— Robyn Exton (@robynexton) April 3, 2015
Last week, Kate Kendall of CloudPeeps invited me to speak with her at Galvanize in SF for a Women 2.0 event. I met Kate about a year ago and was happy to become a small investor in CloudPeeps about six months ago. She wanted to have a discussion with the Women 2.0 crowd about her experience as a female founder and CEO, about how she met and interacted with me, and to field questions from the crowd — which looked to be about 100+ people.
The talk went by really fast. Kate talked about how she raised her seed round (just under $1m) and all the tactics she used. It was fun for me because I didn’t see those, but she is a crafty one! also broke down how I was intro’d to her, how we communicated while she was in NYC (heavy email). and how she finagled an invite to an event I was speaking at, engaged me in conversation, and a few weeks later — I became an investor in CloudPeeps. (The rest of the Women 2.0 talk was very fast, and most of the questions and answers were pretty generic, so I’ll keep this post brief.)
What occurred to me only in retrospect is that after two years of investing at the angel/seed level, Kate was the 1st female founder I’ve invested in via Haystack. Since then there are two more companies with females on the founding team. In my chat with Kate last week, the topic of “how was it different with Kate being a woman?” never came up in discussion. Reflecting back, it never really did come up in my chats, phone calls, and emails with her. In fact, I never thought about it. And, that’s the hard part to convey — the overwhelming majority of investors I know, even those who invest very, very early, wouldn’t discriminate against a woman as founder or CEO. In fact, I have seen many female startup CEOs be at the center of very competitive financing rounds, fielding multiple offers, and in total control of the situation. One company I’ve been dying to invest in for over eight months has a female CEO, and she has told me “no” at least 10 times.
In my chat with Kate, I did mention to the crowd that the life of an investor comes with saying “no” all the time, all day long. I think about my time and attention so much, I often say “no” to social events or running errands during the holidays with family. So, ultimately, investors are going to say “no” to all sorts of people, regardless of color or race or gender. The position calls for discrimination in the sense that most opportunities are passed on, even if they’re qualified or even exemplary as companies and teams. I myself have made a big $100M-run rate mistake as an investment I passed on for a silly reason. This isn’t to say that things couldn’t be improved or that there are unsavory stories and experiences people experience in the game to get investment, but two years in, for at least what I’ve observed, both first- and second-hand, the overwhelming majority of investors I see are busy chasing anything that’s growing or has evidence of promise and with disregard to “who” is helping make that growth or promise happen.
— Scott Bryant (@scottbryant_) April 3, 2015