Why not make any difference? (1) They will nearly never pay any attention at all to unsolicited e-mail. (2) If they do read anything, they will essentially always look for something about traction and not seeing that will junk the e-mail.
The reactions about traction are so uniform that I have to conclude that they all have a common source, and that would be VCs agreeing (required to agree) with their LPs, and the LPs coming together to agree on traction, etc.
I don't write such involved prose to VCs with, e.g., lots of details in parentheses. I accept that VCs want to zip through text at about the fourth grade reading level.
I've never mentioned an NDA to a VC, and I doubt that a VC would want to look at my core math or have it reviewed outside -- my guess is that VCs just don't do that. I mention the math because without it there's no way known to accomplish what my work does.
For the $1 T, that's easy enough to justify at the back of the envelope level: Assume 1 billion people connect for a few sessions a week with each session from a few minutes to 30 minutes or so. On average, each session shows them about 5 ads per page for about 20 pages, 100 ads. Assume the Mary Meeker $2 per 1000 ads displayed. Assume a reasonable P/E. Multiply it out for yourself. If assume more, especially better ad targeting, which my data and math permits, then can get several times $1 T. For a back of the envelope estimate, the $1 T is fine. Look, it's simple: My work is an excellent, the first good, solution, so far with the best solutions poor, for a pressing problem for essentially every user of the Internet in the world. We're not talking niche here, or just teenagers, or just dog lovers, cooks, restaurant fans, etc. For the more advanced countries, get maybe as a standard Internet application 1 billion people. Then multiply that out. There's nothing outrageous about the $1 T.
Okay, I'll do the back of the envelope arithmetic for you:
Assume 1 billion users from the more developed countries. On average each connects to the site 3 times a week. Each connection lasts on average 30 minutes where they see an average of 5 standard sized ads per Web page and see 20 Web pages. The revenue is KPCB Mary Meeker's $2 per 1000 ads displayed. So revenue is
12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2 /
1000 = 28,800,000,000
a year. That's nearly all pre-tax
earnings; the opex and capex are in the
round off numbers.Assume have 40:1 P/E (I'm ignoring tax details here) for a market capitalization of
40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 2
/ 1000 = 1,152,000,000,000
So, in round numbers that's $1.2 T.With the good data from the users and some more math of mine, I should be able to do better ad targeting and get, maybe, $6 per 1000 ads displayed for market capitalization of
40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20* 3 * 4 * 6
/ 1000 = 3,456,000,000,000
or $3.5 T.There are some options for some virality that should raise the 3 visits a week to 6 for
40 * 12 * 1 * 10**9 * 5 * 20 * 6 * 4 * 6
/ 1000 = 6,912,000,000,000
or $7 T.Gee, it's just simple arithmetic.
With some resulting changes in culture, such as we've seen often enough in information technology in the last 10-20 years, the numbers could go several times higher, but I'll omit that.
Okay, I only get 500 million users and only $3.5 T.
Lots of people see the problem; they don't say anything about it because they see it as like death and taxes, something that can't be fixed. They assume the problem can't be solved because they don't have even as much as a weak little hollow hint of a tiny clue about how to solve the problem. That's common, standard: E.g., Henry Ford said "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse." Well, they didn't believe in a faster horse and had no clue about a car. So, they didn't say anything. It's that way on the Internet now; people don't see a solution so don't say anything. Same for the Internet itself before the Internet.
Uh, some original applied math processing some good data can be some good stuff. The US DoD has known that for a long time; so has the NSF; VCs have yet to learn this lesson.
At one time a VC could have had 20% of my company for $500,000. Not now!
That would have been
0.20 * 3.5 * 10**12 / 500,000 =
1,400,000
ROI. The VCs ignored me. Hundreds of
them.Lesson to HN readers: VCs are low quality people, losers; don't waste time with them.
I'm no longer looking for VC funding; it's hopeless. I don't really need VC funding. So, my point here is to do a big favor for HN readers and push back against a lot in the OP.