In my profession as a VC, I tend to cross paths with many people whose main professional superpower is networking. They tend to be visible at most events, are very active on social media, have at least a surface-level connection with most people who matter in their specific areas, and are likely to say, “You are pursuing this? Oh, I know XYZ who is also in this space really well”.
In most cases, the gigs these folks like to pursue include running communities, creating podcasts, running venture syndicates/ SPVs, GTM consulting/advisory, holding ecosystem events, and engaging with govt. bodies, think tanks & non-profits, etc.
In private, they often confide in me about their desire to take their careers to the next level, both monetarily as well as from an influence perspective. They feel like mere small cogs in the wheel, and despite doing a lot of grunt work, get only a small piece of the pie, with founders, domain operators, and investors grabbing a majority of the value created.
I have thought hard about this predicament, and one conclusion I have come to is that networking skills by themselves aren’t enough. They need to be combined as an amplifier alongside a core set of one or more of the following:
(1) Technical skills
(2) Education & work pedigree
(3) Proven track records in a domain
Without this core, a pure networker is categorized at the lower ends of the business hierarchy by various stakeholders in the ecosystem.
A few examples to illustrate this:
- Shreyas Doshi being a great content creator, amplifies his top-tier product management career. Somebody just churning out product content without a proven product track record to back it will be considered a mere content marketer as opposed to a credible expert.
- Fred Wilson (of Union Square Ventures) being an excellent writer, gives an extra edge to his proven skills as a VC. Somebody trying to “act” like a VC on LinkedIn & at events, trying to hustle into deals via SPVs/ syndicates without the core skills or pedigree of what it takes to become a solid venture investor, will be viewed as a venture grifter in a few years’ time by the ecosystem.
- Ryan Hoover combined his main spike of community-building with his technical chops, both as a founder & product builder, to first create Product Hunt and then parlay it into venture investing via Weekend Fund. Somebody who is just a community creator/ curator, but without any edge-chops at a sector or operating level, will end up only as an amplifier for other companies, founders, and investors, and capture only a minute piece of the value.
I believe this is an important insight that is even more relevant in this age of social media, influencers, and communities. Especially in Tech, both companies & careers seem to be over-indexed on building “distribution” for themselves, without realizing that distribution will work only when the core “product” is top-class.
For any youngsters out there reading this, I urge you to first focus on transforming yourself into a compelling & differentiated “product”, which would typically require studying at the best quality university you can crack, working at the topmost market-leading company in your space, using both these platforms to build core technical skills of some kind, and then continuously executing & refining those skills to slowly & steadily build a track record in your field. This will realistically take at least a decade in the real world.
Only when you have made significant progress toward this goal of becoming a compelling & differentiated “product”, should you then start to focus on building various “distribution” channels for it, with networking & social media being important pillars.
If you get this order backward, there is a significant risk of ending up as a lower-end “ecosystem hustler” who ends up amplifying other companies & individuals that are more compelling products, and the latter end up capturing a lion’s share of the economic pie over you.
