
Ask VC & HN: What was more important than Pandora for 300 VCs? - diminium
I was reading an article that says Pandora got rejected by 300 VC's.  Three Hundred.<p>I read similar happened with Google and other similar companies.  Skype, I heard, had 40 rejections.<p>I have a mindset that a good idea will reveal itself as a good idea to those who are looking for a good idea.  This same mindset is also convinced that a good team will reveal itself to be a good team to those who are looking for a good team.  In another way, I believe a good investment will reveal itself as a good investment to those who are looking for a good investment.<p>Which comes to this question.  What was in the mind of all these investors that rejected a good idea, a good team, and a good investment?  What were they looking for?<p>Rejection by a few, I can understand.  But rejection reaching in high double digits to even triple digits for a good idea with a good team - I just don't understand.  What were they looking for?
======
tdubbed
Its very possible that many vcs passed because they know how much trouble
music licensing is and how expensive it is. Put it this way, Pandora, even
though it is one of the best at monetizing advertising especially affiliate
advertising, still hasn't turned a profit.

Now you have to realize that the project they pitched with may have been very
shaky or just may have been outside the partners expertise

------
il
If it were that easy to identify good ideas/teams then venture capital as an
asset class wouldn't have consistently negative returns.

To put it another way: If you think you can identify winning ideas/teams with
even 50% accuracy, then drop what you're doing and raise a fund, because
you're going to be the most successful investor of all time.

~~~
diminium
"To put it another way: If you think you can identify winning ideas/teams with
even 50% accuracy, then drop what you're doing and raise a fund, because
you're going to be the most successful investor of all time."

Oddly, I think I can but I probably won't be as good as guys like Jeff Dean of
Google as a big whale of an example. The principals that Jeff Dean provide
aren't rocket science. They are grounded in science, theory, and a bit of art.

If I were in a hiring mood and an unknown guy like Jeff Dean walked up to me
and started talking about computing. It would probably take only less than 5
minutes for me to want to hire him. If I brought him to chat next to Anders
Heisenberg of Microsoft, I'm sure Anders would want to hire him just as fast
if not faster than me.

Now if I brought Anders and Jeff to a typical corporate world (obviously
hiding their resume & history), I can see a small disaster occurring. They
would probably insult them both and suggest they start at the lower end of the
corporate ladder. They probably won't even hire Anders due to his lack of
degree. (I still don't understand the corporate mindset as well).

A very good technologist is extremely noticeable (unless they are also a very
good actor) once they start talking about technology and how they think about
how stuff works together. It's like a giant spotlight shining on you. It's
hard to not be blinded.

I don't see a difference a big difference in the investing world vs the
technology world. A very good investment should have the same effect but for
some reason - people ignore the light.

------
alid
I'm also surprised by the amount of rejections in your examples! That said
there's so many elements that need to come together to get your idea over the
line (pitch, team, an idea the VC feels an affinity towards etc). Big ideas
are sometimes the craziest ideas, so it's best to embrace that and expect
rejection as a natural part of the journey. Here's to the crazy ones!

------
ig1
[http://www.quora.com/Venture-Capital/What-is-the-
probability...](http://www.quora.com/Venture-Capital/What-is-the-probability-
that-300-VCs-turn-down-a-company-that-ultimately-becomes-worth-2-7-billion)

------
staunch
Don't think that's true of Google. They got $100k from Sun founder (Andy
Bechtolsheim) very early.

