DISQUS

Mike Brown · 2 years ago

Hey Matt- My advice to entrepreneurs is to always to pick the individual partner, not the firm that you want to work with. Rating firms is a bit silly in my mind. I was always told in college to pick classes based on the individual professor, and the same logic holds when working with investors. Chemistry is critical because the investor and the entrepreneur are going to go through lots of ups and downs together. Also, a given investor may be swamped with other board commitments and not add a ton of value to a new company. Also, a given investor may or may not have relevant domain expertise which will impact his/her ability to add value through business development introductions and key contacts. A fancy name brand won't buy you much except perhaps a little buzz for recruiting (and this only in some cases). Mind you, there are lots of terrific investors out there so I'm in no way diminishing "name brand" firms! I just think the premise of choosing a VC partner to join your board based on a monolithic firm rating isn't super helpful and may ultimately confuse the issue rather than provide entreprneurs with the clarity they're seeking. -Mike

David Cowan · 2 years ago

Actually, I don't think that TheFunded should disqualify feedback from entrepreneurs whose plans were rejected by a venture firm. As venture investors, it's our jobs to consider each opportunity thoughtfully and respectfully. We don't always do that well, but when we do, the entrepreneurs whose proposals we decline usually come away from the interaction with some thoughtful feedback, and leads of various kinds.

David Scott Lewis · 2 years ago

Since there is no anonymity, most of the comments will be quite positive, not negative. Burning bridges with VCs in a public forum is tantamount to professional suicide for anyone in the tech sector.

However, this isn't necessary a bad thing. It might be about reading between the lines. There are also other subtleties that entrepreneurs can pick up that might lead them in one direction versus another.

What I'd love to see, even in a totally positive way, are comments about which markets a VC truly understands. This would be useful in all sorts of ways, even for the Fourth Estate.

Matt Marshall · 2 years ago

David,
I'm not suggesting disqualification. I'm suggesting that the fact be disclosed. Rejection by a VC is always going to color an entrepreneur's impression of the VC, unless the entrepreneur is unusually even-keeled and large-minded.

TheFunded · 2 years ago

There are actually three problems that The Funded tries to solve: (1) what are insights to target funds that you want to pitch for a brand new start-up, (2) what is the real story behind funds that are approaching you as an established and successful start-up, and (3) what can you really expect from a fund when the deal is actually done. Even a seasoned entrepreneur does not have all of the facts, often times until it is too late... IMHO.

Russell Perkins · 2 years ago

Our company has done quite a bit of research into use of review/rating/recommendation systems as they relate to B2B publishing. While it is unquestionably true that these "3R" systems tend to attract those with extreme opinions, at the same time there is growing evidence that where there is smoke, there is generally fire.

Making rude comments about VC's who wouldn't fund your dream has clear therapeutic value to the entrepreneur, but I think there is also real value to VC's smart enough to use such commentary as a business diagnostic. I've been in the room at a number of these pitch sessions over the years on both sides of the table, and continue to find it shocking the number of VC's who are unwilling or unable to stay focused for even 30 minutes at a stretch, fumbling with BlackBerry's, late for their own meetings and often disappearing mid-meeting for extended periods of time, usually with no explanation when and if they return. Forget the lack of professionalism; it's also shockingly bad manners that leave a lasting impression ... yes VC's should consider the negative brand equity they create as well, and here's a feedback loop, albeit a sometimes harsh one.

Paul Oxford · 2 years ago

TheFunded is an interesting site, and reminds me of the more general site SoWeSay.com. While TheFunded is focused on only venture capital firms, SoWeSay lets users create collaborative biographies (they call them Sayographies) about anyone.

That site seems to directly address Matt's original point of "pick a person, not a fund". Also, it lets people make Sayographies about anyone, not just VCs.

That said, I definitely think TheFunded is an interesting concept. VCs are notoriously clubby and old-boy-network-ish. I am not saying that's a fair assessment, just that it is a common perception. Sites like TheFunded and SoWeSay should help the community shed some more light into the darker corners of tight-knit groups like VCs.

bhmyt jscr · 2 years ago

edltbo hqvwfez jhfbuxrca mivwnyfc rnibytfwd xflc sotxfgm

ibkgwer ihbrw · 2 years ago

owcuizge izanhvce efwoscy hnxmzy kipmfygd xywh wzjvbaum http://www.nkedhrz.ozpdu.com

pjfbvyzqu hkfnqt · 2 years ago

jzwog dpyn skie dvwz jsbmyq rmcska fxgka [URL]http://www.umsoife.bprnl.com[/URL] gdnsqulf vxtibuag