Veteran serial tech entrepreneur, investor and advisor, Francois Mazoudie, shares hard truths on fundraising, scaling, and why most founders misunderstand investors – live from Technology park Split.

What is the most common mistake you see with an uneducated founder?

Some are wise enough to admit what they don’t know, but most of them let their ego speak: “Everybody is doing it, so can I.” What they don’t realize is that 90% of founders fail – which you won’t hear in the press.

Your investor pitch is not your product pitch.

Investors want to see a big market, some initial traction – and beyond that, they usually don’t care. If you have traction on the revenue side, it means your product must be working, therefore your dev team must be working, therefore your marketing must be working.

This very Americanized view is all about product first. European investors want to see the key metric, the moonshot, and the obstacles along the way: “Help me understand how this business will become very big.” You don’t need to mention the fifteen features you’re planning to build.

How can a founder find a balance between what the dev team wants to do and what the consumer actually needs?

Too often, founders overbuild features without understanding the actual need. From a consumer perspective, it becomes overwhelming – too many functions, and the basics don’t work.

This is especially common among technical teams. They love building, but skip validating whether the product actually solves a real problem.

They think they have an unbeatable product but forget to think about the market. This is where venture capitalists have a difficult job: What is a great product, and yet palatable to customers?

And that gap is product marketing – and it’s critical.

Very few startups have a product marketer to do that, and engineers will typically never do it on their own.

You’ve said the internet is full of “really, really bad advice.” What’s the most harmful myth about fundraising you encounter – and how do you correct it?

1. A common myth is that fundraising success depends on some magical pitch or elevator moment. You’ll hear many investors say they went for a walk or a coffee with the founder, and there was no pitch deck – but the founder was prepared.
2. Another myth, often pushed by self-proclaimed gurus, is that it will be quick – and they don’t emphasize how much preparation it actually takes. Great investors are curious, but they do their research. You need to show them the business, the market, and the competition.
3. Storytelling is important – but not about your childhood or even the product itself.

It’s about the business.

Show how the market is going to change in five years – and how you’re the one positioned for that change. It seems obvious now, but that’s how businesses like Netflix, Airbnb, and Uber broke through.

For example, storytelling for financials is something we teach at the Bootcamp.

You’ve spent the past week working directly with founders in Split. What stood out to you about the local startup ecosystem?

I’ve met a mix of founders from Split and the wider region. What stood out is the strong energy and creativity. People are building cool things, and there’s a hunger to learn.

But there’s also a recurring challenge: many founders think too locally. One company even mentioned that Split will be their only market. Something small and simple in a single feature, like what Mailchimp did, can work wonders if you do it well. But still, it has to be scalable.

There’s nothing wrong with thinking smaller, but in that case, look for angel investors rather than VCs.

VC capital is the most complicated capital there is, so before celebrating raising money, make sure you understand every available option.

VC capital requires exceptional exits – and plenty of angels will be happy to give you two million and get back twenty.

There’s strong potential here, but the ecosystem would benefit from more education on the financial and legal sides of startup growth.

You said founders should use RVF (revenue-based funding) and EU grants more. You also mentioned we don’t need to run from corporate VC. Why is that?

Because there are now plenty of RVF providers. It’s much quicker than in the old days when you had to go to the bank for debt – the paperwork is easier.

And European grants are free money – and so many founders have never applied. You can even work with grant advisors who only get paid if you succeed.

Yes, the paperwork is boring, but if you’re not going after free money – are you really an entrepreneur?

So yes, shoot for the moon. If you have a business that can truly become number one in something big, go for venture capital. Otherwise, just listen to the numbers, not opinions. I’m a big fan of corporate venture capital at the moment.

I always ask founders: why exactly do you want to raise money? Because once you do, things get complicated. Hiring people is hard. Managing them is even harder. Firing, rehiring, running marketing campaigns – it’s all risky. Some things will work, others won’t.

Then you need to acquire customers, hire a sales team to close deals, and only then – maybe – you start seeing revenue. All of that takes time, effort, and luck.

Now imagine this: a corporate venture investor comes in and says, “I’ll not only invest money – I’ll also bring you 10,000 paying customers.”

So let me ask you: which would you choose – a traditional VC who gives you money, or a corporate VC who gives you both capital and customers?