I've started and bootstrapped several businesses during my career, but when I started WatchParty I knew right away that it would require major investment. Having never raised capital for a business, I recognized quickly that I had a great deal to learn. So, naturally, I started reading every book I could find.

I read good books and bad books, but one of the things all the books had in common was a strong recommendation to choose investors carefully. It was a recommendation that made sense, but frankly when you're struggling to turn an idea into a product and a company into a business, there isn't too much room to be picky. If someone is interested in investing, it's hard to turn them down when you don't know whether a "better" investor will ever come along.

Nevertheless, as we've moved WatchParty from concept to wireframes, and are moving on to coding, it has become easier to simply walk away from potential investors without looking back. Without really intending to, we've developed a litmus test that makes it easy to determine whether we should continue a dialogue or say goodbye. So what is that litmus test?

I'll call it the "Better Idea" test. Essentially, if after hearing the pitch, a potential investor tells me he has a "better idea" for our feature set or our business model, I listen politely, thank them for their time, and get the hell out. A variation on this is the "Should Be" test, in which a potential investor tells me what we "should be" doing instead of what we are doing.

I know that this probably seems arrogant, but it is not based on a belief that the WatchParty team has everything in our business model right. In fact, we're pretty sure we have at least half our plans wrong. The problem is we don't yet know which half.

The reason we walk away from "Better Idea" investors is that they claim they do know which half is wrong, and they expect us to replace those plans with their ideas. Of course it's possible - maybe even likely - that their ideas are better, but if we changed course for every potential investor with a "Better Idea" we'd end up with a hodge-podge of different, often competing models and plans, along with grumbling investors. And it's become pretty clear that the "Better Idea" investors won't consider investing in WatchParty if we don't adopt their "Better Idea".

So what's the alternative? Is there a litmus test for investors we do want? I think there is. If, after hearing the pitch, a potential investor tells me that we should "next try" this idea or that, I really want to keep that dialogue alive. Those are investors who see WatchParty's potential and recognize that some of our ideas won't work, but are willing to let the market (not their egos) dictate which should be replaced. They have ideas and are willing to share them, but are aware that their ideas are just as likely to be bad as good, and are comfortable with that. If we make sure all of WatchParty's investors are "Next Try" investors, we'll always have someplace to pivot when an idea doesn't work out, and investors who encourage our success instead of controlling it.

So, if you are a "Better Idea" investor, I'm sure there are plenty of startups out there willing to chuck their approach in favor of yours. We're just not one of them. If, on the other hand, you are a "Next Try" investor, you should give me a call. I'd love to hear your ideas.