Worst VC Firms' Websites
bernardi.me
bernardi.me
A nice looking webpage is the VC equivalent of a 'vanity metric' - sure it looks good, but does it help them source great investments? Perhaps it raises the number of views on their website, but are any of them the high-quality entrepreneurs they'd like to invest in?
Frankly, I'd think that the problem that the top VC firms is not knowing enough people, it is finding enough time to properly evaluate them all. If you're picking a VC based on their website and not their intrinsic business worth or ability to help you succeed, you probably aren't the kind of business they're looking for.
Sure, but isn't this the problem?
Assume you have a revenue-generating business making 250k in year two. In my opinion, this startup should be valued at considerably more than 10x revenue. But that sort of valuation is hard to get, and likely impossible if the founder has to jump through hoops simply to get introductions.
What will these companies do? They'll focus on growth and avoid raising capital. Because once you break about a million capital becomes really easy to raise, and you can get money on far better terms than any VCs will offer. So there's an adverse selection problem here that effectively concentrates investment in high-risk businesses, since as soon as companies become self-sustainable pursuing funding for growth is usually less preferable to chasing down outside money.
I also think that the stage of the VC plays a big role here. Usually early stage VCs are the ones that will be the most involved in product, and also given their abundance at the moment, they need to "show off" that they know what they're talking about.
Late stage VCs add value in a very different way, operations, sales, finance, etc. and thus have absolutely no idea nor interest on how to create a compelling website.
However there's an other audience: limited partners. Most of those sites communicate a "we're stuck in the 90's, plus we're really boring" message. Maybe that's the right thing to do? Seems like horrible branding to me.
In any case, you'd think they'd at least update things so they're decent on mobile.
These are sites for entities that don't really need to sell anything via their web presence.
You just rely on a dated excel spreadsheet with companies and reps phone numbers listed hard to believe to be up-to-date. You call a number across the continent and introduce yourself and just pick up on an old relation. No questions asked, great people, stuff gets done quickly.
No net. I was shocked.
Maybe it's because GEICO is the only company/service that BH owns where every single extra pair of eyeballs that see a company's ad benefits the company. (Seeing ads on the BH page for railroad companies or electricity companies or even clothing companies probably doesn't nearly as much good for the firms as it does for a car insurance company)
My favorite though is First Round's where they make everyone the same height: http://firstround.com/team/
That said, I suppose it's fair to expect that companies funding web technology have passable sites.
"Give a damn. Give so many damns. As a startup/small shop, it's the only competitive advantage you have against incumbents."
I think their website can be a reflection of how much they give a damn. Maybe they are an incumbent and they don't have to. But if I have the choice to raise money from someone who still gives a damn, I will.
And their web site isn't a "facade"-- it's how they communicate with their future portfolio companies, press, people looking for jobs at startups, new partner/associate prospects, LPs, etc.
Error Type: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server (0x80040E14) Unclosed quotation mark before the character string ' and IsPortfolio=1 order by CompanyName'. /Search.asp, line 72
-- feels like 2003 again :)
I also wish their website would be a bit nicer, but they have probably realized it doesn't matter, they are on top and anyone whose worth one's salt already knows it.