Polite rejection? None of the other dozens of investors who rejected them managed this:
"In the car Chris pounded on the dash. Google Ventures was in! Google Ventures was in! They’d soft-committed to at least $100,000, maybe even $200,000. The partner had really gotten it. He’d totally agreed with their upmarket strategy, unlike the investors who wanted them to focus on a no-cost-to-deploy self-serve product. All he wanted was a revised operational plan and a clear path to a Series A—a path that was a lot clearer when you had Google Ventures on your cap table. The final thing he wanted was for Nick to send their deck over to a guy he trusted on their market space, at a boutique firm in LA."
"Google Ventures’ coinvestor said he was keen to invest but had been instructed by the GV partner in Mountain View to hold off; the GV partner, when they finally heard from him, said he was waiting for a full meeting with his partnership."
"When Chris and I returned to the house, they got the bad news that they’d started to expect: Google Ventures was out. Chris seemed less resigned than he often was, a little angrier and a little more uncomprehending. He wanted to know why they’d given such an enthusiastic commit only to retreat. Apparently, Nick said, the full partner meeting had revealed that they’d already invested in companies in the personalization space."
Whatever words you wish to choose to make Google Ventures look good, there is nothing wrong with the essayist treating this as an example of how the funding/business environment plays on the naivite of many young founders.
Investor says he is interested, needs more info. Investor says he needs to go to meeting. Investor has meeting. Final decision is that the deal is off.
How is that any different from any other business decision? The emotional reactions of the founders have nothing to do with the fact that this is a very cookie cutter and not in anyway abusive business back-and-forth. No different from the kind of back and forth you might have in negotiating between different job offers / juggling interviews that coincide.
God forbid if you're an enterprise company and you're trying to sell to other companies.
"In the car Chris pounded on the dash. Google Ventures was in! Google Ventures was in! They’d soft-committed to at least $100,000, maybe even $200,000. The partner had really gotten it. He’d totally agreed with their upmarket strategy, unlike the investors who wanted them to focus on a no-cost-to-deploy self-serve product. All he wanted was a revised operational plan and a clear path to a Series A—a path that was a lot clearer when you had Google Ventures on your cap table. The final thing he wanted was for Nick to send their deck over to a guy he trusted on their market space, at a boutique firm in LA."
"Google Ventures’ coinvestor said he was keen to invest but had been instructed by the GV partner in Mountain View to hold off; the GV partner, when they finally heard from him, said he was waiting for a full meeting with his partnership."
"When Chris and I returned to the house, they got the bad news that they’d started to expect: Google Ventures was out. Chris seemed less resigned than he often was, a little angrier and a little more uncomprehending. He wanted to know why they’d given such an enthusiastic commit only to retreat. Apparently, Nick said, the full partner meeting had revealed that they’d already invested in companies in the personalization space."
Whatever words you wish to choose to make Google Ventures look good, there is nothing wrong with the essayist treating this as an example of how the funding/business environment plays on the naivite of many young founders.