Save Your Spin for Someone Who Cares

by Mark Suster on November 29, 2009

Handling PR with VCs
top spinning

This is part of my series on How to Raise VC but could equally be filed under Startup Advice more generally.

I recently got a phone call from an entrepreneur whom I respect and who runs a company that I hope will do great things one day.  He had pitched me in the past and I told him that for a variety of reasons his company was too early stage for me but that I would happily keep track of their progress.

He started the call by telling me he had exciting news.  He was about to be featured in a major US news magazine as one of their “hot” picks.  I think my response surprised him, “Really?  Is that why you called?  To update me on your PR?  That’s what you’ve got?  PR?  Save it for someone who cares!   What progress have you made in your business?”

I don’t think that’s what he was expecting.  Entrepreneurs get so used to friends and family congratulating them on their press coverage that they forget sometimes that this isn’t real.  A positive news story means NOTHING about the core performance of your business.  A good friend of mine was features on the front cover of the LA Times business section with a glowing article.  He had 2 weeks’ cash left in the bank and was facing massive layoffs or potentially bankruptcy.

Press doesn’t mean anything other than free advertising.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m very pro PR but please see it for what it is and don’t think that smart or experienced people are going to see it as any more than it is either.

Our call recovered and we spent the rest of the time talking about the development of their management team and their product.  But it got me thinking about how often entrepreneurs overplay their PR so I thought I’d try to offer some advice and how to play PR with VCs (or more broadly with customers or business development partners)

1. Press coverage really matters – The good news – your press coverage really does matter.  I know that most people will tell you that they aren’t influenced by what they read on TechCrunch but the reality is that people are way more influenced by what they read in the press than they even admit to themselves.  Just notice how many VC emails you get after your TechCrunch article or after you were on stage at TC50.  Please don’t take my post as meaning you shouldn’t have PR as an important part of your company’s strategy.

In another post I’ll talk about how PR has changed dramatically in the past 10 years or you can just read Brian Solis’s blog or buy his book on the subject.  Most notably you need to understand Earned Media and how blogging, public speaking and social media play an important role in the new PR landscape.

Stop-watch2. In your VC pitch your PR page should take no longer than 30 seconds – Wait.  If press coverage matters so much then why shouldn’t I talk it up more in my VC pitch?

Many entrepreneurs have a PR page in the PowerPoint deck.  It has logos of the 5-6 most prominent places they’ve been covered with a paragraph from each article.  They proceed to read these paragraphs out loud to the VCs in the meeting.

PR is subtle.  When I read an article about you I’m influenced.  When you sit and walk me through it for 4 minutes on a page I’m reminded of what it is – press coverage.  It shows nothing more than you have the ability to get coverage for yourself.  Again, I reiterate, it IS important.  Press coverage helps you to recruit team members, it helps add legitimacy to your customers who often do Google searches on you before buying and it helps influence biz dev (partners), corp dev (acquirers) and investors.

So what is the right way to pitch your PR page – either in a VC meeting or in a biz dev meeting?  Put up your slide with the 5-6 logos of journals that have covered you.  Reduce any quotes to a few key words and make them large.

When the page comes up say,

“I guess every entrepreneur needs to put in the obligatory PR page.  We feel honored that we’ve gotten such good press coverage.  Most notably we loved that ReadWriteWeb referred to us as ‘a next generation TripAdvisor” because that’s exactly how we want to be positioned.  PR has helped us to drive our numbers faster than we had planned and has gotten us to our 300,000 registered users.  We plan to continue to use PR as an ongoing part of our customer acquisition strategy.”

End.  Next page.  And only go back if you’re asked to.  Leave them wanting more.  You’ve accomplished two things.  One – you’ve shown that you understand how PR plays an important role in customer acquisition and more broadly in your company’s success strategy.  Two – you’ve been subtle about your PR achievements so the VC is left with a positive impression of your press coverage rather than becoming cynical.

3. In an email you can have curated links - So at the risk of sounding contradictory, I still think press coverage is important to VCs.  The best way to handle your press coverage is to send a series of links in an email to the VC you’re getting back in touch with.  It can be a simple email on any topic and toward the end say, “I’ve included some links to the most important (or most recent) articles covering us in case it helps with your research.”

I’ll close this story down with the one I started – the entrepreneur who called me to tell me he was about to be profiled in a major news magazine.  How could he have turned this into a positive?  After the article was written he could have sent me a short email with a one paragraph intro saying, “Just wanted to let you know we got this great coverage in ABC magazine: (link to article).  We’ve been making progress in bringing together our management team and our next release is about to ship.  I’d love to do a 30 minute call just to update you on our exciting news.”

9 times out of 10 I’ll click on the link and peruse the article.  If it’s positive it will probably have some minor impact on my perception of you – whether I acknowledge it to myself or not.  Strike one up for subtlety.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • FriendFeed
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • HackerNews
  • Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter
  • email
  • Print
  • haha, you might as well drown him in the cold sea with this remark!
    PR is good if done properly, since it has the potential to bring sales. I think if the entreprenuer tells the story behind a product, this could potentially turn PR into sales.
  • This is such a great post, and I can't believe these points are not made more often by more VCs. It reminds me of this time I went to a small lunch event at a very top tier firm on sand hill (one of those bullshit events where they pretend to help young entrepreneurs but the real goal is to find companies in their infancy and source deals). Anyway one of the partners was giving us advice about how much they like to see companies be written about in techcrunch and other blogs before they invest. Everyone was sucking it in... I though it was crazy. Can you even imagine having an investor on your board saying "we need to change this feature because Mike Arrington doesn't like it?" That firm (or at least that partner) lost all credibility in my book.

    I think good PR is ironically a death trap and can lead to the demise of companies. At least three reasons why:
    1) Companies have inadequate products but don't know it because journalists, who by definition cannot be indicative of your customers, tell them their product is great. The problems persist and are never solved because of the positive pr.

    2) Some entrepreneurs can get complacent from positive pr. This type of public endorsement and praise gives people that warm fuzzy feeling inside, which I think all entrepreneurs are really after. They feel warm and fuzzy yet haven't hit a single milestone. When they should be fighting for their company's life, they are busy feeling warm and fuzzy... until it's too late.

    3) I once asked an entrepreneur what the distribution strategy was for his company's product. He told me: "keep getting PR." Good PR may bring in some leads, but assuming this is a sustainable way to distribute
    your product is a death trap.
  • Your comments are spot on. The death of an entrepreneur in front of a VC is to talk about customer acquisition in terms of merely good PR.

    Also, unfortunately, inexperienced entrepreneurs fall into the trap of believing their hype. I even wrote a blog post about this called "Don't Drink Your Own Kool Aid" http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/09/13/d...

    thanks for your input. Valuable contribution to the discussion.
  • Part of the reason inexperienced entrepreneurs are so susceptible to this is because of really poor entrepreneurial education at top colleges. Too many professors, lecturers, unqualified advisors, etc. tell students their products are great because they don't want to break their hearts. A great example would be that Facebook app class at Stanford, which IRONICALLY received a huge amount of positive press coverage. How many of those apps turned into successful companies?? As I said in my comment above, these "educators" are just crack dealers.
  • David Smuts
    Conventional wisdom says I shouldn't be commenting now on a blog article 5 days old, but this is just such an important topic which Mark kicked off here and the comments coming back from Entrepreneurs with real life experience on this just forces me to pitch in again!

    Roman asks: "Can you even imagine having an investor on your board saying "we need to change this feature because Mike Arrington doesn't like it?"

    The problem Roman, is YES I can imagine this!

    This does happen. Whilst we are focusing our comments on educating Entrepreneurs about some of the drawbacks of PR, it's important that we raise this awareness with VCs/Investors too. I don't taint Mark Suster or other Entrepreneurial VCs with this brush but there are far too many VCs who do get off on the whole external PR thing. I've seen it happen over and over.
  • Screw conventional wisdom. That's what I'd like to change the title of my blog to! Hey the VC industry as a whole falls prey to the "lemming effect" and yes, too many people take their cue from Michael Arrington or TechCrunch coverage. I think Michael is about the best tech journalist out there - but TC coverage should not be a proxy for product design - customer input and data should!
  • Couldn't agree more. Mike is the best writer out there. In my few experiences talking with him when I worked at Techcrunch, I thought he was a very smart guy. But he doesn't know very much about building successful products companies.. in fact he's started multiple that failed!!

    Even more interesting, look at Techcrunch's products: they bought this thing called inviteshare which has gone nowhere and crunchbase so far has achieved very little of what they said it would... as standalone companies they would both be long dead. Fun to read, but for the life of me I can't understand where people see credibility in their opinions.
  • David Smuts
    "Screw Conventional Wisdom" sounds like the forthcoming and eagerly anticipated book on succedding in Entrepreneurship by Mark Suster. Do I get a signed copy?
  • David Smuts
    Or how about just: "Screw Convention" - double-entendre titles always sell more
  • Signed and free, my friend ;-)
  • Roman,
    I totally agree on the "warm and fuzzy" feeling... I also think that it's a perk of the entrepreneur lifestyle but it can be very addictive and totally destructive... Very good point.
  • Yeah, it's actually kind of sad, very much like being addicted to crack HA. Too many people (at least in the bay area) start companies to be "cool" and "sexy," not because they have an ability to solve a big problem, innovate, create value, etc. I'm pretty young, and I see this especially in young entrepreneurs still in school. A big problem is that most professors/lecturers don't tell the students the truth..... these people are just crack dealers!!

    I always tell the students to spend more time around the people that make them feel shitty, not warm and fuzzy.

    Thanks for the comment.
  • Positive PR = crack cocaine for an inexperienced an undisciplined entrepreneur
  • crack cocaine... can't think of a better analogy. Most of the entrepreneurs that I've seen fail over and over again, they're just trying to come up with a story to get a quick high, and eventually burn out and die.
    Will definitely use this analogy some time.

    and btw, an inexperienced entrepreneur is not necessarily an undisciplined entrepreneur ;) .
  • sudhi
    So true -PR matters - but what is important is "STUFF".
  • Thanks for another great post Mark- you've really become my favorite blog. This kind of real-world wisdom is very helpful and this last post definitely resonated with me. Keep it coming please!
  • Thanks, David. Appreciate the feedback. I'll do my best not to disappoint!
  • whats the name of that PR guru (its a she) in the valley that everyone w**ks on about?
  • Can't remember her name but I read a whole NY Times piece about her. Can't say that I have met her or worked with her. Not my thing.
  • i think i read the same thing - your post got me thinking about her and how totally rubbish the whole article was...
  • This is a great point. Because as an entrepreneur, you're living in the small ecosystem of VC/fellow entrepreneurs/tech journalists, you tend to very quickly focus on the PR coverage, especially if it comes from a fellow member: a blog post from Fred Wilso or TechCrunch will probably score higher in your own hierarchy as a feature on MSNBC.
    But at the end of the day, what makes the right VC invest in your company is the quality of the product you're pushing.
    And if you think a VC will invest because you got a blog post on TC during your pitch week to investors, then you're probably going after the wrong VC (especially if he did want to invest because you got great press coverage...).
  • Mostly agree. But the press coverage does help to shape VC perception if used in the right way. No VC will admit to that but I'm 100% sure it's true.
  • rsakanashi
    Thank you for this post. I agree that PR is important to a business and generates interest, however interest does not always result in business - like website traffic. It is up to the business owner to capitalize on the opportunities that come from PR and turn them into sales. I have seen several businesses written up and when I finally get around to checking them out, they are gone.
    Richard
  • Couldn't agree more. That's a post for a different day. Website conversion is everything. Press with no conversion are wasted dollars.
  • Thnx for the post Mark.

    I'm going to have to disagree with your approach on this one.

    This post implies in my mind an old school approach to marketing of which PR and social strategies are part of an afterthought from the product, the distribution strategy and the company as a whole. Sure, evaluate your spend and your projects and decide how to use them, but there is an implication that companies should sit down and decide "do we need PR and how much?". You know, bolt marketing on as an add on post some stage of product development.

    I come from the opinion that this is counterproductive approach. Marketing in today's world, needs to be part of the product development and distribution thinking, not approached from a tactic perspective first.

    My thoughts on the subject on my blog http://bit.ly/6tySLm.

    I'm not focusing on your conclusions and the value of press as a tool. I agree with your point of view. I just need to clarify that implying that marketing is the sum of a number of tactics of which PR is one is not looking at the possibilities that the social web and a new approach to value has opened up for all of us.
  • Saul_Lieberman
    Did you really say "Save it for someone who cares!" ?
  • Yes. I'm cheeky like that ;-)
  • Saul_Lieberman
    I'm cheeky too. But I guess you and I draw different lines for ourselves.
  • Yes, but I've known the guy for 18 months
  • You said...

    "Just notice how many VC emails you get after your TechCrunch article or after you were on stage at TC50."

    ...do VCs really cold email startups ever - even based on great media coverage? I am not asking facetiously - just genuinely wondering.

    If so, should one wait until one is getting such emails before bothering to go out pitching for VC money - as a leading indicator of when you're most likely to be fundable (if you have your other ducks in rows)? For advice I try to talk to founders and CEOs with lots more experience than me and haven't heard anecdotes of this sort of thing - mainly the opposite issue of having to spend a lot of time chasing VC, regardless of how they position their fundraising externally. I have heard about this idea of pro-active VC outreach to entrepreneurs, but mainly on VC blogs.

    So thought I'd ask.
  • Richard, thanks for the question. You'd be surprised by how attuned VCs are to the tech press (and vertical industry press if they are sector focused). Often bigger VCs have more junior staff that call into companies. I consider this more of a "fishing expedition" and am personally wary of it. But you may very well land on a partner's radar screen, too. Always best when either they're calling you or they know of you by the time you turn up. But for most people, good old fashioned VC intros are the way to go (sitting and waiting to be discovered is a lonely business!)
  • Hey you of the fabulous tumblelog. Yes, there is a lot of outbound reaching out to startups.

    The guys who are most mechanical about it are folks like the analysts at Insight Venture Partners who want to make sure they have some record of "every" company out there, so don't get excited just yet. They call them "dial for dollar" guys. They tend to focus on later-stage growth companies and will genuinely engage when they come across the occasional bootstrapped company that now books $5M a quarter and has somehow stayed off the VC radar until then.

    Also, really watch out for folks doing competitive analysis and not being open about it.

    In any event reachout programmes are far for systematic (if we VC's knew how to run a process it would be a known fact by now and we would not be getting so much crap for not getting back to people) and the venture firms that have no junior staff as a matter of course (which includes say Accel Partners on the West Coast) are less likely to spend time covering the ground and reaching out systematically. They will still be using the network for entrepreneur discovery, not TC50 or DEMO.

    So .... I think you are stuck with spending a lot of time chasing VCs, particularly when looking for early-stage financing, and occasionally getting your brain picked by a guy who wants to fund your competitor :-)

    Sorry, no easy way out...
  • Thanks for the input, Fred. Agree 100%. And as for blog shout-outs - been enjoying your posts. Mostly in complete agreement. A couple of minor nitpicks that I keep meaning to write about but never find the time! But great to have some London VC bloggers - not many (who are at least not anonymous ;-). I lived in Old Blighty for nearly a decade.
  • Thanks for the response (and blog shout out).

    That's more or less what I have come to understand about it. I am sure we'd get giddy the moment a VC cold called us, but we're not going to get distracted by it. So long as we keep our heads down, pick the right VCs (from a fit point of view) at the right time and focus on them, and get the right introduction from someone they respect, we're probably going to do best.
  • PR is a very, VERY potent weapon for a number of reasons. Done well, it can help amplify and accelerate revenue-generating opportunities. Done poorly, it can help accelerate a demise as well.

    The point that PR is by no means a substitute for substance is dead on. If you're friend had caveated his call by saying, "Hey, Mark...great news! [Clown Ventures] got on [Biz Pub's} hot picks! Even better, we just closed XXX new accounts and this should help us do even better!" then you probably would not have been so inspired to write this piece.

    8^)
  • Agreed. PR is essential - just important not to over state as my caller did.
  • Insightful. What do you thinking about retaining a PR firm at a few thousand dollars a month to get you coverage in major papers. I'm involved in a tech startup and in the past we had a heated argument about whether to spend the money developing feautures (we use an offshore team)or getting PR that would make us more credible and make it easier to raise money.
  • It's always case specific but I will tell you this - if you're a startup and not well funded never hire a PR firm. You're far better to hire an independent contractor on a project basis. A firm worth working with would never rep you for the amount of money you could spend. And if they do I assure you that you'll get their most junior resources.
  • Mark - I appreciate your post because it provides a reality check for entrepreneurs (myself included) who may sometimes overemphasize the impact of good press coverage.

    One explanation for this is that sharing PR results is our way of saying "look at the third-party recognition we've been able to achieve working on a shoestring… imagine what we could accomplish with VC funding."

    There is in fact some logic to using positive media exposure to gauge how much a start-up is hustling. This is because worthwhile PR rarely materializes out of thin air -- the entrepreneur has to find the right journalist and deliver a pitch that is timely, makes sense and transcends the clutter. He or she then has to avoid saying anything stupid while making sure the company is featured prominently (and positively) in the final story. Most entrepreneurs don't have the budget for a big PR firm, so jumping through so many hoops to achieve PR success inspires them to share their battle scars with anyone who will listen.

    That said, I agree wholeheartedly that PR matters only insofar as it helps grow the company. PR for the sake of PR or vanity has little value. So it definitely makes sense to try to present press coverage in terms of demonstrating growth.

    @David Smuts - While VCs may give good PR just a three-month shelf life, I think it has much longer value in terms of helping entrepreneurs reach customers and in-turn achieve the kind of growth VCs demand. Also, you mentioned that if there’s a lapse in PR, "people will wonder why you haven't gotten any…" - doesn’t that observation in itself make a case for the value of PR?
  • David Smuts
    Hi Babette, Our problem was we had an overdose of PR. We launched a big media event and because we were so focused on getting the product launched (the downside of JFDI gone mad) we thought all this great news coverage would bring investors on board. We had also made the fundamental mistake of outsourcing fundraising (never doing that again!). So this consultant/broker said he would get the investors, we just needed to get the product out (we did) and get some PR (we got a lot of PR - too much in fact, too soon).

    Now I don't regret what we did, or the PR coverage we got, because it did confirm what we were doing and how we were doing it could secure a lot of press coverage (ie it was unique and newsworthy). It's just we didn't have a revenue model at that time (beyond advertising) so we relied on PR (BIG MISTAKE!).

    I've learned that it's better to hold the PR off until you have your fundamentals in place. Then go and launch your blitzkrieg!
  • Thanks for the input, Babette. My view is that PR does signal to a VC that the startup knows how to get press coverage, which is often important for all of the reasons you and I have articulated. I think my bigger argument is not to overstate the PR. For example, do not imply that what is written about you is factually correct just because someone wrote it (as it ... we have the best product in the market). Also, don't drone on to people about what your PR coverage says - use it subtly. Used in the right way it is powerful.
  • My take is that an entrepreneur needs to interpret good press as a step on the way to success, not as success in itself. My personal "good press, failed business" story came about nine years ago with a start-up that was featured in Forbes roughly about four months before we closed the doors due to lack of funding. (No funding even after a great piece in Forbes? Heh.)

    The most important part of what you wrote (from my perspective, anyway) is that you can use PR for recruiting, for landing (and keeping) customers, for acquiring partners, and so on. Which makes me wonder: has anyone written more extensively on this subject, i.e., "What do you do after you get good press"?
  • I haven't seen if anybody has written on that topic but in general Brian Solis talks a lot about how to maximize PR in a social media world.
  • Thanks, I'll look around. The ideas you mentioned seem apparent to me, too, but I'd love to see if there are other ways to leverage good press. Now that I think about it, what you've written is "Here's one way that one should NOT attempt to leverage good press".
  • Great post. To be honest, I'm not that much a fan of PR until absolutely necessary, which is why my current company stays very low-key (although we are B2B). My last company got a tonne of great PR - TV interviews, radio interviews, front-page articles on every major newspaper pretty much....but it didn't help revenues, only motivated existing competitors, and encouraged new ones.

    Is there an ego-boost when your company is mentioned in NYT? Definitely. Girls seem to be impressed when you casually mention that. But I want people who are working on my current company to attach that ego-boost only to revenues, and not to a star-struck writer gushing about startups.

    I realize VCs are swayed by PR though....but as I've learned the hard way, doing things whose only function is to please VCs is a big mistake. I've learned way too much valuable (even critical) information about my competitors through their PR. Hopefully VCs will also be swayed by revenues ;)

    Speed and stealth win the day. It's true in war, and it's true in startups. That being said, you can't be stealthy forever and eventually have to launch your attack. When you do, make it fast and make it overwhelming.
  • It's a tough balance. For some companies stealth is the right approach and for others being public all along is best. In the latter case it can help with recruiting, fund raising, customer acquisition, business development partnerships and other benefits.
  • dereklicciardi
    When we first set out to build our game, we announced to the world that we were going to build the next great massively multiplayer game. Press coverage ensued in large quantities. IGN, Gamespy and a few European web sites all picked us up. Every one of our developer diaries and newsletters were splashed all over the Internet. When we didn't get the funding we needed at the time, all of that PR and the expectations that went with it became a huge weight on our shoulders. We had and continue to have a good size following on our web site that was built from the initial PR we received but the price for that PR is continued maintenance of our online community. We learned a lot from that initial experience.

    Today, we run under the radar for the most part with the exception that we recognize the fans that follow our game need updates on our progress. They bought into our concept from the onset and stuck with us over the years and I feel like, I owe it to them to update even if it's not the best news. That original PR continues to be part of our current operations to this day. Some days, I think it is too much to handle while juggling everything else. But most days, I'm grateful for the dedicated fans that have been following us religiously for these years. They force me to think about how my actions might be perceived by our future customer base. So PR is a balance like Mark says. It's all about when you need to engage and what you're trying to accomplish with it. What I wish I would have known before is that in today's world of social networking PR, most of your PR will remain with you for many years to come and is readily visible with a simple Google search.
  • Thanks for your input. Spot on. Listen, I think what is important is to have a GREAT product built before you tell the world. I think PR is vital to the success of startups but don't come out of the gates too early. You'll always be racing to catch up to the expectations that the market has of you and will have competition before it is wanted.
  • dereklicciardi
    Wow, this is the third time I type this. :( (two browser issues caused refreshes) I wanted to reiterate that I don't think the early PR was necessarily a bad thing. There's definately some good that has come from it.

    1) We have a loyal fanbase. These fans know that we have not acquired funding yet, yet they follow us to this day. The day we announce funding of any sort, they will rapidly recruit others to begin following our development progess. The first of many steps of customer acquisition is nearly done for us.

    2) Because of this fanbase, we've managed to avoid all the "get-rich-quick-schemes" that mar the image of the Zygna's of the world. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/31/scamville-... Without a product on the market, our word is all those loyal fans have to go by and as I mentioned in my first reply, that forced us to consider carefully, our business actions and our future PR. (blogs, twitter...) To date we've never violated that trust with our community and won't in the future. I'm not sure I'd have the same appreciation for our community had I not had to manage ours for so long. It's definately helped us become more customer-centric versus Zygna's revenue-centricity and I believe that will pay off in the end.

    3) Lastly, we've built a brand. Our game is a massively multiplayer game with strong social game play elements and always has been. If I were building our brand from day one today, we'd have to fight the "scam" perceptions that Facebook massively multiplayer games have brought to the media's attention. We have a brand. We're a known quantity and as such those that follow us know and trust our brand. Building a brand takes time no matter what size it is. I'm glad we have that brand and I'm glad it was established long before the current news.

    So in the end, the PR might have left us with a community to manage but it resulted in the hardening of a brand, a loyal following and a customer centric business philosophy. I can't say that those would have existed as strongly had I built the product and then took it to market.
  • PR is just free advertising, I love that quote.

    Just because a company makes for a good story on TechCrunch doesn't necessarily mean their business model warrants funding.
  • test
  • abir bhattacharyya
    A+Post. Amen Mark. (Of course mean the amen in a non-religious way).
  • This is SO TRUE. We made the mistake of ourselves of overvaluing PR. We had significant media, TV and press coverage including features on DIGG, BBC, ITV and TIMES etc..., when we first launched. The savvy investors didn't give a rat's arse about any of that. They wanted to know how we were going to make money.

    I would also add, PR has a finite value. When it's fresh it's valuable. But I think the shelf life is 3 months at most. After that, people just wonder why you haven't had any recent PR. If you want to use PR as a tool to attract VC, make sure you time it right to coincide with your investment strategy. And make bloody sure you're not relying on this- because it won't work. (lived it, learned it, with scars on the back to show for it).
  • Great post. To be honest, I'm not that much a fan of PR until absolutely necessary, which is why my current company stays very low-key (although we are B2B). My last company got a tonne of great PR - TV interviews, radio interviews, front-page articles on every major newspaper pretty much....but it didn't help revenues, only motivated existing competitors, and encouraged new ones.

    Is there an ego-boost when your company is mentioned in NYT? Definitely. Girls seem to be impressed when you casually mention that. But I want people who are working on my current company to attach that ego-boost only to revenues, and not to a star-struck writer gushing about startups.

    I realize VCs are swayed by PR though....but as I've learned the hard way, doing things whose only function is to please VCs is a big mistake. I've learned way too much valuable (even critical) information about my competitors through their PR. Hopefully VCs will also be swayed by revenues ;)

    Speed and stealth win the day. It's true in war, and it's true in startups. That being said, you can't be stealthy forever and eventually have to launch your attack. When you do, make it fast and make it overwhelming.


    Mark here is the book I was telling you about. It's very entertaining reading : http://www.amazon.com/High-Stakes-No-Prisoners-...
  • sage advice.
    ----
    positive press coverage does wonders for an entrepreneur, especially when they are in the trenches and they're not getting the traction/vc interest they expected. press coverage provides all important recognition and gives the entrepreneur motivation to keep fighting

    citing press coverage, especially when from a respected journalist, offers an entrepreneur an easy way to stay on the VC's map and show (quasi) progress in their venture - it also helps them to keep considering themselves as significant even though thinks may not be going to plan in the greater scheme of things.

    one last aspect to consider is that when an entrepreneur cites press coverage it may not always be as part of his investment acquisition strategy, it may be from the perspective of "screw you. you blew me out, dragged your heels - look what i've accomplished without you"
  • Sorry, but I think this is total non-sense. This logic is exactly the problem with good PR and why it can be disastrous (see my own comment below). Replace every instance of "press coverage" with "customers" and I agree. I would much rather cite my customers than an a journalist. This logic that pr is great especially when you are down and not getting traction is so terrible. You're not getting traction because your product probably still sucks. You should listen to the people telling you it sucks and try to fix it, not a JOURNALIST who liked it.

    The day I say "screw you, I have this glowing article written about me," is the day I fold my company. I prefer "screw you, this customer just paid me 500k upfront for my incredibly valuable service/software." Now that's worth a press release!
  • Awesome. Couldn't agree more.
  • David Smuts
    Roman- I really liked your comment here. It reminds me of a company I used to consult which was on the OTCBB and all they could do was spout out a press release every week about this big name person, university or hospital etc..., looking at their product. They had ZERO sales!!!! But they sold shares on the back of worthless PR. I could never do that to shareholders.
  • Agree re: the importance of positive press coverage. Entrepreneur should be wary of the "screw you" approach you talk about in your final paragraph. I don't think it usually works UNLESS you really are killing it. In that case I suspect you don't care about the VC that passed on you. As VCs you tend not to worry about positive press on the companies you passed on because you know that positive press and lots of VC dollars don't always equate to positive investment returns.
  • i hear you, but im not sure its a case of an entrepreneur wanting you to feel bad that you may have missed an opportunity its more a self defence mechanism for them to try and have closure on the reason for your "passing on the opportunity".

    its much more painless for them to feel that you made a mistake and "look heres the press coverage to prove it" than for them to really expend the time/energy and emotion trying to guage and internalise the real reasons why you may have passed on their brainchild and "lifes work"
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post: The Case for In-Stream Advertising

Next post: Hiring at a Startup? Know Thy Weaknesses