Why Your Investor Rejection Spreadsheet Is Lying to You - And What Actually Works
 
So many conversations in recent months with dejected founders. Take last week, a first-time founder on investor meeting number 47. A pitch deck that’s been revised 23 times during the campaign. A financial model that could win beauty contests. Yet here they were, shortly after their latest rejection - another polite variation of "not quite right for us."
 
Sound familiar?
 
What if we told you that everything you've been taught about handling investor rejection is wrong? That the feedback you're carefully logging is mostly fiction? That the very investors who rejected you today might have said yes with an entirely different deck - not a better one, just different?
 
Welcome to the reality of fundraising in 2025, where the old playbooks have been torched and the new rules are being written by founders who've learned to decode what investors really mean, not what they say.
 
 
The brutal truth hidden in the numbers
 
Let's start with the hard data. According to PitchBook's latest analysis, UK venture capital deal activity nosedived 26% from its 2022 peak of 4,051 investments to just 3,012 in 2024. Through Q3 2025, the slide has continued; we've seen just 1,732 deals completed YTD compared to 2,276 in the same period a year ago. Even in a Covid ravaged 2020 the numbers were almost double (3,199).
 
And then you have to layer in the timeline: the average time from Seed to Series A has stretched from 18 months in 2019 to 29 months today. It's not surprising founders are feeling dejected.
 
Philip Belamant, Zilch's CEO, knows this marathon intimately. After a VC pulled his funding at the last second during COVID, he didn't retreat to refine his deck. He and his co-founder made over 250 Zoom calls before successfully closing their Series A.
 
Two hundred and fifty calls might sound extreme. But any founder out raising today already knows how tough it is right now. The Pitchbook numbers just quantify the harsh reality.
 
 
Your feedback is worthless (unless you know which pile to put it in)
 
Maybe the consolation prize is that we’re all now learning so much from investor feedback. But here's the dirty secret about most of this feedback: it's not meant for you. It's meant for them. To feel helpful. To maintain relationships. To avoid lawsuits.

Tom Blomfield, Monzo's founder turned Y Combinator partner, doesn't mince words: "When an investor passes, what they're thinking is 'this person is not impressive enough.' And they will never say that to you."
 
But the more insightful revelation comes from Phoebe Chibuzo Hugh's systematic tracking of 36 rejections. Eight VCs said "market too small." Six said "market too crowded." Same pitch. Same deck. Same market. Her analysis: “Every investor gives advice based on their thesis, their portfolio, their last deal that worked or tanked.” And rejections must also be seen in context of the “type” of investor this is.

The takeaway? Compartmentalise ruthlessly. VCs (with a mainstream software focus) care about hyper growth and exits. Angels obsess over founder quality. CVCs need strategic fit. Family offices want capital preservation. Impact investors demand measurable social returns. These are not all mutually exclusive but the emphasis matters.
 
The solution? Create separate decks. Not just iterations - but different, tailored narratives. Your "VC deck" screams scalability. Your "angel deck" whispers passion. Your "CVC deck" shouts synergy.
 
Then, track feedback by investor type. When three VCs say your TAM is too small, that's signal. When an angel says the same thing? That's noise.
 
 
The UK-US translation guide nobody talks about
 
With so many UK founders now pitching to US investors – especially for early scale-up capital – there's a cultural and language barrier to overcome. Same words, different meaning.
 
No one puts it more bluntly than Monzo founder Tom Blomfield. He describes the UK funding environment as "an immune system fighting against a foreign body," while in the US, investors were "overwhelmingly encouraging, supportive and helpful."
 
Here's a simple translation guide:
 
UK: "Interesting concept but not for us right now" = We have fundamental concerns we're too polite to articulate
US: "Your go-to-market strategy needs work" = Your go-to-market strategy needs work (plus 47 other things)
 
UK investors communicate in code. That "fascinating" means boring. That "ambitious" means unrealistic. That "too early for us" means don’t bother us again.
US investors overwhelm with detail. They'll give you a masterclass in everything wrong with your business – and most of it is irrelevant to UK market realities.
 
The solution? With UK investors, dig deeper. Ask specific questions. Force directness. With US investors, filter aggressively. Take what applies to your market, ignore the rest.
 
 
Why your tracking spreadsheet is probably an expensive work of fiction
 
You've been told to track everything. Log every objection. Spot patterns. Iterate accordingly.
 
Here's why that breaks down: founders are terrible witnesses to their own rejection. Our brains literally rewrite criticism in real-time. That investor who said your unit economics were "challenging"? Your brain heard "needs minor tweaks." That feedback about "founder-market fit concerns"? You logged it as "wanted more industry experience."
 
And with hundreds of pieces of feedback amassing over 100+ investor interactions, it’s easy to skip the detail during a campaign. (One of Monzo’s earlier rounds took 180 meetings over 4.5 months). The result? Most founders stop properly tracking after meeting 20. Not because they're lazy. Because honest tracking hurts.
 
The fix requires a brutally diligent approach. Use a simple spreadsheet so for each investor name so you can easily track investor type, stated objection, suspected real objection, and specific change to test.
 
But here's the crucial bit: have your co-founder (and/or a trusted advisor) independently review every entry within 24 hours. They'll catch the self-deception you can't see. That "needed more traction" was actually "didn't believe you could execute." That "wrong timing" was really "wrong founder."
 
One founder who actually did this properly "reworked their strategy after rejection feedback about their target market being too narrow, pivoted to a broader market, and is now thriving". But this only works if you capture reality, not fantasy.
 
 
The practice investor strategy that changes everything
 
First time founders quickly realise there’s a fundamental difference between handling customer objections and investor objections: Customers will let you convince them over time. Investors give you one shot. If you don’t nail it there and then, there’s likely no second chance.
 
In the current market, most founders need 100-200 conversations to close a round. Wasting your best targets early is suicide. So, rank every investor by fit (minimally by thesis, stage, and geography). Perfect match gets a 5. Loose fit gets a 1. Then start at the bottom.
 
Your 1-2 ranked investors - these are your practice rounds. Your paid research. Your safe space to fail. Tim Westergren pitched Pandora over 300 times before succeeding. But he didn't start with Sequoia. He started with investors who would never say yes, refining until his pitch became "like a campaign stump speech".
 
By the time you reach your best targets, you'll anticipate every objection. You'll have eliminated every stumble. You'll know which slides trigger which questions.

This isn't just practice. It's programming yourself for success.
 
 
Building your escape routes before you need them
 
Smart fundraising isn't just about finding "the right investor." It's about building multiple pathways to victory.
 
Consider this: fewer than 1% of UK companies achieved scaleup status between 2012 and 2022. Betting everything on one investor type or geography isn't optimistic - it's delusional.
 
Build distinct cohorts. UK angels chasing SEIS tax relief need different stories than US VCs seeking European expansion plays. CVCs wanting strategic technology require different metrics than impact funds measuring social returns.
 
Each cohort needs its own:

• Messaging emphasis (UK: solid fundamentals / US: massive scale)
• Metrics highlighted (UK: path to profitability / US: growth rate)
• Presentation style (UK: conservative projections / US: hockey sticks)

 
Sometimes just one cohort will carry the day and other times a mix of cohorts can bring an important round together.  Look at how Victor Trokoudes built Plum. He didn't just chase VCs. In his 2024 Series B, he combined £13.4 million from institutional investors including Eurobank (strategic partner), iGrow Venture Capital (new lead), and existing backers Venture Friends and Ventura Capital. But that's not all - he simultaneously raised £2.7 million through Crowdcube, attracting 5,500 smaller investors.
 
Earlier, he'd secured £5 million in debt from Silicon Valley Bank UK, then €34 million from BBVA. Each funding source served a different purpose: VCs for growth capital, Eurobank for strategic expansion in Greece, crowdfunding for customer evangelists, debt for non-dilutive runway. Each audience received a tailored message.
 
Track which proposition messages resonate with which cohort. Don't spray the same deck everywhere. That's not persistence - it's insanity.
 
 
Conclusion: The Takeaways
 
The maths is brutal - 26% fewer UK deals since 2022, 29 months average to Series A. This isn't a blip. It's the new normal. Expect to talk to a lot more investors than you did for your last round.
 
Compartmentalise ruthlessly - Different money needs different stories. One size fits none. Stop pivoting your pitch based on spot advice. Rejections have to be set in context of the “type” of investor to find the real trends.

Common language, different meaning - With UK investors, dig deeper. Force directness. With US investors, filter aggressively. Take what applies to your market, ignore the rest.
 
Track the reality - founders are terrible witnesses to their own rejection. Your co-founder or trusted advisor should stress test your interpretation of the feedback. Only then take action.
 
Practice on the expendables - Rank your investors by fit. Start at the bottom. By the time you reach the midpoint, you'll anticipate every objection before they think it.
 
The reality is that these were always the rules of the game. We lost sight of them in recent years. But in 2025 we ignore them at our peril.
 

Let's talk.