Repeat Founders and the Risk of a False Positive
The optimism around AI has brought a flood of experienced founders back into the startup arena. We’ve certainly seen a wave of very impressive repeat entrepreneurs and experienced teams building new businesses, and in many cases, VCs are quickly flocking to these teams and trying desperately to be part of their next companies.
I was catching up with an investor at a large lifecycle VC fund who asked if we ever just try to fund teams pre-idea or even before they have left their prior roles. A lot of firms are doing this, and it’s somewhat rational for investors to try to “tag” quality founders as early as possible. But from my personal experience as well as from a few dozen interviews that I’ve now done for the Idea Maze podcast, I think this is a fundamentally bad proposition for founders.
The reason is that money that is too easy to come by (and is actually thrust upon you when you aren’t looking for it) can lead to a trap of early false positives. What may seem like a high-class problem can become a nightmare as you find yourself stuck with an ok, but not great idea and the burden of a company that you aren’t that excited about building. This predicament occurs for a few reasons.
1. Great ideas are often refined by struggle
By jumping straight to a large round out of the gate, you miss out on some of the refining fire that you probably experienced in your first company. If you were the founder of that first company, you probably struggled to get co-founders or early team members to join because you had limited credibility. Investors needed to see real points of proof before they gained interest. You needed to find the most scrappy and cost-efficient way to get a product out, and in the process learned tons about the market and customer you are trying to serve. Being more experienced allows you to skip some of the steps above, but in the process, you may lose out on much of the learning and evolution that those steps typically bring.
2. Your own conviction and dedication to the idea is solidified
When things get tough early on, you are forced to ask yourself whether you really believe in this business and can’t help but dedicate your energies behind this problem. The hard struggles test your own conviction and vigor at a time when the cost of starting over is relatively low. As much as you may be your own worst critic, there is nothing like getting slapped in the face by the market to really test your grit for the road ahead.
3. Repeat founders are likely to execute at a much higher level early on
Repeat founders’ early hires are usually much stronger too, which allows for better execution. This seems like a positive, but again, may be a false-positive trap. With a crappy product and mediocre execution, getting any signs of customer love becomes a stronger signal of PMF. But if you are able to build beautiful products, get great PR coverage, and flawlessly execute on optimizing your marketing funnel, you are more likely to show some positive signs that things are sort-of working.
Great execution may allow a “nice-to-have” product to gain early traction. This may seem great at first, but may lead you to start building the rest of the business on a pretty weak foundation.
These challenges put founders in a precarious position because they all contribute to a serious loss of agility. And I’d argue that agility is one of the most important attributes one should be optimizing for at the earliest stages. You lose agility because you probably have brought on a larger team than you otherwise would have as a first-time founder. It’s harder for a larger team to change course, and you don’t want to de-motivate these great people with shifting strategies or a change in vision.
You also lose agility because you are more likely to find yourself in a gray zone of good-not-great traction. Because of strong execution and relatively high capital, you are able to generate some positive data from sheer force of good execution. With fewer resources and a lesser team, you’d only get positive data if you really hit on a painful problem with a powerful solution. But because of the experience and skill of the team, ironically it is harder to know if you’re really onto something great.
Also, because you have taken capital from investors who are more likely than not to be your cheerleader, keeping high spirits can be tough. They are excited to be investors in your company and don’t want to risk their future ability to invest in follow-on rounds of your company. So, they are hesitant to raise concerns for fear of upsetting you and making it seem like they’ve lost faith. They are most likely to encourage you to keep going, and that metrics will only improve if you keep plugging away. It’s a lot easier for the investor to tell their partners “things are headed in the right direction, it just takes time” vs “things aren’t working, they are going to start over.” These forces create more inertia to keep you going in your initial direction, even if it’s the wrong one.
The final compounding issue is that although you were able to raise a larger round earlier and with greater ease, you will be judged on more or less the same standard as every other company at the series A or B. You are likely raising your next round on traction and demonstrable PMF, and the bar is going to be high. Other companies you are competing with for those dollars may actually be 2–3 years older than yours and have really honed in on their customers and product. You’ll have to get to the same level of traction in half or a third of the time, from a standing start. Not the easiest place to be.
So, what does one do as a repeat founder? Here are a couple ideas.
First, even if you raised a large seed out of the gate, be super conservative with your burn until you are sure of PMF.
Hire the kind of people that are a fit for this stage, which usually means individual contributors (not executives), and generalists vs. specialists. I’d also try to hire people who you believe would be useful and committed even if you needed to make a massive pivot. I’ll steal a phrase from Josh Kopelman and say that you want to build a team that is “a heat-seeking missile,” and is particularly good at quickly and ruthlessly testing opportunities.
Second, you want to have a really high bar for what PMF looks like.
Be aware of the risk of being stuck in a gray zone. Know that the quality of your execution should be better, so it’s a given that your outcomes will look better, even if you are on the wrong track. Also, it’s likely that the bar for traction is higher today than when you started your last company. Be very aware of what the market looks like today, and how it differs from the past. You will be evaluated based on how your business looks relative to what success looks like today, not based on what success looked like five years ago.
Third, you want to work with investors who are along for the twists and turns.
Some investors are really great after PMF, but are not great before PMF, even if they work at early-stage funds. Try to be diligent about figuring out how often these investors have worked with founders pre-launch, and how often they’ve been involved with companies that have had to iterate multiple times in the early days of the business.
Finally, be willing to pull the plug early.
It’s so hard to do, but life is too short to invest your energies into something that you don’t believe in. You can offer your investors their money back, or allow them to roll it into another business if you have an idea you want to pursue. There is obviously a balance here, as you probably got to where you are because you are a run-through-walls kind of entrepreneur. But if you haven’t burned that much capital yet, starting over may be the best thing to do.