| 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. |
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.