Chris Dixon

The segmentation of the venture industry

Ford Motors dominated the auto market in the early 20th century with a single car model, the Model T.  At the time, customers were seeking low-cost, functional cars, and were satisfied by an extremely standardized product (Ford famously quipped that “customers can choose it in any color, as long as it’s black”). But as technology improved and serious competitors emerged, customers began wanting cars that were tailored to their specific needs and desires. The basis of competition shifted from price and basic functionality to ”style, power, and prestige“. General Motors surpassed Ford by capitalizing on this desire for segmentation. They created Cadillacs for wealthy older folks, Pontiacs for hipsters, and so on.

Today, the venture financing industry is going through a similar segmentation process. Venture capital has only existed in its modern form for about 35 years.  In the early days there were relatively few VCs. Entrepreneurs were happy simply getting money and general business guidance.  Today, there is a surplus of venture capital and entrepreneurs have become increasingly savvy “shoppers.”  As a result, competition amongst venture financiers has increased and their “customers” (entrepreneurs) have flocked to more specialized “products.”

Some of this segmentation has been by industry (IT, cleantech, health care) and subindustry (iPhone apps, financial tech, etc). But more pronounced, especially lately, has been the segmentation by company stage.  Today at least four distinct types of venture financing “products” have become popular.

1) Mentorship programs like Y Combinator help startups ideate, form founding teams, and build initial products. I suspect many of the companies they hatch wouldn’t exist at all (and certainly wouldn’t be as savvy) if it weren’t for these programs.

2) So-called super angels provide capital and guidance to a) hire non-founder employees, b) further product development c) market the initial product (usually to early adopters), and d) raise follow on VC funding. Often current or former entrepreneurs themselves, super angels have gone through this stage many times as founders and angel investors.

3) Traditional VCs (Sequoia, Kleiner, etc) help companies scale and get to profitability. They often have broad networks to help with hiring, sales, bizdev and other scaling functions. They are also experts at selling companies and raising follow-on financing.

4) Accelerator funds (most prominent recently is DST) focus on providing partial liquidity and preparing the company for an IPO or big M&A exit.

In the past, traditional VC’s played all of of these roles (hence they called themselves “lifecycle” investors). They incubated companies, provided smalls seed financings, and in some cases provided later stage liquidity. But mostly the mentorship and angel investing roles were played by entrepreneurs who had expertise but shallow pockets and limited time and infrastructure.

What we are witnessing now is a the VC industry segmenting as it matures. Mentorship and angel funding are performed more effectively by specialized firms.  Entrepreneurs seem to realize this and prefer these specialized “products.”  There is a lot of angst and controversy on tech blogs that tends to focus on individual players and events. But this is just a (sometimes salacious) byproduct of the larger trends. The segmentation of the venture industry is healthy for startups and innovation at large, even if at the moment it might be uncomfortable and confusing for some of the people involved.

  • http://twitter.com/taylorbuley Taylor Buley

    Interesting read. Thanks, Chris.

  • http://fleckman.tumblr.com Peter Fleckenstein

    Great post Chris. Concise and spot on. Thank you.

  • http://twitter.com/cshapiro Craig Shapiro

    Usually I agree with you, Chris. But in this case, I have to call you out… Since when were Pontiacs for hipsters!?!

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    lol. i think they were at one point.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The segmentation of the venture industry cdixon.org – chris dixon's blog -- Topsy.com

  • http://twitter.com/philmichaelson Phil Michaelson

    the original Pontica GTO is pretty sweet… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac_GTO

  • http://joybricks.com/blog/ vruz

    the problem I see (for me) is that most of those in the early stage capital segments are heavily local with little or no international experience.
    so far, it’s my impression that only VCs of the more traditional kind seem to be able to cover the full spectrum of needs for entrepreneurs and companies dealing internationally.
    (and yes, New York and London-only is a bit of a stretch of the term ‘international’)

  • http://informationarbitrage.com/ infoarbitrage

    Really excellent post, Chris. Super helpful to those both inside and outside the industry.

    I personally know several firms that do #2 and #3 quite well. Much harder to do #1 and #4 as part of the package due to both business model and capital requirements.

    Great job.

    Rog

  • Ray Nugent

    Men who like to drive fast. Very Fast…

  • http://www.bijansabet.com bijan

    i think if you are investing your own money you are an angel. if you are investing mostly other people’s money u are a VC.

    there are many kinds of VCs for sure based on stage but I don’t see the line so clear as the way you describe #2 vs #3. as an example, we’ve made two seed investments with FC over the last 6 months and others with other small firms and angels as well.

  • http://ffassetmanagement.com/ John Frankel

    Once again spot on post. Why is it that intelligent analysis like this is is tougher to surface without the suffix ‘gate?

  • http://www.garysguide.org Gary | Garysguide

    Great post. Btw I’m curious. Do you think segmentation is here to stay (because of the unique nature of the VC biz – low opex, relatively low barriers to entry, increasingly efficient dealflow eg. angellist, OAF etc). Or will there be, as in other industries, an eventual need for consolidation as the industry matures further? After all while there may be many auto brands, there are only 3 big auto firms today (in the US).

  • http://www.phaseclarity.com Dale Allyn

    Thanks, Chris. Thoughtful post, as usual.

  • http://ecgridos.com awilensky

    I must say that I perceive a massive hole in the private funding industry, whether it be angel or traditional VC: capital for mature, profitable, smaller debt free companies that are innovators working in otherwise settled industries. I work for such a company, founded in ’87, and operating as a brand since 2001. We are in the 1-1.5 gross range, and are profitable, stable, etc. We have introduced breakthrough innovations in EDI infrastructure while our greater established industry has sat on its collective hands. We will see organic growth, doubling this and nest year, but the climb to funding access, other than debt, has been frustrating,and all but closed. We are on the leading edge of E20, in the supply chain communications sector, but are very technical and unsexy (unless you are like me or a specialist analyst covering B2B integration).

    I think there are several, perhaps many companies like us, that are quite fundable and credible, but do not fit the buzz mold of angels or VC.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    great question. I think it will remain segmented but perhaps you will eventually have conglomerates…?

  • http://twitter.com/nakisnakis natalia

    Hi Chris,

    Thanks for sharing this overview. This fall, Pipeline’s launching the Fund, an initiative with three goals:
    - Convert women philanthropists into angel investors
    - Increase the number of women on boards
    - Provide funding to women-led triple bottom line for-profit startups in the range of US$50k-US$500k

    We’re looking forward to expanding the angel investor movement, as well as introducing more diversity in terms of gender and race into the venture industry.

  • Anonymous

    Great summary, Chris – probably worth mentioning that this VC segmentation has only really happened in the internet vertical while others (clean tech, bio tech, etc.) have still more traditional structures.

  • http://lmframework.com/blog/about David Semeria

    If they were good enough for Jim Rockford, they are good enough for me.

    Useful post, good deconstruction.

  • Anonymous

    That’s kinda what i was going to ask. Do you see a “fund-of-funds” coming about where you could have enough capital and talent to go from seed to venture to bridge financing all in the same firm? Or are there just too many differences across firms to reconcile a fund-of-funds model?

  • Anonymous

    Chris,
    I think you have done a nice *categorization* but I don’t think that it’s a *segmentation*.

    Segmentation is a complex concept, let’s use wikipedia’s definition (which is focused on the customer side, but that will work):
    “The goal for every industrial market segmentation scheme is to identify the most significant differences among current and potential customers that will influence their purchase decisions or buying behavior”
    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_market_segmentation

    I think 4 stages you highlight are not critical for the customer (here the entrepreneur)’s choice, except for the extreme (1 and 4). As both Roger and Bijan pointed out, many VCs cover 2 and 3 very well.
    Quite frankly, any entrepreneur would take Fred Wilson’s money at stage 1, 2, 3 (which he may do) and even 4 (if he decided to do late stage). Another case in point is Danny Rimer at Index Ventures, who’s done skype very early (say 2) and recently Etsy quite late (more like 4).

    The bottom line is in my view: when you’re a good at the VC game, you’re good at pretty much any stage, as long as you can make it work with the economics of your fund.

    #1, the mentorship thing, may be an exception. There is a new market reality, coming from the amazing development tools available out there: any decent programmer can come up with an interesting idea and put it live in 4 months. So there is a business in granting $10K to a lot of them and see what comes out of it. This was not possible a few years ago. But it’s something upstream from where VC and Angel investing has always been – so perhaps this is indeed a new segment, in the wikipedia definition of segmentation.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    Sounds like a great initiative.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    There are exceptions to every rule (and you mention many of them). Youtube was incubating in Sequoia’s offices etc. But generally I think 1-3 require different skills and it makes sense they would be done by separate firms as the industry matures.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    Good point. I know very little about cleantech and biotech, but I would guess it would be hard to have #1 & #2 exist given how capital intensive those industries are, even at the early stages.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    Where the GM analogy breaks down is that there are advantages in VC to having these stages being truly separate institutions. In some sense mentor programs are “suppliers” to angels who are suppliers to VCs. And like all suppliers they want to get the highest markup possible for their part of the chain. Where the analogy breaks down is that these suppliers only own small (usually minority) stakes in their “products” (companies). So even if it makes sense for the investors to merge it would never be optimal for the entrepreneurs to have that be the case. The entrepreneur at stage #1 wants a mentor who helps them get the best deal in stage #2, and likewise at stage #2 wants someone who helps them get the best deal at stage #3, etc.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    I think the lines are blurry and there are definitely exceptions (spark among them). But generally I think the industry is moving this way and its a good thing.

    To further blur things, at FC about 30% of our money is fee free sidecar (mostly our own money), a vastly higher percentage that most VCs have in their funds. I think this is also true at many super angel funds.

  • Michael Lazerow

    I like this post a ton, Chris. However, it’s not the VC industry that is maturing. Rather, the amount of cash needed to get into orbit and IPO has gone down dramatically. This has lead to the need for less cash at every stage, which has disintermediated traditional VCs.

  • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

    I dunno. twitter, fb, groupon etc have all raised boatloads of VC.

  • http://hkanji.com hussein

    The Skype funding history is fuzzy but Index didn’t do Skype at the seed or Series A. It was a Series B deal.

    As far as I know it was Howard Hartenbaum at August who seeded Skype in a personal capacity. The seed I’ve read about is with Draper and Morten Lund in a seed round. Draper bought $250k of stock for 5%, Lund bought $50k of stock for 1% in October 2002. I have no idea how ePlanet fits in, except they did Bullguard which did a deal with Kazaa.

    The $1M Series A was done by Mangrove, a Luxemburg investor, in November 2003, and Bessemer. Rumor is Bessemer abandoned the investment.

    The $18.8M Series B was done by DFJ and Index in March 2004.

  • Hussein

    The Skype funding history is fuzzy but Index didn’t do Skype at the seed or Series A. It was a Series B deal.

    As far as I know it was Howard Hartenbaum at August who seeded Skype in a personal capacity. The seed I’ve read about is with Draper and Morten Lund in a seed round. Draper bought $250k of stock for 5%, Lund bought $50k of stock for 1% in October 2002. I have no idea how ePlanet fits in, except they did Bullguard which did a deal with Kazaa.

    The $1M Series A was done by Mangrove, a Luxemburg investor, in November 2003, and Bessemer. Rumor is Bessemer abandoned the investment.

    The $18.8M Series B was done by DFJ and Index in March 2004.

  • Anonymous

    My understanding was that Index was in the Skype A round, I could be wrong. Yet Danny was an angel investor in one of my start-ups a long time ago, so the point is still valid: he can cover the whole gamut from seed to growth

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think 1-3 require different skills. Put it to test on yourself: you’ve had much success as angel at stage 2. You don’t think you could create a NY version of Y combinator and do 1? or go back to Bessemer and be equally successful at 3?

  • Pingback: FTC Cop Likes Personaliztion (i.e. Cookies); Nolet Talks Real-Time Bidding Auctions; Ad Exchanges Are De-Humanizing Says Chester

  • Pingback: The segmentation of the venture industry (Chris/cdixon.org)

  • http://hdemott.wordpress.com Harry DeMott

    I see two trends here: professionalism and market forces.

    In almost every market where capital comes in and the industry starts to rationalize you get professionalism. Previous – jack of all trades guys get disintermediated by smaller more specialized firms focusing on a specific niche. Thus you get Y Combinator, and to some degree Super Angels.

    You also get market forces pushing people in certain directions. The 10 year aggregate returns for VC are negative – and so either there needs to be far less capital available or a ton more deals. Couple that fact with the declining cost of start-up and you get the Y Combinator and Super Angel phenomena taking the place of VC’s over funding start-ups – or waiting till later in the process.

    I think what you will see is even further sub-specializations occur – (it’s already happening to some degree) where you find specific funds and partners focusing on specific niches.

    soon you will be able to go up and down a vertical through say an ad-tech seed fund – to an angel with domain expertise – handing off to a traditional VC – and ultimately to an accelerator. Right now – a lot of this is self selected in terms of the deals people do – in the future – it is likely to become more institutionalized.

  • Pingback: Chris Sacca talks value add from venture investors | The Equity Kicker

  • Pingback: Finance Geek » Chris Sacca talks value add from venture investors

  • Pingback: What I *Would Have* Said at TechCrunch Disrupt

  • http://twitter.com/TylerBeerman Tyler Beerman

    Chris this is a great article and addresses the current state of affairs in the startup game quite well. The relationship between investors and entrepreneurs has changed quite dramatically and I think entrepreneurs are holding the torch right now, as it was unconsciously passed from the private equity to the founders in the past few years as a result of natural market forces, competition and high-growth markets…

  • http://twitter.com/Joolio12 Enrique

    What’s there to do for traditional angels? I like Bijan’s definition of an angel, and a small angel invests their own money in the range of 10-100k. What I’m reading does not bode well if most startups look for #1 or #2. Investing can be a business but many of us also do this because we like working with the people behind the startup. It may sound silly but we also want to be part of something creative. Sure, small angels can get together and create initiatives, firms, groups, but I also see that as eventual vanillization of the process. So, Chris, is it the end of the small angel?

  • Pingback: The CapLinked Roundup #2 « CapLinked's Blog

  • Pingback: Tsunami Continues to Rip Through VC Industry. First Wave Complete, Second Wave is Approaching | Bootup Labs Blog

  • Pingback: The Blog of Burgher Jon » Keeping Up With All The New Funding Models

  • Pingback: What I *Would Have* Said at TechCrunch Disrupt

  • http://www.autoanything.com/floor-mats/10A50185.aspx Mat

    I thought hipsters only rode bikes and buses, cars are so lame.

  • http://technbiz.blogspot.com paramendra

    I agree with your conclusion. The “angst” is misplaced.

  • http://www.moldremoval.net/ Mold Removal Plantation

    interesting read. Thanks, i enjoyed that .

  • http://www.moldremediationremoval.com Mold Testing Illinois

    Interesting read

  • http://www.magento-themes.jextn.com Magento Themes

    Much needed topic to discuss on as almost all the visitors here are businessmen. Thanks for sharing your experience and thoughts.

  • BuyGiftsItems

    It will be able to go up and down a vertical through say an ad-tech seed
    fund – to an angel with domain expertise – handing off to a traditional
    VC – and ultimately to an accelerator.

    One Day One Deal