We are often asked how companies get funded, why VCs make the decisions we make and what we’re looking for in entrepreneurs. I think this is a Seriously great example of how this process works for at least one VC – Upfront Ventures. But I’m guessing the narrative is similar elsewhere.
I first met Andrew Stalbow, the founder & CEO of Seriously in August of 2013. He hit me from two very trusted sources. On August 23rd, 2013 I had an email intro from my good friend and trusted source Jeff Berman who only sends me stuff when it is somebody he respects (ie a strong filter vs. those who send casual intros). On August 26th I had an equally effusive intro from Ynon Kreiz, also a friend, trusted source and also the CEO of portfolio company Maker Studios. So this was definitely an introduction I was going to take.
We met on August 28th, 2013 and I know this because literally the next day I wrote a blog post about how we love to fund startups where founders have accents in which I referred to my first meeting with Andrew (with a “fick” English accent) and his co-founder Petri Järvilehto with an even thicker Finnish accent and referred to my favorite Finnish curse word Perkele.
Andrew & Petri posed a question to me, “If Walt Disney were starting his company today, what kind of company would he build?” I thought that was a clever enough question to pose. Who wouldn’t want to emulate the extreme success of Walt Disney for the next 50 years? The Walt Disney Corporation.
Much has been written about when it is time to hire a “professional CEO” to run a startup company and of course that has long been a norm in Silicon Valley when founders find that their inexperience may be a limiting factor in company growth (know as the Peter Principle).
Much less has been said about when the technical CEO is the best person to run the company.
Yet if you look at some very successful market changes in the last few years it does point to technical prowess in the number 1 seat. Case in point is the return of Larry Page to the role as CEO of Google. I don’t think that Google would have become the success story we all know without the leadership of Eric Schmidt through the years he led the company.
So why did Larry need to return?
It seemed that Google was being out innovated by another Silicon Valley technical leader, Mark Zuckerberg. Somehow in a world of rapid change Mark had been able to right his ship much faster than the highly bureaucratic organizations that places like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft had become.
Prorata rights are one of the most important rights of private market technology investors and yet are seldom fully understood. They often create the biggest tensions between investors who are investing at different stages in the business.
politics of money by bastera rusdi on 500px
These tensions seep out in some angels or seed funds publicly or semi-privately deriding later-stage VCs for their “bad” behavior. I have seen bad behavior from later-stage VCs, believe me. But I have seen equally bad behavior from super early stage investors.
As always a balanced perspective is in order. Here’s what you need to know.
1. Why investors care about prorata rights
Prorata investment rights give investors the right to invest in a startup’s future fund-raising rounds and maintain their ownership % in the company as the company grows and raises more capital. This is important for nearly every institutional investor because once you have 25-50 investments being able to “follow” the investments that are working well is critical to making money. It’s why
An abbreviated version of this post appeared yesterday on TechCrunch.
If you want the full SlideShare deck with many slides not in either post it’s in this link –> The LA Tech Market
“There’s something going on in LA.”
It’s the most common refrain I hear from investors and even entrepreneurs these days. I hear it right after people have decided to come by for a few days to “check out what all the fuss is about.” I hear it when I visit LPs (the people who invest in VCs) all across the country, “Yeah, I haven’t been out there for a few years but I keep hearing that something is going on there.”
Or if you ask the venerable Greg Bettinelli, he’s
Marc Andreessen kicked off another great debate on Twitter last night, one that I’ve been talking about incessantly in private circles for the past 2-3 years – what actually IS the definition of a seed vs. A-round.
Cautionary note: No competent VC is actually fooled when you show up after raising $6M in seed financing and say you’re now raising an A!
— Marc Andreessen (@pmarca) October 7, 2014
This is something I think entrepreneurs don’t totally understand and it’s worthwhile they do. My view:
“Spending any time or energy trying to game the ‘definition’ of your round of fund raising is a total waste. Nobody cares. No VC will be so naive as not to see straight through it. And actually many will probably find the gamesmanship as a bad sign of lack of property priorities or perspective.”
Here’s how all the drama started for me.
When I first became a VC, seed rounds were typically $500k – $1.5 million.