I think Kyle's pitch could have been fine and he could have avoided 2 years of feeling shamed if pg was a bit more encouraging and patient during the delivery. A little more "yes, and" less "but, why not". Give the founder the benefit of the doubt they might be starting with some idea. If they really do have nothing it's going to be apparent, you don't need to try to sniff it out in the first 15 seconds.
"Yes, and we're really starting to see the metrics space pick up steam with the likes of mixpanel and others. That's a pretty exciting place to be. Tell us what Schmetrics is going to do amazingly well that some of these other players may not be tackling yet."
vs
"You can't even use the microphone correctly. We've already funded Mixpanel, what could you possibly do better?"
The thing about fundraising is, you don't get to choose your audience or their mood. All you can really control is how you react and how you present your business, and you can tactfully drive the conversation where you want it to go.
Now that I've pitched 80-90 additional times, I must say PG's approach in this video is above average, if anything, when it comes to giving the entrepreneur the benefit of the doubt -- so in my opinion it's really not on him.
But the discussion here is a pitch to investors (or YC). The point is that you need to be very deliberate and explicit.
The questions asked are very focused on sussing out not just what the product is, but if the founder has a clear and concise vision of what makes it super valuable.
In this case, presenter gets really rattled, and ends up defending all these weird edge cases because PG is throwing him off (on purpose).
Lots of people have great ideas, and even great products, but as PG says at the end - if you can't explain precisely what your product does, it speaks not only to issues of the product, but to the team that runs it.
And OF COURSE, that doesn't mean it's the only indicator of success, but it's a good sign.
But more importantly than being able to pitch, Kyle demonstrated something far more valuable - the ability to pursue his vision doggedly year in and year out until he built something people wanted.
What? Nobody is entitled to their audience being "more encouraging". I'm sorry but if you can't handle an investor being short with you, how can you possibly handle building a business?
This is also completely analogous to dating. Going to let a few bad rejections keep you down? Well, then you don't get to reproduce. Simple as that.
Not just from Kyle's point of view. It seems like the confrontational approach sometimes makes it difficult to appreciate the value of the ideas and people. It makes me wonder if there are a lot of people who would make good founders but struggle with pitching, and so room for a bit of moneyball.
"Yes, and we're really starting to see the metrics space pick up steam with the likes of mixpanel and others. That's a pretty exciting place to be. Tell us what Schmetrics is going to do amazingly well that some of these other players may not be tackling yet."
vs
"You can't even use the microphone correctly. We've already funded Mixpanel, what could you possibly do better?"