We’re honored to have Mark Pincus back us at Village Global. He’s one of the most creative and energetic founders in the Valley. I’ve known Mark for a long time. I really enjoyed the opportunity to chat with him in this fireside chat (embedded below) where he covers his entrepreneurial career to date and lessons learned, the founding of Zynga, his philosophies on product management, and more.
Blog
Confidence Placebos
When it’s time to perform — on stage, in the boardroom, in the bedroom — confidence is the essential mental component to strong execution. Even solo activities, like being able to fall asleep at night, are aided by self-confidence (“I’m a good sleeper!”).
The substantive way to increase your confidence in life, it seems, is to rack up a series of wins. Experience = confidence (usually). Of course, accumulating experience takes time. And if you’re always pushing yourself into uncomfortably new situations, as high performers tend to do, you often won’t have experience to draw upon that can fuel your inner confidence.
So there are a range of more “shallow” ways to increase confidence — tips and tricks and hacks that function like a placebo effect for confidence. Things that make you feel more confident, even if, as a matter of fact, there’s no substantive reason why the hack should increase your real-world performance.
Superstitious routines come to mind. The baseball player who taps on home plate with his bat a few times, in exactly the same way, before each pitch. The public speaker who re-ties her shoes in exactly the same way just before going on stage.
Following a “meaningless” routine can calm the mind, which creates the space for quiet confidence to flood the mind. A hyperactive mind is rarely a confident one.
Luxury goods can generate a confidence placebo effect; in fact, I’d argue this placebo constitutes most of their practical value. Wearing a fancy watch, toting a fancy hand bag. These are things that do nothing to actually help you perform in the business room but they can lend a certain swagger to the person showing off the luxury good. Even if no one sees the watch on your arm the entire meeting — so there’s no external signaling going on, which is the other function to a luxury good — if you feel like a baller while wearing it, you’ll feel more confident doing whatever you’re doing.
Enhancements to physical appearance serve as a confidence placebo. Women wear makeup and sometimes don’t look any better physically as a result but feel more attractive, which results in confidence, and confidence tends to be a very attractive trait. Mission accomplished, if indirectly.
A subtle example of a confidence placebo in business is how we rely upon and invoke studies and data. Many studies about business and success are bullshit. You know how it goes: Seven graduate students hung out in a lab and one person who was wearing a brown jacket decided he didn’t want to buy the product and so now we must conclude a Very Important Fact about all humans who wear brown jackets. We cling to studies and reports and data in part because it gives us confidence in the intuitions we want to act on. It gives us confidence in the anecdotes we’ve heard and want to synthesize. When you’re a CEO and about to walk on stage in front of your employees to announce a pivotal decision, knowing that “some researchers at Yale” support some element of your decision gives you the confidence to announce, with a clear voice, your point of view. Confidence aids decisiveness.
If you’ve read a bestselling book about sleep that’s replete with faulty studies but your knowledge of the “studies” enhances your confidence about sleep — I’ve perfectly calibrated the temperature of the room to what studies say is the optimal temperature! — then you may well sleep better. And if the “data” behind power posing is questionable, well, hey, if power posing gives you greater confidence before performing, it’s probably still worth it.
There can be nothing wrong with placebos. And remember that — studies show! — that even if you’re aware that you’re benefitting from a placebo effect, it doesn’t fully negate the effect. So knowing which placebos help with confidence in-the-moment can give any performer an edge.
###
When confidence is helpful for performance is an interesting nuance here. Obviously at the time of performance you want to be confident. But if you’re too confident too far ahead of the time of performance it might lead you to under prepare beforehand. Suppose you need to deliver a key presentation at work in a month’s time. If you’re too confident, too early on, you might not spend the cycles preparing that actually will improve performance substantively. Confidence placebos are ideal just before the time of performance.
#
(Hat tip to Russ Roberts, Steve Dodson, and Andy McKenzie for conversations that inspired and helped make up this post.)
Nothing in Life is Perfect, Permanent, or Personal
In Buddhism there’s a concept called The Three Characteristics. The Three Characteristics define all experiences in life: Dukkha (unsatisfactoriness or suffering), Annica (impermanence), and Anata (not-self). If you examine the nature of each life experience that you have, the Buddha argued, you’ll find an element of each of the Three Characteristics in it.
No positive experience is completely satisfying; there’s always some lingering unsatisfactoriness. And of course there are plenty of negative experiences, too.
No experience is forever; it ends at some point, including life itself.
And no experience is inextricably tied up with “you”; the experience relates to component parts of an experience that do not amount to a stable “you.”
Buddhism argues that the highest happiness is peace. Put differently, being at peace with the nature of reality — the unbending laws of the universe, which includes the three characteristics — is key to deep happiness.
The principle of Three Characteristics can be valuable in understanding business and life in a non-Buddhist context. Let’s try to map them into lay terms:
Nothing is perfect, permanent, or personal.
Perfect. If you strive for excellence, as I do, you’ll never be fully, totally satisfied. Nothing can ever be perfect. Be at peace with that.
Permanent. This too shall pass. Whatever is going well right now, whatever is going poorly — it’s not permanent. Be at peace with that.
Personal. Whatever is happening to your business, don’t take it personally. It’s bigger than you. More to the point, your company mission is bigger than any one person, including you. You are merely one person in a larger ecosystem of forces that shape the success or failure of your business. Be at peace with that.
Being at peace with these realities is easier said than done. In fact, developing this kind of peace may require nothing less than an ardent spiritual undertaking to fully internalize what these truths mean.
But even at a surface level, I think the 3 Characteristics can be useful reminders to laypeople. To me it’s one of the more helpful applications of Buddhist thinking to real life.
Most VC Firms Are Fragile Partnerships, Not Institutions
A tweetstorm I published last week…
Marketing people at venture firms are always trying to figure out if they should be promoting the firm brand or the personal brands of the individual GP partners. Are there venture firm brands that are “bigger” than the individual GPs’ personal brands?
Brands that are arguably bigger than any one person include Sequoia, Greylock, Accel, Kleiner, etc. Multi-generational performance over 40+ years. But will newer VC firm brands ever outshine the underlying individual personal GP brands in a shorter period of time?
It’s rare because the VC business model is so individualistic: individual GPs, masters of the universe, eating what they kill, serving on boards solo, etc. VC firm “partnerships” are often collections of individuals more than a team (despite what they say).
This dynamic has been compounded by a modern media environment that amplifies *individual voices*. Corporate Twitter accounts suck. Authentic, personal, human voices rule. I doubt there’s a venture firm corporate Twitter account with more followers than any popular GP.
To be sure, VCs themselves tend to know all the firm brands and the associated inside baseball. But founders I speak to often know the names of human GPs first, and firm names second (if at all). “I want to pitch @rabois” more than “I want to pitch Founders Fund”
If you’re creating a new VC firm today, should you just do away with the notion of building a firm brand altogether? Look at what @toddg777 and @rahulvohra named their new venture firm: The Todd and Rahul Angel Fund Should more venture firm names simply be the names of the GPs?
The firm-wide brands that endure and outshine personal GP brands have to, in substance, operate as an institution greater than the sum of the parts (i.e. not driven by individual star GPs). Example “institutions” would be @ycombinator, @villageglobal, @join_ef, @JoinAtomic.
For LPs who want to invest in venture, in a concentrated set of relationships over a long period of time, this means they’re often investing in either a) fragile large firms, or b) stable small firms run by the founding GPs.
Large firms are fragile because GPs take their value with them when they leave. Startup founders follow human GPs. The firm brand is weak. There’s no *organization* for the LP to invest in for years and years that has a moat independent of specific GPs.
Small firms run by the founding GPs are stable because the founders won’t move/leave (usually). So the personal brand capital accrues entirely and permanently to the firm. But some larger LPs struggle with this option because it’s hard to deploy large dollar amounts into small funds.
It’s for this reason that I’m bullish (and admittedly biased) in favor of the new firms formed as “institutions” not only because of how they can add value to founders, but also for how they can serve as more reliable long term stewards of LP capital.
“Founder Bets”
Some seed stage angels and VCs — including we at Village Global — will make “founder bets” where the investment thesis is mostly or entirely about the talents of the founders, irrespective of the founders’ specific idea, business model, market, etc.
The purest form of founder bet is on a talented team with no idea at all. Simply a founder(s) who know the next chapter of their life is going to be an entrepreneurial journey of some sort — idea TBD. We call these Day 0 Founder Bets. Usually these take the form of being the first $100k-$500k into the company.
Founder bets make sense to some VCs because team matters most. Team is the overwhelming driver of startup success. Now, it’s true that a great team can’t beat a bad market, as Marc Andreessen once noted in his canonical post on product-market-fit. This leads Marc to put market above product and team when evaluating the trifecta (product/market/team) of forces that explain startup success.
But a great team — if it’s early enough in the life of the company — can pivot to a new market. As we all know, many of the great businesses of all time ended up pivoting away from their day 1 idea. So at angel stage/pre-seed/early seed, team trumps all in my opinion, especially a team that knows how to pivot if necessary.
Given the possibility of pivot, the boldest form of founder bet is when when you invest in a founder with an idea you actively dislike. You nonetheless bet on the founder to either prove you wrong (and VCs are wrong plenty!) or you bet they’ll pivot to a new idea over time.
You know what’s even trickier? Betting on a founder whose idea you don’t believe in when the founder is unbelievably passionate about it. It’s the founder who says “I’ve been obsessed with this problem for the past two years. I can’t stop thinking about it.” Normally passion’s a good thing and the more personal the passion, the better. It leads to more customer empathy, more overall persistence, and all the rest. But if it’s overriding personal passion that’s feeding a bad v1 of the idea (in the humble opinion of the VC), it may make it less likely the founder will pivot later. By contrast, some founders arrive at their initial business idea through an analytic process that’s not quite as personal. They’re not scratching their own itch; they just believe they’ve identified a market opportunity through rigorous research and customer interviews. (There are actually many great companies founded this way.) In the situations where the founder’s day 1 idea is more “analytically” conceived, it’s easier for me to make a founder bet on a founder whose idea I disagree with — because I can more likely see the possibility of pivot.
To be sure, not all seed VCs make founder bets. I know several great seed VCs who’ve told great founders, “I love you, I want to back you, but I won’t back this idea. Change your idea to X, and I’ll fund you.”
Here’s Anamitra Banerji from Afore:
And pure founder bets are almost never done at Series A and beyond. The later the stage of the investment opportunity, venture firms evaluate team heavily but also give due attention to product, revenue metrics, broader market dynamics, etc. Here’s Semil Shah:
There are many ways to make money in venture. To understand why some seed funds make founder bets and others do not, portfolio construction and overall firm strategy explain a lot. If you’re a seed fund that’s making 5–10 investments in a year, you’re more likely to have the time and inclination to carefully diligence the investment beyond just team strength. If you’re investing in 500 companies a year, a la Y Combinator, you’re more likely to say “Fuck it, fund it” if the founder possess enough raw talent. There’s simply no time to do it any other way.
At Village Global, we’re happy to make founder bets (including day zero bets when the founder hasn’t yet formed a complete idea), especially through our Network Catalyst accelerator program. Applications for the Summer ’20 vintage are now open. Amazing founders apply — we want to bet on you.