Too much funding, we all wish we had that problem, too little funding is more like it, and probably more universal across the startup board than not.
Makes for some interesting concepts, how much money is enough to get you out the door, and into the hands of a public that at best is wildly enthusiastic, and at worst indifferent. One of the things we see crossing the Seattle startup mailing list is that beyond the standard, what bank, what logo, what testing is that many startups are really working in a vacuum.
They really have no way to gauge customer thoughts on the product unless they open their system or login to a closed or open beta.
We get involved in a lot of closed or open beta’s so that we can see how the new technology is going to work, or what value the system would have in the longer run. Some technology works great in beta others do not. Those responses, risks, and challenges of open or closed beta can also influence funding.
You can bet that a AV or angel fund is going to read what bloggers write about the product or service. That will influence how much money you are going to get from the people who fund your company. Sometimes the negative press is going to kill off any chances there are of getting the next big idea funded.
Marc Andreessen has some good points, in that there might be a continual round of funding from various groups. As long as the product or service is showing that there is a steady state of development, adoption, and customers are talking positive about it, that slide show presentation should always be ready.
It is unlikely that anyone is going to get all the money they need out of the gate. It is likely that people will be in a round robin of funding, where “no” is a common answer.
The problem is not that you are going to get enough money, the problem is making the money that you have last. Do not buy stadium seat cup holders.
