14 ms·

Fundraising While Female

164 points by doppp 12y ago

abbabon 12y ago
I guess many of you already know but it's worth mentioning that the 2nd season of Startup Podcast is following datingring and their (quite amazing) journey: http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/ http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/
mahouse 12y ago
You can also send a "white, attractive male" to the VC interview, and be a ghostwriter of the startup.
- gtf21 12y ago
  Which is awful! A founder should not have to send a "white, attractive male" because she is female and investors refuse to take her seriously. The culture clearly needs to change.
  - cpayne 12y ago
    It is totally awful! But it's also the reality (that doesn't make it ok). I thought the same thing - just pay someone to be the face. I don't think it is all that different to a celebrity endorsement...
  - sokoloff 12y ago
    There's a school of thought that says the founders' job is to figure out how to win, not confine themselves to "what ought to be", but rather win with what is. It may be philosophically objectionable and morally frustrating, but if it's the current reality, you can work with that and increase your chance of succeeding or focus primarily on working against it, rather than on your business. Completely agree that it should change to be gender blind, of course.
  - mahouse 12y ago
    If you think you can fight prejudice... think again.
    - vacri 12y ago
      Most of the 20th Century was an ongoing war against prejudice in one form or another, with prejudice constantly losing ground.
- mdevere 12y ago
  Is this a joke?
- brux 12y ago
  You can also send a "white, attractive male" Make that "attractive person". Discrimination of unattractive people is far more common than both racism and sexism. Source: Unattractive brown guy.
  - mlvljr 12y ago
    c'mon!!
- syllogism 12y ago
  Pretty sure that's fraud.
- carrotleads 12y ago
  Isn't that one of the point behind the "white male privilege" argument.. that one gets ahead just because they belong to a group.. You would be supporting and perpetuating such a structure.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
yarper 12y ago
But.. isn't the dating game actually pretty saturated? OkCupid, Eharmony, tinder + a million other companies. OP mentions the startup was taking 25k/mo but needed funding to make a crack against big companies. Surely that was the exact turn off for investors?
- nailer 12y ago
  Search was saturated once Altavista came out and kicked Yahoo's butt. If DatingCircle have a significant competitive advantage over the existing market that may not be relevant.
  - endymi0n 12y ago
    Social was saturated when everyone had a Myspace page.
  - Ntrails 12y ago
    Right, so what is the competitive advantage? She opens saying "Unless I have an absolutely perfect, bulletproof business (which I do not), I’m easily written off as someone blaming my failures on my gender" and offers nothing to dissuade me from following that. It seems entirely plausible she has been marginalised/dismissed - but I'm not sure I buy into it entirely. Personally, I'd have thought that, in dating especially, a female founder would seem like a real strength. I wish the company luck regardless vOv
  - Bootvis 12y ago
    It still may turn off investors though. Google wasn't immediately funded to the brim either.
- windernz 12y ago
  I agree the market is saturated but that didn't stop other startups in other saturated industries ~ taxis & uber for instance. I don't know what their edge is but I wouldn't write them off because they are trying to crack a saturated industry.
- bwindels 12y ago
pron 12y ago
> It’s easy to spot direct sexism, and to react to something like an investor getting handsy. But the subtle sexism that hinders women goes ignored and is often denied. The first kind is better called misogyny; the second is sexism. It is often denied not because it is subtle -- a quick look at the statistics, any relevant statistics, would show that it's far from it -- but because it's unintentional, sometimes seemingly benevolent, and often invisible unless you're trained to see it or directly suffer its consequences. I think the first step is to understand that being sexist is to be expected -- it's like doctors infecting patients with germs on their hands before the discovery of microbes and disinfectants -- you can't not be infected unless you understand how the mechanism works. The next step is to learn what sexism is, how it works, why it feels "natural", and why fighting it may feel strange. Like with any mechanism that we can't easily see with the naked eye, coming to terms with its reality and its very visible effects is a process. It's OK to grow up sexist; if our current theories are correct, almost all of us do whether we like it or not. It's not OK not to learn about sexism and try to fight it now that we have a much better sense of how it works. What saddens me is that sometimes the very people who are usually most curious to learn how the world works turn willfully -- sometimes proudly -- ignorant when it comes to social mechanisms. It's OK to disagree, but at least everyone should be familiar with the core principles. Sometimes arguments about the subject here on HN or elsewhere sound like people arguing with Quantum Mechanics not because they think the Newtonian model provides ample explanation, but because they insist Zeus is ample explanation, or, worse yet, because we have no business trying to understand how things below a certain size behave because it's just not important enough.
- Dewie3 12y ago
  This is how this reads to me: first, realize that sin is everywhere even if you can't see it, you are all sinners and that is just the natural state of the world right now. But it is not OK to sin if you have been made aware of sin. (Is the Emperor wearing clothes?) I guess the analogy breaks down with the acceptance of those that are truly ignorant (not just intentionally), and that one can build a better world wherein "sin" is not the default state of affairs. The comparison with religion and science seems apt, but for the opposite reason that you seem to portray. These kinds of social questions, when you get down to the nitty gritty of them, often isn't science. And I don't mean in the sense that "it is not HARD science", I mean that the school of thought does not seem to be grounded in a (social) science. It's motivated by an ideology and a theory of how the world is/works. And it has few other competing ideologies/theories in its space. And despite being an ideology/theory which has little competition with other such things (except internally) so that people can see and compare it in different lights, they try to pass it off as gospel.
DiabloD3 12y ago
What I don't get about this is why she just doesn't name names. I'm a white attractive male, however, I don't want to ever accept investments from investors that do not share the same values as I do, such as women are a vast untapped skilled workforce and treating them as anything less simply isn't profitable, and pretty ignorant. I mean, hell, sure, lets say for the sake of argument, "women belong in the kitchen, pregnant, and barefoot" (the single most classically sexist thing I can think of at 6:30 in the morning), women raise our children, both boys and girls: if you truly believe this, why didn't you marry a woman with multiple PhDs and a high IQ, so a much more intelligent forward-thinking educated woman is raising your children, thus giving them a better chance in life and thus spreading your genetic legacy more favorably (the driving force behind 99% of human culture and society)? Seriously, sexism just doesn't logically make sense. If you're sexist, and a CEO or a major investor, please drop out of the game and let someone more efficient than you take your place. Edit: I don't care if you downvote me, sexism is still wrong and needs to be called out as much as possible so we can exile people who are abusing their power to promote sexism.
- michaelmcdonald 12y ago
  You don't "name names" because as the OP already stated: there's lots of back channeling going on. Investors don't want someone who is going to "tattle" and share experiences (good or bad). Besides: two wrongs don't make a right. Someone in the situation needs to display some professionalism. In regards to the other issues presented: I have to agree that the dating scene / app market is overly saturated. I'm positive that the fact the CEO and CTO were attractive white females did not assist their situation when they had to be overly outgoing to try and snag a few minutes of time with investors. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman when it comes to pitching: you NEED to be social and aggressive. As a result, men they were pitching to probably thought that they WERE being flirtatious. There's no way to know if the OP was completely professional the whole time or not (we're getting one side of the story); however it's likely that when talking about dating apps, being social, and pitching investors that there could be some confusion about where the line is for flirting compared to trying to get attention for your business.
- mrweasel 12y ago
rurban 12y ago
So how did Jessica Alba did it then? She's not the typical startup geek, and her roles definitely defined her on the sexy side only. She managed fine. She pitched by herself, and finally found the right partner and investor. E.g. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears-her-way-736714 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears-he...
- jasonwocky 12y ago
  Are you seriously comparing the writer to Jessica-freaking-Alba? Could you possibly level the playing field a little less?
  - rurban 12y ago
    I think it's comparable. Would you really invest in "the idea of a sexy movie star who finds her conscience after her first few kids and wants to do healthy and honest products". (overly cynically stated) The op was an expert in her type of business already, had the right partners. With Alba I would have seriously underestimated Mrs Alba's business sense. But she proved everybody wrong and has now a billion dollar business. The same expectations as the op in the dating business. She describes it here: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/lindsay-blakely/how-jessica-alba-proved-her-doubters-were-wrong.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/lindsay-blakely/how-jessi... But Alba needed 3 years, so I would suggest to hold on. Facebook didn't level the business field already, even with competition there's more in. Those guys were just stupid.
    - fiblye 12y ago
      >Would you really invest in "the idea of a sexy movie star who finds her conscience after her first few kids and wants to do healthy and honest products". Well, she's got mass appeal. Most people know nothing about business, but they know about celebrities. If a celebrity promotes or endorses something, and some consumer likes that celebrity, it's far more likely they'll go for whatever they're selling versus it being promoted by some random person. You could come up with any random product and try pitching it to thousands of investors and still fail, but if you get Elon Musk to do it for you, you could probably get a couple million easy. Countless people know him and people trust him whether or not the product or service he's pitching is really worth anything.
jenandre 12y ago
I sympathize with you, having also experienced subtle sexism in both the tech and investment world (I'm a technical co-founder, and I've fundraised successfully). Here's a couple of points I hope are helpful. - You should look to connect with partners at firms that have female founders (ideally purely female-founding teams) among their portfolio. There are also a few female partners out there as well -- get access to them, with your YC network it should not be hard. Listen hard and press them to get honest, specific feedback when given "no"s. - While the sexism is unfortunate and it's hard not to get frustrated, you may want to look long and hard at your pitch and company. If you've really talked to 40 investors and sent out ~500 emails, and this is a hot space for disruption, it's very unlikely that all of them are dismissing you due to gender; something isn't connecting. I's very easy to dismiss all feedback ("their feedback means nothing; they are rejecting me because I am a woman") just because you are soured by your bad sexist experiences. Ask yourself these questions honestly: Are investors giving the same criticisms and feedback for saying no? Are there questions you struggle with in the pitch about your business? Is the value prop clear? Is the product demo well orchestrated? Try to examine all of the feedback you've gotten objectively, and see how can you improve the pitch. Find someone who is ideally involved in the venture community (e.g. as a partner, associate, EIR) that you can trust, that can give you brutally honest feedback on your pitch and business. - Fundraising is hard for everyone. It's going to be harder for you. It sucks, but that's the truth of life. You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue. It would be great if you didn't have to deal with this, but that's not the reality of the world. What doesn't kill your company will make you AND your company stronger.
- cant_say_that 12y ago
  > You should look to connect with partners at firms that have invested in female founding teams (ideally purely female teams). Are there seriously investors that only back purely female teams? That seems ridiculously sexist and financially stupid to eliminate so many good startups that aren't all female. > You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue. I see articles like this as a small step backwards. I don't know what the answer is to discrimination (of any kind), but I think complaining about it in articles like this is not helping to reach equality.
alexcaps 12y ago
I wasn't going to respond... But after reading the whole article, the author really comes across as self-entitled. I fear no one is willing to tell her the truth. So here are some thoughts: 1. Fundraising is hard no matter who you are. Stop reading TechCrunch and comparing yourself to others. You never know what someone's journey is. From the story the press tells it looks like I've had an easy path raising capital but that's not true. We've gone 12+ months on a single $50k investment after a year of no funding. Startups are hard and you need to be willing to deal with the fact that most companies struggle to fundraise. 2. I am glad you have conviction, you'll need it, but the dating space is not as guaranteed as you think. Up until recently, the entire dating market combined didn't top a billion dollars in the U.S. Companies like Tinder are probably overvalued and yet they have millions and millions of users with crazy metrics. Do you have ANY indication you've built the next Tinder? 3. Investors invest in opportunities they understand. I look at your product and I ask "what's novel, defensible, unique here?". The design doesn't blow me away and the model sounds just like Three Day Rule which now has support and backing by Match.com (note: all founders of TDR are female). What sets you apart? 4. Please please please don't think you're hot shit because the press covered you. YC says to focus on traction because that is all that matters, and they're right. 60% growth doesn't mean anything. What are the numbers? Do you have 100k users on track to pass 250k in half that time and 1MM in a year? Look at Slack or Snapchat or Instagram growth to compare what investors get excited about it. Be really honest with yourself about whether you DO have numbers or not. Look, I understand discrimination and believe you experience it far worse than a straight white guy, but it really doesn't come across as a compelling argument the way it's explained here. I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for calling you out here, but I feel it would be dishonest not to reply and tell you what it looks like from the outside. I wish you the best of luck and hope you build that billion dollar company, but please remember the dating space is hard, saturated, historically hard to monetize, and filled with tombs of companies that got millions only to go nowhere.
- mangecoeur 12y ago
  The market may be tough, but when the investors seem to be more interested in hooking up with you or your cofounders, or just outright groping, that points to something else than just "wrong market" being the issue. Maybe my different perspective, but "from the outside" to me it looks like a lot of macho older men who don't take someone seriously if they are female.
smoyer 12y ago
I generally think of the whole dating web-site vertical as a bit sleazy. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the investors they pitched outright dismissed them on these grounds (psychologically it may have happened before even hearing the pitch).
- smoyer 12y ago
  EDIT: I should also mention that the behavior these ladies were subjected to is completely unacceptable. My comment above wasn't in any way condoning the investors but rather trying to point out that it may (in general) be harder to get investment in a dating application. It may also be true that it's harder to get investments as a female founder (I suspect it is) but we're talking about a single instance. As YC grows the number of female-led start-ups, they should be able to slice this data multiple ways - by vertical, male/female founders, etc.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dylanjermiah 12y ago
I've heard if you have real (how do you define real?) traction, no matter what you'll get funded. Is there any truth to this? Or in other words, would people actually pass on an investment on a purely physical basis?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ramblerman 12y ago
Finding investors is a weird affair, really. Ultimately you're asking someone to part with their own money. Of course you would hope it's based on the merit of your startup, but a lot of it is also 'seduction' (even for guys). Taking them to golf, dinner, building a slow relationship - winning them over. We're not talking about a company's hiring policy here. This is an individual with a lot of money, and you happen to want it. I do think that warrants a different set of standards. You're entirely right to deny the older creepy guys your business, but it's not a problem in the tech business. People work hard to get these rich people into one place so they can be swooned over. There isn't much of a filtering process there except for "they have money".
solve 12y ago
The biggest disservice that YCombinator and other famous top-tier investors have done for entrepreneurs is to somehow convince us that the typical investor is a good person who will support you through good and bad. They're not. Typical investors turn out to be horrible, lazy, horrible people, versus what you expect from them initially. Keep that in mind from the start, no matter your gender, and you'll manage far better.
alexc05 12y ago
How does datingring scale? If you're setting people up on dates using real-human matchmakers it sounds like you've got a matchmaking agency. That's unquestionably a good business if you can get customers (I've seen the millionaire matchmaker reality show and she's got lots of money). What I'm not seeing is how that business scales to the multi million dollar exit that a VC is looking for. For every few hundred customers you need a new "real human" to manage coordinating the dates. How can you maintain quality across even 100k users? Obviously, with money you hire more, but what's the "engineer to user" ratio? Facebook has 1.2million users per. What's app has 14million users per. How many users can one "dating engineer" handle?
- jrs235 12y ago
  I posted this comment elsewhere here: Below is from http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website "Let’s think about their model again: If someone joins the site and is unsuccessful, the site loses one customer. If someone joins the site and is successful, the site loses two customers. Wait, what? That’s right. Making you successful can be bad for them. Now obviously, they need success stories to promote and recruit new customers but too many success stories and.. they lose."
  - stillsut 12y ago
    Except for the "craigslist early adopters", almost everyone who has done online dating has done so based on word-of-mouth recommendation from people they trust. Success = recommend to friends; Viral.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    Many of them will come back when the relationship ends.
  - sgustard 12y ago
    They will breed more customers, give it a few years.
s_kilk 12y ago
> The first investor who tried to invest was drunk at Demo Day and got handsy with a cofounder, so he was out. > One investor took me to lunch, said he wasn’t interested in investing, and wanted to ‘test’ the product out by going on a date with me. > Another investor introduced me to a group of fellow investors as ‘the beautiful CEO who has two other beautiful cofounders’. > Another never followed up with me after our meeting, but a month later invited me to an event his VC was holding with a ‘PS – this is a personal invite’ (meaning I was invited as a date, not because I was being considered as a potential investment). > Another investor met with my CTO, held off on investing, and then asked one of our matchmakers if he could be set up with our CTO, or someone like her. Shameful carry-on (on the part of the investors).
- dantillberg 12y ago
  Whose actions are you calling shameful here? It's not clear (to me, at least).
  - s_kilk 12y ago
    I don't see how it could be unclear. In what way could the shame be on the female participants in these scenarios? I've added clarification to my original post.
    - dantillberg 12y ago
      Thanks! It was ambiguous to me (and perhaps only me), as one could be saying that it was "shameful for the OP to carry on about this".
      - s_kilk 12y ago
        Ah yes, that actually makes sense, "carry on" is a british saying. It's a bit like saying "that's shameful behaviour".
themartorana 12y ago
Completely off the main topic, but - $25k/m is great, but growing beyond that is not difficult per se (when compared to growing any business). I personally know at least 5 different companies that have bootstrapped to over $1m/yr, three of those over $5/m year without a dime of investment. (We're in the $1m+ group.) For us, that's 5 full time people. That's it. One $5m company has grown to 20+ people. My point is, I wish people would stop with the narrative that getting funded is the only way to be successful. The idea that growing beyond $25k/m is too difficult without funding is absurd, because if you can get the money to scale quickly, you'll find that getting from $1-10m is really difficult. Then $10m-25m. And so on. And before you know it, your valuation is 40x revenue and you're kicked out of your own company without a dime to show for it. $300k/yr is awesome. It's not hard, trust me, to organically grow that to $1m. You'll pull a nice paycheck, and those dividends end up in your pocket, not someone else's. Edit: if you really have 60% month-over-month growth, you'll break $83,333.34/m ($1m/yr) in less than 3 months! I'll assume you're not actually holding steady at 60% m/m... But you can see you're not that far away.
- eeho 12y ago
  I'm not sure that you can look at their revenue the same way you'd look at the monthly recurring revenue of say, a SAAS company. I've never used any dating services personally, but I imagine the goal is to find someone you like as quickly as you can and then stop paying for it. It might be expensive to constantly acquire new customers, especially early on in the company's life. I do agree with your general point though. The vast majority of businesses don't take/need any VC funding.
- cushychicken 12y ago
  Just a guess, but since the company in question (Dating Ring) relies on matchmakers to help make dating matches for people, I can't help but wonder if they didn't try to grow their employee count a little early. Looking at their homepage, they have four matchmakers on staff, and from listening to Startup, I know they have another two people (a COO and a CTO) on board. Guessing they probably have a few other folks on staff too, and since they're based in NYC, it seems to me that they likely have payroll expenses well beyond what they're pulling down monthly. As I say - just a guess. But $25k/month serves 5 employees reasonably enough in NYC, but I wouldn't say more than that. I really hope they pull through. I anticipate nothing like I anticipate the latest episode of Startup now that Season 2 is going.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"The main difference? They were all run by all male founders" I know in Spain and Europe the founders of 10 different teams, all of them trying to disrupt dating. Rarely one succeeding, only after pivoting. It is very easy to compare yourself only with the successful people, and forget all the people under them, and worse underestimating your competitors. It is also a self fulfilled prophecy. I have seen bald founders get nervous with investors, getting too nervous, making a bad performance, then blaming it on being bald. People do not care you are bald on a business, but if you are nervous they sense it, and start thinking there is something fishy about you. Investors smell weakness and self doubt. If you doubt about yourself they will never invest on you, obviously, if you doubt about you nobody is going to trust you. I created a company while traveling around the world. EVERYBODY BELIEVED I WAS CRAZY. Everybody. My parents, my girlfriend at the time... I made it anyway but it was not easy and it worked pretty well in the end. If someone told me that I made it because I was a "white male" I would feel tremendously disrespected. It takes for granted all the incredible hard work, the difficult decisions, people around you feeling sorry for you, losing all your money, your girlfriend... I got to met people tens of thousands of times more successful than me. If I made money in my twenties, I met people that become rich on their teens. I know nobody that had success without hard work but there are people that work very hard that did not make it. I meet Rafael Nadal when he was a kid because I played tennis and played tournaments. I meet dozens of kids as good as him or better too. It is so easy to put excuses when you do not make it, but there are that, only excuses. But excuses are very dangerous. If you believe someone success because he is white and male, you wont be able to really see what REALLY makes them successful, and you won't be able to learn from them. Your competitors are your main teachers. You have to use the fact that you are a woman as your advantage. Sending hundreds of mails requesting meetings? Stop doing that, you are looking desperate male or female if you do that, that you need them more that they need you. I created my company without external funding, lots of people were interested in investing, mostly because I didn't need them. Those that got in got a good deal.
- Hytosys 12y ago
  Despite your hopeful anecdotes, there are plenty of stories that involve women in tech being overlooked and harassed. By these metrics, and those in the article's linked study, it's hard to deny that women have it much harder in this field. There might be the successful female underdogs who will claim to follow your mantras of confidence and overcoming excuses, but overwhelmingly this is a problem with our culture. You absolutely cannot expect a woman in this field to bear the load of constant misogyny.
scottjad 12y ago
> [list of three companies in different markets that received funding at better terms than hers] The main difference? They were all run by all male founders. Only someone obsessed with gender would ignore the dozens of significant differences between these companies, their products, and the people involved with them, and state that the main difference was the gender of the founders.
moe 12y ago
The groping and stuff is of course unacceptable. But I don't understand what they need an investor for if there is 60% MoM growth from $25k/mo? Why give a large chunk of the company away when you're on track to push $1M/mo in revenue within 8 months?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- solve 12y ago
  If you ask the "why do they need investors if they already have enough revenue at the moment to survive for now" question, then you really don't understand the basics of startup investment. The situation where you obviously need investment just to survive, is the only time you absolutely don't try to raise investor money. Sorry, but this question comes up far too often on HN.
- pja 12y ago
  Because it eliminates uncertainty? To sustain that 60% MoM growth rate, you’re going to have to recruit staff to match (this is a relatively high-touch company by the sounds of things - no scaling out your staff to millions of users each!) What happens if growth stalls for a few months just after you recruit a bunch of new staff? Oops, cash crunch: you fail to make payroll & the company goes bankrupt. On the other hand, if you play it safe & employ the minimum number of staff to make payroll even under conservative MoM growth predictions, you risk poor service killing your word of mouth under an influx of new users. Either of these outcomes could bite you at any point: if you’re re-investing your income straight back into the company in order to get the maximum growth rates then your exposure to short term user volatility is very high.
cushychicken 12y ago
Looking at the comments of this thread, I can't help but see the author's point, as most of the comments I see in response to this article fall into at least one of three categories: 1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short of "man up!" - and how isn't that sexist?) 2) "Are you sure your product doesn't suck? Maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew." (Levels of condescension in those statements vary from none to overwhelming.) 3) "Yeah, you're right, I'm a female founder/startup employee and have seen the same sort of thing." Hell, if anything, the reactions here just serve to clarify her point.
- Dewie3 12y ago
  > 1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short of "man up!" - and how isn't that sexist?) Wouldn't it be non-sexist if "man up" is applied to both men and women? What would be sexist is to only say that men should "man up".
  - Hytosys 12y ago
    The implication of "man up" is that anything less than a "man" is inadequate. It's much like "quit playing like a girl" or "grow some balls".
    - apetresc 12y ago
      Except nobody actually said the words "man up" — it was the OP's own paraphrasing of a general sentiment they observed, which they then turned around and labeled as sexist for using the word "man", all in the same sentence. I've never seen such an impressive turnaround time on a strawman.
      - cushychicken 12y ago
        Perhaps a bit of a straw man, I admit, but since the author mentioned several instances of men telling her she should toughen up, yet experiencing less resistance from VCs raising money than she did, I can't help but see the comments as piling it on just a little bit.
JustSomeNobody 12y ago
Sounds like a business opportunity. Have a site that rates investors. And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females asking for funding. Well, maybe it wouldn't be such a good business as it would likely get sued out of existence fairly quickly. Another tack may be to send letters the wives of said investors. :) Seriously though, as a man, I find it very disturbing that there are men who simply cannot conduct themselves respectfully in front of a woman.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  > And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females asking for funding. Or anyone, really. I don't mind being flirty with a guy once I know him (as I am with most of my male friends), but I wouldn't get that way with strangers at a professional event. Any man, woman, or otherwise who did that at an event like this would get a bad review from me.
astannard 12y ago
I can see why you're annoyed and have every right to be at investor behaviour. Lack of investment though, could that be due to scalability of the product? Reading between the lines as you take on more users will you need more staff to be matchers? This seems to put off some investors looking for a unicorn. It's a shame their are not more female VCs around. Hope it all goes well
andy_ppp 12y ago
I am amazed at how quickly this article dropped off the front page...
magnetpeep 12y ago
I am so tired of people complaining about this kind of BS. I'm a short, not handsome white man who knows fully well he'd never be hired to be the CEO of any company. Why? because people respond to tall, handsome men and I'm not one of them. People also respond to attractive women, and I'm not one of them either. Guess it just wasn't in the cards for me to have an easy life, just like it wasn't for THE MAJORITY OF US! Some people got lucky and won the genetic lottery, most of us didn't. End of story.
- ryanx435 12y ago
  just wanted to let you know I agree with you and I'm sick of people whining about basic human nature. it's not gonna change no matter how much you shame people or complain about it. cheers, mate
jongraehl 12y ago
Whatever disfunction exists in VC (I'm sure some does) is an opportunity for funders who specialize in funding women. They should obtain better deals than those who are for whatever reason only capable of correctly judging and interacting with male founders, especially if they can develop a reputation for it. Best wishes to the founder here, who took positive action by starting a business that seems promising enough (I agree with the premise that there are still opportunities in online dating). I'm not a fan of scolds with no skin in the game and outrageists who make every 3rd anecdote into a 'trend', but relating true experiences is surely good. Interpretations of social-psych-science studies (as opposed to the actual [reproduced] experiments) should be taken w/ huge lumps of salt.
silverlake 12y ago
The title should read: "Fundraising While Not an Ivy League White Male". I believe everything she says. I agree that we should call out sexist behavior to stamp it out. However, I hope she doesn't wallow in how unfair this is. Nearly everyone has to face unfair bullshit in some aspect of their lives. Frankly, dating sites are a cesspool of people making superficial judgments. Fat people, short men and black women have a terrible time getting dates because of that same "pattern matching" investors do on founders. They probably have a harder time fund raising for their startups, too. So, you really have no choice but to persevere against sexist asshats in SV. I heard about the dating ring from the Startup podcast. Checked the site out, but how is this different from It's Just Lunch? For $80/month I'd rather your matchmaker run my OKCupid account. Writing a hundred messages that get no response is a total waste of time, but OKC and Match is where people are at.
danielbnelson 12y ago
I'm really enjoying listening to you on the podcast - I want you to succeed and I know many others do to. Keep your head up high and keep at it. Is sexism a problem in tech and venture capital? YES. But don't focus on it and don't let it stop you. So you've gotten lots of rejections. If something isn't working change your strategy. You don't have to raise money to build an awesome company. If you are out of cash take on part time jobs but don't give up. This line really concerns me: "You need tens of thousands of users to prove what we’re trying to prove, and it acquiring users in this space is very costly" Any business is about math. What's your lifetime value of your user? What does it cost to acquire them? Do do you do it cost effectively at scale?
jfe 12y ago
there are two issues: one cofounder was being "man-handled" by an investor, and their product received little support, allegedly because the author and cofounder was not attractive, white, male, etc. i think everyone here agrees being "handsy" with anyone in a professional setting is not the right thing to do. it's certainly not punishable by death, but it's socially uncouth. that being said, the author acknowledged that it's common for sales pitches to be misinterpreted as sexual interest, and seeing how women generally like aggressive men, it's not hard to see how an investor would interpret such a situation as a cue to get "handsy" with the cofounder. again, not excusable in a professional setting, but you can't lambaste a man for his own biology. which brings me to the second issue. if men are biologically predisposed to choose male leaders over female leaders and we want women to have an equal opportunity to be funded -- provided their product is actually as good as a man's -- then women will gain better traction by offering incentives for men to prefer the female leaders over the male leaders, rather than trying to change biology so men "work correctly".

164 points by doppp 12y ago

I guess many of you already know but it's worth mentioning that the 2nd season of Startup Podcast is following datingring and their (quite amazing) journey: http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/ http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/

mahouse 12y ago

You can also send a "white, attractive male" to the VC interview, and be a ghostwriter of the startup.

gtf21 12y ago
Which is awful! A founder should not have to send a "white, attractive male" because she is female and investors refuse to take her seriously. The culture clearly needs to change.
- cpayne 12y ago
  It is totally awful! But it's also the reality (that doesn't make it ok). I thought the same thing - just pay someone to be the face. I don't think it is all that different to a celebrity endorsement...
- sokoloff 12y ago
  There's a school of thought that says the founders' job is to figure out how to win, not confine themselves to "what ought to be", but rather win with what is. It may be philosophically objectionable and morally frustrating, but if it's the current reality, you can work with that and increase your chance of succeeding or focus primarily on working against it, rather than on your business. Completely agree that it should change to be gender blind, of course.
- mahouse 12y ago
  If you think you can fight prejudice... think again.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Most of the 20th Century was an ongoing war against prejudice in one form or another, with prejudice constantly losing ground.
mdevere 12y ago
Is this a joke?
brux 12y ago
You can also send a "white, attractive male" Make that "attractive person". Discrimination of unattractive people is far more common than both racism and sexism. Source: Unattractive brown guy.
- mlvljr 12y ago
  c'mon!!
syllogism 12y ago
Pretty sure that's fraud.
carrotleads 12y ago
Isn't that one of the point behind the "white male privilege" argument.. that one gets ahead just because they belong to a group.. You would be supporting and perpetuating such a structure.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

yarper 12y ago

But.. isn't the dating game actually pretty saturated? OkCupid, Eharmony, tinder + a million other companies. OP mentions the startup was taking 25k/mo but needed funding to make a crack against big companies. Surely that was the exact turn off for investors?

nailer 12y ago
Search was saturated once Altavista came out and kicked Yahoo's butt. If DatingCircle have a significant competitive advantage over the existing market that may not be relevant.
- endymi0n 12y ago
  Social was saturated when everyone had a Myspace page.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  Right, so what is the competitive advantage? She opens saying "Unless I have an absolutely perfect, bulletproof business (which I do not), I’m easily written off as someone blaming my failures on my gender" and offers nothing to dissuade me from following that. It seems entirely plausible she has been marginalised/dismissed - but I'm not sure I buy into it entirely. Personally, I'd have thought that, in dating especially, a female founder would seem like a real strength. I wish the company luck regardless vOv
- Bootvis 12y ago
  It still may turn off investors though. Google wasn't immediately funded to the brim either.
windernz 12y ago
I agree the market is saturated but that didn't stop other startups in other saturated industries ~ taxis & uber for instance. I don't know what their edge is but I wouldn't write them off because they are trying to crack a saturated industry.
bwindels 12y ago

pron 12y ago

> It’s easy to spot direct sexism, and to react to something like an investor getting handsy. But the subtle sexism that hinders women goes ignored and is often denied. The first kind is better called misogyny; the second is sexism. It is often denied not because it is subtle -- a quick look at the statistics, any relevant statistics, would show that it's far from it -- but because it's unintentional, sometimes seemingly benevolent, and often invisible unless you're trained to see it or directly suffer its consequences. I think the first step is to understand that being sexist is to be expected -- it's like doctors infecting patients with germs on their hands before the discovery of microbes and disinfectants -- you can't not be infected unless you understand how the mechanism works. The next step is to learn what sexism is, how it works, why it feels "natural", and why fighting it may feel strange. Like with any mechanism that we can't easily see with the naked eye, coming to terms with its reality and its very visible effects is a process. It's OK to grow up sexist; if our current theories are correct, almost all of us do whether we like it or not. It's not OK not to learn about sexism and try to fight it now that we have a much better sense of how it works. What saddens me is that sometimes the very people who are usually most curious to learn how the world works turn willfully -- sometimes proudly -- ignorant when it comes to social mechanisms. It's OK to disagree, but at least everyone should be familiar with the core principles. Sometimes arguments about the subject here on HN or elsewhere sound like people arguing with Quantum Mechanics not because they think the Newtonian model provides ample explanation, but because they insist Zeus is ample explanation, or, worse yet, because we have no business trying to understand how things below a certain size behave because it's just not important enough.

Dewie3 12y ago
This is how this reads to me: first, realize that sin is everywhere even if you can't see it, you are all sinners and that is just the natural state of the world right now. But it is not OK to sin if you have been made aware of sin. (Is the Emperor wearing clothes?) I guess the analogy breaks down with the acceptance of those that are truly ignorant (not just intentionally), and that one can build a better world wherein "sin" is not the default state of affairs. The comparison with religion and science seems apt, but for the opposite reason that you seem to portray. These kinds of social questions, when you get down to the nitty gritty of them, often isn't science. And I don't mean in the sense that "it is not HARD science", I mean that the school of thought does not seem to be grounded in a (social) science. It's motivated by an ideology and a theory of how the world is/works. And it has few other competing ideologies/theories in its space. And despite being an ideology/theory which has little competition with other such things (except internally) so that people can see and compare it in different lights, they try to pass it off as gospel.

DiabloD3 12y ago

What I don't get about this is why she just doesn't name names. I'm a white attractive male, however, I don't want to ever accept investments from investors that do not share the same values as I do, such as women are a vast untapped skilled workforce and treating them as anything less simply isn't profitable, and pretty ignorant. I mean, hell, sure, lets say for the sake of argument, "women belong in the kitchen, pregnant, and barefoot" (the single most classically sexist thing I can think of at 6:30 in the morning), women raise our children, both boys and girls: if you truly believe this, why didn't you marry a woman with multiple PhDs and a high IQ, so a much more intelligent forward-thinking educated woman is raising your children, thus giving them a better chance in life and thus spreading your genetic legacy more favorably (the driving force behind 99% of human culture and society)? Seriously, sexism just doesn't logically make sense. If you're sexist, and a CEO or a major investor, please drop out of the game and let someone more efficient than you take your place. Edit: I don't care if you downvote me, sexism is still wrong and needs to be called out as much as possible so we can exile people who are abusing their power to promote sexism.

michaelmcdonald 12y ago
You don't "name names" because as the OP already stated: there's lots of back channeling going on. Investors don't want someone who is going to "tattle" and share experiences (good or bad). Besides: two wrongs don't make a right. Someone in the situation needs to display some professionalism. In regards to the other issues presented: I have to agree that the dating scene / app market is overly saturated. I'm positive that the fact the CEO and CTO were attractive white females did not assist their situation when they had to be overly outgoing to try and snag a few minutes of time with investors. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman when it comes to pitching: you NEED to be social and aggressive. As a result, men they were pitching to probably thought that they WERE being flirtatious. There's no way to know if the OP was completely professional the whole time or not (we're getting one side of the story); however it's likely that when talking about dating apps, being social, and pitching investors that there could be some confusion about where the line is for flirting compared to trying to get attention for your business.
mrweasel 12y ago

rurban 12y ago

So how did Jessica Alba did it then? She's not the typical startup geek, and her roles definitely defined her on the sexy side only. She managed fine. She pitched by herself, and finally found the right partner and investor. E.g. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears-her-way-736714 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears-he...

jasonwocky 12y ago
Are you seriously comparing the writer to Jessica-freaking-Alba? Could you possibly level the playing field a little less?
- rurban 12y ago
  I think it's comparable. Would you really invest in "the idea of a sexy movie star who finds her conscience after her first few kids and wants to do healthy and honest products". (overly cynically stated) The op was an expert in her type of business already, had the right partners. With Alba I would have seriously underestimated Mrs Alba's business sense. But she proved everybody wrong and has now a billion dollar business. The same expectations as the op in the dating business. She describes it here: http://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/lindsay-blakely/how-jessica-alba-proved-her-doubters-were-wrong.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201411/lindsay-blakely/how-jessi... But Alba needed 3 years, so I would suggest to hold on. Facebook didn't level the business field already, even with competition there's more in. Those guys were just stupid.
  - fiblye 12y ago
    >Would you really invest in "the idea of a sexy movie star who finds her conscience after her first few kids and wants to do healthy and honest products". Well, she's got mass appeal. Most people know nothing about business, but they know about celebrities. If a celebrity promotes or endorses something, and some consumer likes that celebrity, it's far more likely they'll go for whatever they're selling versus it being promoted by some random person. You could come up with any random product and try pitching it to thousands of investors and still fail, but if you get Elon Musk to do it for you, you could probably get a couple million easy. Countless people know him and people trust him whether or not the product or service he's pitching is really worth anything.

jenandre 12y ago

I sympathize with you, having also experienced subtle sexism in both the tech and investment world (I'm a technical co-founder, and I've fundraised successfully). Here's a couple of points I hope are helpful. - You should look to connect with partners at firms that have female founders (ideally purely female-founding teams) among their portfolio. There are also a few female partners out there as well -- get access to them, with your YC network it should not be hard. Listen hard and press them to get honest, specific feedback when given "no"s. - While the sexism is unfortunate and it's hard not to get frustrated, you may want to look long and hard at your pitch and company. If you've really talked to 40 investors and sent out ~500 emails, and this is a hot space for disruption, it's very unlikely that all of them are dismissing you due to gender; something isn't connecting. I's very easy to dismiss all feedback ("their feedback means nothing; they are rejecting me because I am a woman") just because you are soured by your bad sexist experiences. Ask yourself these questions honestly: Are investors giving the same criticisms and feedback for saying no? Are there questions you struggle with in the pitch about your business? Is the value prop clear? Is the product demo well orchestrated? Try to examine all of the feedback you've gotten objectively, and see how can you improve the pitch. Find someone who is ideally involved in the venture community (e.g. as a partner, associate, EIR) that you can trust, that can give you brutally honest feedback on your pitch and business. - Fundraising is hard for everyone. It's going to be harder for you. It sucks, but that's the truth of life. You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue. It would be great if you didn't have to deal with this, but that's not the reality of the world. What doesn't kill your company will make you AND your company stronger.

cant_say_that 12y ago
> You should look to connect with partners at firms that have invested in female founding teams (ideally purely female teams). Are there seriously investors that only back purely female teams? That seems ridiculously sexist and financially stupid to eliminate so many good startups that aren't all female. > You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue. I see articles like this as a small step backwards. I don't know what the answer is to discrimination (of any kind), but I think complaining about it in articles like this is not helping to reach equality.

alexcaps 12y ago

I wasn't going to respond... But after reading the whole article, the author really comes across as self-entitled. I fear no one is willing to tell her the truth. So here are some thoughts: 1. Fundraising is hard no matter who you are. Stop reading TechCrunch and comparing yourself to others. You never know what someone's journey is. From the story the press tells it looks like I've had an easy path raising capital but that's not true. We've gone 12+ months on a single $50k investment after a year of no funding. Startups are hard and you need to be willing to deal with the fact that most companies struggle to fundraise. 2. I am glad you have conviction, you'll need it, but the dating space is not as guaranteed as you think. Up until recently, the entire dating market combined didn't top a billion dollars in the U.S. Companies like Tinder are probably overvalued and yet they have millions and millions of users with crazy metrics. Do you have ANY indication you've built the next Tinder? 3. Investors invest in opportunities they understand. I look at your product and I ask "what's novel, defensible, unique here?". The design doesn't blow me away and the model sounds just like Three Day Rule which now has support and backing by Match.com (note: all founders of TDR are female). What sets you apart? 4. Please please please don't think you're hot shit because the press covered you. YC says to focus on traction because that is all that matters, and they're right. 60% growth doesn't mean anything. What are the numbers? Do you have 100k users on track to pass 250k in half that time and 1MM in a year? Look at Slack or Snapchat or Instagram growth to compare what investors get excited about it. Be really honest with yourself about whether you DO have numbers or not. Look, I understand discrimination and believe you experience it far worse than a straight white guy, but it really doesn't come across as a compelling argument the way it's explained here. I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for calling you out here, but I feel it would be dishonest not to reply and tell you what it looks like from the outside. I wish you the best of luck and hope you build that billion dollar company, but please remember the dating space is hard, saturated, historically hard to monetize, and filled with tombs of companies that got millions only to go nowhere.

mangecoeur 12y ago
The market may be tough, but when the investors seem to be more interested in hooking up with you or your cofounders, or just outright groping, that points to something else than just "wrong market" being the issue. Maybe my different perspective, but "from the outside" to me it looks like a lot of macho older men who don't take someone seriously if they are female.

smoyer 12y ago

I generally think of the whole dating web-site vertical as a bit sleazy. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the investors they pitched outright dismissed them on these grounds (psychologically it may have happened before even hearing the pitch).

smoyer 12y ago
EDIT: I should also mention that the behavior these ladies were subjected to is completely unacceptable. My comment above wasn't in any way condoning the investors but rather trying to point out that it may (in general) be harder to get investment in a dating application. It may also be true that it's harder to get investments as a female founder (I suspect it is) but we're talking about a single instance. As YC grows the number of female-led start-ups, they should be able to slice this data multiple ways - by vertical, male/female founders, etc.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dylanjermiah 12y ago

I've heard if you have real (how do you define real?) traction, no matter what you'll get funded. Is there any truth to this? Or in other words, would people actually pass on an investment on a purely physical basis?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ramblerman 12y ago

Finding investors is a weird affair, really. Ultimately you're asking someone to part with their own money. Of course you would hope it's based on the merit of your startup, but a lot of it is also 'seduction' (even for guys). Taking them to golf, dinner, building a slow relationship - winning them over. We're not talking about a company's hiring policy here. This is an individual with a lot of money, and you happen to want it. I do think that warrants a different set of standards. You're entirely right to deny the older creepy guys your business, but it's not a problem in the tech business. People work hard to get these rich people into one place so they can be swooned over. There isn't much of a filtering process there except for "they have money".

solve 12y ago

The biggest disservice that YCombinator and other famous top-tier investors have done for entrepreneurs is to somehow convince us that the typical investor is a good person who will support you through good and bad. They're not. Typical investors turn out to be horrible, lazy, horrible people, versus what you expect from them initially. Keep that in mind from the start, no matter your gender, and you'll manage far better.

alexc05 12y ago

How does datingring scale? If you're setting people up on dates using real-human matchmakers it sounds like you've got a matchmaking agency. That's unquestionably a good business if you can get customers (I've seen the millionaire matchmaker reality show and she's got lots of money). What I'm not seeing is how that business scales to the multi million dollar exit that a VC is looking for. For every few hundred customers you need a new "real human" to manage coordinating the dates. How can you maintain quality across even 100k users? Obviously, with money you hire more, but what's the "engineer to user" ratio? Facebook has 1.2million users per. What's app has 14million users per. How many users can one "dating engineer" handle?

jrs235 12y ago
I posted this comment elsewhere here: Below is from http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website "Let’s think about their model again: If someone joins the site and is unsuccessful, the site loses one customer. If someone joins the site and is successful, the site loses two customers. Wait, what? That’s right. Making you successful can be bad for them. Now obviously, they need success stories to promote and recruit new customers but too many success stories and.. they lose."
- stillsut 12y ago
  Except for the "craigslist early adopters", almost everyone who has done online dating has done so based on word-of-mouth recommendation from people they trust. Success = recommend to friends; Viral.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  Many of them will come back when the relationship ends.
- sgustard 12y ago
  They will breed more customers, give it a few years.

s_kilk 12y ago

> The first investor who tried to invest was drunk at Demo Day and got handsy with a cofounder, so he was out. > One investor took me to lunch, said he wasn’t interested in investing, and wanted to ‘test’ the product out by going on a date with me. > Another investor introduced me to a group of fellow investors as ‘the beautiful CEO who has two other beautiful cofounders’. > Another never followed up with me after our meeting, but a month later invited me to an event his VC was holding with a ‘PS – this is a personal invite’ (meaning I was invited as a date, not because I was being considered as a potential investment). > Another investor met with my CTO, held off on investing, and then asked one of our matchmakers if he could be set up with our CTO, or someone like her. Shameful carry-on (on the part of the investors).

dantillberg 12y ago
Whose actions are you calling shameful here? It's not clear (to me, at least).
- s_kilk 12y ago
  I don't see how it could be unclear. In what way could the shame be on the female participants in these scenarios? I've added clarification to my original post.
  - dantillberg 12y ago
    Thanks! It was ambiguous to me (and perhaps only me), as one could be saying that it was "shameful for the OP to carry on about this".
    - s_kilk 12y ago
      Ah yes, that actually makes sense, "carry on" is a british saying. It's a bit like saying "that's shameful behaviour".

themartorana 12y ago

Completely off the main topic, but - $25k/m is great, but growing beyond that is not difficult per se (when compared to growing any business). I personally know at least 5 different companies that have bootstrapped to over $1m/yr, three of those over $5/m year without a dime of investment. (We're in the $1m+ group.) For us, that's 5 full time people. That's it. One $5m company has grown to 20+ people. My point is, I wish people would stop with the narrative that getting funded is the only way to be successful. The idea that growing beyond $25k/m is too difficult without funding is absurd, because if you can get the money to scale quickly, you'll find that getting from $1-10m is really difficult. Then $10m-25m. And so on. And before you know it, your valuation is 40x revenue and you're kicked out of your own company without a dime to show for it. $300k/yr is awesome. It's not hard, trust me, to organically grow that to $1m. You'll pull a nice paycheck, and those dividends end up in your pocket, not someone else's. Edit: if you really have 60% month-over-month growth, you'll break $83,333.34/m ($1m/yr) in less than 3 months! I'll assume you're not actually holding steady at 60% m/m... But you can see you're not that far away.

eeho 12y ago
I'm not sure that you can look at their revenue the same way you'd look at the monthly recurring revenue of say, a SAAS company. I've never used any dating services personally, but I imagine the goal is to find someone you like as quickly as you can and then stop paying for it. It might be expensive to constantly acquire new customers, especially early on in the company's life. I do agree with your general point though. The vast majority of businesses don't take/need any VC funding.
cushychicken 12y ago
Just a guess, but since the company in question (Dating Ring) relies on matchmakers to help make dating matches for people, I can't help but wonder if they didn't try to grow their employee count a little early. Looking at their homepage, they have four matchmakers on staff, and from listening to Startup, I know they have another two people (a COO and a CTO) on board. Guessing they probably have a few other folks on staff too, and since they're based in NYC, it seems to me that they likely have payroll expenses well beyond what they're pulling down monthly. As I say - just a guess. But $25k/month serves 5 employees reasonably enough in NYC, but I wouldn't say more than that. I really hope they pull through. I anticipate nothing like I anticipate the latest episode of Startup now that Season 2 is going.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"The main difference? They were all run by all male founders" I know in Spain and Europe the founders of 10 different teams, all of them trying to disrupt dating. Rarely one succeeding, only after pivoting. It is very easy to compare yourself only with the successful people, and forget all the people under them, and worse underestimating your competitors. It is also a self fulfilled prophecy. I have seen bald founders get nervous with investors, getting too nervous, making a bad performance, then blaming it on being bald. People do not care you are bald on a business, but if you are nervous they sense it, and start thinking there is something fishy about you. Investors smell weakness and self doubt. If you doubt about yourself they will never invest on you, obviously, if you doubt about you nobody is going to trust you. I created a company while traveling around the world. EVERYBODY BELIEVED I WAS CRAZY. Everybody. My parents, my girlfriend at the time... I made it anyway but it was not easy and it worked pretty well in the end. If someone told me that I made it because I was a "white male" I would feel tremendously disrespected. It takes for granted all the incredible hard work, the difficult decisions, people around you feeling sorry for you, losing all your money, your girlfriend... I got to met people tens of thousands of times more successful than me. If I made money in my twenties, I met people that become rich on their teens. I know nobody that had success without hard work but there are people that work very hard that did not make it. I meet Rafael Nadal when he was a kid because I played tennis and played tournaments. I meet dozens of kids as good as him or better too. It is so easy to put excuses when you do not make it, but there are that, only excuses. But excuses are very dangerous. If you believe someone success because he is white and male, you wont be able to really see what REALLY makes them successful, and you won't be able to learn from them. Your competitors are your main teachers. You have to use the fact that you are a woman as your advantage. Sending hundreds of mails requesting meetings? Stop doing that, you are looking desperate male or female if you do that, that you need them more that they need you. I created my company without external funding, lots of people were interested in investing, mostly because I didn't need them. Those that got in got a good deal.

Hytosys 12y ago
Despite your hopeful anecdotes, there are plenty of stories that involve women in tech being overlooked and harassed. By these metrics, and those in the article's linked study, it's hard to deny that women have it much harder in this field. There might be the successful female underdogs who will claim to follow your mantras of confidence and overcoming excuses, but overwhelmingly this is a problem with our culture. You absolutely cannot expect a woman in this field to bear the load of constant misogyny.

scottjad 12y ago

> [list of three companies in different markets that received funding at better terms than hers] The main difference? They were all run by all male founders. Only someone obsessed with gender would ignore the dozens of significant differences between these companies, their products, and the people involved with them, and state that the main difference was the gender of the founders.

moe 12y ago

The groping and stuff is of course unacceptable. But I don't understand what they need an investor for if there is 60% MoM growth from $25k/mo? Why give a large chunk of the company away when you're on track to push $1M/mo in revenue within 8 months?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
solve 12y ago
If you ask the "why do they need investors if they already have enough revenue at the moment to survive for now" question, then you really don't understand the basics of startup investment. The situation where you obviously need investment just to survive, is the only time you absolutely don't try to raise investor money. Sorry, but this question comes up far too often on HN.
pja 12y ago
Because it eliminates uncertainty? To sustain that 60% MoM growth rate, you’re going to have to recruit staff to match (this is a relatively high-touch company by the sounds of things - no scaling out your staff to millions of users each!) What happens if growth stalls for a few months just after you recruit a bunch of new staff? Oops, cash crunch: you fail to make payroll & the company goes bankrupt. On the other hand, if you play it safe & employ the minimum number of staff to make payroll even under conservative MoM growth predictions, you risk poor service killing your word of mouth under an influx of new users. Either of these outcomes could bite you at any point: if you’re re-investing your income straight back into the company in order to get the maximum growth rates then your exposure to short term user volatility is very high.

cushychicken 12y ago

Looking at the comments of this thread, I can't help but see the author's point, as most of the comments I see in response to this article fall into at least one of three categories: 1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short of "man up!" - and how isn't that sexist?) 2) "Are you sure your product doesn't suck? Maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew." (Levels of condescension in those statements vary from none to overwhelming.) 3) "Yeah, you're right, I'm a female founder/startup employee and have seen the same sort of thing." Hell, if anything, the reactions here just serve to clarify her point.

Dewie3 12y ago
> 1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short of "man up!" - and how isn't that sexist?) Wouldn't it be non-sexist if "man up" is applied to both men and women? What would be sexist is to only say that men should "man up".
- Hytosys 12y ago
  The implication of "man up" is that anything less than a "man" is inadequate. It's much like "quit playing like a girl" or "grow some balls".
  - apetresc 12y ago
    Except nobody actually said the words "man up" — it was the OP's own paraphrasing of a general sentiment they observed, which they then turned around and labeled as sexist for using the word "man", all in the same sentence. I've never seen such an impressive turnaround time on a strawman.
    - cushychicken 12y ago
      Perhaps a bit of a straw man, I admit, but since the author mentioned several instances of men telling her she should toughen up, yet experiencing less resistance from VCs raising money than she did, I can't help but see the comments as piling it on just a little bit.

JustSomeNobody 12y ago

Sounds like a business opportunity. Have a site that rates investors. And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females asking for funding. Well, maybe it wouldn't be such a good business as it would likely get sued out of existence fairly quickly. Another tack may be to send letters the wives of said investors. :) Seriously though, as a man, I find it very disturbing that there are men who simply cannot conduct themselves respectfully in front of a woman.

mkr-hn 12y ago
> And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females asking for funding. Or anyone, really. I don't mind being flirty with a guy once I know him (as I am with most of my male friends), but I wouldn't get that way with strangers at a professional event. Any man, woman, or otherwise who did that at an event like this would get a bad review from me.

astannard 12y ago

I can see why you're annoyed and have every right to be at investor behaviour. Lack of investment though, could that be due to scalability of the product? Reading between the lines as you take on more users will you need more staff to be matchers? This seems to put off some investors looking for a unicorn. It's a shame their are not more female VCs around. Hope it all goes well

andy_ppp 12y ago

I am amazed at how quickly this article dropped off the front page...

magnetpeep 12y ago

I am so tired of people complaining about this kind of BS. I'm a short, not handsome white man who knows fully well he'd never be hired to be the CEO of any company. Why? because people respond to tall, handsome men and I'm not one of them. People also respond to attractive women, and I'm not one of them either. Guess it just wasn't in the cards for me to have an easy life, just like it wasn't for THE MAJORITY OF US! Some people got lucky and won the genetic lottery, most of us didn't. End of story.

ryanx435 12y ago
just wanted to let you know I agree with you and I'm sick of people whining about basic human nature. it's not gonna change no matter how much you shame people or complain about it. cheers, mate

jongraehl 12y ago

Whatever disfunction exists in VC (I'm sure some does) is an opportunity for funders who specialize in funding women. They should obtain better deals than those who are for whatever reason only capable of correctly judging and interacting with male founders, especially if they can develop a reputation for it. Best wishes to the founder here, who took positive action by starting a business that seems promising enough (I agree with the premise that there are still opportunities in online dating). I'm not a fan of scolds with no skin in the game and outrageists who make every 3rd anecdote into a 'trend', but relating true experiences is surely good. Interpretations of social-psych-science studies (as opposed to the actual [reproduced] experiments) should be taken w/ huge lumps of salt.

silverlake 12y ago

The title should read: "Fundraising While Not an Ivy League White Male". I believe everything she says. I agree that we should call out sexist behavior to stamp it out. However, I hope she doesn't wallow in how unfair this is. Nearly everyone has to face unfair bullshit in some aspect of their lives. Frankly, dating sites are a cesspool of people making superficial judgments. Fat people, short men and black women have a terrible time getting dates because of that same "pattern matching" investors do on founders. They probably have a harder time fund raising for their startups, too. So, you really have no choice but to persevere against sexist asshats in SV. I heard about the dating ring from the Startup podcast. Checked the site out, but how is this different from It's Just Lunch? For $80/month I'd rather your matchmaker run my OKCupid account. Writing a hundred messages that get no response is a total waste of time, but OKC and Match is where people are at.

danielbnelson 12y ago

I'm really enjoying listening to you on the podcast - I want you to succeed and I know many others do to. Keep your head up high and keep at it. Is sexism a problem in tech and venture capital? YES. But don't focus on it and don't let it stop you. So you've gotten lots of rejections. If something isn't working change your strategy. You don't have to raise money to build an awesome company. If you are out of cash take on part time jobs but don't give up. This line really concerns me: "You need tens of thousands of users to prove what we’re trying to prove, and it acquiring users in this space is very costly" Any business is about math. What's your lifetime value of your user? What does it cost to acquire them? Do do you do it cost effectively at scale?

jfe 12y ago

there are two issues: one cofounder was being "man-handled" by an investor, and their product received little support, allegedly because the author and cofounder was not attractive, white, male, etc. i think everyone here agrees being "handsy" with anyone in a professional setting is not the right thing to do. it's certainly not punishable by death, but it's socially uncouth. that being said, the author acknowledged that it's common for sales pitches to be misinterpreted as sexual interest, and seeing how women generally like aggressive men, it's not hard to see how an investor would interpret such a situation as a cue to get "handsy" with the cofounder. again, not excusable in a professional setting, but you can't lambaste a man for his own biology. which brings me to the second issue. if men are biologically predisposed to choose male leaders over female leaders and we want women to have an equal opportunity to be funded -- provided their product is actually as good as a man's -- then women will gain better traction by offering incentives for men to prefer the female leaders over the male leaders, rather than trying to change biology so men "work correctly".