3 ms·
I'm a (tiny) LP in TinySeed (Rob's fund), another effort with similar thesis, and am broadly supportive of these experiments generally. Speaking solely for mys
by patio11 8y ago
I'm a (tiny) LP in TinySeed (Rob's fund), another effort with similar thesis, and am broadly supportive of these experiments generally.
Speaking solely for myself, but gesturing in the general direction of my peer set: there exist some software entrepreneurs who have substantial operational expertise and have made some money, but who do not feel like they'd add much value in the unicorn hunt, partly due to access reasons and partly due to different skills. There's a distinct body of practice between e.g. the things a YC partner would tell you to do about fundraising, the things a growth stage VC fund would tell you to do about organization building, and the things a self-funded software founder would tell you to do about e.g. testing AdWords copy. There is a certain degree of overlap, in the same sense that all of them overlap someone whose business model is buy-and-hold apartment buildings in Chicago, but there is a reason none of them buy-and-hold apartment buildings in Chicago.
By comparison, I feel reasonably confident that "six figure SaaS business trying to get to seven" is somewhere I understand pretty thoroughly, would almost always enjoy a conversation with that founder, and (napkin math) looks plausibly mutually interesting.
Why now and not five years ago? It feels like a generation-of-business thing: the reason everybody who made money at Google / Facebook didn't invest five years before they started investing was because they hadn't made money at Google / Facebook. Did the opportunity exist five years ago? Probably, as evidenced by the successes from that generation. Is the opportunity better now? Plausibly yes, as demonstrated by all of the people who were successful writing down what they did, doing technology transfer on that to new operators (often for free), the ecosystem radically improving (inputs, platforms, employees, exit options all got a bunch better), etc.
- lifeisstillgood 8y agoMy apologies for leaving this tab open and not replying - it actually sparked some ideas I wanted to get into book form. There being distinct skill sets coming out of the (soon to be flooded) ex-unicorn investor market is an exciting idea as much as anything
- kinkora 8y agoprobably a loaded question (so I apologise?) but why are you reasonably confident for growing a 6 -> 7 figure businesses? what about 7 -> 8 figure busineses? context: i ask because i have this problem right now and find this is a harder hurdle (trying to double a 7 figure business without VC money)
- rficcaglia 8y agoMy history is 3x 7->8 and 1x 8->9, 3 with VC, 1 with no VC...we definitely found it easier to go 6->7 in all four as the “early adopter” set all talked to each other and that was enough to get momentum and small enough that bigger players take no notice. 7->8 you start to get noticed which is both good and bad. Convincing enough buyers to “cross the chasm” and not go to a competitor is an entirely different org challenge. Also the expectations of the larger buyers adds cost and complexity (ie channel sales vs outbound vs inbound) If you are in SF area happy to host 7->8 beers/coffee meetup!
- kinkora 8y agointeresting background you have there and yep, i agree on that it is an entirely different challenge trying to restructure the business to handle the bigger spending customers. Anyway, thanks for offer but I'm not in SF!