A few months ago, I was catching up with Rebecca.

Rebecca had already built a diagnostics platform with early clinical validation, a strong scientific advisory board, and a clear regulatory path.

She'd done her homework on investors, built an initial target list of 100 funds that seemed like strong fits, and started her outreach.

After 1-2 weeks of outreach, she gathered her response rate:

Two replies, both polite passes.

When she showed me what she'd been sending, I understood why.

The emails weren't bad, per se. They were professional, the science was explained clearly, and the deck was solid. But as I read through them, I noticed a pattern.

The messages were just generic. Not in an obvious, sloppy way, but in subtle ways that added up.

There was no reference to what the fund had actually invested in, no mention of why she thought the firm partners would be a good fit.. nothing that signaled “I'm reaching out to you specifically because of X”

It read like the same blurb sent to 40 different funds - because, well, it was.

There was also no momentum. No mention of how much of the round was committed. No timeline for the close. No recent milestone or traction update.

There was no reason for an investor to think “Crap, I need to look at this now before I miss it”

The opportunity felt evergreen - like it would always be there, patiently waiting.

And her follow-ups?

“Just wanted to bump this to the top of your inbox”

“Checking in to see if you had a chance to review”

There was no new information, no update, and no value added. Just... another ask.

Here's the thing: none of this was a glaring mistake. Any one of these issues on its own might not sink your chances of getting a proper response.

But together? They compound.

Each one makes it slightly easier for an investor to deprioritize your email, move on to the next thing, and never circle back.

The irony is that Rebecca was offering something valuable.

She was sharing a strong company with investors whose literal job is to find deals like hers.

But the way she framed the outreach didn't convey that. It felt like she was asking for permission rather than offering an opportunity.

Now, allow me to go off-script a bit.

I get it: If you're reading this, you likely have years, if not decades, of advanced training and education behind you.

You might be thinking: I'm not here to do LinkedIn marketing or tweak messages for response rates. I'm a scientist, not a salesperson.

And I'd be the first one to agree with you.

But here's the reality: whether in biotech or not, in 2026, we all live in an attention economy.

We live in a world that’s in permanent information overload.

Every day, as “civilians”, we're inundated with texts, DMs, news updates, to-do lists, calendar invites, work demands, family, personal lives... the list never ends.

And for professional VCs? Multiply that a hundredfold.

They're fielding constant inbound from new companies, putting out fires at portfolio companies, managing LP relationships, sitting on boards, attending conferences, reviewing decks, taking partner meetings - honestly, I don't know how they do it.

So, this isn't about the latest email marketing hack. It's not about being “salesy.”

It's about showing up for your science in a way that can cut through the noise - and in a way that your science truly deserves.

And in truth, if you’re like Rebecca, you’re not alone. These are exactly the kinds of patterns I see when I audit how founders reach out to investors.

Today, I want to make sure you can spot these mistakes in your own outreach - and have a clear way to fix them.

But before we get into the specific mistakes, I want to share a mental model that changed how I think about investor relationships - and outreach in particular.

Every relationship has an invisible balance. Think of it like a bank account.

You can make deposits: adding value, being helpful, sharing something useful, making an introduction, offering your time or expertise without expecting anything in return.

Or you can make withdrawals: asking for time, requesting feedback, seeking introductions, or asking for capital.

The mistake I see founders make over and over again is that they start making withdrawals before they've ever made a single deposit.

Your first message to an investor is a cold LinkedIn DM asking to “hop on a quick call”. Your first email is a pitch. Your first interaction is an ask.

From the investor's perspective, you're a stranger requesting something valuable - their time, attention, or capital - without offering anything in return.

That's not a relationship. That's a transaction.

Now, let's try a thought exercise.

Imagine you're a serial entrepreneur. You've previously built, scaled, and successfully exited two biotechs. You're now on your third company. You're fortunate to already have personal relationships with some VCs. Now you'd like to reach out to one of them to tell them about your new idea and your current raise.

You might say something like:

Now, if you're a first-time founder, maybe you can't say all of these things.

But my bet? You can say most of them.

You can reference something specific the investor said publicly. You can share genuine traction or early data. You can communicate momentum and a timeline. You can offer to connect them with someone interesting in your network or share a paper they may not otherwise have access to.

The goal of your outreach is to get as close to this as possible. And from my experience, you can get pretty close - even if you don't have a prior relationship with the investor.

You have to act “as if.”

Act as if you're offering them the opportunity to get on your rocket ship - because you are.

Act as if you're leading with value - because you can.

Act as if you're building a normal, authentic, human relationship - because that's exactly what this is.

You’re not sending them an in-mail catalog about your company. You’re not asking for permission. And you’re not waiting to be chosen.

You’re showing up fully, like someone worth backing.

From my experience, the founders that struggle with this rarely do so because they don’t have something valuable to offer.

It’s usually because of small, fixable mistakes that get in their way.

So, let's look at the top five mistakes I see that prevent founders from showing up this way - and how to fix them.

Not all investors are the same. An angel investor, a family office, a seed-stage VC, and a growth equity fund all operate differently - they have different check sizes, different decision processes, different expectations, and different timelines.

When you send a generic message that doesn't acknowledge who you're talking to, it takes away from your credibility and adds friction by requiring the investors to put together the missing pieces.

Angels often invest based on personal connection and conviction in the founder. They can move fast, but they're writing smaller checks and often want to feel personally involved.

Institutional VCs are deploying other people's money. They have investment committees, portfolio construction strategies, and return expectations that shape every decision. They need to see how you fit their fund model.

Family offices vary wildly - some are highly sophisticated and act like VCs, others are more relationship-driven and idiosyncratic.

Corporate venture arms care about strategic alignment with their parent company, sometimes more than pure financial returns.

The fix: Before you reach out, understand what type of investor you're contacting and tailor your message accordingly. The same pitch won't work for everyone - nor should it. An email to an angel should feel different than an email to a partner at a $500M fund.

This one is even more specific. You're not just targeting the wrong type of investor - you're targeting investors whose focus doesn't match your company at all.

This can include things like sending a pre-seed ask to a growth-stage fund, pitching a diagnostics company to a fund that only does therapeutics, or reaching out to a US-only investor when you're based in Europe with no US presence.

Worse: sending a message that makes it obvious you didn't spend five minutes researching whether this investor is even relevant.

The truth is that yes, personalization takes time. Yes, it slows you down, and yes, most founders don't do it.

Which is exactly why you should.

And the good news is that in 2026, this no longer involves walking over to your local library and looking through newspaper clippings (remember those? :)

LLMs can now access publicly available information, which means you’re a simple prompt away from gathering recent investments, stated thesis, partner backgrounds, LinkedIn posts, podcast appearances and other info to customize your message and allow you to be better informed (always do independently verify this information).

In 10 minutes, you can understand whether there's genuine fit and find a specific hook for your outreach.

Use this to your advantage.

The fix: Before you hit send, confirm thesis fit & stage, sector, geography, and check size. Reference something specific that shows you've done your homework. Reach out based on your shared interests or values.

Your outreach makes the deal feel “evergreen” - like it will always be there, patiently waiting whenever the investor gets around to it.

But investors don't respond to a polite offer of a deal that’s always available.

They respond to momentum.

If your email doesn't communicate movement - how much you've raised, how much of the round is committed, how many LOIs you have, early customer traction, upcoming milestones, a timeline for close… you’re not giving the investors a reason to act NOW.

And “no reason to act now” usually means “no action at all.”

Investors see hundreds of opportunities. The ones that get attention are the ones that feel like they're moving with or without this particular investor's participation.

The fix: Always include a momentum signal. “We've closed 60% of the round.” “We have 3 signed LOIs from [customer type].” “We're targeting a first close by [date].” “We just hit [milestone] and are now raising to [next objective].”

Give them a reason to lean in now, not later.

I say this as someone who gets asked regularly to help with investor introductions: there's a big difference between a trusted contact making a few thoughtful, warm intros and an intermediary blasting your generic deck to a thousand investors.

The second approach is BAD. Really bad. Here's why:

One: it reflects poorly on your personal reputation. Investors talk. If your name becomes associated with spray-and-pray outreach, that reputation sticks. You become “that founder” whose deck shows up everywhere.

Two: these emails don't land where you think they do. Mass outreach typically goes to an AI filter or a junior associate whose job is to sift through inbound. Their incentive structure? Find reasons to say no. That's literally their job - to filter out the noise so the partners don't have to.

Three: and this is the one most founders don't realize - it creates a “pass” in their system. If you meet the GP from that fund later and pitch them directly, the first thing they'll do is check their internal CRM. And they'll see that the fund already looked at your deal and passed. Coming back from an internal “no” is extremely difficult.

The fix: Do your own outreach. Make it personal. Fifty thoughtful, researched emails will dramatically outperform a thousand generic blasts every time.

You sent an email, you waited a week and there is no response.

So, naturally, you follow up: “Just checking in - did you have a chance to review?”

Still nothing. So you try again: “Wanted to bump this to the top of your inbox.”

Or worse, you take offense. You get frustrated that they're not responding. Maybe you send a passive-aggressive note.

All of this is making withdrawals from a bank account that has no balance.

Remember the framework: deposits first, then withdrawals.

The best follow-ups are deposits - in a genuinely human way. They add value. They share an update. They give the investor a reason to engage that isn't just “please respond to me.”

Here's a reframe: instead of just following up with another ask, think about what you can offer.

Are you part of a biotech community - a local club, a university network, a professional group, an industry association?

Offer to connect them. Share a piece of research that's relevant to their portfolio. Forward an article with a genuine insight.

Think of ways that you can be a resource.

“Hey [Name], we just hit [milestone], thought you'd want to know! Also came across this paper on [topic relevant to their portfolio] and thought of your investment in [portfolio company]. Happy to share more if useful.”

That's a deposit and that’s how you build balance.

You'd be surprised how few founders actually do this.

The fix: Follow up with updates and value, not asks. Give them a reason to respond that isn't obligation. And if you've made a few deposits, the withdrawal becomes much easier when the time comes.

Before you send your next investor email, run through this list:

☐ Investor type fit: Is this the right type of investor for my stage and ask? (Angel vs. VC vs. family office vs. corporate)

☐ Thesis fit: Does this fund/investor actually invest in my space, stage, and geography?

☐ Personalization: Have I included at least one specific detail that shows I researched this investor - not just their fund, but them personally?

☐ Momentum signal: Does my message communicate urgency and traction? Or does it feel like an evergreen opportunity that will always be there?

☐ Clear ask: Is it obvious what I'm asking for - and is the ask appropriate for this stage of the relationship?

☐ Deposit, not just withdrawal: Am I offering any value, or only asking for something?

☐ Length check: Can this be read and understood in under 60 seconds? Have I cut everything non-essential?

☐ Sent by me: Am I sending this myself, or outsourcing to someone who will blast it generically?

Once you have your outreach drafted, here's a simple prompt you can use with your favorite LLM to pressure-test your investor outreach before you hit send:

Use this before every important outreach - it won’t take more than two minutes.

Look, I get it. Outreach like this may feel awkward. It can also feel slow, cumbersome and inefficient, especially when you have a lab to run, people to manage, and money to raise.

But here's what I've learned: the founders who are great at outreach are not great because they’re a slick salesperson. They're great because they think about relationships in a fundamentally different way.

They genuinely want to add value without asking for anything in return. They do the research. They communicate momentum. They follow up in a way that feels helpful and authentic.

And when the time comes to make an ask? The people on the other side are usually only happy to support them.

Based on your survey responses and my conversations with many of you, it's clear that investor outreach is a real pain point.

From my experience, successful outreach is as much of an “art” as it is a science, and I’d love to go deeper on this topic in a way that can give you all the tools you need to succeed.

To do this, I’m considering putting together The Investor Outreach Playbook.

This is advice and frameworks I typically work through with clients, but I'd like to make them more widely available.

Here's what I have in mind:

Would this be helpful to you? If I can get 25 sign-ups on the waitlist, I'll build it this month - and you'll be first to get it :)

Is there anything else that you’d like to see? Reply to this email and let me know!

See you next week!

- Vadim

PS: If you want a refresher on the different types of biotech investors, and how to customize your outreach for each one, check out the very first issue of Bio Founder GPS!

PPS: If you have someone on your team helping with fundraising or know another founder who could benefit from being in this community - I’d love to include them. They can join us here: [Join the Community]