When we started advising investors, there were some tried and true signals that always made us perk up when reviewing a one-pager or deck. Technical strength and pedigree were key, and when followed by a splashy demo we were intrigued and ready to learn more. Flash forward to now, where vibe-coding has completely levelled the playing field, and we’re less concerned with whether they can actually build the product (spoiler alert: they can, because everyone can) than whether they can actually win the market.

Making matters even more surprising is that those early green flags are now signs of a negative correlation. Yes, those pedigreed, strong technical founders know how to build something, but without that crucial pulse on the market no one actually wants to buy that “something.” AI makes it so easy and cheap to build something that a founder with little-to-no technical skills but a strong network or understanding of the market can still ship a successful product on a short timeline. So now what?

We had one client with decades of building experience in a domain he knew well, but he didn’t understand that his flashy, beautiful product brought absolutely nothing new to the market. We helped him validate demand and understand how to prove differentiation before building anything else, and he has now pivoted to a game-changer that demonstrates true innovation, with potential clients eager to see what’s next!

Or how about a similar client who had a serious engineering pedigree and thought his product was great, but had no clue how saturated the vertical already was. Without any connections to the distribution or relationships needed to break in, the problem wasn’t creating the product but getting it in front of the right people. We helped him redevelop his go-to-market strategy to prioritize low-ego connection building over reliance on name and pedigree recognition.

Clearly, technology isn’t an entry strategy anymore. One client had a product aimed at a market where legacy players already cornered the enterprise market. The solution we helped her develop? A POC beachhead in an underserved segment instead of a direct attack against the market the incumbents were already dominating.

There’s a clear pattern here. In each of these cases, the deciding factor had very little to do with the technology and was instead all about differentiation, distribution, and demand. Maybe these questions aren’t so different from the ones we asked before AI changed the game, but the alignment between the founder’s skillset and what buyers need is the drastic difference, and we’re way beyond the “If I build it, they will come” mentality.

So what should investors be asking now? (Ahem, you’re welcome):

Is there validated demand, or just a flashy demo with a TAM slide? (Let’s be honest)

Does the founder’s power actually match the market’s bottleneck?

Who currently owns this customer, and what’s the real challenge to get in front of that client?

You’ll notice that “can they build it?” no longer fits into the equation.

If you’re weighing a deal and need some perspective before you write that virtual check, or you’re a founder who suspects the demo isn’t the problem, let’s connect.