I hear about VC professionals publishing more thought pieces and getting more recognition as thought leaders in the media and in social policy relative to PE professionals. VC guys seem to be able to position themselves as public intellectuals followed much more closely by a wider audience, through their own blogs, books, circuits of high profile events, conferences, participation in public policy, etc.
Thus, I'm wondering -- if you are interested in becoming a public intellectual in your field, would it make more sense to go into VC?
VCs write thought pieces because they need publicity to source deals. If a VC can be viewed as the leader in a space, that person is more likely to attract top-tier entrepreneurs and thus contribute more to the financial success of their fund. This is why the majority of published content you see is from lower-tier VC firms, and why the top-tier guys (Benchmark, Sequoia, Greylock...a16z is an exception to the rule) don't really write anything at all. They don't have to.
For PE firms, thought pieces don't help with deal flow, so investors largely don't waste their time doing it. It's also a high risk strategy - there are lots of thought pieces out there that are actually quite awful, many from top brands. With technology in particular, it's very hard to have an informed, value-add viewpoint if you're not an engineer, especially if you're trying to be a thought leader. Hot topics (AI, blockchain, etc.) are inherent just extremely technical and hard to understand even at a high level with any sort of sophistication.
Ab sunt qui expedita eos. Sunt rerum qui quis porro optio. Nemo eos dolor libero libero doloremque ut et sed.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...