\n<\/p>\n
Last month, Scott Stevenson, co-founder and CEO of the legal AI startup Spellbook, took to X in an effort to expose what he called a \u201chuge scam<\/a>\u201d among AI startups: inflation of the revenue figures that they announce publicly.<\/p>\n \u201cThe reason many AI startups are crushing revenue records is because they are using a dishonest metric. The biggest funds in the world are supporting this and misleading journalists for PR coverage,\u201d he wrote in his tweet.<\/p>\n Stevenson isn\u2019t the first to claim that annual recurring revenue (ARR) \u2014 a metric historically used to sum up annual revenue of active customers under contract \u2014 is being manipulated by some AI companies beyond recognition. Certain aspects of ARR shenanigans have been the subject of multiple other news<\/a> reports<\/a> and social<\/a> media posts<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, Stevenson\u2019s tweet seemed to have struck a particular nerve within the AI startup community, drawing over 200 reshares and comments from high-profile investors<\/a>, many founders<\/a>, and a few<\/a> headlines.<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cScott at Spellbook did a great job of highlighting some of what you might describe as bad behavior on the part of some companies,\u201d Jack Newton, co-founder and CEO of legal startup Clio, told TechCrunch, adding that the post brought much-needed awareness to the topic, referring to an explanatory post<\/a> from YC\u2019s Garry Tan about proper revenue metrics.<\/p>\n TechCrunch spoke with over a dozen founders, investors, and startup finance professionals to assess whether the ARR inflation is as pervasive as Stevenson suggests.<\/p>\n Indeed, our sources, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that fudged ARR in public declarations is a common occurrence among startups, and how, in many cases, investors are aware of the exaggerations.<\/p>\n The main obfuscation tactic is substituting \u201ccontracted ARR,\u201d sometimes referred to as \u201ccommitted ARR\u201d (CARR), and simply calling it ARR.<\/p>\n \u201cFor sure they are reporting CARR\u201d as ARR, one investor said. \u201cWhen one startup does it in a category, it is hard not to do it yourself just to keep up.\u201d<\/p>\n ARR is a metric established and trusted since the cloud era to indicate total sales of products where usage, and therefore payments, is metered out over time. Accountants don\u2019t formally audit or sign off on ARR primarily because generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) focus on historical, already-collected revenue, rather than future revenue.\u00a0<\/p>\n ARR was intended to show the total value of signed-and-sealed sales, typically multiyear contracts. (Today, this concept tends to go by another name: remaining performance obligations.) Meanwhile, the term \u201crevenue\u201d is typically reserved for money already collected.\u00a0<\/p>\n CARR is supposed to be another way to track growth. But it\u2019s a much squishier metric than ARR because it counts revenue from signed customers that aren\u2019t onboarded yet.<\/p>\n One VC told TechCrunch that he has seen companies where CARR is 70% higher than ARR, even though a significant chunk of that contracted revenue will never actually materialize.<\/p>\n CARR \u201cbuilds on the ARR concept by adding committed but not yet live contract values to total ARR,\u201d Bessemer Venture Partners (BVP) wrote in a blog post<\/a> back in 2021. Critically, though, BVP says, the startup is supposed to adjust CARR to take into account expected customer churn (how many customers leave) and \u201cdownsell\u201d (those who decide to buy less).<\/p>\n The main problem with CARR is counting revenue before a startup\u2019s product is implemented. If implementation is lengthy or goes awry, clients might cancel during the trial before all \u2014 or any \u2014 of the contracted revenue has been collected.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Several investors told TechCrunch that they directly know of at least one high-profile enterprise startup that reported it surpassed $100 million in ARR, when only a fraction of that revenue came from currently paying customers. The rest was from contracts that hadn\u2019t been deployed yet and in some cases may take a long time to implement the technology.<\/p>\n One former employee at a startup that routinely reported CARR as ARR told TechCrunch that the company counted at least one substantial, yearlong free pilot as ARR. The company\u2019s board, including a VC from a large fund, was aware that the revenue from the eventual paying part of the contract had been counted in ARR during the lengthy pilot program, the person said. The board was also aware that the customer could cancel before paying the full contract amount.\u00a0<\/p>\n The obvious problem with using CARR and calling it ARR is that it is far more susceptible to being \u201cgamed\u201d than traditional ARR. If a startup doesn\u2019t account realistically for churn and downsell, CARR could be inflated. For instance, a startup could offer big discounts for the first two years of a three-year contract and count the whole three years as CARR (or ARR), even though customers may not stick around to pay the higher prices in year three.<\/p>\n \u201cI think Scott [Stevenson] is right. I\u2019ve heard all sorts of anecdotes as well,\u201d Ross McNairn, co-founder and CEO of legal AI startup Wordsmith told TechCrunch about ARR misrepresentations. \u201cI speak to VCs all the time. They\u2019re like, \u2018There are some choppy, choppy standards out.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Most cases are slightly less extreme. For instance, an employee at another startup described a discrepancy where marketing materials claimed $50 million in ARR, while the actual figure was $42 million.\u00a0 <\/p>\n However, this person claimed that investors had access to the company\u2019s books, which accurately reflected the lower amount. The source said some startups and their investors are comfortable playing fast and loose with their public metrics in part because AI startups are growing so quickly that an $8 million gap is viewed as a rounding error they\u2019ll grow into quickly.<\/p>\n There\u2019s another issue surrounding all those public ARR declarations. Sometimes founders use another measurement with the same \u201cARR\u201d acronym and a similar name: annualized run-rate revenue.<\/p>\n This ARR is also controversial because it extrapolates current revenue over the next 12 months based on a given period\u2019s haul (e.g., a quarter, month, week, or even a day).\u00a0<\/p>\n Since many AI companies charge based on usage or outcomes, that method of calculating annualized run-rate ARR can be misleading because revenue is no longer locked into predictable contracts.<\/p>\n Most people interviewed for this story said that ARR overstatements of all kinds are hardly a novel phenomenon, but startups have become far more aggressive amid the AI hype.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe valuations have gotten higher, and so the incentives are stronger to do it,\u201d Michael Marks, a founding managing partner at Celesta Capital, told TechCrunch.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In the age of AI, startups are expected to grow much faster than ever before.<\/p>\n \u201cGoing from 1 to 3 to 9 to 27 is not interesting,\u201d Hemant Taneja, CEO and managing director of General Catalyst, said on the 20VC podcast<\/a> last September, referring to the millions in ARR a startup is traditionally projected to hit each year. \u201cYou got to go like 1 to 20 to 100.\u201d<\/p>\n The pressure to show rapid growth is prompting some VCs to support, or at least overlook,\u00a0startups presenting inflated ARR figures to the public.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThere are definitely VCs in on this because they\u2019re incentivized to create a narrative that they have runaway winners. They\u2019re incentivized to get press coverage for their companies,\u201d Stevenson told TechCrunch.\u00a0 <\/p>\n Newton, whose legal AI startup Clio was valued at $5 billion<\/a> last fall, also alleges that VCs are often aware but silent about ARR misrepresentations. \u201cWe see some investors looking the other way when their own companies are inflating numbers because it makes them look good from the outside in,\u201d he told TechCrunch.<\/p>\n Other investors who spoke with TechCrunch say there is no reason for VCs to expose the overstatements.<\/p>\n By turning a blind eye to public pronouncements of inflated ARR, VCs are effectively helping to crown<\/a> their own portfolio companies winners. When a startup publicly reports high revenue, it is more likely to attract the best talent and customers who believe the company is the undisputed king in its category.<\/p>\n \u201cInvestors can\u2019t call it out,\u201d a VC told TechCrunch. \u201cEveryone has a company monetizing CARR as ARR.\u201d<\/p>\n Still, anyone intimately familiar with the industry\u2019s intricacies has a hard time believing that some of these startups actually reached $100 million in ARR within a few years of launch.<\/p>\n \u201cTo everyone who\u2019s inside, it just feels fake,\u201d said Alex Cohen, co-founder and CEO of health AI startup Hello Patient. \u201cYou read the headlines and you\u2019re like, \u2018I don\u2019t believe it.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n However, not all startups feel comfortable representing growth by reporting CARR instead of ARR. They prefer to be clean and clear about their numbers in part because they understand that public markets measure software companies on ARR rather than CARR. These founders prioritize transparency.<\/p>\n Wordsmith\u2019s McNairn, who remembers the struggle startups faced justifying high valuations after the 2022 market correction, said he doesn\u2019t want to create an even higher hurdle by exaggerating his startup\u2019s revenue.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI think it is short-sighted, and I think that when you do things like that for a short-term gain, you\u2019re overinflating already crazy high multiples,\u201d he said. \u201cI think it\u2019s super bad hygiene, and it\u2019s going to come back and bite you.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t affect our editorial independence.<\/em><\/p>\nNot really revenue, yet\u00a0<\/h2>\n
The other, more problematic \u201cARR\u201d\u00a0<\/h2>\n
What VCs really think\u00a0<\/h2>\n