Scott Barclay shares insights on when to play an active role as a venture capital investor. He explains with examples how engagement with an entrepreneur starts and eventually disproves or strengthens his conviction in a business idea.
Scott Barclay shares insights on when to play an active role as a venture capital investor. He explains with examples how engagement with an entrepreneur starts and eventually disproves or strengthens his conviction in a business idea.
Highlights:
More details at https://podcast.sure.ventures
It would be really great if you could unlock the interaction between a psychiatrist and a patient. That's a really broken interaction. And you start to have an understanding of top down, how poorly we manage mental health, how poorly we manage psychiatry. I'm just using this as an example. And you start top down to see all the downstream implications to quality of life, healthcare spend, impact on communities.
But then you start to go bottoms up on how we touch, how we treat patients, how we understand them. You start to recognize the massive lack of treatment, lack of access, lack of treatment variation within different communities.
[00:00:36] Gopi Rangan: You are listening to The Sure Shot Entrepreneur - a podcast for founders with ambitious ideas. Venture capital investors and other early believers tell you relatable, insightful, and authentic stories to help you realize your vision. Hello and welcome to The Sure Shot Entrepreneur. Today's guest is Scott Barclay, a good friend of mine and a partner at Data Collective Venture Capital (DCVC).
DCVC is a deep tech focused venture capital firm based in the Silicon Valley. Scott leads DCVC's computational care investment thesis, backing companies pushing compute and empathy closer to the care journey in healthcare. In this episode, we discuss Scott's hypothesis-driven investing. You will learn about how Scott can play a very active role although he is a quiet alpha.
When it's required for the company to rise up, he's willing to step it up, roll up his sleeves and help the company in any way he can. He gives specific examples of that. He also talks to us about how entrepreneurs can work with him and how his growth mindset helps him engage closely with entrepreneurs to discover things previously not possible.
Scott, welcome to The Sure Shot Entrepreneur. Tell us about yourself. Perhaps start with your childhood. Where did you grow up?
[00:02:10] Scott Barclay: I'm from a small town called Martinsville, Virginia. And even there I'm cheating. You know, I'm from like a small little part in the country outside of Martinsville.
I remember the first week of college, I went to University of Virginia, and there was a classmate from Southern California. And I was telling him what town I was from. He said, "well, w hen you leave your town, what town are you in?" I'm like, "no, if you leave my town, you then drive for kind of a long time. And then like an hour later, you enter another town."
He's like, "yeah, but when you're between, what town you're in?" I'm like, "you're in the country." So I grew up kind of simply and kind of working class family.
[00:02:47] Gopi Rangan: So you, you played football, right? You were a quarterback.
[00:02:51] Scott Barclay: Oh, yes. You read something, you know, that's an intentional little, little nugget for somebody to bring it up.
Gopi, as I get older I want to actually stop taking my height so I never can admit that we shrink as we get older. Uh, but I'm going to keep telling myself that I'm 5'8 and a quarter. What you should know about being 5'8 and a quarter is I was this height when I was 12. I just didn't get any taller after that.
I, I grew kind of young. So I lived a glorious middle school athletic career of true domination, you know, and I've got the video tapes to prove, um, the moves. I never was able to dunk, uh, so like that always eluded me and I even today will still dream of dunking a basketball. Basketball is what I loved. Uh, football was where I had like glory during this very finite period of life.
But you learn a lot from being good and then not being so good. You learn a lot from, being advanced and seeing things other people can't see and then having them catch up and surpass you physically. You learn a lot about yourself and a lot about ego. And, uh, you know, when in doubt, it taught me I better actually keep reading more books.
Um, it's good to be in shape, but it's probably better to keep learning.
[00:03:53] Gopi Rangan: How did you become a venture capital investor, specifically in health care?
[00:03:59] Scott Barclay: I think the best way I like to answer that is, very early in my career, I had to decide, "do I think I'm really so smart that I'm one of the world's best investors?
Or do I think I'm someone who embraces a growth mindset and complexity and really like leading teams into those headwinds and challenges." And I chose lead teams. And that took me down a path of INSEAD and Boston Consulting Group and really interesting choices and growth at CVS/Caremark , building certain businesses there.
It took me them into more of an entrepreneurial career. I did not invent but I helped fix and then scale and create the ecosystem that your prescription moves electronically.
[00:04:37] Gopi Rangan: You're talking about Surescripts.
[00:04:38] Scott Barclay: I'm talking about Surescripts. I became a venture capital investor with a little bit of twinkle in my eye.
Which was, uh, in my mid 30s, I had one of those career altering situations where I said, "Let me not take one job that looks like any one thing, but I have just enough capital and time and freedom. Let me just have time to pursue some hypotheses in healthcare." Where I felt like at that point, having really built a lot of stuff at CVS and having helped create the e-prescribing ecosystem, building Surescripts and running some other e-prescribing companies, I felt like I had a first or second row into all the ways in which U.S. healthcare is dysfunctional and the early seeds of change of what digitization and informatics can mean in the future. Something I said to myself in 2012 was, "Oh, I don't want to be a venture capitalist, particularly the early stage VCs. That's all about ego and network, and I'm not about any of those things.
But let me try to take some hypothesis driven shots on some specific use cases I believe in." So I looked one part like a product guy, one part like an angel investor. I did a couple of things with a private equity firm, but for me they were testing a concept that I wanted to go deeper around the bundle payment.
I did something with GE Healthcare, but for me it was actually a platform where they said I could use a significant amount of my time to work on incubating a couple of ideas. So my point is I had this period that I both could still to this day not well explain to my mother, but on the other hand, it gave me this type of freedom. And Gopi, what I'm telling you is in that freedom, I did start to touch a ton of VCs, some famous, some not, some really good, some that are no longer in the business probably for good reasons.
I started to form a view that great early stage investing was not about just networking ego. It's that where some of the deepest, most interesting applied theory, applied thinking comes into play around the future that you want to create. And I started to form a hypothesis of almost all of the best companies had a special founder and a special early venture capitalist who believed in them.
And I think of that as GP/CEO fit. And once I allowed myself to view the world that way, I still have the following percentages, which is I view venture capital about 75 percent of the time is kind of agnostic, meaning the VC doesn't add nearly as much value as they would like to say, or even they believe themselves, but it's real money.
And it's real catalytic capital taking really good shots. I would say 15 percent of the time, that venture capitalist impact on the company to whom they just wrote a check is actually destructive. It usually has a root cause somewhere within ego, somewhere within a missed expectations, and it can happen on the CEO or the venture capitalist side.
I'm just saying 15 percent of the time, you look back and one or both of them would say, you know, we should not have done that. And fundamentally, that's usually a relationship or a bad judgment about character. But what I had my eyes open to during that period of which I was, "Oh, you know, I don't want to be a VC, that's not where I'm going" was I started to see some really special situations. Some 10 percent of the time when you see that investor actually made the difference, it was a special founder, they had a chance, they were going through tough times; I've literally been in the room now multiple times where I've seen the investor have the bravery or the boldness or the fortitude to make the hard call.
To pick something up and say, "here's how we're going to redo it, but we're going to redo the management team" or to pick something up and say, "everyone else is absconding, but here's how we're going to put more capital in. And here's how we're going to see this through, or here's why we're going to pivot."
It's that combination of the investor and the founder, where if you get it right, you can kind of trust in some type of search for truth on some type of true North mission where I've been really inspired. Now that I am only a venture capitalist and I'm three plus years into only doing this, I have to say one of my few things I'm after is I'm after making investments on the future where I see the plausible exponential upside where I can help play that role. Now, what I don't mean is that I would always be the difference maker. I am perfectly happy to return unbelievable returns to our LPs on a solution that makes the world better, even if I can be perfectly honest that that founding team did everything. I just happened to be lucky and along for the ride and I did no harm. That's perfectly fine. I will make no apologies for that. But kind of what I'm always seeking is it's that ones where you have a certain alpha, where you have an edge.
The world doesn't yet understand or is even against the concept you're after, but you and that founder share that vision and you and that founder have some complimentary sets of perspectives and capabilities and things you bring to the table where in this early stage of the company, it's catalytic.
And you can look back and say, I always spoke truthfully. I always did my best, was wrong about a lot of things, but we always worked in trust and we created something greater. I've seen that happen. I've seen some really wonderful examples from some people who have come before you and I Gopi, and I hope to be part of a few of those.
And I have a pretty good inkling that I already am part of a few, but it's still pretty early. So, uh, no premature victory map.
[00:09:38] Gopi Rangan: The way you describe your journey, uh, very personal and very thoughtful. I see a parallel here. Uh, and tell me if I'm reading this right, the middle school giant that was upset that other people passed him is actually now enjoying playing the role where you support entrepreneurs and let them pass you and take the credit and you actually thrive on that. You've turned your whole psychology around enjoying it versus envying it.
[00:10:08] Scott Barclay: Yeah, you know, there are leaders, there are followers, and then there are people who are truly able to be both depending on the context and what the situation calls for.
So I have no need to be an alpha or be a leader when what I really should do is sit down and just start rowing and help out. And then there's other times where whether others are in agreement or not, you should step forward and say, "Hey, this situation isn't right." Or "Hey, we may not be in agreement, but this is going to fly into the side of the mountain and I will not let that happen.
And here's what I'm going to do." So there's definitely something in the playbook there of knowing when to follow someone greater than yourself, knowing when to be vulnerable and sublimate yourself to that. And other times when you say, by luck and by juxtaposition, by history, by intent, by fate, I'm here at a moment and the things that we do matter and we're going to give it our best.
And that means we probably need to step up even if it's a little bit uncomfortable. I like both situations. I'm okay with both. So I find that's probably an important part of my DNA of being an investor. I'm thinking of two investments as I say these sentences to you. And in one case, the CEO probably has no idea that I can be kind of an alpha, because he's pretty amazing.
I honestly learn from him more than he learns from me. I know that I'm very helpful in some specific ways. I have a very cold hearted investing view of alpha. And I'm pretty sure he's going to help me return that. We have a very positive symbiotic relationship, but in every context in this company, he's the leader and I am, but a humble investor who is happy to be part of it and contributing.
Simultaneously, I think about another company that I think will have equally profound returns and along that journey, that CEO and I will look back and there will be times where it will be unclear who was carrying who, because I definitely played a very strong role. Now, in the first example, I should tell you it's a repeat entrepreneur.
And in the second example, it's a founder with amazing both technical and product capabilities, but has not been a founder before. So one thing that I'm telling you, Gopi, is I'm totally comfortable with both. One of the things I find it's very important as an investor is not to superimpose yourself into the wrong situations.
So in the example of the repeat super founder, I very early navigated to what he would be looking for in me that I also agreed I could really help with. And that is a relatively quiet, thoughtful, strategic, you know, help pull a couple of levers behind the scenes type of role. Whereas in the second, while we keep redefining it over time, you know, I've had interventions, I've had strong leadership at both the board and the company level.
And I think looking back to CEO and I will say, "yeah, it was because we had trust, we could both be strong with each other and we've both gotten to a better place because of it." More importantly, the company and the value creation of the company have gotten to a better place for it. I'm one part articulating a great caution to not be an alpha when that is not what's called for, but also a willingness when you see it.
[00:13:10] Gopi Rangan: So it reads like making the company successful by doing what it takes is more important than stepping into an alpha role to satisfy your ego needs. And you try not to do that. But when you describe the kind of entrepreneurs that you work with, it's a wide variety. People who need a little bit of your help and sometimes entrepreneurs who take a lot of your help.
What do you look for in an entrepreneur when you meet them?
[00:13:35] Scott Barclay: We're probably only coming onto your cap table because we already suspected and have validated you have something very special that is deep and technical at the technology level, at the compute level, at the data science level. I lead a portfolio called computational care that says YES, AND. It looks at the broken provision of health care and says, Oh, we too are excited about what compute can do in health care over the next 20 years, but in almost no situations kind of name is it sufficient.
So there's things we do in compute over in computational bio where the compute team itself is worth investing in. In computational care, we've yet to make an investment over 17, 18 investments where we didn't have a combination of the deeply technical founders and some early compute secret, plus some empathy.
It's either an empathy to the patient or an empathy to the user. And within that empathy, there's secrets of how to unlock the use case or the product. And ideally, because we are not formulaic, but if we were formulaic, it would be deep compute plus empathy, plus we already know some secrets to go to market.
Now, seldom do you have all three. So often we're investing very early in a cross-disciplinary team. So in computational care, I'm usually investing pretty early in a cross disciplinary team where there's some technical advantage and some empathy to the use case. And then in the early stages of the company, probably the most important thing you can do, whether you think of it as de risk and are really calibrating the company to something that can become a flywheel is if that is true and right and you prove it, how do you create some type of go to market flywheel where you could meet some exponential impact and exponential financial return?
So the founder I'm looking for is someone who already has a concept of how they want to lead a team. And they already have a concept of the technical advantage and the empathy.
[00:15:23] Gopi Rangan: How do you check for those things? You mentioned the founder with the appropriate skill set and the background and the vision to build a business, a founding team that has empathy towards its customers, patients, or the system in general, and with the deep technical, knowhow, a secret sauce that will carry through.
Like how do you evaluate those? Is it a one meeting? Is it multiple meetings? Is it over many months? Or do you have a vision of what might be a good problem to solve? And then when you see the entrepreneur, you find there's a good match there.
[00:16:01] Scott Barclay: I'm not only anti formulaic, I'm pretty skeptical of language around VCs and pattern matching.
So I'm going to give you an anti formula answer, but something close to the normal motion. And I think where I'm going to start is I'm going to start with a hypothesis. I'm going to start with, well, for some reason, bottoms up of something we've seen anecdotally or something we've heard or top down like from like classic BCG quality research where you start with GDP and problem solved and assumptions about the future and you start looking for big blue ocean type spaces. So you come upon a hypothesis.
This is where I should just pause and say, health care is really complicated. I love being a student of both economics and industries and so many lessons from other things. It's one of the reasons I love being in Silicon Valley it's about all the things that I learn unrelated to my direct areas of influence within how we change the provision of 30 years.
I'm always taking in those lessons and those analogs. I'm always looking for the cross disciplinary crosswalks, right? But within healthcare, it's kind of hard and kind of complicated. So when I say I'm talking about a hypothesis, I may already be into an arcane part of healthcare where I'd be using too many acronyms that Robin Williams and 'Good Morning, Vietnam' would be kind of making fun of me.
So I usually start with a hypothesis around, you know, it would be really great if you could unlock the interaction between a psychiatrist and a patient. But that's a really broken interaction. And you start to have an understanding of top down how poorly we manage mental health, how poorly we manage psychiatry.
I'm just using this as an example. And you start top down to see all the downstream implications to quality of life, healthcare spend, impact on communities. But then you start to go bottoms up on how we touch, how we. treat patients, how we understand them. You start to recognize the massive lack of treatment, lack of access, lack of treatment variation within different communities.
So you start to really stew around in the space. You start to come up with some specific hypotheses, like, hey, a specific problem one could solve is this interaction between the psychiatrist and the patient. And in particular, that even if they have, a face to face relationship, and they come back together six weeks later, the quality of what happened in between, and the quality of reporting that and understanding it in ways that are clinically relevant to the prescriptions that are being written, is very, very poor.
So you start to build a hypothesis of, you know, someone should build something that looks like X, and you start to look for it. So Gopi, I'm going to answer your question by saying, once you have something you think you're looking for, you kind of start to go down a journey. So from a DCVC perspective, very early in meeting a founder, whether I have found them, whether it's come from a hot referral, what looks like a random LinkedIn referral, like I will take an inbound from anywhere.
Because I think the entrepreneurial journey is so broad ranging, and I don't believe in a certain pattern fitting. So I'm just looking to meet founders who are working on problems where I both care about and think I can help. And so I'll meet any founder in mental health, because it's worth doing. And I've got a number of areas of hypothesis. Within that area of hypothesis I'm telling you two things. The first is within the first 30 minutes, I know if this founder is technical enough, and if their view of the world and what needs to happen could create a technical moat that would be a fit for me. So I almost always tell a founder in the first meeting if I think there's legs to this conversation.
The second thing I will tell you is while I maybe went into it with a hypothesis, I am equally delighted to realize I wasn't thinking about it the right way, but this founder was. So I'd love to have statistics, I don't have them for you today, that for every hypothesis path I go down that leads to an investment i was expecting to make. I'm expecting the long run to make as equal number of investments where i went down that path of hypothesis but i was delighted to discover that the founder had an angle that i didn't consider and that actually my hypothesis was wrong but theirs was right. And then once you start to walk in their shoes and walk with them, you start to uncover. So if your question was one about diligence it's very early understanding: Are they are the team or what they working on going to be technical? Then I'm going down a path of deep technical diligence to truly validate that while simultaneously basically go in an exercise of vision building with the founder of the future they want to create and aligning on a shared future while also just doing really good blocking and tackling diligence of what capital gets you to what stage to accomplish what problems. What is your theory of the CEO? Like, how are you going to build a team? And I guess the core of my answer is, is I like to walk with that founder and basically build a mental archetype of what is the perfect founder and the perfect company to solve this problem.
And essentially evaluating and saying, because nothing's going to be perfect, essentially leading down to a calculus of, is this of enough of a fit?
[00:20:44] Gopi Rangan: Very deeply thoughtful, I see. Can you pick an example of a a startup and maybe walk through how you met the entrepreneur? How was the relationship?
Initially, did you know the person way before or is it a new person? Like you mentioned, any inbound interest you take? And how did that relationship evolve? And when was it when the light bulb went off that, yeah, this is a good investment for you?
[00:21:08] Scott Barclay: I spent about a year pursuing what I call a skeptical hypothesis.
Meaning anytime in that year, I would have said, "Oh, it's worth understanding, but I don't think there's a good venture investment to be made in the I. C. U, working with data." But there's so much data, and to my understanding. We're not really using it. I should at least listen. I should talk to experts. I should try to understand every startup that's working in the space and any of the ones that I met during that period.
It was very genuine. I would have been. I would have told them I'm really interested in highly skeptical that this is a good space for venture, but here's some of the other things I've done and here's some of the ways we think and here's some of the ways we can help. Let's just have a conversation. And unsurprisingly, you know, eight, nine months later, felt like I'd met four or five pretty interesting early startups.
I thought these are really interesting shots on goal and I think they should be funded and they should try. But then when I laid out my own risk-adjusted analysis, i just thought they weren't great venture investments. I just far over expected the challenge they would have in repeating their product and multiple environments. I had not yet seen a product that wowed me.
I'm not yet seen a team that i thought could repeatably sell into an oligopolistic customers. I had actually slowed down on that hypothesis. "Yeah you know what actually, I'm glad we learned a lot but i think I'm gonna spend less time there." And the time i got a phone call so this is in the interesting overlap of history of of, uh, I was part of one of the most amazing things in my life called the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society, and it is the most eclectic, unique set of individuals.
It has a very both amazing and interesting and problematic history. It's an organization founded in 1825, but always thoroughly remodernizing itself, surrounded with interesting people, and often some of the most both aggressive intellectuals and, and politicos of their day, right? Within that setting, there was this super smart guy Name Scott Sonnenschein.
And I remember the first few times I met him. I thought he was a communist. I should tell you now, he's gone on to become a relatively profound professor within business. He teaches at an MBA program at Rice University. He did his PhD at the University of Michigan. And he's just published, he's the co author with Marie Kondo on design thinking at work, you know, the Marie Kondo process, but applied to both professional career in the professional setting.
So Scott calls me and we've been a little bit out of touch, but he knew a few things I was working on and he said he was mentoring a team that was a combination out of both Rice and Texas Children's. that was working on a really hard problem in the hospital, and he was just looking for some good mentors or people that would spend some time with him.
And I said, hey, please tell them I don't invest in the ICU, but I'm happy to meet with them. So this team is called MIC, stands for Medical Informatics Corp. The founder is Emma Faus. Deeply technical, I think she's got a couple of PhDs. This is a deeply technical co founding team where Dr. Craig Roosin himself carries like multiple degrees and is both a professor of Cardiology and a PhD and was a professor of chemistry.
This is a deeply technical technically rooted science team, but they had started to work on a new data platform in the ICU relative to some of his work in cardiology at both Baylor and Texas Children's. And this professor called me and said, "we've just got a special team here in Houston and I'm just asking for you to help them a little bit because I like them and I'd like you to help them."
So I'm being overly verbose for the story. The last part I want to tell you about meeting this team and meeting this founder was I think it is now like a comical story among the company, which is like the first five times I took the meeting. I said, "Hey, I'm not going to make an investment here, but there's something here and I'm not quite sure who to get you to next or how to help.
So let's dig in a little bit more on these questions and I just promise I won't waste your time. I'll always be direct and like I want to find a way to help." But somewhere around that like fourth or fifth meeting, my skepticism was melting away and the plausible possibilities of exponential upside started to become more of a weight on me and I was spending time with a pretty special internist without anybody from the company in the room, just a user who was using kind of their homegrown first version of this.
And what I learned was he had been recruited by an equally amazing organization at three times the pay, and he had balked at moving his family in his career because they wouldn't let him bring the system with him. And his angle was, "Oh, I may still do that in my life, but we just got to get this to the next set of the beta so that it's so obvious to every ICU administrator that this is the only way you should capture, synthesize, compute, and start to build clinical decision support in these real time ICU environments.
So once I started to see clinicians betting their own careers on the ability to use this, much less the ability you can now do certain types of research in this environment where historically we've not captured those physiological datasets. It then brought me back to what these founders were trying to do. And so the story I'm telling you is it's one part connection, one part journey of hypothesis.
And on this one, it's essentially being open that your skeptical hypothesis is actually worth pursuing. So we are major shareholders in MIC. This company is greatly impacted by COVID 19. They are greatly accelerating into how to serve in this environment. It is fraught, it is stormy waters, and it is awesome.
Like it is a team that is bold and brave and they are deeply rooted in both the science and the technicals of how to do this, but also deeply rooted in the why. Like you just can't walk into an ICU and want to make a difference without having respect, not only for the families, but of of the staff. What it is to be in an ICU at two in the morning and have so many alarms and so much light.
Do you have a dysphoria condition because you lose all sense of time because the environment is so cacophonous and bad? Well, this is a team who says, "Oh, but if we used data, we can actually wipe out most of those alarms. We can wipe out most of those inappropriate machines and signals so that we only focus on the ones that matter.
And we are only escalating signal to the right person at the right time." Just there you start to make a more peaceful environment. Using that as an example of someone who was only after the data science angle would have missed that. Anyway, that's, that's my story of trying to walk alongside MIC.
[00:27:23] Gopi Rangan: Ah, this is fascinating. You narrated like, uh, it's a movie all the way from Jefferson Society and how diverse thinking shaped your perspectives and you formed a hypothesis which was becoming more and more skeptical, but the skepticism melted away when Emma and her team at MIC showed you what is possible. And then you became one of their biggest fans.
It's an amazing story. I wish I could ask you about all of your investments and we get stories like this, but unfortunately, we're going to run out of time soon. I want to ask, is there a nonprofit organization that you work with? And what are you passionate about?
[00:28:02] Scott Barclay: I really like the Ecumenical Hunger Program.
The website is ehpcares[dot]org. It's just the most efficient and well run, heartful organization I know of, getting food resources to the right families at the right time. That's kind of going down pretty low in the hierarchy of needs, and it's unfortunate to say in United States of America in 2020, that's actually still really important to do.
[00:28:32] Gopi Rangan: I see that having lived in the Silicon Valley for 20 years, this is a place that creates wealth for so many people, yet there are bowels of the society where people live in very unfortunate situations. It exists and we don't pay attention to it. I'm glad that You serve this organization. Well, this is fascinating.
You started your journey with being a simple person with a few priorities and your how you grew up in Martinsville in Virginia in the countryside and how you were a sports athlete and you're going to be a star but injury prevented that and then you through that experience you develop this growth mindset.
You watched people surpassing you, and that was a great learning moment for you and your career through CVS, BCG, the startup experience and at GE and other places, to me, it feels like all of those things prepared you to be where you are today so you can serve entrepreneurs. And I really love the way you described hypothesis-driven charts, and it's about applied thinking about the future you want to create.
The GP/CEO fit helps make that happen. So I like that phrase. I think I'm going to use that. I know we share a lot of discussions on where we can focus on the future. Brainstorm on ideas, but I really hope to find opportunities to collaborate more closely.
[00:29:53] Scott Barclay: Well, Gopi, the same is true here. I'm watching you in motion in the marketplace and the way that we share ideas and deals, but it feels like we've shared good talent trying to get good people into the right situations where they can make a difference as much as we have
understand that who needs to raise capital. And I just think really great people understand the whole supply chain, but then have the bravery and the patience and just take a joy at whatever we call it today, pre seed and seed, anywhere from incubation to finally being able to solidify what this is and buy it and grow it in the market.
We need your leadership in those markets. So I'm so happy to share ideas and people and try to work on good things in the future with you.
[00:30:33] Gopi Rangan: Shot Entrepreneur podcast. I hope you enjoyed listening to real life stories about early believers supporting ambitious entrepreneurs. Please subscribe to the podcast and post a review.
Your comments will help other entrepreneurs find this podcast. I look forward to catching you at the next episode.