1. Revisiting bitcon price vs. search volume

    On March 19th, The Economist posted an interesting chart and analysis entitled “Bitcoin’s record price looks like a bubble.”

    image

    I reworked that chart in light of the market correction (or crash, if you prefer) over the past couple of days

    image

    Note that the old peak search, around June of 2011, has been completely eclipsed by the volume of searches for “bitcoin” now.

    Interestingly, “bubble” is not among the top 20 searches for “bitcoin” in the Trends report for the overall period (chart below). It was also not in the top 20 during the thirty days surrounding the previous peak in June of 2011. However, it is showing up as a “breakout search” in data from the past 30 days.

    image
     

  2. The curious economics of the “sharing economy”

    Venkatesh Rao published a thought-provoking piece on Ribbonfarm today, comparing the deal-seeking masses who use Groupon and Airbnb with a swarm of locusts. It’s a bit of an intense analogy, but the basic premise is that certain aggregator business models are terrible for the underlying businesses, and that platform middlemen are capitalizing on the predatory instincts of deal-seekers:

    They draw in nomadic deal hunters from a vast surrounding region who are unlikely to ever return; … most deal-hunters carefully ensure that they spend just the deal amount or slightly more; … a badly designed offer can bankrupt a small business.

    Locust economies are built around 3-way markets: a swarming platform “organizer” player who efficiently disseminates information about transient, local resource surpluses, a locust species in dormant grasshopper mode, and a base for predation that exhibits a scarcity-abundance cycle.

    (You should probably just go read it.)

    Rao’s piece paints collaborative consumption and daily deals with the same broad brush, but he’s getting at something interesting: despite the idealism underlying the sharing economy, the attempt to turn sharing into big business hasn’t meaningfully transformed self-serving consumer behavior. Most people aren’t there for the sharing; they’re there for the savings.

    Building a marketplace requires incentivizing both buyers and sellers. In the idealized sharing economy, the buyer is looking for a unique and authentic experience (community), and values access over ownership (sustainability). In reality, he is most often looking for a deal. The economic incentive is more honestly articulated on the other side of the market: the seller is looking to capitalize on a resource that is otherwise sitting around unused.

    The reality of the “sharing economy” is that most of the p2p startups born of the movement aren’t going to survive. They’ve taken venture funding, but they aren’t venture-fundable businesses. The economics just don’t work.

    Airbnb has become a household name. It’s the X in “We’re X-for-Y” in pitch decks across Silicon Valley. It’s a success story. And this is because it’s one of the very few exceptions to the locust phenomena described by Rao1. Even assuming bargain-hunting buyers and a cut taken by middlemen, Airbnb generates material value for the seller. The average rental on Airbnb varies quite a bit by city, but in NYC and SF a seller can earn ~$150/night renting her place. Even with Airbnb’s 6-12% cut, renting an underutilized apartment for a weekend nets ~$275. It’s also a low-friction experience for the seller: the apartment is in a fixed location (the buyer comes to you), lockboxes and entry systems are largely a solved problem, and the platform enables cleaning fees and security deposits. It’s tough to do enough damage to render a place uninhabitable (low rate of asset depreciation). There is a meaningful rate of return relative to the time necessary to manage a place. And on the buyer side, Airbnb yields significant savings over staying in most hotels (it is also, often, a genuinely unique experience). Low friction, high rate of return, benefits for all involved…a thriving marketplace.

    No locusts.

    But even within the same economic climate that ostensibly helped Airbnb succeed, there has been no comparable runaway success in p2p sharing of cars, bikes, or household goods. And that’s because renting out those items is a high-friction experience with a low rate of return. Example: The average cost to rent a car on RelayRides or GetAround in San Francisco is $8/hr. The car owner keeps 60%, so he’s making $4.80 per hour before taxes. And for that, he’s putting more miles on his car (a rapidly depreciating asset), risking moral hazard on the part of the borrower, and taking a chance on an accident rendering the asset potentially unusable for a long period of time. Sure, the middleman platforms offer insurance, but most people who have endured the hassle of an insurance claim - and managing vehicle repairs - will tell you that $4.80/hr simply isn’t worth it.

    As the seller is earning $4.80/hr, the platform is collecting $3.20…and paying for insurance, marketing, salaries, etc. Given how low revenue per transaction is, this is a model that needs to hit massive scale in order to generate meaningful returns for the venture-backed middleman. Because the locust problem is an equilibrium problem2. Incentivizing enough sellers to participate in the market at rates low enough to compete with Zipcar3 (and with each other) is tough. But if the rate is pushed high enough to make it worthwhile for the seller - and to generate a sufficient cut for the middleman - it is a far less exciting prospect for the buyer4. Buyers will only sacrifice convenience and quality if the price is compelling.

    Locusts.

    Unless, of course, the buyer and seller are participating in the market because they’re truly motivated, first and foremost, by community and connection. Those are powerful forces. They’re the reason that co-op businesses and credit unions thrive in many neighborhoods. At a smaller scale, typically within a discrete community with strong ties, p2p collaborative consumption works.

    No locusts.

    But also: no venture-backed middlemen.


    1. Rao thinks it is but I disagree.
    2. Which Airbnb may also encounter at some point
    3. Zipcar, which rents in SF at ~$10/hr - $2 more than RelayRides’ average - is a known quantity. Clean cars, effortless entry, convenient to park and return. At this time, it seems they’re still operating at a loss.
    4. The exception to this may be markets in which regulatory arbitrage enables P2P businesses to thrive (ie, Lyft, Sidecar, Uber confronting the false scarcity of the existing medallion system). It remains to be seen if this is temporary success; it’s somewhat dependent on legislation and enforcement.

     

  3. Everest Base Camp

    It took me a couple of months to get these photos up, but from Dec 22-Jan 6th, Justin and I did the Everest Base Camp Trek. It was incredible. The days were strenuous, the nights were freezing, but we saw some of the most breathtaking mountains in the world, made new friends, and experienced a fascinating culture that thrives despite the inhospitable landscape.

    image

    We started the trip via a flight into Kathmandu by way of Hong Kong. My luggage stayed behind in San Francisco. Pro tip: always wear a complete set of layers and hiking boots on the plane…I would have been so screwed if I hadn’t. The streets in Kathmandu are lined with shops selling knockoff North Face, so I was able to fill in the gaps by renting cheapies.

    image

    The first day was mostly sightseeing around the Buddhist and Hindu sites in Kathmandu. Early on the second, we woke up and boarded the first flight to Tenzing-Hillary Airport in Lukla. The airport is one of the most dangerous in the world because of its very short, sloped runway, infamous winds, and the ring of mountains surrounding it. The landing was exhilarating - immediately upon touching down, our pilot slammed on the brakes and we screeched to a halt. The 70-mile trek begins right on the runway, so we set off on a three-hour hike to the town of Phakding.

    image

    We were traveling in the winter (off season), and it was very cold at night (5 degrees F). I thought that since we were staying in tea houses, we’d still be warm. Turns out, they aren’t insulated and only the common areas have (intermittent) heat and electricity. Most have single-pane windows and a squat toilet, because Western plumbing is more prone to freezing. The beds were single-size cots; you’d throw your sleeping bag on, and then borrow a quilt. On most days, we would hike from 10am-3pm while the sun was out, then spend the afternoon reading and playing cards in the main room, which was heated by a wood or yak-dung-burning stove.

    image

    Tea houses all have the same menu. Locals eat a dish called dal baat several times a day - it’s a bowl of lentil soup, and a plate of rice with potato, cabbage, and carrot curry on top. Everything on the menu is white carbs (noodles, potatoes, rice). Stick with the native food; the attempts at pizza and pasta are a nice gesture, but they taste pretty bad. There are almost no animal products, because livestock are more valuable as beasts of burden…you’re better off not eating meat past Namche anyway, since there’s no refrigeration. All provisions are flown in from Kathmandu and then carried on the backs of donkeys, yaks, or yak-cow hybrids called dzoom. Provisions get progressively more expensive as you approach Everest, because it’s increasingly more difficult to carry them. Snickers bars and bottles of spring water are luxuries.

    image

    Trekkers learn pretty quickly that the donkey and dzoom trains have the right of way. You stay to the ‘mountain side’ of the trail as they pass, or run the risk of being shoved off a cliff or into the river. On Day 3 we crossed our first high suspension bridges. The bridges are safe, but they’re still scarily high and pretty long. There is a particularly windy bridge that marks the entrance to Namche Bazaar. On the far side is a very rocky, steep set of stairs. We happened to be behind a donkey train on that bridge, and they didn’t like the steps so they kept backing up onto the bridge and making it sway. The locals tie prayer flags to the bridge ropes…they were swirling in the wind all around us, and waaay down below were the bright blue rapids of the glacial runoff. It was simultaneously beautiful and scary. I always let the livestock get completely off the bridge after that.

    imageimageimage

    Part of hiking to high altitude is acclimatizing properly, so we spent two nights at Namche (11,482 ft). On our rest day, we went shopping for candy bars, paid for hot showers (the only ones we would get until we were back in Namche again), and watched “Into Thin Air” over popcorn at a local bar. Since it was off-season, a lot of the businesses were shuttered. This made it easier to make friends, since we saw the same familiar faces at the few lodges that were open. One friendly American had packed a Santa suit, and he passed out little gifts. Christmas dinner was Ramen soup.

    imageimage

    After Namche the weather got markedly colder. We walked to Tengboche, site of the beautiful ancient monastery. Most of the monks had gone to Kathmandu to escape the cold, but two remained and we watched them chant. We walked through rhododendron forests, had our first clear views of Everest, and saw some giant eagles and our first yaks.

    imageimageimage

    After a miserably cold night, it was on to Dengboche, which is in the shadow of Ama Dablam and is absolutely gorgeous. Dengboche is at 14,862 feet, so we spent two nights there as well, with an acclimatization hike on the second day. We both felt fine and still had great appetites and were sleeping well, and hit the road to Lobuche with a lot of energy. Along the way is a series of stupas and rock piles with prayer flags commemorating those who have died on Everest. It’s a sobering place; the piles we saw were as recent as May 2012. Famous climbers, such as Scott Fisher and Anatoli Boukreev, are memorialized there.


    imageimageimage

    This is often the point where people start to get sick. My appetite vanished. The last half of the six-hour hike was on a vast open plain and the wind was brutal. We’d been lucky enough to have perfectly clear skies over the first seven days, but the eighth brought clouds and snow. It gets very difficult to sleep above 16,000 feet because the air is so thin. Fatigue + reduced caloric intake + the beginnings of mild altitude sickness made me pretty grouchy. I was also taking Diamox at this point, which is a great drug for reducing altitude symptoms but makes your ears ring, gives you pins and needles, and it’s a diuretic (so you pee a lot). Still, I was lucky. Some of our traveling companions had severe altitude sickness. One woman we’d spent several nights playing cards with was medevac’d out because she developed cerebral edema.

    image

    Base Camp day is a very long day. We left Lobuche early, hiked three hours (3 miles) to Gorak Shep at 17,000 feet, and had a quick lunch. Gorak Shep is the “old” base camp. The name means “Dead Ravens,” and there’s really nothing more than a few trailers there. It sits on a dry lake bed. We changed into our warmest gear and set out for EBC, which sits at 17,600ft and a four hour hike over the Khombu Glacier. I actually hadn’t realized that Base Camp is on the glacier itself. It’s a bit of a slog to get there, because the glacier is covered with pebbles and it’s tough to get a foothold. But we made it, and I was thrilled to be standing there. It’s gorgeous and imposing and awe-inspiring. Nothing is alive, but the rocks themselves are constantly moving – the glacier is shifting and avalanches are happening, and the environment is in a constant state of flux. The mountains are so unbelievably vast and tall. There’s nothing in the United States on that scale.

    imageimageimageimage

    Anyway: mission accomplished! After some celebratory pictures with friends, we turned around and hiked the four hours back to Gorak Shep. It was New Years’ Eve, and we celebrated in style with a fried Snickers pie and were all passed out by 9pm. The next morning Justin hiked up to Kala Pattar and took the gorgeous panoramic photos below. I made it ¾ of the way to the summit before a total lack of energy made me turn around. We still had a seven hour descent ahead of us, and it’s good to respect your limits. I wish I could find some way to keep my appetite strong when I’m that high up, it really makes a difference.

    imageimageimage

    I know this is a very long post, so if you made it this far, thanks for reading. The rest of the trip involved several more days of hiking back the way we came, a bumpy flight out of Lukla, and a celebratory steak in Kathmandu. I’ve got some more photos up here. It was a bucket-list trip for me, and it was just incredible. If you’re considering doing a trek or visiting Nepal, I can’t recommend it enough.

    imageimageimage

     

  4. Visualizing the future of government

    I believe that the future of government is one of increased transparency and collaborative problem-solving. What gets us there is creating a culture of participation, in which citizens across industries contribute their expertise to help solve our shared difficult problems.

    In November I got to participate in furthering open government at Code for America’s “Data Deathmatch” hackathon. California’s Fair Practice Political Commission provided hackers with a set of recently-digitized Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) judicial gift disclosure and campaign filings data. They asked us to help them come up with tools that would generate insights and increase transparency.

    The team I joined — Team OpenJudge — consisted of seven talented people with diverse backgrounds and skill sets. Three of us spent hours working on a system for cleaning the data; although the digitization done by Captricity was phenomenal, the “human factor” (judges not following directions when filling out the form) caused significant messiness and the subsequent need for manual review.

    During the cleaning process we found some interesting activity: one judge, impressively, had managed to receive two different “1/2 iPad” gifts. One donor had given the same painting of a courthouse to nine different judges. To present the information, we made “leaderboards” showing top donors, judges who had received the most gifts, and the highest-value gifts. We also created a word cloud to highlight the relative frequency of different gift types: lunches, dinners, gift certificates, baseball tickets,etc.

    But the really important insights emerged when we made a network graph*. In the viz below, red dots are judges, and blue are donors*.

    Even though I’d spent hours looking at that data set, the pockets of interconnectedness that you see above didn’t pop out. And that’s the power of visualization: it can make those relationships immediately obvious. It enables a degree of transparency far beyond simply making a database of judges and donors available to the public; it makes the data comprehensible to citizens, not just motivated analysts and engineers.

    The FPPC invited us to Sacramento to present our work, and we spoke at their Commission meeting]this past Wednesday. They were excited about what we’d managed to accomplish in one weekend, and spoke of their vision of making meaningful information available to the people of California. When we got to the network visualization, they immediately grasped the potential, and asked a lot of questions about how it would handle new data, and what it could display. One of the commissioners happened to know a donor I clicked on during the demo, and approached us afterward to check out the details.

    I share this not because it’s a great visualization — there are important factors in the judge/donor relationship that aren’t encoded here — but because I am struck by how new and potentially game-changing data visualization is for public servants. As they consider what kind of tools to commission to make data more open and transparent, we’ve helped inspire them to make something far more interactive and compelling than a data table on a static site. We’ve hopefully also demonstrated that with the right partners, transparency and usability can be achieved both rapidly and inexpensively.

    Though implementing more transparent data visualizations won’t revolutionize government transparency and problem-solving on its own, I do think this is a meaningful first step toward bringing tech tools into government. I’m proud to have spent a weekend with a talented team who contributed valuable time and expertise to realizing a scaled-down — but nonetheless effective — culture of participation which successfully generated insights and enhanced transparency. And I’m looking forward to the next Code for America hackathon!

    *identity information has been removed; it will be available on their site, but I didn’t want to post it on my blog.

     

  5. Data visualization for beginners: a discussion around process

    Two weeks ago, I moderated a data visualization panel at General Assembly’s new SF campus. The panelists were code artist luminaries Rachel Binx, Mike Bostock, Tom Carden, and Scott Murray. There are plenty of tutorials and how-tos that illuminate the technical steps to produce a specific type of viz, but there’s not much out there around knowing what to do in the first place. So, we focused the conversation on the creative process. It was geared towards beginners, partly because the moderator is a novice herself. :)

    A Conversation with Data Visualization Experts

    Our writeup on the session is now up at Source magazine, and General Assembly’s sketch notes artist Jeremy Sypniewski produced a must-see set of visuals around the discussion (an example of which appears immediate above this paragraph, courtesy of General Assembly). I learned quite a bit from hearing these folks talk about their work…one of the particularly illuminating bits for me was a discussion of data viz as tool vs data viz as art, and the different thought processes on either ends of the spectrum.

    The panelists emphasized repeatedly that data visualization exists on a spectrum. On one side are the pieces that are purely aesthetic and emotional, and on the other, the focus is purely on conveying the insights found in the data. Tom Carden, a data visualization engineer at Square, asks himself if the goal is to grab attention for a new idea, or to build a tool that will be used on an ongoing basis: “Tools need to be actionable, auditable, and they have to stand up to scrutiny long-term.” Tools should be able to accommodate new data, he said, and should grow with companies in such a way that people aren’t surprised by a difference between this week and last week.

    Designs that are about grabbing attention can have a more artistic focus; there is more freedom to try new things. Moving visualizations require more of the audience’s attention, so if you’re using an animation, it has to be worth it. Motion can be an encoding itself; if the same object appears in multiple views, you can use motion to explain how the data shifts from one state to the next. One effective way to use this, the panelists said, is to give people agency – giving the user a slider may draw them in more, and help them better understand what’s going on. It’s also important that the animation be an integral part of the visualization and not tacked on as an afterthought. And of course, some browsers may not display certain effects properly, so it’s good design practice to make sure that most of the value of the graphic is there in the static form.

    Many thanks to GA for hosting, and to Sha Hwang, one of the organizers of the SF Data Visualization Meetup, who helped organize the event and structure the conversation.

     

  6. Startups + science: crowdfunding as micro-patronage

    Here’s part II of the Science-meets-startups series I’ve been writing over at O’Reilly Radar! The biggest problem in science today is the cost of conducting experiment, so this one looks at crowdfunding as a way to supplement experimental funds.

    Throughout the 20th century, most scientific research funding has come from one of two sources: government grants or private corporations. Government funding is often a function of the political and economic climate, so researchers who rely on it risk having to deal with funding cuts and delays. Those who are studying something truly innovative or risky often find it difficult to get funded at all. Corporate research is most often undertaken with an eye toward profit, so projects that are unlikely to produce a return on investment are often ignored or discarded.

    If one looks to history, however, scientific research was originally funded by individual inventors and wealthy patrons. These patrons were frequently rewarded with effusive acknowledgements of their contributions; Galileo, for example, named the moons of Jupiter after the Medicis (though the names he chose ultimately did not stick).

    There has been a resurgence of that model — though perhaps more democratic — in the modern concept of crowdfunding…Science-specific platforms have appeared on the scene. Petridish is currently showcasing projects looking for funding to study everything from rare butterflies to mass-fatality events. On Microryza, you can fund investigations into cannibalism in T-Rex or viral causes of lung cancer. RocketHub also has a science-specific project roster and recently had a researcher raise funds to study the psycopharmacology of amphetamines. Widely covered as “Help this scientist build a meth lab,” the researcher’s write-up of his proposal, including his reasons for crowdfunding it, is excellent and worth a read.

     

  7. Can SaaS principles revolutionize scientific research?

    What happens if you were to apply the principles of SaaS to science? I’ve got a new blog post up on O’Reilly Radar that asks that question…below is an an excerpt, go here for the full text.

    Software as a service (SaaS) is one of the great innovations of Web 2.0. SaaS enables flexibility and customized solutions. It reduces costs — the cost of entry, the cost of overhead, and as a result, the cost of experimentation. In doing so, it’s been instrumental in spurring innovation.

    So, what if you were to apply the principles of SaaS to science? Perhaps we can facilitate scientific progress by streamlining the process. Science as a service (SciAAS?) will enable researchers to save time and money without compromising quality. Making specialized resources and institutional expertise available for hire gives researchers more flexibility. Core facilities that own equipment can rent it out during down time, helping to reduce their own costs. The promise of science as a service is a future in which research is more efficient, creative, and collaborative.

    Frustration has led a recent crop of enterprising startup founders — many of them scientists themselves — to apply IT “best practices” to science. Their goal is to disrupt the slow-moving pace and high cost of research. To do this, they’re applying innovative business models traditionally used by B2B and B2C startups — everything from the principles of collaborative consumption to decoupling service workers from their traditional places of employment.

     

  8. The Maker Map MVP goes live

    Back in July, Nick Pinkston and I were talking about how difficult it was to find businesses that catered to Makers - everything from milling facilities to Makerspaces to places to buy art supplies. With the right keywords, it was occasionally possible to hit on a place on Yelp or Google, but it was consistently easier to find good spots by asking friends in the community.

    So we decided to take that community knowledge and try to bring it out into the open. The idea for The Maker Map was born.

    image

    We held a hackathon at the OATV offices, and a number of makers and software engineer friends-of-makers showed up. We focused on the SF Bay area, and got to work aggregating resources. We used Google Fusion Tables to store and geocode the data. There’s a repo up on Github for the site itself.

    We know it’s a little rough around the edges and presently difficult to search. And that’s why we’d like to invite others to get involved, because so many awesome things that happen at hackathons tend to languish. There’s a Google Group for the Maker Map, and we want to encourage interested people to start by signing up there. This map was born with the community in mind, and we’re hoping to see the community continue to develop it into something useful. It’s an open source project.

    If you don’t want to participate in the building of the map, but you’ve got a venue you love and you’d like to tell us about it, you can do that here (or by clicking the “Add a Resource” button on the top nav). We know the form would benefit from some design help :)

    The greatest need is for a front-end or UX designer…there’s a rough left nav bar in development, and we’re looking for someone who can help with a UI to make venues searchable by zip code, name, or tag. If you’re such a person and can contribute, ping me on Twitter.

    Thanks, and feel free to give us your thoughts on how we can continue to improve.

     

  9. What NOT to do when pitching a VC

        As a seed stage venture associate, one of my main responsibilities is evaluating new investments. There are typically upwards of 20 first-round meetings in any given week, so I see a lot of pitches. Let’s talk about the six most common mistakes people make when presenting, with a particular focus on the first-time pitch.

    Not targeting appropriate investment partners

        First and foremost, before you start a conversation, it’s important to know that you’re pitching to the right type of investor. If you don’t have a prototype in at least the alpha or beta-test stage, chances are you’re a bit too early for most institutional venture capitalists. Your most likely source of capital will be angel investors. It’s still good to reach out to VCs – we like to form relationships early and watch a product grow – but don’t be surprised to hear, “Let’s keep in touch.” Besides investor stage, it’s important to choose partners who are a good fit for the particular sector you’re working in. The ideal investor is more than someone who writes a check – it’s a partner who understands your market, and can add value via their expertise and their network. You should typically avoid pitching VCs who have invested in direct competitors, as they will generally not fund a company if there’s a potential conflict of interest.

    Asking the VC to sign an NDA

        It likely won’t happen. Here are a few great posts by other investors that explain why in more detail.

    Not having a deck

        A good pitch should be a conversation, with a lot of back-and-forth questions and answers. Some entrepreneurs take this to mean that they don’t need a deck, especially if they have a prototype to demo. While a demo is the best way to convey what you’re doing, many investors (myself included) still appreciate a deck because it acts as an outline for your story. It helps to frame and focus the conversation, and is particularly useful for calling attention to important metrics (signups, downloads, usage over time, etc). It doesn’t have to be anything complicated; in fact, it should be quite simple. A good deck should have around 10 slides, with maybe a few additional for appendix-style materials to respond to anticipated questions. There are many resources out there for how to put together a good deck.

    Presenting yourself as technology in search of a problem

        While investors love to hear about innovative new ideas, we’re also very interested in what pain point the technology addresses. I want to hear about why your product is necessary. What problem does it solve? Who has that problem? At the early stage, it’s common for an entrepreneur to be exploring several potential target markets, and it’s perfectly acceptable to offer visions for multiple potential markets. Just don’t be technology in search of a problem…make sure you have a sense of who your customer will be, and convey that to the investor.

    Misrepresenting the market landscape

        This mistake generally takes one of two forms: exaggerating the size of the market, or ignoring the competition. When you think about your market, it’s important to differentiate between “market size” and “addressable market size.” For example, if you’re a K-12 edtech company, don’t describe your market size to the investor in terms of total dollars spent on education across the board at all levels. Talk about it in terms of the market you’re capable of reaching – your specific niche. Similarly, many entrepreneurs make the mistake of telling an investor that they have no competition because there isn’t a company out there with their exact feature set. You have competition, even if it’s simply pre-existing user behavior. Know what you’re up against, and why you’re different, and be comfortable explaining that to an investor. If there truly is no competition, it’s highly likely that’s because you’re not solving an actual problem.

    Not emphasizing why you are the person the VC should fund

        So much of early-stage investing is making a bet on the entrepreneur. The product can and will change, so early-stage investors want to fund founders who can adapt and execute. The best idea in the world isn’t going anywhere if the founder isn’t passionate about the problem he or she is solving. So tell us about yourself and your team, not just the idea.

        One final point: Many entrepreneurs wonder if it’s worth their time to pitch a non-partner. The reality is that analysts and associates can’t write checks, so if you have a connection to the firm and can get right to a meeting with a partner, go for it. But if not, keep in mind that the junior investor’s incentives are aligned with yours – they want to find great companies, and if they believe in a deal, they will advocate for it and help it through the pipeline. So make sure that you don’t convey a sense that meeting with the junior person is a waste of your time.

         A good first meeting is like a good first date. You’ve told your story and piqued the investor’s interest. End the meeting with a discussion about next steps. And prepare for your next meeting by thinking about the questions you were asked; those questions are a pretty good indication of what the investor is most concerned about, and alleviating those concerns will increase your chances of getting funded.

        Good luck!

    This post was written as part of Orrick’s Total Access Resource series

     

  10. One year later…

    Lucky circumstances mean Justin & I are getting to spend our first anniversary back in NYC, where we got married on this day last year. It’s really great to be here. I don’t actually know what we’re doing to celebrate just yet - I’m getting surprised! - but I’m sure it will be as fun and wonderful as all of our other shared moments to date.

    Via Nov 12, 2011.

    Love you, best friend and partner.