At Udemy, we were 3 first-time entrepreneurs trying to raise seed capital. We made every mistake in the book.

We got 200+ no’s and wasted 12 months fundraising.

We eventually pulled through, just barely. 😅

This thread shares our mistakes as lessons for founders.

**Read On**

We built an impressive product, but we were nobodies.

We thought: we need money to build our vision, so let’s go talk to some investors.

WRONG.

Nobody gave a fuck that we needed money. We needed to prove we deserved their money.
We met some associates and intermediaries who might introduce us to investors.

Few decision-makers wanted to meet with us.

We should’ve stopped there.

If getting meetings is hard, it will take you forever to raise.

Instead, spend your time building product + getting traction.
I was frustrated with investors: treated them as adversaries who asked dumb questions. My derision turned them off.

Learn to understand and appreciate investors. Follow them on Twitter, listen to podcasts from @HarryStebbings or @eriktorenberg.

An investor's job isn't easy.
They kiss a ton of frogs just to find one deal that may make them money 10 years from now.

They only win if you become a billion dollar company.

Don’t kid yourself - if you aren’t the right fit, bootstrap.

Risk-adjusted, bootstrapping can make you happier and more successful.
When pitching, we were too in the weeds - talking about next quarter or next year.

Investors don’t give a shit about next year. They care about the next decade.

Paint a picture of 10 years in future: how will the world be different and how will you build a $1B+ business?
We finally got some meetings. We had 50 meetings in 3 weeks.

Everyone said no except one Turkish billionaire.

Don’t trust Turkish billionaires. Don’t trust any investors who are outside of the Valley ecosystem.

The billionaire ghosted us.
After that many no’s, we accepted defeat and regrouped.

We had made a huge mistake: we didn’t launch! Investors could smell our launch anxiety and didn’t invest because there was no traction or urgency.

Show the investors you’ve got chutzpah. Press the button.

🚀
We built “Silicon Valley hype” with our launch - TechCrunch, Mashable and ReadWriteWeb covered it (this was 2010!).

We were on top of the world, and sent some follow-ups to investors.

They didn’t care.

Don’t succumb to SV hype - investors are (mostly) smarter than that.
How did we eventually raise?

Simple: we found true believers. @darian314 and @bubba put their name behind us after watching us for a year.

There is a “whisper network” amongst investors: they all share notes. If you want to raise a round, get into the network.
The “herd mentality”

Once you get your first yes, close everyone else quickly. If you have a good first investor, you should be able to close the round within 3-4 weeks.

Keep everyone updated with your progress, create momentum, and close as fast as possible.
Raising is only the beginning. The real work continues; take a moment to celebrate, then get back to building!

For practical stories about entrepreneurship, join my newsletter at https://t.co/ZIqQt0cadZ

More from Startups

From day 1, I intended to build @shoutoutso_ in public, and part of it is to be transparent with numbers, talk openly about our highs and lows, and share lessons as we grow!

I have been doing individual posts on numbers every week so wanted to one big thread with all updates 👇🏽

Week


Week


Week


Week

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
This is NONSENSE. The people who take photos with their books on instagram are known to be voracious readers who graciously take time to review books and recommend them to their followers. Part of their medium is to take elaborate, beautiful photos of books. Die mad, Guardian.


THEY DO READ THEM, YOU JUDGY, RACOON-PICKED TRASH BIN


If you come for Bookstagram, i will fight you.

In appreciation, here are some of my favourite bookstagrams of my books: (photos by lit_nerd37, mybookacademy, bookswrotemystory, and scorpio_books)