These past two years I have been part of AOL Ventures, a group that has tried to think long and hard about re-envisioning the corporate venture capital model and how corporations should interact with start-ups.
Who knows if we have the right recipe – talk to our entrepreneurs – but I have had the benefit of synthesising a ton of information from some of the best minds in the space and developed a pretty distinct viewpoint.
The interest in corporate venture activity is at fever pitch, and with more and more corporations looking for perspective, I thought it might be useful to put pen to paper.
What follows is how corporations might want to think about corporate venturing, largely based on our successes and failures. I would note in advance that none of this is terribly novel. It focuses on internet and media investors and there obviously is a lot more here that is not written.
1. What is your distinct product? At the end of the day you are attempting to enter a largely insular, highly competitive market with not a lot of differentiation. Most people offer the same product. Try hard to map the customer (entrepreneur) experience and think about ways you can differentiate.
That could be a reinvention of certain pain points that the customer has or it could be a better platform that drives more value or it could be something totally amazing that no one has thought about. The most important thing that drove us from the outset when starting AOL Ventures was: "What is the distinct product we are offering in the corporate venture market and why should an entrepreneur take our money?"
You will need to think about this or join the sea of sameness.
2. Staff sergeants vs generals. The military is run day-today by staff sergeants, not generals. It is of paramount importance to know mid-level staff sergeants – top 100 right-under execs – in your company as they are the ones who really drive decisions and can be your best friend or worst enemy.
A start-up is obviously working with you partly because of your relationship with these folks. At the end of the day start-ups will happily take advice from your chief executive, but they probably like a business development deal, for example, that happens quickly better because you know the right mid-level people and can drive the discussion, the deal, and help when it gets mucked up in legal – yes, you should even know all the lawyers.
3. You don’t have to lead. I have never been a big fan of corporations leading rounds of financing, especially at the early stages. It just does not make any sense on a risk-reward basis to take a corporate as a lead and I do not believe corporates can really compete to lead rounds over tier-1 investors.
If your fund proves you can add measurable value, you should be an active participant in a cap table and add distinct value where you can like any other early-stage nonlead investor – again it goes back to the product you offer.
You do not have to have a ton of board seats to be close to your entrepreneurs and can still own sizable pieces of good companies to earn a return for your parent by being a good lifecycle investor that supports a company through its growth.
4. Bear hug your chief financial officer (CFO). If you think you can play the totally autonomous game that gives no benefit back to your parent company, history will prove you wrong as far as I have seen and been told.
Think about what you can do for your parent company beyond the obvious treasury play and make sure you have great inroads to the CFO function of your company. Keep them updated like a normal investor – sometimes more – because at the end of the day they are the folks who meet your capital calls and determine your fate.
This is an edited version of an article that first appeared on the writer’s blog.