The VC Branding Problem

by StartupDigest on May 30, 2010

Last week Usher’s “Oh My Gosh” was bumpin’ from the radio of a grey rental minivan heading to San Francisco for Dorsey & Whitney‘s “Are we all blowing another bubble?” event at Pier 38. Well, it was bumpin’ only until the phone belonging to the minivan’s driver made a sound. Every time it buzzed or rang, he and his two programmers shrieked “Holy shit!” and immediately turned off Usher.

They were obsessed with the phone because they had interviewed with Y-Combinator earlier in the day. It was only a matter of minutes before they would find out if they had been accepted into the June 2010 program. A phone call would mean they were accepted; an email would mean rejection.

To save you the suspense, they ended up getting the email later that night. But there’s a story to this minivan ride that’s much bigger than them. (Trust me, they’ll be fine.)

Between the reckless driving, hot radio beats and girly shrieks, I wondered:

When’s the last time a big early-stage VC firm got entrepreneurs excited like this?

Seriously. Take a look at these firms:


Not to pick on these 7 firms (we just randomly selected them) but all of them claim to be “Early-Stage” VC firms.

Can you name more than a couple of their portfolio companies?
Can you give me specific examples of what they’ve done to help early-stage entrepreneurs and strengthen the startup ecosystem?
Can you tell me why one of these firms is better than any of the others?

Neither can we.

Why can’t we answer those simple questions? All of these firms have hundreds of millions under management. All of them are involved with cool companies we care about like Pandora, Posterous, UStream, YouSendIt, and oDesk. I’m sure that all of them have great people doing excellent work for those companies too, but we haven’t heard any of their stories. In fact, very few (if any) of us early-stage entrepreneurs have any idea who the people at those firms are and what they care about most.

In contrast, look at the look at the logos from these venture capital firms:

What are the first things that come to your mind now?




All of these firms have less than $50m under management and are taking large chunks (6-12%) of great early-stage companies for less than $50k of investment with few strings attached. Nevertheless, many great young technology teams are literally weaving through traffic, killing hot radio beats, and shrieking in anticipation of giving chunks of our companies to them.

Why?

The answer is branding. We wrote a post recently on startup leadership and how people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it. This idea is important for every entrepreneur to understand as they seek out new customers and talent. It is also important for every VC to understand when they ask themselves why early-stage entrepreneurs don’t care about them and they are getting beat by the VC’s who do understand marketing like Fred Wilson, Chris Dixon, Brad Feld, Charlie O’Donnell, and Dave McClure.

The VC firms that are struggling right now will tell you that their funds are too big. They’ll tell you that there aren’t enough good companies out there to put their LP’s money to work.

In reality, demand for venture capital is not lacking. If anything it’s growing and we’re actually getting better at building more companies in which more VC’s (like, say, Redpoint’s Satish Dharmaraj) want to invest:

If there are so many fundable companies out there, every early-stage VC firm has a tremendous opportunity in front of them to make a killing right now. They shouldn’t have a problem putting all of their capital to work, albeit in smaller chunks because it costs less today (especially for consumer internet companies) for us to get started than ever before. Though the size of each individual investment and payday is shrinking, the total amount of  money to be made is getting bigger, and it’s out there for the taking.

But the firms that are not actively pushing their brand through the startup ecosystem are missing out on all of this. They will never show up on the radars of the next generation of disruptive companies as interesting funding options.

Their cash might as well be on the sidelines. No one will want it unless they know who they are and why they want to use it.

YC is the golden example here. We’ve all read Paul Graham’s essays, applied to Startup School, and submitted content to Hacker News. Their community has become our community, and it’s paying off. Other firms are sorting through their rejects, fighting over their alumni, and claiming that there aren’t enough deals out there to put all of their LP’s money to work.

The size of your fund isn’t your problem; it’s your branding.

Unfortunately, this branding problem hurts everyone in the startup ecosystem, not just early-stage VC firms. For every VC that chooses to shed capital instead of addressing their branding problem, some fundable companies won’t get funded. At the same time, other fundable companies will keep giving away big chunks of equity for a bridge-round ($10-$20K) before spending more time raising another round (instead of working on their product) to give away another big chunk. That’s a big drag on efficiency, incentives, and quality-control for an ecosystem that’s crucial to the health of the recovering American economy.

So, instead of downsizing your fund, laying-off employees, or going into stealth-mode, here are some tips for finding all of the lucrative early-stage opportunities waiting for you:

  1. Going only to TechCrunch’s events does not mean that you have your ear on the ground of the startup ecosystem. Get involved with Startup Weekend, Startup2Startup, Founder Dating, Hackers and Founders, and SF New Tech (and their national counterparts like NY Tech Meetup) to meet the people who are actually creating the next round of profitable companies.
  2. Being a “Stealth VC” is just as stupid as being a “Stealth Startup.” Through your website and the people you send to community events, tell us what you are doing for your current portfolio companies right now and how much they are kicking ass. And if you are internally discussing doing more early-stage deals in the near future, you need to tell us NOW so you actually cross our minds later. This means that you need to be both creating (e.g. blogging, tweeting) and commenting on the content early-stage entrepreneurs consume (like the guys we mentioned earlier).
  3. Reconsider the makeup of your team. Is your current employee structure optimized for making smaller deals more often all over the world? Finding great deals early requires you to have strong, physical presences in more places. This means that it might be time to replace your two MBA Analysts making $60K/year with four entrepreneurial activists who know your firm and will attend grassroots events and engage early-stage entrepreneurs by both creating and sharing relevant content.
  4. Center your startup community around you. Currently, a law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) is dominating most VC firms at this. That’s embarrassing. The best way to find what you’re missing is to bring together the members of the startup ecosystem around you with a personalized event. It doesn’t have to be a big conference, just a simple dinner or drinks. Or do Taco Tuesdays, Happy Hours, or Pancake Breakfasts. We are throwing Startup Waffles and founders love it! If you don’t want to get creative, at least run an invite-only event so you can put your portfolio companies and one other company they think is cool in the same room together and see what happens. Finally, do any of you throw celebrations when something really cool happens to one of your portfolio companies? If you do, we need to know about it.
  5. Hold open office hours for free advice. Let us come talk to you about our ideas once a month. You’ll be surprised by the quality of the ideas and the connections we have. We need more mentor/advisor resources that aren’t asking for cash or equity as soon as we talk in the door. The VC firm that gets out in front of this big need first will win big. (Currently, law firms are dominating VC firms at this too.)

If you fix your branding problem, it will pay off. Not only will you have more fun doing your job, but also every new deal, including the next big thing, will weave through traffic and blow off Usher just to give a chunk of their company to you just because of who you are and why you’re in this business.

What do you think are the top 5 VC brands right now?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

12 comments

  1. The VC Branding Problem | Help a Startup Out   May 31, 2010

    [...] the [StartupDigest] Blog: http://thestartupdigest.com/2010/05/30/the-vc-branding-problem/ var a2a_config = a2a_config || {}; a2a_config.linkname="The VC Branding Problem"; [...]

  2. Dharmesh Shah   May 31, 2010

    Exceptional article. Nicely done.

    I’ve always wondered why VCs don’t invest more in branding and marketing and as a result *differentiating* themselves. I can almost understand why the top-tier funds don’t do it (they’d argue that they don’t need to), but what about everyone else?

  3. Valto   May 31, 2010

    Very well said. I think most of the players think the game have not changed and they just continue doing what they do. – but the thing is, the game have changed and will continue to do so with increasing pace.

  4. Nick Giglia   May 31, 2010

    Fantastic article that does an exceptional job both defining the problem and providing a roadmap to a solution that works for everyone. Startup ecosystems are growing and evolving, and the smart VC’s are the ones who can adapt themselves.

  5. April   May 31, 2010

    I have a running joke with a local VC in Toronto about how I can take the text off of just about any VC’s home page and replace it with any other VC’s message and nobody would ever notice. As a marketer, it’s pretty easy to make fun of VC “marketing”.
    I think everyone would benefit from having the VC’s be more engaged participants in the startup community. That said, I think that money is still scarce enough that companies looking for it pitch everyone they can, regardless of the firm’s brand. To Darmesh’s point, I think almost any VC would argue they don’t need marketing (not just the Tier 1′s). I think If the VC firms really felt like they were missing out on something, they would attempt to do things differently. Sadly, I do not believe this is the case.
    April

  6. Gordon Zhu   May 31, 2010

    I think more VCs will take this advice as younger and more entrepreneurial guys rise through the ranks. Young guys today all know the VCs that do social really well, and will have to rely on these tactics when they have to take the helm in a decade or two.

    For example, Ron Conway doesn’t even have a website for SV Angel, but David Lee is doing a decent job of putting himself out there on the social web. When Conway is gone Lee won’t be able to rely on the Conway name to get the first call.

  7. Mark Gibson   May 31, 2010

    Fully agree, there is both a positioning and differentiation problem in the VC community. I work a lot with VC firms on under-performing portfolio companies and what I see is a bunch of the same people doing the same thing in the same ways and a movement in the larger members of the herd away from risky early stage deals. An opportunity for a new set of VC’s who get the new lean innovation cycle and understand the value of marketing.
    I met Any Tsao at SVB in London last week – they have a differentiated offering and strong set of services (other than just cash) for early stage companies and are pursuing the early stage opportunities and doing very well.
    Great list of innovative financiers, thanks Dharmesh

  8. Michael   May 31, 2010

    Wonderful article, I completely agree. Aren’t entrepreneurs really VCs’ customers? So shouldn’t that mean that VCs start getting more customer friendly? The 7 logos you showed above look like they market to an institutional investor crowd, which is great if you are raising another $1B fund but not for getting great early stage returns. I also totally agree with your community building point, VCs could re-brand themselves as “mentorship capital” as opposed to “venture capital.”

  9. Jay levy   May 31, 2010

    Not sure how I feel about the vc vanity brand. At Zelkova we try to keep a relatively low profile but yet get amazing access to great deals (were in several of the investments you have listed above via logos). We don’t rely on our name to get into deals, we rely on working with entrepreneurs and being good partners with other vc’s. I guess it will be the market that determines our brand in the future.

    We need to be putting more emphasis on exits. Track record matters.

  10. Harish Chauhan   June 3, 2010

    Exceptional article. As a brand guy I would have to agree with the examples sited here. My experience with VCs concur with both the comments and the content of the article. Like in anything the leading VCs who want to brand themselves ahead of the rest – have an opportunity to seize the market.

    If I may supply some points of view to help support the case here….

    One challenge with VCs and branding is that “branding – is not a concept many get”.

    I do think however, that ‘brand’ has been an misunderstood term in the marketplace. It doesn’t mean “logo” as much as it means “reputation” – in fact a “brand” is more of an “actionable reputation” – Brand = a promise you make to customers and staff that builds the reputation you want in the marketplace.

    Second challenge is that many, including experts even in the branding industry have not connected “branding” to “maximizing shareholder value”. How well do they understand the dynamics of intangible assets, value driving, and monetizing them?
    I always say that pretty pictures and nice words don’t make up a company or build profitability. Once VCs are shown how “branding done right” works then they just may have more insight into how they fund and get branded themselves.

  11. CustomerFirstyGirly   November 11, 2011

    This is incredibly interesting. Great post. Just curious, what do y’all think of a customer advisory council? Personally, I’m all for it.

Leave a comment: