"... Conway cares less about the specific ideas than the people who come up with them, and he looks carefully at the chemistry of a company's founders. 'We invest in people. We don't invest in ideas,' he said. 'Ideas can morph. But great people end up building great companies.' ..."
"... One of Conway's axioms is that the best new ideas arise from the personal frustration of an entrepreneur. ..."
The venue was Y Combinators, a kind of "American Idol" for geeks that helps entrepreneurs turn promising ideas into businesses that will attract investors.
It is a good thing that the LA Times has layers of fact checkers and multiple editors to catch mistakes before they go into print. Otherwise, they'd just be bloggers with better suits and worse balance sheets.
I feel articles like these make (angel) investment seem like the end-all and be-all of startups. If you just get Ron Conway to invest, you're set... Does anyone else find that extremely silly? You're a business, not a popularity contest.
Whether it seems silly or not, it is in fact true that if Ron invests in your company, other investors will. Partly because they respect his judgment, and partly because if he has invested, your chances of succeeding have increased.
I'm not disputing his judgment or the fact that your chances of succeeding have increased. I just don't see that as the end goal whereas that's exactly how the article ends and where it leaves the reader ("And Ashton's in, too!").
I've actually met a pretty successful angel who more or less only invests in companies either Conway or a handful of other similar angels have already invested in. He's success rate is incredible from the sound of it.
Wow, does Ashton Kutcher really hand out cards that say, "This certifies that I had a personal encounter with Ashton Kutcher."? Other than this was an interesting look into Conway. Fascinating that he seldom uses the products.
He's found a handful of younger people including his 29 year old son who he trusts to do the idea due diligence and he focuses on the people part of the equation, both the founders he invests in (which everyone I respect agrees with, including myself :-) and the network that he's built to help everything work.
Someone who replies in 3 minutes to an emergency "saving throw" email and delivers the setup of a key meeting for a sale to Verizon the next day doesn't have time to do everything.
And as he and many others note, the initial idea is iffy; "no plan survives contact with the enemy" and you'll find that a whole bunch of startups have ended up changing something significant about their business plan on the way to success.
So bet on people and deal flow. It works for him and has worked for a number of famous VCs (especially the no BS ones that took little time to decide to invest in e.g. Apple and Sun).
He's invests in several companies a month. If he tried to actually use every one of those products even for a short time it would probably drive him insane. Not to mention, a lot of the products that he invests in are probably not targeted to his demographic (e.g. DailyBooth)
I'm sure Ron is great (we've met briefly), but the breathless tone of this article makes me despair for the internet industry. Showbiz and Public Relations do not make for innovation.
"... Conway cares less about the specific ideas than the people who come up with them, and he looks carefully at the chemistry of a company's founders. 'We invest in people. We don't invest in ideas,' he said. 'Ideas can morph. But great people end up building great companies.' ..."
"... One of Conway's axioms is that the best new ideas arise from the personal frustration of an entrepreneur. ..."