Do Warm Introductions Still Matter in Venture Capital?
Warm introductions still matter in venture capital, and two investors who fund biotech from opposite ends of the market said so plainly on Open Door Salon. Christian Schubert of AbbVie Ventures could not name a single investment his fund made in the last two to three years that arrived without some prior connection. Mike Goguen of Two Bear Capital declined to describe the process as evenly weighted at all. Neither framed this as favoritism. Both described it as a consequence of finite attention, and in both accounts what the introduction buys is a reading. For a founder without an obvious network, the useful part is what actually counts as a connection, because the definition is wider than most people assume.
Do warm introductions still get you read first?
Goguen answered the question directly and without hedging.
I wouldn’t call it an even playing field.
A trusted colleague in his field telling him a company has to be looked at moves that company ahead of a cold email. He was careful about the mechanism, locating it in capacity.
It’s just sort of a bandwidth issue that helps, or that causes, a bit of a bias towards somebody you’ve worked with before, or trusted resource, or a key opinion leader.
An investor receives far more inbound than any team can assess properly. Something has to determine reading order, and a trusted reference is the cheapest reliable filter available.
How often does a funded deal arrive through a connection?
Schubert gave the strongest version of the answer, and it is close to absolute.
Warm introductions very much still matter. In fact, I can’t think of a single investment we’ve done over the last 24-36 months that did not come through some channel of a previously known entity.
Read carefully, that is a statement about which companies reached the end of the process: every completed investment over roughly two to three years at a fund making a handful a year. It should reset how a founder allocates effort between polishing outreach and building the relationships that generate a reference.
Does a warm introduction have to come from a person?
This is the part most founders get wrong. Schubert was explicit that the channel can be broader than a person making an email introduction. AbbVie Ventures runs incubation competitions around the world with strategic partners, where some selection and pre-validation has already happened. Of the founders it meets that way, he said:
Folks we meet there have a higher likelihood of success, actually, of attracting follow-up funding from us.
He said the fund has run these competitions for a number of years and given out more than 50. A competition, an incubator, an accelerator or a structured partner program can function as the connection, because each one performs selection and pre-validation before the fund ever looks.
What is a warm introduction actually supplying?
Schubert named the mechanism, and it explains why a structured program substitutes for a personal relationship.
I think it’s that early credibility, right, that’s being created.
What travels with a good introduction is a reference who can speak to the authenticity of the team, the distinct nature of the opportunity, and why this company and why now. None of that is information a founder can supply about themselves with any credibility, which is precisely why it carries weight. The introduction separates signal from noise for an investor who has no other cheap way to do it.
What can a founder without the network actually do?
Read practically, both answers point to the part of this problem a founder can address: the pre-validation an introduction represents. Entering the competitions and partner programs a target fund runs or participates in creates the connection artificially and legitimately. So does building a relationship with a scientific advisor or key opinion leader a fund already trusts, well before there is anything to raise. Both paths take months, which is the real cost, and both are available to founders who do not start with investor relationships.
Does the introduction improve the odds of a yes?
It improves the odds of a considered read. Neither investor claimed it improves the odds of a check. Goguen described it as reaching him ahead of the blank email. Schubert described a higher likelihood of follow-on funding for companies arriving through a known channel. Both descriptions are about position in the queue and the quality of attention received. The company still has to survive the diligence that follows, which is where the actual decision gets made and where the introduction stops helping.
Why do founders misread this as a closed system?
The uncomfortable finding here is real: without a connection, a company is competing for attention it may never receive. The finding that sits beside it is that the connection is manufacturable, on a timeline of months, through mechanisms both investors described openly. Founders who hear only the first half conclude the system is closed and stop trying. Founders who hear both act earlier, and start building the reference before they need it.
The full conversation is on the Open Door Salon episode page, drawn from the recorded, on-the-record discussion; quotes are lightly edited for clarity, and the full episode is the record. It pairs with what the same two investors said about how many pitches a fund reviews before investing and whether an early-stage biotech should raise less money. If your organization wants to reach this audience, partner with Open Door Salon.