[vram22]

>Then you've got the current funding climate that absolutely loves companies that look like lifestyle businesses.

Can you elaborate on this? I do keep some track of the startup world (since I consult to them) but was not aware of this point.

>Also - a failed VC-backed startup looks better resume-wise.

Why? Genuine question. Why would a failed small business not look as good?

[auganov]

My impression of the current seed and pre-seed enviorment is traction trumps everything. Revenue being the favourite sign of traction. A lifestyle business usually tries to establish revenue very early on. Another aspect worth mentioning, though perhaps a minority opinion - the Internet economy has grown enough to make what traditionally would be a simple niche'y product into 9 figure phenomena. The point being, VCs aren't complete fools putting money into these at an early stage.

VC funding is a form of social proof. Also in case of a total failure, as in 0 traction, perhaps even no product - it establishes "realness" of sorts.

[vram22]

Got it now, thanks. Interesting.