Ashu was the General Manager for Microsoft’s online advertising business and he led field marketing for the software business. Previously, Ashu was at McKinsey and Company helping technology companies scale their go to market efforts. Early in his career, Ashu founded one of the first search engines in Asia, set up Unilever’s Nepal operations and led the marketing and pre-sales teams at Cadence. Ashu has a bachelor’s degree from IIT New Delhi, an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore where he received the President’s gold medal.
Check out Ashu’s Podcast B2B a Founder - a show about how to scale your enterprise startup and how to grow from founder to CEO.
3:30 Moving from senior role at Microsoft to Venture Capital Industry
6:17 Investing areas Ashu finds interesting today
9:54 How to avoid hitting the wall as a SaaS company after first million-dollar
12:03 Go to market strategies for a SaaS company
17:50 Figuring out the pricing for a SaaS product
24:31 What Ashu looks for in founders he invests in
29:47 Ashu’s advice to entrepreneurs
Read the complete transcript below:
Shripati Acharya 0:59
Hello and Welcome to Prime Ventures Partners Podcast. This is Shripati Acharya managing partner at Prime Ventures Partners. And our guest today is Ashu Garg, General Partner at Foundation Capital.
Before joining Foundation Capital in 2008, Ashu was the General Manager for Microsoft’s online advertising business and led field marketing for the software business. Previously, Ashu was at McKinsey and Company helping technology companies scale their go to market efforts. Early in his career, Ashu founded one of the first search engines in Asia, set up Unilever’s Nepal operations and led the marketing and pre-sales teams at Cadence. Ashu has a bachelor’s degree from IIT - New Delhi, an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore where he received the President’s gold medal. Welcome to the Prime Podcast Ashu.
Ashu Garg 1:47
Thank you for having me. I’m excited to be here today.
Shripati Acharya 1:50
So let me just start off from the beginning. You grew up in Sudan, and Nigeria so I’m curious, any experiences there that shaped the way you think today?
Ashu Garg 2:03
Absolutely. I had a wonderful childhood growing up all over the world. I was born in Delhi, went to Sudan when I was four went to Karo, Nigeria, which is northern part of Nigeria when I was 8 or 10, and then returned to a small town in Delhi called Meerut when I was 16, to do my high school, and then of course, went to IIT after that. I think the varied experiences really have influenced me in two ways.
One is I’ve grown up with a very diverse group of people around me, both in Khartoum and in Karo we obviously had a lot of locals with a small Indian population. We had people from every country in the world on these university campuses where I grew up. And so the ability to deal with diverse opinions and to look at people for who they are as against what they look like, and what their backgrounds are. I think it’s really helped me in life. I think of myself as more colorblind than most because of the background I’ve had. And the second one is it has made me very adaptable. I’ve had to sort of deal with things I could have never anticipated. And today, when I look back and look at the world that I grew up in, I don’t think I could go back, I would be scared to go back to Khartoum or Karo But growing up there, I think, has made me in some ways sort of embrace change. And I embrace the unknown because of that background.
Shripati Acharya 3:30
You were in a very senior role in Microsoft, and in an operating role, very hands on our operating role. What caused the shift to a venture capital industry?
Ashu Garg 3:43
My joining venture was mostly an accident. When I was running the ads business at Microsoft, I had in my portfolio display advertising, which was the largest part of our business, mobile and video. Mobile and video were both small but growing rapidly. Video in particular at the time in 2007, was exploding. And I left Microsoft with the idea that I would build a startup around the thesis that video would move from traditional TV to the internet.
In hindsight, that seems obvious at the time in 2007-2008 that wasn’t an obvious idea. This was when Netflix was still primarily a DVD company. And so I was exploring a variety of startup ideas. And as part of that process, I would pitch the idea to almost any VC I met, I actually met one of the partners at Foundation in a parking lot. Our cars happen to be parked next to each other. And we were getting into the car and I was like, I pitched him for three minutes. And he was impressed enough to sort of give me his business card. And that started a relationship and eventually led to Foundation making me offer to join the firm.
Shripati Acharya 4:53
What happened to the startup idea?
Ashu Garg 4:56
It’s a long story, but the short version is the specific idea I had was to build a video ad server. And as I was going through that process, I met a company called FreeWheel that had exactly the same idea, but was 18 months ahead of me, and was a better team. And so that’s when I abandoned my startup idea to join Foundation. And my first investment in Foundation was into FreeWheel. And the success of FreeWheel is exactly what led to my career at Foundation.
Shripati Acharya 5:26
That’s a fascinating story, it must have taken quite a bit off. Maybe it was a humbling experience, or it was just thinking of the objectivity of things to say, look, I’m actually going to go and invest in something, somebody who has gone ahead and done with an idea you have.
Ashu Garg 5:39
It was very practical. They were 18 months ahead of me. They had 20 people. I was a guy with a PowerPoint. I had some wireframes. It wasn’t rocket science. To be fair in hindsight, if I had to do it all over again today. I might not have actually stopped, if I were doing this today. I think today I am much more cognizant of how being first isn’t necessarily the most important attribute of success. Having the persistence and the grit to last through the ups and downs is what it takes to win and build a big company. But at the time, I was too naive to know that.
Shripati Acharya 6:17
So you have been investing for over a decade now. So how has enterprise investing changed over that period of time? What were the areas then? And what are the areas now which you find exciting?
Ashu Garg 6:30
If you go back a decade, the primary shift that was going on in enterprise investing was the shift from on premise software to the cloud. The so-called SaaS wave, and obviously, we saw through the 2000s, a massive inflection point there. I mean, it created companies like Responsys at foundations, Salesforce, a whole host of companies. That trend hasn’t petered out, but obviously that trend is starting to flatten, there are still categories of software that are going to move to the cloud. But I would say we are closer to the finish of that trend than we are at the starting point.
I think the two mega trends today that are driving enterprise software and both of these have been accelerated by the current COVID crisis are one, the shift from human driven processes to machine driven processes that are human assisted. Across all enterprise processes, companies are trying to figure out how we accelerate automation? How do you go from human decision making to machine decision making? How do you go from humans transferring data from one system to another to machines transferring data from one system to another, that massive trend towards automation is actually expanding the pie for software companies 10x.
If you think about just sales and marketing as a function. There’s probably $25 -30 billion in software. But there’s $250 billion in people. If you take HR and recruiting, there’s $25 billion in software, 10x spend on people. As people get automated, you’ll see the TAM for software explode. So that’s the first mega trend at the application level. And obviously, the underlying technologies, machine learning and deep learning. And that’s where all these buzzwords of AI for software AI first application comes in. But that’s one mega trend. The second mega trend is around the shift of enterprise software infrastructure to the cloud. And that is to the public cloud as against their own data centers. Companies like Infosys and TCS have spent 30-35 years now helping large enterprises build client server applications that mostly reside, either in co-location facilities or their own data centers.
As companies move these applications to the cloud, you have to refactor the applications, you have to rethink your security. You have to rethink how you manage the development and release processes. So it’s not as simple as moving things to the cloud, the hardware as it goes away and moves to the public cloud. That’s really revenues for Microsoft Azure or AWS, but all the changes you have to make in the software infrastructure and the applications to make it compatible with the public cloud, those are a huge opportunity for companies in the enterprise. And so we’re seeing, we have made a handful of investments in governance of enterprise data, access Control, managing the process of releasing production software, monitoring the works.
Shripati Acharya 9:54
So when you look at each of these companies Ashu, Now you’re an early stage investor. And the benefit of an early stage investor is that you can get to see companies grow from very small, to very large, especially the successful ones. Many SaaS companies falter after the first couple of million ARR. They kind of like hit a wall. So what are some of those critical factors, which the companies need to focus on to break through that, or at least which you have seen companies fall victim to?
Ashu Garg 10:29
It’s a great question. So when I think about a SaaS company, I typically think about the growth being in three phases. And you can disaggregate this even more, but broadly, I would say, there is the zero to a couple of million dollars, which is really about finding product market fit. It is demonstrating that you have a product that a set of customers value that you have found a value proposition that resonates, you figured out pricing packaging and so that’s the first hurdle. And that’s a big harder to cross. But the second hurdle, once you have a couple of million dollars in revenues, once you have 10s, or hundreds of customers, depending on the price point is how do you scale? How do you create a go to market motion that is repeatable and scalable? And both things are really hard.
And so that then comes into figuring out what’s your demand engine? There’s no one right demand engine strategy. There are multiple ways to generate demand. What’s the right sales process? How do you think about the role of POCs? What’s the right contracting process? What’s the right customer service process? In fact, lots of companies who get everything else, right, actually drop the ball on customer success. And so they have a very leaky bucket at the end of that. So you have to get all of those things right, to go from a couple of million dollars to 10 or so million dollars. And then once you’re at 10, there’s a whole new set of challenges. And we can come back to that at a separate point in time.
Shripati Acharya 12:03
So one of the things which we increasingly hear now is you go to market for SaaS companies through what is frequently called the consumerization of the enterprise, which is not through the traditional sales force, but actually going through to the users directly. Do you think it is increasingly applicable now? Or how should one think about what kind of go to market is the most appropriate from that stage which we’re talking about?
Ashu Garg 12:30
The notion of the right go to market has changed a lot in the last decade. 10 years ago, when I ran field marketing at Microsoft, even Office and Windows were sold largely top down. But top down could be a departmental level sale, or an enterprise level sale. I mean, there were still different flavors in that. And there were a lot of efforts or even 10-15 years ago around departmental level sales as a way to sort of accelerate the sales process and reduce the deal complexity. I think over the last decade, as you rightly pointed out, we’ve increasingly seen the emergence of a bottom up strategy where you get users to try the product. And then in many cases, buy it often over the internet with a credit card. I think at the same time, there is a practical reality of how much people can pay over a credit card. So I think a lot of what your go to market strategy is, is a function of your price point. If you want to sell a product for an annual contract. I convert everything to ACV’s, if you’re thinking of an ACV, that is less than $10,000 a year from an enterprise, I think it is plausible to sell in a self service mechanism. And in fact, you probably have no choice because at $10,000 ACV, you can’t make money unless it’s self service with no human touch. If you’re in the $10,000 to $50,000 ACV range, then you end up having a hybrid strategy.
You have some bottom up sort of way to generate demand, way to generate user interest and user usage, you probably have some sort of credit card based transaction model. But at some point, you have to have a sales force and most probably on the phone, or online to come in and close the deal. Because enterprises are rarely going to put a 50 k transaction on a credit card. So the 10k to 50k means there’s some sort of human intervention involved. The moment you go beyond 50k. I think the deal complexity goes up exponentially, because now you need a traditional purchase order. You probably have a POC, you probably have to deal with procurement.
And of course that complexity goes up with dollars. I think every company has defined, 1) what is the model that makes sense for their product, and 2) how that model will evolve over time. If you look at the history of companies, take Salesforce, the ultimate bottom up strategy, you go back to Salesforce early years, they were selling licenses for $10-12 a month. Today, if you look at Salesforce’s business, a very large part of that business is $10 million and $20 million dollar deals. Clearly those aren’t being sold off the internet. And so that’s an evolution and happens for most companies.
Shripati Acharya 15:19
Is it fair to say that the product market fit is fundamentally easier to do when you actually have a bottom up sale happening, easier to detect, at least?
Ashu Garg 15:27
Actually, it’s much harder. It’s the exact opposite. When you are selling large deals to enterprise customers that you have a high level of human interaction the signal is very strong. Now again, I’m not talking about selling multi million dollar deals, very few companies do that to start off, but if you’re selling typically 100k deals, if you sell 10-20 100k deals, you typically know that you have product market fit. You have very strong signals to sell again. There’s a lot of signal. On the flip side, when you’re selling at very low price points, you may have hundreds of customers or thousands. But the noise levels in the data are very high. Because you’re getting customers from around the world, you’re getting customers from alternative segments, you don’t really know what they do with the product. Most companies that have a bottom up strategy also have very high churn early on. So you have all these new users coming in, you have these users falling out of the funnel. And it is really hard to actually get signals around you have product market fit.
Shripati Acharya 16:35
Ashu Garg 16:35
Yeah, so it’s actually the opposite. Now, if you can make it work, the bottom up strategy can be very capital efficient. But in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think about one strategy being better or worse. I think there are pros and cons to different strategies. People decry or sort of talk down the traditional enterprise strategy, and I have a company that started off selling 25k to 50k deals in the last 24 months they’ve moved from an average deal size of 50K to an average deal size of 500k. And their largest deal now is $2 million a year. So complete transformation.
And the reality is that if you want to get to 100 million in revenues, when I think about a successful SaaS company, the starting point of success is you have $100 million dollars in recurring revenues, and you’re growing at 50-100%. at that point. The question is, what’s the best way to get there with million dollar deals, you can get there with 100 customers with $100,000 deals you need 1000. You know, math is math. It’s very hard to find 10,000 customers. I mean, there are obviously companies that have done that. But the odds of finding 10,000 customers that would pay you $10,000, in some ways is lower than the odds of finding 100 customers, that would pay you a million dollars.
Shripati Acharya 17:50
One of the hardest things, which I’ve seen when talking to SaaS entrepreneurs is figuring out the right price point. What has been your experience on that and especially the company, which you mentioned going from 50,000ACV to million dollars ACV, which is like an order of magnitude. Is there a price discovery there which has changed? Or is it just the value proposition? So, how did that happen?
Ashu Garg 18:13
It’s a great question. So first of all, there’s no scientific way to figure out the right price. When you have scale, and you have lots of data that are pricing analysts to do all kinds of conjoint analysis and paired preferences and all the stuff that you and I studied in school 25 years ago. At a practical level in a startup, you go to your first set of customers, and you’re trying to figure out what they can pay, in the shortest time frame possible. The reality of the early price points are, what budget do they have, how can they create room and frankly, how much courage you have to sort of hold off on accepting a deal. That’s how it starts, what I then advise entrepreneurs is to constantly keep pushing the envelope and constantly ask yourself, what is the value I’m creating and what’s the cost of sale?
Since a lot of your audience is SaaS companies out of India, I’ll make a very specific point. A lot of companies coming from overseas geographies, including India, actually hugely underpriced, because in the short term, the cost of sale is very low, you have relatively low cost resources in India. But you can’t build a big business with low cost resources. A big software company is built with the best talent around the world. And a lot of it will be in India, but you have to assume that your pricing should factor in the fact that your cost of talent will be global, not Indian. And so very early on, I would encourage people to say, if I can’t charge a globally competitive pricing, something’s wrong with my product, or my ability to sell. Push yourself really-really hard to keep raising the price. And that’s one drive so to the same customer segment, raising prices makes a huge difference. And a lot of people don’t test that. Because the way they’re tested is you have to be willing to walk away from a deal. It’s the way you and I work in venture, you know everyone talks about I won this deal or lost this deal.
The question is not did you win the deal, what price did you win the deal at? At some price there is always a deal to be done. So unless you’re willing to lose, you can’t learn price discovery. And I think the most important variable, frankly, and the hardest one for entrepreneurs, because every deal seems like it’s the most important thing in their life. The second thing you have to do, is you have to really push yourself to say, what’s the sweet spot in terms of customer size? Selling a 25k product to a fortune thousand customer makes no sense. That’s just not a good business. You’re going to sell to a fortune 1000 customer, you’ve got to find a way to get at least $100,000 ideally a million but let’s start with 100K. On the other hand, if you’re going to sell to a restaurant owner, then he’s never gonna pay you a hundred thousand dollars. The math doesn’t work. So You’ve got to ask yourself, who’s the right customer segment. And very early on that signal is very noisy.
I have seen companies, I have this one mom and pop customer, I have one software company as a customer, I have some fortune 100 company, as a customer, I have some metals and mining company in Brazil as a customer, you get all this noisy signal and you have to choose. Again, it requires a hard decision around who really gets the most value, and where should I push. So the choice of the customer segment, if done correctly, has a huge influence on pricing and the lack of choice I think it’s reflected in bad pricing. And the third step is as soon as you’re choosing a customer segment, you’re starting to push pricing for your existing product. You want to think about how do I expand? How can I own a workflow or a process end to end. Because if you pick up the tool people have to use across an entire business process. Then you’re the next ERP, you’re the next operations management tool. That’s how you become the next Salesforce or the next Oracle. Point tools only go so far, but here’s the journey, you can start with, the courage to ask for more, the courage to say no to the wrong customer segment. To earn the right to then expand the business process if you automate or manage.
Shripati Acharya 18:26
And do you think that defining or discovering the price is a continuous process as the company keeps evolving? or is it something which sort of is somewhat concentrated in early on in the life of the company and then you make incremental changes?
Ashu Garg 22:28
You know, I would say it’s not a continuous process, but it’s an evolving process. When you get to the first $25 million dollars at that point, hopefully you have some pricing model that evolves incrementally for the most part, because if you have too much change in pricing, you can’t scale the go to market organization. It’s very easy to change pricing or value proposition when you have five sales reps. But you know, if you are 25 million in revenues, you have give or take 50 reps. If you have a low price point product you have 250 reps. So If you’ve 50 to 250 reps, minor changes require six months to stabilize the organization. So you have to be very careful about pricing changes, post 25 for sure, I would encourage people to get it done before the first $10 million.
And then what you find is that you on one hand, you will continue to do incremental changes. On the other hand, you then start getting sophisticated, you start adding new modules, you start adding new product areas, maybe you find a new persona to go after. There’s a bunch of different ways to expand pricing within an organization, which are strategic. And finally, companies find new business models over time, historically, the SaaS model and still the model for more SaaS companies is like charge, you know, either on some price per seat or somewhere just sort of attribute value increasingly you are seeing SaaS companies say I’m going to try and plugin into the payments flow.
And if I plug in to the payment slow, I want to get a slice of the transaction value. Shopify is a great example. I mean, Shopify, which is probably the first SaaS company in recent years to cross the 100 million dollar sort of market cap landmark. It started off entirely as a subscription revenue company. And they were charging hundreds of dollars a month. And they were in the thousand to $10,000 ACV price point. At some point, this is now I think 5-7 years ago, they got into the transaction flow and started charging a percentage of the transaction. And that completely changed their business model. Because that was a strategic change. And people can do that but you can’t do that often.
Shripati Acharya 24:31
So I’m going to change the track a bit here Ashu and ask you, what do you look for in the founders when you’re investing? And I’ve heard you say, in another talk that you look for ambition, product orientation, and learning quotient. I have heard you saying these three things. So the question really is that how do you ascertain each of these things and is there any both qualitative and quantitative ways in which you bookmark these when you’re meeting founders,
Ashu Garg 24:59
I wish I had a good answer. I keep telling myself, at some point, I need to hire a psychologist or a behavioral analyst to sort of develop a profile for me. And a questionnaire that I can check off on. And that’s one of my personal ambitions to do that. But until I get there, I think it really boils down to a series of conversations. I try to get a real sense. So if you take the three things, you think about product and engineering orientation, generally there’s a lot of signal in the way people talk about the same product or technology.
And I’m an investor one of my recent successes is a company called Cohesity in the data management space. Founder Mohit Aron is a brilliant technologist. Truly I would say one of the most outstanding technical leaders in the valley, but what makes him truly special is not his technical chops, is how he thinks about product and go to market. I’ve had discussions on hundreds of ideas But he will always start off by saying, What’s the value that’s going to be delivered? What’s the use case and pain point? And why will I be, dramatically superior to the alternatives and then work backwards from there.
I have another founder Ashutosh Garg the other Ashu Garg in the valley, founder and CEO of 8Fold. And again, a company doing very well in, you know, 8Fold went into what was considered when they started four years ago, mundane market, recruiting an HR automation and at the time, and still there still are hundreds of companies that are going after that market with very little success. The big players Indeed, LinkedIn, to a lesser extent Workday, because Workday does a lot of other things, have been around forever and most startups have failed to still get traction. And his product insight was, most startups solve a niche problem, and the recruiting works value chain is so long and broad until you take a end to end view you can’t deliver enough value to break through with HR. Because it is a complex sales process he saw early on that the sales process is very complex as the number of constituencies in the customer base is multiple. And so the point products fail to get traction. So, that’s a product insight that then led to a bunch of technology work. And that totally separated that company from the hundreds of other people that try because everyone else had a different recruiting product, a campus recruiting product, the internal sort of mobility product. And I looked at hundreds of point solutions. And that’s not the typical startup inside, most startups start off with a point solution. The idea of saying I will take a very broad end to end process on day one was actually considered a stupid idea at the time. A lot of people should have said this makes no sense. But that was his product insight about the space.
So I think you have that conversation with people. I think ambition is something you sense over time. At the end of the day, the best entrepreneurs are fanatics. They’re in it for the cause. Yes, they want to build a company. Yes, they want to make money. Yes, they want to solve the problem. But eventually you’re looking for a jihadist every great company is a great religion. And every great entrepreneur is the prophet of that religion. So I look for religious jihadists. And then when you think about sort of, you know, the, the learning coefficient, that’s the hardest one to evaluate. But to some extent, you can get a sense from people’s career paths, how often have they changed functions to what extent they there’s a balance between staying in a job for long enough to demonstrate success, because that’s a sign of grit and persistence, and at the same time staying in the same job or company for forever, because that’s a sign of not enough ambition. So how do you balance grit and ambition when you analyze someone’s profile? You know, there’s no science about it, but there is a balance. I mean, if someone spends 20 years in the same company just kind of plodding along. The odds that they can make a complete context switch are lower, they are not zero, they are low. But on the other hand, if someone has changed jobs every six months or 18 months, the odds that they can actually make something happen are also low. That was a very long winded answer. I apologize.
Shripati Acharya 29:10
No, I think learning quotient is decidedly the hardest thing to do. Because one thing we do know in startups is that context and the problem statements are going to continuously change. Because whatever you’re evaluating today is not going to be valid, two years from now, the learning quotient is the only thing which you can ultimately hang your hat on. And I was really curious about your answer to that. So a number of our listeners Ashu are young graduates who are aspiring entrepreneurs. So what would be the advice you would give to somebody who is just coming out of college and passionate about tech and entrepreneurship?
Ashu Garg 29:47
My advice to entrepreneurs is the same younger or older sort of wherever your career, pick a really big and a really hard problem. A startup is really hard building a new company is really hard and frankly, if you’re going to do something that’s really hard, you might as well do something that if you’re successful, the outcome is really big. So don’t start by saying this is my first startup and I am gonna aim low, I’m going to try and solve a small problem. Start with the biggest and hardest problem that you can find and the bigger your vision, the harder the problem you’re trying to solve. I think the more resources and people you will rally around you, because people get excited about that, and the narrower and the more niche the problem you try to solve, the less resources you can garner around you. And building a startup is a little bit like creating an avalanche. You start off there’s a small snowball or a rock that starts at the top of a mountain. And as it falls, it gathers momentum in an avalanche in the Himalayas is very different from an avalanche in some little hill somewhere. So you want to have an avalanche in the himalayas.
Shripati Acharya 30:55
A long enough slope to go down and gather momentum. Very helpful, let me ask you a corollary to that, which is what is probably the worst advice you have seen given and might have even received yourself in your career you would like to debunk?
Ashu Garg 31:13
I’ve been very fortunate I generally feel in every piece of advice I’ve gotten there was some grain of truth. I could give you lots of stories, of the advice I’ve gotten, there was good and bad advice. But in all of them, there was a grain of truth. I think my general advice if I would say, when I think about bad advice, I think the common theme across all bad advice is the past will repeat itself. There’s way too many people that try to overly simplify pattern matching and say, so and so did this before, therefore, you should do this. So and So started their career at McKinsey or BCG or whatever therefore, you should go have a five years stint here, you should do that. There are a million paths to success. And eventually, everyone has to find their own. And everyone should take a first principles approach to figuring out what to do. So, in general, I think listening to other people is generally bad advice anyway or listening too much, maybe it’s the better way to put it.
Shripati Acharya 32:17
Well, a final question. If you were to start a company today, if I were to ask you to don your entrepreneurial hat again. Which area would it be in?
Ashu Garg 32:27
I think there’s a multitude of opportunities. And so what you start to some extent has to be a function of what you know, and understand well. The spce that I generally tend to get the most excited about is automating business processes in the enterprise. Because that generally means a world that I have an intuitive sense of. And so I would try to reinvent ERP. I think SAP and Oracle and more recently Workday is nothing but a cloud version of Oracle. It’s not a fundamental innovation. I think the financial and business processes especially when you think about the whole process in order to cash and you factor in remote work, you factor in cross border payments, costs cross border transactions, these business processes are broken. Why should we reconcile books once in a month? Why should we even reconcile books once in a day? Why can’t accounts and books of an organization be reconciled in real time every time? So business processes I think across enterprises need to be reinvented and it requires a fundamentally new architecture. I think the world that SAP, Oracle and more recently Workday have created, that world needs to be blown up. If I had the opportunity to take a sabbatical from Foundation, that’s what I will go to. And I think it’s a 100 million dollar company. In fact, there’s a bunch of hundred million dollar companies to be built.
Shripati Acharya 33:50
On that optimistic note, I’ll wrap it up with you Ashu, thanks a lot for being a part of our podcast.
Ashu Garg 33:56
Thank you very much for having me. And if I can be helpful in any other way. I’d love to do that.
Enjoyed the podcast? Please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts and subscribe wherever you are listening to this.
Follow Prime Venture Partners:
Please share your thoughts on this episode:
If you believe you are building the next big thing, let’s make it happen.