4 ms·

Want To Raise A Million Bucks? Here’s What You’ll Need

50 points by swampthing 13y ago

fatbat 13y ago
Interesting metrics though I think the ballpark figures are missing ballpark examples. On one hand 100K signups/download seems to be easier to achieve than $50K rev/mon but on the other hand if my e-comm product sells for $5000 each that seems easier too. Nevertheless interesting metrics!
john_w_t_b 13y ago
There's a nice dose of realism in this article. If you want to attract investors, you had better demonstrate some traction.
dude_abides 13y ago
A key stat is steady week-on-week growth. This is typically more impressive than single milestones. Acc to pg: A good growth rate during YC is 5-7% a week. If you can hit 10% a week you're doing exceptionally well. [http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html] If you haven't read this article already, go read it now!
- tapp 13y ago
  Is that for both B2C and B2B companies? PG's article doesn't say, and I have a difficult time envisioning how most seed-stage enterprise software companies could generate a 5-10% w-o-w revenue growth rate. It tends to be much lumpier than that.
  - bitsweet 13y ago
    use a trailing six week|month average
saddino 13y ago
While idea viability may be validated by traction (read: user acquisition), product viability is best validated by DAU / MAU and low churn metrics. That being said, we closed $750K in my last startup after crossing 125K users, so perhaps traction is good enough at least for the first round.
siong1987 13y ago
There's one more thing that obviates the need for traction: social proof. If Marc Andreessen is investing in your round, the round will get done, it doesn't matter what your product, traction, team or technology look like. To raise money, you really only need to be exceptional in one of these categories (product, team, traction, social proof). Since everyone thinks they're exceptional, here is some calibration by way of analogy: it is the equivalent of getting into Harvard or getting 1600 on your SATs. That's the bar to get funded. The bar for success is 1000x higher. One of the comments buried in the comments section from Nivi(cofounder of AngelList) is actually pretty good.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

50 points by swampthing 13y ago

Interesting metrics though I think the ballpark figures are missing ballpark examples. On one hand 100K signups/download seems to be easier to achieve than $50K rev/mon but on the other hand if my e-comm product sells for $5000 each that seems easier too. Nevertheless interesting metrics!

john_w_t_b 13y ago

There's a nice dose of realism in this article. If you want to attract investors, you had better demonstrate some traction.

dude_abides 13y ago

A key stat is steady week-on-week growth. This is typically more impressive than single milestones. Acc to pg: A good growth rate during YC is 5-7% a week. If you can hit 10% a week you're doing exceptionally well. [http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html] If you haven't read this article already, go read it now!

tapp 13y ago
Is that for both B2C and B2B companies? PG's article doesn't say, and I have a difficult time envisioning how most seed-stage enterprise software companies could generate a 5-10% w-o-w revenue growth rate. It tends to be much lumpier than that.
- bitsweet 13y ago
  use a trailing six week|month average

saddino 13y ago

While idea viability may be validated by traction (read: user acquisition), product viability is best validated by DAU / MAU and low churn metrics. That being said, we closed $750K in my last startup after crossing 125K users, so perhaps traction is good enough at least for the first round.

siong1987 13y ago

There's one more thing that obviates the need for traction: social proof. If Marc Andreessen is investing in your round, the round will get done, it doesn't matter what your product, traction, team or technology look like. To raise money, you really only need to be exceptional in one of these categories (product, team, traction, social proof). Since everyone thinks they're exceptional, here is some calibration by way of analogy: it is the equivalent of getting into Harvard or getting 1600 on your SATs. That's the bar to get funded. The bar for success is 1000x higher. One of the comments buried in the comments section from Nivi(cofounder of AngelList) is actually pretty good.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]