Funding doesn't equal success, it's simply a longer runway to failure. That said, what would be more telling is data about how many companies last and are able to build something compelling or sustain any kind of growth, compared to how much money they raised (if any).
Just because a program doesn't have successful entrepreneurs running it doesn't mean they're companies are doomed to fail. It all comes down to picking the right companies and the right markets to chase. If I were building an enterprise-oriented SaaS product, it may make sense to join an incubator/accelerator where the mentors have deep enterprise sales experience from an enterprise company.
>Funding doesn't equal success, it's simply a longer runway to failure.
In those cases (too many), funding is also a distraction and putting off todays problems (profit for sustainability) until the future.
VC funding has often struck me as a wonderful way for those who have been successful (many vc's are entrepreneurs) to give others a chance, and from a financial standpoint, likely a reasonable way to have some tax write-offs while doing good in the world to help give something a chance.
In that way, I like funding. At the same time, funding is about founders more than the idea.
Just because a program doesn't have successful entrepreneurs running it doesn't mean they're companies are doomed to fail. It all comes down to picking the right companies and the right markets to chase. If I were building an enterprise-oriented SaaS product, it may make sense to join an incubator/accelerator where the mentors have deep enterprise sales experience from an enterprise company.