There’s been plenty of chatter over the past few years about the potential pitfalls for entrepreneurs taking seed money from VCs. This includes a recent and very thorough overview of the issues by Elad Gil which I’d highly recommend reading, even if you’re already familiar with the issues around seed financing (and in particular the so called “party round” where everyone takes a piece but no one takes the lead).

I’ve noticed something recently that’s a bit of the flip side of the same problem that everyone is talking about but that I haven’t seen mentioned yet. I’m seeing an increasing number of Series A pitches where a company has at least one venture investor in its seed, the business is very clearly doing well and where the entrepreneur is simply not pursuing their existing institutional investors for money (note: please give me a little credit here for knowing the difference between an entrepreneur not pursuing money from their existing investors and their being told by their investors that they’re not interested; I’m talking about cases where it’s either pretty clear that the business is seeing excellent traction or where we’ve actually been able to confirm that they’re trying to go around their existing investors).

You could call this the VC seed signaling problem.

A VC throws some money around into a bunch of different seed rounds assuming they’re buying optionality for their Series A. But by essentially ignoring these seed companies some investors are showing them that perhaps they’re not the value added VC that they claimed to be. I’ve heard a variation of this themea number of times in the past few months. Entrepreneurs completely disappointed with the lack of attention they’ve received from their seed investors and as a result choosing to either try to keep them out of their Series A rounds or minimize their participation (most have received pro-rata rights as part of their seed investment so sometimes this becomes a negotiation – again, clearly evidence that these entrepreneurs are indeed telling the truth on this subject as their seed investors try to negotiate for more participation in the Series A).

I find this pretty amusing. At Foundry we view seed investing the same way we view all of our investing – we believe that we’re in this business to add value to the entrepreneurs and companies we back regardless of the capital we have invested (great post from Brad here explaining this in more detail). Clearly that view is not held across our industry.

I love the start-up world. I love working with founders and young companies. I love the excitement of working on business ideas that are new and different. I love seeing the success that often comes from this hard work. I’ve never before in my professional life seen a time of such innovation and creativity. At Foundry we see more business plans now than we ever have. And what’s more, more of those business plans are really interesting (and fundable).

It goes without saying that I love the business of venture capital. I love helping entrepreneurs work on their ideas. And I love helping companies figure out how to become as successful as possible. I love the challenge of trying to figure out the next great investment and the energy that comes from working with amazing and creative people.

But I’m worried and I wanted to get it out there.

I’m worried that in all the hype, in all the “we launched our company” events, and “we changed our name again” parties, and “we redid our website – come celebrate!” shindigs, and the SXSW parties, and the hoodies, and everyone who is “killing it!”, that we’re losing sight a bit of the really hard work that is creating and building a business.

I’m worried that in offering term sheets after a single 60 minute meeting, and in pricing early stage deals like they were already late stage successes and most egregiously by constantly running around self promoting and self aggrandizing, VCs are falling prey to a cult of personality about themselves and forgetting that their jobs are to help companies be successful. And as far as I can tell, very few seem to believe what I hold as a fundamental tenet of the venture industry, which is that entrepreneurs come first, not VCs.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy a good party (not to mention a good hoodie!). And I recognize the reasons to celebrate important company milestones and in going to industry events like CES and SXSW. And in bringing a bunch of customers, prospects and partners together at a social event. But I feel like I’m hearing less of “did you see XYX company’s great new product” and more “are you going to so and so’s party at ad:tech:”. I’m not exaggerating when I tell you that I’ve received 30 invites to SXSW parties but not a single invite to a panel session at the conference. And when someone tells me that someone is “killing it” (a phrase I think I hear 10 times a day these days), more often than not they mean “doing the job they were hired for”.

I hear more and more stories about companies making a pitch to a VC and having an offer before they walk out of the room (entrepreneurs: do you really want to work with someone who puts so little thought into their investment process that they would do this?). And the way VCs talk about the companies they work with has clearly shifted to be substantially more VC centric (lots of use of “I” and taking credit for company success as something they themselves created rather than participated in or helped with). And, of course, much has been written about rising valuations and the potential risk this poses to particularly early stage companies. Not to mention the increasing popularity of the “party round” where many VCs participate but no one actually takes ownership (also not good for entrepreneurs, in my opinion).

And it feels like a lot of this is for external show. I’m cool; I run a shit hot start-up; I saw [insert big name technorati here] at our company party last night. I’m in such and such company with [long list of other investors] and doesn’t that make me awesome. I’m awesome I’m awesome – look at me!! And not really about building great products or great businesses.

So by all means, lets keep having fun. But let’s also remember that the goal is to build great companies. And please – my fellow venture capitalists – can we take it down a few notches and remember that our role is a supporting one. If you wanted to be the star you should have become an entrepreneur.

A few days ago I received an email asking me if I had a “rule of thumb for determining when a start-up can no longer be considered a start-up”. The sender proposed a few potential answers but I thought this one might be a good one to put out there for feedback from readers. His suggestions were:

*Two consecutive  quarters of positive free cash flow?
*Drop pooled benefits company like Administaff for in-house benefits administration?
*Anything > C round, seeking to lever w/ mezz debt or file S-1?
*Name of company becomes a verb in our lexicon?
*Receive gov’t stimulus funding?
*Oprah uses your product?

For a long time I’ve asked entrepreneurs at what point their company no longer felt like it was a start-up. The answers were remarkably consistent, although I don’t think exactly answer the question in the way that was meant above. In any event, most founders tell me that around 30 employees is when their start-up companies start to feel like real businesses (or at least feel “different” – I think largely stemming from the fact that around 30 employees is the time when a CEO no longer really feels like the know all of the people that work for them). Of course depending on their funding and growth expectations this can happen at many points on a company’s growth curve and spending money (i.e., hiring employees” is not the mark of a business), so I feel that a better metric is probably the right one. Or more likely several better metrics.

Thoughts?