All posts by Mukund Mohan

My discipline will beat your intellect

What I learned from attending 5 Venture capital outreach events

Blume Ventures, Accel, Matrix partners, Nexus partners and Bessemer Venture partners all had their CEO meetings and invited between 100 and 200 portfolio company CEO’s, angel investors, entrepreneurs and other venture investors to the meeting. Most of these meetings were held in Bangalore, (Blume did others in Mumbai and Delhi, and BVP in Mumbai). The format of the meetings was fairly similar – cocktails, an introduction to the fund, a few select portfolio company CEO’s either in a panel or individually on stage talking about their company or industry trends, and finally dinner and networking.

Of the 200+ people in each event, about 120 are the usual suspects ( these numbers are my own guesstimate, not very accurate, but in the ballpark). They include some up-and-coming entrepreneurs, media folks, wallflowers and other luminaries.

These events are both a way for folks to catch up and network, and also for the fund to showcase potential CEO’s to later stage investors for follow on rounds.

The most interesting are the 50-60 folks who are “new entrants” – they are wannabe entrepreneurs, “friends of the venture firm” – typically large company executives who they are trying to either get on the advisory list of their invested companies, or keep the close so they can be the first source of funding when the executives decide to “start something”.

Meet these folks and you quickly get a sense for the firms “proprietary dealflow”. While most of them may not like to acknowledge it, regardless of their “sector neutral” stance, their biases show very clearly.

Although most of the VC’s claim to dig “wide and far” to source deals, and spend a lot of time on planes, they rarely go outside their comfort zone. That’s on an individual basis. I dont think its because they dont have the intent. They also dont have the time to make and maintain new relationships.

Why does this matter for you the entrepreneur?

Say you are an entrepreneur looking for the next round of investment after your initial seed round. The first thing you have to realize is most of these firms prefer being “the first institutional check” into the company.

So remember what I mentioned earlier – Dig your well before you are thirsty.

If you are looking for a round of funding in 6 months, its ideal to start creating a top 5 list of individuals in each firm (not VC firms, but individuals within the firm) who will be on your target list. Then meet and network with their executive list – those 50+ folks I mentioned before. They are the most likely to perform the due diligence on your company before the VC invests.

Each VC firm has their top 50 folks, so technically in India, there are not more than 500 of these folks (after accounting for the fact that some of them overlap VC firms). If you take into account your specific sector and area, I suspect there are not more than 10 people you will have to meet.

These are the taste makers. They are not entrepreneurs, but the ones who will have a strong “No” on deals. Their yes may not translate into an investment, but their no will surely kill it.

Have you attended any of these? What other observations did you derive from these events?

India eCommerce future: The “XYZ of the month” Club or Subscription eCommece companies

There are now according to my own count (not comprehensive) about 141 subscription eCommerce companies in the US that send you a package of “stuff” every month – from food to cosmetics, and toys for kids to cigars.

Subscription eCommerce is the fastest growing category of eCommerce according to Internet Retailer magazine.

So will this come to India soon?

There are a couple here already, but none that can solve the logistics problems with any amount of significance.

Which sub categories are ripe for subscription commerce in India?

I think subscription commerce in apparel, books and electronics are fairly niche markets. Whereas food and snacks, daily personal needs and music might be more suited for it.

Who are the likely players? New ones or the existing players?

Given the problems of managing subscription payments monthly (some may take the entire money of the 12 month subscription upfront) I suspect most existing vendors will start to offer this as a service to their partners. Which means new providers in these categories will work with Infibeam, Flipkart, Snapdeal to fulfill their customer’s request. I think there’s room for 1 or 2 good new providers, but the markets they will target will be fairly niche.

How will the new providers manage logistics?

I think there will be a smart local+central logistics player in eCommerce who will start to work this model well and deliver the goods from a local vendor.

What do you think? Any good subscription eCommerce companies in India that you are using? Are they delivering? Are they good? Am I missing any categories?

What I learned in my first month of the new accelerator batch

A total of 13 companies have joined the new batch 2 of the Microsoft accelerator. I thought I’d follow up on my promise to keep the conversation open about what I learned from working with very early stage entrepreneurs after my experiences with the first batch.

1. The biggest ask from the companies of us is our time, which we have the least of. Most of the companies have mentioned that they have very little time with us compared to what they thought they’d get. I know this for a fact since the last batch I’d spend a lot more time with the companies on product, go-to-market, etc.

2. Its amazing to see progress when there’s a lot of peer pressure. One of our companies is very nascent – less than 5 weeks ago, they started working on their idea. Last week I was pretty hard on them not having a demo to show, instead having PPT slides. This week they “wowed” the crowd with a killer feature. Just one feature, but I’d absolutely use their product just for that one feature.

3. A lot of what I believe we are helping with us product direction, go to market and customer development, but this time  am spending equal time on entrepreneur development. Coaching many of the folks on hiring, building a high performance team and keeping spirits high during periods of not-so-visible progress is what I am spending time on in this batch.

The fallacy of “funding” event as a key media story

Every one of my journalist friends asks me for “exclusive” stories, which I can understand. What I am very upset about is that their next request is for “exclusive funding stories”.

I had a reporter come by to talk today to me about our companies. He mentioned that his opinion was companies that were funded performed better than those that were not.

His primary reasoning was that those companies were  “filtered” by investors and the “due diligence” was done, so they were “better” companies.

There are many times I would disagree but keep quite and move on. This time I did not.

 

<Rant>

This was one of those times when I felt the person was just plain misinformed, misguided and did not really look at any of the facts, but preferred to have anecdotal information color his opinion.

The mountains of evidence that proves his opinion incorrect was insufficient for this reporter  to change his fundamental position.

1) Funded companies have higher % of failures than unfunded companies.

2) Funding does not guarantee success but success guarantees funding.

3) The value that an investor provides towards “due diligence” is limited. If you take a look at venture returns over 90% of funds do not have any success in picking “winners”.

I am the first to admit that its extremely hard to get any kind of funding. Its harder in India, but does that mean companies funded in India are somehow “better” than those that are not funded? At best my argument is they have just about as much chance of success as any of the others.

What does a funding event really tell you about a company?

Its tells me that the company needs money and was able to get it.

Does it tell me that the company will succeed? No? Exhibit A is the eCommerce companies that many investors funded in 2010-11 in India.

Does it tell me that the company is targeting a large market? Possibly, but that’s true of the many other companies that did not get funded, but are chasing the same market.

Does it tell me that this company has potential – it has as much or as little as the others that are not funded.

In fact over 73% of publicly listed companies were not venture backed.

I would consider any reporter downright lazy if they left the “due diligence” only to investors alone, because investors overall (including me as an individual) are more wrong than right.

Why do I make a big issue of this with reporters as opposed to any other person?

1. They are supposed to be objective and fact based as opposed to have their opinions color their judgment.

2. They are supposed to question their assumptions and seek the truth not report fallacies.

3.  They wield an inordinate amount of power given the number of people that read their pieces.

I’d love a counter argument and understand why reporter love “funding stories”.

P.S. I also dont understand why people wont debate their positions. It tells me that they are not confident about any of their hypothesis or positions and would rather be ignorant and prefer to have misinformed opinions.

</Rant>

The Indian startup ecosystem should look at Israel as a role model

I love Israel. Having been there 7-8 times over 5 years when I worked for a company (Mercury Interactive, acquired by HP) that had its development center there, I believe they have some of the best developers, product thinkers and execution oriented folks.

They are also amazing at marketing. They have successfully convinced the world that they are the “startup nation“.

Never mind that they have 1/3 as many product startups as India produces annually and never mind that Indian companies acquire or get acquired twice as much as Israeli companies. Indians also make up 52% of Silicon valley startup founders, whereas Israelis make up less than 8%.

Take a look at those 3 data points and tell me they are not facts. The PWC report is for 2012, so its relatively recent. The # of companies we track in India versus Israel startups in our database is three times as well. The # of companies on Angel list or Crunchbase reveals a similar statistic.

Still its Tel Aviv that creeps up on Silicon Valley as the top startup center. If you read the startup genome report, you’ll be convinced of the same based on their methodology.

What are the arguments I have heard against India being the startup nation?

1. Quantity not quality:  We produce numbers, but not quality. Many of our startups are clones of Silicon Valley companies featured on Tech Crunch 3 months post launch. I looked at the 3 top Israel incubators and found that over 60% of the companies they were helping were clones as well.

2. Exits: We dont have a significant number of $billion or hundreds of million $ exits. I have found that while we do not have those exits, the number of companies listed on the stock market in the US for both Israel and India are comparable.

3. Market access: Israel has excellent knowledge, insights and know-how about US markets. Since Israel itself is a fairly small market, most Israeli entrepreneurs focus on US markets solely, even though they are geographically closer to Europe. Technically the # of people with market knowledge of the US in India far exceeds that of Israel, but they are not in product startups but at large companies.

4. Services mindset & positioning: Thanks to the ginormous success of Indian services companies who helped position India as the “world’s backend” (comparable to China being positioned as the world’s manufacturer) we have been already positioned as low value, low margin, consulting providers.

5. Late start: Even though Israel is 60 years old and India as a nation is a little older, we had a late (2001 or so) start to technology startups. Compared to Israel which had some interesting companies (need references here, what I have heard is mostly anecdotal) in the late 90’s as well.

Why do I still say Indian startups should look at Israel as a role model?

1. They champion their startups very well. They are very well vested in their startups success. They are constantly talking about how good their startups are, how they are possibly better than the valley and why they have the best talent in the world focused on startups.

2. They take significant risky bets. The # of investors in Israel (seed, angel and institutional) is comparable to those in India even though the number of startups is a third.

3. They look out for each other. The community is so well connected with each other that they genuinely look out and help each other. I dont know of any other place that supports their own as much as Israel does.

If you have been to Israel or have lived / worked with Israeli’s please tell me in the comments if there are a few data points I missed.

If you have any good data (not anecdotes, I have enough of those) to counter any of my arguments, feel free to call those out as well.

The goodness from the eCommerce bubble in India

Over the next few weeks and over the last few months, many naysayers have been & will be talking about “why the eCommerce bubble is going to  (or has) burst”.

Its true but misses the point.

Yes, over 21 companies that raised over $500K in funding have “merged” or have “been acquired” for paltry sums.

Yes, the model was unsustainable with discounts ranging from 30-70% off list price.

Yes, end consumers made hay while many institutional investors funded their “free shipping”, “COD” and “no questions asked returns policies”.

I am undoubtedly an optimist, so I see many wonderful first generation entrepreneurs that came out of the ordeal alive.

That can only mean one thing – serial entrepreneurs are for the taking.

Assuming some / most of them start companies again.

Some of them have talked to me about how they learned from the experience and how it will shape their new venture. Others are venturing into investing in startups.

The BEST thing that’s happened to Indian startups in the last 5 years is the rise and fall of eCommerce.

Of the 450+ eCommerce companies (of which 75+ raise some money either from VC or seed investors), a full 63% were first time entrepreneurs. (source: Microsoft India startup research).

That’s amazing. Really awesome.

They will live to tell the tale and venture again.

I have one request though:

The next time you meet an entrepreneur who had started an eCommerce venture and moved on, thank them for taking the risk. They did something so its easier for you to convince your family and relatives that starting a company is glorious. Even if it is not a runaway success it teaches you about taking risks, venturing on your own and going down a not-so-well-trodden path.

Side note: The hare and tortoise story though still has a lot of merit.

I personally know 5 companies in eCommerce, growing at 30-50% annually (not monthly as the VC’s wanted 2 years ago) and breaking even. A few companies chose to not raise capital (or truthfully no one would give them capital when they tried to raise it) were forced to focus on profit and sustaining pricing models. They are stronger and better after their experiences.

Reverse Pitch 22nd Mar, Fri in Delhi, where Investors pitch entrepreneurs

If you are an entrepreneur, you know how difficult it is to keep refining your pitch and answer difficult questions about your market, differentiation, target customer, etc.

Now you get to play jury and judge, in Delhi, to investors both seed and VC.

After 3 successful editions of the Reverse pitch, in Bangalore and other locations, we are now bringing it to the NCR region.

The structure of the event would be 5 minutes demo/pitch by investors and 5 minutes Q&A. The pitch would include Operational Experience, Ticket Size, Sectors, Investment Thesis and Portfolio. The pitch sessions will be followed by networking with investors.
Date: Friday, 22nd March 
Time: 3:00p to 7:00p
Venue: 91springboard, B-1/H-3A, Basement, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044, India.
 
Please feel free to reach out to Apurv if you have any questions. You can reach him at (+91) 88006 04703

 

Confirmed investors include Saif partners, Lightspeed, Seedfund, Microsoft Accelerator, IAN, Blume, Helion and the Hatch.

I am not going to use Google Keep for other reasons but I agree that yanking products arbitrarily does a lot of harm.

Om Malik's avatarGigaom

Google (s GOOG) today launched Keep, an app that allows you to save things, clip stuff from the web, hoard notes and what not and put them all onto your Google Drive. Yup, you guessed it — it is an imitation to Evernote and many other such applications. It is a good thing that Google has decided to compete with the likes of Evernote — it validates their market.

It might actually be good, or even better than Evernote. But I still won’t use Keep. You know why? Google Reader.

I spent about seven years of my online life on that service. I sent feedback, used it to annotate information and they killed it like a butcher slaughters a chicken. No conversation — dead. The service that drives more traffic than Google+ was sacrificed because it didn’t meet some vague corporate goals; users — many of them life…

View original post 244 more words

Why founders split? 3. The shiny new object syndrome

R, Ra and M were the 3 co-founders of a SaaS company, I met first more than a year ago. R and Ra were related to one another and M had worked at a company that R was a client at. R was the “domain expert” and knew the business problem fairly well, whereas M was more the “tech person”. While M was not a developer per se,  he was most technical of the 3 co-founders.

Ra was the “business development” person whose role it was to talk to customers, get some “partnerships” signed and talk to potential investors. (Side note: I dont understand business development roles in any small company. Either you are a sales person or you are a developer. Everyone else is overhead). In other words a catch-all bucket.

Ra was asked to join by R, who felt that between M and himself, they both did not have enough of a sales background and decided to get someone they could trust to do the role.

Ra himself was previously a new business development executive at a large corporate bank. He had done well at the bank and had made his way to associate vice president in less than 5 years. He had very little knowledge about the space in particular or passion around it. He wanted to do a startup and since he was approached by R to be a co-founder, he was pretty excited about it.

For the first few months, getting potential customers to talk to, with respect to the new product they were building, was not difficult. Most people who R knew were interested and keen to talk and learn about the new product. Ra was involved in all discussions and was trying to get up-to-speed with the intricacies of the market and customer problems.

R was the most passionate of the lot and knew the most about the problems, while M leveraged 2 external outsourced resources to get the initial prototype ready. Things were going well apparently and I met them at the Microsoft accelerator during an event.

4 months later I heard that Ra had left. I did not meet Ra, but R had spoken about him highly, so I was curious why he left.

R said he could not close any new deals and did not “understand the market”.

While I pointed out that R knew about this before since Ra was not a market or domain expert, he evaded the question with “but I expected him to learn quickly”.

When I spoke with M separately he mentioned that Ra never got really passionate about it and there was little effort on Ra’s part to understand the market. While he felt that Ra setup a lot of meetings with other potential customers and investors, none of them really “closed”.

Ra, sent me a LinkedIn request a few weeks ago. In his invite he mentioned he was working in a new project and would like to come and meet me. Over email I quickly asked him why things did not work out. He said that in his perspective the market was clearly not ready for the product and he found that he could find better things for him to do with his time and he “lost interest” because he found a really awesome new idea that he was focusing on.

The final in the series why startup founders split is something I have heard from 2 teams, so I dont necessarily think I have enough data yet to confirm that this is a trend, but its important to document.

Founders usually split because they have different visions for the future of the company or one of them is not executing to the plan.

The shiny new object syndrome occurs when the company does not have enough or sufficient traction and the founders finds something new that they would rather do.

There’s a lot to learn from the story above that talks to more than why they really split, but the bottom line I gathered was Ra was not completely bought in and did not have the passion for the space, so the shiny new object got him more excited than anything with limited traction.

While I think its fair to lose passion for something you dont see too much traction, many a time I have personally seen that you need to spend a lot of time before you really get significant momentum.

The mystery of success and the articulation of failure

Yesterday a comment was made about why I dont interview successful founding teams instead of focusing on why founding teams split. Actually I did. I spoke at length with Sachin from Flipkart a few weeks ago as I have done several times with Amit Gupta of InMobi and Phani of Redbus and Vivek of Interview street.

Successful people are loathe to describe their success, often talking about “luck” and most often calling themselves “not yet successful”.

Those that failed, however, at anything are often able to point to 1-3 things that they believe were the reasons they did not take off.

I think its relatively easy to assume that 100 things need to go right to be successful, whereas only a few things (or in some cases 1 thing) needs to go right to be a failure.

That directly contradicts my core hypothesis that in any given startup its never one thing that causes failure but a series of things that are not executed well – back to Mark Suster’s comment about lines not dots.

I also think most people analyze failure a lot more since it hurts. That’s a contradiction as well. I  would think most people would not like to think about things that are not “fond memories”. Turns out we remember bad things better because they affect our memory systems more. There’s research that suggests this to be true.

Still that does not explain why people cant articulate success as well as failure. Or am I just asking the wrong questions of the wrong people?