3 ms·
Probably many reasons, but Katango was backed by Kleiner Perkins - one of the more prestigious and well-known VC firms out there, and it was the first investmen
by asanwal 15y ago
Probably many reasons, but Katango was backed by Kleiner Perkins - one of the more prestigious and well-known VC firms out there, and it was the first investment out of their sFund which targeted social services and apps.
The blogosphere and others in the startup community will almost always be interested in what Kleiner, Sequoia, Accel, Greylock, Union Square Ventures and a few others etc are funding as they are well-known and regarded as thought leaders in the venture community. So by default, what they fund becomes more newsworthy almost implicitly. I'm not saying this is right or wrong - it just is.
- ma2rten 15y agoI think this actually really bad, because it is a vicous circle. You get founded by kpcb -> you get good press -> you get successful -> you get acquired by google -> this reflects positively on kpcb -> the press will write about the next startup founded by kpcb At some point Kleiner won't have to anything. But there are only so many startups that can be founded by the Kleiners and Sequoias of this world, erm.. valley. Is everybody else bound to fail?
- mc32 15y agoCouldn't you say one is a known entity and one is an unknown. So Bill Nguyen vs. Make up a Name. All things being equal, who do you favor, someone for whom you know some history or someone for whom you have no history? Kpcb has historic cachet. If a venture succeeds, it's a story, if it fails it's also a story. If an unknown succeeds it's a small story‡ --if it fails it's an even smaller story (for a blog to write about). ‡Smaller b/c there's less confidence in an unknown, I think. Like an entrenched sports team with a winning history vs an upstart. Who has the fanbase (audience)?