4 ms·

"Rent the Runway has been valued at $500 million. It asked Fortune not to publish this story because it could hurt the company’s ability to raise money." It's

"Rent the Runway has been valued at $500 million. It asked Fortune not to publish this story because it could hurt the company’s ability to raise money." It's not the media's job to help you raise money, it's their job to report the facts. And frankly if your executive churn is that freaking high and so many prior employees have issues like they seem to, you probably shouldn't be raising money. Also, this might just be me, but does anyone else miss the good old days when you'd start a business and your success was determined by how much money you actually made, not how much money you got a bunch of investors to give you, just to burn on fancy offices and expensive toys, then crash the company in a few years and retire to write a book? This whole system seems incredibly screwed.

forgingahead 11y ago
It's not the media's job to help you raise money, it's their job to report the facts. Have you notified TechCrunch and the rest of the so-called tech "media"?
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Fair, but I said it's their job, I didn't say they all (or even most) did it well.
  - smokeyj 11y ago
    I think their job is to be entertaining and sell advertisements.
    - eli 11y ago
      The sites that get my ad impressions tend to be the ones that do reporting and not just cheerleading.
  - forgingahead 11y ago
    This does relate to the second part of your comment above though -- "tech media" is simply sponsored content benefitting the investor groups, and nothing else. Hacker News is similarly inclined (to a lesser extent though) for YC. But yes, I agree with you that it's better to focus on actual cash generation in a business. It's not a relic of the "old days" though, plenty of us do that, we just choose not to participate in the microcosm of "startups", "investors", and the rest of that shtick.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Also, this might just be me, but does anyone else miss the good old days when you'd start a business and your success was determined by how much money you actually made, not how much money you got a bunch of investors to give you, just to burn on fancy offices and expensive toys, then crash the company in a few years and retire to write a book? Selling equity to investors is as much making money as selling products to consumers. And, to the Nth investor, your ability to sell to the N+1th investor may be as important -- or more important -- an aspect of your ability to make money as your ability to sell to consumers.
- HillRat 11y ago
  Revenue and no equity raise is a closely-held business. Equity raise and no revenue is a Ponzi scheme.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Revenue and no equity raise is a closely-held business. Equity raise and no revenue is a Ponzi scheme. That doesn't stop both from being "making money".
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      If you've convinced a bunch of suits to give you money that's a very important step on the way to success, but it's not success, and frankly if your business folds after that and you walk away a millionaire, I'd say not only did you fail, but you're dishonest. I don't understand these founders who work in offices they can't heat or light properly because they can't afford to pay the bills, yet show up for said work in Aston Martins and Mercs. If you get funded that's great, but put the money in the damn business you said you were starting if for no other reason than IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY, you didn't earn it, you didn't work for it, it was given to you to do something specific with. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, if I gave somebody 5 million bucks to start a business and found them spending one friggin penny on pointless personal purchases, I would raise hell over it and I think I'd be right to do so.
joezydeco 11y ago
What's worse is that RTR was earning a solid amount of revenue. My wife is a very happy customer of theirs. But when it's all about growth, not just plain boring 5% growth but hockey stick growth, then everyone comes out the loser.

forgingahead 11y ago

It's not the media's job to help you raise money, it's their job to report the facts. Have you notified TechCrunch and the rest of the so-called tech "media"?

FussyZeus 11y ago
Fair, but I said it's their job, I didn't say they all (or even most) did it well.
- smokeyj 11y ago
  I think their job is to be entertaining and sell advertisements.
  - eli 11y ago
    The sites that get my ad impressions tend to be the ones that do reporting and not just cheerleading.
- forgingahead 11y ago
  This does relate to the second part of your comment above though -- "tech media" is simply sponsored content benefitting the investor groups, and nothing else. Hacker News is similarly inclined (to a lesser extent though) for YC. But yes, I agree with you that it's better to focus on actual cash generation in a business. It's not a relic of the "old days" though, plenty of us do that, we just choose not to participate in the microcosm of "startups", "investors", and the rest of that shtick.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Also, this might just be me, but does anyone else miss the good old days when you'd start a business and your success was determined by how much money you actually made, not how much money you got a bunch of investors to give you, just to burn on fancy offices and expensive toys, then crash the company in a few years and retire to write a book? Selling equity to investors is as much making money as selling products to consumers. And, to the Nth investor, your ability to sell to the N+1th investor may be as important -- or more important -- an aspect of your ability to make money as your ability to sell to consumers.

HillRat 11y ago
Revenue and no equity raise is a closely-held business. Equity raise and no revenue is a Ponzi scheme.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Revenue and no equity raise is a closely-held business. Equity raise and no revenue is a Ponzi scheme. That doesn't stop both from being "making money".
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    If you've convinced a bunch of suits to give you money that's a very important step on the way to success, but it's not success, and frankly if your business folds after that and you walk away a millionaire, I'd say not only did you fail, but you're dishonest. I don't understand these founders who work in offices they can't heat or light properly because they can't afford to pay the bills, yet show up for said work in Aston Martins and Mercs. If you get funded that's great, but put the money in the damn business you said you were starting if for no other reason than IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY, you didn't earn it, you didn't work for it, it was given to you to do something specific with. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, if I gave somebody 5 million bucks to start a business and found them spending one friggin penny on pointless personal purchases, I would raise hell over it and I think I'd be right to do so.

joezydeco 11y ago

What's worse is that RTR was earning a solid amount of revenue. My wife is a very happy customer of theirs. But when it's all about growth, not just plain boring 5% growth but hockey stick growth, then everyone comes out the loser.