You should NEVER pitch as a pair or a team. When fundraising, you've got to pitch.
Always have only ONE person doing this.
It's (barely) OK if multiple people fundraise, especially in the very early days. But you should always let 1 person lead any given relationship.
Don’t co-pitch.
Once the company is off the blocks, one person should then lead ALL fundraising activities.
Two people (or more) pitching means more possibilities for a fuckup.
All an investor needs is a bad feeling about 1 of the co-founders and it’s over.
If you talk over each other, it's also over.
Worse: team pitching makes the whole pitch less clear and precise. The more people in a call, the less time you'll have to make an impression in those precious 15 to 30 minutes you get.
If you are online, team pitches increase the likelihood of shitty connection issues.
The worst part of co-pitching, however, is that it turns a chance for relationship building to a "team meeting": best way to reduce personal connection.
I'm not going to say that team pitching never works but... I don't think I've ever seen it add any value.
This is different from team calls AFTER an investor is already minded to invest.
There you have more time and individual supporting experts can help.
But when it comes to THE pitch: have 1 person do it. With 1 story. And ideally, initially, to 1 investor only and not his entourage.
The latter may be outside of your control. The first is not.
In startup building and venture capital it's key to know you're often wrong and embrace it.
Because you're bound to be wrong.
👇🧵
Socrates famously said he knew he knew nothing.
That was one of his biggest lessons.
Here it's why it's also one you should treasure if you're an entrepreneur or a VC investor: When you think you know it all, you're not going to be any more right than when you have your strong convictions but keep an open mind.
Corporations who do venture investing right get a LOT value from it. However it's also easy to do it wrong and I've seen many horror stories from founders in my tech community over the years.
I was reading a @crunchbase news article the other day on the topic.
I found a couple of interesting gems for companies looking to build their own CVC successfully.
@crunchbase These reflection points for corporate investors or wannabe investors can also help founders understand how CVCs normally work:
Global AI funding sank by 44%+ year over year, from $33. 6 billion to $18. 8 billion according to Pitchbook data shared reported on Emerging Tech Brew (Q2 2022)
This is in contract with the overall global VC funding that declined "only" 25% - from $176 billion to $131.7 billion. The explanation they came up with based on @PitchBook experts was that:
@PitchBook "The bull market in 2021 favored some longer-term sectors, such as autonomous vehicles, that led the vertical in exit accounts, or at least mega-exit count…in 2021...But that mix is shifting in 2022 to focus more on smaller exits for more fundamental and near-term technologies”
The time of monolithic venture capital is over. The great unbundling has begun. Back in the days, there were VC firms. 👴
There were big institutional LPs who would back those firms. And there were startups who would get money from these VCs. Or not.
👩💻 It happened the same to Excel in the SaaS world, where specialist apps took over what people used to "force" excel to "also do".
💸 Similarly in Venture Capital there is now a HUGE opportunity for investors of all types to get involved IN an asset class that used to be hard to access and fairly opaque.
Working with founders in deep tech has taught me this: deep tech has 1 striking similitude with B2C consumer products. You've got to be a great storyteller in your early days.
Most people wrongly assume that launching a deep tech startup is closer to traditional B2B tech businesses because it's mostly B2B in nature.
They fail to capture 1 important difference.
👇
Traditional B2B SaaS apps have a fairly easy unit economics measurement and also a fairly easy-to-estimate market potential.