4 ms·

> Particularly one Twitter screed that said I only successfully raised venture capital for Pando because of how I look and who I know. Gender issues aside, Why

> Particularly one Twitter screed that said I only successfully raised venture capital for Pando because of how I look and who I know. Gender issues aside, Why exactly did Pando raise money, and how are they spending it? AFAICT it's a tech blog like many others

fleitz 13y ago
Let's assume PandoDaily will never make money, and in a few years will be back for another few million in funding. Lets assume that PandoDaily will continue to write articles about VC funded tech startups, now why would a company that stands to gain potentially billions of dollars from positive press of its portfolio companies invest in a money losing business like Pando? Especially if Pando can't continue operations with out more funding? Do you ever wonder why companies you can't buy anything from advertise on CNN? I have no idea whether this is true, but if we're making up conspiracy theories, this seems at least plausible.
- nonchalance 13y ago
  What's not obvious to me is your implicit assumption that press from PandoDaily is a positive signal. If it is understood that PD is sponsored by the very VC companies whose portfolio companies are being pumped, isn't it conceivable that the articles in the future could be a negative signal?
  - fleitz 13y ago
    That's the nature of risk. Being able to associate negative perceptions around a company isn't exactly worthless either.
smacktoward 13y ago
Because Sarah Lacy knows VCs, and VCs like investing in the projects of people they know, whether they're a tech blog or a grilled cheese sandwich restaurant (http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kaplan-from-flip-cams-to-flipping-grilled-cheese/ http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kapl...). Which does sort of undermine the point she tries so heatedly to make about how women don't need connections to get funded -- a woman with connections can get funding even for something as far outside the standard venture portfolio as a tech blog.

fleitz 13y ago

Let's assume PandoDaily will never make money, and in a few years will be back for another few million in funding. Lets assume that PandoDaily will continue to write articles about VC funded tech startups, now why would a company that stands to gain potentially billions of dollars from positive press of its portfolio companies invest in a money losing business like Pando? Especially if Pando can't continue operations with out more funding? Do you ever wonder why companies you can't buy anything from advertise on CNN? I have no idea whether this is true, but if we're making up conspiracy theories, this seems at least plausible.

nonchalance 13y ago
What's not obvious to me is your implicit assumption that press from PandoDaily is a positive signal. If it is understood that PD is sponsored by the very VC companies whose portfolio companies are being pumped, isn't it conceivable that the articles in the future could be a negative signal?
- fleitz 13y ago
  That's the nature of risk. Being able to associate negative perceptions around a company isn't exactly worthless either.

smacktoward 13y ago

Because Sarah Lacy knows VCs, and VCs like investing in the projects of people they know, whether they're a tech blog or a grilled cheese sandwich restaurant (http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kaplan-from-flip-cams-to-flipping-grilled-cheese/ http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2011/06/01/jonathan-kapl...). Which does sort of undermine the point she tries so heatedly to make about how women don't need connections to get funded -- a woman with connections can get funding even for something as far outside the standard venture portfolio as a tech blog.