3 ms·

I don't get it. These mails from Ron Conway and Chris Sacca sounds like founders are babies in their diapers who won't even find the way to the toilet without t

by irahul 16y ago

I don't get it. These mails from Ron Conway and Chris Sacca sounds like founders are babies in their diapers who won't even find the way to the toilet without their angel's "coaching" them. They are taking the "angel" thing too seriously. And why does these mails have to sound like charity or some great cause? These angles aren't donating to charity - it would be good if it doesn't sound like that. This "how much we do for founders" is overdone. From where I see, the introductions and exposure that comes along with the Angels can help you get, well more introduction and exposure and may be, funding which you already have. How does a company's success depend on these charitable deeds? It won't result in more paying customers or buyout. I don't like the tone of the mails where it makes it sound like founder are a bunch of ignorant chumps and they owe it to these Angles for the hard work and guidance. First, doesn't matter who the investor is, if founders and team aren't competent, the company would succumb. Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI.

ghshephard 16y ago
"Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI." Some Angels are focused on that. Others have a different take, from Ron Conway's Email: "I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors. I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed." And, as someone who's been through several startups, and seen those run by seasoned 'serial entrepreneurs' (who've learned the hard way, and could be angels in their own right (and later have done so), and some run by first timers (who haven't even heard of the phrase "term sheet", let alone know how to negotiate one) - I'd suggest that there is a certain class of founder, an entrepreneur out to build a great product for the first time, that while not a 'baby in a diaper', is a 'babe in the woods' - and having someone who is working for _them_, rather than 'ROI' can quite often make all the difference between success and failure. VCs (at least the three or four I've had exposure to at my low level) are focused on returns. Great angels are focused on helping entrepreneurs succeed. A VC will pursue a strategy that results in complete and utter failure for some of their investments, if it means overall greater returns for their aggregate portfolio of companies. That's just not in the DNA of the few angels I know. I'd be cautious in trying to understand what the motivator is for these angels - for some of them, their mission is even more important than charity - it's a higher calling in which they are trying to help entrepreneurs succeed, rather than simply chase the almighty dollar. The money is important insofar as it is an indicator of their success, and as a tool to continue their mission - but not necessarily the objective.
- irahul 16y ago
  Then we must agree to disagree. For analogies sake, let's talk about Google. Google hires the best geeks, provides free food, doesn't hire PHBs, have a large impact on the world in some ways etc etc. Its hiring best geeks works as a magnet pulling other geeks. Not hiring PHBs means programmers are comfortable working here. Work being done at Google having a large impact gives people a sense of accomplishment and validation. Working with like-minded people lowers the stress level compared to working with idiots who accidentally became programmers and who have no respect for the trade. In comparison, a bodyshop doesn't do any of it and still does fine financially(I know; I worked for one). Both Google and bodyshop have the same motives with different paths. It's all fine but that doesn't mean Google can claim "We don't want money. We do it for the programmers. See how much we do for them. Checkout the bodyshop which doesn't do anything for the employees and makes a ton of money. Since we do a lot more compared to the bodyshop, it proves we aren't after money and we are working towards higher calling." Ron Conway is doing just that. Substitute Google with Ron Conway and bodyshop with traditional VCs above. By claiming he isn't there for money but is just helping people, he is being a hypocrite. Compared to traditional VCs, he might be working more towards the welfare of founders but that doesn't change the fact that it's business and he too is working towards ROI. There is no higher calling; it's just simple, plain business.
  - ghshephard 16y ago
    I don't recall anyone ever claiming Google was ever "doing it for the programmers" - it's well understood that the perks and environment are there to attract talent and increase their profitability. Also, free gourmet food is increasingly a (relatively inexpensive) standard perk in the valley, so it no longer really sets Google apart as much as it used to. And note, I never said Ron Conway wasn't there for the money, I just that it wasn't the objective. The objective is to help great entrepreneurs succeed. The money is a (not unexpected) side-effect of succeeding at that objective. At this stage in the game, and with his network, I'm sure Ron Conway could take much higher ROI approaches if that were really his primary goal. He just isn't wired that way.

by irahul 16y ago

ghshephard 16y ago

"Second, the work angels are doing aren't for the founders - it's towards ROI." Some Angels are focused on that. Others have a different take, from Ron Conway's Email: "I want to clarify once and for all my total disagreement with your values and motives for being investors. I have stated consistently for year that I invest because I love helping entrepenuers and watching them learn and succeed." And, as someone who's been through several startups, and seen those run by seasoned 'serial entrepreneurs' (who've learned the hard way, and could be angels in their own right (and later have done so), and some run by first timers (who haven't even heard of the phrase "term sheet", let alone know how to negotiate one) - I'd suggest that there is a certain class of founder, an entrepreneur out to build a great product for the first time, that while not a 'baby in a diaper', is a 'babe in the woods' - and having someone who is working for _them_, rather than 'ROI' can quite often make all the difference between success and failure. VCs (at least the three or four I've had exposure to at my low level) are focused on returns. Great angels are focused on helping entrepreneurs succeed. A VC will pursue a strategy that results in complete and utter failure for some of their investments, if it means overall greater returns for their aggregate portfolio of companies. That's just not in the DNA of the few angels I know. I'd be cautious in trying to understand what the motivator is for these angels - for some of them, their mission is even more important than charity - it's a higher calling in which they are trying to help entrepreneurs succeed, rather than simply chase the almighty dollar. The money is important insofar as it is an indicator of their success, and as a tool to continue their mission - but not necessarily the objective.

irahul 16y ago
Then we must agree to disagree. For analogies sake, let's talk about Google. Google hires the best geeks, provides free food, doesn't hire PHBs, have a large impact on the world in some ways etc etc. Its hiring best geeks works as a magnet pulling other geeks. Not hiring PHBs means programmers are comfortable working here. Work being done at Google having a large impact gives people a sense of accomplishment and validation. Working with like-minded people lowers the stress level compared to working with idiots who accidentally became programmers and who have no respect for the trade. In comparison, a bodyshop doesn't do any of it and still does fine financially(I know; I worked for one). Both Google and bodyshop have the same motives with different paths. It's all fine but that doesn't mean Google can claim "We don't want money. We do it for the programmers. See how much we do for them. Checkout the bodyshop which doesn't do anything for the employees and makes a ton of money. Since we do a lot more compared to the bodyshop, it proves we aren't after money and we are working towards higher calling." Ron Conway is doing just that. Substitute Google with Ron Conway and bodyshop with traditional VCs above. By claiming he isn't there for money but is just helping people, he is being a hypocrite. Compared to traditional VCs, he might be working more towards the welfare of founders but that doesn't change the fact that it's business and he too is working towards ROI. There is no higher calling; it's just simple, plain business.
- ghshephard 16y ago
  I don't recall anyone ever claiming Google was ever "doing it for the programmers" - it's well understood that the perks and environment are there to attract talent and increase their profitability. Also, free gourmet food is increasingly a (relatively inexpensive) standard perk in the valley, so it no longer really sets Google apart as much as it used to. And note, I never said Ron Conway wasn't there for the money, I just that it wasn't the objective. The objective is to help great entrepreneurs succeed. The money is a (not unexpected) side-effect of succeeding at that objective. At this stage in the game, and with his network, I'm sure Ron Conway could take much higher ROI approaches if that were really his primary goal. He just isn't wired that way.