The Invisible Currency: How Intangible Communications Make or Break Your Funding Round
 
Every founder believes their data will do the talking. The smart ones know this is only half the story. In a world where 95% of pitches fail, the difference between funding and rejection often happens before you've said a word about your business.
 
The stakes have never been higher. As we highlighted last week, only 5-10% of startups seeking funding are successfully closing any round at all right now. In this brutally selective environment, where VCs see thousands of deals every year and spend just 2-5 minutes reading each story before deciding whether to meet with the founder, something far more elusive than data determines who joins that elite 5-10%.
 
NFX's Omri Drory cuts to the heart of it: "Sometimes, when a VC doesn't invest, it's about you. Or, more accurately, their perception of you." When 90-95% of founders are walking away empty-handed, the margin for error on these intangibles is zero. First impressions really count.
 
In our recent piece "Why Desperate Founders Never Get Funded", we identified Communications as one of the four critical pillars of fundraising success. Today, we're diving deeper into the most elusive aspects of that pillar - the intangible elements that can't be scripted or faked.
 
 
Radiating a different energy
 
Many founders don't realise that you're selling yourself as much as your company during a pitch meeting. This is especially true at early stage - Seed and Series A. When investors reject deal after deal, it might not be the idea they're passing on - it's you.
 
It’s like watching a Premier League match. Within minutes, you can sense which team will dominate - not from the scoreboard, but from their energy, coordination, and that indefinable presence that separates champions from also-rans. VCs are reading the same signals in founders. They're looking for the entrepreneurial equivalent of a team captain who can rally the side when they're 2-0 down with ten minutes to play.
 
The challenge? These intangibles manifest almost before you've opened your mouth. Venture capitalists are really good at two things: understanding business models and reading personal dynamics - and they can sense both within minutes.
 
Here's what many founders miss: by the time you're discussing unit economics, the emotional verdict is already in. VCs make gut decisions first, then validate them with data - not the other way around.
 
What separates the fundable from the forgotten? It's not what most founders think. Second-time founders aren't just more fundable because of track records. They understand what NFX calls the founder's job: "to suffer stoically." They radiate a different energy - the gravity of someone who's survived the wars and only returned to battle because they absolutely must.


The 55% rule
 
Remember when we talked about first impressions and having seconds to establish credibility? Here's why: research shows that only 7% of communication comes from actual words, with body language accounting for 55% and tone of voice 38%. Body language expert Allan Pease puts it even more starkly: '60 to 80 percent of all the impact you are making when you're face to face is done non-verbally.'
 
Think about that. Before explaining your revolutionary technology, investors have already formed most of their opinion based on how you carry yourself.
 
The physical presence paradox is brutal. Too little energy and you're forgettable. Too much and you're exhausting. Closed body language signals defensiveness. Excessive gesturing screams desperation. Even your handshake matters - neuroscience research confirms it not only increases positive impressions but actually diminishes the impact of negative ones, with studies showing that touch primes the brain to release oxytocin - the trust hormone.
 
Virtual meetings amplify these challenges. The Zoom box magnifies every fidget, every moment of poor eye contact, every unconscious tell that you're not quite the leader they're looking for. In a world where founders blend together in an endless parade of video calls, physical presence has become even more critical, not less.
 
The most damaging part? Most founders have no idea what signals they're sending. They perfect their slides while their bodies broadcast uncertainty, defensiveness, or desperation. And VCs, pattern-matching machines that they are, pick up every signal.


The coachability con
 
VCs universally claim they want "coachable" founders. As Margaret Roth from Squadra Ventures notes: "There's nothing that will end evaluation of a team faster than someone on the investment committee saying 'They just don't seem coachable.'"
 
But here's the twist: research reveals "While investors prefer coachable entrepreneurs, being coachable doesn't necessarily make your firm more successful."
 
What's really happening? When VCs test coachability, they're not looking for compliance. They're assessing whether you can engage in productive conflict without becoming defensive. Can you acknowledge uncertainty while maintaining conviction? Can you critically evaluate advice without reflexively accepting or rejecting it?
 
The death knell? "DON'T try to pretend you are coachable. Coaches want authenticity and will know if you are just trying to ingratiate yourself." After thousands of pitches, VCs have developed finely tuned sensors for founders who nod along while internally dismissing every suggestion.
 
Consider Zuckerberg rejecting Yahoo's $1 billion offer against his board's advice. That wasn't being uncoachable - that was demonstrating the deepest coachability: knowing the difference between advice worth taking and advice worth acknowledging. He proved that being coachable doesn't mean being a pushover - it means having the judgment to know when your advisors, however smart, might be wrong about your specific vision.


The chemistry test
 
While you present market size, VCs conduct a parallel analysis: reading co-founder dynamics. As Excedr's analysis points out: "Even if the CEO is the one leading the pitch, most VCs aren't just investing in a single person. They're evaluating the founding team as a unit."
 
The tells are subtle but devastating. "Do you build on each other's points? Do you both contribute meaningfully, or does one of you dominate?" When responses feel overly rehearsed, VCs smell inauthenticity. When one founder consistently interrupts the other, they see future boardroom battles.
 
Watch successful co-founder pitches. There's an almost musical quality to how they unconsciously mirror energy, finish thoughts, and orient toward shared goals. Contrast this with teams where founders subtly angle away from each other or show micro-expressions of frustration.
 
Uneven equity splits raise immediate red flags. They suggest either unresolved power dynamics or failure to have difficult conversations early. Both predict future implosion. When one founder talks billions while the other seems content with a lifestyle business, VCs see a ticking time bomb – warranted or not.
 
Investors are not investing in your current harmony - they're betting on your ability to navigate the inevitable conflicts that destroy most startups.
 
 
The gravitas gap
 
The final intangible might be the most powerful: the sense you're not just building a company, but inevitable change. As NFX explains: "Most great founders start a company because they have to do it. Not necessarily because they want to do it. It's a compulsion, rather than a choice."
 
This compulsion can't be faked. It shows in how you discuss competition (with respect, not dismissal), regulation (with nuance, not naivety), and failure (with learning, not excuses). When VCs probe your market thesis, they're testing whether confidence stems from deep understanding or shallow optimism.
 
"Investors are more likely to invest in a venture if they feel a personal connection to the founders or the mission," as noted in EU-Startups' analysis of angel investor motivations. This connection doesn't come from charisma - it comes from authentic obsession that manifests in a thousand micro-behaviours VCs unconsciously process.
 
This is where thought leadership becomes crucial - not as a marketing exercise, but as the public expression of private obsession. Generic LinkedIn posts about "disruption" mark you as a wannabe. Authentic thought leadership is specific, controversial, and grounded in genuine expertise. It polarizes opinion. In a market where technical excellence is table stakes, intellectual leadership might be the differentiator between the 95% who get rejected and the 5% who get funded.


The uncomfortable truth
 
In a world where top-tier VCs have their pick of thousands, technical excellence isn't enough. Before you've opened your deck, the emotional verdict might already be in.
 
NFX describes the two immediate post-pitch scenarios: "Option 1: 100% energy. We want to run through a wall. Start due diligence right away." Or Option 2: quiet shrugs and the knowledge that "this is not the one."
 
The harsh reality? "If you end up in option 2, it's very hard to move into option 1 territory."
 
Most founders obsess over perfecting models and metrics while ignoring the invisible currency that actually drives decisions. They prepare pitch decks, not themselves. They practice slides, not presence. They refine arguments, not energy.
 
As we explored in our Communications pillar, story architecture and emotional connection matter as much as data. But beneath even these lie the intangibles - the unconscious signals that determine whether you're perceived as a founder worth backing or just another hopeful in an endless parade.
 
In a market where 95% walk away empty-handed, the difference between success and failure often lies not in what you say, but in how you make investors feel. Master these intangibles, and you transform from just another pitch into "the one" VCs are compelled to back.
 
The founders who understand this truth have already won half the battle. The question is: are you one of them?

If you're raising in the next 6-12 months and have questions about the road ahead, let's talk.