4 ms·
Not to get too pedantic, but California does have a massive agriculture industry. UC Davis is one of the best schools in the field. It’s not much of a stretch a
by verisimilidude 4y ago
Not to get too pedantic, but California does have a massive agriculture industry. UC Davis is one of the best schools in the field. It’s not much of a stretch at all for agtech businesses to grow and thrive here, locally.
I guess you could argue those businesses should be in Sacramento instead of San Jose.
But example aside, I do agree with your overall point.
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoTotally! Which doubled my Iowan buddy’s confusion. A Central Valley, Davis or Irvine-based company would have credibility a San Francisco-based on doesn’t. That “won’t even open the door” effect is huge, and part of what the author is getting at. (The other being org chart discrepancies.)
- verisimilidude 4y agoAgreed, that does make a lot of sense.
- akiselev 4y agoCalifornia’s agriculture industry is not only massive but also one of the most profitable in the country, accounting for a disproportionate fraction of the food Americans eat (as opposed to e.g. corn for distillers/biofuels/animal feed) and US exports to the rest of the world. Based on cash receipts, California is #1 in the country overall (Iowa is second followed by Nebraska and Texas)
- JumpCrisscross 4y agoDon’t think I’m going out on a limb suggesting a Fresno farmer will receive an Ann Arbor or Irvine-based start-up more warmly than one from San Francisco.
- akiselev 4y agoOh I’ll take your word on that, having no ag-sales experience myself :-) Just wanted to point out that even before accounting for industry size, there’s just more profit sloshing around California’s ag industry which makes it easier to square market fit with the returns VCs desire.