Nice post, but rather inconsequential: Who needs who more, after all? VCs get to choose, right? They are the ones with the money. Companies go after the VCs not the other way around. VCs are the ones with their staff filtering phone calls, not the other way around.
This post strikes me as "in a perfect world, [...]". Rather inconsequential.
Here's mine: In a perfect world, Ferraris would cost $3000 USD, but only I'd be able to buy one. Yeah, whatever.
You bring up a great point. Instead of building a startup that can attract VC attention, why not focus instead on building a startup that VCs will fight over. That's how we should all be thinking.
If the point is to get funding, yes, I suppose. Don't you build startups to be useful, though?
I do think you have a point, though, if, if your building your company, you set it up to be so profitable, VCs will fight to get in on the action. All startups should do that, given that businesses DO exist to make a profit (and a great many people forget that fact, profit is the difference between a business a hobby), so your point is well-taken.
Not necessarily. Some of the best businesses in the valley were turned down by several VCs before getting funded. Many VCs are like sheep..."good" or "bad" is irrelevant, as long as others want in on the deal.
I know several companies that I know are going to be great businesses, but haven't had an easy time raising money because of lack of skills in other areas. The presentation is at least as important as the product, because getting past stage one requires a good presentation. There are lots of PowerPoint-fu masters in the valley who've been funded numerous times, and have yet to build a business.
This post strikes me as "in a perfect world, [...]". Rather inconsequential.
Here's mine: In a perfect world, Ferraris would cost $3000 USD, but only I'd be able to buy one. Yeah, whatever.