The Startup Recipe That Keeps Failing: Why VCs Avoid 40+ Entrepreneurs Like the Plague
Let’s raise a toast to the venture capitalists, those daring adventurers who’ve boldly funded yet another venture to deliver overpriced coffee or facilitate dog playdates. The Indonesian VC playbook is no different: invest millions in a startup run by a 28-year-old with a freshly minted Ivy League degree and a LinkedIn bio longer than their actual resume. Their business idea? “It’s Uber, but for laundry.” Groundbreaking.
Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows is a cohort of 40+ year-olds with decades of real business experience; leaders who’ve survived quarterly earnings calls and actually understand profit margins. But in the eyes of a VC, they might as well be dinosaurs holding flip phones. Why fund someone who knows how to run a sustainable business when you can roll the dice on a pitch deck with a cute mascot and a mission to “disrupt” the paperclip industry?
This obsession with youth is about comfort, not innovation. Betting on young, unproven founders ensures failure stays predictable. When their startups crash and burn, no one bats an eye. It’s expected. But a seasoned pro with a P&L track record? That’s too much accountability. Better to back the kid with a TEDx talk than the adult with an actual plan.
Youth: The Ultimate Proxy for Competence (It’s Not)
Youth is the ultimate credential for venture capitalists desperate to throw money at the next "visionary disruptor." A shiny Stanford degree, a startup-y vocabulary, and boundless energy to hop between pitches? Jackpot! Whether their “big idea” is a glorified vending machine or an app to track your cat’s moods, it doesn’t matter. They’re 25! They’ve got passion! Sure, they couldn’t explain the difference between revenue and profit if their Series A depended on it, but they can talk about “growth hacking” with the confidence of someone who’s never had to hire a single employee.
"Profit” has become a dirty word in startup culture. It’s the kind of concept you whisper about, like a scandalous affair. Who cares if you’re hemorrhaging money? The goal is to burn through cash as possible and pray that an acquisition saves you from bankruptcy. Profitability? That’s for people who lack “vision.”
Meanwhile, the over-40 crowd are sitting on decades of practical knowledge. They’ve led teams, balanced budgets, and solved actual problems. And they understand the basics, like meeting payroll and delivering something customers actually want. But in the world of VC, that’s not “disruptive.”
VCs dismiss these seasoned pros as “too rigid” or “unadventurous.” Translation? They won’t play along with a strategy that involves spending $10 million on a quirky mascot and a website that doesn’t load half the time. Why bet on someone who knows how to turn a profit when you can fund a 25-year-old whose startup plan involves using “blockchain” in every sentence?
Youth may be a proxy for energy, but it’s no substitute for competence. Unfortunately, for VCs, hype trumps experience every time.
The Cult of Failure: How the Startup Ecosystem Celebrates Burning Money
Failure in venture capital is both tolerated and fetishized. Losing millions isn’t seen as an avoidable misstep but as a rite of passage. Founders who torch cash at an alarming rate are heralded as visionaries, pushing the limits of human ingenuity and financial recklessness. What’s $10 million down the drain when you’ve “learned valuable lessons” like why your business plan shouldn’t hinge on a market that doesn’t exist?
This celebratory attitude towards failure only applies to the young and untested. When a 28-year-old wunderkind runs their startup into the ground, it’s “part of the journey.” They just need a fresh infusion of cash to try again. Maybe this time, their app for renting jet skis by the hour will really take off! Meanwhile, if a 48-year-old founder dares to suggest a sensible business model, complete with profit margins and cost controls, they’re immediately labeled as too boring for the high-octane world of startups. Sensible doesn’t trend on TechCrunch.
This cult of failure is about absolving accountability. Backing a 22-year-old with no track record is a get-out-of-jail-free card for VCs. When the inevitable collapse comes, they can shrug and say, “Well, it was an experiment.” But if an experienced 40+ entrepreneur falters? That’s harder to spin. The optics are all wrong. How do you justify gambling on someone who should know better?
Maybe the issue isn’t failure itself, but the specific kind we venerate. Imagine if, instead of funding every wild-eyed, buzzword-loving novice with a dream, VCs sought out people who understand the difference between growth and pyrotechnics. Burning money is easy; creating value is harder, but infinitely more rewarding.
Why Copycats Are the Kingmakers of Mediocrity
In Indonesia, the entrepreneurial dream isn’t to invent the next big thing; it’s to squint at Silicon Valley’s homework, scribble down the answers, and hope nobody notices.
Uber? We’ll build Gojek.
Airbnb? Say hello to RumahLokal.
It’s innovation, but make it plagiarism style, with a dash of localization to keep things spicy. Who better to lead this crusade than a 26-year-old with zero industry experience but an uncanny ability to throw around words like “synergy” and “disrupt”?
The result? A cookie-cutter parade of copy-paste startups, all vying to be the next slightly-less-polished version of a Western success story. And why not? VCs love the familiarity of a “proven model,” even if it’s been “proven” in a completely different context. After all, why risk funding something original when you can fund a watered-down replica? Who cares if every major city already has four “Uber, but for X” clones clogging the market?
Meanwhile, the wily veterans of the 40+ crowd are sitting on genuinely original ideas. These are people who’ve spent years studying market gaps, understanding operational inefficiencies, and dreaming up innovative solutions. The problem? Their ideas require things like patience, market expertise, and a focus on profitability. These are qualities that make VCs recoil like they’ve been shown a spreadsheet of actual financial projections.
The obsession with knockoffs creates an ecosystem where mediocrity thrives, and originality struggles to get a foot in the door. Building transformative companies requires time, expertise, and, most importantly, founders who’ve seen what it takes to run a real business. But instead of backing these seasoned pros, VCs double down on “It’s like [insert global brand here], but local!” Because why strive for innovation when you can aim for “good enough to get acquired”?
The Elephant in the Room: Is This Just Laziness?
A big part of why VCs keep betting on young, connected founders boils down to sheer convenience. Funding a 25-year-old with an Ivy League degree and a pitch deck full of tech jargon is predictable, easy, and comes with a side of built-in networks. These fresh-faced founders show up with glowing references from their old professors or, better yet, the same people the VCs golf with on weekends. They’re a safe bet; not because they’re competent, but because they tick all the right social boxes.
Now consider the over-40 crowd. These folks are often outsiders to the insular world of venture capital. They didn’t go to Stanford or MIT; they were too busy running profitable businesses, meeting payrolls, and fixing P&Ls. They may lack the Ivy League sheen, but they have what young founders don’t: the scars of experience. Unfortunately, “real-world expertise” doesn’t translate well into the VC ecosystem’s love language of viral TED Talks and tweets about grinding 24/7.
Let’s not ignore the unspoken cousin of this laziness: ageism. There’s a pervasive belief that older founders are less adaptable, less creative, and less likely to pull all-nighters. Never mind that these same “less adaptable” founders have spent decades managing crises, navigating complex markets, and growing businesses from scratch. Apparently, knowing how to run a sustainable operation is too passé for the “move fast and break things” crowd.
For VCs, it’s easier to stick with the myth of the scrappy young entrepreneur than to fund a 45-year-old whose pitch includes phrases like “revenue streams” and “cost efficiency.” Who wants results when you can chase a narrative?
Indonesia’s startup ecosystem doesn’t need to be the Neverland of overhyped pitches and founders who’ve never seen a budget they couldn’t blow. It’s time to grow up. Right under our noses is a pool of 40+ professionals who know what it takes to run a business: people who’ve lived through market downturns, managed supply chain chaos, and still turned a profit. These are doers, and they’re ready to turn their entrepreneurial itch into Indonesia’s next big success story.
So why do VCs keep chasing unicorns ridden by starry-eyed 25-year-olds with more buzzwords than experience? Maybe it’s time to stop romanticizing failure and start funding competence. Imagine an ecosystem where:
Cash isn’t just burned but invested,
Founders understand that “pivot” isn’t a synonym for “flounder,”
The endgame is a sustainable business, not a flashy exit for a company with no customers.
The next big success story in Indonesia could very well come from someone who’s been around the block a few times. A 50-year-old with wisdom, grit, and, dare we say it, actual skills. And if they fail? At least it won’t end with millions of abandoned scooters littering the streets. That alone would be progress.