Aug 29, 2016 · 31m · 20vc
20VC: Science Inc's Peter Pham on Why The Battle Between Entrepreneurs & VCs Is Unfair, How To Even The Playing Field & How To Tell When A VC Really Is Interested
0:00 / 0:00
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
In this episode of The 20 Minute VC, guest Peter Pham of Science Inc. discusses the mechanics of startup studio co-building, strategies for leveling the fundraising playing field against VCs, and key metrics for scaling early-stage companies.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. Harry holds 19% of the talking time here. How this is scored →
Harry as informed peer 1.7 Guest teaching 3.9 Guest disagreement 1.8 Harry pushing back 1.1
speaking balance: gold is Harry, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 12:00 Calling out VC partner excuses as lies
Peter directly dismantles common VC rejection phrasing, stating that claiming 'I couldn't get my partners' is actually a lie hiding a lack of personal conviction.
Hardest push from Harry ▶ 18:10 Harry probing Peter on his own rejection processHarry challenges Peter by framing a harsh question about how receiving thousands of rejections impacts how Peter himself rejects applying founders.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 14:20 30-minute VC snapshot vs months of operational dataPeter contrasts the superficial nature of venture capital evaluations—judging businesses in 30-minute windows—against the deep conviction built over months of daily operating data.
Harry holds his own ▶ 10:55 Harry identifying VC optionality tacticsHarry demonstrates sharp knowledge of venture capital behavior by correctly jumping in to articulate the 'optionality' polite soft-no responses VCs use.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | Harry as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | Harry pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peter Pham's Career Background and founding Science Inc. | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Harry opens with standard background questions, offering light banter about enterprise software. Peter shares his career journey through Photobucket, BillShrink, and Trinity Ventures without any friction. | |
| Inside Science Studio: How the Co-Building Model Works | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | This is a monologue segment where Peter explains the internal mechanics of Science Studio vs traditional accelerators. Host scores are zeroed as Harry does not speak. | |
| Evening the Playing Field in Venture Fundraising | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Peter reframes the fundraising landscape as fundamentally unfair to founders who pitch rarely compared to seasoned VCs. Harry asks standard prompt questions to let Peter elaborate. | |
| Shadowing Founders in Pitch Meetings and Translating VC Speak | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Peter details his role shadowing founders in pitch meetings and translating investor intent. Harry interjects with light humor about free LaCroix while Peter explains founder-VC miscommunication. | |
| The 24-Hour Rule and Detecting Real VC Conviction | 2 | 5 | 3 | 1 | Harry demonstrates familiarity with VC stall tactics around 'optionality.' Peter bluntly breaks down partner dynamics, labeling standard VC rejection excuses as outright lies. | |
| Coaching Founder Resilience and Navigating Rejection | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | Peter highlights the absurdity of VCs making decisions in 30-minute meetings compared to studio operators who analyze months of operational data. Harry prompts Peter on founder coaching. | |
| Science's Co-Building Equity Model vs. Traditional Venture Funds | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | Harry poses a pointed question on how Peter delivers rejections given his own experience receiving them. Peter outlines Science's non-fund LLC structure and equity model. | |
| Quick-Fire Q&A: Influential Books, Dollar Shave Club Impact, and Focus | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Harry leads a rapid-fire round pushing on how Peter maintains focus. Peter provides an unusually candid answer regarding an adult ADHD diagnosis and medication. | |
| Media Habits, Partner Psychology, and Handstand Spotlight | 2 | 5 | 1 | 2 | Harry asks a tough question forcing Peter to pick a favorite portfolio company. Peter educates the host on analyzing partner political dynamics and spotlights Handstand. |
Statements from this episode (15)
Science Inc. houses all portfolio CEOs in a 26,000-square-foot office
“We have a 26,000 square foot office. All of our CEOs start in our offices, take a desk, and work with us side by side.”
Fundraising is structurally stacked against founders because VCs default to no
“I think it's unfair, I think, in the battle of entrepreneurs, the VCs to get money in the sense that a VC has been doing this for years, right? They're getting a couple pitches a day, years, and so their default answer is a no.”
Science Inc. endured 3,000 rejections to raise $350M and build Dollar Shave Club
“At this point, I think I'm at 3000 plus no's. Right. And you know, what counts is the 83 yeses that we've had, and three hundred and fifty million raised against the portfolio, and now, of course, the Dollar Shave Club billion-dollar exit.”
VC general partners expect Science Inc. co-founders to shadow portfolio pitches
“I think it's normal. All the GPs and partnerships of all the firms expect me to be there and are okay with it.”
VCs expect founders to answer pitch questions using standardized mental frameworks
“I think there's always a miscommunication a lot of times when, you know, a VCO asks a type of question, like competition, where you see growth, what does this mean? I think in their mind, they want to hear it An answer in, in a framework that they're going to …”
Most founders misunderstand what a VC rejection means and waste time
“The process of honestly understanding what a no means, which is, I think most entrepreneurs just have no idea and they waste their time, right?”
Series A and B venture capitalists complete only two to three deals yearly
“If you think about an A round investor or B round investor, right, they're doing three deals a year, tops, maybe four, but really two or three.”
If a VC doesn't engage within 24 hours, they aren't genuinely interested
“I have a general rule I call the 24 hour rule which is in any, is there any engagement with you inside of 24 hours? And I might expand that to like 36, but generally 24 hours. And I'd even consider a favorite of a tweet an engagement. Right? It's something. Di…”
When a VC says they couldn't convince their partners, it is a lie
“The cop-out of every GP and every partner is always the, well, I love the deal, but I couldn't get my partners. No, that's actually a lie. They didn't have the conviction. They, they're using that for optionality for later, right?”
VCs judge startups in hours, while studios evaluate founders over months
“If you look at venture, in a lot of ways, they're just kind of judging you inside of 30 minutes, and wow, I have data of thousands of hours with the CEO. In this company, and they're judging it in, in a 30 minute moment, whether it's just, they want to continu…”
Most venture capitalists do not actively think about their portfolio founders
“The reality is most VCs don't actually think about you all the time”
Science Inc. operates as an LLC that co-builds startups for equity
“We co-build companies for equity. We're not, I don't have a fund. Mike and I, we, Our team, we don't not have a fund. We are an operating company. We're an LLC similar to beta works, but we don't have a fund.”
Startup customer acquisition costs never scale linearly as customer bases expand
“Whereas everybody's assumption is, I've acquired this many customers for the X. People believe that's linear. That's never true. Never, ever, ever true.”
Consumer startups must use broad advertising to achieve mass adoption after saturation
“At scale, Dollar Shave Club has to buy podcasts, television ads, because there is a saturation point on all places, and the only way you can reach mass adoption is kind of advertising.”
Top-of-funnel marketing is wasted without first optimizing retention and conversion metrics
“Before you dump everything at the top end of the funnel, there's a multiplier effect by increasing the retention by 20% or increasing the time for someone to do something by 20%. Like, those little things make the, before you dump everything at the top, whethe…”