Thanks @ewiesen
1/ The pt was VCs are paid to ramp up on new & hyper complicated products/industry dynamics. Drones is an ex. If they can ramp up there- they can ramp up on beauty. Agree the 2 are very different. But beauty isn’t harder, just different.
1/ The pt was VCs are paid to ramp up on new & hyper complicated products/industry dynamics. Drones is an ex. If they can ramp up there- they can ramp up on beauty. Agree the 2 are very different. But beauty isn’t harder, just different.
2/ I called out Hims as a pretty clear example where some VCs say they “don’t understand beauty” then made an exception because clearly they can just relate to Hims (my little joke). :)
Hims is a beauty co.
Hims would say their key levers are the same as a typical beauty co.
Hims is a beauty co.
Hims would say their key levers are the same as a typical beauty co.
3/ Here is the frustration from beauty founders like this one: a) intellectual laziness of the VC that says “I just don’t understand beauty” (as if they aren’t paid to ramp up on new industries constantly).....
4/ ....b) the weak integrity demonstrated when an investor wont just be straight w/ a CEO and say “I don’t find this interesting” (very different than “I don’t understand it”).
5/ When you say “male VCs don’t understand” the dynamics in beauty, I ask: Why are male VCs able to understand industries that didn’t exist [5-10] years ago but they cant ramp up on beauty?
6/ I agree with your quote here in the WSJ that VCs can fall too much into a trap of using their own heuristics.
I believe one of those heuristics is that male VCs cant understand the dynamics in beauty.
wsj.com/articles/ventu…
I believe one of those heuristics is that male VCs cant understand the dynamics in beauty.
wsj.com/articles/ventu…
