Blog Post

Survival Is Not a Strategy

Stay on Top of Enterprise Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

In these perilous economic times, the layoff memos often follow a familiar refrain: “We have cut costs by 20 percent. That gives us an additional year’s runway. Or two.” But while yes, companies can cut costs and prolong their survival, when it comes to startups, just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

I’m speaking here of venture-backed startups, which represent a small minority of companies. The sole purpose of most companies is to create a steady income stream for their owners and operators — in other words, survival. Venture-backed startups, on the other hand, are created with the sole purpose of a successful exit.

Why growth is crucial

Whether that exit comes in the form of an acquisition or an IPO, in the meantime, the lifeblood of any startup is growth, be it in terms of customers, usage, revenues or profits. Under most economic conditions, an IPO is impossible without revenue and profit growth, and we are unlikely to see that change any time soon. From an acquisition point of view, stagnant companies are valued at low multiples of revenue, say 1x-2x. And while popular meme suggests that flat is the new growth — given the downturn in the economy, the argument goes, even keeping revenues flat is sufficient — this argument does not apply to startups.

By definition, startups are supposed to be attacking nascent market opportunities and unsaturated markets, and as such should be able to grow even during a downturn. If a startup cannot find growth in this environment, it’s a clear message that the market opportunity might be better served by an established company. Of course, growth in profits or revenues are far better than just growth in usage, but even growth in usage is better than stagnation on all three fronts. There is at least the possibility that a company with strong usage growth might one day be attractive to an acquirer with a good monetization engine.

It’s no fun to work at a startup that isn’t growing. Stagnation leads to low morale, with people sitting around waiting for the axe to fall. Rather than let the company become a zombie, management would be doing their investors and employees a favor by pulling the plug and returning the remaining capital to investors.

Why VCs often don’t put companies out of their misery

Founders and executives have a lot of emotional capital invested in their companies, so when it comes to making the ultimate decision, their reluctance is understandable. What’s surprising is how often VCs let companies turn into zombies. The reason for this is a subtle misalignment of interests between VCs and their investors. As long as a startup still appears to be, on some level, alive, VCs can carry the company on their books at the valuation set by the last round of financing. Once they pull the plug, the fund will receive pennies on the dollar, a loss that has to be recorded on the books and doesn’t look good when the firm goes to raise their next fund. Every VC portfolio, therefore, has its fair share of zombies.

Another contributing factor is excessive preference overhangs. Investors receive preferred stock with the right to get back their invested capital ahead of common shareholders in an exit; in some cases they have the right to receive a multiple of their invested capital ahead of common shareholders. The total amount that investors need to receive before common shareholders can participate in an exit is called the “preference overhang.”

If a company has raised so much capital that any realistic acquisition will be below the overhang, then common shareholders stand to receive nothing from the sale — and company management has no incentive to look for such an exit. In such cases, it’s important for the VCs and management to agree to restructure the preference overhangs to make such exits attractive to management. Otherwise the company is destined to become a zombie.

Every startup founder and employee has to consider three possible outcomes: success, failure and zombiehood. Success is much better than failure, but quick failure beats wasting years of your life on a zombie. If you are a company founder, and you are considering layoffs to extend the runway (perhaps on the advice of your venture investor), you should look in the mirror and ask yourself whether you are cutting away your growth opportunity and just choosing a lingering death over a quick one.

Anand Rajaraman is a co-founder of Kosmix and Founding Partner of Cambrian Ventures. Disclosure: He is also an investor in Giga Omni Media, parent company of GigaOM.

18 Responses to “Survival Is Not a Strategy”

  1. Beenthere Donethat

    Anand, the sentiment you express while logical is not necessarily a truism. It is much like euthanasia – when one does not live with dignity is subject to the very definition of dignity, and very much dependent on the person (aside from clear cases of a vegetable state, there are many ambiguous states).

    Most startups are formed by passionate and creative beings – that said, if one survives, the need to succeed will most certainly catalyze a metamorphosis to a sustainable entity. I doubt most real entrepreneurs will cling to their idea without listening to the market. Clearly this metamorphosis will comprise of many a sacrifice and hardship, but I would hate to throw the baby with the bath water. And, most definitely it may not result in an enterprise worthy of VC returns.

    There are numerous examples in Silicon Valley history – all the way from Sun to dare I say Junglee. Sometimes, the proverbial “s### or get off the pot” has a very valid corollary – if you sit long enough you will finally succeed. Zombiehood while easy to pontificate is not very deterministic.

    This boils down to – do you invest in the team or the product??

  2. Shadowlayer

    “…startups are supposed to be attacking nascent market opportunities and unsaturated markets…”

    Exactly, supposed, just like politicians should be fixing the world.

    Problem is around 97% of all startups out there are attacking already saturated markets (ie: all the youtube clones and same-o social networks) or unreliable business models from where no revenue is known to have been made (ie: twitter) or seem possible to be made.

  3. I concur with you Anand.

    As far as I see it as, Startups are both flexible and quick! This should provide an edge to startups over other big/established players. More so in case of downturns. Instead of curtailing growth by reducing resources, startups can leverage their resources tactically! I have seen quite a few startups doing that now, coming up with new things which other ways they wont have done. Of course, this doesn’t mean changing their strategic plans and long term vision.We at JobeeHive( are also doing things tactically.

    Having said all this, for few there might not be any tactical solution other than reducing resources. Survival they see it as!

    Either case, wish you all good luck! Lets take this downturn head on and make sure we sail through!

    –Sandeep G

  4. Certainly you can’t cut cost alone, that’s always the 1st episode. If you can extend another year’s life, you win more chance to sell more stuff, line up partners, find out more lucrative market.

    It’s just like diet alone won’t do too much on reducing weight, you need to excise too.

    Business is not always about “strategy”, it’s more about common sense, and people want to live, no matter what. In my view cutting cost is, despite its cruelty of laying off, a legitimate path toward survival.

  5. This is an interesting post, particularly in these times.

    “If you can’t provide decent returns to your VCs, quit cutting costs just to survive, instead shut shop and go home” — I disagree with this underlying tone in the article.

    In fact, this “quick money” syndrome and constant obsession with “exit” that drives the overall financial sector is what has got the economy into this mess in first place. VCs make investments in good faith that a company would go places and give them a decent ROI in a 4 years. But if that doesn’t happen it doesn’t mean that the company should fold! A perfect example of throwing the baby with the bath water.

    Ultimately a business (irrespective of whether it be venture backed or not) is about adding value and getting paid for it. Unfortunately, the valley has been seen far too many of companies that produce “cool” products which produce “zero” or insignificant revenue, yet get acquired, and turn out to be brilliant investments. The result is that several entrepreneurs and VC have been dreaming up “get rich quick” ideas, that often don’t pan out as good investments. But even some of these over time start producing truly valuable products and services and generate revenues. There are no shortage of companies from the dot com days who have survived and are today profitable, but have never sold out or gone public for various reasons. These are terrible VC investments but not bad businesses that don’t deserve to survive!

    The “preference overhang” is an excellent point but its easier said than done. Its a delicate balance between emotion and money. Even in worst of times entrepreneurs and VCs alike hope to get blood from a stone.

  6. Amen on the post! Just adding one point, ‘ zombiehood ‘ can be a result of a proactive decision of ‘we will not fund you anymore, you are on your own and good luck’ (this is not such a bad scenario as it brings truth and real decisions to the table) vs the alternative of ‘cut expenses till you break-even, then we will fund you, based on achieving growth milestones’. This misalignment is a cancer.

    I have a few posts on the topic too at