AcquiredAcquired

This Was The First Venture Capital Firm to Have a Website

Ben Gilbert on benchmark’s website history reveals venture capital’s stance on visibility.

Ben GilberthostDavid Rosenthalhost
Oct 24, 20222mWatch on YouTube ↗
Benchmark vs. Benchmark Capital namingFirst VC firm with a website (1990s)Early website artifacts (directions to pitch)Website modernization and Web 2.0 featuresMatt Cohler’s role and conflicting origin storyBenchmark’s philosophy of founder-first creditPartnership dynamics and decision-by-committee fatigue

In this episode of Acquired, featuring Ben Gilbert and David Rosenthal, This Was The First Venture Capital Firm to Have a Website explores benchmark’s website history reveals venture capital’s stance on visibility Benchmark Capital’s current sparse website contrasts with its status as one of the first VC firms to launch a website in the 1990s.

At a glance

WHAT IT’S REALLY ABOUT

Benchmark’s website history reveals venture capital’s stance on visibility

  1. Benchmark Capital’s current sparse website contrasts with its status as one of the first VC firms to launch a website in the 1990s.
  2. Early versions of Benchmark’s site were notably “goofy,” including practical details like driving directions for founders coming to pitch.
  3. As the web evolved, the firm attempted modernization efforts that aimed to make the site more interactive and contemporary.
  4. Internal debate—especially around a redesign associated with Matt Cohler—highlighted Benchmark’s belief that VC firms should not take visible credit for entrepreneurs’ success.
  5. The combination of philosophical concerns and the friction of partner feedback loops appears to have driven the firm toward an intentionally minimal web footprint.

IDEAS WORTH REMEMBERING

6 ideas

Benchmark’s minimal site is a deliberate branding choice, not neglect.

The conversation frames the stripped-down website as aligned with the firm’s preference to stay in the background and let founders take the spotlight, rather than as a failure to invest in marketing.

Being early on the internet didn’t translate into wanting long-term visibility.

Despite adopting a website unusually early for a VC firm, Benchmark ultimately moved away from showcasing itself or its portfolio, suggesting a shift from experimentation to values-based restraint.

Showcasing portfolio successes can feel like claiming founder credit.

The hosts note a concern that featuring companies prominently could imply Benchmark is “taking credit,” which they see as inconsistent with the firm’s identity as a quiet partner.

Website redesigns can expose partnership governance challenges.

As revisions circulated, the accumulation of feedback and opinions from multiple partners appears to have created friction that made “no website” the simplest resolution.

A minimalist web presence can function as founder filtering.

The rationale offered is that the best founders may be attracted to a firm that doesn’t loudly market itself or its wins, signaling confidence and discretion.

Institutional lore can conflict even in small details.

The segment contains two opposing versions of Matt Cohler’s involvement—either he pushed for an update or was tasked with it as initiation—showing how narratives diverge inside elite firms.

WORDS WORTH SAVING

5 quotes

They were actually the very first venture capital firm to have a website in the early nineties.

— Ben Gilbert

You can find directions on how to drive to pitch them.

— Ben Gilbert

It ended up putting Benchmark too far forward. It was almost like taking credit for these entrepreneurs' success.

— Ben Gilbert

They wanna be in the background. They want it to be entrepreneurs' show.

— Ben Gilbert

I think we shouldn't have a website at all 'cause I don't wanna deal with this.

— Ben Gilbert

QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN THIS EPISODE

5 questions

What evidence or source confirms Benchmark was the first VC firm to have a website, and what year did it launch?

Benchmark Capital’s current sparse website contrasts with its status as one of the first VC firms to launch a website in the 1990s.

What specific elements made the early Benchmark site “hilariously goofy,” beyond driving directions (e.g., layout, language, features)?

Early versions of Benchmark’s site were notably “goofy,” including practical details like driving directions for founders coming to pitch.

Between the two conflicting stories about Matt Cohler—pushing the update vs. being assigned it—what’s the most credible version and why?

As the web evolved, the firm attempted modernization efforts that aimed to make the site more interactive and contemporary.

What “Web 2.0-y” features were proposed for the redesign, and which ones triggered the concern about taking credit?

Internal debate—especially around a redesign associated with Matt Cohler—highlighted Benchmark’s belief that VC firms should not take visible credit for entrepreneurs’ success.

How does Benchmark’s founder-first visibility philosophy show up in other firm behaviors besides the website (e.g., press, board behavior, sourcing)?

The combination of philosophical concerns and the friction of partner feedback loops appears to have driven the firm toward an intentionally minimal web footprint.

EVERY SPOKEN WORD

Install uListen for AI-powered chat & search across the full episode — Get Full Transcript

Get more out of YouTube videos.

High quality summaries for YouTube videos. Accurate transcripts to search & find moments. Powered by ChatGPT & Claude AI.

Add to Chrome