http://disqus.com/people/3f9891033c378bec381a9ef587696f7d/enMon, 15 Jan 2007 14:19:01 -0000http://unionsquareventures.disqus.com/why_we_dont_invest_in_competitive_businesses/#comment-22420338<p>Competing companies are often taking different approaches to filling the same need. If you believe that the need has to be filled, and that one of two competitors is going to be the one to do it, why not hedge your bet? </p><br><br><p>This is strictly money-speaking though. I understand the complexities and conflicts of actually managing the relationships, and I could make some really bad analogy to an open marriage I'm sure, but I won't! <br /><br></p>DarynMon, 15 Jan 2007 14:19:01 -0000http://unionsquareventures.disqus.com/geography/#comment-22420318<p>From an entrepreneur's stand, I also agree with the importance of geography.</p><br><br><p>We are currently seeking seed funding, and have had a lot of interest from local investors here in Seattle. We could easily fund our round locally, however, we've been seeking out Bay Area investors. </p><br><br><p>Why? Simply because of their proximity to other aligned interests. Seattle has the money, and it has a good community of resources for sure, but it is also a small town. We see a bay area investment as our gateway into a much richer pool that we could possible find in our own backyard. I'm more than willing to make the 2.5 hour flight every week or two to make it work.</p><br><br><p>You, as the VC, likely don't have the bandwidth to lose those hours travelling across the country/globe to each investment. And it'd be a big mistake, I think, to work with a company where you may not get the level of communication that is needed to make things work. </p><br><br><p>However, as a founder, who's sole interest is in making my company succeed, I would certainly travel cross-country on a regular basis to meet with the right advisor/investor. (And wouldn't even think about making a geographically-distant relationship if I didn't think it had that amount of added value to it.)<br /><br></p>DarynMon, 18 Dec 2006 07:01:05 -0000http://betasimplifier.disqus.com/geography/#comment-21902662<p>From an entrepreneur's stand, I also agree with the importance of geography.</p><br><br><p>We are currently seeking seed funding, and have had a lot of interest from local investors here in Seattle. We could easily fund our round locally, however, we've been seeking out Bay Area investors. </p><br><br><p>Why? Simply because of their proximity to other aligned interests. Seattle has the money, and it has a good community of resources for sure, but it is also a small town. We see a bay area investment as our gateway into a much richer pool that we could possible find in our own backyard. I'm more than willing to make the 2.5 hour flight every week or two to make it work.</p><br><br><p>You, as the VC, likely don't have the bandwidth to lose those hours travelling across the country/globe to each investment. And it'd be a big mistake, I think, to work with a company where you may not get the level of communication that is needed to make things work. </p><br><br><p>However, as a founder, who's sole interest is in making my company succeed, I would certainly travel cross-country on a regular basis to meet with the right advisor/investor. (And wouldn't even think about making a geographically-distant relationship if I didn't think it had that amount of added value to it.)</p>DarynMon, 18 Dec 2006 07:01:05 -0000http://betasimplifier.disqus.com/why_we_dont_invest_in_competitive_businesses/#comment-21902625<p>Competing companies are often taking different approaches to filling the same need. If you believe that the need has to be filled, and that one of two competitors is going to be the one to do it, why not hedge your bet? </p><br><br><p>This is strictly money-speaking though. I understand the complexities and conflicts of actually managing the relationships, and I could make some really bad analogy to an open marriage I'm sure, but I won't!</p>DarynMon, 15 Jan 2007 14:19:01 -0000http://simplifierlab.disqus.com/why_we_dont_invest_in_competitive_businesses/#comment-20274703<p>Competing companies are often taking different approaches to filling the same need. If you believe that the need has to be filled, and that one of two competitors is going to be the one to do it, why not hedge your bet? </p><br><br><p>This is strictly money-speaking though. I understand the complexities and conflicts of actually managing the relationships, and I could make some really bad analogy to an open marriage I'm sure, but I won't!</p>DarynMon, 15 Jan 2007 14:19:01 -0000http://simplifierlab.disqus.com/geography/#comment-20274738<p>From an entrepreneur's stand, I also agree with the importance of geography.</p><br><br><p>We are currently seeking seed funding, and have had a lot of interest from local investors here in Seattle. We could easily fund our round locally, however, we've been seeking out Bay Area investors. </p><br><br><p>Why? Simply because of their proximity to other aligned interests. Seattle has the money, and it has a good community of resources for sure, but it is also a small town. We see a bay area investment as our gateway into a much richer pool that we could possible find in our own backyard. I'm more than willing to make the 2.5 hour flight every week or two to make it work.</p><br><br><p>You, as the VC, likely don't have the bandwidth to lose those hours travelling across the country/globe to each investment. And it'd be a big mistake, I think, to work with a company where you may not get the level of communication that is needed to make things work. </p><br><br><p>However, as a founder, who's sole interest is in making my company succeed, I would certainly travel cross-country on a regular basis to meet with the right advisor/investor. (And wouldn't even think about making a geographically-distant relationship if I didn't think it had that amount of added value to it.)</p>DarynMon, 18 Dec 2006 07:01:05 -0000