I have no problems with cold emails. But if you’re going to cold email a VC establish your credibility in the first 2-3 sentences. Crazy traction trumps everything (but don’t oversell ornuse hyperbole) so lead with numbers if you have it. Absent that focus on your team’s history of high achievement or other qualifying filters. If you’re doing a fintech startup it’s not sufficient to say I have 25 years of finance experience. You could have worked as a bank teller for all I know. Much better would be I worked at X-brand name and led a team of Y people and grew the business $millions. Name drop brand name companies like Google, McKinsey, or rank the company if it’s less known (the second largest X.
The worst emails are cold emails from people saying they have some revolutionary technology but zero professional credibility no history of achievement or an ability to Marshall resources and the email is riddled with spelling mistakes. Next are emails from entrepreneurs with products so clearly out of your space that it’s clear they were just mining linked in.
Great advice! However, from my experience, I've found that networking events to be a complete waste of time -- I could be especially bad at it -- but I've found that the better and more long term way to build a network is to work with people. Be it joining a startup, going to work at a large tech company, collaborating on open-source, or even volunteering somewhere.
If you work at an early-stage startup you typically get to meet/interact with investors. And I did exactly that, the investors that I met at the first startup that I worked at when I emigrated to the U.S ended up investing in my company 4 years later.
It's a bit heavy at the beginning, but for a non-natural-networker like me, it has LOTS of useful advice.
By the way, the authors insist on face-to-face meetings, but I want to explore how far it's possible to get applying the same principles with remote relationships - which is fundamental when you don't live in a tech hub. I'm still thinking about how to proceed with this experiment, but if anybody else is interested in exploring the idea, feel free to contact me: dan@cybranding.com
If you talk to other founders, you'll probably find that all of them recommend both working with people (stronger friendships with a few people) and networking events (weaker friendships with a lot of people.)
I should say, I think that highly contextualized events, like say, "YC founders", or "Xoogler Founders", etc are useful. I think because a) there's a shared context and more probably shared interests b) there's frankly more signal-to-noise ratio, i.e. more likely than not people are worth knowing there.
But the paradox here is that you already need to have the relevant background to join such groups.
Some years ago I attended a talk series about fundraising, and there were a lot of interesting topics covered, like financing types, valuations, how to handle meetings, how to negotiate, etc. When it came time for questions, I asked what probably sounded like an absolutely stupid question: "this has all been great advice, but how do I actually meet an investor in the first place?" The answer? "Use your network".
Coming from an engineering background, I really had no idea that fundraising required networking. I naively thought fundraising would be more like working with a bank. Like you walk into a clearly marked building and set an appointment, to get your arbitrary company funded. In reality, there are all these different VC types that fund different company types and stages, finding who VCs are is tricky (Crunchbase is your friend), and VC websites often don't have contact info (of course it would be useless anyway; you have to use your network). It's like a whole secret society nobody knows about.
After some years, I have a larger network, and can get meetings with most VCs. But holy moly that was not intuitive at all.
My biggest breakthrough, that I haven’t used yet in practice, was when I realized that anyone with disposable income can be an angel investor. Got a friend who’s loaded? Angel. Family member with more savings than they need? Angel. Friend just sold stock? Angel. Cousin got huge bonus? Angel.
Hello HN! Justin (the author) here. We launched our new Atrium blog as a resource to the startup community. Happy to answer any questions about VC intros here.
Curious if you can expand on the associates bit for when you dont have an in with an associate.
Its always seemed that (generally speaking) most VCs with associates say you should talk to associates, and those seen as more “founder friendly” (i.e YC partners) or with no associates themselves say don’t waste your time.
Also, if you get an intro to a partner and get pushed to an associate how do you handle it? Should you still take the meeting? Seems like that’s a pretty strong negative initial signal but you don’t want to burn bridges either.
Generally meeting with an associate means an extra gatekeeper to convince so that’s why people suggest talking only with partners.
If you get pushed to an associate from a partner though it’s hard to go back and demand the meeting with the partner. If you have limited options, you should take the associate meeting.
FWIW our first round for Justin.tv started with an associate conversation.
> meeting with an associate means an extra gatekeeper to convince
The associate is the one talking with all the other companies in your space and the related spaces, so if you cultivate good relationships with them then they're your eyes and ears on the industry.
Speaking from personal experience, for first time founders rasing early rounds I would actually recommend going through an associate as you likely have no idea what you are doing and associates have more time and patience to hand-hold you through the process and prepare you for the partner meeting. You only get one shot with the decision makers and if you have no previous experience you are almost certain to blow it even if you have read every piece of advice on the internet.
Sure if you are Justin Kan you don't want to bother with another gatekeeper but if you are not then convincing the gatekeeper may actually prepare you to convince the decision maker.
> It's an extroverts world. What are the best channels for introverts? How many potential start ups have never been funded because the founder(s) didn't have the networking skills that are natural to extroverts?
Any thoughts on building relationships early with investors before you’re ready to take an investment?
Seems to be split opinions between “yes, it’s great because you’re not putting too much pressure to invest on the VC” to “It’s not great to waste someone’s time”.
I usually send a modification of this below, as I find it to be perfect balance between almost being rude by calling lack of their professional courtesy, but still nice enough, that actually people always get to respond:
Hi Mark,
I am following up my previous unsuccessful attempt to contact you regarding XXX. I realize you may have more urgent priorities, however I request the professional courtesy of your reply.
Please take a moment to respond and let me know whether XXX. I do not intend to solicit your business or otherwise burden you in any way, however I simply request a reply and status from our last correspondence about this project.
Do not hesitate to call me at any time if you have questions about XXX. I am prepared to assist you if needed, and that decision is entirely up to you...
Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to your prompt reply either way.
EDIT: in other words, if they don't respond, I consider them unprofessional assholes, and noone likes that :)
As someone who gets unsolicited email, when drip campaigns switch from positive to negative like this... Spam filter. Why on earth would a busy person with many open opportunities want to shift focus to a multiyear collaboration that is antagonizing from day 1?
Asking a question that can be answered in 1 line is fine, or asking for a referral to someone more relevant. But keep things positive and easy.
Oh man, you should really stop sending emails like that. It sounds desperate and as if you’re passive-aggressively chastising the person for not responding to you.
If they don’t respond after the second email, just assume it’s a no. Don’t start begging. You’re not going to change their mind and it just makes you look bad.
It's an extroverts world. What are the best channels for introverts? How many potential start ups have never been funded because the founder(s) didn't have the networking skills that are natural to extroverts?
It's not just a channels/strategies for introverts. It has to be a channel that works for you personally.
Personally, I'm not a person who can be successful doing "cold networking" or "never have lunch alone" strategies. Some people consider cycling to be the new great way to network, and many introverts seem to use it well. Probably not going to work for me either.
Lean on your strengths, interests, and natural inclinations rather than force yourself to be someone who you are not and play in a field unfit for you.
Also, don't frame it as a "networking" effort, as that mindset imo will make you transactional, and it will show. Instead focus on building relationships that truly resonate with you. Don't meet a person with the desire to get something from them. Be genuinely interested in who they are, not what they do or what they have.
Lean towards quality rather than quantity of relationships if you don't enjoy meeting and keeping in touch with a hundred people.
>How many potential start ups have never been funded because the founder(s) didn't have the networking skills that are natural to extroverts?
Probably a lot. But the number of would-have-been-extremely-successful startups that didn't get funded because of a lack of networking skills when they started? Probably very very few, because if they didn't have the determination to figure out a skill they sucked at but was essential to the success of their venture, then at some point in the future they would have hit another difficult wall and have given up.
I don't think there are equivalent channels for introverts. Rather than fitting square pegs into round holes, introverts would to better to play to their strengths.
Introverts aren’t as successful as extroverts in a CEO position that requires raising external capital and networking for customers. However introverts are often more successful in other roles (such as CTO), other types of companies (such as bootstrapped, low touch products), and other career types (eg mathematician).
Introverts can make good large company CEOs. Built to Last describes how the CEOs of companies who outperform the market over longer terms are more steady (hedgehogs) than flashy (foxes).
Yeah. Some people seem to assume "being an introvert" means being sentenced to social ineptitude. Most people can learn to overcome discomfort with certain experiences or activities. And with some effort, it's possible to even become good at such activities. Certainly, YMMV and not every introvert wants to, needs to or necessarily can pull it off.
If you're going to be CEO, either of a startup or a large co, you're probably broadly competent or hyper-competent in a handful of areas. Seems reasonable that at that level your ex/introvert tendencies are far from determinant.
"If you're going to be CEO, either of a startup or a large co, you're probably broadly competent or hyper-competent in a handful of areas."
Any particular reasoning behind this? Why would this particular specialty (abstract people management and capital allocation) be more likely to attract competent people than any other job specialty?
Agree with this. But having said that, an introvert can learn to be much more extroverted and finally become CEO material.
However, with a high-touch product (as mentioned above), you really need to have a lifetime of extroverted experiences which leads you to all the other extroverted (sales people) that will close those deals.
In the book 'Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking', the author gives several examples of how introverts can make good CEO (Bill Gates is one of the more famous example).
Those are great tips! One thing I would love to see added is what the sweet spots are for each fund/investor. We all know who the social, saas or marketplace investors are. But within those groups, there are additional segmentations (eg: price-sensitive investors, those looking for a certain min ARR, those focused only on +$20B TAMs, etc). I realize that not every investor would like to be labeled to such a level of granularity, but many have very narrow windows of opportunity, and it's surprising that there's not more public info about their sweet spots.
I think the one thing that begs repeating is how much YC is helpful in this process. It changes the fundraising dynamic for founders by allowing you to focus on product and growth and then creating an environment where investors come to you. It also provides you with an instant community of many founders who are happy to provide you with investor intros. Among other more significant benefits - YC is probably the best startup fundraising hack in the US (both for first time founders and repeat founders). I think this article is amazing advice but I really wish there would come a day when all early stage founders could just focus on making something their customers want and didn’t need advice on how to break into the startup investment scene. I think this barrier prevents many great founders from getting started and many important problems from being solved.
Double opt-in should be always the etiquette for introductions! We built https://intrologic.com, connect your email metadata and linkedin connections file, invite your friends and connectors and we provide you a searchable interface to request for intros to potential investors or qualified leads. Sign up: https://intrologic.com/start. Founder here.
The worst emails are cold emails from people saying they have some revolutionary technology but zero professional credibility no history of achievement or an ability to Marshall resources and the email is riddled with spelling mistakes. Next are emails from entrepreneurs with products so clearly out of your space that it’s clear they were just mining linked in.