A few weeks back, I was helping a portfolio founder put together the story and deck for raising the next round. This company is one of the true category-creators I have seen in my career and has now reached a PMF tipping point that will lead to explosive growth going forward. Customers and channel partners are literally pulling the product out of the company’s hands, and all metrics are going up and to the right.
Despite this, the founder was sharing how difficult it still is for him to explain the business, the market opportunity, and how this is an extremely differentiated play to investors. Having seen this startup’s thesis play out as an existing investor, my conviction on it is 200% but despite powerful operating signals, it’s still non-trivial to put together a narrative that investors “get” immediately.
This isn’t a new pattern. I have seen this repeatedly play out with truly groundbreaking companies, simply because most investors prima facie, try to “slot” the company in their heads within the first few minutes of the 1st meeting. These slots are pre-existing buckets created by years of pattern-matching, and not surprisingly, 90% of startups can easily fit into one or more of these slots – eg. big company exec stepping out to start an enterprise company, young engineers hacking a dev tool, repeat founder building in the same market, generalist founders executing really fast in SaaS etc.
The issue is this – history tells us that extraordinary venture outcomes are created in the narrative violations (or what I now call “slot violations”). These are companies that are hard to understand in the present moment, being built by founders who are quirky and/or with non-obvious backgrounds, or resulting from messy pivots. Well-known examples include:
- Every major investor passed on Airbnb.
- Coinbase had minimum deal heat in their YC batch. Pretty much no VC besides Fred Wilson got excited by it.
- When Evan Williams was shutting down Odeo and hacking around with a micro-blogging tool (which eventually became Twitter), it had no business model even in the foreseeable future.
- Imagine how Canva looked as a deal when the founders came to the Valley to fundraise – an Australian couple, no revenue, competing with Adobe, raising at $25Mn cap.
- Uber had massive regulatory risks that most investors couldn’t get their heads around.
- Investors worry about investing in a fatigued company? First Round invested in Roblox’s seed round more than 5 years after its founding.
- Almost every major VC has mentioned Pinterest as a big miss. It was totally unclear how Pinterest could be a “business”. Ben Silbermann talks here about “why every VC passed on Pinterest“.
As a venture investor, I think a lot about what mental models to use in order to spot these slot violations. Thinking through the earlier discussion with the portfolio founder, it was clear that even though investors might struggle to slot the company at this moment, the market was clearly resonating with the product. In a way, the early adopters in the market had been educated by the founder and therefore, were already bought into the “insight”, whereas the existing mental models of investors were lagging in their appreciation of this insight.
I call this “Insight Arbitrage” – the delta between the market’s and investors’ understanding of a startup’s unique insight. At the pre-seed stage, this market understanding will be mostly qualitative and anecdotal. At the seed stage, this understanding will still be likely on a very small base of users.
Because a majority of investors find it hard to build conviction in the above two scenarios, an Insight Arbitrage continues to perpetually exist in the venture world. And I believe that this is where an opportunity lies for investors like myself to generate alpha, provided we show the courage to trust this arbitrage and put our money behind it.
Audio Overview of this post (via NotebookLM):
