've been able to afford thanks to your raises and reve…

Maybe you're right, but that's not what Scott was saying and that's not what I think.

In my own words: consumer startups more and more have this very interesting "lightning in a bottle" effect where sometimes they take off like crazy and sometimes they just don't. I give full credit to the teams that figure out how to get the flywheel spun up, but it is also important to realize just how many highly capable founders are hard at work trying to get traction who don't. There are a lot of really excellent founders pursuing consumer ideas that just never work -- that's why companies like Yahoo and Google and others can do so many acquihires. So, if we have the theoretical ability to invest in a given category -- remembering that we can only make one primary venture investment per category -- in either the A or B round, we find it often makes sense to let other firms fund the A rounds before anything is proven and wait to see the early signs of lightning and then step in hard at the B. The end markets are so large for the winners that the investment returns in the B can still be outstanding, and we can still offer a lot of useful help to the companies at the B stage such as talent sourcing.

In contrast, enterprise startups are much more (take your pick) tractable, execution centric, brute force, predictable (as startups go). If you back a killer founder with a great engineering team, with a great idea, into a big market, the odds are high that magic will happen -- a very interesting product will get built, early customers will adopt, and value will be created. In other words, the link between founder/team competence and success is more direct. One thing that helps a lot is that whether the product will be adopted by customers or not is far less of a mystery -- you can simply go talk to the likely customers ahead of time and they will give you a very good indication. That plays well to our market development program where 1,200 big company management teams are coming through our office every year -- we ask them what they think about new ideas and they tell us. So here, backing the A round when possible makes more sense.

None of this is religion -- we still do plenty of consumer A's and enterprise B's. We just think it's useful to talk about these things in public so that entrepreneurs know before they come see us how we are thinking about things -- it optimizes their chances of getting to the right outcome with us (whatever that is).

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#58
post #15
post #3

To me this is essentially admitting that Andreesen Horowitz is loosing the ability to identify impactful startups. That is fine, its harder to do at scale, but nothing is different now than 5 years ago. We have lots of people doing experiments, some hit early success, some pivot. Once you get product market fit, you raise that B/C/IPO on the back of the growth you've been able to afford thanks to your raises and reve…

Losing the ability to identify or losing the desire? When you get down to it, if you have a $50m fund, you might want to invest in ~10 A-rounds at ~$5m each. If you have a $1.5bn fund however, do you really want to invest in 300 A-rounds? Nope. The best way to spend your time is looking at the bigger, later investments. You probably still only want to have roughly the same number of total investments to oversee. So i…

In our case that isn't actually how we think about any of this.

First, when we (or any venture firm) makes an A-round investment, we typically reserve another 2-3x of the A-round investment size for participation in future follow-on rounds for that company. So a $5M Series A shows up on our books more like a $20M commitment. The other $15M isn't necessarily always deployed, of course, but we also double down even more strongly in certain cases (either out of opportunity or sometimes necessity) so it balances out.

Second, it's not either/or -- we do venture rounds as small as $3-5M and we do growth rounds as high as $100M. Each fund has a blend of both.

In practice, we don't pay a lot of attention to any of this. When we get a great A round opportunity, we take it. Same with B rounds, and same with later-stage growth rounds.

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#59
post #37

Somewhat odd because some of the most valuable enterprise ventures recently have begun as consumer plays with a path to the enterprise. Dropbox is one example. The iPhone was consumer before enterprise. Github focused on individual debs before it made its enterprise play. I'd argue that AirBnB kind shows the same because I've noticed an uptick in the number of business travelers requesting to stay with us (i.e. they…

Great post, but I think when they talk about consumer they are talking about totally free consumer facing time-sink eyeball-monetization companies like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. I don't think they consider consumerised enterprise to be in the same category. I could be wrong though.

Yes, I (roughly) agree. The consumer companies Scott was talking about are ones where they need to generate a "lightning in a bottle" effect to work as investments. There are other kinds of consumer companies that are much more straightforward to analyze -- for example, those that pay to acquire customers and have a model to make money by doing that.

Re: Weary of ‘Fruit Fly’ Consumer Startups, Andreessen Horowitz Raises Series A Bar

#60

Most successful funds place the majority of their dollars in follow-on rounds for their earlier investments.

Correct -- this is a key consideration for actually running one of these funds that is not always obvious on the outside. A $5M A round investment carries an implied commitment to invest $10-15M more in later rounds.
Post reply on HN