[kodable]

Curious if you can expand on the associates bit for when you dont have an in with an associate.

Its always seemed that (generally speaking) most VCs with associates say you should talk to associates, and those seen as more “founder friendly” (i.e YC partners) or with no associates themselves say don’t waste your time.

Also, if you get an intro to a partner and get pushed to an associate how do you handle it? Should you still take the meeting? Seems like that’s a pretty strong negative initial signal but you don’t want to burn bridges either.

[justin]

Generally meeting with an associate means an extra gatekeeper to convince so that’s why people suggest talking only with partners.

If you get pushed to an associate from a partner though it’s hard to go back and demand the meeting with the partner. If you have limited options, you should take the associate meeting.

FWIW our first round for Justin.tv started with an associate conversation.

[Alex3917]

> meeting with an associate means an extra gatekeeper to convince

The associate is the one talking with all the other companies in your space and the related spaces, so if you cultivate good relationships with them then they're your eyes and ears on the industry.

[abhi3]

Speaking from personal experience, for first time founders rasing early rounds I would actually recommend going through an associate as you likely have no idea what you are doing and associates have more time and patience to hand-hold you through the process and prepare you for the partner meeting. You only get one shot with the decision makers and if you have no previous experience you are almost certain to blow it even if you have read every piece of advice on the internet.

Sure if you are Justin Kan you don't want to bother with another gatekeeper but if you are not then convincing the gatekeeper may actually prepare you to convince the decision maker.