The first time I tried to implement why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong at scale, everything broke. Not metaphorically. Actually broke.
When I first tried scaling our sales team, I failed miserably. It wasn't until we implemented deal scoring that everything clicked. Here's the exact framework we used to 3x our pipeline without adding headcount.
The Counterintuitive Truth
Here's what surprised me most about why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong: the best practitioners do less, not more.
When I was building MovieLaLa, we tried to do everything at once. We had the best technology, the smartest team, and we still almost failed because we spread ourselves too thin.
The lesson I took from that experience, and from watching hundreds of other companies, is that you should focus on one thing and do it exceptionally well. It sounds simple. It's incredibly hard to execute.
The Framework That Actually Works
I'm going to share the exact framework I use when evaluating why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong. It's not complicated, but it requires discipline.
Step 1: you should focus on one thing and do it exceptionally well This is where most people go wrong. They skip this step entirely and jump straight to execution. Don't do that.
Step 2: the market doesn't care about your roadmap Once you have the foundation right, this becomes much easier. I've watched founders struggle with this for months when the answer was staring them in the face.
Step 3: Iterate relentlessly Nothing works perfectly the first time. The companies in my portfolio that nail why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong are the ones that treat it as an ongoing process, not a one-time project.
What I've Learned From 122 Companies
After investing in 200+ startups and running two companies to successful exits, I've developed a pretty clear picture of what works with why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong.
The biggest misconception is that you need to timing is everything in this game. That's backwards. The companies that win are the ones that the best solutions are often the simplest ones.
I remember sitting with the Anthropic team early on and discussing how they thought about why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong. Their approach was counterintuitive but brilliant.
The Numbers Don't Lie
I've tracked the performance of companies in my portfolio that take why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong seriously versus those that don't. The difference is stark.
Companies that invest early in why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong see, on average, 2-3x better outcomes within 18 months. That's not a small edge. That's the difference between raising your next round and running out of runway.
One of my portfolio companies went from struggling to profitable in under a year after they finally got serious about this. The founder told me later that they wished they'd started sooner.
This connects to broader themes around AI sales tools, sales forecasting AI, conversational sales AI, deal scoring AI that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
The Bottom Line
Look, why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong isn't rocket science. But it does require intentionality, consistency, and a willingness to learn from mistakes.
If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: start now, start small, and iterate. The founders who win at why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong aren't the ones with the best strategy on paper. They're the ones who execute, learn, and adapt faster than everyone else.
I've been doing this for over a decade. The patterns are clear. The companies that take why most founders get deal scoring completely wrong seriously outperform the ones that don't. Every single time.
If you're working on something interesting in this space, I'd love to hear about it. Drop me a line.
Frequently Asked Questions
What's the most common pushback you get on this?
People often push back by citing exceptions or edge cases. And they're usually right that exceptions exist. But building a strategy around exceptions rather than patterns is a losing game for most founders.
How has this view evolved over time?
My thinking on most topics has changed significantly over the years. Early in my career, I held many conventional views that experience proved wrong. I try to update my beliefs when the evidence changes.
What experience informs this perspective?
This perspective comes from over a decade of building companies in Silicon Valley, two successful exits (RemoteTeam to Gusto, MovieLaLa to Gfycat), and investing in 200+ startups including Anthropic, OpenAI, and Scale AI. I write about what I've lived.