The Program Goals Trap: Why Most Accelerators Measure the Wrong Things

Last month I spoke with a program director who was having a rough time.

Her accelerator had just wrapped their third cohort. On paper, everything looked great—87% of founders raised follow-on funding, demo day had 200+ investors in attendance, and local press coverage was solid.

But something felt off.

Three months post-demo day, she started getting texts from founders. Half the startups that "successfully raised funding" were already burning through cash with no clear path to revenue. Two had made terrible hires they couldn't afford. One founder told her, "We got great at pitching, but we're not sure we actually have a business."

That's when it hit her.

They'd been measuring the wrong things the entire time.

The Vanity Metrics Problem

Here's the thing about accelerator programs—everyone's obsessed with metrics that look impressive but don't actually predict founder success.

Number of applications received? Doesn't matter if 80% are a terrible fit.

Demo day attendance? Great optics, but what percentage of those "investors" are actually writing checks?

Founders who raised funding? Means nothing if they burn through it in six months because they never validated their business model.

I've noticed that most programs default to these vanity metrics because they're easy to count and impressive to put in stakeholder reports. But they're measuring outputs, not outcomes.

See, there's a massive difference between "founders raised $2M" and "founders built sustainable businesses that are still operating 24 months later."

One looks good in a press release. The other is the actual job.

The Program Goals Trap

What Actually Predicts Success

Want to know the difference between programs that create real founder outcomes and programs that create demo day theater?

It comes down to what they measure—and more importantly, when they measure it.

The best programs I've worked with track leading indicators, not lagging ones. They measure:

Founder capability development — Can founders identify their ideal customer profile? Do they understand their unit economics? Can they make data-driven decisions about product iteration?

Business model validation — Has the founder tested their core assumptions? Do they have evidence that customers will pay for this? Have they validated acquisition channels that actually work?

Post-program survival — Not just "did they raise funding," but "are they still operating 12-24 months later with a clear path to sustainability?"

These metrics are harder to track. They require longitudinal data collection, founder cooperation, and the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about your program's actual impact.

But they're the only metrics that matter.

The Real Goals You Should Be Tracking

Let me be clear—I'm not saying fundraising doesn't matter. It does. But it's one indicator of success, not the indicator.

If you're running a program and you're not crystal clear on what success actually looks like beyond "founders raised X dollars," you're flying blind.

Here's what I recommend you ask yourself (and your stakeholders):

1. Are we measuring founder outcomes or program optics?

   Optics: Demo day attendance, media mentions, number of applications Outcomes: Founder capability growth, business model validation, long-term survival rates

   
   

2. Are we tracking leading indicators or just lagging ones?

   Lagging: Funding raised, exits (which take years) Leading: Customer acquisition metrics, revenue traction, founder skill development

   
   

3. Are our goals aligned with founder needs or stakeholder expectations?

   This one's tricky. Your corporate sponsor might care about "innovation theater" while your founders care about building sustainable businesses. If those goals conflict, you need to name that tension explicitly.

   
   

4. Can we prove our program actually caused the outcomes we're claiming?

   Founders who succeed might have succeeded despite your program, not because of it. Are you tracking counterfactual data? Are you isolating program impact from external factors like market conditions and founder background?

Most programs skip this question entirely. That's a mistake.

A Better Framework: Measuring What Matters

I've seen programs completely transform their impact by shifting from vanity metrics to what I call founder-centric success metrics.

Here's the framework:

Stage 1: Selection Metrics

(Pre-Program)

• Quality of applicant pipeline (not just volume)

• Founder-program fit assessment

• Diversity of cohort (stage, sector, founder background)

Why it matters: If you're selecting the wrong founders, no amount of curriculum or mentorship will fix that. Garbage in, garbage out.

Stage 2: Development Metrics

(During Program)

• Founder capability growth (measured via pre/post assessments)

• Business model validation progress (evidence of testing core assumptions)

• Mentor-founder relationship quality (not just attendance—actual value delivered)

• Founder engagement and satisfaction (early warning system for disengagement)

Why it matters: These are your leading indicators. If founders aren't developing capabilities or validating their models during the program, demo day success is just window dressing.

Stage 3: Outcome Metrics

(Post-Program)

• Follow-on funding raised (with context: how much, from whom, at what stage)

• Revenue traction and path to profitability

• 12-month and 24-month survival rates

• Founder capability retention (are they still applying what they learned?)

• Alumni engagement (are they giving back to future cohorts?)

Why it matters: This is where you prove your program actually works. Most programs stop measuring after demo day. That's like a personal trainer only tracking gym attendance, not whether their clients actually got healthier.

Stage 4: Systems Metrics

(Meta-Level)

• Cost per successful founder (not just cost per cohort)

• Mentor retention and satisfaction

• Program team efficiency (are you spending 40% of your time on admin, or on founder support?)

• Stakeholder alignment (are funders, founders, and team on the same page?)

Why it matters: If your program is financially unsustainable or your team is burning out, none of the other metrics matter. You won't survive long enough to create impact.

How to Make the Shift

Alright, so you're convinced you've been measuring the wrong things. Now what?

Here's the brutal truth: changing your metrics means changing your incentives, which means changing how you run your program. That's not a small lift.

But it's doable.

Step 1: Audit your current metrics. Pull out your latest stakeholder report. Circle everything you're currently measuring. Ask yourself: "Does this predict long-term founder success, or does it just make us look good?"

Step 2: Define what success actually looks like. Get your team and key stakeholders in a room. Ask: "If we could only track three metrics for the next five years, what would they be?" Force prioritization. Write them down.

Step 3: Build a measurement system. This is where most programs stall out. Measuring founder capability development and business model validation requires more than a spreadsheet. You need structured check-ins, founder cooperation, and longitudinal tracking. It's work. But it's the work that matters.

Step 4: Communicate the shift. Your stakeholders are going to ask, "Why aren't you reporting demo day attendance anymore?" Have a clear answer. "We're measuring outcomes that actually predict long-term success, not vanity metrics."

If they push back, you've got a stakeholder alignment problem (which is a different conversation).

Step 5: Track relentlessly and iterate. Measurement isn't a "set it and forget it" exercise. You need to track, review, and refine. Every quarter, ask: "Are these metrics actually helping us make better decisions?" If not, adjust.

The Bottom Line

Most accelerators are running programs that look successful but aren't actually moving the needle for founders.

They're optimizing for the wrong things—impressive demo days, high fundraising numbers, media buzz—while ignoring whether founders are actually building sustainable businesses.

If you're stuck in the vanity metrics trap, you're not alone. But you can get out.

Start by asking: What does success actually look like? Not for our funders, not for our PR team, but for the founders we're supposed to be helping?

Then measure that.

Everything else is noise.

.

.

.

Want help defining the right metrics for your program? I've built a Program Goals Audit Template that walks you through identifying vanity metrics, defining outcome-based goals, and building a measurement system that actually works. Grab it here.

You can also check out our Metrics Maturity Model—a diagnostic tool that shows you where your program sits on the measurement spectrum and what to fix first. Download it here.

This post is part of a series on program design and operations for accelerators, incubators, and startup studios. If you found this useful, you might also like: "Building Your Theory of Change" and "Beyond Demo Day: Setting Post-Program Success Metrics."