Here's something nobody tells you about why most founders get investor relations completely wrong: the conventional wisdom is mostly backwards.
After reviewing 500+ pitches, I noticed one glaring pattern in investor relations. Here is how the top 1% do it differently.
The Reality Nobody Talks About
Most people approach why most founders get investor relations completely wrong with assumptions that made sense five years ago. The world has moved on. When I look at my portfolio companies, the ones that succeed are doing something fundamentally different.
The first thing to understand is that the data tells a different story than your gut. I've seen this play out across dozens of companies. The pattern is unmistakable.
At RemoteTeam, we learned this the hard way. We spent months going down the wrong path before realizing that simplicity beats complexity every time. Once we made the switch, everything changed.
Why Most Approaches Fail
Let me be direct: about 70% of the approaches I see to why most founders get investor relations completely wrong are fundamentally flawed. Not slightly off. Fundamentally flawed.
The root cause is usually one of three things:
- Copying what big companies do without understanding why they do it. What works for Google doesn't work for a 10-person startup.
- Over-engineering the solution when a simple approach would work better. I've seen teams spend six months building something that could have been done in two weeks.
- Ignoring the human element. Technology is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it is where the real challenge lives.
The Counterintuitive Truth
Here's what surprised me most about why most founders get investor relations 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 need to move fast and break things. It sounds simple. It's incredibly hard to execute.
The Numbers Don't Lie
I've tracked the performance of companies in my portfolio that take why most founders get investor relations completely wrong seriously versus those that don't. The difference is stark.
Companies that invest early in why most founders get investor relations 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 seed funding, revenue-based financing, pitch deck design, convertible notes that I've been thinking about a lot lately.
The Bottom Line
Look, why most founders get investor relations 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 investor relations 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 investor relations 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 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.
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'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.