Hacker News Reader

Interesting that so much of negotation comes down to brinkmanship and confidence.

n.b. Truthfully conveying to investors/clients/etc that the market circumstances concerning one's availability can quickly change in a fashion against their interests and that as a consequence they should decide quickly does not require any particular state of one's pipeline.

Saying 'We might not be available next week' as you do above is not as convincing as saying 'We have 10 meetings this week with potential investors, and we have a closing date of next Tuesday when we'll decide who to go with' or something similar, if that is a truth which they can then confirm with other contacts. I imagine the more truthful and specific you can be about having interest the more convincing it is going to be as a reason for them to be interested.

Interesting that so much of negotation comes down to brinkmanship and confidence.

This is pretty much true for every social interaction.

That may be true, but there is the psychology of people wanting what other people have. By having a full pipeline, you are also conveying that you're "popular" with other investors.

Let me try again since apparently I was a little oblique: Consider the set of statements you could make to announce that you have a full pipeline. Subtract all statements which can only be made if you have a full pipeline. Deliver one of the remaining statements in a confident and optimistic tone of voice. There, you're now conveying that you're popular with other investors.

I would only disagree to the extent that if you have no other options, you shouldn't necessarily act like you have tons of options. If you have alternatives, you don't care that much if Investor #21 falls through due to a scheduling conflict. If you do not have alternatives but act like you do, you may very well find that the scheduling conflict does not resolve itself and now you are SOL with one of your only options.

Learning when to bluff and when not to is an important part of negotiating. Some people thing it's a good idea to bluff all the time -- it's not and can easily backfire.

perhaps true, but the ability to deliver that statement forcefully & confidently is much easier for most people if it's actually TRUE. while some can pull it off whether or not the reality matches the statement, most of us are more likely to display confidence knowing the facts match the body language.

plus, you'll get reamed if you later get caught telling a lie, and ethics matter (at least for some of us).

I think we're on substantially the same page regarding ethics. I'm all for avoiding lying, but I have come to appreciate that one can sell/market without lying. Given that the true state of reality is that one has 50% of a full pipeline, I would characterize that as "Investing in us is a limited opportunity. Other people are interested in it. If you want to invest in us, you should make that decision soon, because circumstances beyond our control may take away that option in the unspecified future." rather than "My gCal is half-empty so I should be able to slot you in whenever."

Any suggestions? After a while, we could say that we had 2nd round mtgs with VCs and that we had so and so committed, but in the beginning, there wasn't too much else to say.

With regards to the etiquette of when you can drop people's names into the conversation, I would ask somebody over there in the Valley as my understanding is there are thorny social norms there and I'm only barely conversant on them.

With regards to expressing urgency, maybe something like: "I appreciate that you've got a busy schedule. Boy, can I empathize, it seems like I have to slide the actual running of the company in between the fundraising. But, you know, the market's the market right now. I'll tell you the same thing I'd tell everyone else: we'd be happy to pencil you in for X but our situation is evolving and there may not be an open window for this by X."

(I've never raised money, but when I sell consulting gigs, I typically throw in a true observation like "I have N weeks of availability. My experience is that I usually book up." Ask the 500 crew, but it seems to me like "We're a 500/YC/etc startup. Historically, the rounds sometimes close out quickly." is absolutely true, conveys urgency, leverages social proof, and doesn't say anything you wouldn't want retweeted.)

I think we are generally in agreement -- I just used the pipeline line to convey this urgency. I'm not a big fan of name-dropping in this case, because from what I see, lots of founders do this all the time, and it's not worth anything IMHO. I can pull out lots of cards: 500/Google/Stanford/MIT/Harvard, but one of the things that I'm trying to convey in this post is that even in the Valley with all of those cards -- and I talk with friends from all these networks all the time, there is still a lot of hustle that goes unreported. The streets aren't lined with gold just because you are a 500company (or YC/TechStars/AngelPad). For most companies, people are not just throwing money at you because of your networks or who you know/talk with. It is true that some rounds close quickly, but the majority don't. Also, most of this post refers to the beginning of the process. Once you start bringing investors in, it closes more quickly from that social proof, and that's how rounds accelerate faster in the end. But, that's in Part II. :)

When I go to raise money, I really want you there as my negotiator. :)