“社会认同”不再是融资利器

    在过去，初创企业要找投资者，最好的办法还是让其他投资者出面来为自己担保背书。如今，这种“社会认同” 式背书的作用已经越来越低了。

1. 顾问泡沫应归咎于AngelList

    我见过的任何一家公司都有一份长长的顾问名册潜在的种子投资者名单。随着融资网站AngelLis的走红，如今各家公司都热衷于在这个网站上列出这些名单，以证明自己的实力和吸引力。

    AngelList上各公司的页面上通常会列出自家的顾问名单，这样的做法泛滥之后，就产生了顾问泡沫。初创公司提供一小部分股份，请顾问定期提供“建议”（AngelList创始人纳瓦尔已表示，正在寻找更好的方式在网站上展示这些信息）。通常，提供建议基本上就是“让我把你的名字放在投资者名录中”。（个人观点，我已经开始不再披露我与一些公司的关系，目的是让我们关注产品，而不是在“关于公司”页面上出现一个面熟的阿凡达。）

    因此，大多数精明的投资者已经不再那么看重（或者不那么推崇）顾问委员会的价值，除非创始人能够说明为什么这很重要。比如，我的一位朋友正在打造一款应用软件，针对非常特定的目标市场。在这个市场中，有一两个名字真的可以帮助他建立客户的信任，因此他只和他们寻求建立战略顾问关系。

2. 充足的资金

    有这么多投资者：天使投资者、孵化器公司、早期基金、拥有种子附属基金的晚期基金。每家都在四处进行小额投资，即便决定支持你，也已经不像以前那样看重你的差异化了。

3. 也许“社会认同”不管用？

    我个人的经验是，在确定天使投资项目的过程里，依靠社会认同做决定的效率越来越低，远远不如和初创企业团队直接交流来的有效。投资是假以时日一点点积累得来的，恰巧获得某几位大佬的投资并不意味着什么，对于第一次创业的企业家来说尤其如此。我甚至得说，众投在我看来不是件好事，缺乏牵头投资人表明可能没人愿意为公司前景放手一搏。

    对于问答网站Quora上的一个问题“社会认同作为投资策略是否有效”，诺瓦尔的回答很有意思，他说，如果所有的投资者都依赖社会认同，将会改变市场的性质。

    Not too long ago, the best thing a start-up could do to find investors was to get other investors to vouch for it. But, today, the value of "social proof" has been significantly diminished.

1. Blame AngelList for an Advisor Bubble

    Every company I see has some roster of advisors and/or soft-circled seed investors already committed. It's gone from evidence of company traction to merely an execution step before hitting 'publish' on the AngelList profile.

    The prominence of "Advisors" on the AngelList profile has artificially inflated the perceived value of attracting "name brand" confidants. This, in turn, has resulted in an advisor bubble, where people are constantly getting asked to "advise" in exchange for a small amount of equity (Naval at AngelList has mentioned looking at a better way to present this information on site). Often advising means very little beyond "let me put you in the investor deck." [Personally, I've started to not disclose my relationship with some companies in order to allow us to focus on the product not a recognizable avatar for their About page]

    As a result, most savvy investors are starting to discount (or at least push on) the value of an advisory board unless the founder can articulate why that's important. For example, a friend of mine is building an app with a very specific target market. Within this market there's a name or two that would really help him build credibility with customers, and thus he's pursuing a strategic advisory relationship.

2. Abundance of Dollars

    So many investors. Angel investors, incubators, early stage funds, later stage funds with seed side funds. And they're all spreading little bets everywhere so any one of them deciding to back your company is less differentiated than prior.

3. Maybe Social Proof Doesn't Work?

    My personal experience is that the angel investments where I relied more on social proof, rather than on than my own direct relationship with the team, have been less productive (both in terms of returns and fun). So while investing syndicates are cultivated over time, the happenstance moment-in-time collection of a handful of investors seems to not add much value, especially when it's a first-time entrepreneur. I'd go so far as to say a party round for me is now a negative signal in many deals because the lack of a lead investor suggests there might not be a single individual who really has a personal stake in the outcome.

    A Quora question on whether social proof works as an investing strategy has an interesting answer from Naval who notes that if all investors rely upon social proof it changes the nature of the marketplace.