Building on that a little bit, Andy, so you said, okay, as a premier fund, you want to find companies just at that moment that they have figured out the market risk and I guess that is also the genesis of this idea of product market fit. What is it that you looked for? I mean, you've talked a lot about the value hypothesis versus the growth hypothesis. What is it that you would say is already figured out to say, yes, the market risk is low. Like what are the elements that you looked for that you

now call having found product market fit?

Well, there are a couple of heuristics that I've come to believe are very good indicators of product market fit or proof of the value hypothesis or the value proposition is as you described. One for enterprise businesses and one for consumer businesses. On the consumer side, I think the best test is whether or not the company can generate exponential organic growth, organic growth, not paid growth, you can always fake growth if you spend more money. The problem is that clients or customers you acquire don't necessarily stay. So growth in general isn't a good enough indication of product market fit. It needs to be organic growth. The only way that you can generate organic growth is through word of mouth and the only way you generate word of mouth is through delight. So you know you've hit a nerve if you can drive exponential organic growth and it needs to be exponential in order to reach escape velocity, if you will. So that's the way I look at consumer companies. So I recommend that consumer companies not spend any money on marketing, paid marketing until after they have proven the exponential organic growth. On the enterprise side, the best heuristic that I've seen is something that I learned from one of my teaching partners, Mark Leslie, that he published in a paper he co-wrote called The Sales Learning Curve that is available if you Google it. It's an article in the Harvard Business Review. And basically Mark and Chuck Holloway, his co-author, found that there's a learning curve to sales just as there is to manufacturing and that companies, really the growth of companies doesn't really take off until the sales yield is greater than one. Now sales yield is defined as a numerator equal to the contribution margin or gross margin generated by a sales team. It's a sales rep, a systems engineer and a portion of an inside sales rep who does prospect. And the denominator is the cost to field the team. So typically it might cost $200,000 or $250,000 to hire a sales rep for a year. It might cost $150,000, $175,000 for the systems engineer. There's additional money for the inside sales rep because of the prospecting and then there's the management overhead. So the total cost to field the sales team is generally $500,000 to $600,000. So you need to generate over $500,000 or $600,000 in gross margin per team before you really have product market fit. And then interestingly what they found was that very quick the sales yield once it exceeds one quickly goes to three. I don't know why this is. It might be like Pareto's Law, the 8020 law. It just happens to work that way. But it's really, really hard to get to a sales yield of greater than one because in order to do so you need to have found a desperate customer, not just any customer but a desperate customer. And you need to figure out how you articulate what it is that you do to that desperate customer. So you're in discovery mode until you hit that sales yield greater than one, then it very rapidly goes from one to three. And then you use a different rep for each phase, zero to one on sales yield, one to three, and then after three.

Makes sense.