4 ms·

That sounds like good advice overall, but Misconception #3, and it's dismissiveness towards business people seems a little too much. Of course you don't _need_

That sounds like good advice overall, but Misconception #3, and it's dismissiveness towards business people seems a little too much. Of course you don't _need_ a business person in the team, but recommending to go without one is basically playing the game in hard mode (and exactly the opposite advice you would give a normal tech company). I'd even rate it as more important in a biotech setting to have a good business person on board where the funding power dynamics are stacked even more against you than in normal tech.

stanrivers 6y ago
I would say the business person is way more important than suggested (caveat, I’m a VC investor with a business background) A lot of time the business person on the team brings two things - 1) translates the tech into “business person speak” which is actually important for raising money AND getting customers excited and 2) they bring a completely different set of relationships that can help commercialize the product. Also important are translating the business speak back to the startup - how do fund raising processes work? What do all these documents actually mean? Why do these terms in the contracts with customers matter? This all matters and a single person on the team playing that roll at an early stage can impact things. Just make sure it’s a business person with lots of relationships and experience doing similar things... “business” is general, so make sure it’s the right kind.
- z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
  > I would say the business person is way more important than suggested (caveat, I’m a VC investor with a business background) Then please don't add an opinion when you admit your bias is literally towards self preservation., VC is a plague that twists and corrupts products and takes power away from founders. This is what business does, VC is just a more direct way to screw people over. > A lot of time the business person on the team brings two things - 1) translates the tech into “business person speak” which is actually important for raising money AND getting customers excited and 2) they bring a completely different set of relationships that can help commercialize the product. 1) The fact that things need to be translated into "business person speak" should say all we need to know about how useless these business people are. 2) stop viewing everything through the lens of how to commercialize and commodify it. Capitalists trying to put a dollar sign on everything in the world is sickening, especially when per point 1, they have no idea what they are talking about and need things distilled for them to even do their "job". > Also important are translating the business speak back to the startup - how do fund raising processes work? What do all these documents actually mean? Why do these terms in the contracts with customers matter? this is a completely unnecessary step only needed because the business people had to be coddled in 1). The documents don't mean anything, the contracts will never be read by the customer, you know it and take full advantage. > This all matters and a single person on the team playing that roll at an early stage can impact things. Just make sure it’s a business person with lots of relationships and experience doing similar things... “business” is general, so make sure it’s the right kind. It's laughable you think that your "angel" investor savior complex makes you and other VC charlatans these God like people saving some startup when you really just rape them for equity, ownership, and the ideas.
- tetris11 6y ago
  Its unfortunate that the actual technicians get underpaid in comparison to the business people who essentially summarise the work to non-techies. I get that communication and networking are important skills, but I wish the business-speak people were valued either equal to or lower than the actual techies, given the respective hours and efforts to the product.
  - musicale 6y ago
    Obviously b-school grads are smarter than techies, since they have figured out how to get paid more for less work. ;-)
perpetualpatzer 6y ago
I don't claim expertise on this topic, but it's worth noting that on this point, a VC's incentives are potentially misaligned with the founder's. In funding rounds, VC's themselves have enough experience to avoid accepting unreasonable terms, so a portfolio founding team with no background in business is not a problem for the VC and means one less name on the cap table and/or less burn. The same cannot be said of a technical founder, for whom a a business-savvy adviser (either as a cofounder or adviser) may be the thing that prevents them from getting fleeced by an early investor who is unscrupulous or undervalues the business. None of this is to say the advice is given maliciously. Just that it should be taken with caution normally due to financial advice from parties with financial interests in your behavior.
refurb 6y ago
I kind of agree with #3 only because the focus is on “early on”. I would agree that there isn’t a ton of need for a business person when you’re just trying to figure out if the science works. That said, there is some business work to be done - determining if you have a viable business. Cool science is a great and all, but it’s not a business if people won’t pony up the dollars for it. And once you know the science works there is a ton of business work to be done, especially with medical products where reimbursement can be really complex and require a year or more of work to get ready for launch. And reimbursement can make or break a product.

stanrivers 6y ago

I would say the business person is way more important than suggested (caveat, I’m a VC investor with a business background) A lot of time the business person on the team brings two things - 1) translates the tech into “business person speak” which is actually important for raising money AND getting customers excited and 2) they bring a completely different set of relationships that can help commercialize the product. Also important are translating the business speak back to the startup - how do fund raising processes work? What do all these documents actually mean? Why do these terms in the contracts with customers matter? This all matters and a single person on the team playing that roll at an early stage can impact things. Just make sure it’s a business person with lots of relationships and experience doing similar things... “business” is general, so make sure it’s the right kind.

z3ncyberpunk 6y ago
> I would say the business person is way more important than suggested (caveat, I’m a VC investor with a business background) Then please don't add an opinion when you admit your bias is literally towards self preservation., VC is a plague that twists and corrupts products and takes power away from founders. This is what business does, VC is just a more direct way to screw people over. > A lot of time the business person on the team brings two things - 1) translates the tech into “business person speak” which is actually important for raising money AND getting customers excited and 2) they bring a completely different set of relationships that can help commercialize the product. 1) The fact that things need to be translated into "business person speak" should say all we need to know about how useless these business people are. 2) stop viewing everything through the lens of how to commercialize and commodify it. Capitalists trying to put a dollar sign on everything in the world is sickening, especially when per point 1, they have no idea what they are talking about and need things distilled for them to even do their "job". > Also important are translating the business speak back to the startup - how do fund raising processes work? What do all these documents actually mean? Why do these terms in the contracts with customers matter? this is a completely unnecessary step only needed because the business people had to be coddled in 1). The documents don't mean anything, the contracts will never be read by the customer, you know it and take full advantage. > This all matters and a single person on the team playing that roll at an early stage can impact things. Just make sure it’s a business person with lots of relationships and experience doing similar things... “business” is general, so make sure it’s the right kind. It's laughable you think that your "angel" investor savior complex makes you and other VC charlatans these God like people saving some startup when you really just rape them for equity, ownership, and the ideas.
tetris11 6y ago
Its unfortunate that the actual technicians get underpaid in comparison to the business people who essentially summarise the work to non-techies. I get that communication and networking are important skills, but I wish the business-speak people were valued either equal to or lower than the actual techies, given the respective hours and efforts to the product.
- musicale 6y ago
  Obviously b-school grads are smarter than techies, since they have figured out how to get paid more for less work. ;-)

perpetualpatzer 6y ago

I don't claim expertise on this topic, but it's worth noting that on this point, a VC's incentives are potentially misaligned with the founder's. In funding rounds, VC's themselves have enough experience to avoid accepting unreasonable terms, so a portfolio founding team with no background in business is not a problem for the VC and means one less name on the cap table and/or less burn. The same cannot be said of a technical founder, for whom a a business-savvy adviser (either as a cofounder or adviser) may be the thing that prevents them from getting fleeced by an early investor who is unscrupulous or undervalues the business. None of this is to say the advice is given maliciously. Just that it should be taken with caution normally due to financial advice from parties with financial interests in your behavior.

refurb 6y ago

I kind of agree with #3 only because the focus is on “early on”. I would agree that there isn’t a ton of need for a business person when you’re just trying to figure out if the science works. That said, there is some business work to be done - determining if you have a viable business. Cool science is a great and all, but it’s not a business if people won’t pony up the dollars for it. And once you know the science works there is a ton of business work to be done, especially with medical products where reimbursement can be really complex and require a year or more of work to get ready for launch. And reimbursement can make or break a product.