Small Business Trends

How Bootstrapping Became a Lost Art and Venture Capital Became an Addiction

Published by in Small Business Trends

It was the year 2000 when a venture capital firm first told me “No.”

venture capital addiction

I was 26 and I thought I’d done everything right. I had an idea that could change the way the world does business (OK, guilty of a little hyperbole). I left my job and began assembling a great team (No hyperbole there). I invested most of my own money (and some money from friends and family) in the company. We made what we thought was a solid presentation.

And they said “No.”

I don’t mean “No” in the literal sense. Unfortunately—at least back then—VCs did not actually say “No”. They claimed they would “ponder it and get back to [me].” No one ever did. It was frustrating and distracting.

In retrospect, I can’t blame them: I had never started a company before, the product had no traction, and the Internet bubble was bursting. But I never considered closing up shop. The venture capital industry did not really even exist until the 1970s, so why should it be a requirement to build a successful business? For most of human history, bootstrapping has been the way to go. So that’s what we did.

The Rise of VC

Over the past fifteen years—given the nature of Capterra, an online marketplace for B2B software—I’ve had the benefit of spending nearly every business day on the phone or meeting with software companies, frequently the founders. And throughout these conversations, I’ve noticed a bit of a dichotomy between those who have bootstrapped and those who have raised VC. The former often play it too safe and don’t invest enough of their profits in growing the business. The latter have the exact opposite problem. They are so aggressively focused on revenue growth that they never learn how to operate a profitable business. And while revenue growth is great—and the only metric that VCs seem to care about—operating a business within the constraint of making a profit can lead to greater creativity, focus, and more sound business decisions.

Three realities lead me to think that venture capital has become a bad addiction for most business software companies, and its overall effect may actually be negative for the industry. (And this isn’t just sour grapes; we had the opportunity to raise venture capital later on and we said no thanks.)

An Increased Risk

The first one is a data point. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about half of all new companies fail to reach their five year anniversary and about two thirds never celebrate ten years in business. However, an even higher percentage—an estimated 75%—of VC backed companies fail, and they usually fail quickly, as in a few years. This means that raising venture capital, while increasing your chances of hitting a homerun, also materially increases your chances of failure. Not that longevity is the only measure of success, but it seems to be a pretty objective one. How many software CEOs realize that raising venture capital actually reduces their chance of remaining in business?

A Decrease in Efficiency

Secondly, while it stands to reason that promising B2B startups may require sizable investments early on in order to afford all-star developers, marketers, and salespeople to go to market with a great product, I think it also stands to reason that, capital intensive exceptions aside, by the time their growth begins to subside, likely somewhere in the $50 to $100 million revenue range, that they should probably not be so reliant on outside funding anymore. But recent IPOs of some of the highest flying B2B software companies show otherwise. Take three examples.

HubSpot is ten years old and has become one of the clear market leaders in marketing automation software. They now have an annual revenue run rate of $160 million and are growing at a 50% annual clip. Yet they continue to lose almost a million dollars per week—largely because the company takes a staff of over 900 employees to operate. That’s just $175,000 in annual revenue per employee. Last year their operating loss was 42% on $116 million in revenue.

Box, another decade-old software company, competes with Dropbox, Microsoft, and Google to manage content and files for businesses, and is currently growing at a rate of 45% annually. They operated at a loss of 77% on $216 million in annual revenue. Their current run rate is around $270 million putting their revenue per employee at around $220,000.

A third example is Cornerstone OnDemand, the 16-year-old market leader in the talent management software sector. They did $264 million in revenue last year with a 19% operating loss. Their current run rate is $300 million with about a 30% growth rate. Revenue per employee is around $210,000.

All three of these high-flying B2B software companies (they really are stars in the industry) have blown by the $100 million revenue milestone with growth slowing down to the 30-50% range. That remains solid, healthy growth, but it’s a far cry from the triple digit growth rate they experienced in their early days when it made sense to continue to invest heavily. So, in theory, with the more modest growth rates they are experiencing, they should be at the point where they have learned to operate more efficiently and become profitable. Yet their operating margins remain deep in the negative, and revenue per employee for all three is under a quarter million dollars—all surprisingly low stats for the software industry. It’s as if those early years of venture capital made them soft; they’re struggling in the transition to profitable enterprises.

A Skewed Reality

HubSpot, Box, and Cornerstone (and many others that have gone public recently) believe that profits lie ahead – maybe once they reach $500 million or surely a billion in revenue. And the market clearly believes them with valuations of 7-10x their current run rates. Enter the third reality:, the pioneer of Saas and the software company that Hubspot and the others try to emulate, has yet to achieve profitability. Certainly at annual revenue north of $5 billion and growth slowing to 25% they should be generating profits, right? Unfortunately, in each of the last three years they have recorded operating losses of 3-7% of revenue, while surpassing $3 billion, $4 billion, and $5 billion in annual revenue, respectively, in each of those years. Fortunately, it finally appears that they are on track for profitability this year, after they cross a whopping $6 billion in annual revenue.

How could this be? Microsoft, Oracle, and seemingly every other high flying software company of the late 20th century had incredible margins – 25%, 30%, 35%. The software industry has built a reputation for it: Build a great product along with a sales and marketing engine, bring it to market, and reap the rewards of having low cost per unit economics. So what happened? Venture capital happened. And the stock market has supported it, at least for now.

Planning for VC in Moderation

This isn’t to say that venture capital is necessarily bad. I am convinced that many of today’s leading technology companies—started by people often still in college, with little business acumen or experience—would have had no real chance of success without turning to venture capitalists. Their money, relationships and guidance can be critical to success. What I am saying is that a good thing can turn bad—and become an addiction—when moderation is neglected. I fear that is the case, and the only solution I can think of is to continuously remind software entrepreneurs that raising gobs of venture capital is not the only viable path to a thriving business.

Here’s a possible goal for business software startups: If/when you emerge from your meteoric growth and come back down to Earth in the land of double digit growth rates (sub 100%), start to think about how you will operate within the constraint of profitability. Make it your goal that by the time you slow down to 50% growth that you will be at least breaking even by that point. Then as your growth continues to slow to 25% make it your next goal to expand margins to 25%. For most software companies this will require a severe reduction in sales and marketing payroll as a percentage of revenue. Be creative and figure out a way to make it happen while remaining innovative.
Profits are not everything, but in the long run they remain the best single measure of a company’s ability to deliver a great product, delight customers, satisfy shareholders, and help the world become a better place. With that in mind, profit should not be the bad word that it seems to have become.

Looking for Fundraising software? Check out Capterra's list of the best Fundraising software solutions.

About the Author

Michael Ortner

Michael Ortner

Mike started Capterra in 1999 as the first website dedicated to helping people find the right software for their business. Today, Capterra lists over 30,000 software companies, displays more than 250,000 software reviews, and receives over 3,000,000 monthly visitors. He's been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Fox News, and Inc. Magazine, among other publications, where he's spoken on topics ranging from the business software industry to running and growing a business in the 21st century. Mike received a business degree from Georgetown University and a philosophy degree from the University of London. He lives in McLean, VA with his wife and six children.



Comment by Benjy Boxer on

The points in this article are very true about venture capital addictions and the impact on business models. It’s too bad that people celebrate fundraising rather than the true victory of profitability and sustainable growth. I was on a technology corporate development team a few years ago. When we bought small companies that didn’t raise capital, the founders and employees received a lot more money than the larger acquisitions whose growth was funded through venture capital. That being said, one nuance on profitability with the Salesforce example and others is that GAAP makes a lot of SaaS companies look unprofitable and look like they have low revenue per employee. GAAP only allows a company to recognize revenue as services are rendered. For many SaaS companies, they’re collecting money upfront or before monthly services are rendered. That’s why a SaaS company looks less profitable than an install software company (Microsoft) in the early years. Otherwise, however, I totally agree with everything else in this article and despite the nuance on GAAP, you’re still right about the addiction of venture capital. I hope that if I launch a B2B software company that I can grow my business sustainably on little to no investment from VCs unless I’m in a situation where it’s a winner-take-all market where timing is everything.

Comment by David Hite on

makes alot of sense. another outstanding article, thank you for the valuable information

Pingback by 116 Must-Read Guides & Resources From The Startup Ecosystem on

[…] How Bootstrapping Became a Lost Art and Venture Capital Became an Addiction This is a great read by Michael Ortner at Capterra reminds us venture capital is not the only viable path to building a thriving business. […]

Comment by Matteo Fabiano on

What if the markets (private and public) has been oversold on the notion that tech companies need to grow at unprecedented rate to secure “network effects” and monopolistic market positions, even at the cost of ballooning losses? While that may be true(r) of two-sided marketplaces, I am not so sure it so readily apply to enterprise software, SaaS or otherwise.

Pingback by How Bootstrapping Became a Lost Art and Venture Capital Became an Addiction on

[…] This is a great read by Michael Ortner at Capterra reminds us venture capital is not the only viable path to building a thriving business. […]

Pingback by Mattermark Daily – Monday, August 3rd, 2015 | Mattermark on

[…] Michael Ortner of Capterra explores the history of venture capital, the risks of raising capital, and ‘planning for VC in moderation’ in “How Bootstrapping Became a Lost Art and Venture Capital Became an Addiction” […]

Comment by James Rigdon on

I see workplace efficiencies as a more cost effective way to create true revenue, than a reliance on the VC spigot of quick results and growth. Having a lean organization with a sales and marketing team that performs incredible well, guided by insightful leadership while increasing revenue per employee, is more attractive than funding from outside interests in my opinion.

With the access to greater VC resources, the results are bigger numerical statistics and perceived market share as identifiers of growth, with an obscured reference to revenue. On paper this can be attractive to investors because they seek a greater return on their investment.
The result is the tendency to accrue debt with this temptation of rapid growth as the result of this capital injection. This can create greater market share, but liquidity and revenue suffer. Who gets there the fastest at all costs it seems, the costs being no revenue and big debt as you arrive and beat you competitors to the goal line. At least it looks like you’re winning but as you mentioned, this often is not the result.

If I had a great idea and was approached by a VC firm, I think I would try to avoid the temptation to bring in outside financing. To me it’s the simple aversion to debt and big talk, while keeping bankers and financiers at bay. This voice inside my head would tell me to remain in control of my idea and avoid the fog. In this respect, I do believe moderation is the key focus, with a strong motivation towards innovation and creativity and cost and quality control, while doing everything to maintain market share and growth while creating customers who are devoted and delighted all of the time. As you mentioned VC is not all bad, it’s the importance of knowing what can be the outcome of the results.

Comment by Mario Coryell on

Unless your corporate filing is 501c3 you are in business to make a profit for your shareholders (you, friends, family, ,Angels, VCs, etc.). I wince every time I read about a new start-up that is struggling to figure out how to monetize what they are doing long after going to market with a product. I may be stepping too far back here in that Mike is referencing software companies that do actually produce revenue.

Our company, NewOrg Management, started with limited funding well over 5 years ago. We are still in business, profitable and we continue to grow. I, as Director of Business Development, am looking at our product every day in terms of our pricing strategy, what functionality should we be providing and who should we be going after as clients to make sure we continue down that path. With so many start-ups having VC funding, it seems like someone just had a neat idea and turning it into a profitable enterprise is not really a priority. In my opinion, unless you have a “hunger mentality” from the start it it very difficult to develop one after the fact.

Comment on this article:

Comment Guidelines:
All comments are moderated before publication and must meet our guidelines. Comments must be substantive, professional, and avoid self promotion. Moderators use discretion when approving comments.

For example, comments may not:
• Contain personal information like phone numbers or email addresses
• Be self-promotional or link to other websites
• Contain hateful or disparaging language
• Use fake names or spam content
Your privacy is important to us. Check out our Privacy Policy.