Should Entrepreneurs go to Venture Conferences?

Greg Costikyan (game designer, entrepreneur, blogger) writes a tongue-in-cheek look at the entrepreneur's experience at Venture Conferences.  You know, the ones which promise you a moment in the sun pitching to a legendary pantheon of VCs ...
Here's an excerpt which had me nodding my head  ...

From an entrepreneur's perspective, the supposed appeal to the venture conference is this: I'm pitching to a room containing maybe 200 people, all interested in venture investing, and even though there's a fee attached (and maybe travel and a hotel room), and even though it's a couple of days out of my (and maybe my senior staff's) life, it's a more efficient way to reach a lot of potential investors at once!

Right?

Well--no. That room of 200 people is maybe 25% other entrepreneurs waiting their turn or listening to other pitches to get a better sense of how to polish their own, and maybe 50% service folks who actually want to sell you stuff, and maybe the other 25% are investors of one kind or another. Of whom the vast majority would never invest in whatever it is you're pitching. And of the handful who remain, almost all are so junior that unless they go back foaming at the mouth with excitement, it doesn't really help.

I've been wondering how long entrepreneurs will keep paying up to be one of a crowd pitching when they could far more easily research relevant investors online (that's one of the many benefits of LinkedIn and, now, Facebook!) and wangle a one-on-one meeting instead.

This bit had me ROTFLMAO ...

The basic problem with the venture conference panel is that the conditions under which they are created mitigate against anything of the slightest interest ever being said. They exist to motivate the attendance of VCs, who may be flattered to participate; to reward service firms for contributing money (by allowing them to provide the moderators); and to attract the interest of entrepreneurs, who may reasonably be expected to find what potential investors say of interest. But the choice of topic is inevitably anodyne ("Emerging Trends" -- can't pass that one up!), and since the moderator is from a service firm, which has an interest in sucking up to both investors and entreprenuers, he is extremely unlikely to ask challenging questions, and is likely to stick to the equally anodyne. E.g., "Which is more important when you're looking at a company--the finances or the team?" -- a question at this actual conference, to which the only honest response is "Which are you, a moron or an idiot?"

That's why my first conference this year is GDC in mid-Feb ... conferences of, for and by practitioners tend to be far more rewarding than those catering to investors.

Comments

[Don Jones]

Great post - I generally avoid conferences, unless there is a lot of content that I'm interested in learning about. Shameless plug: I also run a venture capital database that helps entrepreneurs find the 'right' venture capital guys to talk to, not just any who will listen...

[Find investors]

Yeah, this really a good topic each and every Entrepreneurs committee should follow. Your experience is good to follow. I would also share your thoughts in my next conference.

Thanks.

[Pete Kennedy]

Excellent entry. I had similar experiences at venture conferences when I was seeking to raise capital for an early stage music start-up. And I was shocked at how many investor panels charge entrepreneurs to present.

[Cruise-Information]

All true. There's also the adverse selection problem, both perceived and actual. Basically, the senior VCs don't bother going they figure any company (still) looking for investment at a conference isn't smart enough to be worth investing in.

[Shankar]

I agree with the tone. I think most conferences are meant for those with money but without ideas. Its an expensive offline search, which rarely leads to something big. You're better off trying to meet potential investors through your bank account manager!