deleted / a previous comment captured this already + my wording was bad
27 karma · joined June 21, 2016
The trend of Tesla is there - question is, if typical buyers addressed by the Model 3, Tesla itself claims as essential for the success of its business model, wouldn't as well change to every other vendor bc of price, quality, etc.
"Tesla is a battery company" - well, I guess a company is that kind of company, according to what it does to an utmost.
USV basically tries to do what MIT does with a fraction of the staff: Identify experiments worthwhile to pursue at earliest stages...judging by the quality of their "content marketing", I just doubt this ability. They are 1 generation VC with some lucky bets (prior to a market that matured) -- looking at their current portfolio, I wouldn´t be that bullish
> First, they're considered one of the best Series A firms in terms of financial returns. See: http://fortune.com/2011/06/06/venture-capital-returns-the-be....
This one is interesting as well / much more recent: https://www.cbinsights.com/blog/union-square-ventures-exits-...
> Second, they have an amazing reputation among founders. Check out the following survey, where USV was ranked 2nd out of 64 Series A firms in terms of who people wanted in their Series A round: https://www.cbinsights.com/research-venture-capital-series-a....
To be honest, I wouldn't much count on surveys of this sorts. People always refer to what they know....
My general sentiment shouldn´t be USV in in struggle - still, I would stick to the point that Series A VCs have problem, if they are not top in class (in terms of fund size). It´s a matter of probabilities and USV can just do less of deals...
Thing is, eventually, that ventures are much faster in a public spotlight as tech gets easier..
I agree on everything re startups only shedding a positive light on their business - but if you are following a company disclosing x users in year 1 and y users in year 2 (especially as they start fundraising /PR), it is no rocket science anymore. Two more Google searches and you know the market size etc. --- VCs used to have proprietary infos, that´s why they were put onto stages to talk about their "magic" insights. But that has changed imho.
2) No, no or yes, yes - totally agree about training, it is still a USP. But as markets are much more public, it´s easy to follow the development even without being invested. Most of the data can be assumed from what´s publicly available (app store ranks, alexa ranks, disclosures of competitors, headcount etc.)
Admittedly I worked in VC myself - so certainly I look as well differently at news and have maybe a different analytical tool belt.
Interesting is your remark / question, about “how do we find them?” - will think about that part :-)
The reason they are still getting money is the image they are upholding together with their echoing fanbase.
2) Sure they are trained, but similar does the UT Austin kid find out about business models and applies to YC then, to go go right away to the A players.
Don´t get me wrong -- nothing against content marketing or USV. But the market tectonics have changed. If you are a relatively small fund like USV, you technically cannot afford anymore to preach from the high horse. On one hand-side the VC whales are eating you lunch and on the other hand-side corporate investors can invest much more than you.
Put to simple terms: USV didn't grow fast enough and are now stuck in the middle. They cannot do enough (small) deals to leverage an average of their bets and on the other hand side, entrepreneurs are much smarter.
How many people are at USV, 8 maybe? By all science, they have no chance to be smarter than the (much more connected) market anymore.
Edit: typos
Plus 1: If you are not poised to be provided with infos provided by somebody that wants to sell something, as instead much more crowdsourced channels, certainly you have a different, i.e. much more biased view, on the world. Think: People will only speak with them, once they are ready for funding. Whereas people at different points in the ecosystem have a much more direct access.
Plus 2: Humans are poised to a survivor bias. It´s in the human psych to perceive only what accommodates your own world view. You made 5 bets on a business model that becomes outdated, it will you take x times longer to change your opinion. Especially as you always will try to justify your decisions as VC towards their LPs.
Ironically his partner Albert Wenger is writing about it - Zero Marginal Cost Society etc. In other words: Compared to 5 years ago, the VC business model is about to see similiar effects the consulting industry experienced - they simply don't have any advantage anymore plus they are competing with much more and bigger (i.e. corporate) players.
One other misconception: To be honest, I think the only people that are regarding his and other VC's writing, are people from the industry that are maybe one "hierarchy level" (or magnitude of fund size) smaller then them. Associates in accelerators etc. that are praising his genius or create the social media buzz but are actually just trying to hitch hike on his credibility. It's like pedding on each other's back because they regard each other as insiders, but actually they have lost base with hardcore tech innovation a long time ago (since moving into their ivory tower of we know so so much more then average Joe)
Edit: ...especially since their bad gone bets become more and more obvious