Behind the PhD: Naomi Moonen on the signals that make or break startup funding

Naomi Moonen studies a familiar challenge for startups: how to convince investors when there is little to go on. Without a track record, ventures are judged on signals such as founder experience, market category, and the way their story is told.

In her PhD research, she looks at when standing out helps and when it backfires. Drawing on large-scale data, she shows how founder backgrounds can build credibility, how market events such as the release of ChatGPT shift what investors pay attention to, and how investors’ own experience shapes what they consider a promising venture.

The key insight is straightforward, but often overlooked: funding success depends not only on being different, but also on how that difference is interpreted in context.

Why did you choose this research subject, and what makes it so fascinating?

Entrepreneurs come up with amazing ideas for new products and services, but turning these ideas into a successful business is far from easy. They have to disrupt existing firms, while also competing with many other new ventures. To grow, they often need funding from external investors.

But imagine being that investor. You are unlikely to fund just any new venture asking for money. These ventures have no track record, no clear performance indicators, and there is very little information available. Just ideas, founders, and how those ideas are presented.  Still, investors must make decisions under this high uncertainty. This makes it crucial for new ventures to convince investors that they are legitimate.

What fascinates me is the tension that arises from this situation: ventures need to stand out to attract attention, but at the same time they need to fit in enough to be understood and taken seriously. The positioning of ventures, for instance in terms of narratives and categories, and how these are interpreted by investors has major consequences.

In my research, I move beyond the question of whether being different is good or bad. Instead, I examine when and why being different helps or hurts. I find that this depends not only on new ventures’ positioning, but also on who they are (their founders), what is happening in the market, and how investors learn over time.

Naomi Moonen at her PhD defense on 12 May, 2026

Which challenges did you meet along the way, and how did you overcome them?

My research actually started in a very different direction. By persevering, exploring new topics, and diving into the literature, I eventually discovered this research topic.

From there, new challenges emerged. One major challenge was working with large and complex datasets in entrepreneurship. Unlike established firms, data on new ventures is often scarce, incomplete, and fragmented. This meant I had to collect data, scrape information, engineer features, and synthesize everything before I was able to analyze the data to obtain meaningful insights.

Another challenge was on the conceptual level. Legitimacy and positioning are abstract and multidimensional concepts. Translating these into measurable variables and integrating them into a coherent research design required good discussions with my supervisors, many iterations, and careful methodological choices.

What is the impact of your work in the real world?

My research helps explain why some promising ventures struggle to secure funding, while others succeed, even when they appear similar at first glance.

For entrepreneurs, the findings offer practical insights. Many founders seek external investment, but raising funding is extremely challenging. My research shows that how a venture positions itself relative to others is crucial. While it is important to demonstrate uniqueness, being too distinctive can backfire. At the same time, founder characteristics matter: for example, industry experience can act as a “legitimacy buffer,” making investors more comfortable with unconventional ventures.

It also highlights the importance of context. Entrepreneurs should be aware of the competitive landscape and the type of investors they approach, as some investors are more open to atypical ventures than others. In short, success is not just about having a great idea, but also about how that idea is positioned and who presents it.

For investors, the research shows that their decisions are shaped not only by the ventures themselves, but also by their own experiences and broader market developments. For example, major events like the release of ChatGPT can shift how entire categories of ventures are evaluated, creating new opportunities both within and beyond those categories.

More broadly, this work contributes to understanding how innovation is funded and which ideas get the chance to grow. This is particularly important in fast-moving domains like digital health and AI, where uncertainty is high but societal impact is significant.

What are your plans after your PhD?

I am looking for opportunities that combine research, data, and a strong human element. I am particularly drawn to the social and sustainable domains, where data-driven insights can make a meaningful difference. Fully in line with JADS’ motto, I would like to continue to “do cool stuff that matters, with data.”