Entrepreneurs suffer angel rejection regularly. They wonder what the problem is. Is something wrong with my widget? Why do web and software businesses seem to get investment traction while real, down-to-earth physical product companies flounder?
Fact: There are different investor models, and they are attracted to different kinds of businesses
Angels look at business investments differently than other investors. For example, unlike VCs looking for outsized opportunities to put big pools of money to work again and again, angels have more limited funds to draw on. They have to have a plan for where a company they invest in will get future capital. It might come from VCs who can be attracted down the road, or strategic partners, or other angels and early-stage investors. To an angel, not knowing where future capital will come from is a form of assumed risk (often referred to as financing risk). This sits right next to technology risk, market risk, regulatory risk and all the other risks inherent in an early-stage business investment.
Aside from identifying sources of future capital, the only other way to manage financing risk is to consider the very basic question of how much cash a business will need to stay alive (because growth doesn't produce cash, it consumes cash). Future financing risk is reduced by the less cash a business needs (or put another way, the more the business's natural contribution margin can support its own survival).
For angels, capital-efficiency matters, and margins affect capital intensity
As a result, angels seek companies which can do something meaningful with their money--achieve milestones that will significantly de-risk the business. This mindset translates directly into investment preferences. It's pretty straight-forward equation--higher margin businesses have the edge in terms of appeal.
Since every company makes lots of mistakes in the early days, it always takes more time than expected to achieve forecasts. Angels know that the fundamental nature of the business impacts how much cash will be consumed as it iterates. For example, for a web-based business that doesn't get the product right, it might only take two pizzas, a six pack of beer, and a weekend to modify it. Conversely, if the business requires a factory build-out and a supply chain to crank out enough widgets to fill a distribution channel before an error can be discovered, a significant amount of funds will have burned in the process.
As a result of these unavoidable realities, angels are more careful about investing in businesses that require significant capital to test even a basic hypothesis. All things being equal, due to their more limited capital bases, angels tend to be drawn to businesses that require less capital. And within that category, angels are especially drawn toward businesses that offer the potential for rapid and non-proportional margin expansion as the company grows and scales. If you manufacture a widget, the second one costs about as much to make as the first. However, if you design a software product, although the first copy of the product is hugely expensive, the second copy is essentially free. Software business offers the potential for massive margin expansion with scale.
Software is hard to beat in terms of margins
Consider a business at the opposite end of the spectrum from software: a professional services business. Costs in people-based service businesses grow linearly with revenue because, to grow, more staff is needed. Costs in manufacturing companies fall in the middle of the spectrum. Because of their complex supply and manufacturing chain requirements, they have to carry inventory (or at least work in process). This has costs and risks due to potential obsolescence in the event of a necessary pivot. These companies also require cash to pay for manufacturing, shipping, warehousing and maybe distribution, further eroding margins.
Angels don't want to get thrown out at second base. If a business burns more money than angels can provide or source elsewhere, especially if the shortage comes before something of real value is created, it is game over. The result is either a total write-off, or a cram-down distress financing where later investors badly dilute early investors (and crush the founders so badly that they might not have enough skin left in the game to bother sticking with it).
At the end of the day, it's about leaving room for error
Businesses with expansionary margins provide more room for error. Industries with simple supply chains offer this. Distribution over the web is virtually free compared to going through tiers of distribution. Changing software products is faster and easier. Factors like these drive the powerful capital efficiency angels crave. From an angel investment standpoint, a no-asset, web services company (i) consumes less capital which (ii) gives it more room for error which (iii) has a higher alpha: if it does work, it works big, its margins expand explosively and it generates a big return on the modest capital invested. And that's why software businesses vs. businesses that manufacture real, tangible products often have an easier time raising angel investment money.