[keithwhor]

> It's part of our process. If you don't do well with the first meeting -- regardless of whether it's with a partner, associate, or both -- the process ends. If you do well, again regardless of whom it's with, we'll ask to do a 2nd meeting where we can go deeper.

Great post, going to nitpick here: it doesn't matter what you consider a meeting, it matters what the founder considers it. A meeting with an Associate is not a meeting. It's a "get to know you" - it's not a real meeting until a GP is involved. That's the only time when there's money on the table. And if there's money on the table and there's not a "default invest", that's when you (as a founder) should mentally divest from the relationship. This is, as I understand, literally stock advice from most accelerators and experienced Angels / founders. In fact, I think the general advice is, "do not take meetings from Associates at all if you can avoid it. Get to a GP as fast as is humanly possible."

[lpolovets]

But isn't a 1st meeting with a GP not a real meeting as well in that case? Because if money is not on the table at meeting #1 (whether with a GP or associate), then it's not a real meeting. And that means the only real meeting is the 3rd meeting (partner meeting)... but you can't get there without the first two "encounters" :).

[borski]

Associates cannot generally make investment decisions, and do not generally factor heavily into the decision to invest. A GP does; thus, impressing the GP on the 1st meeting makes it a real meeting. Impressing an associate on the 1st meeting is effectively useless, except for getting you to the real '1st meeting.'

That's how most founders see it, and why the advice of most former founders is 'avoid associates unless there is absolutely no way you can get in front of a GP directly.'

That's not meant to sound offensive, but it's definitely how most founders I've spoken to see it.