Strategies for Successful Tech Startups

People don’t pay for green. Full stop. We see many #climatetech startups marketing their products in this order: 1️⃣ Sustainability - the products are green and have low carbon intensity. 2️⃣ Resilient supply chain - the sourcing of the product is done in a more resilient and reliable way. 3️⃣ Performance - the product is (or nearly is) a drop-in solution. 4️⃣ Price - there is currently a “green premium,” but it will decrease as we scale. Yet, time and again, these companies, especially those selling commodities, experience pushback from an industry unwilling to buy these goods and narratives. The reason is that the industry has the exact opposite set of priorities: 1️⃣ Price - in a high-interest environment where margins are eroded and many businesses face fierce competition (e.g., from China), price parity is the top priority. Even a few cents per kW/h or gallon can make a difference. I recently learned of a battery startup whose raw materials alone cost more than the fully assembled battery of a Chinese competitor. No one will pay that premium. 2️⃣ Performance - many new solutions promise technical performance improvements, but most are not packaged to qualify for all customer requirements and have little evidence to prove long-term benefits. In mega projects, durability is almost always more important than unproven superior performance. Sunfire is flourishing because of their Alkaline cells, not their SoX full cells. 3️⃣ Resilience - following the pandemic and the scarcity of raw materials, this is indeed a growing concern for both industry and governments. 4️⃣ Sustainability - if a product can address all the above topics and also be green, the industry will be happy to adopt it. What does this mean? Startups need to take a market-centric rather than a tech-centric approach. They should develop their go-to-market strategy from day 1 to prioritise customers whose needs align most with their story, and design their entire product and value proposition around those customers requirements. For example, a raw material startup shouldn’t target the battery industry where price and quality are crucial. Instead, they might find success selling to the cement industry, where quality is less critical, and there’s a whole new value proposition around cirularity and sustainability. #venturecapital #fundraising #productmarketfit

Stop the investment SPAM. The main reason that founders fail with their outreach for a potential investment are overly generic messages. Every day I get messages that congratulate me on my great investments in payment technologies, battery tech or other sectors I have never invested in. I delete all those messages - those founders just need money, they do not want to have ME on the captable. They have not done their homework. Messages often lack a link to the website, a link to their linkedin and a pitchdeck. I need to filter quickly. Everything that is missing makes this process more complicated for me and increases the chance of me not continuing the process because I can not distinguish between spam and legit outreach. The outreach is often not a match for my investment criteria speaking about rounds that are too late for me or funding sums that are not relevant to me. I delete all those messages. Again: homework not done. People asking to jump on a call before providing any information apart from super generic info about the business like the purpose of the company and the addressable market - I will not jump on a call. That is like being a car dealer saying you have a great car to sell asking potential clients to come to the car dealership without any additional info. It will not work. If you want to convert outreach into opportunity do the following: First you identify angels that invest in your space of which you think they could be a valuable addition to your captable. Second you write an email/message that contains the following: - Short intro about you as the founder (include your linkedin in footer) - Short description of the business (include website in footer) - A couple of sentences around traction - Information regarding the current round (size, valuation, which milestone will be reached with the money) - Info why you reached out to the angel/ why you think she or he will be a good addition - Include link to schedule a call I am sure by doing that and sending out 10 emails/messages you will create more opportunities than sending out 1.000 untargeted messages.

In the first wave of insurtechs, Hippo, Root, and Lemonade each came out swinging. Each had a bold thesis: Hippo: Meet homeowners at their moment of need—mortgage closings, real estate flows, IoT devices. Root: Leverage smartphone motion data to price auto risk better, faster, and cheaper. Lemonade: Reinvent renters insurance with self-service quotes, instant claims, and a UX so frictionless it felt fun. But beneath the glossy branding was the same structural weakness: The Cascading Miracle Trap Each model relied on a stack of “ifs” that all had to click perfectly: Embedded distribution partners executing flawlessly. Regulatory buy-in at scale. Actuarial rigor catching up to new data sources. Customers staying loyal long enough for lifetime value to materialize. One broken link? The economics unraveled. Take Lemonade: Renters insurance turned out to be a high-churn product. At $5/month, it lacked the premium base to cross-sell into more profitable lines. Their bet that renters would “graduate” into homeowners—with the same brand loyalty—didn’t play out at scale. Or Root: Telemetry data was ahead of its time, but actuarial credibility lagged. Pricing precision didn’t keep pace with growth. Or Hippo: Their embedded flows depended on partner quality and underwriting consistency across fragmented channels. Both were harder to scale than anticipated. It’s like building a Jenga tower: Distribution, pricing, retention, loss ratios, and customer behavior—all critical. One loose block and the whole thing wobbles. What Smart MGAs Are Doing Instead The new generation of MGAs is taking these lessons to heart: ✅ Underwrite first. Grow second. ✅ Start with carrier-grade rigor, not just a sleek app. ✅ Focus on margin from inception—because in insurance, there’s no blitzscaling your way past bad pricing. The first wave showed what was possible. This wave is showing what’s sustainable. 👉 Full breakdown of each play—and how today’s operators are flipping the script: They Ran So We Could Earn: The Insurtech Lessons https://lnkd.in/gBfQ7g4u

Disrupt. Break. Revolutionize. These battle cries echo through every industry conference. But after 25 years of building businesses across cement, textile, FMCG, and Insurance, I've learned something powerful: The most successful innovators don't demolish. They renovate. When launching Lion Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd, we faced the entrepreneur's classic dilemma: Position as revolutionary disruptors promising to "fix" a broken system... OR Honor industry wisdom while surgically improving specific pain points. We chose the second path—deliberately. Because the insurance industry isn't broken. But parts of it are just outdated. Here are 3 things we did differently: 1. Client-first, not commission-first: Instead of just aggressive sales teams, we built dedicated client relationship managers. They ensure businesses get actual risk solutions, not just policy papers. 2. Precision over disruption: We didn't call insurance "broken." We identified specific problems: hidden coverage gaps, rigid policies, reactive risk assessments. Then we built our GAP Analysis methodology to fix them. 3. Trust before transformation : We phased in our innovations. First, we improved what already existed. That built trust. Only then did we bring in the revolutionary stuff. The results speak for themselves: - We're now one of India's fastest-growing insurance brokerages - We attracted investment from Yohan Poonawalla - We maintained relationships with traditional insurers while transforming how they serve clients. True disruptors don't tear down. They honor the foundation. Renovate the structure. And then innovate wisely. What's an industry "truth" you think needs renovation rather than revolution? #entrepreneurs #business #finance #money #investment #innovation

We grew 3x in the last quarter compared to the previous year—and it all started with identifying what wasn’t working. Growing more than 3x in the last quarter was exciting, but it also highlighted something important: when everything is growing, it’s easy to lose sight of what’s actually working and what’s not. One major takeaway for us was email outreach. The old approach of sending lots of emails to large lists just isn’t working anymore—especially after the updates from Google and Outlook earlier this year. Most emails now either land in spam or promotions, which makes them less effective. So, we changed the way we think about email. Here’s what we learned: → Less is more. Instead of sending emails to 100 accounts and hoping for a couple of responses, we focused on just 12 or 13 accounts. These were companies that were clearly interested—they were visiting our website, engaging with LinkedIn ads, or checking out our category on G2. → Signals matter. We combined data from multiple places—website analytics, email engagement, social media interactions, and even third-party platforms—to identify accounts that were already aware of us and had a potential need. → Multi-channel works better. Email alone isn’t enough anymore. We paired it with personalized LinkedIn messages, connection requests, and even founder-led outreach to build a relationship across multiple touchpoints. By narrowing our focus and personalizing our approach, we got more responses and stronger leads with far fewer emails. It also made outreach feel more meaningful—both for us and the people we were reaching out to. Looking ahead to 2025, we’re excited to build on this approach and explore other channels, like calling, to make our outreach even stronger. If you’re rethinking your own approach to email or outreach, I’d be happy to chat about what’s worked for us! #marketing #sales #outreach

I see this all the time: founders blasting out generic emails to investors and wondering why nobody replies. The truth? Only the ones who do their homework get attention. This is what you should do: 1. Personalize the first line → Reference a deal they’ve done, a podcast they were on, or a thesis they’ve written. Show you know why you’re reaching out to them specifically. Capwave helps by giving you investor details pulled from their thesis, stage focus, and even preferences they’ve mentioned in socials/podcasts. 2. Keep the ask tight → One clear request: a 20–30 minute intro call. Don’t bury it in three paragraphs. Investors scan, they don’t read novels. 3. Use warm intros when you can → Founders in their portfolio are gold. Other VCs they co-invest with are second best. If you don’t know them, spend time making friends with the people who do. Capwave shows you their portfolio companies and highlights the ones most similar to yours, so you can scan your network for intros that actually make sense. 4. Nail the forwardable blurb → Make it ridiculously easy for someone to forward your note. 3 lines: what you do, traction, why now. If it’s too long, it won’t get sent. Capwave resources and masterclasses walk you through how to craft this blurb and prep for your first call so you don’t blow your shot. 5. Follow up like a pro → After the meeting, send a concise thank you with 2–3 bullet updates. If they pass, keep them on your update list. No today doesn’t mean no forever. Founders who do this get meetings. Founders who don’t get ignored. That’s why we built Capwave AI, so every founder can run this playbook with investor intelligence, warm intros, and call prep built in. Questions for you: → What’s the best cold email you’ve ever sent (or received)? → Do you track who could intro you to portfolio founders before outreach? → How do you handle follow-ups when investors go quiet? #fundraising #venturecapital #founders #startups #Capwave

A great (niche) insurance product is worthless if no one knows how to sell it... Most insurtech-driven MGAs/MGUs think their biggest challenge is building better niche products and end-to-end tech solutions. "It's all about speed to quote, backend tech, actuarial modeling, claims management" (all the nerdy tech jargon stuff they tell you). It’s not. You can create the best niche insurance product in the world. The best backend tech for quoting, underwriting, claims management, speed, efficiency, etc. (all the "features" of a world-class MGA model). But if their retail agents and wholesale broker partners don’t know how to sell it... You lose. "Why aren't we getting more submissions? Bind orders? Revenue?" "Why are we burning through all our INVESTORS cash?" The harsh truth and reality? MGAs don’t have a product problem. MGAs don't have a tech problem, either. They have a distribution problem. Expecting agents to figure it out on their own is NOT a winning game plan and GTM strategy. They need: → Tools, training, and niche-specific content. → Give them targeted prospect lists in their local territory. → Provide niche marketing kits that actually work. → Coach them on how to position your product. BECOME more like a niche marketing, lead generation and content creation agency for your partners FIRST...niche insurtech-driven MGA, second. Most have it the other way around or it's non existent altogether. You don’t build a winning team by handing them a playbook with blank pages. Here's the big takeaway and insight... Distribution isn’t about luck. It’s about building systems. Developing the people and talent who are on the front lines "hunting" and producing. Build the niche marketing and content flywheel. Empower your agents. Dominate your niche. ❓What’s stopping your retail agency and broker partners from selling more of your niche insurance products? Let’s talk about fixing that.

I tell every climate tech founder I meet: if you want to raise millions, your solution needs to be better, faster, or cheaper than whatever came before it. Full stop. Now, more than ever, climate tech companies cannot rely on regulatory support or favorable policy environments as their competitive advantage. Your innovation needs to compete purely on its intrinsic merits — delivering superior economics, unmatched efficiency, and undeniable value for your customer. The hard truth is climate impact alone will never compensate for subpar performance. To fully grasp this reality, we must reconsider what we mean by “climate” innovation. The term itself is often misleading, implying a singular sector. In truth, climate innovation represents a full-scale industrial revolution, one that touches every industry — agriculture, transportation, construction, manufacturing, consumer goods, energy production, and beyond. The most successful climate founders adopt a mandate to reduce emissions AND rebuild entire value chains to be radically more efficient at scale. That’s the unlock. I've found Collaborative Fund's "Villain Test" to be a helpful framework to illustrate this sentiment. The test poses a critical question: Would a hypothetical ‘villain’ investor, driven purely by financial returns and self-interest, invest in your company? A dual focus, 1) irresistible, scalable economics paired with 2) purpose-driven impact, is the driving force behind climate tech superstars like Antora Energy, Twelve, and Nitricity, to name a few. This is the blueprint. If you want to lead in climate, build products that dominate on performance and deliver planetary benefits as an essential byproduct. Of course, the path from idea to reality is much easier said than done. This isn't meant to discourage but rather offer a principled approach for thinking about how to identify problems and build climate companies that endure. Start with the problem. Design for performance. Make impact inevitable. P.S. Also sharing this as an excuse to post a favorite photo from my time in Stanford Climate Ventures, where our dream team worked on extreme heat solutions that outperformed the status quo in cost and effectiveness across a variety of applications <3 #Better #Faster #Cheaper #Climate #ClimateTech #ClimateInnovation #IndustrialRevolution #VillainTest #Startups #Founders

"Why would you start a climate company in this environment?" This is a question I’ve been asked at least 10 times in the past three months since launching Residual. I could proclaim something noble about trying to save the world, but in all honesty... we saw a glaring problem in the market and we knew we could fix it. In our day-to-day work before this, my Co-Founder Laura Fritsch, PhD and I kept seeing the same thing. Projects would come to us - for a carbon rating (me) or insurance (her). They’d have the bones of something good, but they’d make fundamental mistakes in the early design. The root of the problem? These projects weren’t being built with the end customer in mind - the buyers and the investors. Those customers want LOW RISK. That’s the gap we’re solving. We’re building a company focused on solutions the market actually wants such as high-integrity, deliverable removals such as afforestation/reforestation and biochar. Not the flashiest, not the most speculative, but the ones we can de-risk and bring to the market at an accessible price point. We’re not banking on the market 100x-ing. Our model works in today’s market. If it grows, great - we scale with it. But even if it doesn’t, we’re building real impact, real value, and helping make the system work. #carbonremoval #cdr #climatetech

🌎 Your climate tech startup probably shouldn’t do product-led growth In conversation with climate tech founders, I’ve been surprised to field so many questions about product-led growth (i.e. “PLG”). “Should we do PLG? If yes, how?” My answer is almost always the same: No. Here’s why. ❓What is product-led growth❓ PLG is a marketing/sales strategy for B2B SaaS companies in which the product itself drives expansion, with supposedly no need for a traditional sales or marketing team. PLG companies are industry darlings because when it works, it really, really works. ❓Why should climate tech startups avoid PLG?❓ Some notable PLG companies include Zoom, Survey Monkey, and Calendly. One thing you’ll notice is that all these products share these qualities: 👩🏭 Industry agnostic: The revenue from PLG products tends to be modest – $10 to $50/month/user — so you need a huge user base to run a viable business. Most PLG products are used across many industries, giving them a large enough market to financially work. 🤝 Collaborative: PLG products typically have inherent viral dynamics, where users invite others to the platform as part of using the product itself. (You can’t use Zoom by yourself.)  🆓 Freemium: To capitalize on network effects, most PLG products use the freemium model. Freemium means a company offers basic services for free while charging a premium for advanced functionality. The free version gets a foothold in a company or industry – with the hope that companies and power users eventually pay and subsidize everyone else. Climate tech products don't fit this mold.  ❌ One vertical: Climate tech companies are, by definition, vertical specific, with a small number of potential users (compared to, say, Zoom).  ❌ Single player: Climate tech use cases are not particularly collaborative. Yes, multiple people may use a tool, but it’s often a closed system, used by only people within one company. ❌ Restrictive IT: Based on my experience working in climate, freemium offerings are a mismatch with industry procurement processes. The corporations and governments using climate tech software often have the strictest cybersecurity protocol and are extremely restrictive regarding which tools their employees can use. For example, a company I worked with had such robust firewalls, we could barely email each other (we ended up using LinkedIn messaging). This kind of company is not going to allow employees to use any tool they want. ❓What should climate startups do instead❓ The alternative strategy is honestly quite boring. Traditional enterprise sales is likely the answer. Your customer base is going to be relatively small (dozens or maybe hundreds of clients; not thousands), each paying enterprise-level prices (not consumer prices). Instead of investing in PLG, I almost always suggest to my climate tech clients to re-focus their product team to build a great product that deserves a high ticket price. Sometimes, the old-fashioned way really is best.