Here are some examples of startups that did very well focusing on one marketing technique (and some who are still doing it). While I am not privy to why they chose the technique they did, they are all consistently improving over time.

First is Priceonomics. I am a huge fan of any company using their network data to create content that helps their prospects understand the market better. I am personally not sure why more companies dont do it. Priceonomics essentially uses data about prices for used items that it indexes on the web and shares it both on their blog and with key bloggers. The data that capture is turned into both blog posts and informative content. For example  how to avoid getting your bike stolen or the Used TV price.

Second is Admob (now acquired by Google). For the longest time the only marketing they would do was research reports on how their ad network was being used. The AdMob mobile metrics report was as highly regarded as the quarterly research report put together by investment banks on specific companies or sectors.  These research reports were initially emailed to subscribers quarterly and then they moved to hosting them on Slideshare.

Finally in the initial days of Buzzlogic (now acquired by Twelvefold Media) would put together Vino diaries (video interviews with top influential people in social media). These videos would focus on specific questions and were fairly short.

Bonus tip. How guest blogging propelled one site from 0 to 100,000 users.

Closer to home, I have heard from Krish of Chargbee mentioning that their primary marketing is helping answer questions on key online discussion forums and my own previous company BuzzGain which only focused on guest blogging for large well known marketing influencers as the only technique to gain awareness.

Here is the list of the best startup & launch events that I’d like to attend in 2013. Practically I may attend only YC and 500 demo days , but if you are looking to build your 2013 list of silicon valley startup events  to attend, here’s a good place to start.

The format of this post is hard to get right on the blog, so here’s a handy Google doc of the 2013 Silicon Valley startup event list.

I have a question which I am trying to get answers for from multiple people, but I am not sure I have the answer yet.

The average US technology startup raises a seed round of about $150K which lasts them 12-18 months. Most Indian startups look to raise a seed round of $250K which lasts them 12 months or less. Why is that?

Let me give you more clarity on both numbers.

The average YC company gets $25K from YC and a no cap convertible for another $125K. Most (>39% in the latest batch apparently) raise money before 18 months of graduating from YC, but many still have the money last 18 months. The average company has 2-3 people in 12-18 months until they have product-market-fit in the US.

The average Indian company gets by further along by bootstrapping and is not much further along (in terms of product-market fit) than the US counterpart. They raise $250K (per pocha below) $200K (1 CR) and that money they claim will last them 12 months. The average Indian product startup has 6-10 people in 12 months.

The money that’s spent is primarily on acquiring customers and payroll.

Even though we have more people in the Indian product startup, we have more-or-less the same payroll costs.

But most startup plans (business plan or execution plan) I see keep aside 40% of their raised capital for “marketing” costs. For customer acquisition – SEO, events, or “viral campaigns”, etc.

So here’s my hypothesis:

1. We need more money because paying customers are *much* harder to get in India than US. Most US startups spend ZERO in marketing (out of pocket costs) for the first 18-36 months from my personal experience.

2. We need more people because most of our startup founders are “generalists” not “specialist and generalists” who cant really code or run a digital marketing campaign or close a sale. They have to “hire” a CTO, CMO and Sales head to do that.

3. We need more money because cost of doing business in India is a lot more than US.

I dont know the answers, but I am very curious what entrepreneurs in India think is the reason product startups need almost twice as much money which lasts 2/3 as less than US counterparts.

I took 11 active seed and early stage funds (Accel, Blume Ventures,Venture East, India Innovation Fund, Ojas, Seed Fund, India Internet Fund, Nexus, Helion and IUVP/Kalaari) and 4 top angel networks (Mumbai Angels, Indian Angel Network, HBS angels and Hyderabad Angels) in India to understand their pattern of investing in pre-revenue startups.

Of the VC funds, the norm is about 10% of their portfolio over the last 2 years (typically 3-6 companies) that were funded were pre-revenue.There are exceptions such as Seed Fund (30%-40% pre-revenue, because of their incubator Seed Farm, Nexus (over 50% pre-revenue fundings) but they are truly exceptions and India Internet Fund (very few investments so their % are skewed to 40% and they incubate companies).

Pre-revenue companies getting funded by VC’s in India is the exception not the norm.

Of the angel networks, only MA and IAN funded more than 10 companies over the last 2 years. Both funded less than 3 companies each year that were pre-revenue.

Pre-revenue companies getting funded by angel networks in India is also the exception not the norm.

Then I took the 10 active seed and early stage funds in US (First Round, Khosla, KPCB, Sequoia, Accel, Benchmark, Emergence, Google Ventures, Founders fund, Union Square) and the 4 most active angel networks (Band of Angels, Investors Circle, Golden Seeds and Alliance of Angels).

Of the VC funds, the norm is about 20% of their portfolio over the last 2 years (typically 6-10 companies) that were funded were pre-revenue. Higher than their Indian counterparts but still an exception not the norm.

Pre-revenue companies getting funded by VC’s in Silicon Valley is also the exception not the norm.

Of the angel networks, Band of angels is the exception at nearly 30% pre-revenue. Others are higher than India, but at the 15-20% mark.

Pre-revenue companies getting funded by angel networks in Silicon Valley is not high, but better than India.

I had a chance to talk to at least 1 investor in a phone conversation from each company above, so these are not just website observations.

So who’s funding pre-revenue companies in India and US.

Accelerators and Seed-funds such as YC, Tech Starts, 500 startups.

So if you are pre-revenue, dont waste your time going to angel networks or VC’s. Spend time building your product.