TheFunded is now two months old and has turned into a somewhat controversial place for entrepreneurs to provide feedback on the venture capitalists they’ve pitched.
Until now, membership was restricted. You have to be invited by another member, and you have to prove your identity as an entrepreneur by linking to a bio page or other evidence.
There are some really ugly comments on the site. Funds that have been trashed include Foundation Capital (”hot receptionist only thing of value”), Motorola Ventures (”if this were a good idea, we’d be doing it already”) and ComVentures (”a few bright sparks in a high-school locker room of uber-jocks”).
At least a few venture capitalists don’t enjoy having their flaws exposed on the site. One VC, Howard Hartenbaum, became incensed after comments said he was “rude, arrogant, slow and vomit-inducing”. Matt Marshall wrote about the incident and said TheFunded was “turning out to be a useless site.”
Well, controversy sells. Hartenbaum reportedly started asking companies that pitched him to write their feedback about him on the site. Since the date of Marshall’s post, ten new comments have come in about him, all extra-positive. Prior to that there were just four comments, half positive and half negative (the two negative comments are to the left).
Now, TheFunded says they are letting VCs participate directly in the discussion. They can write an overview of the fund and it’s partners and give other information entrepreneurs might find useful. VCs interested in building out their profile should start here. The page offers to let you “set the record straight.”
It’s not clear if this will be enough to assuage the angriest VCs, who don’t like to see their behavior reported to the world. But that may not matter for TheFunded. The more content that appears on the site the better, and if it’s controversial that will create even more attention for the young startup.
This site has been nothing but trouble for the VC community from the moment it launched. Keep up the good work!
http://www.ebizmba.com
they need a section where users can upload cell phone videos of VCs doing coke with each other in seedy nightclub bathrooms with their baps hanging out.
It’s going to have a more balanced opinion then. The site has to get more useful. If they show the relationships among VCs or the deals they co-invested..
Reminds me of Rate My Professor & Teacher, they weren’t too happy either. Most people that want their behavior kept secret deserve a pretty good shot of publicity.
Amen, 4. Yakov, you must be a VC because the opinion that matters to entrepreneurs is the entrepreneurs. It’s time VCs stop acting like jackasses, and this is a step in the right direction.
I call it a well-timed swing in the entrepreneurs’ favor.
A little competitive impulse never hurt an industry. The VC industry is no different.
VCs are becoming irrelevant and waste of time for early stage. they know the barriers to entry are far lower and less capital intensive yet they all want “”traction, traction, traction”. and wont fund the sweet spot, the gap between solid prototype, team and market. i like it that angels can invest and the entreprenuer can make them a goood return…after all the sweet spot for acquisitions is the $10-30m range…good for all except for the slow VCs who don’t get it. btw, it is the younger partners that “get it”.
Last thing, CRV Charles River almost gets it with quick start but who is going to go with a 50% pro rato on a convertible note…come one…doesn’t help anybody and the shotgun and drive by investing doesnt work that way….
the arrogance and self importance is what irks me….some VCs are good. I respect the ones that are open and keep doors open.
First Round Capital is a total joke and oxymoron…..tide is turning dudeskis!
Excellent… Keep the up the good work guys! If anyone else wants to do another site like this at RateMyVC.com or RateYourVC.com let me know (I own the domains).
TheFunded is definitely biased to have negative approach to VC’s – more entrepreneurs are rejected by VC’s than approved. Actually, Thefunded community is based on grudge keepers. However, Thefunded does create some leverage for entrepreneurs, as deterrent factor for VC’s.
@ leo fish, I kind of agree.
We had nothing but positive experiences with everybody we talked to and the list was pretty good. In fact, a few of them are now really great contacts and allies for us.
Maybe it’s because I’m a girl?
(just kidding)
@9: That would have been a good first opinion without looking at the facts, but if you actually log in and look for salacious or negative comments, you’ll find that they are harder to come by than the useful constructive ones.
I also would like to see a Internet Hiearchy – image map –
– Have / Inventer of internet / first 5 big companies and who started them … then the next generation of companies and where they came from / include colleges and vc’s / so relationships / blogs / recent news for each
– monetize with simple / adwords if needed – or make open source with donations. the WEBwiki.org or something of the effect
Having been in the entrepreneur-who-seeks-funding position with several of my startups in the past, I’ll attest to the fact that entrepreneurs are very “in the dark” about who to talk to, what you can possibly expect, etc.
As this type of a review site goes, it should be a great outside resource for the entrepreneur about to go talk with one of these VCs. We would have loved this type of a resource in past years when we were seeking funding.
Sure there are some negative reviews, but over time there will also plenty of positive ones. For every sizable enough group of people, there are a few naturally foul ones (read: fatalists and complainers), but many more decent ones.
Which means that most of the negative reviews should end up being warranted, and there should be plenty of positive reviews to offset the unwarranted ones. If you read someone’s bio and you see a dozen bad reviews and not a single good one, you might choose to stay away.
You can’t squash this type of stuff, the world is just becoming more transparent. As for the “negative review bias”, the market usually corrects itself in these situations.
Have an awesome day!
Dan
Guys and gals,
If you pick your VCs like you pick your restaurants, you deserve what you get.
If you don’t like the restaurant, you don’t go back. If you don’t like your VC, you’re stuck.
Reviews are only as good the people who make them.
Great suggestions!
The new VC profiles on TheFunded include reference investments, partner blog links, special investment terms, average deal closing time estimates, partner areas of focus, etc. Hopefully, these tools will help the entrepreneurs with better information to make the right decision, and, hopefully, VC’s will be responsive and fill out their profiles… From a VC perspective, you have the perfect audience at TheFunded of CEO’s looking for investment.
Some others have already commented about this, but, in terms of the negative reviews, most negative reviews have some pretty sound logic behind them. Example: canceling a longstanding meeting and dinner a couple hours beforehand while the CEO was in flight. The CEO lost a full day of work and all of the travel expenses. They backed out of the deal, too, adding insult to injury.
Net/Net: Best case, TheFunded becomes a real tool for both entrepreneurs and VC’s. Second best case, it’s a great tool for entrepreneurs and VC’s change their behavior to avoid negative feedback… Stay tuned, we shall see… Any other suggestions are welcome!
I read Matt’s blog last week that sorta bashed TheFunded – Matt was fairly critical about the service – but he also has a similar “rate a vc” service with his “Midas List Profiles” (http://ventureb...com/midas-list/). So I’m not sure he’s being totally objective on this one.
The most interesting thing about Matt’s blog is that Hartenbaum himself responded to the post with the following:
“Howard Hartenbaum 05.3.07 | 7:30 pm
As the recipient of negative remarks, I have to comment that since “perception is reality” and if I was “rude and arrogant” then I was, in fact, rude and arrogant. I took the response to heart and pondered either (a) how can I improve (and not be rude and arrogant) or (b) how can I avoid being considered rude and arrogant. Regarding (a), I can ask entrepreneurs if they want direct blunt feedback, and if they say “yes” then assume they are man/woman enough to accept it realizing it is only my (one person’s) advice or regarding (b) I can simply listen, nod my head and then a week later say “it doesn’t meet our threshold for response” (i.e. vague worthless response to the entrepreneur). I thought my direct comments may be helpful to the entrepreneurs but maybe they didn’t want my help, just my money. At my prior company that focused on enabling enterprise use of customer feedback, a major lesson I learned is that many companies hide from feedback because the vocal and dissatisfied minority hijack the common voice and you can’t run your business solely concerned about those vocal minority of customers who are dissatisfied and likely will never be satisfied anyway.
I have to give credit to thefunded for opening my eyes to my behavior and I believe I will improve moving forward, but I don’t think thefunded provides a fair and open structure that appropriately opens the forum to provide properly structured and relevant data. Thefunded faces the challenge of turning data into something useful, and not just providing a handful of data points from a few “anonymous” (i.e. unwilling to stand up and provide direct feedback) minority data sources.
I also challenge the entrepreneurs who consider myself (or other VCs) to be rude and arrogant, to tell them to their face so that they can improve, rather than hiding behind an anonymous claim on a website.”
===
Now talk about a VC being introspective – if anything I applaud Howard for his willingness to admit the negative reviews may have had merit. The VC world has had a long run of their own version of “sustainable unfair advantage” in dealing with Techies, turned entrepreneurs, turned businessmen, turned C-level executives. So I’m all for anything that helps to level the playing field. Let’s face it, most entrepreneurs don’t have the background or experience to successfully navigate the funding maze. It’s a known fact that *some* VC’s leverage this naiveté to their own advantage.
I think allowing VC’s to respond is a great decision and should only help both sides create a more transparent and fair process.
Btw – I recently signed up as a member with TheFunded.com and agree with some of the other comments – the site needs more relative content. But it think it’s a great start.
Sometimes I feel like the reviews on the site are all written by the same people, or maybe the overall tone of the site is simply being established and adopted by users.
It’s time to expose VCs and empower the entrepreneur community to qualify them as well. This is perfectly in line with Web 2.0.
Rate, review and comment on any VC!!
Keep up the good work!!
Looks like bad publicity rules over no publicity as always.
maybe it’s time all VC’s decide to level the field, lift the pen, and sign the NDA.
with free access to confidential business plans, ideas and concepts – not to mention the occasional tutoring session – VC’s need a swift kick in the ass more often than not, and now don’t have the option NOT to take it on the back-end.