8 ms·

It's really weird how this article tries to frame the situation. It's almost like the startups feel entitled to the funding. The point of funding should really

by delecti 11y ago

It's really weird how this article tries to frame the situation. It's almost like the startups feel entitled to the funding. The point of funding should really be to enable faster growth than they might otherwise have been able to achieve, but if a business can't at least survive without huge influxes of investments then is it really a business that they should be investing in in the first place?

tariqali34 11y ago
Many of these businesses may make better sense as "non-profits", out to improve the welfare of the general community and funded purely by donations. I'm not sure whether donors would appreciate writing fat checks for programmers/managers/etc., but it's clear that a "hockey stick" growth could lead to a immediate path to monetization (if people know your name, you can capitalize on it when you're doing fundraising drives).
- cubano 11y ago
  Are you kidding me? Almost all VCs aren't interested in "non-profit" and "welfare of general community." They want hockey-stick ROI and unicorns. I know this may be the wrong forum to say this, but let's get real...VC are in it for the money, not to make a social impact, and the last thing most of them are interested in is playing welfare daddy to a bunch of tech nerds.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - woah 11y ago
    I think you should re read what you commented on.
wpietri 11y ago
It's a reasonable question, but consider three things: One, part of the VC model is relatively frequent fundraising. You take some seed money, prove the model a bit, take an A round, prove it some more, etc. It's in nobody's interest to give all the money necessary to get to break-even at once; investors would rather make smaller bets, and founders want to sell as little equity as possible when uncertainty is high. Two, if your goal is to never actually need another round of funding, then you'll be very conservative in how you spend your money. Bolder competitors will spend money with the expectation of getting more soon, allowing them to outpace you. So there's a strong incentive to spend as fast as possible, trusting that you'll get good enough results to earn the next round of investment. Three, there are many interesting businesses that are only possible with huge investments. In the Internet world, Twitter and Facebook are good examples. Most ad-supported businesses really only work at scale; ditto network-effect businesses. For physical goods, Tesla's a good example: you have to sell a lot of cars to justify building a factory. Pharma, too; your second pill might cost $1 to produce, but that first pill can cost $2 billion. I agree there's a lot of entitlement in the industry, but I think some of it's reasonable here, in that when you talk to a VC firm, they'll sing you a great song about how they are there to support you, that they'll back you all the way, etc, etc. People who haven't experience a downturn can be genuinely shocked at how fast supposedly bold, independent investors suddenly all stampede in the same direction.
JumpCrisscross 11y ago
> if a business can't at least survive without huge influxes of investments then is it really a business that they should be investing in in the first place Many entrepreneurs have been trained to pursue growth over short-term sustainability. In a market defined by network effects, this makes sense. It also works where one has a shot at winning a significant majority of a research-driven industry's profits (e.g. Apple or SpaceX), thereby starving one's competition of R&D oxygen. Not all markets look like that. Furthermore, the cost of (and risk of losing) financing have not been properly worked into teams' growth-versus-profitability calculi. The time and resources it takes to adapt will kill some and slow others. After all is said and done, we'll have a healthier Valley culture.
mindcrime 11y ago
Here's the somewhat ironic "catch 22" to the whole thing: If you're a startup and you don't take VC funding, then you have the luxury of simply enjoying organic growth and funding expansion by re-investing profits into the company. Well, as long as you can do that in the face of competitive pressure. Strictly speaking, unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Unless you take VC money. Then, the simple act of taking their money now means there is pressure to grow fast, but it comes from the investors and not from the market per-se. And this is because VC funds are time-boxed and, by definition, have to generate whatever return they're going to generate by a fixed point in time. And the older a fund is (eg, the nearer it is to the end of it's life) the greater the pressure. This is something I think more entrepreneurs should think long and hard about. Don't raise VC money just for the sake of doing it. Even if you can. Do it IF and only if it's the only (or at least surest) way to reach your goals. And always remember that the VC's interests do not necessarily align with the founders (at least not 100% so).
- freyr 11y ago
  > unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Uber seems like a weird example of this. It was said (and remains said) that they're operating in a winner-take-all space, and they expanded as if they were a social network. Despite the aggressive expansion and marketing, a majority of people I know in the Bay Area now use Lyft exculsively. The last few times I've said "I'll get an Uber," somebody's actually paused and said "Wait, why don't we take Lyft?" I'm not even sure why. When asked, they just reply that they don't like Uber for some non-specific reason. They're expanding around the world and into new products and concepts, but haven't even seemed to nail down a loyal customer base on their home turf. Anecdotally speaking.
  - flashman 11y ago
    Uber's version of achieving loyalty/lock-in is literally to run the competition into the ground and make sure their customers have no other options. That's a long way from achieving it by offering the best service, and I don't think driver/passenger ratings bridge the gap: it's the difference between encouraging or rewarding good behaviour, and subtly threatening people for breaking the rules.
tosseraccount 11y ago
"The point of funding should really be to enable faster growth" The point of funding is to generate a return. Hopefully more than you can get from CDs. Good investments are often a very long term proposition.
InclinedPlane 11y ago
The point of funding isn't just growth, it's to keep a business afloat during the times when there's not much revenue but still lots of work to do to build the core business.
tryitnow 11y ago
No, funding should not necessarily be used to enable faster growth. It can also be used for development, for refining product/market fit, etc. A lot of businesses would never be able to survive their early years without outside funding. Now, do a lot of flimsy startups feel entitled to funding? Yes. That is a problem.

by delecti 11y ago

tariqali34 11y ago

Many of these businesses may make better sense as "non-profits", out to improve the welfare of the general community and funded purely by donations. I'm not sure whether donors would appreciate writing fat checks for programmers/managers/etc., but it's clear that a "hockey stick" growth could lead to a immediate path to monetization (if people know your name, you can capitalize on it when you're doing fundraising drives).

cubano 11y ago
Are you kidding me? Almost all VCs aren't interested in "non-profit" and "welfare of general community." They want hockey-stick ROI and unicorns. I know this may be the wrong forum to say this, but let's get real...VC are in it for the money, not to make a social impact, and the last thing most of them are interested in is playing welfare daddy to a bunch of tech nerds.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- woah 11y ago
  I think you should re read what you commented on.

wpietri 11y ago

It's a reasonable question, but consider three things: One, part of the VC model is relatively frequent fundraising. You take some seed money, prove the model a bit, take an A round, prove it some more, etc. It's in nobody's interest to give all the money necessary to get to break-even at once; investors would rather make smaller bets, and founders want to sell as little equity as possible when uncertainty is high. Two, if your goal is to never actually need another round of funding, then you'll be very conservative in how you spend your money. Bolder competitors will spend money with the expectation of getting more soon, allowing them to outpace you. So there's a strong incentive to spend as fast as possible, trusting that you'll get good enough results to earn the next round of investment. Three, there are many interesting businesses that are only possible with huge investments. In the Internet world, Twitter and Facebook are good examples. Most ad-supported businesses really only work at scale; ditto network-effect businesses. For physical goods, Tesla's a good example: you have to sell a lot of cars to justify building a factory. Pharma, too; your second pill might cost $1 to produce, but that first pill can cost $2 billion. I agree there's a lot of entitlement in the industry, but I think some of it's reasonable here, in that when you talk to a VC firm, they'll sing you a great song about how they are there to support you, that they'll back you all the way, etc, etc. People who haven't experience a downturn can be genuinely shocked at how fast supposedly bold, independent investors suddenly all stampede in the same direction.

JumpCrisscross 11y ago

> if a business can't at least survive without huge influxes of investments then is it really a business that they should be investing in in the first place Many entrepreneurs have been trained to pursue growth over short-term sustainability. In a market defined by network effects, this makes sense. It also works where one has a shot at winning a significant majority of a research-driven industry's profits (e.g. Apple or SpaceX), thereby starving one's competition of R&D oxygen. Not all markets look like that. Furthermore, the cost of (and risk of losing) financing have not been properly worked into teams' growth-versus-profitability calculi. The time and resources it takes to adapt will kill some and slow others. After all is said and done, we'll have a healthier Valley culture.

mindcrime 11y ago

Here's the somewhat ironic "catch 22" to the whole thing: If you're a startup and you don't take VC funding, then you have the luxury of simply enjoying organic growth and funding expansion by re-investing profits into the company. Well, as long as you can do that in the face of competitive pressure. Strictly speaking, unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Unless you take VC money. Then, the simple act of taking their money now means there is pressure to grow fast, but it comes from the investors and not from the market per-se. And this is because VC funds are time-boxed and, by definition, have to generate whatever return they're going to generate by a fixed point in time. And the older a fund is (eg, the nearer it is to the end of it's life) the greater the pressure. This is something I think more entrepreneurs should think long and hard about. Don't raise VC money just for the sake of doing it. Even if you can. Do it IF and only if it's the only (or at least surest) way to reach your goals. And always remember that the VC's interests do not necessarily align with the founders (at least not 100% so).

freyr 11y ago
> unless it's a "network effect" situation like a social network, you probably don't need to grow fast. Uber seems like a weird example of this. It was said (and remains said) that they're operating in a winner-take-all space, and they expanded as if they were a social network. Despite the aggressive expansion and marketing, a majority of people I know in the Bay Area now use Lyft exculsively. The last few times I've said "I'll get an Uber," somebody's actually paused and said "Wait, why don't we take Lyft?" I'm not even sure why. When asked, they just reply that they don't like Uber for some non-specific reason. They're expanding around the world and into new products and concepts, but haven't even seemed to nail down a loyal customer base on their home turf. Anecdotally speaking.
- flashman 11y ago
  Uber's version of achieving loyalty/lock-in is literally to run the competition into the ground and make sure their customers have no other options. That's a long way from achieving it by offering the best service, and I don't think driver/passenger ratings bridge the gap: it's the difference between encouraging or rewarding good behaviour, and subtly threatening people for breaking the rules.

tosseraccount 11y ago

"The point of funding should really be to enable faster growth" The point of funding is to generate a return. Hopefully more than you can get from CDs. Good investments are often a very long term proposition.

InclinedPlane 11y ago

The point of funding isn't just growth, it's to keep a business afloat during the times when there's not much revenue but still lots of work to do to build the core business.

tryitnow 11y ago

No, funding should not necessarily be used to enable faster growth. It can also be used for development, for refining product/market fit, etc. A lot of businesses would never be able to survive their early years without outside funding. Now, do a lot of flimsy startups feel entitled to funding? Yes. That is a problem.