why is VC ghosting so common and is it intentional?

[georgios22]

Hey YC community,

I'd love to hear from some people who have worked on the venture side of things. I'm currently in the process of raising a pre-seed round and I've met with about 30 firms. At the moment I'm in 2nd/3rd round discussions with 8 of the firms. I'd also like to add that I've worked with some amazing people throughout this process. They come to decisions quickly and articulate why they're passing on the investment or why they want to move to next steps. On the exact opposite end of the spectrum, I've had a handful of really crummy experiences along the way.

Going into the raising process I figured some 1st round meetings wouldn't go well and I'd get ghosted. I can understand that the associate/principal is conducting a bunch of intro meetings and communication can fall through... especially if they are not going to invest. What has shocked me a bit though is being ghosted after doing 4-5 meetings with Managing Partners. I've never experienced anything like it in my professional career. I know it sucks letting people down but I genuinely think giving people a small glimmer of hope for 4-8 weeks is much worse. I've had to inform Account Executives and Sales Engineers that I'm not moving forward with their product after they delivered a kickass demo. It's not fun letting people down but the alternative of creating false hope just seems much worse IMO.

Is there a strategic angle that I'm missing here? I get the "leave things open" strategy where an investor claims traction needs to be a bit higher so you follow back through in 3-6 months. That seems like a valid way to keep the door open. Anyways, I'm done ranting but would love to hear some rationale behind all the investor ghosting. Especially when it comes to investor engagements that require both parties to sink significant time and effort into them

 

[thomidog]

@georgios22 I used to work in VC myself, working alongside a few of the principal investors at the fund. Long story short, I've seen their inboxes, and the sheer volume of emails they get is overwhelming. Liikely, a lot of the time, they simply just haven't gotten to your email yet. Sometimes it comes down to them just forgetting, and it's unfortunately very common in the VC space. I've noticed investors with EA's tend to be better with responding, but for the most part, it really is common to see.

That said, it's always encouraged to follow up (especially if you've already had a meeting and you're waiting to hear back on a decision/next steps). You may think the constant outreach is bothersome, but it really is necessary sometimes.

So don't feel discouraged - it's unfortunately how it goes sometimes. At any given time, that investor is probably in the midst of 10 - 20 late stage meetings, communicating with 5 - 10 portfolio companies, and receiving 50 cold pitches over email every day.

I've seen it, it's crazy, but just need to power through and be persistent.

Best of luck with your pre-seed round!

 

[yvonnelizzy]

@thomidog Gotta say, this is a piss poor excuse. Lawyers deal with a shitload of emails and have incredible response times. IB/PE guys work insane hours because the job environment demands high intensity. Venture just seems to have a bad culture around it because it takes a long time to see if people are shit at the job and VCs historically have significant leverage in most of their interactions so there isn’t really anyone to call them on acting unprofessionally.

Nowhere else on Earth could someone managing $100M make excuses for having too many emails when deal sourcing is a part of their jobs.

 

[cristylynn83]

@yvonnelizzy VCs really like to think they're grinding it out when they have the cushiest gig in tech. Half the time they're expensing Ubers and coffee chats with founders, the other half attending board meetings where they'll occasionally chime in, and the last half firing off curt 1-sentence emails. Maybe throw in posting hot takes on Twitter to establish their firm as super contrarian and principles-first.

For the most part, they are status-seeking socialites. Ask anyone who doesn't fit the "mold" from a top MBA program who tried and failed to break into VC. It's a homogenous club and the price of admission is not demonstrated work ethic and excellence. If it doesn't accrue social value to their personal or the firm's brand, most won't give you a second of thought, which is why so few are genuine risk-taking pioneers. They all like to think they're a Thiel, but behave more like high school girls. Few lead, most follow.

Don't get me started on the complete lack of due diligence they conduct, which is even more critical to their role than sourcing deals.

 

[yvonnelizzy]

@cristylynn83 Yep. Anyone who has time to spout random dumb shit is not nearly as busy as they like to pretend