There are two interesting (to me) books on Pixar - one is by the (tech) founder Ed Catmull and is good on the storytelling and hard work side, and a really good "other side of the coin" is by Lawrence Levy who Jobs brought in as "the money guy" to find a way to make Pixar profitable as they tried to land Toy Story - it goes from a little way into the pre-production of the film all the way to the IPO - and it really shines a light on the inner thinking. No one really had a clue how to monetise things, the IPO was a huge risk etc etc.
Fascinating all of it, But for me the big thing to contrast is how Ed Catmull described the IPO (how did Steve plan this, how did he know? I am axed at his business acumen) versus Levy (we were all terrified, movie studios refused to give us their business models, the IPO could have failed at any moment).
In short there is always several sides to a story, and if anyone is confident of a future plan but has not done it twenty times before, they are faking it !
> a really good "other side of the coin" is by Lawrence Levy who Jobs brought in as "the money guy" to find a way to make Pixar profitable as they tried to land Toy Story
I don't buy the whole premise about storytelling being the big thing. In particular I think doing the thing is much much much much much more important than telling the story. If you do the thing then the story tells itself.
I was 1 of a team of 2 or 3 on every pitch in 2 or 3 separate processes to raise over 1bn dollars and make the company I worked for (OakNorth) the most valuable fintech in Europe at the time. We did about 30 investor meetings covering everyone in the PE world, some of the big tech investors, some key VCs, some family offices etc. We ended up massively oversubscribed so and picked the investors we thought were the best fit. In every single pitch the most important things were:
1. your company should actually do something important/valuable. Solve an important problem etc.
2. you should have a plan for a future where the unit economics work, and you should know the plan inside and out
3. you should have thought through something about how what your company does intersects with *this particular investor's* interests, and be able to articulate that clearly
4. You should have clear asks - not just money for valuation but what else you're looking to get from them (strategic advice, intros, synergies with other companies in their portfolio etc).
The deck, pitch itself etc are much less important than doing something important and actually knowing what you're talking about. In particular, avoid the thought that you can hack the process with a slick pitch and a cool-looking deck. It may take you to a first meeting, but it's not going to get you to close with anyone of substance.
A good pitchdeck condenses a complicated subject to its essence, just enough text to convince and short enough to avoid wasting time. It informs rather than overwhelms, and stays clear of hyperbole. It's the equivalent of a telegram, it conveys information, and every word has a cost.
A bad pitchdeck is one that focuses on form over function, wastes the readers time with unnecessary detail and extrapolates into an unknowable future with too much conviction that things will really play out that way (they won't).
> 1. your company should actually do something important/valuable. Solve an important problem etc.
There are for sure examples of companies who are not 'solving an important problem' (at the time of the company being formed). It would be interesting for someone to compare funded companies that met this criteria that were successful (that would have to be defined as well) vs. not and 'pie in the sky maybe maybe if it works will hit it big'.
But right off the top Airbnb as envisioned and as it started was not solving any important problem or really doing anything valuable. At the start I mean (when pitched to investors note Fred Wilson famously passed on this after Paul Graham even pushed him to invest) not what airbnb became (which is what many investors go on).
The Automobile when it started to be popularized didn't solve an important problem that problem was already solved by horses and the early automobiles had to develop over many many years into a state where they became valuable. At the start they were not and investing on that basis would not have been wise (other than 'maybe they will end up allowing people to do this and that vs. using a horse').
Uber ditto (but less so) than Airbnb that problem was solved by cabs in most places. (Will agree this is a weaker point than Airbnb).
That said with respect to the above points 1 to 4 probably a fifth is needed. That would be being able to explain to an investor why your solutions works for a problem they don't even agree is a problem or understand. Once again using airbnb many investors (including Fred Wilson and for that matter myself) couldn't understand why in the world someone would let a stranger use their house makes no sense you have person items and what not just didn't seem to fly. However people of a different age group think differently so how do you explain to the investor (who is not the same peer) why the idea makes sense?
Those are good points, which would usually not be communicated outside the context of a specific VC pitch after which the 'story' has already been told as an introduction.
The 'narrative' is something that you tell to partners, customers, on the speakers panel at the tech show, in articles.
In a nutshell, the 'story/narrative' is the foundation of the pitch, which can be expanded from 10 seconds, to 2 minutes, to 5 minutes to 1 hour, with varying levels of detail.
The CEO, or 'someone' at the company will be telling this story over, over and over, and this is how the company is communicated.
The 'VC Pitch' is just one small part of telling the story.
That way of boiling down Finding Nemo seems to miss why the story is designed that way. It doesn’t describe anything about what happens to Marlin as a character, just a few basic plot points, and then in the end he somehow learns that “love depends on trust”. Uh, ok.
If you actually want to understand why Finding Nemo “consistently tugs at heartstrings worldwide”, Craig Mazin used it as his primary example in “How to write a movie”, episode 403 of Scriptnotes[1]. (TL;DR: the purpose of everything that happens in a movie is to expose the hero to as much agony as possible, so that the change they’re forced to go through feels real. I don’t know what that means for your startup pitch, though.)
> don’t know what that means for your startup pitch, though
The hero is your customer. If they aren’t in agony sufficient to prompt change, i.e. to your product, maybe your pitch is off. Or maybe your target market or product need tweaking.
To my kid who was three at the time, it was a straight-up horror movie. It had been a while since I had seen it as an adult and didn't realize how scary it was.
Finding Nemo as as a live-action film with people would be amongst the scariest concepts imaginable.
A young couple is expecting twins and moves into a respectable neighbourhood.
In a home invasion the wife is killed, one of the twins are lost, and the surviving child is born physically impaired.
Flash forward, the child is now ~10. He's a happy, normal child (minus the physical impediment). The father is wracked with anxiety at all times and emotionally suffocates the child.
The child wants to be independent (like any 10 year old) so in an act of rebellion with his friends he goes someplace a little bit shady.
He's kidnapped! All of the father's worst fears are realized.
Nobody can help him except a mentally handicapped outsider
This seems obvious to me. I think ultimately they are choosing the story given to them. If you tell them a story and they buy that, they also don’t care about what product you make but what story your product tells.
If it tells a good enough story it is a story they can then sell to consumers.
Profit isn’t to be made by meeting basic survival needs, but once people have their basic survival needs met, then it can become profitable to start selling the story that this product lets you be a participant in.
On a different note, I like the Rick and Morty one as well. Not sure if this is going to fit investor pitches except in very esoteric cases. I used this during a cyber security session though with success.
As with any sensible advice about structure, the takeaway here is not that you must slavishly adhere to a set formula or risk ruining your story. This story circle, along with other popular story structures like the three-act structure, are simply tools based on observations of stories that have managed to resonate with readers over the centuries.
So story theories are stories themselves. How meta.
I began noticing a pattern in recent popular startup founding stories. It goes something like this. Protagonist is the founder here.
1. I wanted to do X.
2. But I couldn't Or it was an extremely frustrating experience.
3. So I took a step back and thought, f***k it I'll build it myself.
4. So here we are; our vision is to democratise X and uplift millions out of their misery.
Examples of the top of my head:
1. The concept for Uber was born one winter night during the conference when the pair was unable to get a cab. [1]
2. ....they were having trouble paying their rent and were looking for a way to earn some extra cash. They noticed that all hotel rooms in the city were booked, as the local Industrial Design conference attracted a lot of visitors.[2]
3. The idea for ZopNow came when founder Mukesh Singh was standing in a queue at a grocery supermarket. The idea flashed in his mind that something could certainly be done to save people from the hassle of waiting in long lines at grocery supermarkets [3]
4. He was motivated to start OYO Rooms so that he could be in control of the TV remote, which wasn’t possible when he stayed with relatives when he was a child.[4]
I think humans have enjoyed framing stories in this 'stroke-of-luck' genius protagonist style for a long time.
In startups the initial moneybag investor needs a brilliant story to repeat to everybody in their network. Later, everybody who works in that risky venture wants to repeat that story to explain the risk they're taking to have this adventure. Finally, consumers who are initially convinced to buy the thing also need to tell themselves stories of how this product is somehow special, unique, made by brilliant people.
It's like the origin story is an accumulation of all the narcissistic energy accumulated in order to swallow the uncertainty felt by everyone involved.
I would question the importance of focusing on the story - it should naturally follow and result from all the work being done, not be invented ahead of time to fit in with expectations.
Is that surprising? Basically everyone says that you should solve a problem you yourself have if you want to start a business, as that's basically already validated from the start.
This is just a consequence of people taking that old adage to heart
That's the myth. The reality is "a problem you see some people have" (where problem is defined as "anything real or imagined or incepted need that someone can be persuaded to pay for").
I was starting to get hungry while playing cards, and desired something that could be eaten without using a fork, or without getting my cards greasy as a result of eating meat with my bare hands. So I asked one of my servants to bring forth slices of meat between two slices of bread. So here we are; Eat Fresh! -- John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich
Something about the images and formatting makes this look like one of those “Buy my book for $20 and find out how to be a billionaire by selling books for $20” Tai Lopez type things.
It is hard on my eyes and the use of emoticons and images seems juvenille, but this type of article and formatting seems to be a popular trend on LinkedIn, Substack and Medium.
As to the content of the article itself, I am curious how many of the hundreds of the founders Ashwin has worked with have used this approach to acquire funding?
Readit News
Fascinating all of it, But for me the big thing to contrast is how Ed Catmull described the IPO (how did Steve plan this, how did he know? I am axed at his business acumen) versus Levy (we were all terrified, movie studios refused to give us their business models, the IPO could have failed at any moment).
In short there is always several sides to a story, and if anyone is confident of a future plan but has not done it twenty times before, they are faking it !
link to book - https://www.amazon.com/To-Pixar-and-Beyond-Lawrence-Levy-aud...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_Catmull%E2%80%93...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18077903-creativity-inc
It's on my list to read. Saw a talk Catmull gave on youtube (don't have a link at hand) and was pretty impressed.
I was 1 of a team of 2 or 3 on every pitch in 2 or 3 separate processes to raise over 1bn dollars and make the company I worked for (OakNorth) the most valuable fintech in Europe at the time. We did about 30 investor meetings covering everyone in the PE world, some of the big tech investors, some key VCs, some family offices etc. We ended up massively oversubscribed so and picked the investors we thought were the best fit. In every single pitch the most important things were:
The deck, pitch itself etc are much less important than doing something important and actually knowing what you're talking about. In particular, avoid the thought that you can hack the process with a slick pitch and a cool-looking deck. It may take you to a first meeting, but it's not going to get you to close with anyone of substance.A bad pitchdeck is one that focuses on form over function, wastes the readers time with unnecessary detail and extrapolates into an unknowable future with too much conviction that things will really play out that way (they won't).
There are for sure examples of companies who are not 'solving an important problem' (at the time of the company being formed). It would be interesting for someone to compare funded companies that met this criteria that were successful (that would have to be defined as well) vs. not and 'pie in the sky maybe maybe if it works will hit it big'.
But right off the top Airbnb as envisioned and as it started was not solving any important problem or really doing anything valuable. At the start I mean (when pitched to investors note Fred Wilson famously passed on this after Paul Graham even pushed him to invest) not what airbnb became (which is what many investors go on).
The Automobile when it started to be popularized didn't solve an important problem that problem was already solved by horses and the early automobiles had to develop over many many years into a state where they became valuable. At the start they were not and investing on that basis would not have been wise (other than 'maybe they will end up allowing people to do this and that vs. using a horse').
Uber ditto (but less so) than Airbnb that problem was solved by cabs in most places. (Will agree this is a weaker point than Airbnb).
That said with respect to the above points 1 to 4 probably a fifth is needed. That would be being able to explain to an investor why your solutions works for a problem they don't even agree is a problem or understand. Once again using airbnb many investors (including Fred Wilson and for that matter myself) couldn't understand why in the world someone would let a stranger use their house makes no sense you have person items and what not just didn't seem to fly. However people of a different age group think differently so how do you explain to the investor (who is not the same peer) why the idea makes sense?
The 'narrative' is something that you tell to partners, customers, on the speakers panel at the tech show, in articles.
In a nutshell, the 'story/narrative' is the foundation of the pitch, which can be expanded from 10 seconds, to 2 minutes, to 5 minutes to 1 hour, with varying levels of detail.
The CEO, or 'someone' at the company will be telling this story over, over and over, and this is how the company is communicated.
The 'VC Pitch' is just one small part of telling the story.
I would also leave the stories for Pixar and other story tellers.
If you actually want to understand why Finding Nemo “consistently tugs at heartstrings worldwide”, Craig Mazin used it as his primary example in “How to write a movie”, episode 403 of Scriptnotes[1]. (TL;DR: the purpose of everything that happens in a movie is to expose the hero to as much agony as possible, so that the change they’re forced to go through feels real. I don’t know what that means for your startup pitch, though.)
1: https://johnaugust.com/2019/scriptnotes-ep-403-how-to-write-...
The hero is your customer. If they aren’t in agony sufficient to prompt change, i.e. to your product, maybe your pitch is off. Or maybe your target market or product need tweaking.
A young couple is expecting twins and moves into a respectable neighbourhood.
In a home invasion the wife is killed, one of the twins are lost, and the surviving child is born physically impaired.
Flash forward, the child is now ~10. He's a happy, normal child (minus the physical impediment). The father is wracked with anxiety at all times and emotionally suffocates the child.
The child wants to be independent (like any 10 year old) so in an act of rebellion with his friends he goes someplace a little bit shady.
He's kidnapped! All of the father's worst fears are realized.
Nobody can help him except a mentally handicapped outsider
Deleted Comment
(If done well enough, laugh all the way to the bank)
If it tells a good enough story it is a story they can then sell to consumers.
Profit isn’t to be made by meeting basic survival needs, but once people have their basic survival needs met, then it can become profitable to start selling the story that this product lets you be a participant in.
reference : https://blog.reedsy.com/guide/story-structure/dan-harmon-sto...
So story theories are stories themselves. How meta.
[2] https://getpaidforyourpad.com/blog/the-airbnb-founder-story/
[3] http://www.newspatrolling.com/zopnow-company-profile/
[4] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-...
In startups the initial moneybag investor needs a brilliant story to repeat to everybody in their network. Later, everybody who works in that risky venture wants to repeat that story to explain the risk they're taking to have this adventure. Finally, consumers who are initially convinced to buy the thing also need to tell themselves stories of how this product is somehow special, unique, made by brilliant people.
It's like the origin story is an accumulation of all the narcissistic energy accumulated in order to swallow the uncertainty felt by everyone involved.
I would question the importance of focusing on the story - it should naturally follow and result from all the work being done, not be invented ahead of time to fit in with expectations.
This is just a consequence of people taking that old adage to heart
That's the myth. The reality is "a problem you see some people have" (where problem is defined as "anything real or imagined or incepted need that someone can be persuaded to pay for").
As to the content of the article itself, I am curious how many of the hundreds of the founders Ashwin has worked with have used this approach to acquire funding?