5 ms·
Is it 1997? No? Huh, my computer says it's 2015, a year in which the VC elite is the new fucking corporate elite. I have about 6 feet of clearance this morning
by michaelochurch 11y ago
Is it 1997? No? Huh, my computer says it's 2015, a year in which the VC elite is the new fucking corporate elite.
I have about 6 feet of clearance this morning, so this post can get through, but the fucking high horse has got to go. Sorry, but I don't have space to let it in.
There’s no air cover for startups. You don’t have backup troops. It’s just you versus the world. So naturally, if your product or service sucks, then you die. You can’t just look like you’re doing stuff. You actually have to make it, and almost totally on your own.
Correction. If your VCs don't like you, then you die. Even if your company succeeds, you die if the VCs don't like you. (Just as, in a large corporation, you can do your job very well but have your project taken over because the higher-ups don't like you. Which is, let's be cynical and honest, something we like even less than having the project fail.) If your VCs like you, then they will keep funding you and, if your company fails according to market forces, they'll line you up with an executive position at a portfolio company while you recharge your batteries.
If doing things that aren’t effective don’t get you fired, then what does? Usually making mistakes that make your boss look bad. Big organizations are just groups of people, and people sure like to talk shit. The one thing you can’t do is look like a bozo. It’s fine to work really hard to no effect (hey, you worked hard!), but if you become a social liability, you’re donezo.
The last time I checked, small organizations were also groups of people. And the VC-funded world is just a postmodern corporation in which the VCs have set themselves up as the actual executive team while "founders" are mid-ranking product managers (who might get 8-figure bonuses, and promotion to the investor ranks, if they totally rape the odds... but are, for the time being, still in the second tier and forced to manage up into the man-child oligarchy on Sand Hill Road).
Corporate VPs don't have a monopoly on reputation management at the expense of the corporate good.
Founders care more about their "personal brand" than their companies, and I don't begrudge them for this at all. Fuck, I also care more (far, far more) about my career and reputation than whatever company I work at, at a given time. I take no issue with self-interest, and I don't even necessarily think the "disposable company" model of the postmodern VC-istan meta-company is the wrong one. I just can't fucking stand the high horse. You (rhetorical "you"; I'm not trying to be confrontational to any specific person) fuckers in VC and in founder-land aren't much worse than the existing corporate elite, but you're not better either. You fucking are the corporate elite. Accept it. The fact that you wear sandals instead of a suit when you lay people off doesn't make you a better person.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoYou should consult for Mike Judge on the next season of Silicon Valley.
- michaelochurch 11y agoI've considered it. I haven't had offers pertaining to that specific show, but I did have an offer recently pertaining to a different cultural institution. (I didn't take it because it would have required full-time commitment, and there were reputation risks involved.)
- brudgers 11y agoOne thing I see in the VC to Founder relationship is that it is not primarily going to be driven by relative social status. Sure a particular investor may make as soft landing for a founder based in part or in whole on affection, but the idea of making a hard landing for a founder out of a concern that the founder's success would knock the VC down in the butt sniffing order of the pack, isn't going to be part of their calculus. Indeed, "It's great if you get rich off this deal" can legitimately be a part of the VC to founder relationship. In terms of follow on, my suspicion is that a lot of these incredible valuations are not the VC's investing $100's of millions with expectations of 100x returns, but rather acting as agents for traditional capital transactions carried out by institutional investors. With a 1x liquidation preference and bond yields near zero, the risk reward ratio of an investment in an Uber or AirBnB starts to fall in line with a REIT and to become attractive to an institution like an insurance company. At least that's my take from way on the outside.
- michaelochurch 11y agoVCs don't arrange soft landings out of affection or "butt sniffing". It's about control and power. VCs like to say, "failure is OK, get up and try again" but the truth of the matter, in the Valley, is that you're completely fucking screwed post-faceplant unless the VCs are willing to help you out and place you. You're completely reliant on them for your career and reputation, because they will be the ones who decide (and I use the word decide rather than judge because it really is up to them) whether you failed in good faith or were incompetent and shall become untouchable. This means that you can't buck them, even if they decide to fire you and even if they decide to kill your company (to suit the needs of a competitor that they're also funding, and that they've already picked as the winner over you). In other words, the soft landings aren't about affection but control. They want an ecosystem where unless they extend something that sorta looks like an out-of-band favor ("sorry that it didn't work out, but my friend is looking for a VP/Eng Post-B, 250k and 3%") the founder is completely fucked.