What VCs look for in startup pitches • Hacker News Board

Re: What VCs look for in startup pitches

#21

Post by dhimes » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 12:01 PM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #3

I get two different stories from different crowds on this issue. From many VCs and angels themselves - at least the ones that get their articles upvoted on this site - I get the impression that they dislike being bullshitted at. They hate people who are disingenuous. They don't care too much about projections or future plans. They just want to see how good your team is. From everyone else in the industry (those looki…

VCs have unique personalities, strengths, and needs like everybody else. For example, you can see this in the descriptions of the five mentioned. DM is all about execution; PM is into the vision- sell the vision and convince him you can carry it out; LL is all about strategy; VL is wants a good "general"- he's about how you are going to lead the troops. MH isn't so clear from the information presented, somewhere between strategy and execution I would suspect.

Disclaimer: I know none of them, I am just pointing out how their descriptions vary. The descriptions are surely inadequate to classify these particular people so consider it for illustrative purposes only.

Re: What VCs look for in startup pitches

#22

Post by wtvanhest » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 12:55 PM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #3

I get two different stories from different crowds on this issue. From many VCs and angels themselves - at least the ones that get their articles upvoted on this site - I get the impression that they dislike being bullshitted at. They hate people who are disingenuous. They don't care too much about projections or future plans. They just want to see how good your team is. From everyone else in the industry (those looki…

Here is an alternative way to look at the advice:

Avoid the future tense – If you looked at 100 presentations, which would really stand out? The ones that stand out are from teams that have accomplished a lot and have a clear path to making money, not groups that are still figuring it out. You obviously want to talk about the future, but the future is fluff so more substance is better.

Avoid overusing buzz words – Buzz words are commonly filler for teams that don’t know what they are doing. I’m sure that if you had a real product making money and a clear path to success you could still get funded using buzz words, but you wouldn’t want to use them because you would have more important things to talk about.

Understand the mechanics of your business – You should be an expert on your business and have thought of all the options and can explain the pluses and minuses of each option. If you are starting a grocery store (obviously not a VC fundable business, but stay with me), you would need be able to explain why you choose the Trader Joes style over the Wholefoods style or over the Walmart style and be able to explain each of those businesses and why one can be more or less profitable than the others.

Pitch me your team – There is a lot more written about this other places.

Target the right business – He says in the first line, be better than everyone else in your market, and I think that is a requirement. No one wants to fund a product or business that has no edge whatsoever.

Re: What VCs look for in startup pitches

#23

Post by borplk » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 12:56 PM UTC

atirip wrote: post #17

Help me out here please. One would think that any VC's absolute core, essential, vital skill would be "read between the lines", "see through", "smell the stuff"? So they can pick the best investments regardless of the pitch. Like having a sixth sense. If you can't do that, what good are you investing? But no. Sometimes I feel that even YC is become pitching contest, not startup contest. Countless on stories here on h…

This bugs me too. I really don't want to subject myself, the team or my company to such arbitrary judgements. I wouldn't want the money, suggestions or control of an investor who liked the company because of what I wear or the buzz words I threw. I'd rather work on the idea/company to get it to the point that it automatically attracts the right investors.

Re: What VCs look for in startup pitches

#24

Post by lusr » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 1:17 PM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #12

Is it just me or does Vincent Lauria stand out as the one guy in the bunch that I wouldn't want to pitch (or have a beer with). I've noticed this trend with VC's I've met. The bigger the VC name, the more respectful they are of entrepreneurs and what they go through. I know there are lots of people who pitch bad ideas, but that is what having good deal flow is about. Getting your schedule so packed with good people/b…

What didn't you like about him? He seemed keen on a solid business principles and that's great. Only thing I didn't like is the desire for a 2+ person team, because ownership is everything, but that's hardly an unfair request - there's far greater risk investing in one person.

Re: What VCs look for in startup pitches

#25

Post by pedalpete » Thu, Jul 26, 2012, 1:38 AM UTC

lusr wrote: post #24

pedalpete wrote: post #12

Is it just me or does Vincent Lauria stand out as the one guy in the bunch that I wouldn't want to pitch (or have a beer with). I've noticed this trend with VC's I've met. The bigger the VC name, the more respectful they are of entrepreneurs and what they go through. I know there are lots of people who pitch bad ideas, but that is what having good deal flow is about. Getting your schedule so packed with good people/b…

What didn't you like about him? He seemed keen on a solid business principles and that's great. Only thing I didn't like is the desire for a 2+ person team, because ownership is everything, but that's hardly an unfair request - there's far greater risk investing in one person.

I actually just went back to the post, and they've edited the original article. He initially had a long list of things which included (something like) #2 don't pitch me another group buying site, #4 seriously, don't pitch me another group buying site.

It wasn't the his content was wrong, he should say how he feels. But it had a very negative and condescending tone to it.

The edited article is much... smoother.

Also if you compare the other VCs in the article, much of it is about what they want, rather than what they don't.

I have nothing personally against Vinnie, I've never met him, never heard of him before. But in the first version of the article he really stood out against the others in what I thought was a negative light.