Suggestions
Kate Brodock
Founding Member at Chief
CEO @women2, General Partner @ WFund (Rolling Fund, invest with us!) startups, VC, DEI in tech, @TheBineyard, craft beer & bubbly, hilariousness, life
Highlights
I talk a lot to Founders about effective reporting to their investor base, especially at the early stages. 📊
There are a lot of important reasons why this process should be prioritize, but I want to highlight one that's popped up a few times now that the Fall fundraising season has started.
One of the first places founders - especially those doing well - can and should go when they start a new round is directly to their existing investor base. The second place is the "interested" investor base - investors who may not have come in yet, but have expressed enough interest in what you're building, and have opted in to updates, and you would consider them warm (low-hanging fruit even? Yes.)
In both cases, the likelihood of both investing in your open round is increased significantly if you've been communicating to them on a regular basis (at a minimum once a quarter). Conversely, your chances of losing them increases just as significantly if you have NOT communicated to them.
⭐ To emphasize, in most cases, a LACK of communication is not a neutral, it's a NEGATIVE. ⭐
There is an expectation of a relationship when an investor writes out a cheque to your company. And part of maintaining that relationship, and keeping it "in good standing", is that you're updating them on what's happening with their investment.
You could be killing it, or you could be struggling. Either way, the simple GAP in info will rapidly deteriorate investor confidence, potentially to the point of complete disengagement.
⭐ To emphasize again, it's not the performance you're reporting or not reporting here. It's the basic EXISTENCE OF or LACK OF info that's the first issue. ⭐
This doesn't mean it needs to feel like a report card. Yes, there are certainly power dynamics at play in the industry, but if you think of it first and foremost as the relationship that it is, you can begin to understand what increases and decreases in communication can do to the strength of that connection, to the faith and trust the other person has in your pathway. What does this investor need on their side to keep this relationship strong?
Again, there are many other reasons to keep investors up-to-date on your company - fiduciary responsibility, getting input, owning your story, etc.
But your job as a founder is also to be responsible with the relationship that sits at the center. If you're responsible with it, it'll payback tenfold (follow-on! connections! advise!). If you aren't, it has the potential to detract tenfold (disengaged investors at a minimum, or angry investors who could take any number of actions).
Get good at reporting. Get regular at reporting. Make it part of your job.
I have disappointment in this article.
Firstly, this is not a defense (or lack) of Techstars' leadership, or the direction it's taking, or some of the accounts in this article. Many of you know I've been involved on the edges of Techstars for 10+ years in various program-based activities. I'm not here to comment on the specifics (I know very little).
What I do want to comment on is something very salient in this article, and in accounts of too many women CEOs.
In EVERY case where current leadership was reported on by name, they were ALL women. The current Techstars leadership team is not made up of all women, FYI. And in EVERY case, that woman was highlighted as being not competent for her role at the time when she started. 🤯 Seriously, read it.
In ALL BUT ONE case where the insider (employee or former employee) was either named or was referenced using gender pronouns, they were all men (disclaimer below).
Let me rephrase: Every leader being negatively reported on here is a woman, all were openly questioned by almost an entirely male employee base being interviewed as not being fit for their job from the get go. Right out of the gate.
And here we are, with a story that then piles on failed partnerships and employee turnover without attribution to cause, leaving readers, if we aren't careful, to attribute that to the leadership in question.
Disclaimer: Some of the specific accounts in here aren't what I'd call savory (e.g. the individual account from the former executive assistant of the SVP was the only identifiable woman in the interview set. Her claims shouldn't be ignored and are valid), and again, I'm not here to defend (or not) the specifics.
But it's CRUCIAL to understand these dynamics when we read stories like this, especially about competency.
And also? This entire story failed to highlight the pretty darn basic process happening here, a process that every journalist and reader in this space understands extremely clearly: You have a system that has been built over the two decades that's just plain no longer a startup. It needs to take a new form, often needs new leadership, and new leaders come in with a shake up. People who've been in the system will be uncomfortable, pissed off, in disagreement. They might even leave or get fired. They're probably going to lose some of the power they so enjoyed. THIS IS NORMAL.
The article even suggests that the CEO's appointment came at a time of tumult, that it needed "rescuing" (a time when so many women CEOs are asked to come in - clean up!). It also suggests that power was changing, "fiefdoms" may not look the same. But boy did it breeze through how flipping normal this is, how less dramatic so much of this story actually is.
No, it painted a picture of the incompetency of a group of women execs who messed everything up.
We need to do better. It's 2024.
https://lnkd.in/gmHhGGM7
