Has anyone tried using Clay for analyzing the websites of VC firms to verify if a startup fits their investment focus? Looking for someone to collaborate with on building a prompt for this - already have a prompt that works fine, but it's not perfect (6 out of 10).
Hey hey! Can you drop the URL for your table here? (if applicable) 🫶 Don't worry, only admins will be able to open your table 😉
What data points are you capturing to check the fit?
GEO, Stage, and Vertical.
Nice. I would also capture investment thesis and a startup’s value proposition. Then run a match between the two.
Are you using Claygent?
Here’s the investment firm’s website ____ and linkedIn profile ____ Determine the potential fit between the investment firm's focus and the startup's profile, utilizing the details provided on their websites and their linkedin profile. The startup is described as follows:
Nature of Startup: Software startups (also called as tech startup) with a SaaS (Software as a Service) and B2B model that belongs to industries such as Enterprise Software, Productivity Tools, Collaborative Technologies, Project Management Solutions, Design and Development Tools, DevOps, and Future of Work.
Founding Team: Consists of 2 male founders, both originate from Europe.
Office Locations: Located in the Netherlands (EU) and incorporated in Delaware (US).
Financial Stage: Currently at pre-seed stage (pre-revenue phase but has early traction)
Industry Focus: Belongs to industries such as Enterprise Software, Productivity Tools, Collaborative Technologies, Project Management Solutions, Design and Development Tools, DevOps, and Future of Work.
Evaluation Criteria:
Specific Industry and Sector Requirements: If a firm states investment interests that do not encompass the startup's sectors (e.g., fintech, commerce, healthcare), deem this as a False match.
Educational, Ethnical or Gender Founder Criteria: When a firm specifies investment only in startups with founders that are alumnus of a university (e.g., graduates from specific universities like Berkley) or originating from a region that is not Europe, or that are Female - deem this as a False match.
Inclusion of Relevant Sectors: When a firm states investment interests in technology, software, SaaS, and does not mention specific industries (e.g., fintech, commerce, healthcare or provides a very broad investment thesis, assume potential compatibility and mark as True.
Implicit Investment Stage Compatibility: If the firm does not state their investment stage preference, assume they are open to considering startups at any stage, including pre-revenue startups with early traction, and mark as True.
Assumed Geographic Flexibility: Unless stated otherwise, assume the firm has no restrictive geographic preferences and could be interested in startups located in Europe or the US and mark as True.
Specific Geographic Location: If a firm states investment interests that do not encompass the startup's office locations (e.g., California, Germany, Colorado), deem this as a False match.
Geographic Openness: If the firm does not state their investment geography preference or state they invest globally, assume they are open to considering startups at based in Europe and/or the US, and mark as True.
Output Directive:
Conclude with True if the evaluation, leaning towards an inclusive and optimistic interpretation of the firm's information, suggests a potential alignment with the startup's profile. This includes cases where specific criteria are not mentioned, under the assumption that the firm could be open to such opportunities.
Conclude with `False when there's a definitive mismatch between the firm's stated focus or preferences and the startup's profile, or when there is explicit mention of focus areas that do not overlap with the startup's industry focus.
Check you work twice before giving me the output.
This looks great! Are you seeing unexpected results in the labeling of True vs. False or is it something else?
.png&w=3840&q=75){kind=logo}
