[NY_Entrepreneur]

"You seem angry."

The reply by tptacek discarded the point I was trying to make and claimed that I was just complaining because, according to an uninformed claim of tptacek, I was having trouble raising equity funding. The goal of tptacek was to try to gain upper status via an insult. That was a personal attack for no good reason, and I was angry at tptacek. Otherwise, I'm not angry at VCs.

For PG's post, it seemed to be deliberately a bit far away from what VCs do. It's frustrating to see such from the other side of the table.

"Traction isn't necessarily the same as revenue." Well, one form of 'traction' is a lot of users, and in some cases can have that long before any revenue. Examples include the early months of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. So, they had a lot of 'unique eyeballs' per month, and the assumption was that there should be a way, somehow, to 'monitize' that. Maybe. Usually.

In my case, a lot of eyeballs mean a lot of Web pages served and, for my Web pages, a lot of ads displayed. Then a lot of eyeballs mean a lot of revenue and, in my case, nearly all that revenue pre-tax earnings. Or, yes, I thought of 'monitization' up front. My most important Web pages have been carefully designed to have a banner ad of 720 x 90 pixels across the top and some number of ads 300 x 250 pixels down the right side. So in my case, 'traction' and 'revenue' go together.

"PG's view of the world isn't a universal rule." Yes, that is a weak version of my main point.

Maybe some LPs have asked their GPs to fund only 'traction', but likely some VCs are still able to fund something off the back of a napkin if they really want to. Even if they could, to me that's a bit moot: VC funding or not, likely not, like anyone on Main Street, I still need to build a successful business. At one time, a shot of VC funding could have helped my project a little. But now I'm so close to going live that what VCs do is getting to be a bit irrelevant. I'm still in touch with some VCs in case my personal funding runs out, but my guess is that it won't. Lots of pizza shops get to earnings without VC funding, and my project should be able to, also.

[tptacek]

Sorry you feel that way. You may just be in the crossfire of a bunch of other similar threads. Meanwhile, it sounds like you have little to be upset about, since your business is doing so well.

[NY_Entrepreneur]

You keep assuming that my concern here is my business. It's NOT. My concern was just being clear on just what the heck VCs do.

VCs are welcome to do what they want. While I have very little respect for all but a tiny fraction of VCs, I am not angry at any of them although I believe that here PG was not accurate.

VCs and my business are close to mutually irrelevant.

From all I can tell, my business is doing well, but, yes, I will be happier when I am getting $300 K+ a month in revenue.

"Crossfire", what VCs do in general or nearly always, etc. are getting to be nearly irrelevant for everyone: Just a short look at the finances of a VC and see that VCs need 'home runs'. All the rest is low grade work or just a waste of time, effort, and money. But there are only a few 'home runs' each decade in all IT VC in the US. So, 99 44/100% of what VCs 'do' is irrelevant, for all concerned. In particular, what is 'usual' is irrelevant. And for the VCs, 'patterns' are irrelevant.

The major failing of VCs is that they do not have effective criteria to select the 100 - (99 44/100) of interest, or even the candidates. So, about all they can do is follow the herd of the 'usual', draw their 2%, and hope a home run comes out of the blue. That's the key reason on average they are not making much if any money.

That lack of effective criteria is in wildly strong contrast with essentially everything in serious applications of science, in engineering, and in technology outside of VCs.

My criteria that get me to invest my effort are nothing like those of the VCs, usual or otherwise. On this point, I'm standing on solid ground, and the VCs are standing in a swamp.

It looks like Darwin will have the last word.

[joshu]

They look at patterns. This is what VC does.

You have a content business. The exits tend to suck there. Pattern. I certainly avoid ad-driven businesses as angel investments.

Also, if you conduct yourself in person like you do here that is probably another issue.

[NY_Entrepreneur]

"They look at patterns. This is what VC does."

Yup, again, they don't have effective criteria.

"You have a content business." Wrong. You are misinformed.

"Also, if you conduct yourself in person like you do here that is probably another issue."

What I do here is fine. What PG wrote is a bit far from what VCs do, and I called BS.

Generally people want to suck up to the VCs and get all excited when they 'receive a round of funding'. No, what they did was just sell a huge chunk of their business and put themselves under the control of a VC Board under some really bad terms. I won't suck up to VCs.

Entrepreneurs, including in IT, and on HN, need simply to observe that the US, border to border, is just awash in entrepreneurs who start successful businesses on Main Street with no contact with VCs. The people I've seen in yacht clubs were mostly successful on Main Street, and there wasn't a penny of VC equity in sight.

My mention of a pizza shop is dead on the center of the target: Now a Web site serving a few dozen Web pages a second takes much less in capital equipment to get started than a pizza shop. And the Web site has some advantages, e.g., once the site is up, mostly just lean back and let the servers do the work, 24 x 7, and that beats the heck out of all the food handling, kitchen cleaning, floor washing, worker supervising, customer interactions, etc. at a pizza shop.

I and likely nearly all of us have neighbors in big truck, little truck businesses, fast food, gas stations, rental property, various trades, etc. They make it, buy houses and new cars, get their kids through college, etc. without a big failure rate and without VC. A Web site can be a better business, still.

Since on average, as reported by Mark Suster, VCs are not making much if any money, I have more respect as businessmen for a guy running a pizza shop, especially a guy running several, than I do for VCs.

For technical expertise, maybe in all the US a dozen IT VCs have some significant technical qualifications, and otherwise they would be at best just dead weight in an IT startup. So I can't respect VCs technically either. VCs commonly have a LOT of trouble handling their e-mail; NOT good. VCs commonly want others, lawyers, CEOs, bankers, etc., to 'filter' entrepreneurs for them; NOT good. VCs commonly assert that they have wide 'networks' -- mostly not among well qualified technical people! Nearly none of the VCs are anything like the people I respected in math and physics in school or like the people I respected, say, at Yorktown Heights.

VCs need entrepreneurs more than entrepreneurs need VCs. So, I'm not here to suck up to VCs. For what PG wrote, I call BS. So be it. There's nothing wrong with that. HN is for 'hackers' who should not be sucking up to VCs.

[tptacek]

VCs want a specific kind of entrepreneur. You might need to face up to the fact that, generalizations aside, they don't need you or me, despite the fact that we are entrepreneurs. Similarly, as admirable as it is to get a local small business off the ground, all the rationalization in the world isn't going to get Fred Wilson to fund your favorite pizza shop. Try convincing the owner to make grilled cheese, instead.

You might also pay careful attention to what Joshua Schacter is telling you about how VCs look at content businesses, because all the HN comments in the world aren't going to change the fact that it's hard to get funded with a business model that has become unpopular among VCs.

But on the other hand, like I've said ad nauseum: if you can go it alone without VC, I agree that you should. We did; we've been growing at a steady clip since 2005, and not chasing VC is (by unanimous consent among the founders) one of the better decisions we made.

I'll say it yet again: there are a lot of things to complain about with the VC model. I just don't buy that what they choose to fund is one of those things. If VC won't put money into something that is obviously a strong bet, that should be an exploitable market inefficiency; a place to build up market power and differentiation without competing with 10 me-too valley shoot-the-moon built-to-flip startups.

Good luck with your thing!