Monthly Archives

August 2016

Monetisation: Why it matters

By | Startup general interest | No Comments

I read two great posts advising founders on fundraising this morning. The first was a deck with pointers on fundraising from Jason Friedman of LionBird, which made two points I want to pick out and expand on (the rest of the deck is great too, and well worth a full read):

  • 60% of fundraisings take three months or more (slide 2). “How long should I leave to raise my round?” is a question founders ask us all the time and we always answer 3-6 months. Sometimes we get pushback from people who have had success raising in shorter times than that in the past, and the data shows that 40% of companies don’t need three months. However, it’s advisable to hope for the best but plan for the worst and give yourself three months or more. A couple of quick additional points: people with strong investor relationships need less time to raise; the data in the slide is for the US where fundraising times are shorter than in the UK.
  • Few companies have the luxury of holding off on meaningful monetisation (slide 40). This is another one that comes up a lot. Investors like to see evidence that the revenue strategy works because it removes a major risk in the business (that nobody will pay) and because it improves capital efficiency and hence investor returns. There are, of course, a number of highly successful startups which put off monetisation for years, but they are a tiny minority of venture backed companies characterised by extremely rapid growth in huge potential markets. We all believe passionately in our companies, but unless they can genuinely be the next Facebook, Twitter or Google, early monetisation is advisable.

The second post was on evolving fundraising milestones for SaaS companies from Ash Fontana and Mark Gorenberg of Zetta Ventures. Again, lots of solid advice and well worth a full read. I’m going to pull out the point they made about partnerships:

Partnerships are a distraction before the seed stage [defined as a $2-5m raise]. However, companies can leverage a few key marketing partnerships with complementary product companies to get enough traction to raise a Series A.

It’s super common for founders to spend time pursuing partnerships very early in the life of their companies and super rare for them to make any difference to revenues. Ash and Mark are spot on to advise ignoring partnerships before Seed and to then only focus on targeted partnerships until after Series A. This point hasn’t been spoken about enough and I’d advise all founders to consider it carefully to avoid misallocating their time.

Dollar Shave Club and the bull case for eCommerce

By | Ecommerce, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The cue for this post was Harry Stebbing’s 20MinuteVC interview with David Pakman, the partner at Venrock who led the Series A and Series B rounds at Dollar Shave Club and recently had his faith justified with a $1bn exit to Unilever.

He said that when he made those investments in 2012 and 2013 eCommerce wasn’t a hot sector with VCs and that remains the case now, but here at Forward Partners we’ve made a number of ecommerce investments and, like David and his partners at Venrock, think there will be more Dollar Shave Club scale exits going forward. We are happy investing in sectors where we see opportunity, even if others don’t.

If you poll investors for reasons not to invest in eCommerce you will generally hear three things: low margins, low multiples on exit and high working capital. Some will also throw in the threat of competition from Amazon for good measure.

These are all great points. There are plenty of eCommerce companies where these characteristics are risks and realities. Great care is advisable before investing in them. Without some extra bit of magic they will be unlikely to achieve huge exits.

But there are also eCommerce companies that escape some or all of these issues and many of them are good investment prospects. Here are three reasons why:

  • Consumers are hungry for direct relationships with the brands they buy. That’s part of the story behind Dollar Shave Club, Nike, Apple and many other iconic brands today. However, most traditional brands (think P&G, Unilever, much of traditional fashion) have never dealt directly with their customers and don’t know how. Meanwhile sales through their traditional retail channels are falling fast: creating the opportunity for upstart brands to steal significant market share. These direct-to-consumer eCommerce brands are often able to leverage their relationships and data to win on the basis of superior product. Example companies: Dollar Shave Club, Bonobos, Warby Parker and amongst our partners Spoke and Lost My Name.
  • Few traditional retailers are nailing it online. Their skills of supply chain management, curating a catalogue of product to fill their shops and in store merchandising are less important in the current online and omnichannel era. Today, inventory can be an order of magnitude larger and there are huge opportunities for curation and re-imagining supply chains. All the while, declining High Street revenues and high fixed cost bases are starving them of cash to invest in innovation. In their place what you might call eCommerce 2.0 businesses are offering consumers compelling personalised selections from massive inventories with marketplace, no-stock or stock-light models. They are able to scale rapidly and go global quickly. Amazon is the proto-typical example in this category, others include Jet.com, ASOS and amongst our partners Thread.comLive Better With, Hubbub and Patch.
  • Consumers have a range of preferences, styles and budgets and it’s hard to picture a future in which we don’t buy from a range of online retailers. Shoreditch locals don’t want to shop in the same places as investment bankers a mile south of here. As you might have read on this blog I have a ton of respect for Amazon but they aren’t going to take the whole market. In particular they aren’t good at the product categories where people don’t know what they want and traditionally look to retailers to help them make choices.

Online penetration of retail is now pushing 20% in the UK, so there is still a long way to go in this market. In his interview David said that after little interest in Series A and Series B rounds at Dollar Shave Club the Series C and Series D rounds were hotly contested. I think we will see a similar turnaround in investor appetite for eCommerce more generally.

Helpful cognitive biases and their interplay with rational thought

By | Startup general interest | No Comments

In November 2013 I saw the headline Five cognitive distortions of people who get stuff done, and thought “wow – all the cognitive biases I know get in the way of rational thought and are unhelpful”. My surprise at finding that irrational thought could be useful prompted this post at the time.

Since then I’ve been on a (slow) journey to understand the interplay between intuition and rational thought, particularly helped by Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow and Richard Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. I wrote a number of other blog posts too, most notably Thinking fast and slow at a VC fund, Debating with intuition as well as logic, and How our rational brains justify our intuitive decisions.

The more recent posts are mostly about recognising the role intuition plays in our decision making and how to counter it when appropriate. My understanding of the importance of intuitive thinking was limited to the fact that it helps when decisions need to be faster.

Then this morning I read How Our Delusions Keep Us Sane: The Psychology of Our Essential Self-Enhancement Bias on brainpickings. It took me right back to the November 2013 ‘aha moment’ that in the right places and right doses irrational thought makes us happier and more successful. The article opens with the following paragraph:

“Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement; nothing can be done without hope,” Helen Keller wrote in her 1903 treatise on optimism. But a positive outlook, it turns out, isn’t merely an intellectual disposition we don — it’s a deep-seated component of our evolutionary wiring and the product of powerful, necessary delusions our mind is working around-the-clock to maintain. At the root of that mental machinery lies what psychologists have termed the self-enhancement bias — our systematic tendency to forgo rational evaluation of our own merits and abilities in favor of unrealistic attitudes that keep our ego properly inflated as to avoid sinking into the depths of despair [and keep us motivated when times are good].

There are two points of interest here. Firstly we are wired to be irrationally optimistic about our own abilities. Early primates who kept believing when times were hard survived and mated more often than their more pessimistic brethren. Hence being rational is hard. Secondly, being irrationally optimistic is useful – at least sometimes. Puncturing the bubble with rational analysis might result in a loss of motivation with no discernible gain.

When I think about this in the context of business activities it seems to me we need a switch. The vast majority of our opinions and hence decision making should be rational, but allowing a dose of unconscious irrational optimism helps us motivate ourselves and others. It’s how we achieve the seemingly impossible. However, we need the switch when that irrational optimism stops serving us well. When I was at Reuters Venture Capital, for example, we worked like crazy to raise our second fund in the tech nuclear winter of 2001-2003 and kept believing, but there came a point when we flipped the switch and gave up. That was painful, but it was the right thing to do. To keep trying would have been like banging our heads against a brick wall.

The challenging thing for teams is that different people have different levels of optimism, and it gets really hard when one person wants to flip the switch and others want to keep believing. That’s where the leader needs to carry her organisation (and make sure her switch is in the right place). The example I gave above was literally life and death for us, but the same dynamic plays out all the time at much smaller levels. In VC firms it often relates to whether investments will get made, in startups it often relates to whether partnerships will deliver, sales will be made, and key metrics will move. Establishing clear parameters in advance that will lead to the switch being flipped takes discipline, but is one useful trick.

Fascinating stuff.

If you have a few minutes I heartily recommend you read the full brainpickings article.

How our rational brains justify our intuitive decisions

By | Startup general interest | No Comments

I’m sure you’ve heard about how unless we’re careful we very often make our minds up about things in just a few seconds – decisions on candidates in job interviews is a well known example. Here’s how that happens.

  1. We make an intuitive, largely subconscious, decision based on what we’ve seen and learned over the years, a decision that will often display all of our prejudices and biases.
  2. The rational side of our brain seeks justifications for our decision
  3. As soon as it finds a justification the search stops. The case is closed and we move on to thinking about the next thing.
  4. We become resistant to opening up the debate again.

You might have spotted the flaw in this process already. The rational side of our brain doesn’t make a balanced assessment of the evidence it only looks for one piece of evidence to prove the case. There are pros and cons in every complex decision so we are always able to find something to justify our position, even if the weight of the evidence is wholly in the other direction.

If more rational decision making is the goal, and in a business context it generally should be, then the first step is to be aware that we all have this tendency. If you are hit by a wave of irritation when someone presents you with data that suggests you should change your mind try to take that as a signal that your rational brain might be losing out to a faulty piece of intuition.

None of us can get over this problem entirely, and rapid intuitive thinking is often appropriate.