The most common question about our founder interview series is how we distinguish founders with genuinely interesting things to say from founders who simply have access to press coverage through investor or PR connections.
Why this distinction matters
Access to press coverage doesn't necessarily correlate with having something substantive to share, and readers reasonably want assurance our selection reflects the latter rather than the former.
What we actually look for
We prioritize founders building something with a genuinely distinctive story or approach, rather than founders whose primary qualification is a well-connected investor or communications team pushing for coverage.
Why we don't always get this selection right
Distinguishing genuine substance from polished pitching isn't always obvious in advance, and we don't think every founder interview we've run has met our own bar in retrospect.
Why we think this selection discipline matters
We'd rather occasionally miss an interesting founder we didn't hear about than fill the series primarily with founders who reached us through the most effective PR outreach rather than the most interesting underlying story.