
If VCs Understood UX… - thesash
http://whitneyhess.com/blog/2012/08/25/if-vcs-understood-ux/
======
rglover
Sorry, but this is another ball that falls in the designer's court (yep, I'm a
designer). You have to educate people on the value of these things. People,
regardless of their proximity to the web, do not inherently understand what's
listed here.

It's a waste of time to "call them out" when instead, you could write a
friendly email sharing your knowledge or writing posts that speak in VC terms,
but still articulate your points.

It's frustrating when people don't understand something, sure. But I bet you
could get a lot of VCs inline with your vision if you taught them, not scolded
them.

------
anuraj
The conclusion contradicts itself. If VCs erred in selecting their companies,
then in consquence they will lose and cease to exist. The fact that VCs exist
and thrive proves that they are following what is right for them. Now that
right may not be right for everybody and the world which is something to
ponder.

~~~
saurabh
>The fact that VCs exist and thrive proves that they are following what is
right for them.

Correlation does not imply causation. I can imagine a world where VC's invest
in research and teams instead of ideas and goals.

What if there was a 500hackers where 500 competent hackers from different
fields under one roof get paid well enough to work on a variety of ideas? If I
were a VC, I would definitely want a part of the action. Sort of like a modern
day Bell Labs.

~~~
anuraj
A VC is after money, not ideas. Their choices are to maximize their returns.
Their investment decisions are purely driven by that. And the best in the
industry are doing reasonably well.

------
pmoehring
Yes, this is what they would do if they understood UX. But that’s not what VCs
are for.

What VCs really would do if they understood UX the way the OP implies is build
a firm that tries to invest in slowly growing, sustainable companies, with
extremely long term outlook and real, sometimes un-measurable value to all
stakeholders. Arguably the underlying mantra “small is beautiful” is not one
for the VC industry. Also, these will not be companies that can be sold easily
or timely (much less at crazy valuations due to cancerous growth), so the VCs
themselves would not be very successful.

There’s a conundrum for an investor in building these kinds of companies: in
comparison to their peers, they would most likely make less money (given the
same kind of investment process, style, mechanism). That’s why bootstrapped
companies with little to no outside funding can stay more focused, more
consumer and employee friendly, and thus, more “integer”.

What the VC needs is a longer time horizon, lower exit expectations, and more
leeway for the entrepreneurs they back in several categories. Now, the good
news is some firms are thinking more and more like that, and also the general
industry shifts allow more companies to be bootstrapped to work without or
with only little outside capital.

Firms that seem to operate this way are the likes of Betaworks, OATV, and a
few angel funds, mostly in New York and SF.

Industry shifts that help are the ease of develop&deploy of today’s
technology, developer led companies that can build their own product without
much capital, and the very easily accessible, and scalable, __international
market __of app stores, webapps, and creative business models.

If you don’t like VCs, you can build your company without them. If you want to
keep working on your own terms, you can. If you talk about disrupting, don’t
just disrupt the industry your product serves, also take advantages of the
disruption in the industry serves you.

Disclaimer: I do not think VCs are that bad, and I certainly know tons of
awesome VCs that understand UX. Like, for real.

------
dkarl
If your grand, quixotic fantasy is for VCs to understand UX, imagine how wild
it is when programmers wish that VCs understood technology!

------
gsibble
This post seems to assume that VCs are out for the greater good of the world.
I don't think they are and they shouldn't be. They are out to maximize returns
for their members through savvy investment.

~~~
DanielRibeiro
I agree. Dan Shapiro detailed a little more the forces that affect VCs a few
years ago: [http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/08/vc-insanity-
economics...](http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/08/vc-insanity-economics/)

------
tomasien
This is a lot of interesting separate points pointing to a completely inane
larger point.

VC's, good ones especially, offer help and guidance but don't have ANYTHING
near parental control over their companies. They invest, then they try to help
but that's it.

Beyond that, weird generalization about VC funded companies to say they're all
building things that don't matter. As a percentage they mostly don't matter
and they mostly fail, but many of them become things people care passionately
about and matter a great deal.

------
k8a
Normally, if an investment goes bust the VCs are the people who get their
money+ back, so don't tell me about how operating for their own good is how
we've come to this pass. The only point that VCs will agree on is that they
make _more_ money if the company succeeds (and I can't imagine how anyone
believes that the VC doesn't take a role in running a company; the infamous
"getting rid of the founders and bringing in the grownups" stage is driven
entirely by VCs, and all VCs take _some_ role in running the company which
varies among them as to how hands on they are). Yes, they need to be educated,
but if you can't put it in very direct terms of "this will make you more
money, fast" then they tend to put their fingers in their ears and ignore you.
They are NOT about the long run; they're about the exit strategy.

I've worked with a lot of VCs over the years (and I'm a UX consultant too) and
telling them about a fast enough ROI to make a difference to them is extremely
difficult.

I've worked with even more start-ups who brought me in despite a lack of
interest on their VCs part, because _they_ wanted to build a product that was
as good as possible and they were in it for the long haul.

As for friendly emails explaining and sharing...I think I covered that above
under "they don't care".

------
pineshield
Classic case of it's not the content, it's the delivery. And the delivery
belies a combination of ignorance (of what/how/why vc's do) and arrogance
(about the value of any one discipline - in this case UX), likely covering a
feeling of inadequacy or unrecognized privilege (that's a bit harsh - but
usually true - myself included).

And then again... this is the state of most of what's written... just easier
to spot when delivered in this way.

------
untog
_[they would]…care about people, not percentages.._

Right, so they'd magically stop caring about money? They may understand UX
perfectly well, but also understand that prioritising it isn't good for
profits.

I wish we lived in a world where everything would survive or die based on the
merits of it's contribution to the world. We do not.

------
state
Great design is widely empathetic and desirable.

Process is a luxury, and you earn the freedom to engage in it through
producing good work. Remain focussed on that and you wont need to waste time
deriding people who don't understand the value of what you do.

------
whitneyhess
Thanks everyone for your thoughts on my VCs and UX post. I'd love it if you
shared your perspectives in the comments on my blog as well as there's an
interesting discussion developing there. Thank you!

