While I don’t entirely agree with topic ordering in this New York Angels example of how to arrange your pitch, it is far better than most. The biggest mistake that it doesn’t make is that it avoids the no-no of putting the team bios at the end, rather than the beginning. You have to let people know upfront why they should bother reading/listening further — having a good idea is simply not enough.
[Update] A few people are accusing (here and in email) of being an elitist ADD sort by tuning out if I don’t get bios early. That’s not my point, as I say in a comment to this post. It’s not that I think bios are everything — far from it. It’s just that you need to get all the “Why should I listen?” stuff out of the way upfront, from team to idea. A good idea can get funded with a great team, and, similarly, an even better idea can get funded despite the team being so-so.
Related posts:
“While I don’t entirely agree with topic ordering…”
Shouldn’t you expand a bit on this?
Personally, I thought it was kind of interesting that they focus on “early stage investments” in products that be illustrated with a “screen shot”, but want to see EBITDA two years back and four years out.
I submit that any “screen shot” producing company that is able to produce a non-autoerotic projection of EBITDA four years out is not “early stage”.
I can’t believe that you wouldn’t “bother reading/listening further” unless the bio was impressive. Two things: don’t you think that the person’s idea says more about the person than does their bio? And, how many great investments would you have passed on if the bio is what guided your decision as opposed to the potential of the idea/company being started?
No, I don’t mean that. I just mean you need to get all the “Why should I listen?” stuff out of the way at the beginning. If the bios aren’t impressive then the idea better be fabulous, but if the idea is only so-so, then you could still get it funded with a stellar team. Either way, give the bios up front.
i had the pleasure/dread of going through NY Angels’ rigamarole. End to end mine was 17 pages, with no more than 8 lines of text per page (room for notes!). My plan was submitted from a group of 80 and I made it to the pitch meeting, where about 15 companies presented. Two made it to the next (final) round, and I was declared ‘not dead yet,’ meaning I was paired with an angel to further explore the business. Not bad for a one-man band.
My key insight is that the pitch is a pitch is a pitch—10 pages, bio first, 3 yrs EBITA, etc, etc…If you’re getting the message that one of these things aren’t as an investor would like, I suspect the interest may not be there to begin with.
Also, who are you presenting to? I firmly believe the pitch needs to be tailored to an audience–in the case of VCs, the audience is clear, but with the angel community, some people just like to hear themselves talk, others have narrow industry experience, and still others might be retired general mangement types.
Paul, that’s cool. I hear what you’re saying and appreciate the response. Since we don’t have the bios to impress (this is our first venture), it’s all about the idea being fabulous. If Clipmarks isn’t great, then i wouldn’t invest in us either and highly doubt anyone will if/when we ever seek it.
Paul,
you said that you didn’t completely agree with the sequence of this pitch plan.
How would you improve on this pitch plan?