The Changing Venture Market In 3 Images

Want to visualize how the venture funding market is changing? Look no further than these 3 slides (from a presentation put together by our friends at Greenspring). I don’t think much commentary is needed here.

  • Average round size at Series A is increasing dramatically.
  • Venture is being increasingly driven by large rounds (especially at the later stages – this is significantly skewing the overall funding numbers that are being reported).
  • IPOs are the new Unicorns (they’re becoming more scarce than their $1BN valued cousins)

What does it mean to be an “executive”

We have active and lively Foundry CEO and Portfolio Executives email lists. They are among the things that I love the most about the community we’re creating at Foundry. I love watching execs across the portfolio (who refer to each other as “Foundry cousins”) help each other out and share ideas. It’s an important reminder that great companies are created not by solo, heroic efforts, but by the collective force of entire communities.

Recently a CEO sent around the following question: what defines an executive (who reports to a CEO)? — especially as different from “a regular manager”. I thought a number of the responses were great and wanted to share them here so they can benefit companies beyond the Foundry portfolio.

What Defines an executive? Especially as different from a manager

The biggest difference is the mental frame you start with when approaching a problem. 

A manager starts with their team and their contribution to the problem/solution. “How can marketing do better at X? What’s the impact to marketing? How can I make a business proposal to get marketing more resources to do x”)  The manager spends 90% of her time thinking about her team/department/role, and 10% of the time thinking how the whole company needs to move together to reach the next level. 

An executive thinks like the CEO first. Their first team is the whole company. They have a deep sense of the market, how the business operates together as a machine. Their particular department (even their role) is the secondary consideration. An executive spends 80% of her time thinking about what we need to accomplish as a company, and how all the teams need to work together to achieve those things, and only 20% of her time thinking about her department/role. 


An Executive:

Finds a way to success.  The (functional) buck stops here.  Most managers are used to someone above them being accountable and, therefore, not really thinking all that thoroughly through their decisions (or lack of decisions) and their impact.  Executives can’t afford that laissez faire approach.

Is a model of delegation. Are very clear on what specific objectives and decisions are being delegated, drives alignment with their colleagues about the principles that underlie those delegated tasks and decisions, gets out of the way and then neutrally assesses outcomes.

Is a model of company culture.

Coaches the coaches.  Rather than thinking as much about individual contributors’ tasks and performance, spends much more time coaching their managers on how to be great managers.

Puts company (not function) first. Knows what it will take for the company to win and is constantly in pursuit of that whether in their functional area or as an assist to another. This includes budgets – always aware of when there is a higher-priority expenditure outside their purview.

Challenges the CEO. It’s vital for every CEO to see the icebergs coming.  Each exec is a sentry and its their obligation to challenge the CEO to see potential icebergs — 10 or 20 eyes have much more clarity than two.


Six things:

1. Can they get the right people into the right roles, in every role in their area?

2. Can they put together a plan that supports the objectives of the business, then decompose it and push accountability for achievement of its component parts deep into the organization?

3. Can they establish clear and simple metrics of progress for every single employee?

4. Can they ensure that their business rhythms are set up correctly and that the right conversations are happening?

5. Can they create a culture that supports the priorities and objectives of the business?

6. Can then get everyone in the organization involved in developing the organizational narrative / the company’s understanding of itself?


And this one which was a bit broader in its answer but I thought really framed what it means to function at various levels inside an organization well.

Jr. Director (C)

They can drive results with little or no supervision and can build the tactical plan. They get stuff done via their team vs. as an individual contributor. They aren’t often focused on the higher-level strategy (the why) or surveying / understanding the market at large. They are focused on the quarter instead of the 3 – 5 year timeframe and their silo. Still requires basic coaching on management, team performance/measurement, team structure, etc. (if managing) May or may not have made their first fire in their history.


D’s fulfill the above + they have opinions on building & measuring the program + creating job descriptions.They take on difficult conversations with the team, and may require some coaching. Still requires support on the plan, but less so — they may need some assistance on getting buy-in / communicating that message. They are thinking somewhat strategically, though need direction on strategic initiatives.

Sr. Director / VP

E’s need less support on building the plan, but still need a clear charter to execute on. They motivate and challenge their team and other teams in powerful ways (if a new candidate, they’ve managed teams of 5+ at any given time). Active contributors to strategic conversations. They make hard decisions and can message them (with little to no support). They require little approval / permission before making a decision.


F’s set the charter, get the buy-in, and champion it across the company — not just entrepreneurial, but they are also visionary. They are a leader and actively take on mentorship of others in and outside of their team. They think at the 30K foot view. They go and figure out the vision for their program, and aren’t afraid to take ownership for it. They aren’t afraid to lose their job — they go to bat for their convictions because of the greater good of the team, and they do it with passion and with a focus on the human. They are thinking strategically about their team among others, not just their own silo — they understand most of the business, can critically evaluate areas outside their expertise, and they understand the external environment (competitors, market, etc.).


All of the above. They are one of the top of their field, an expert and trusted source, as acknowledged by the community of their peers both inside and outside the company. They have a vast range of experiences that make them likely the highest quality person we could have in this role. They likely have an unfair advantage (heavy experience in the industry, personal contacts that can lead to BD deals, etc.) that makes them uniquely suited. They are a unicorn of a hire, and they are a change agent for the business at the 30K foot level.

Friday Fun #4 – Behind the Scenes On Our Latest Video – Bored Meeting

I hope you saw that Foundry released our latest video last week – Bored Meeting. At the time I’m writing this more than 100,000 of you have, which is pretty exciting. Bored Meeting follows on the heels of two prior efforts – I’m a VC and Worst of Times. I’m fortunate to have a really talented partner in Jason Mendelson who writes, performs all the instrumentation for, mixes, edits and produces these songs and videos. It’s a labor of love for all of us – an attempt to bring a little personality and humor to a business that often lacks both.

The process is a blast – from recording the song in Jason’s basement studio to working on costumes to the actual day (or in one case days) of filming. As I hope you can tell from the videos we have a fun time shooting them – often needing to rerecord scenes because we’re laughing too much. Dressing in drag for Worst of Times was particularly amusing, only capped off by Brad leaving Jason’s house in a dress and proceeding to walk about 1 1/2 miles back to our office in Boulder (although perhaps this being Boulder it didn’t turn too many heads…).

With that in mind I thought it would be fun to share a few behind the scenes pictures from these shoots. No one can say we don’t have fun at Foundry!


Focusing on Actions, not Results

I just had a conversation with an entrepreneur I’ve worked with for decades that resulted in an insight that I thought was worth sharing more broadly. We were talking about managing teams and in this case the challenge of getting some of his exec team focused on broader goals and the end result we’re driving for in the upcoming year (a big growth year for this business). The solution we outlined was to focus on actions (concrete, clear, definable) vs. the more vague set of results that we had been trying to align everyone around. We’re still driving to the same outcomes but the leap was too large in a couple of cases for people to get their hands around. By focusing on actions we moved a strategic conversation to a tactical one that each exec could internalize and the end of year results became the outcome not the driver, as they ultimately should be. Every journey starts with a step…


We have just hours. The FCC is about to vote to end net neutrality—breaking the fundamental principle of the open Internet—and only an avalanche of calls to Congress can stop it. So we decided to help “Break the Internet” on our sites. You can also support on TwitterTumblrYoutube or in whatever wild creative way you can to get your audience to contact Congress. That’s how we win. Are you in?

More info here.


How Startups Actually Grow

We’ve all seen the growth curve on the left – all successful startups strive for a version of one. But in reality, the notion of a smooth growth curve actually masks how most successful companies truly grow.

Our experience at Foundry suggests that if you blow up the growth curve you’ll find that companies grow linearly and that what creates the log curve is a series of small changes that either change the slope of the growth (it’s still linear, but now growing faster) or that “jump” the growth curve up (growing at the same rate but now from a high base). Examples of things that fit in the first category are changes in sales efficiency, successfully adding to the sales organization, establishing channel relationships that add predictable revenue, etc. Typically these are small and change the slope of growth only a bit at a time. But over time they add up. Examples in the 2nd category are generally either changes in product that increase pricing across the board or landing an outlier large customer. These tend to be bigger, more obvious, and less frequent.

Over the years we’ve found it helpful to think about growth in these categories – often asking out loud: “does this change the slope of our growth trajectory or jump the line?” so we’re on the same page about what the intended effect of an initiative is. It’s also helpful to step back from a several year growth plan to actually consider the levers that change the slope of the line. There’s no doubt that growing a startup is hard work. Sometimes it’s helpful to take a step back to really understand how small moves add up to the magic growth curve we’re all chasing.

Vote FOR a renewable energy future by voting AGAINST the Boulder muni

I’m really frustrated with the way many from the the pro-muni block in Boulder have misappropriated the idea that being for municipalizing our local utility infrastructure (condemning the Xcel’s local grid and forming a city-owned and operated electric utility) is the only way to move Boulder towards the goal of 100% renewable energy. They’re trying to co-opt the idea that a vote against muni is a vote for fossil fuels and a vote for it is a vote for renewables. I couldn’t disagree with this line of thinking more. In fact I think the opposite is true – a vote to continue the Boulder muni effort is the wrong way to go about pursuing the goal of lessening our dependence on non-renewable energy sources.

This weekend I wrote a long note to a local friend who came out in support of municipalization. I thought it was worth sharing to a broader audience – especially the answer to his question of why so many from the Boulder tech and business community are against continuing the muni effort (see for example here and here).

The main reason the tech community is against municipalization is that people in the tech community are futurists. We think about where the world is going and have true faith in the ability of new technologies to solve problems. In that context the idea of investing in 100 year old technology and infrastructure makes absolutely no sense. The future of power isn’t centralized power production and an aging, inefficient and outdated electrical grid. But that’s exactly what we’d be buying (and, because of the economics of the buy-out, be locking ourselves into for the next 50-100 years). It’s the equivalent of investing in steamships just before the railroads came about in the mid-1800’s or investing in a land line telecom company in the late 90’s. Both at the time were embedded utilities that one could easily have misunderstood as the future not the past. That’s exactly what we’re proposing doing with the utility grid in Boulder – at any price it’s a bad investment. On top of that, owning outdated infrastructure isn’t the best way to accomplish climate independence. With the money we’ve already wasted pursuing muni we could have already moved almost 10% of Boulder to renewable sources. For a measure that barely passed (the original muni funding “won” by 212 votes of over 26,000 cast) we’re spending like we have an overwhelming mandate. The highest paid person on city payroll is the head of the muni movement. And the PUC has just said that Boulder will be responsible for Xcel’s costs which may double (or more) the cost of this next phase if we choose to pursue it.
From my perspective the likely outcome of extending the muni tax will be continued wasted spending that won’t move us any closer to an energy independent future (and will actually take us further away as we waste time and resources). The business model for the muni makes absolutely no sense (which is why the city fought to keep secret). The economics simply don’t add up – even at a price for the Xcel assets that’s wildly unrealistic. Without massive increases in utility rates Boulder can’t afford to run it’s own municipal system (the original model assume 40% increases’ in the first 2 years of Boulder owning its utility – and that’s assuming a debt load substantially lower than anything close to the reality of what is possible). Personally, I think the economics will prove prohibitive. But if we do move forward I think it’s pretty clear that we’ll bankrupt Boulder. I mean that seriously. I think if muni moves forward we will be consumed with the debt that we incur and ironically will be in the position of fighting progressive (and environmentally friendly) change in the power markets as we fight to keep a rate base to support the 100 year old energy model we will have saddled ourselves with. We’d be much better off spending this money (and for that matter the money we’ve already wasted on muni) on actual energy efficiency. As an aside here, if we keep going with muni we’re going to have to rob the general fund to pay for it. Much of the costs of the next phase of pursuing the muni will happen in the next year or two but the funding through the tax won’t cover it (it’s evenly distributed; and it’s very unclear given the PUCs recent decision on fees whether the tax will even come close to paying for the next phase of this folly) – so we’ll be again sacrificing current priorities to continue to pursue this.
It’s unfortunate that the muni issue has been misconstrued as either being for renewables or against it. It’s really a question of whether Boulder wants to bankrupt itself by making a massive investment in outdated infrastructure or whether it wants to blaze a new path towards renewable energy. To me the choice is obvious.

Is your sales problem really a product problem?

Not suprisingly when companies are having issues in sales they look to their sales or and sales leadership for the source of the problem. In the cliche example (but one which happens all the time) sales will loop in marketing (“we’re not getting enough leads”, “the leads aren’t high quality enough”).

But typically product is left out of this mix.

To be clear, there are plenty of sales related issues that are directly attributable to poor sales processes, bad training of sales resources, poor time management, etc. But often overlooked is the role product plays in sales challenges. I’m not writing this to offer a ready made excuse for sales teams that aren’t executing but as a reminder to executive teams that when you’re struggling to understand sales challenges be sure to look at closely at product. I’d suggest looking both at how existing customers are actually using your product (often not well understood by companies) and comparing that with both the type of customer you’re targeting (which may be very different than your current mix of customers) and what features they require. I can’t tell you the number of times we’ve looked more closely into this question and found that the problem we’re actually solving isn’t well mapped to a shifting target in sales. Or where there are specific product features that we’re lacking that are preventing product adoption but for whatever reason that feedback insn’t coming through as part of our sales process.

Seasoned execs know to beware of the “if we only had feature X we’d be selling more” feedback from sales and to dive more deeply into what the data are showing them about actual product usage. But more often than it’s given credit for product is key part of sales challenges.

For an older post I wrote on companies making the shift from early product to sales focus see here