

The VC Branding Problem - bmcmanus
http://thestartupdigest.com/2010/05/30/the-vc-branding-problem/

======
pedalpete
I'm not sure if it matters, but it seems to me the author is comparing early
stage VC's with seed/incubator funds.

The VC's are playing a bit of a different market, funding the more mature,
post-development companies, where the incubators are working in the idea-to-
market area.

The more conservative and below the radar branding may be an effort in
attracting more capital for investment than in getting the start-ups excited
about the VC specifically.

Just looking at Vantage Point, they report 4.5 BILLION 'committed capital
since 1996'. Trinity Ventures recently participated in a 4.2 million dollar
round (so assume it's fair to say they put in a few million).

Compare that to YC's recent announcement of 8.5 Million fund. I don't know how
much YC has raised since inception, but I suspect they may be sub 50 Million.

Not so say that YC or any of the seeds should be aiming for the 100's of
millions in management. That isn't their market. They are very good at picking
VERY early start-up entrepreneurs, giving them a very small bit of capital,
and actively guiding them through the process of building a valuable business.

Basically, I think the marketing fits the market.

~~~
Cmccann7
I think the problem lies when these later stage VC firms pitch themselves as
the "early stage/seed fund" to founders selling the dream that they will be
the first money in.

I've met a few partners at those above larger firms who said exactly this and
taking the time to meet with entrepreneurs who are just at the idea
stage/first product and taking advantage of the situation.

------
moolave
I greatly support this idea. And if you mean by branding, it also does have to
do with how they present their logos (big difference between the old school
venture firms and the seed fund firms)

