I find myself struggling with the question of whether Deep Tech must always be a long-term prospect, by definition.
Sure, creating meaningful innovation takes time. Deep Tech means that a lot of research and development is going into this new product or service. And as an early-stage investor this would lend itself to a long-term investment strategy.
Accordingly, most of the companies that we invest in require significant R&D before they can go to market. We focus on these companies because that is where we can roll up our sleeves and lend a hand. We find ourselves mentoring them as they navigate early customer engagements to bring the voice of the customer into the R&D process. This helps create truly game-changing innovation and strong product-market fit. And the next round of funding to continue their growth.
But then I meet a deep-tech-driven company that believes they are market ready. They are usually wrong. If so, then we can still add a lot of value and they are just placed later on the spectrum of early-stage, a little closer to a Series A than to a Seed round. Still well within our wheelhouse. However, if they are right, should we even be considering them as an investment opportunity?
From a portfolio construction perspective it makes a lot of sense to have some “later stage” companies which may generate earlier returns. It also balances the levels of engagement required from our team amongst the portfolio companies, as far as the time we spend with each.
Despite these considerations, I find myself second-guessing myself. Am I too just being anxious instead of practicing the patience I preach to my LPs? Or can Deep-Tech be engaged with the market and still be considered Early-Stage?
I welcome your thoughts.
Now that demo-days and conferences have gone virtual, I find this statement outworn and, in most cases even fake.
Every speaker wants to create a sense of engagement with the audience. One way to do so is to show genuine interest and reflect it back towards them. When a question arrives from the moderator or from the crowd, it excites us to see the speaker excited to share their answer. The audience mimics the speaker. A genuine willingness to engage with a tough question and use it as an opportunity to both learn something and dispense additional information can be contagious. More good questions will follow. We all thirst for knowledge.
In the past when the speaker opened their answer with “That’s a great question!”, you could expect one of two things. Either they were genuinely excited and were about to engage in an interesting response. Or, they thought it was a terrible question asked by an imbecile who they were about to fry publicly with a strong response. As for the audience, in both cases they were excited to enjoy the show.
Today it feels like a speaker opening their response with this type of statement is doing one of two things that are entirely different from the above. At best this indicates a planted question to allow them to make a point they couldn’t fit into their originally allotted time/remarks. But sadly, it often reflects indifference. Probably due to Zoom fatigue. Hopefully not due to lack of depth in understanding their product/market/opportunity.
As we continue to adapt to this new work environment, the fundamentals of presenting remain true. If you haven’t read it yet, I suggest the great book: Own the Room: Business Presentations that Persuade, Engage, and Get Results – by David Booth, Deborah Shames and Peter Desberg. I keep seeing this book in offices, some of them owned by great speakers who I wouldn’t have thought would ever need it. Maybe they did and now they don’t.
If you don’t have a copy on your shelf then pick one up on Amazon. And read it. Before you set it on the shelf.
Have they come out with an updated version adapted to video conferencing? Has anyone else?