Steve Blank, who developed the #1 entrepreneurship curriculum in the world, recently noticed some of the failings of angel/vc/accelerator pitch events and then proposed an alternative.

Key to his proposal is the real life example of “Moneyball” – where a team proved it could use cold-hard-metrics to dramatically improve upon the old gut-instinct-only system  Steve thinks this can be done for startups, and I am inclined to agree with him.,

I invite you to read the full text on his website and engage in a dialog about it.  Could this give angels a much better way to pick the winners out of the super-early-stage companies we love to work with?  Might it be a better fit for angel groups outside of the major innovation hubs – angels that don’t already believe they “got it” :).

And lastly, might it imply a different model for angel groups?  Instead of bringing in a few companies a month for “1st dates” that emphasize pitching skills, should we be bringing in batches of companies and putting them through a Lean Launchpad experience and evaluating them after 10 weeks of hard work (that we witness)?


Originally posted on the River Valley Investors blog here.


  1. Cold hard metrics are great. Measuring tools are great. However, I would argue that the capacity to promote, obtain attention, or to align with someone that has attention are one of, if not the most important, indicators of potential success.

    I still need to read the Blank post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s