5 ms·

"in the end they would invest only in the hottest SAAS startup by an ex-Googler." If that was her main point, fair. But she's out there naming names and stron

"in the end they would invest only in the hottest SAAS startup by an ex-Googler." If that was her main point, fair. But she's out there naming names and strongly implying that they didn't help her due to their racism and/or sexism. That's a pretty nasty accusation to throw at someone. And the names she named were the people who bothered to reply to her at all - they just didn't spend an adequate amount of effort on her to not be called out like this. She called out the only people who would give her the time of day! I think any VC who sees this article will know what to do from now on...

anotherfounder 6y ago
I can see that naming those who didn't even respond could be more appropriate. My takeaway is that you feel let down the most by those who have the most talk, hence higher expectations, which, it seems to me is the gist of the article.
- nyczomg 6y ago
  I don't see how that would be constructive either. If people start getting called out for ignoring emails, that's going to be a lot of noise. And for anecdotes like this, it's impossible to know why said email was ignored. Should the assumption always be bad faith like racism/sexism? What if they just weren't interested and didn't even realize the email came from a woman or POC? Should they be obligated to seek out the sex/race of the person emailing them to know if it's appropriate to ignore them? I totally get your point that it's crappy for VCs to talk the talk and act like they want to help under-represented people, but then go back to business as usual. That sucks. And I completely believe that it is harder out there for woman and people of color. But I don't think that naming names based on anecdotes like this actually helps. I wish I had better ideas, but I really don't think this is it.
- pluto9 6y ago
  Both strategies are inappropriate because they assume that anything less than funding her startup is an act of bigotry. I wouldn't have responded to her because I don't think her startup is particularly interesting or likely to be profitable. It's a low-effort idea. Easy to replicate, easy to cut the middle man out of, and has been done multiple times before. "Naming names" of people who declined to waste their money on your bad idea isn't social justice, it's entitlement.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Ok, so you wouldn't respond. But then would you respond when a man sent you the exact same idea? Because that's exactly what happened here.
    - pluto9 6y ago
      An unknown man with her qualifications? No. A man, woman, or rhinoceros with a stellar résumé like her husband's, who I may also know personally, considering that I was on their contact list? Maybe. Let us please stop pretending that the glaring difference between these two people is their race or gender and not a vast gulf of experience and credibility.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        I'm not sure why you are saying that. At least to my understanding of the article, the exact same pitch with the first page having the exact same CEO/CTO founder combo was sent. So if they so much as glanced at the 'team' page, they should have seen the ex-googler if they knew him. It seems that what happened is they didn't so much as glance at the pitch deck when "Nerissa Zhang" sent it to them. But then did when "James Zhang" sent them the same deck. Because if they had looked at the deck when Nerissa sent it to them, they would have recognized James and also saw his impressive resume. So if they are publicly proclaiming that they want to invest more in underrepresented groups, I don't think only reading emails from people with names like "James" in their contact list is going to make much progress towards that.
        pluto9 6y ago
        > It seems that what happened is they didn't so much as glance at the pitch deck when "Nerissa Zhang" sent it to them. But then did when "James Zhang" sent them the same deck. You're right, that's exactly what they did, because many of them knew him. They were from his contact list. I respond to basically every email from people I know, even if I think it's stupid. Emails from random people have to pass a much higher bar to get a response, and low-effort ideas with fraudulent reviews aren't going to clear that bar. I used to be a freelancer. People would constantly ask me to build "the next Google" or "Facebook for X" that would assuredly make us both billionaires. I learned not to give them the time of day. If a friend or successful colleague did the same, I would respond out of courtesy if nothing else. If I really respected them I'd even entertain the possibility that I was wrong about their idea and hear them out. There are some very obvious innocent explanations for this situation, but you seem to want it to be an instance of bigotry. In my experience this is a mindset that cannot be argued with, so I think I'm done here. Have a good night.
causality0 6y ago
I have zero business experience whatsoever. That said, I wouldn't have invested in her business for the simple reason she made it too easy to cut out the middleman. She intends to make money by hooking people up with personal trainers but there's nothing stopping said trainers and clients from just doing business themselves after she's done the work of connecting them.
- PascLeRasc 6y ago
  That’s something a VC could say instead of silence. Helping someone build their business would be incredibly supportive. However it seems that no VCs were interested in doing that.
  - katzgrau 6y ago
    Having been a VC-backed wannabe for a period of time (and pitched some well known investors), I learned that most investors would rather not offer that kind of feedback because it inevitably raises counterpoints which extends the conversation they didn't want to have in the first place. A simple "no, thank you" let's them get on with their day. It sucks for the founders but that's really just the nature of being a "salesperson" in any field - constant rejection and little insight.
jjeaff 6y ago
The people who did reply are the same ones that did not reply when they received the exact same pitch from his email instead of hers. The ex-googler CTO was on both pitches.

anotherfounder 6y ago

I can see that naming those who didn't even respond could be more appropriate. My takeaway is that you feel let down the most by those who have the most talk, hence higher expectations, which, it seems to me is the gist of the article.

nyczomg 6y ago
I don't see how that would be constructive either. If people start getting called out for ignoring emails, that's going to be a lot of noise. And for anecdotes like this, it's impossible to know why said email was ignored. Should the assumption always be bad faith like racism/sexism? What if they just weren't interested and didn't even realize the email came from a woman or POC? Should they be obligated to seek out the sex/race of the person emailing them to know if it's appropriate to ignore them? I totally get your point that it's crappy for VCs to talk the talk and act like they want to help under-represented people, but then go back to business as usual. That sucks. And I completely believe that it is harder out there for woman and people of color. But I don't think that naming names based on anecdotes like this actually helps. I wish I had better ideas, but I really don't think this is it.
pluto9 6y ago
Both strategies are inappropriate because they assume that anything less than funding her startup is an act of bigotry. I wouldn't have responded to her because I don't think her startup is particularly interesting or likely to be profitable. It's a low-effort idea. Easy to replicate, easy to cut the middle man out of, and has been done multiple times before. "Naming names" of people who declined to waste their money on your bad idea isn't social justice, it's entitlement.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Ok, so you wouldn't respond. But then would you respond when a man sent you the exact same idea? Because that's exactly what happened here.
  - pluto9 6y ago
    An unknown man with her qualifications? No. A man, woman, or rhinoceros with a stellar résumé like her husband's, who I may also know personally, considering that I was on their contact list? Maybe. Let us please stop pretending that the glaring difference between these two people is their race or gender and not a vast gulf of experience and credibility.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I'm not sure why you are saying that. At least to my understanding of the article, the exact same pitch with the first page having the exact same CEO/CTO founder combo was sent. So if they so much as glanced at the 'team' page, they should have seen the ex-googler if they knew him. It seems that what happened is they didn't so much as glance at the pitch deck when "Nerissa Zhang" sent it to them. But then did when "James Zhang" sent them the same deck. Because if they had looked at the deck when Nerissa sent it to them, they would have recognized James and also saw his impressive resume. So if they are publicly proclaiming that they want to invest more in underrepresented groups, I don't think only reading emails from people with names like "James" in their contact list is going to make much progress towards that.
      - pluto9 6y ago
        > It seems that what happened is they didn't so much as glance at the pitch deck when "Nerissa Zhang" sent it to them. But then did when "James Zhang" sent them the same deck. You're right, that's exactly what they did, because many of them knew him. They were from his contact list. I respond to basically every email from people I know, even if I think it's stupid. Emails from random people have to pass a much higher bar to get a response, and low-effort ideas with fraudulent reviews aren't going to clear that bar. I used to be a freelancer. People would constantly ask me to build "the next Google" or "Facebook for X" that would assuredly make us both billionaires. I learned not to give them the time of day. If a friend or successful colleague did the same, I would respond out of courtesy if nothing else. If I really respected them I'd even entertain the possibility that I was wrong about their idea and hear them out. There are some very obvious innocent explanations for this situation, but you seem to want it to be an instance of bigotry. In my experience this is a mindset that cannot be argued with, so I think I'm done here. Have a good night.

causality0 6y ago

I have zero business experience whatsoever. That said, I wouldn't have invested in her business for the simple reason she made it too easy to cut out the middleman. She intends to make money by hooking people up with personal trainers but there's nothing stopping said trainers and clients from just doing business themselves after she's done the work of connecting them.

PascLeRasc 6y ago
That’s something a VC could say instead of silence. Helping someone build their business would be incredibly supportive. However it seems that no VCs were interested in doing that.
- katzgrau 6y ago
  Having been a VC-backed wannabe for a period of time (and pitched some well known investors), I learned that most investors would rather not offer that kind of feedback because it inevitably raises counterpoints which extends the conversation they didn't want to have in the first place. A simple "no, thank you" let's them get on with their day. It sucks for the founders but that's really just the nature of being a "salesperson" in any field - constant rejection and little insight.

jjeaff 6y ago

The people who did reply are the same ones that did not reply when they received the exact same pitch from his email instead of hers. The ex-googler CTO was on both pitches.