The Sales Hacker Podcast
The Sales Hacker Podcast

Episode · 5 months ago

158: Zig Don't Zag: The Power of Focus and Specialization w/ Matt Melymuka

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Overview:

Today on the show we’ve got Matt Melymuka, Co-founder and Partner at PeakSpan Capital. Matt and I talk about how PeakSpan is zigging when others zag. Specifically, we discuss the perils of raising a ton of money at the highest possible valuation and pouring it into hyper-growth. Maybe that's not the right decision for your company.

What You’ll Learn

  1. The high price of a growth-at-all-costs mindset
  2. How misalignment can force you to do what you don't want to do
  3. What's wrong with over-fueling the machine
  4. Why you should de-risk your concentration of wealth
  5. The supply-demand equation that's shaping sales tech
  6. An up-and-coming company you need to know about

Show Agenda and Timestamps

  1. The high cost of a growth-at-all-costs mindset [7:06]
  2. How misalignment can force you to do what you don't want to do [10:00]
  3. What's wrong with over fueling the machine [14:16]
  4. Why you should de-risk your concentration of wealth [17:04]
  5. The supply-demand equation that's shaping sales tech [19:32]
  6. An up-and-coming company you need to know about [23:49]
  7. Sam’s Corner [27:48] 

One two one twre three oeverybody SamJacobs, welcome to the salesacker podcast today on the show we've gotMatt Mili Muca Matt is a founding partner of the venture capital, firmkind of growth, equity, frorm, called peak band capital. It's a greatconversation. We talk about a peak pan is kind of zigging, another zag and theperils of raising a ton of money at the highest possible evaluation and pouringit into hypergrowth. When maybe that's not the right decision for the companyso really relevant. Interesting conversation he's also a specialist insales technology investing which makes it even more relevant to our audience.O It's a great conversation. Now before we get there, we want to think oursponsor or sponsors, of course, outreach and before I jump in, I wantto tell you about unly, two thousand and twenty one on May eleven througthirteen were focusing on how to win altogether in the new sales era. YouLearn: new, go to market strategies, get deeper, funnel insights andactional takeaways for your entire or from revenue leaders at high growthstartups and fortune. Five hundred companies and our very special guestsare another none other than Guyraz podcaster and author of how I builtthis and carry Larens the first female fighter pilot in the US Navy. So comesave your seat for this high energy online event at unleash dot, outreachedot io without further do, let's listen to my interview with Matinelimuca everybody, it Sam Jacob's, welcome tothe Sales Hacker podcast today. We're excited to have on the show. MattMelemuca Matt has been working with sofphware and technology businesseswhole career, focusing on supporting the transition from the startup to thescale up phase of company development he's had the privilege of working withover twenty grow stage. Business software companies ore last ten yearsacross a targeted rast or of subsegments, and is a firm believer inthe power of Focus, specialization and process centricity as applied toresiliant company development prior to cofounding peaks, Ban Mat Workd as aninvestor at Greatcroft Partners, Growth Fund and previously at investor growthcapital. We started square as a...

...technology investment banker at PiperJaffrey, supporting expansion, stage businesses on a variety of advisoringcapital markets transactions. He holds a BS and finance from Georgetown, wherehe graduated Cumlaudi and he's also a big snowboarder and traveller, and hejust had a baby girl Matt. Welcome to the show thanks Sam appreciate it, thethe background sounds Ver bost when read allowed and so appreciate youwarring through that. Why I, I skipped hundre two censes tome: Diffre Clar, so that was the condented persion, but it soundsfantastic, yeah, the abridge great, to great to be on the show. Thanks forhaving me we're excited devy. So I gave a little bit of an overview, but youknow, let's give you an opportunity to tell it so your first, it's MattMelamuca! You are cofounder in general partner at Peak Pan. Is it peaks BenCapital Partners? What's the full name of the of the firm YEP peakspad capitalin' happy to talk about our business? If that's of interest, it is indeed ofinterest. We start with the baseball card, so the main thrust of thebaseball cards summrysection. Is You giving us an opportunity to learn moreabout peaks pan so tell us how old is the fund? How big is the fund? How manyfunds all of the things give us the give us? This summary sure sure so peakspan, so were a very focused investment firm. So we only invest in businesssoftware. We only invest in growth stage companies and I'll define whatthat means in a second and then we only invest in a tight roster of themeswhich, as partners, we lead and develop real domain expertise in really withthe ambition to be real thought partners to th the etrepreneurs thatwe're working with. So we we play in what we call now the emerging growthphase. You know you could probably talk to fifty different quoteunquote growthinvestors and get fifty different definitions on what that means. Youknow you have folks like Tiger Global, doing quotiquote growth and you knowMERITEC and folks like excel so for us, emerging growth means companies thathave stripped away some of the binary risk associated with classic earlystage venture. So you got a real...

...product. You know real customers, realstrong signs of product market fit you've effectively removed a lot ofoperational risk to get there. Companies were working with, ortypically you know, call it three four o five up to ten or fifteen million ofof arr growing nicely capital efficient. You know haven't raised gobs adventurecapital before and you're really looking for capital in a thoughtpartner to help you scale. You know again from that startupt to the scaleupphase, where the challenges are certainly certainly different. We werestarted in two thousand and fifteen and one of the cofounders I launched thebusiness with two other cofounders and partners. We raised our first fund intwo thousand and fifteen, a hundred and fifty million it's now fully deployedin twelve companies and we're investing out of our second fund now to tothousand and nineteen vintage two hundred sixty five million dollarvehicle. So four fifteen under management and we've got close to. I think twenty five partnerships acrossthe two funds now so we're loving it and and that's a little bit about us,the the philosophical point I would kind ofallude to that. I would hope, strikes you as different than most other firms.I would say we call ourselves a little bit. Contra Silican Valley, you know,which is probably interesting and and maybe not typical, at least forinvestors you might have on the on the sales hacker podcast raght sales tachis certainly a frothy space and and the growth at all cost Montre that theClassic Valley, Playbook, is certainly pervasive in sales tech in a lot ofother categories of tech. So what I mean by that is, you know, there's thiswhole like crazy, Unicorn Menia that has been around for Gosh a decade now,and I actually think conferences like Saster, and you know, events and placeslike that. There's a ton of good. That comes out of that. You know greatnetworking awesome to meet people and hear company stories, there's also heckof a lot of bad. For my perspective, right Ho, when you put three powerballwinters up on stage, how did you pick...

...the winning numbers and the responses?You know? Do these three easy things and you'll be a hundred of eror? Youknow with witno stress in three years, that's toxic to too kind of Resilonsustatable company development, and so I just think that that growth at allcosts- you know pursuit of the next Unicorn. You know really trying to bean outwire that that's not right for most companies that it's actuallyreally really wrong for a lot of companies, and so we just take adifferent approach. The thing that's really kind of funky about the growthat all costs. You know raise as much as you can at as higher prices. You canburn as much as you can to try to just drive crazy growth. It would be onething if, if you know that worked eight out of ten times, conversely, itactually burns companies out eight out of ten times right, so so venturer asan asset class has about a thirty five percent average capital lost ratiomeeting. If I'm investing in ten companies as an investor three and ahalf for dying, it's like the Oregon trail when you set the pace to likestren us with the bear bones rations and you die. You know going over thefirst river, and so it's just really unreally unhealthy and it just createsa lot of misalignment so that that three and a half out of ten is kind ofthe average last rate some of the best firms in the world that the quoteunquote ter on firms have sixty or seventy percent capital loss. Mypartners and I have invested in about twenty five companies before Peak Pan,together, twenty five at peak span and so cross thos. Fifty growth stage be tobe partnerships. We've only lost money one time so our capital, as ratio isless than three percent, and that doesn't mean that we're the bestinvestors in the world or we pick the best companies in the world. What itmeans is we're working with companies to align around sensible goals andresilient value creation and really importantly, whet things- are goingsideways or southwe're, locking arms together and trying to figure it outversus you know, just bailing and not showing up to a board meeting again. Sothrough a lot at you that al they'll pause there. Well, it's it's fodder fora lot of great conversation. The you know, I guess the counterpoint. I'mcurious on your reaction will ihave a...

...couple of thoughts. One one is you knowto the point of like the sixty to seventy percent capital loss ratio. Youknow, obviously those investors would say. Well, that's that's a feature, nota bug. You know we are taking on disproportionate risk and we understandthat with disproportionate risk, there's going to be a bunch ofcompanies that fail, but one of those companies might be snapshot or one ofthose companies might be slack and that's the business model that we're indo you feel, like you all, are at peaks ban capping your upside relative tocapping your downside as well like? Are you not looking for tenx returns tojustify? You know the fund? Are you? Are you comfortable with a with a fivexreturn on a company instead of a tenx if it means that you can cap yourdownside more effectively? Yes, O. So let me respond to that to yourdesertion and thenill also respond to the question. So so I would agree with you if that wasthe only factor right. So if it were just this is the model we pursuebecause a it's the best model for company development or B, it works themost number of times or see it's the most aligning approach or d. it's themost reasonable, high integrity approach. The thing that, like rubs me,the wrong way about it is it's horribly misaligning in terms of investor goals,an and company goals. So if you raise the highest possible amount of money atthe highest price, you can you have fundamentally obliterated a section ofthe exit spectrum which could be and should be really interesting to you asa founder right, especially if you own a lot of your business and so for me,the misalignment really on day, one that comes with a big price and a bunchof money. You know that that infestor, who as who was so nice and put togetherthat quitein quote entrepreneur friendly term sheet they're not goingto be pumped and they're not going to. Let you sell the company unless youtake your post money and multiply it by you know pick your number right atleast five times, and so just the misalignment in terms of incentives andand just e the unnatural things that...

...that forces companies to do you justdon't need to do that. I guess is my point: It it certainly one approach andif logical adults ar are transparent and getting into that type ofrelationship all knowingly, that's that's. Certainly fine. I don't thinkthat's AAs the case that I don't think. outrebitders really really know whatthey're getting into an the operational risk they're taken on. But you knowit's just it's an approach that I don't think has to be as permasive as it isthe coder approach, or you know how I would juxtopose that and it'. Certainlyhow we think about things is. Why are we like setting the Boston Celtex, I'mfrom Boston? You know your kid is in elementary school and you give him ayou know a birthday president of a basketball, and you say son, don't talkto me until you're on Thi Celtics starting five. That's crazy! Youud,never do that you'd say, send them in to coach. You we're going to we'regoing to dribble every day together and we're going to get better and betterthroughout middle school and then high school and college and look if you stopat at Middle School or you stop at high school. You know we tried hard togetherand we all got a lot out of it. We built muscle memory together and wekind of evolved together as a unit cohesively, that's totally fine, and sojust the the misalignment and just the expectation set that comes along withthat approach. I just think is unnecessary and it's certainlyunhealthy. So now to it's your second question in a very long winded way, weare very focused on driving three times return on our money, we're very focusedon not losing money, and we certainly don't need to see tnx return, and soyou know when I partner with companies, I have a very transparent dialogueabout. You know what our kind of first, you know quote: Unquote Peak of successand speak spand should be, and then we should talk about it together and weshould drive there together and make sure we're aligned on it and once weget to that that peak we should recalibrate and if it makes sense toraise a bunch more money and go for it,...

...which we've done the several times.That's fine, that's great, because we have much more data to assert that thatthat's the right thing to do at that point. So it's really just all aboutiterative. An incremental value creation, for my perspective, makes alot of sense and yeah. I mean threx to your point. The acceptable return is isreally the crucial determineint, whether you're found or friendly, ornot to your point. If, if the company can't sell itself for three times whatyou invested in because that doesn't justify, you know the investmentprofile that you're looking for from the fund, it's hard to say that you'refounder friendly, even if you know you're preferrit's, only one timeparticipating or something like that totally agree, and I think that's nottalked about enough An- and I guess my point is also you don't need to reallykind of push yourself there on day. One and a lot of companies do. You know Ithink, getting there eventually and raising a big. You know big round witha bunch of money and a big price if you've proven that you're, you knowyou're kind of ready to do that. That's a totally different thing. So it'sthese. You know really early big rounds, big prices, whund companies, just aren',necessarily ready for it. That I think, are just horribly. You know unhealthyfor the company Yeah. I think the other thing it's always struck me when I'vebeen at at really fast paced rocket ships. Theconstraint wasn't capital, you know, that's the other thing about theventure capital business model, which is that it assumes, because you knowthat's what youalls Yalls wigits are dollars. So you assume that you knowthe wigit that you make is the is the necessary Determinat to success for thecompany and when I've seen, companies grow really quickly. It hasn't beenbecause they had the most money it just has been because they've been perfectlyaligned with the market and their product served an important need andpeople really really needed it, and it was unique and differentiated andoftentimes. Those companies are profitable and and may not need capital.But anyway, that's been my experience. I'm not sure. If you have a similarperseive...

...in same you could you could even argueto take it a step further that you know pouring too much capital into themachine actually kind of inherently and definitionally encourages things likeyou know, hiring to too quickly or operational risk. Take you that'sunnatural right, so, in a way that excess capital can actually be anegative and so totally totally agree with with you there. You know, I thinktert tour point on the widgits. We are in the business of selling money and Ilove selling money O to companies that don't need it. It's kind of aninteresting dynamic, like that's my job and the way. The way we do that is wereally work hard to prove what we're like to work with as a partner wellbefore you're raising money- and it's not just words- we actually do a lot ofhonest to God, work for companies that we're trying to partner with, because Ithink the the venture asset classes a whole has done. You know a horribledisservice to tentrepreneurs. In that you know, every investor is quote:Unquote, Mal, U add, but most investors don't really do anything, and so, whenwe're engaging with a company which you know on average, we know companies fortwelve or eighteen months before we partner we're doing a bunch of stufffor them. It's you know engaging on projects and initiatives and andhelping with strategy and financial, modeling and analysis, and the reasonwe can do that. A one of the reasons is, you know the kind of go to marketapproach of a lot of our peers and competitors is almost like theequivalent of an SDR at a softhware company. HEU have a really juniorovereducated, articulate associate who's. Calling companies with noexperience in trying to you know, get their financials to pump it into a crmat peaks pan. We only have partners reaching out, and so by virtue of that,the junior folks on our team are free to really engage on value, creatinginitiatives versus cold calling a thousand companies a year, which I justthink is a much better way to develop investors and a much better. You knowexperience for the company too, hopefully, yeah totally agree. Onequestion on fundraising, because I just...

I've been hearing about it a lot.What's your perspective on because you're investing at a gross stage right,you mentioned the business- is somewhat dorisked it's somewhere between threeto five million on the lowend, an Teno fifteen, and exactly to your point atyou know, beginning I would say around probably five million, maybe a littleearlier, the binary exactly as you put it, the binary risk of will this be acompany or not has been largely removed, not completely, but largely, and I canimagine many founders and even early employees are thinking about capital,especially if they don't need it and thinking. Okay. If I'm going to raisemoney at any evaluation, I want to make sure that I have the opportunity totake them off the table. What's your perspective on secondary as a functionof like a percentage of the amount invested, are you fully supportive? Doyou feel I guess I'll lead the witness and say my perspective? Is thatsometimes people feel like enriching founders or early employees too muchyou know, reduces their drive roduces their incentive. My perspective isprobably the opposite: That Helping People Drisk, you know theconcentration of their wealth from one company to to diverseride portfolio andhelping them think about the company not as like a nest egg, but as just astrategic gas that they need to grow, probably helps them, make better longterm decisions. But that's what I think. What do you think I couldn't couldn'tagree more. You know, I think much like certain terms in a a termsheet or theconcept of secondary. I think some of these things have a an inherentlynegative connotation. That's really kind of brought on by you know SilicanBalley, and it doesn't have to be like that. It's in my, in my view, everysingle company that I partner with. I really encourage the entrepreneurs toat least take a little bit off the table. You certainly don't force it,and you know I certainly would be a little uncomfortable if it was twentymillion bucks, but you know I think, there's there's a level that is reallysmart to diversify your personal wealth portfolio and, to your point, thedynamic you reference. I've seen a lot and you know having worked with withtwenty companies so far, the companyis,...

...where the founders have no liquidityand they've taken a very small salary for years and years, they're going tobe kind of holding the value of that company tighter and tighter and tighterto your point in making not necessarily the best decisions for the business,but but maybe the decisions that are mitigating risk, the most, and so youknow taking a little money off the table and put your kids through collegeor t you know paying off your mortgage. I think it's totally smart and itcertainly you know, goes part in parcel with with the really transparentdialogue that I always look to have, which is you know? What is that kind offirst peak of the value creation? You know what do you want to take off today?Let's talk about what that means for you personally and from the business,and they just be really transperred about it. There doesn't need to be ablack box of you know, kind of yes or no or term sheet. Now you got thereit's, but just have a really candid conversation about what this all meansfor for everyone around the table. I love it so Wento. I want to shifttopics a little bit map because you know you're. I think it's reallyrelevant to what we've been talking about, because you are, you are aninvestor in thes sales technology space, and that is a space that, by the day,in my experience as a guy that runs a community where people are trying toget access to our decision makers. They can sell sales technology that itbecomes more crowded with new entrance and as quickly as there's like a newcategory like democreation software, there's immediately like three mainplayers, the one that I know is reprise because that's my friend Joe Caprio wasthe cofounder. But the point is like in a such. I guess I have a question ofgenerally. What's your view on the space, because, from my perspective,there's so many different players and every player I feel like theyr roadmap,inevitably lands like puts them competing against everybody else, andso like you can be Gong and you're doing. Call recording, but ultimatelyyou want to be a dashboard and so does outrage and all of a sudden now urrachintroduces a dialer and pretty soon every company that does anything isreally trying to get you off your cerum...

...and into their dashboard, so that youknow they can be the center place and it feels like it feels potentiallyuntenable, and then it feels like hey. Maybe this is an area where having lotsand lots of capital might be a benefit because it can like help. You withstandthe onslaught of all these different competitors. So that's a big PREAMBL.What a! What's your reaction to that yeah? It's something I think about alot. You know as a as an investor who focus a lot on sales, tech, but also aninvestor who prides himself fon on being pragmatic right in a category.That's you know really really noisy to your point. I think a couple things one.I think there is really across all of software but in particular ind salestech. You know I hope this doesn't come across as prajoritive, but I thinkthere's a supply and demand in balance in softhware and certainly in salestach in terms of just you know not enough opportunity or new opportunityand a ton of companies and new startups going after it. I think part of it isreally again what's permasive across all of software. I see it in everycategory. It's cool to be an entrepreneur right, it's cool to work,it a startup, and I think, by virtue of that, there's a ton of companies thatcome up that are, you know, really smart. You know founding team, you know,maybe maybe a Stanford Cs Grad at the Holme. That builds a really cool,innomative solution. That makes you know one element of th. The salesprocess may be better or quicker in those solutions that are really neetare desperately looking for a market problem or need to solve ouknow versussolutions that are actually kind of born out of and created to answer in acute problem or need, then, so I think there's just this supply and demand inbalance. There's a ton of noise to your tyour point. I think you're now seeingthe real kind of established establishment of real just monsterbusinesses in kind of each of these major categories of sales, tech that Ithink will certainly start to consolidate the market, and so you know,I think, that's going to have an impact...

...on the category. I'me personally reallyreally drawn to the solutions that- and it's really hard to do this- that areable to kind of suss through and get cut through. The noise and the thetypes of companies and the types of subsegments that I've been mostattracted to are really those that, I would say, generically are all aboutdriving an outcome versus being another feature or kind of tool or vendor inthe textack right. No, no VP of sales is out there being like h. You knowwhat I just wish another SASS company reached out to me, because I don't haveenough tools to evaluate today right, but they certainly need to drive betteroutcomes and they certainly need to you know, augment their process, and so Ithink, tha the solutions that are real kind of meeting potatoes and beenreally focused on driving a very specific outcome, whatever it might be,I think, are really interesting an certainly you know differently,positioned, so yeah, it's a crazy time in sales. Tach I mean it's, you knowit's an incredibly hot space. Valuations are nuts, then there's a lotof big big months or companies. That again, I think we're going to do someinteresting things in the next couple years here. Well, that's a greatthought, we're almost at the end of our time. Together. Normally I ask for Hen,you can hear the ambulances in the background. That's New York City, wherewe both are recording this, but normally I ask for you know who areyour influences? Who are you know, give us some some information like to followthe bread crumb trail in terms of what made Matt Melimuca, but what I want todo for today is because you just mentioned you know, companies that aredriving specific outcomes. Tell us about. You know one of your portfoliocompanies that you're super excited about that you think, is a solutionthat drives an outcome that we should be aware of sure sure. So I work with acompany called cognism this business, I partner within mid wo, Thousad andnineteen. So it's a UK based business when I partnered with them. They wereprobably about you, know four million of revenue, or so they ended twothousand, an nineteen, an about seven and did last year at about twelve andwe're you know approaching fifteen now...

...so really really solid growth. Thecompany has just developed a really interesting solution. In my view, thatis very outcomes based so effectively. What cognism does is combines a HighIntegrity, gdpr compliant BTB prospect database, so so think of a a Zoominfowith a heavy bent xus and a a really strong data set in areas that zoom ispretty weak in terms of organizations of lower than you know, enterprisescale they have those really mapped out of cognism. So we combined thatdatabase with tools to action, todata and so think of a light touch sales,lafter outreach, and so you know just the combination of those two solutionsunder onehood and a desruptive price point I think, is interesting. Now whatwe've done is couple that with the third element, which is a really reallyinteresting, contextual, intelligence, peace that certainly distincted andunique that we inject into that data that you can efficiently action fromthe same platform to help you drive a better conversion right, so it's insideabout the company or the person you're pitching to to help you just have abetter conversation. I think the combination of those things you knowwhether you're using a solution like sales afterout reach, and it just wantto use cognism for the data in the insights or your company and you're,going to use the whole suite. That is fundamentally outcomes based, and Ithink one of the really interesting things about it that our customers,certainly kind of Validat, is part of the issue in sales tech. Today, for myperspective, is you have so many different solutions in the sales textstack that if something doesn't work, there's a lot of fingerpointing right.So it's like all right this this campaign or this this motion didn'twork. You know zoo, Midfo, wlet's up with the data, a zooms like no, thedatis great go talk to outreach. The cadence is all funky right, and sothere's this. Nobody owns the problem dynamic a little bit, and so, if you'regoing to step up to the plate and say...

...we're going to give you the data, thetools to attackion it than the insights to drive those conversions, we're goingto give you more revenue, you kind of have to prove it right. So that's kindof a fundamentally outcomes based solution that you know is is sexybecause it drives revedue, but certainly not you know innovative orAlgorithmic in that type of way. So it's less flash in the PAN, but I lovethat business awesome and that's a great example. Although the folks atoutreage might have aquible with you, they call them sequences and they neversay the sea word, but there we go all the Moreyeah exactly Matt. It's beenawesome having on the show, if folks want to reach out to you, what's thebest way to get in touch with you, yeah. No thanks thanks so much for adme. Sam Seriously really appreciated, and you built an awesome awesomecommunity here. So really just respect everything you guys are doing. You canreach me at Matt at Peak Span Capitalcom. It's probably the best way.Awesome perfect. All Right! Well, Matt, thanks for being on the show, we'regoing to talk to Jou on Friday for Friday fudamentals, but it was a greatconversation sounds great thanks, Yo everybody, it's Sam Jacobs! This isSAMs corner, really enjoyed that conversation with Matt Milli, Muthafrom peaks fan capital. It's just always interesting to talk about peoplethat are approaching investing from maybe a slightly different perspectivethan we typically think about, and you know he's talking about a couplesomewhat controversial points of view. One of them is that you know peaks pans comfortable with athree x return. They don't need a tnx return and you know that makes themprobably pushes them a little bit into kind of like the private equity, whichis why he calls it growth, equity, investing. But it's a start. Contrastto you know the big megaphons out there, both in Silikon Valley, New York andreally all over the world that that need. You know he talked about e. Whatthe cost of you know failure rate I guess of cost of erased capital. Iforget the phrase that I use, but the...

...point is that capital loss rate capitallost ratio anyway. The point is that for early stage you know kind of B,Tocee, venture capital, investors oftentimes, their failure rate might besixty or seventy percent and the whole the whole math of it is throw as muchmoney at a problem as possible or at a company and see which one of them cancan use that money to propel themselves D and, as we talked about it's stillnot clear to me that money in that way is the reason the companies winter lose.Certainly sometimes it is maybe you know. Maybe you can hire more peoplemore quickly. Maybe you can get market shaire more quickly, but when I've beenat successful companies, as I spoke with Matt, including the one I'mrunning right now, revenen collective, the growth was not related to thecapital. GLG was profitable, they raised money. When I got there, theywere doing about twenty five million an hour an R and they did a big groundwith bessimer and it was paid out largely the dividend and we were goingto grow. I don't there are no more resourcesthat were available from Bessamer than otherwise the money passed through. Theorganization and we still were growing at venture rates, the same thing weeheve en elected frankly. Last year we grew on average, twelve twelve percentmonth over month a rr were profitable and we're bootstrapped. We have neverrased any money, so it's always interesting. You know the conceit ofVENTA capital and really many institutional investors, butparticularly venture capital, is that the primary constraint is money andthat if you have enough money that will unlock the growth you know and it'sinteresting now. On the other hand, maybe the point is that moneyaccelerates things. Maybe you can do things more quickly than you could dootherwise, but my experience with markets is thatmarkets evolve often at their own pace, not necessarily at the pace at whichcapital is deployed into them. But you know it's an ongoing debate. It's anongoing topic, it's an interesting conversation and certainly there'sgoing to be a lot of movement in the sales technology space specificallybecause there's just so many different companies and, as I mentioned in thepodcast, their product roadmaps all...

...will tend to converge. You know becauseeverybody wants to be. Nobody wants to be the Beatles on Itunes; they all wantto be Itus. Everybody wants to be the company that has the APP store, not notone of the companies in the APP store so we'll see, but it was. I was a funconversation and, and I enjoyed it and always like to root for New York basedinvestors, because you know I live in New York City. So thanks so much forlistening reminder. If you haven't signed up to go to one leash, please dothat. We've got Guy Ras there, podcaster and author of how I builtthis. We've got, carry larens it's going to be amazing. Outreach alwaysputs on amazing events of come, save your seat for this high energy event atunly start out reachd that Io. If you want to reach out SOM Uken LinconcomFord, slash the word in for slash Sam F, Jacobs and otherwise I'll talk to younext time.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (334)