stop worrying about VC’s. trust me, it’s a rabbit hole of pain and perpetual disempowerment.
better to focus on figuring out what perspective you’re currently missing to how you can better help your customers THRIVE.
Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
51–60 of 66 posts
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#52I wouldn’t trust these data, not because there is anything wrong with the analysis but because the inputs are inaccurate. What VCs say was the reason they were interested is not necessarily what made them interested. It may be what they tell themselves or tell you, but I think the decision criteria are rarely that objective or explicit. Decisions are made, then back justified with a plausible explanation.
100% agreed. Most VC funds are necessarily good at very specific skill: convincing people who control lots of money that the VC is smarter and better than their competitors. The easiest way to sell that is to truly believe it, and then perform that belief convincingly. That's not something one switches on and off, so their answers here are likely to be skewed in the direction of things that make them look valuable. T…
"Looks like Zuck" meme debunked at http://paulgraham.com/tricked.html
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% agreed. Most VC funds are necessarily good at very specific skill: convincing people who control lots of money that the VC is smarter and better than their competitors. The easiest way to sell that is to truly believe it, and then perform that belief convincingly. That's not something one switches on and off, so their answers here are likely to be skewed in the direction of things that make them look valuable. T…
"Looks like Zuck" meme debunked at http://paulgraham.com/tricked.html
That's disappointing. I knew it was a joke, of course. But I took it as an acknowledgement that he, like all of us, has irrational biases that we discover over time. I'm sorry to see that it was much less than that.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#54I wouldn’t trust these data, not because there is anything wrong with the analysis but because the inputs are inaccurate. What VCs say was the reason they were interested is not necessarily what made them interested. It may be what they tell themselves or tell you, but I think the decision criteria are rarely that objective or explicit. Decisions are made, then back justified with a plausible explanation.
Yes. It's like, if you analyzed reasons for romantic breakups, you might conclude many were "It's not you, it's me". Which is not "the reason" in the strict sense of a single condition that, if you constructed a counterfactual scenario where it wasn't true, the breakup wouldn't have happened.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reminds me the “wrist snap” practice in tennis. I don’t remember the exact details, but it started because a successful tennis player said that’s what he does. Shortly after, thousands of trainers were teaching the method breaking wrist of naive students. It took high speed camera to confirm that no players use it [0]. The point is that people micro-tweak their behavior based on simple reward mechanism. Most can’t…
Tweak based on feedback is exactly right! Only problem is that VCs normally don't give any!
What I look for is behavior rather than verbal feedback. I know where I have hit spots in the presentation. If they don't react, then they are not as strong as I thought. If they react negatively, I know I didn't explain them well.
But yes, most VCs will never bother follow-up.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#56I wouldn’t trust these data, not because there is anything wrong with the analysis but because the inputs are inaccurate. What VCs say was the reason they were interested is not necessarily what made them interested. It may be what they tell themselves or tell you, but I think the decision criteria are rarely that objective or explicit. Decisions are made, then back justified with a plausible explanation.
I came here to say this. User-reported data is unreliable at best.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#57I didn't see any pricing anywhere. Anyone knows how much do they charge?
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general I agree with you, but I would say that alot of VCs either 1) diversify their investments amongst many areas in tech (or maybe some non tech things, not stereotyping all VCS but for this example I'll say diversity of problems being solved using technology/software etc) and thus see commonalities of problems amongst teams in their experience despite whatever the specific niche industry is. I think it is pret…
Really surprising your username wasn't taken!
lol I know me too I just made it up to type that comment and it was the first thing that popped into my mind.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In general I agree with you, but I would say that alot of VCs either 1) diversify their investments amongst many areas in tech (or maybe some non tech things, not stereotyping all VCS but for this example I'll say diversity of problems being solved using technology/software etc) and thus see commonalities of problems amongst teams in their experience despite whatever the specific niche industry is. I think it is pret…
If your point is, "Some VCs can be good at their jobs," I definitely agree. My point is more that all VCs have a strong incentive to appear to be good at their jobs, especially in ways that sound impressive and are hard to verify.
I think you could say that about anyone.
Re: Analyzing pitches to find what gets VCs interested in a meeting
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your point is, "Some VCs can be good at their jobs," I definitely agree. My point is more that all VCs have a strong incentive to appear to be good at their jobs, especially in ways that sound impressive and are hard to verify.
I think you could say that about anyone.
I really couldn't. E.g., I've hired a number of programmers who are terrible at self-promotion. And even many of the ones who are good at it talk about specific, verifiable, repeatable skills.