Tag: EC Column

Posted on

How to prepare a hardware startup for raising a Series A

Champ Suthipongchai Contributor
Champ Suthipongchai is co-founder and GP at Creative Ventures, a deep tech firm that invests in early-stage companies.
More posts by this contributor

The world we used to live in — the one that revolved around using cheap money to pump up ARR — is gone.

It came to a screeching halt with rising interest rates, and it’s not on its way back anytime soon. VCs responded as VCs do: by quickly shifting from a “growth-at-all-costs” mindset to focusing on instant profitability while funding metrics shifted from just revenue and growth to including costs as well.

Since the beginning of Q2, a spur of companies, including hardware companies, have come out of the gate and started raising money. The Silicon Valley Bank (and, more recently, Free Republic Bank) debacle has been relatively short-lived, but, given the multiple rollercoasters the industry has been on, one has got to wonder where the goalposts are nowadays.

There’s no debate that the SaaS game has changed, and yet a consensus on Series A funding metrics for these companies hasn’t emerged. However, it is not too difficult to guess that it would be roughly around double the revenue bar at the same or lower cost. It’s a challenging proposition, but a clear and tangible goal to strive for — and one that cannot be applied to hardware companies without revenue in their early stages.

So how can a hardware company raise a Series A amidst yet another “new normal” in this post-low-interest-rate era?

Commit to having deployable hardware

Most hardware companies barely get their product to function — and can only do so using their own engineers and technicians. Hardware in this situation is not deployable on any meaningful scale.

At the Series A stage, VCs want to know that they can pump money into a product that will start going into the market. This does not mean that the product needs to be pitch-perfect; it just means it has to be sufficiently mature to function in a more unconstrained environment outside of the startup lab.

At the Series A stage, VCs want to know that they can pump money into a product that will start going into the market.

Use your ratio of engineering support per hardware as a metric for whether your product is deployable in the way it needs to be. If you have one engineer for the hardware piece you are deploying (not to be confused with non-engineer technical support personnel for customers), you do not have a deployable product.

Now, at a one-to-four ratio, the unit economics become more reasonable. As a stretch goal, you should target to get the human out of the loop entirely, but everything eventually boils down to unit economics.

If you’re hitting 70+% gross margin at a reasonable price, then you can afford to have more support — but it is going to be exceptionally difficult to maintain as an early-stage company with an immature product.

Show tangible proof of high-quality demand

How to prepare a hardware startup for raising a Series A by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Factors to consider before pricing AI-enabled SaaS

Jake Saper Contributor
Jake Saper is a general partner at Emergence Capital, where he invests in early-stage B2B software companies.
More posts by this contributor

In 2019, I wrote a post on how companies should price their AI-enabled software. I focused on SaaS companies that were developing their own AI and highlighted pricing considerations as they work to improve their models.

Since then, there’s been a meteoric rise of third-party foundational model providers like OpenAI, MosaicML and more. These “AI as a service” vendors have enabled any SaaS player to integrate powerful AI into their application. This has created a mad dash to sprinkle AI pixie dust across the SaaS ecosystem. We’ve seen this among the countless newly minted startups and more established public companies.

The proliferation of this technology raises many questions, including how to deploy it safely, who will win (focused startups or incumbents with existing distribution?) and more. One important area that hasn’t yet been discussed much: how it should be priced.

Below, I lay out a working framework on how to think about pricing the AI in your SaaS application. The space is evolving rapidly, so I’ll update this thinking in future posts.

How much differentiated value do your AI features create?

By definition, these foundational models are accessible to every SaaS provider, so how should you think about pricing what is, in effect, a commodity you’ve integrated into your product? Start with first principles: How much differentiated value does this AI feature create?

By integrating AI features into the flow of your broader platform, you are saving the user time from having to leave their flow to go to the underlying model (ChatGPT, etc). Keeping the user in context can be a powerful unlock.

However, be honest with yourself as to how much value your AI is actually creating. Many AI features in SaaS today are getting a flood of initial tire kicks from curious users but aren’t seeing meaningful sustained adoption. Start by understanding retention and value creation.

SaaS companies should be solving for simplicity and adoption in their AI feature pricing. This is a time for learning and iteration.

 

Then ask yourself how differentiated your AI offerings are. If the majority of the value your AI feature creates can be garnered by going directly to ChatGPT, don’t try to make a significant margin on that feature. Reselling is not a sustainable value creation strategy (nor differentiation strategy, though that’s a topic for another post).

Even if you aren’t able to charge much for your AI features today, they can create meaningful value by making your current product more valuable and perhaps stickier. They can also be used to drive upsell to higher tiers, all of which can result in increased net dollar retention.

Over time, you can leverage initial features that may today just be a thin wrapper around a third party model to build more differentiated value (more on how below). When you get to that point, you can consider a more value extractive pricing approach.

AI SaaS pricing is in its early days

Factors to consider before pricing AI-enabled SaaS by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Six tips for getting the most out of your SIEM investment

Eric Thomas Contributor
Eric Thomas is vice president of security GTM at Logz.io, an open-source observability platform for DevOps teams.

Security information and event management (SIEM) is one of the most well-established categories of security software, having first been introduced about 20 years ago. Nevertheless, very little has been written about SIEM vendor evaluation and management.

To fill that gap, here are six top-line tips on procuring and implementing a SIEM solution for maximum value.

Evaluating and purchasing a SIEM solution

Size your spend

SIEM software solutions are priced differently: either by the number of employees in the customer organization, by the rate of events per second, or based on the log volume ingested. It’s important to figure this out early to get a rough idea of what you will pay over time. You’ll also identify the various data sources meaningful to your Security Operations Center (SOC).

Buying a SIEM is a massive commitment: you and your organization will need to live with your decision for years to come.

If you already have a SIEM in place, give the vendor your current use cases and consumption, and they should be able to replicate it. If you don’t, you’ll need to do a little leg work. A good starting point is assessing the volume of logs you’ll send to the SIEM. Measure actual daily log volume from each source by checking out the locally stored logs for a “normal” day and tallying the results.

If the SIEM vendor charges by your number of employees, be wary. This is usually a way to charge more for the SIEM by counting employees who don’t generate any relevant data.

Evaluate your vendor’s practices

The next step is to conduct a proof-of-concept (POC); this should be a starting point for an eventual implementation, not a standalone, canned exercise. During this process, your vendor should demonstrate a service level that you’ll want to maintain post-sale. Here are some key questions to consider during this process:

  • Who will staff your account? Ideally, a vendor will commit skilled technical staff to both execute your initial evaluation and conduct an implementation.
  • Who from your team will take the technical lead on the evaluation, and who’ll ultimately implement it? Ideally this will be the same person or small group of people.
  • After you buy a SIEM, what’s next on your roadmap? SOAR? CSPM? Make sure your vendor can integrate with a broad range of technologies.
  • It’s critical to fully understand the vendor’s front- and backend software architecture. Some vendors calling themselves “true SaaS” or “cloud-native” are not. Don’t lock yourself into a 12-month contract when you don’t know what’s going on under the hood.

Don’t be fooled: Know the total cost of implementation

Six tips for getting the most out of your SIEM investment by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Ask Sophie: How long until I can travel while waiting for my green card?

Sophie Alcorn Contributor
Sophie Alcorn is the founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley and 2019 Global Law Experts Awards’ “Law Firm of the Year in California for Entrepreneur Immigration Services.” She connects people with the businesses and opportunities that expand their lives.
More posts by this contributor

Here’s another edition of “Ask Sophie,” the advice column that answers immigration-related questions about working at technology companies.

“Your questions are vital to the spread of knowledge that allows people all over the world to rise above borders and pursue their dreams,” says Sophie Alcorn, a Silicon Valley immigration attorney. “Whether you’re in people ops, a founder or seeking a job in Silicon Valley, I would love to answer your questions in my next column.”

TechCrunch+ members receive access to weekly “Ask Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off.

Dear Sophie,

I came to the United States from Tunisia to get my master’s degree and Ph.D. I recently finished my Ph.D., and I’m working for a biotech company on OPT.

I’ve been trying to get publications and significant awards to qualify for the EB-1A green card and I need to travel internationally frequently for business.

Once I apply, will I be stuck in the U.S.? If so, for how long?

— Tenacious from Tunisia

Dear Tenacious,

Thanks for reaching out! Let me first provide an overview of the green card process and then suggest an alternative to the EB-1A green card that will likely give you a faster, less risky path forward.

Rather than waiting to add to your list of accomplishments to qualify for an EB-1A extraordinary ability green card, consider applying now for the EB-2 NIW green card. Listen to my chat with my colleague Nadia Zaidi on the EB-2 NIW and what it takes to present a strong case.

Two-step process

Applying for either an EB-1A extraordinary ability green card—or an EB-2 NIW (National Interest Waiver) green card for that matter—is typically a two-step process that involves filing to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for individuals maintaining valid nonimmigrant status (such as F-1 OPT or H-1B) in the United States:

  • Form I-140 is the green card petition where you and your immigration attorney make the case for why you qualify for the green card type for which you’re applying.
  • Form I-485 is also called the application to register permanent residence or adjust status.

Sometimes, if your “priority date” is current, you can file these two steps concurrently – more below. Whenever we file the I-485, we usually also include Form I-765, the application for employment authorization document (EAD), and Form I-131, the application for a travel document that will enable you to reenter the U.S. with “Advance Parole” after traveling abroad.

A composite image of immigration law attorney Sophie Alcorn in front of a background with a TechCrunch logo.

Image Credits: Joanna Buniak / Sophie Alcorn (opens in a new window)

If you don’t receive Advance Parole, with many types of nonimmigrant statuses-you could accidentally abandon your I-485 if you travel internationally and even be denied reentry unless you have a specific valid status like H-1B or L-1 — also, more below. When approved for the I-765 and I-131, you’ll typically receive a “combo card” that will allow you to work and travel while you wait for your physical green card to be issued after your I-140 is approved.

Processing times

You can file your EB-1A I-140 with premium processing, which means you will either get a decision or a request for evidence from USCIS within 15 days. Without premium processing, USCIS is taking nearly 2 years to process EB-1A I-140s, according to a recent USCIS Case Processing Times page. (USCIS recently expanded premium processing to EB-2 NIW I-140s as well, but the premium processing time is longer at 45 days. Without premium processing, USCIS can take as long as 8 months to process EB-2 NIW I-140s.)

Ask Sophie: How long until I can travel while waiting for my green card? by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Have enterprise buyers finally soured on ‘bottoms-up’ tech sales?

Scott Goering Contributor
Scott Goering is Battery Ventures’ business development partner, a role in which he collaborates with founders and executive teams to unlock opportunities within Battery’s network of corporations, partners and advisors.
More posts by this contributor
Evan Witte Contributor
Evan Witte is director of business development at Battery Ventures, where he works closely with developers, technologists and product management executives across cloud-native and Fortune 500 companies.

The last decade saw many tech companies embracing product-led growth (PLG) and bottoms-up sales strategies, as opposed to traditional enterprise sales, to drive their go-to-market strategies and overall growth.

Many software startups loved (and still love!) the bottoms-up approach. What’s not to like about designing a software product to “sell itself” through viral adoption and word-of-mouth marketing? Bottoms-up and PLG both promise a faster sales cycle at a much lower cost – no more golf and pricey steak dinners on the expense account.

PLG offers other strategic advantages, too: By shortening the feedback loop between users and product teams, it allows early- and growth-stage tech companies to land and expand use of their technology inside corporate accounts, with internal champions driving the sale.

However, as enterprise-tech buyers watch expenses more closely these days, they are also tightening restrictions on self-procurement. This means founders who’ve become highly reliant on bottoms-up need a more robust enterprise-sales strategy, fast.

It’s too soon to pronounce bottoms-up dead, but it’s looking pretty moribund. And ‘pure’ PLG needs to shift rapidly too. Today’s PLG needs to inform both the product and sales teams so they can work smoothly together and clinch the next deal.

Enterprise software spending: Slower deal cycles, more scrutiny

Some clues about this changing face of corporate tech spending can be found in our latest Battery Ventures State of Cloud Software Spending Report, which queried 100 chief technology officers, chief information officers and other large tech buyers across industries ranging from financial services to healthcare to manufacturing.

Collectively, the survey respondents represent $30 billion in annual technology spending. Our respondents include a healthy sampling of enterprises that consume software through a bottoms-up / PLG motion, as the slide below indicates.

Bottoms-up adoption buying patterns chart

Bottoms-up adoption buying patterns Image: Battery Q1 2023 Cloud Software Spending Survey

While almost half of our respondents (46%) expect to increase their total technology budgets in 2023, enterprises are getting more conservative and shifting priorities. Many plan to standardize spending, consolidating vendors to save money and optimizing SaaS licensing. Enterprises are re-examining pricing models to determine if consumption- or seat-based pricing makes the most sense, given how the software is used, and choosing vendors partly on that basis.

Today’s PLG needs to inform both the product and sales teams so they can work smoothly together and clinch the next deal.

The sometimes-bureaucratic governance systems within enterprises may function even more slowly in the coming months, as organizations across industries work to become more efficient and to increase spending oversight.

The slide below quantifies our findings that bottoms-up and PLG adoption are slowing down. One example: Only 46% of survey respondents now allow individual engineers to install tools in a “sandbox dev” environment – that’s down from 76% since our last survey in September 2022. The drop for engineer-selected tools deployed into production is significant too: Now, only 11% of enterprises allow this to happen, down 27% from September 2022.

Have enterprise buyers finally soured on ‘bottoms-up’ tech sales? by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Venture leasing: The unsung hero for hardware startups struggling to raise capital

Felipe Chávez Cortés Contributor
Felipe Chávez Cortés is the CEO and co-founder of Kiwibot, a robotic food delivery startup.

Global funding in February 2023 fell 63% from the previous year, with only $18 billion in investments. For robotics startups, it didn’t get any better: 2022 was the second worst year for funding in the past five years, and 2023 numbers are heading in the same direction.

This behavior from investors in the face of uncertainty and austerity is justified, especially when hardware companies burn cash faster than SaaS does. So, founders of robotics startups and other equipment-heavy businesses are left wondering whether they’ll be able to close their next funding round or if they’ll have to resort to acquisition.

But there’s a happy medium between costly debt loans and VC funding that works particularly well for hardware startups: venture leasing.

There’s a happy medium between costly debt loans and VC funding that works particularly well for hardware startups: venture leasing.

Hardware startups are better suited than software companies for this kind of financing because they have tangible assets, balancing the high-risk nature of the industry with a liability.

As the CEO of a robotics startup that recently got a $10 million venture leasing deal, I’ll outline the advantages of this type of agreement for hardware companies and how to land a win-win deal when closing a round isn’t an option.

Why are venture leasing deals compatible with hardware startups?

As opposed to a few developers here and there in SaaS, hardware companies require intensive Research and Development (R&D), capital expenditures (CapEx), and manual labor to manufacture their products. So, it’s no surprise that the latter’s cash burn rate is more than two and a half times higher than the former.

Hardware startups are constantly trying to avoid dilution when raising funds due to their capital-heavy operations. Therefore, venture leasing can be a relief for founders as it gives them the money they need up-front without compromising their company’s equity.

Rather than taking a piece of a company’s shares or equity, venture leasing takes the business’ physical assets as a liability to secure the loan—making it easier for startups to obtain it. It’s also a lower-risk investment and allows the company to keep 100% of their ownership.

These deals work like a car lease, where the bank technically owns the car (the manufactured product) while the startup pays a monthly installment to keep it and, in most cases, operate it however they want. Lenders are often more flexible with their agreement terms than other funders.

Beyond avoiding dilution, leasing theoretically takes a company’s equipment from its capital assets, allowing for more efficient margins in terms of profitability.

The added plus: Boosting Equipment-as-a-Service

With venture leasing, a startup can lease assets such as equipment, real estate, or even intellectual property from a specialized leasing company. They receive the assets in return for a monthly lease payment over a fixed term, typically shorter than traditional financing.

Venture leasing: The unsung hero for hardware startups struggling to raise capital by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Beyond networking: What immigrant founders in the UK want from VC office hours

Juanita Gonzalez-Uribe Contributor
Juanita Gonzalez-Uribe is co-director of Financial Markets Group and is an associate professor in finance at the London School of Economics.
Lyubov Guk Contributor
Lyubov Guk is a founding partner at Blue Lake VC. She supports early-stage international founders working in the U.K.
Robyn Klingler-Vidra Contributor
Robyn Klingler-Vidra is associate dean of global engagement and associate professor in entrepreneurship and sustainability at King’s Business School.

After facilitating more than 300 office hours for immigrant entrepreneurs entering the UK market, what have we learned about who these founders are and the challenges they face?

Introductions for a soft landing can be crucial, but the real value lies in gleaning substantive feedback from experienced investors.

It’s about what your network can teach you and help you obtain (e.g., an opportunity to pitch), not just the number of connections you have.

We ran the first version of the Blue Lake International Office Hours in 2022, which showed initial evidence that the trend of VCs offering office hours can deliver real value, especially to immigrant founders entering the UK ecosystem.

In the second edition, which ran in March 2023, we wanted to continue making helpful introductions, but we also wanted to more systematically understand just what, exactly, was so useful about office hours.

With this aim, we developed our application and post-meeting feedback forms to better identify two things: (1) ahead of the meeting, what do founders say they most want to get out of the office hours with investors and (2) after the meeting, what do they say they appreciate most? Said differently: do founders ultimately value the aspects of the meeting as they think they will?

First, who are the founders who participated in the second round? The 125 applicants to office hours from February 2023 came from 39 countries across six continents and varied countries in terms of language, economic development and other factors.

Countries of origin included places as diverse as Australia and Azerbaijan,as well as Ghana and Germany. The countries with the greatest numbers of applicants were Ukraine (33), India (11), and Turkey (10). There was also a mix of 12 different primary sectors identified by applicants. “other” was the largest single category (22), followed by fintech (18) marketplace (17), cleantech (15) and deep tech (14).

Here’s an illustration of just how varied the primary sector mix was:

VC office hours founder topic preferences

Image Credits: Blue Lake VC

Gender-wise, applicants were predominantly male, with 96 applicants identifying as male, 28 as female, and one as non-binary.

Back to our questions about what these diverse founders and what they say they want from office hours. Forty-five participants completed both the applications and post-office hours feedback form; we analyzed the answers for this subset to compare what they said they wanted to glean beforehand with what they covered and valued afterwards.

In the application form, when asked about the aspects they would find most valuable, 60% answered “introductions/network.” Fundraising strategy received the second highest number of responses, with just 13%. Sales and marketing, mentorship, and team all received a small number of votes.

Beyond networking: What immigrant founders in the UK want from VC office hours by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

3 things businesses must do to secure applications in the AI era

Reed McGinley-Stempel Contributor
Reed McGinley-Stempel is co-founder and CEO at Stytch.

Organizations must quickly adapt their application security strategies to address new threats fueled by AI.

They include:

  • More sophisticated bot traffic.
  • More believable phishing attacks.
  • The rise of legitimate AI agents accessing customers’ online accounts on behalf of users.

By understanding the implications of AI on identity access management (IAM) and taking proactive measures, businesses can stay ahead of the AI curve and protect their digital assets. Here are the top three actions organizations preparing their application security for a post-AI world need to consider in their security strategies:

We’re already seeing examples of reverse engineering AI-powered sites to get free AI computing.

Defend against reverse engineering

Any app that exposes AI capabilities client-side is at risk of particularly sophisticated bot attacks looking to “skim” or spam those API endpoints — and we’re already seeing examples of reverse engineering AI-powered sites to get free AI computing.

Consider the example of GPT4Free, a GitHub project dedicated to reverse engineering sites to piggyback on GPT resources. It accumulated an astonishing 15,000+ stars in just a few days in a blatant public example of reverse engineering.

To prevent reverse engineering, organizations should invest in advanced fraud and bot mitigation tools. Standard anti-bot methods like CAPTCHA, rate limiting and JA3 (a form of TLS fingerprinting) can be valuable in defeating ordinary bots, but these standard methods are easily defeated by more complex bot problems like those facing AI endpoints. Protecting against reverse engineering requires more sophisticated tooling like custom CAPTCHAs or tamper-resistant JavaScript and device fingerprinting tools.

3 things businesses must do to secure applications in the AI era by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Ask Sophie: What are my options if a company rescinds my OPT job offer?

Sophie Alcorn Contributor
Sophie Alcorn is the founder of Alcorn Immigration Law in Silicon Valley and 2019 Global Law Experts Awards’ “Law Firm of the Year in California for Entrepreneur Immigration Services.” She connects people with the businesses and opportunities that expand their lives.
More posts by this contributor

Here’s another edition of “Ask Sophie,” the advice column that answers immigration-related questions about working at technology companies.

“Your questions are vital to the spread of knowledge that allows people all over the world to rise above borders and pursue their dreams,” says Sophie Alcorn, a Silicon Valley immigration attorney. “Whether you’re in people ops, a founder or seeking a job in Silicon Valley, I would love to answer your questions in my next column.”

TechCrunch+ members receive access to weekly “Ask Sophie” columns; use promo code ALCORN to purchase a one- or two-year subscription for 50% off.

Dear Readers: I first must share my gratitude. A big THANK YOU to everyone who voted for me for the Disrupt Audience Choice Award: I’ll be speaking live from the stage at #Disrupt2023! I always love getting to meet you spontaneously, but now we can plan for it. Get your tickets and get your ESTA or B-1/B-2 – I can’t wait to meet you!

Dear Sophie,

I’m an international student graduating this month, but the company I was supposed to start working for on OPT has rescinded my job offer.

What are my options?

— Grappling Grad

Dear Grappling,

First of all, congratulations on your upcoming graduation. I know things might feel daunting for you right now, but remember to celebrate your accomplishment and this important milestone.

A lot of immigrants often find themselves in situations that require them to pivot quickly. You are not alone and there are resources out there to support you.

There actually might be some silver linings here for you. As you explore your options, remember that oftentimes the most innovative and insightful ideas have been born during challenging times.

Notify your DSO

If you haven’t already, you should notify the Designated School Official (DSO) at your university about your situation and make sure your records get updated. Federal regulations require you to notify your DSO within 10 days of any employment or personal information changes. DSOs are required to update the information in the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) system within 21 days.

One important detail to keep in mind is that F-1 students on OPT (Optional Practical Training) are only allowed to be unemployed for 90 days after they graduate. Some of the details of your next steps may differ depending on whether you already have applied for and received your OPT work permit yet.

Now, let’s dive into some options!

A composite image of immigration law attorney Sophie Alcorn in front of a background with a TechCrunch logo.

Image Credits: Joanna Buniak

Ask Sophie: What are my options if a company rescinds my OPT job offer? by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch

Posted on

Early-stage board decks are dead: How to run a meeting in 60 minutes

Tracy Young Contributor
Tracy Young is the co-founder and CEO of TigerEye, a sales software company.
More posts by this contributor

I previously served as a CEO board director and as an independent board director for two startups. I believed in the leadership and products at those companies, but I resigned from both boards because I couldn’t bear sitting through another meeting.

Time is a fixed resource. As a board director, it’s crucial to be helpful to the leadership team with the limited time we have — otherwise, attending meetings becomes pointless. With concise materials, you can make board meetings more effective and leave room for useful conversations.

After we closed our Series A and a formal board of directors was put in place, my co-founder and I sent them this short letter:

Dear Board,

From the start at TigerEye, we promised ourselves we would use our experience to our advantage by making better decisions across all vectors everyday. “What did we do that we never want to do again?” One thing we’d like to never do is the three-hour, too-in-the-weeds, non-strategic board meeting. Here is a memo we wrote instead of preparing a board deck. We hope this memo gives you the punchline on the business and how we’re thinking about the future, allowing the majority of our time together for meaningful conversations.

With gratitude,

Tracy & Ralph

How we structure our 60-minute board meetings

The memo we share with our board is typically three pages long and includes legal formalities like approving the last meeting minutes and stock option grants. This is the boring stuff that needs to happen with lawyers in the room, so we try to get that out of the way at the beginning.

Every board deck I’ve made and seen is more than 80 pages long. I am not exaggerating.

Next, we review our financials, because that is how investor board directors keep track of the world. Included in the financial update is a snapshot of the business:

  • how much money is in the bank
  • number of months of runway
  • revenue
  • growth
  • customers

We discuss what we accomplished in the last three months as a team and what we’re doing in the next three. Then, it’s an open discussion where we push ourselves to discuss worst-case scenarios and how to de-risk against them.

These conversations typically revolve around the competitive market landscape, our direction as a company, current economic conditions and a realistic check-in on how much money we’re burning and our ability to execute.

Today, TigerEye’s board meetings are an hour long. The short length has a lot to do with our size — we’re an early-stage startup. But I still plan to keep it concise and productive even as we grow. I’ve led and attended over a hundred hours of board meetings, and I never want to dread my own meeting again.

No more 80+ page board decks

Every board deck I’ve made and seen is more than 80 pages long. I am not exaggerating.

The challenge with this much content is there is a finite amount of minutes of attention we get from the board, and only so much information can be absorbed in one sitting. If that much information needs to be communicated, consider sending regular email updates or holding one-on-ones to keep participants updated between meetings.

Early-stage board decks are dead: How to run a meeting in 60 minutes by Walter Thompson originally published on TechCrunch