GenuineVC David Beisel's Perspective on Digital Change

January 13, 2014

I’ve commonly heard entrepreneurs recite some version of “I don’t want to waste too much time fundraising because it will distract me from building my business, so I’ll only talk to a few potential funders.”  The idea is that a couple of highly-qualified VC conversations will follow the 80/20 rule of a “good enough” financing in a relatively short amount period  without taking the time of an extended process to truly optimize the funding outcome.  Better to spend energy maximizing long-term valuation by building underlying business value rather than short-term optimizing a bidding process… so the intuitive thinking goes.   In a small number cases that approach can work, but in an overwhelming majority I’ve observed it doesn’t necessarily play out as planned.

The reality of the vast majority of eventually successful VC fundraises is that they are still a messy process.   It’s rarely a straight line from point A to point B.  Venture capital firms are comprised of people, which natural means that their idiosyncrasies seep into the process.  Partners who would be interested in a potential investment are distracted by other new investments, portfolio companies, and personal matters.   On top of it, there are coordination costs in communicating and politicking internally, especially in the larger firms, which can delay things further.   And that’s assuming a particular partner & firm is sincerely interested…  it can take a number of meetings for them and especially the entrepreneur to truly suss that conclusion out.

The primary point of leverage which entrepreneurs can exert to counteract above is scarcity in the round.  Actual scarcity is better than perceived scarcity (though the latter sometimes suffices).  Running a broad process initially (by approaching much more than just a handful of potential investors) empowers an entrepreneur to credibly be able to directly communicate a steadily-progressing process.   The first venture firm at any one juncture progressing to the next step (first meeting, second meeting, diligence, partner meeting, term sheet, etc.) becomes the “pace-car” for that lap.  As each step is completed, effectively communicating that fact to the other firms serves as a forcing function to other firms that they need to continue at the current pace or drop out of the race.

Running this type of coordinated effort broadly front-loads quite a bit of work, but systematically yields both the best – plus shortest & ultimately least effort – outcome.  By contrast, without utilizing the credible threat of scarcity in the round based on timing, a dialog with a small number of funders can drag out for weeks and even months… as each wants to maintain the option value of seeing how the company progressing during the timeframe absent any instigation to act.  Hence, the VC fundraising timing paradox: spending much more time up front fundraising will yield a shorter and less time-consuming process in the end.

One salient showcase of this theory in action is the successful accelerator model.  While a good portion of the benefit from these programs is meaningful mentorship honing their businesses and developing customers, a disproportionate amount of effort is devoted to positioning and synchronizing the fundraising.  The capstone event of a specific visible “investor demo day” serves as a pace-car for fundraising conversations, both before and after the event itself.  With it, the startups’ fundraising has the best chance of being optimized, thus hopefully starting a virtuous loop around other aspects of the business.

But joining an accelerator is only one path towards running an effective fundraising process.  The more common path is to navigate this process with the help of current investors, advisors and sherpas – it’s certainly less clearly defined, but so is the entire entrepreneurial road.  The key is to a timely fundraising process is to set out broadly initially, rather than have stalled steps force you to do it later.

September 30, 2013

My partners and I at NextView talk a lot about how fundraising is about finding the true believers rather than convincing the skeptics.  The energy that it takes persuading someone who starts with a bias not to invest is much better suited searching for additional prospects who want to believe in what you’re building.  We’ve observed it repeatedly in our portfolio as Founder/CEOs seek additional rounds of financing: the engaged skeptics just never quite get there, but the entrepreneurs who cast the nets wide enough find someone who believes.

Because of this learning, we counsel our seed companies when raising a Series A to run a full & synchronized process with a broad array of firm sizes, types, and shades to determine what profile will become believers… and the same recommendation is true for seed stage startups raising their first round of capital, institutional or not.  It’s not until you have had a broad array of conversations are you able to tease out the profile of (and subsequently specific) firm(s) which will be attracted to your company.

There is a challenge with the “believer approach” mindset, however.  At some point, if a company is unable to raise an additional round of capital after speaking with numerous potential funders, the market will have spoken.  In these situations, there are strong diminishing returns to approaching a new source of capital once there is a reasonable conclusion that the round is in jeopardy.  And with the focus on searching for a believer, there is risk in an entrepreneur (and existing investor-set) convincing themselves that going just a bit broader, initiating just one more conversation, speaking with just one more firm will a new (and better) result.

I’ve seen both outcomes in a prolonged “believer” search.  Just when an entrepreneur had felt as though all options were exhausted, a bluebird firm appears to swoop in and lead a new (up) round of financing.  But I’ve also seen entrepreneurs continue to slog it out with yet another umpteenth VC meeting when in reality those efforts were better served determining an alternative course of action.

How is a CEO to know if it’s time to pull the plug on fundraising or keep searching for that would-be believer out there?

Keep searching to find believer when:

  • There have been numerous final full-partnership meetings at different firms that there’s the likelihood that another reaching the same point in the process will result in a different answer.
  • The company has made substantial milestone progress since the start of the fundraising process.
  • The company truly is disruptive and hard for investors to wrap head their around because it’s so different.  (This one is the hardest to be accurately self-aware.)

It’s time to pull the plug when:

  • The type of firms approached varied exhaustively by size, scope, profile, prestige, and other dimensions.
  • The company has spoken with literally multiple dozens of VC firms.
  • You’ve heard feedback that your startup is being perceived as “yet-another-XYZ” company (even if that perception is genuinely unfair).
  • The fundraising process with almost all firms rarely proceeds past first or second meeting stage.
  • The competitive landscape of the space you’re in is crowded or there’s a well-funded primary competitor (…VCs are having a tough time discerning your advantage over the (multitudes) of others).
  • There is an unnecessary amount of time on VCs part spent in diligence on minutiae (financial models, sales pipeline forecasts) rather than discussion on big-picture direction.
  • The prospect firms are qualified in that they “get” what you’re building and seem to understand the space or category, but still don’t believe.
  • There is enough cash in the bank to make additional progress or accomplish specific milestones which will make the investment opportunity more attractive at a future date.

At the end of the day, lack of fundraising traction is due to either reasons which can be ultimately addressed (approach/strategy, positioning, traction/progress, etc.) or reasons which can’t be addressed (founding team DNA, market size perception, etc.).  Timing can change the former, but only a believer can see the latter differently.

July 9, 2013

Recently, we surveyed our Boston-based NextView portfolio Founder/CEOs asking them about which service provider firms they’ve been using. The goal was to assemble data in order to share it back to our portfolio companies (especially the newer ones) so that they didn’t have to recreate the wheel in determining a short-list of firms to talk to when evaluating new options. Although these startups are very diverse businesses themselves, they face similar requirements (especially in that they’re currently all in the seed to Series B range of company stage). Plus, my partners and I saw entrepreneurs repeatedly starting from square-one each time, which just didn’t seem efficient if we could help in some small way.

And the results were pretty interesting, especially as they clustered with meaningful overlap among companies. But rather than just keep the info internal, wouldn’t it be more productive to publicly publish the aggregate results for the whole community?  When we took the poll itself, one founder said: “This is a great idea. We would have loved to have it when we were getting started.”  The following, then, is the list of service providers in Boston which are popular within the early-stage startups in our NextView Ventures portfolio:







HUGE DISCLAIMER. While informative, this data is merely a reflection of only the firms who our portfolio companies work with directly as shared in a non-exhaustive quick four-question survey… so of course there is meaningful selection bias and missing data-points here. It’s by no means inclusive of all of the options available in the local ecosystem (i.e. there are many high-quality people and firms who aren’t on this list), and by no means was it intended to be comprehensive. Moreover, we at NextView Ventures certainly ourselves don’t make any decisions on who our portfolio companies use… each and every one them evaluates their options individually.

June 18, 2013

Mobile is changing the world.

As a startup-tech industry, we’ve been talking about it coming right around the corner for well over a decade. And now, it’s actually happening. Really happening.

I am not going to spend time in a blog post detailing figures & charts about this mega-trend which will astound you, despite the fact that intellectually you know it is happening. I’ll leave that to the analysts. And more analysts. And our friends over at HubSpot.

For us at NextView Ventures, we see this transitioning happening first-hand in our portfolio. Not just in our “mobile-first” companies, but all of them. And we’re thematically making new investments in startups which ride this momentous wave, like our two most-recently announced ones in Sunrise and tapCommerce.

However, the consistent challenge which we’re observing in the mobile ecosystem is acquiring customer distribution. End-user adoption is always tricky, but on mobile (with the added friction of native apps and technical challenges like the lack of cookies) it’s even more difficult.

So in putting together the program for the upcoming Web Innovators Group event on this Monday June 24th, I wanted to add something beyond the typical format which addressed this issue. As it’s a salient one for any and all startups in our space. In addition to demos from two great Main Dish startups, Flightcar and Sold, I am excited that we have two absolutely great keynote speakers:

Both Wayne and Micah know a thing or two about mobile distribution, to say the least… they’re masters at it. And they’re going to reveal their secrets to mobile growth during their talks.

Over the past eight years, I have thoroughly enjoyed organizing the Web Innovators Group. What started as an impromptu gathering of a dozen people at a bar in Central Square in Cambridge has now grown up to a quarterly event drawing nearly a thousand people from the entrepreneurial ecosystem. It seems like most people in the community have been once or twice over the years, and there’s a devoted following of regular attendees. Given the special speakers and format for this upcoming one on Monday, it’s one worth coming back for or checking out for the first time. I know that I’ll see all of the friendly faces of our regular attendees there.

Plan to attend by signing up on our registration page so we can appropriately size the seating in the ballroom.

June 10, 2013

It isn’t a secret that there is a huge platform shift underway as consumers transition from the desktop web to mobile + tablet devices. Yet when you look at actual the figures, it’s truly astounding: this year mobile e-commerce sales will be triple that of what it was just a short time ago in 2011, with tablets driving much of that spending growth. Mobile is literally eating the world. For consumers, the process and experience of shopping on these devices is fundamentally different than on the desktop. So consequently for retailers, attracting and retaining customers is an inherently different challenge. And it’s further exasperated by technical obstacles (e.g. lack of cookies) and unique decision tradeoffs (e.g. native app vs. mobile web) which weren’t issues on the previous generation’s platform.

Our latest investment at NextView Ventures, tapCommerce, is dedicated to helping mobile brands to deliver customers, revenue, and ROI across mobile devices. As an ad-tech company, tapCommerce provides e-retailers with an array of services for acquiring and keeping customers on the mobile + tablet platform… and tapCommerce’s website does much more justice to their offering than my short blog post can.

As we were spending more with the company, all three of us at NextView introduced Founder/CEO Brian Long to e-retailer contacts in our network to socialize their offering. The feedback which we received wasn’t just positive – they all wanted to immediately become customers! Unsurprisingly, over just a few short months since founding, tapCommerce has started to work with commerce brands with very sophisticated mobile marketing chops, like JackThreads, BustedTees, and 1-800-FLOWERS.COM.

What really compelled us about making an investment, however, was what we learned about the team. With many of the co-founders having worked together at places like CNET, Pontiflex, and Demdex; on paper it was the right mix of mobile, ad-tech, and online media DNA. But what we heard from people who had worked with them in the past was resoundingly positive… my favorite was one reference who called them “the Real Deal.”

Today tapCommerce announced its $1.2M round of seed financing, which included NextView among our co-investors RRE Ventures, ENIAC Ventures, and Metamorphic Ventures. More importantly, the company is unveiling its mobile retargeting solution and recent partnerships with leading mobile commerce brands. We’re excited to be a small part of something big by investing in tapCommerce, as capturing customers stampeding to mobile certainly is the Real Deal.

Previous Posts Next posts

About Me

  • avatar
  • I am a cofounder and Partner at NextView Ventures, a dedicated seed-stage venture capital firm making investments in internet-enabled startups. Read More »



Rob Cho Go

Lee Hower


NextView Twitter Stream

  • David Beisel
     - 1 hour ago
    What makes a great consumer startup marketer? The answer may surprise you.
  • Rob Go
     - 4 days ago
    A lot bigger than I thought it would be!
  • Rob Go
     - 4 hours ago
    The lack of consumer marketing talent in the Boston startup community:
  • Rob Go
     - 5 days ago
    “@scottbelsky: "Justice seldom prevails at any moment in time, but tends to prevail over time." Something I keep in mind via @RobSKaplan