The importance of trust between startup founders and investors

Most startup founders have an uncanny ability to suspend disbelief when it comes to the future of their venture. They’re always in sales mode – to themselves, early customers and investors, and the world in general. Startups that are on the brink of huge success are often also on the brink of spectacular failure, the line between the two extremes is often wafer thin.

Early stage startups, by definition, are almost always missing something as they iterate on product-market fit. Meanwhile, early stage angel investors can often see past these shortcomings due to their experience and learnings from their own mistakes, and provide the care and nurturing to founders needed to unlock success.

Investors focusing on early-stage startups understand this reality and accept the associated risks in anticipation of making bets on founders working on ‘10X’ ideas to realise outsized rewards. This relationship between founders and investors is a key ingredient to startup success, and isn’t just from a commercial perspective, but at a personal level – rapport, respect, mentoring and trust are vital.

Early stage investors invest because they believe in the founder at a personal level. There is something about you, and your idea that convinced them that you could make it happen. Usually, it is just a feeling and not some tangible thing they can put their finger on. Ironically, most angel investors will imagine a future version of a startup far more enticing than most sane founders are willing to pitch.

The startup game isn’t for everyone – it isn’t really for most people. At the end of the day the most likely outcome is failure, even angel investors expect most of their bets in startups to fail. In this cauldron of uncertainty and high-stakes, the most important element of the founder-investor relationship is trust.

Startup founders have the singular authority to address high-stakes challenges and make tough decisions. However, to a large extent their autonomy rests on the willingness of the investors to cede it to them. In other words, it depends a lot on investor’s trust. Leaders who violate that trust soon find themselves ousted – Travis Kalanick, whose brash and at times inappropriate behaviour repeatedly raised eyebrows at Uber, was blamed for creating a toxic culture and forced to resign by an investor revolt.

Founder trust has also been eroded by Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook. In April 2018, Zuckerberg was before Congress and questioned about Facebook’s commitment to data privacy after it came to light that the company had exposed the personal data of 87 million users to Cambridge Analytica. Then in September 2018, Facebook admitted that hackers had gained access to personal information of 50 million users. Then a New York Times investigation revealed Facebook had given Netflix, Spotify, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon access to its users’ personal data, including in some cases their private messages.

So when Zuckerberg announced that Facebook would launch a dating app, I shook my head. And then they announced releasing an app that allowed people to share photos and make video calls. Why would anyone trust Facebook with personal data on something as sensitive as dating, or with a camera and microphone given its horrible track record?

Our need to trust and be trusted has a very real economic impact. More than that, it deeply affects the fabric of society. If we can’t trust other people, we’ll avoid interacting with them, which will make it hard to build anything, solve problems, or innovate.

Startup founders can’t build trust unless they understand the three fundamental promises they make to investors and the resulting responsibilities: economic – to provide value to customers that enhance their lives; legal – that they will follow the letter and the spirit of the law; ethics – investors want founders to behave with integrity.

To investors, if founders repay the trust of investment made by delivering the above promises, it means returns; and to society, it means growth and prosperity. But trust is fragile, it waxes and wanes. It means being competent, playing fair, and most of all, acknowledging and, if necessary, remediating, all the impact your decisions have, whether intended or not. Of course, it’s not always possible as a founder to make decisions that completely delight investors, but it is possible to make decisions that keep faith with and retain the trust they have in you, by being authentic and acting with integrity at all times.

Being authentic means that the gap between who you are and who you portray to be as close as zero as possible. In other words, being authentic means bringing the ‘real you’ wherever you go, in every situation and conversation. You can look at it from a moral angle, but I’m particularly interested in making a business case for being authentic.

Let’s start with what happens when you are not authentic. You will start with creating an image of yourself that is different from who you really are. It takes an effort to do that. Now, you will have to act out that image and make everyone believe that what you act out is who you really are. It takes even more effort to fulfil that. Once you act this out, you need to remember this image because you need to behave consistently with your image with all the people that have seen you portraying that image. That seems like a burden that you have chosen to carry to me. That you are interacting daily on a superficial level is odd, as betraying trust means betraying yourself.

Thinking about authenticity made me aware of my own conversations I’d been involved in as an angel investor, and recall the awkward situations where I considered my trust had been abused. Trust in humanity will only continue if we cultivate authenticity and sincerity in face to face conversation, and once these behaviours have lapsed, trust is broken and I’m done with that relationship.

Authentic’ is derived from the Greek authentikós, which means ‘original’, but just being original doesn’t mean you will be perceived as authentic. You could be an original phoney. At its heart, authenticity is about practicing your underlying principles and values – being totally clear about who you are, your purpose and what you stand for. When your rhetoric gets out of sync with your values, you lose your integrity and future persuasiveness suffers.

So I’ve used trust as a key part in assessing my appetite to work with startup founders, and my experience is that it is a hallmark of high-performing startups – employees are more productive, more satisfied with their jobs, put in greater discretionary effort, are less likely to leave, and are healthier than those working in low-trust ventures. Startups that build trust among their customers are rewarded with greater loyalty and higher sales, and negotiators who build trust with each other are more likely to find value-creating deals.

I’ve developed an approach to assess the trustworthiness of founders on five dimensions: competence, motives, means, impact and sincerity. I’ve found that founders who demonstrate these five dimensions can deepen the trust others place in them and foster stronger relationships. Conversely, founders who don’t pay attention to them can easily behave in ways that undermine trust, often without even realising it.

For me, motives and sincerity are the essential qualities I look for, they make up the moral or ethical domain of trust, the areas where I judge founders on the choices they make, whether it’s whose interests they serve (motives), how they go about achieving their goals (means), or whether they own all the effects they have on others (impact).

By understanding the behaviours that underlie trust, startup founders are better able to elevate the level of trust that investors feel toward them, and for me this can be captured into the following three elements:

Positive relationship trust is in part based on the extent to which a founder is able to create a positive relationship with investors. To instil trust a founder must:

  • Be empathetic to the concerns of investors
  • Be open minded and listen to advice
  • Respond to feedback in a constructive way

Good judgement the extent to which a founder is able to show balanced judgement, shrewdness and perceptiveness gives an investor confidence. This means:

  • They show balanced judgement when making decisions
  • Creating conviction when expressing their ideas and opinions
  • Can anticipate and respond quickly to problems, offering solutions

Consistency The final element of trust is the extent to which founders walk their talk and do what they say they will do. Investors rate and respect a startup leader highly if they:

  • Are a role model and set a good example at all times
  • Follow through on their commitments and keep promises.
  • Act in the best interests of everyone, not just themselves

Watching the current political discourse (and deadlock and chaos), I experience a longing for an authentic discussion of the core values that ought to be guiding us as a society. I feel that we are morally adrift, that we do not have a clear sense of how to ground our identities and actions to ultimate values that transcend time and place.

That is not to say that our society is largely immoral. Just amoral, lacking a clear compass or foundational guide at a critical time. Instead of a moral compass, people are constructing their own moral decisions. They don’t seem to know where they belong. They don’t seem to know that they are doing the right things with their lives. They don’t seem to know what the right things are.

And that’s a parallel to startup culture, where founders pursue their own unilateral agenda, failing to ground their perspective in a moral perspective and the legal and ethical commitment they made to angel investors who gave them their first chance. I’m seeing founders following a loose, poorly defined moral individualism that, for many, bleeds into an extreme moral relativism.

The emerging reflections on right and wrong generally reflect weak thinking and provide a fragile basis upon which to build robust businesses. Moreover, founders behaving like this do not rely on any moral traditions or philosophical ethics to make decisions. Instead, the basic position is for each individual to make up their own rules and do what is good for them.

Ultimately, it comes down to personal integrity, the state of being honest, and respecting trust given. The golden rule: don’t do anything that you wouldn’t want someone to do to you. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong or right, that is determined by each person, their experience, their perspective. And of course, we have laws. They pretty much cover it.

I believe that in healthy humans there is an inner compass that guides right from wrong. It may get modified through various lenses of philosophy, religion, and culture, but I think integrity and not causing harm by breaking trust are pretty universal. Unfortunately, it is also possible to get estranged from that compass, the influence of others, circumstances and opportunity may divert us from the path we know to be right.

For founders, it can be hard not to diverge from the path guided and shaped by trustworthiness with their early stage investors if they can see a quick personal gain. However, look in the mirror, and can you reconcile breaking the trust given to you? For certain, it is good to stay in balance and in touch with being a founder your investors trust, as much as you can.

For me, I am never one to patiently pick up broken fragments and glue them together again, and tell myself that the mended whole is as good as new. What is broken is broken, and I’d rather remember it as it was at its best than mend it, and see the broken pieces to remind me that you broke my trust.

Bootstrap your startup: chase customers not investors, revenue not rounds

In recent years, the term tech entrepreneur has been glamorised to the status of celebrity, creating a cohort of Silicon Valley wannabees. There is real dignity and romance to entrepreneurship, but there is now a mantra that if you don’t have pretense of an ambition for Eating The World, raising millions and becoming a unicorn, then you’re not a real tech startup.

I have a nagging sense that the zeal for being disruptive and x10 growth isn’t the only air a startup can breathe, but they are crowding out other motives. Part of the problem seems to be that the millennium kids aren’t content to merely put a dent in their own universe, rather they have to put a dent in the universe.

In this atmosphere, the term startup has turned into an obsession with unicorns, a whole generation of entrepreneurs enthralled by the prospect of being transformed into a mythical creature. This fairytale ideal is being reinforced at every turn and an inappropriate yearning for the Mecca of Silicon Valley.

This saccharine rhetoric around entrepreneurship today hides an extraordinarily rapid switch in the balance of power between startup founders and investors that marks the early frontier days of a tech startup. The mindset has shifted. Investors have won.

Why have they won? Well, the gung-ho sentiment of ‘raise money, raise money, if you don’t you’re not a genuine entrepreneur’ has killed off the simple do-it-for-yourself bootstrapping ambition. I find this sentiment a vacuous rationalisation of the grim economic realities – most startups don’t raise money. In fact, most don’t need it.

There are still entrepreneurs wily enough to stay outside of the system and play the game on their own terms, but for the most part, the collapse of the balance of power is not a good thing as it is stifling the real driver of entrepreneurship: entrepreneurs should chase customers, not investors; they should chase revenue not rounds.

They have a vision, but they end up on a different path that effectively makes them mercenaries for hire. They are prospecting for gold in someone else’s Klondike, rather than being self-driven mavericks shooting for their own moon themselves. It’s a path that promises jackpots, but actually creates an agenda simply linked to financial return for someone else, not innovation, creativity or product-market fit.

Startup funding, when applied with wisdom, can work for entrepreneurs. Applied naively, it is a back-seat driving mechanism with which investors can micromanage. By codifying the entrepreneurial insight with investors, it allows investors far greater visibility into operational realities, steering and controlling velocity by their control authority via board seats.

Bootstrapping has been discarded for other people’s money, which changes everything.  In accepting venture funding as the de facto model for growth, entrepreneurs have handed control to investors with an episodic narrative that encourages a short-term focus and rush to exit, and not a long-term building and learning journey.

It’s hard to carry on a conversation with most startup founders these days without hearing the word ‘round’ – their eyeballs fixating on money. Once you take the money, it’s a debt owed, with all the nagging reciprocity that comes with it. Don’t just accept this definition of ‘success is the next round’ because everyone else is cheering that. The chorus of the masses is loud, and that’s seductively alluring. But let’s take a step back.

The real question is why did you launch your startup?  I don’t believe most people are solely motivated by fawning over the latest hockey stick phenomenon. Bedazzled maybe, but I invite you to dig deeper and explore your original motivation.

In the US, Shark Tank and at home, Dragons’ Den celebrate entrepreneurship as reality TV, looking for folks to build the perennial Next Big Thing and scoring a heart-warming Techcrunch story. The winner is pumped to deliver that 10x return, well aware the aim is to clear a somewhat extraordinarily high fence.

Curiously, the hand-wringing camp usually wins.  Lest you feel inclined to be snarky about this plot, consider this: What the entrepreneur is gambling for is not the space trip and big fortune, but merely survival. There are very few winners. It also involves a massive amount of self-delusion. This narrative works as patronising sarcasm precisely because the standardised term sheet marks the promise of Emperor’s New Gold.

Many startups go for raising money just because it’s available. But most of them shouldn’t. The reasons for wanting the money – because it will make growth and hiring easier – are not enough. To be sure, there is no single right or wrong answer for everyone, but don’t take money just because it’s there.

That funding will be the most expensive cash you ever buy. But beyond that, cash is addictive. If you let investor funding become the driver for your business early on, it’s very difficult to wean yourself off of it as you grow. Many people who think they need that outcome in order to live the startup life that they want are quite simply wrong.

You’re selling your startup vision and business model to investors. Why not take all of that energy and hustle that requires to build yourself a better business, and have long-term impact? Instead of selling to investors, sell to customers. Think about ways to increase revenue – build your brand, increase your prices, upsell on added value, get new customers in the door. Make your startup its’ own financial backer.

Consider for a moment that a funding round wasn’t an option available to you. The alternative is bootstrapping. You may see slower growth and far more hard work on your part, yet for me, this is ultimately more rewarding.

But the common view is you need to turn to investors who will hand over funds. However, this rarely occurs, and you’ll likely waste your time, effort and money on pitch development in the process. Instead, bootstrapping affords far more opportunities:

  • You’ll stay passionate about your startup and discover key talents you didn’t know you had. Don’t be quick to hire when you can do the work yourself. Putting in more sweat instead of hiring others, especially in the early days, will help keep your costs down.
  • Later, bootstrapping is likely to attract the right talent. You’ll bring in people who can actually push you forward because you’ll have better insight into who you need.
  • You retain control today, and in the future. You don’t have to sell equity for investor compensation. It also ensures all of your cash generated from profit remains in your pocket, not investors.
  • Most importantly, without investor financing, you’ll grow a better company that’s less dependent on pleasing investors and more likely to develop the type of product or service your customers need.

Bootstrapping can be challenging and hard work, but it nearly always affords startup founders with a better end result. In a survey conducted by Quartz Media on why startups fail, it was evident that funded startups were more likely to run out of money than those bootstrapping, because they were more judicious and focused on the decisions better. There is clear evidence that external funding distracts founders.

Independence isn’t missed until it’s gone, in the sense that external money dictates your journey. The motive, for me, of doing my own thing means rejecting the definition of success proposed by the San Franciscan economic model of Get Big. All this may sound like I have a lack of aspiration. I like to call it modest, realistic, achievable.

It’s a designed experience and a deliberate pursuit that recognises beyond a certain level of financial success, the trappings of a blow-out success aren’t nearly as high up the Maslovian pyramid of priorities as people think.

Let investors keep their money under their mattress for someone else. When you take money from investors their business model becomes yours. Einstein said compound interest is the eight wonder of the world. Morality pitted against the compound leverage of capital is often outmatched, but there are people building profitable startups outside the sphere of the venture capital dominion that have little systemic need to tell their story.

The web is the greatest entrepreneurial platform ever invented. Lowest barriers of entry, greatest reach ever. Examine and interrogate your motivations, reject the money if you dare. Recognise that a startup doing something useful that dents your own universe is plenty. Curb your ambition. Live happily ever after.

Recognise your thirst for venture capital is vanity capital. Entrepreneurship is an emotion of ambition. Venture capital appeals to another emotion – greed. Stop chasing investors and start chasing customers. Avoid the time wasted for attracting investors, managing their expectations and getting through to the next round of funding.

I appreciate that some projects have high capital costs, but this focus can distract you from your far more important and ultimately the only source of funds that matters – your customers.

Every startup has a limited runway and investment can help extend that, external funding is a temporary fix to give sufficient time to test and perfect your business model. But there’s something refreshingly clear about having no external funding and no investors to keep happy, allowing you to focus 100% on your customers.

If you can satisfy them, and they pay for it, you’re in business. If they don’t, you’re not. It cuts to the chase a lot faster. When you are forced to rely on your customers it puts you in direct contact with them and you quickly find out exactly what they want and don’t want. It’s amazing how quickly you learn what is necessary and what’s not when your funds are so limited.

For me, the steady advance of this ‘round x’ philosophy is destroying the very concept of entrepreneurship, founders mistakenly believe that fundraising is a substitute for selling to actual customers. Let’s stop all this craziness. You need validation from customers willing to pay for your solution. Your key to economic independence isn’t reliance on outside investors, it’s the creation of a customer base that believes in you and your offering.

It can be done: Hewlett-Packard started with just $538 and a garage. That was a lot of money in 1936 when the company was founded, but that equates to about $7,500 in today’s currency.

Bootstrapping out of your own pocket is difficult, but for me, ultimately more fulfilling – you did it on your own terms and your own effort. It’s by no means impossible to give up a chunk of your personal life today for the sake of your future self.

Ultimately, bootstrapping is making an investment in yourself, by yourself, for yourself. In a startup, hope is the fuel of progress. Focus your entrepreneurial endeavours and progress based on your passion, your ideas and your ideals, not other people’s money.

Tips for startup founders: those tricky moments in investor meetings

One of the lasting insights I’ve learned helping startup founders is you need to anticipate the hardest questions you could be asked by a potential investor, before going into a fund raising round.

There’s lots of advice about what make a great pitch deck, what startup customer metrics you need to hold in your head, and how you need to explain your cash burn rate and runway. However, they are simply obvious things, what about the killer, more subtle questions, the ones that could make you stumble or your less confident of your response?

While it’s impossible to control a meeting’s outcome, thoughtful preparation gives you the best shot at making your conversation memorable. Smart people ask smart questions, so be prepared, and fundraising is widely known as a significant learning curve for founders.

Sometimes tough question appear innocuous, others get your heart pumping and mouths stuttering. Knowing how to improvise and being able to think on your feet is a skill that includes the ability to give impromptu remarks, as well as to answer unexpected questions well.

Investors ask pointed questions to obtain information, but there are other reasons behind them. What they really want, in many cases, is to get a feel for your attitude towards a certain subject, and how calm, confident, and trustworthy you seem.

The number of potential questions you might be asked is infinite and context-specific such that it’s not possible to learn a scripted response. However, it is possible to hone your improvisation skills by learning methods to give structured answers, no matter what you’re asked.

The best tactic is planning and preparation for the off-beat, alternative question, assume the pitch meeting is not going to be a breeze, and then, in the heat of the moment, you give yourself the opportunity for a thoughtful response, as you literally stop and think.

So the strategy to answering difficult questions has two foundations: possessing knowledge and giving information, and delivering your response in a poised manner.

Firstly, let’s look at the tricky questions. There are many challenging questions you could be asked while fundraising, here are four which have made me think over the years.

1.     Why you?

In essence, an investor is asking What is your Founder-Market-Fit? They want to see you have a compelling and unique insight, and understand what about your thinking is contrarian i.e. why your startup will win.

Founder-market fit is an indicator of a match between the founder and the problem they are going after. What compelled the founder to start the business? Domain insights and experience really matter, investors won’t want to fund accidental founders or pay for you to learn about an industry.

Investors like to back folks who have a proven track record of success, so convincing you’re the right person to lead the team will be the challenge you face. First time founders may have a demonstrable track record as technical experts, but moving to leading the charge from the front is different.

Do you think you’re the best person to lead the company, now and in the long run? – is an emotive and direct on-the-spot question. Are you personally investible?

There will be questions about your judgement and how shrewd you are. For example, if you look back in a year and things haven’t gone as well as expected, what will be the reason? Thinking about why we would fail appears negative, but it’s all about having the foresight to stand back and not be blinded by headstrong thoughts.

2.     What if?….

One of the biggest challenges you get pitching is what I call the ‘Godzilla problem’ – for tech, it’s You could do this, but what if Google decides tomorrow they’re going to launch this?

The truth is it’s a difficult question, because what are you going to say? You can’t sit there and bluff that you have a friend who works at Google who said they’re not going to do it. The investor’s response can then be That may be true right now, but they may change their mind once they see it’s working for you.

There’s no response to that, because if they decide to do it you are toast. With all investors, there is a scale they are looking to see where you’re on between fear and greed – because they are on it too, albeit from the other side of the table. They toggle between I’m really excited about this company, we can make money to It’s not for me, this one thing could happen and they’re finished. 

Don’t attack fear with why they shouldn’t be fearful. You’re almost telling them that their fear is irrational. The wrong answer is ‘that won’t happen’. The best response is along the lines of You know, that may be right. Facebook may come and do that, but this is such a great opportunity that if they don’t, we are going to be in a great place. 

3. How do you stack up against X, how are you going to compete against them?

The context here is that they want to know how you are going to move the needle to a sustainable, 10X advantage. They likely already know who dominates your space, and accept you have potential with your innovation in a ‘David v Goliath play’. What they want to hear is how you think you compare, one-on-one.

First of all, never brush off any competitor as being irrelevant as either too big or complacent, It’s a common, lazy and arrogant position. For many years Microsoft were derided by tech entrepreneurs as a bloated, irrelevant dinosaur – today besides the Office Suite, they own Xbox, the Surface range, LinkedIn, Skype, Azure, Hololens and are leaders in cloud computing.

Recognise every solution, even inferior solutions, as legitimate competitive threats. One approach is to focus the thinking on a particular aspect of problem-solution fit around user experience. Your answer could offer a compelling strategy that neutralises rivals by overcoming or changing key aspects of user behaviour that will give you traction.

4.     Why now?

Timing is everything, and really understanding Why now? for your startup is vital. The startup graveyard is full of examples of things too early or too late to market, yet Uber wasn’t the first to think of on-demand rides, and AirBnB wasn’t the first to let people host visitors in their homes.

When investors are asking Why Now? they are focused on understanding the market opportunity, dynamics, and context – the factors that will make a difference between success or failure. In responding, be confident but not strident. Uber was only launched once – a moment in time where the technology and customer demand aligned to create the conditions for a new startup to flourish.

But don’t take it from me, Bill Gross analysed the biggest factor for startups to succeed and timing was the number one factor, ahead of team, funding, execution, idea, and business model.

So having discussed potential awkward questions, let’s turn to the strategy of managing conversations. When someone aims a tough question our way, the box of frogs goes off in our heads, leaping around in mayhem, impacting our ability to think rationally and offer anything other than a jibberish response.

Rather than giving ourselves a few seconds to collect our thoughts, we tend to grab what’s been said and jump on it, fearing that even a bit of silence will be read as hesitation and uncertainty, so we rush in boldly only to firmly stick our feet in our mouths.

The answer you blurt out on impulse is unlikely to be your best response, and you’ll kick yourself later while mulling over the things you wished you had said. A moment of silence, on the other hand, lends you a thoughtful air, rather than stumbling into a rushed set of words that make you sound as if you are sharing the first thing that came into your head – literally.

In addition to embracing the silent pause, there are other techniques that will buy you extra thinking time. One technique is to get a better question from what has been said, here are some tactics to do this.

1. Ask them to repeat the question

Just as you wish you could retract an answer, people frequently wish they could reword their question with greater clarity. Asking them to repeat the question will often mean the second take is shorter and clearer than the first, and this gives you time to think.

2. Ask for clarification

Another tactic is to respond with a question of your own that seeks to clarify what the questioner is trying to get at. Which product are you referring to? What timeframe do you have in mind? When someone has asked a question which has cornered you, asking them to redefine their terms can turn the tables.

3. Clarify or define a point yourself

Another way to take control of an interaction is to define the question as you see it within your response. For example, why was your pitch to Pearl Investors a failure? It sounds emotive and direct, but you can turn this round to If by failure, you mean that nothing good came out of it, then I don’t think it was. We didn’t connect on this round, but we established a relationship and they’re open to future investment.

4. ‘Discuss’ the question.

Sometimes it seems investors are seeking a specific answer to a question, when really they just want to have their question discussed. There really isn’t a single answer to give. They want to hear both sides of an idea, or to know that you’ve been thinking about it too.

So for example, your response to the question how sustainable is your pricing strategy? maybe along the lines of that’s a question we’ve asked ourselves, our thoughts are that we can sustain a 10% differential for at least 12 months – given your experience, what are your thoughts?

The key with these hedging strategies is delivery. Hesitating and acting sheepish will render them wholly ineffective. Demonstrating confidence lends you the air of strength.

Remember, when people ask questions, they’re not just looking for answers; they want to get a sense for what you’re like and how you handle pressure. The art of improvisation requires knowing how to respond in varying circumstances. Of course, sometimes the best way to answer a difficult question is to give a totally straightforward answer. This forthrightness can be refreshing and disarming.

In summary, investors will ask tough questions. In fact, it’s a good way to qualify them to see if they are serious and know what they are doing. You are not expected to have all the answers investors would like to hear, but you are expected to have anticipated some questions and not be dismissive, or worse, make the answers up.

The critical thing is connecting with your audience. People listen when they’re engaged. It’s about the nuts and bolts of your delivery, and not trying to be the smartest person in the room. The anatomy of being memorable has almost nothing to do with your content, it’s all about whether you related to your audience on an emotional level. So it’s important to bust your own biases. Investors are simply asking ‘Make me believe by showing me you know what you’re talking about’.